美國政府負債累累，又花大錢振興經濟與對本國大企業紓困。對外國企業罰款成了一項重要資金來源！

主要的罰款來自：

1.  海外行賄。
     美國罰了德國的西門子16億美元，德國的戴姆勒1億8,500萬美元，英國BAE系統4億美元。

2.  違反「反信賴法案」(反托拉斯anti-trust法)。
　  台灣的雙D產業（LCD, DRAM）都被盯上了，華映、奇美與彩晶都認罪，奇美的總經理還在月前赴美坐牢呢！韓國的樂金(LGD)被罰了4億美元，台灣的面板廠：彩晶3,000萬美元，華映6,000萬美元、奇美2億2,000萬美元。

3.  逃稅或協助逃稅。
　  瑞士UBS銀行被罰了(因協助美國納稅義務人逃稅)，被罰了7憶8,000萬美元。
     今年二月傳出HSBC也受美方的調查，現在又擴大調查，看來罰款也會是天價。



今年六十一歲的何昭陽，去年遵循奇美高階主管六十歲就退出第一線的傳統，卸任奇美電總經理，只擔任奇美實業的陽春董事、掛名兩家小型子公司董事長。這原本該是他在奇美集團工作了四十年之後，準備享受退休生活的開始；然而，今年四月底美國司法部突然發布新聞，何昭陽即將赴美國坐牢十四個月！（ 財訊／第346期　2010-05-13）


July 9, 2010
U.S. Widens Tax Inquiry Into HSBC
By LYNNLEY BROWNING

Federal prosecutors are ramping up their criminal investigation into HSBC concerning its sale of offshore tax services to wealthy Americans suspected of evading taxes, according to two people briefed on the matter and to court papers.

At least two American clients of HSBC, which is based in London, are aiding federal prosecutors by turning over account details, names of bankers and internal memorandums and other confidential documents regarding HSBC’s offshore private bank, according to one person briefed on the matter. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation.

HSBC, however, has not received a target letter from prosecutors indicating that a grand jury has been convened to investigate it, according to another person briefed on the matter. That would be the first step toward an indictment.

The investigation of the bank, which is being conducted by the Justice Department, began informally around late 2008 as an offshoot of the scrutiny of UBS, the Swiss bank giant, over offshore services used to aid tax evasion.

One of the people briefed on the investigation said the Justice Department “is looking for UBS-style numbers and UBS-style fact patterns, to see if there’s a UBS-style situation of a bank actively marketing” tax evasion services in the United States.

Juanita Gutierrez, a spokeswoman for HSBC in New York, declined to comment on the investigation, but said, “HSBC does not condone tax evasion.”

Special agents from the Internal Revenue Service have paid surprise visits in recent weeks to at least two American clients of HSBC whom the authorities suspect of tax evasion. Holding an offshore account is not illegal, but clients must declare the income to the I.R.S.

On a related front, the Justice Department mailed letters late last month to several HSBC clients informing them that they faced possible criminal charges for evading taxes through the bank, in part through its affiliates in India, according to a lawyer whose client received a letter. The letters told the clients that they were subjects of a criminal investigation, which is one step below a target.

HSBC has turned over to prosecutors evidence regarding the accounts of at least two prominent clients, including written documents and, unusually, recordings of dozens of conversations between the clients and their bankers. Several former clients are cooperating, including those already indicted and some who have come forward voluntarily.

Prosecutors are also mining suspicious activity reports filed by HSBC. The reports, which financial institutions are required to file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a unit of the Treasury Department, concern suspicious or potentially suspicious activity by clients.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on Friday.

In April, the authorities arrested and charged two wealthy HSBC clients, Mauricio Cohen Assor and his son, Leon Cohen-Levy, both property developers, with evading taxes through the bank’s offshore division. The case is set to go to trial in September.

