Which one comes 1st Corruptor or Corruptee

S

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,709
Reaction score
243
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/business/2007/0704191100.asp?S=Telecoms&A=TEL&O=FPLEAD

400 million Euros, as a clandestine fund, just chilling waiting for the next gullible Goverment official, in some country where Siemens operates.

As far BAES (I think) and now Siemens/Nokia get exposed. This calls for more scrutiny on global corporations finances to reveal these funds that are seemingly for no other reason than corrupting people.

So who do you think comes first? IMO it is the corruptor.
 
The blame should lie primarily on the person who accepts the bribe.
 
Why? As far as I can see the person who pays for influence is as guilty as the person who sells their influence.

You could possibly try to draw a distinction on the point of who initiated the corruption, ie was a bribe solicited or was it offered, but otherwise they're equally guilty.
 
chiskop said:
Why? As far as I can see the person who pays for influence is as guilty as the person who sells their influence.
Click to expand...

The person who sells their influence is generally the one thats in a position of trust and so should be held to a higher standard.
 
Its the corrupter, Like in match fixing, they were already there and made Hansie a corruptee.
 
Syndyre said:
The person who sells their influence is generally the one thats in a position of trust and so should be held to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

True, but in the recent publicised ones, the companies are publicly listed, and that is a lot of people savings, pensions, unit trusts, etc. If I invest in a company I want to rest assured that the company will conduct business in a way I would approve of.

They are the ones who should be held to the higher standard.
 
In the business world the only way to do business in Africa is through bribes.

You can not get a permit without it. Either you operate without government approval which is illegal or you bribe an official which is also illegal. Insuring your investment is safe from expropriation by the government is more prudent.

As it is easy to give agents huge travel allowances which are paid directly to the corrupt officials, it is done.

A business operates on the principle of demand and supply. There is a demand for bribes and a business supplies it. A supply does not ordinarily exist before there is a demand. Corruptee came first.
On more than one occasion a certain individual has been guilty of that in his bedroom and in mainstream South-Afrcian politics.

The next question we can pose is if the HIV shower works to wash away evidence of corruption?
 
sox63 said:
True, but in the recent publicised ones, the companies are publicly listed, and that is a lot of people savings, pensions, unit trusts, etc. If I invest in a company I want to rest assured that the company will conduct business in a way I would approve of.

They are the ones who should be held to the higher standard.
Click to expand...

Definitely, but to play devil's advocate, if for instance you've invested in an arms company and they bribe a government official to get a contract that's likely to actually increase their revenue and thereby benefit you, in a financial sense anyway, but as a taxpayer the government's probably chosen a deal that's less than optimal and so the public and you are losing out.
 
That doesn't make it any better. For example on the other side of the deal Mr Shaik (just for example) gets Rx mil, which he then spreads amongst his family, associates and spends in the economy. So are we all benefiting from that?
 
chiskop said:
That doesn't make it any better. For example on the other side of the deal Mr Shaik (just for example) gets Rx mil, which he then spreads amongst his family, associates and spends in the economy. So are we all benefiting from that?
Click to expand...

Maybe to an extent but the small gain is probably negated by the massive loss on the other side so overall its still a loss to the public as a whole.
 
As is the more corporate scenario you presented where corruption = cost of doing business.

It takes two to tango, a corrupt deal requires both corruptor and corruptee. I don't think that you can really say in all case one or other side is the more corrupt.

I still think that the party that initiates the corrupt deal maybe could be considered the more corrupt. Though I imagine in deal like the arms deal it doesn't take much persuading from either side :(
 
chiskop said:
As is the more corporate scenario you presented where corruption = cost of doing business.

It takes two to tango, a corrupt deal requires both corruptor and corruptee. I don't think that you can really say in all case one or other side is the more corrupt.

I still think that the party that initiates the corrupt deal maybe could be considered the more corrupt. Though I imagine in deal like the arms deal it doesn't take much persuading from either side :(
Click to expand...

True, even then its hard to determine who initiates it, in an environment where its common knowledge that a government only does things on the basis of bribery when a company offers them a bribe did they initiate it or did the government initiate it on the basis of creating that environment?
 
Both of them are there at the same time. People dont go corrupt. If you are teh kind of person that will NEVER take a bribe, then you are incorruptible. Butg people who take bribes, even if they are a little reluctant in eth beginning, were always corrupt!
 
The problem seems to be that in Africa (an anywhere else that this underhanded type of activity goes on) there isn't actually such a thing as free trade. This certainly doesn't make it right but to get a job done requires some sort of risk analysis and the bribes reduce this risk to virtually nothing.

The same can be said about the reserves put aside for executive kidnappings. Most times an executive goes into Africa, South America, Middle East, etc. there are provisions made for them being kidnapped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X