????現(xiàn)在美國(guó)司法部（the U.S. Justice Department）、美國(guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)（SEC）和聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局（FBI）都已確認(rèn)，他們正在對(duì)新聞集團(tuán)（the News Corp.）的電話(huà)竊聽(tīng)案和政治賄賂丑聞進(jìn)行初步偵訊。與此同時(shí)，新聞集團(tuán)這邊也聘請(qǐng)了一位熟知《美國(guó)反海外腐敗法》（the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act）的專(zhuān)家給自己撐腰。因此很多人都想知道，默多克的新聞集團(tuán)到底有多大可能會(huì)被判定違反了該法案的規(guī)定?！拘侣劶瘓F(tuán)已經(jīng)聘請(qǐng)了來(lái)自寶維斯律師事務(wù)所（Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison）的《美國(guó)反海外腐敗法》專(zhuān)家馬克?蒙代爾索恩，以及威廉康納利律師事務(wù)所（Williams & Connolly）的知名刑辯律師布蘭登?沙利文作為本案的代理律師。此外，新聞集團(tuán)的獨(dú)立董事們還聘請(qǐng)了前美國(guó)司法部長(zhǎng)邁克爾?穆凱西和前曼哈頓聯(lián)邦檢察官瑪莉?喬?懷特來(lái)幫助他們協(xié)助調(diào)查。這二位律師都來(lái)自德普律師事務(wù)所（Debevoise & Plimpton）】。

????上周二，兩位前司法部檢察官在《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》（the Wall Street Journal）上撰文稱(chēng)，“在新聞采訪(fǎng)事件上應(yīng)用《反海外腐敗法》，這讓所有美國(guó)媒體都擔(dān)心美國(guó)的新聞自由會(huì)受到影響?！薄斗春Ｍ飧瘮》ā返某踔允且扒宄贤?，但是目前新聞集團(tuán)的丑聞根本沒(méi)有涉及到任何與政府合同有關(guān)的行為。這兩位前檢察官認(rèn)為，《世界新聞報(bào)》（News of the World）以及其他幾家可能卷入丑聞的報(bào)紙之所以會(huì)賄賂倫敦警方，目的只是為了獲得新聞線(xiàn)索，而不是要從倫敦警方或其他英國(guó)政府機(jī)構(gòu)那里獲得政府合同。

????雖說(shuō)此文作者大衛(wèi)?利弗金和李?凱西二人都是廣受信任的法律工作者，但是他們的觀(guān)點(diǎn)在有些人眼中卻不值一哂。因?yàn)樗麄儌z都是出了名的政治保守派，而且他倆都曾吃過(guò)“朝廷俸祿”，在里根和老布什政府里效過(guò)力。況且他們的這篇文章還是在新聞集團(tuán)自己的刊物上發(fā)表的。

????將《反海外腐敗法》運(yùn)用在新聞集團(tuán)丑聞案上是否合適？帶著這個(gè)問(wèn)題，《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）聯(lián)系了謝爾曼-思特靈律師事務(wù)所（Shearman & Sterling）的丹?紐康姆（他創(chuàng)辦了該所的反腐敗業(yè)務(wù)），以及科瓦斯-斯懷恩-摩爾律師事務(wù)所（Cravath, Swaine & Moore）的證券訴訟合伙人丹尼爾?斯利弗金，以聽(tīng)取他們對(duì)此案的不同見(jiàn)解。

????《反海外腐敗法》是否只針對(duì)政府合同行為，因此無(wú)法適用于所謂的為求泄露信息而賄賂警方的行為？

????這個(gè)法案有兩個(gè)主要部分。第一部分是反腐敗條款。這些條款究竟是否可以應(yīng)用于此案？或者即便它能夠應(yīng)用于此案，但它的初衷是否是為了約束此類(lèi)案件？據(jù)兩位專(zhuān)家的回答來(lái)看，這兩個(gè)問(wèn)題的答案其實(shí)是模棱兩可的。該法的第二部分是要求企業(yè)精確記錄賬目，這一部分則很有可能對(duì)新聞集團(tuán)丑聞具有約束性。

????該法的反腐敗條款禁止美國(guó)企業(yè)“出于幫助公司獲得或維持與任何人的商業(yè)關(guān)系”之目的，而向外國(guó)政府官員提供金錢(qián)的行為。

????紐康姆表示：“問(wèn)題是，這個(gè)法案并不是一個(gè)一般意義上的海外賄賂法案，”而是著重針對(duì)“美國(guó)企業(yè)的海外收購(gòu)業(yè)務(wù)”的問(wèn)題。當(dāng)然，一樁典型的《反海外腐敗法》訴訟的確包含了被告向政府官員行賄的行為，但這種行賄的目的是要使企業(yè)獲得某種形式的商業(yè)合同。“所以我必須要問(wèn)，他們這種獲取報(bào)紙信息的行為，是不是也是出于這個(gè)目的?！?/p>

????斯利弗金則認(rèn)為，據(jù)他的研究來(lái)看，新聞集團(tuán)這種通過(guò)賄賂警察來(lái)使警方泄露消息，從而獲得獨(dú)家新聞的行為“有可能會(huì)被納入”《反海外腐敗法》的管轄范疇。他也同意大多數(shù)的《反海外腐敗法》訴訟的確包含了“為獲得商業(yè)業(yè)務(wù)而向政府行賄”的行為。而且他認(rèn)為，新聞集團(tuán)旗下的報(bào)紙賄賂英國(guó)警方的初衷就是為了獲得獨(dú)家新聞，以提高報(bào)紙銷(xiāo)量。這種動(dòng)機(jī)也滿(mǎn)足該法的反腐敗條款的字面規(guī)定。

????《反海外腐敗法》的第二部分旨在要求企業(yè)精確記錄賬目，這部分條款是否適用于此案？

????紐康姆和斯利弗金表示，如果經(jīng)查證，新聞集團(tuán)員工賄賂英國(guó)警方的行為確然屬實(shí)，那么新聞集團(tuán)恐怕難逃《反海外腐敗法》第二部分條款的制裁。因?yàn)槿绻麢z方根據(jù)“精確賬目”條款提起訴訟，那么賄賂行為是否有“商業(yè)動(dòng)機(jī)”就無(wú)足輕重了，因?yàn)椤熬_賬目”條款中并不包含這種限定性的語(yǔ)言。紐康姆補(bǔ)充道，以前美國(guó)曾經(jīng)有過(guò)這樣的先例：檢方在很難或者幾乎無(wú)法根據(jù)該法的反腐敗條款提起訴訟的情況下，強(qiáng)勢(shì)地采用了該法的“精確賬目條款”進(jìn)行訴訟。

????紐康姆表示，“精確賬目”條款的目的旨在防止“行賄小金庫(kù)”，因?yàn)椤靶匈V的錢(qián)都是從賬目中非法抽取出來(lái)的現(xiàn)金”。根據(jù)這部分條款，如果經(jīng)查證，這部分賄賂的確是交給了倫敦警方，那么除非新聞集團(tuán)的賬目中清清楚楚地寫(xiě)明了這筆錢(qián)的用途是用來(lái)“賄賂倫敦警方”，或是類(lèi)似名目，否則新聞集團(tuán)就有大麻煩了。

????此外斯利弗金還指出，這些條款不僅要求企業(yè)必須精確記錄賬目，還規(guī)定了企業(yè)必須進(jìn)行“適當(dāng)?shù)膬?nèi)部控制”，以確保精確記賬。如果賄賂警察這件事在新聞集團(tuán)不是個(gè)案，而是十分泛濫，那么新聞集團(tuán)可能也違反了這項(xiàng)條款。

????假設(shè)最終調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示，新聞集團(tuán)的某家報(bào)紙一年間共向倫敦警方行賄了10萬(wàn)美元，這個(gè)金額是否足以啟用《反海外腐敗法》，還是會(huì)被當(dāng)作一個(gè)微不足道的小案子來(lái)處理？

????紐康姆表示：“那就是一大筆錢(qián)了?！彼f(shuō)他曾經(jīng)見(jiàn)過(guò)有人只行賄了400美元就被按《反海外腐敗法》提起了訴訟。這個(gè)法律適用的賄賂額可以是“任何金額”。

????斯利弗金也同意這種說(shuō)法。“在某些國(guó)家，要賄賂一個(gè)政府官員，可能并不需要多少錢(qián)。而這些地方恰恰是賄賂最高發(fā)的地方?！?/p>

????再說(shuō)說(shuō)檢方自由裁量權(quán)的問(wèn)題，你是否真的認(rèn)為美國(guó)檢察官會(huì)對(duì)新聞集團(tuán)提起《反海外腐敗法》訴訟？

????紐康姆表示不一定。他說(shuō)：“除非我們找到了新聞集團(tuán)在美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)也違反了該法的證據(jù)。”——比方說(shuō)新聞集團(tuán)為獲取9?11受害者的信息而賄賂了紐約警察。否則，紐康姆認(rèn)為，美國(guó)檢方可能只是“敲敲邊鼓”，把問(wèn)題丟給英國(guó)當(dāng)局去處理。他預(yù)言道，為了安撫美國(guó)政客，“只要英國(guó)不在他們自己的偵訊中出岔子，我不確定美國(guó)會(huì)在新聞集團(tuán)英國(guó)丑聞案的訴訟程序中會(huì)有什么動(dòng)作?！?/p>

????斯利弗金指出，《反海外腐敗法》訴訟在此案中之所以顯得不同尋常，其中的一個(gè)原因是由于該法“往往適用于那些自身缺乏嚴(yán)格的反賄賂法的欠發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家，”他說(shuō)：“《反海外腐敗法》在涉英案件中比較少見(jiàn)，因?yàn)橛?guó)的大環(huán)境和那些欠發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家很不一樣。而且在英國(guó)，賄賂警察顯然是違法的。因此美國(guó)在本案中可能會(huì)謹(jǐn)慎應(yīng)用該法案?！?/p>

????譯者：樸成奎

????With the U.S. Justice Department, SEC, and FBI having acknowledged that they are all making preliminary inquiries into the News Corp.'s phone-hacking and police-bribery scandal, and with the company having retained one of America's leading experts on the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, many are wondering how much Rupert Murdoch's company has to fear from that law's provisions. (News Corp. has hired FCPA expert Mark Mendelsohn of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, as well as famed criminal defense attorney Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly to represent it in the inquires. In addition, News Corp's independent directors have hired former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and former Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, both of Debevoise & Plimpton, to assist them in their investigation.)

????On Tuesday, two former Justice Department attorneys argued in the Wall Street Journal that applying the FCPA "to news-gathering raises very significant First Amendment concerns for all U.S. media." The FCPA was really intended "to clean up government contracting," they contend, which is not implicated at all in the current scandals. The payments that News of the World and, perhaps, other papers are suspected of having made to London police officials are thought to have been made to obtain story leads, and not to obtain government contracts from the police or other English governmental bodies, they argue.

????Though the authors, David Rivkin and Lee Casey, are very well-credentialed, their arguments are undercut in the eyes of some by the fact that they are noted political conservatives, that they were political appointees during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and that their commentary was appearing in a News Corp. (NWS) publication.

????Fortune contacted Dan Newcomb, who founded the anti-corruption practice at Shearman & Sterling, and Daniel Slifkin, a securities litigation partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, to obtain a second- and third-opinion on the applicability of the FCPA to the conduct that is now under scrutiny.

????Is the FCPA targeted only at government contracting, and therefore inapplicable to alleged payments to police for leaking information?

????The law has two main parts. With respect to one part—the anti-corruption provisions—there is real ambiguity about whether the law applies and, if it does, whether it was intended to, according to the experts we contacted. The other part of the law, on the other hand—which requires keeping accurate books and records—seems likely to encompass the conduct being alleged.

????The anti-corruption provisions forbid an American corporation from making payments to a foreign official in order to help the company "in obtaining or retaining business for or with . . . any person."

????"The point is," Newcomb says, "that the statute is not a general foreign bribery statute," but is aimed, rather, at the problem of "American companies buying business overseas." Certainly, the classic FCPA bribery prosecution does involve a payment to a government official so that a company can land a business contract of some kind. "So I have to question whether obtaining newspaper information and stuff to publish is for that purpose."

????Slifkin, on the other hand, thinks bribing a police officer for leads or leaks "would probably be covered" even by this prong of the FCPA. While he does agree that most FCPA prosecutions involve "bribing the government to get business from the government," he thinks the purpose that would have motivated the tabloids' conduct here—to get scoops in order to sell more newspapers—still satisfies the literal requirements of the this section of the law.

????What about the other part of the FCPA—the provisions requiring accurate books and record-keeping?

????Here there appears to be no easy out for News Corp. if its employees are, in fact, found to have been bribing police officers, according to both Newcomb and Slifkin. Whether the bribes had a "business purpose" is irrelevant to a charge brought under the books and records provisions, they say, which contain no such limiting language. Newcomb adds that there is precedent for prosecutors aggressively using the books-and-records provisions of the FCPA when it would have been difficult or impossible for them to prosecute a bribe under the law's anti-corruption provisions.

????The books-and-records section was aimed at forbidding "slush funds," Newcomb says, because, "bribes are usually paid with cash siphoned off the books illegally." Under this section of the law, if it turns out that payments were in fact made to the police, the company would have a problem unless its books and records described those payments as "bribes for Scotland Yard" or something else "about that explicit."

????Furthermore, these provisions require not just keeping accurate books and records but also instituting "proper internal controls" to ensure accurate record keeping, Cravath's Slifkin notes. If there were widespread paying of bribes to police officers, this provision might also have been violated.

????Suppose it were eventually shown that some News tabloid had paid officers of Scotland Yard, say, $100,000 a year in bribes. Would that be enough to implicate the FCPA, or would that be considered small potatoes?

????"That's plenty," says Newcomb, who notes that he's seen FCPA prosecutions for a bribe as small as $400. The statute applies to payments of "anything of value."

????Slifkin agrees. "In some countries, it doesn't take a lot" to bribe a foreign official, he says, and those are the "same places where most of this stuff goes on."

????As a matter of prosecutorial discretion, do you really think U.S. prosecutors would pursue a FCPA prosecution against News Corp.?

????Newscomb doubts it. "Unless we find domestic violations," he says—for instance, that News Corp. reporters bribed New York City police officers to provide information about 9/11 victims—Newcomb thinks U.S. prosecutors will leave these matters to the British authorities. While there will be some "thumping around" by U.S. authorities, he predicts—in order to placate U.S. politicians—"as long as the British don't fall down" in their own inquiries, "I'm not sure what the U.S. adds to the process—to prosecute conduct that occurred in England."

????In fact, one of the factors that would make a FCPA prosecution in this situation so unusual, Slifkin notes, is that the FCPA "tends to be used in less developed countries that don't have rigorous antibribery statutes" of their own. "What you don't often see is the FCPA being used for conduct in countries like the U.K., where the world doesn't work this way and it's obviously illegal to bribe police officers. So there may be a little bit of getting in on the act."