In February, a wealthy Virginia doctor, Andrew B. Silva, pleaded guilty to evading taxes through the offshore division of HSBC, according to court papers in his case. Dr. Silva came to the attention of the authorities when he was randomly caught carrying cash into Newark Liberty International Airport.

In part, the authorities want to know whether HSBC, which shut down its offshore private banking services during the investigation into UBS, illegally advised clients to funnel their money to other banks or take large cash withdrawals and sneak the money into the United States, said one of the people briefed on the investigation.

In the case involving Mr. Cohen Assor and Mr. Cohen-Levy, HSBC has turned over to prosecutors recordings of dozens of conversations between Mr. Cohen Assor and his bankers, some or all of them in 2007. Prosecutors are using the recordings to determine how high any wrongdoing might have gone up the chain at HSBC. At least one HSBC banker has given a deposition to prosecutors, according to court papers.

“If you look at the Cohen matter,” said a person briefed on the matter, “you could deduce that HSBC seems to be cooperating with the government.”

UBS paid a $780 million fine last year and admitted criminal wrongdoing in connection with offshore services sold to wealthy Americans through its private bank that allowed them to evade billions of dollars in taxes. Last month, the Swiss Parliament approved a final deal to hand over to the I.R.S. the details of 4,450 accounts used by wealthy Americans suspected of evading taxes.

While UBS staunchly defended Swiss bank secrecy laws while under scrutiny, HSBC, which has large Swiss operations, has been quiet on the matter.

六DRAM廠 美侵權案和解

【經濟日報╱編譯余曉惠／道瓊社紐約二十五日電】 2010.06.26 02:21 am

被控操縱動態隨機存取記憶體（DRAM）價格的茂矽和美光科技（Micron）等六家電腦記憶體製造商，已與美國33州達成和解，將繳納1.73億美元。 本案被告為台灣茂矽、美國美光、德國英飛凌（Infineon）、南韓海力士（Hynix）和日本的爾必達（Elpida）與NEC，這六家記憶體廠商需在兩年內支付和解金1.73億美元外加利息，給提起集體訴訟案的民間企業、和包括內華達州與加州共33州在內的多名原告。 內華達州與其他州在2006年向聯邦法院提起訴訟，主張消費者、企業和地方政府被迫以過高的價格買入含有這類晶片的產品。 內華達州檢察長馬佐說：「這些企業共謀抬高一種重要電腦零件的價格，使得電腦設備價格異常昂貴。」被告的企業均未對此和解協議置評。 內華達州檢查長辦公室表示，和解條件還要求這些公司不得再操縱價格，還要強化員工法令遵循的訓練。在本案中同樣被控操縱價格的南韓三星電子與台灣華邦電，已於2007年與美方達成和解。 美國司法部與歐盟近來積極調查DRAM市場。歐盟上個才判處多家晶片製造商需繳納總計3.31億歐元的罰款，其中以三星電子的罰款最高，達1.457億歐元，而美光則因率先坦承操縱價格的細節而逃過一劫。該案所有的告訴都源自於歐盟在1998至2002年進行的調查，調查內容指出，業務和高階主管交換機密資訊，並共謀浮報價格。 目前記憶體市場景氣回溫，晶片價格因需求強勁而上揚，連帶使企業獲利水漲船高，有部份晶片製造商就說，歐盟的罰款不足以對這些公司的獲利造成顯著影響。根據市調機構iSuppli公司，全球DRAM第一季營收為95億美元，不但優於去年第四季的87億美元，也遠高於一年前的34億美元。 http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR2/5687735.shtml

 Schumpeter

The corruption eruption
Apr 29th 2010
From The Economist print edition


Saying “no” to corruption makes commercial as well as ethical sense



IT IS 15 years since Moisés Naím coined the memorable phrase “corruption eruption”. But there is no sign of the eruption dying down. Indeed, there is so much molten lava and sulphurous ash around that some of the world’s biggest companies have been covered in it. Siemens and Daimler have recently been forced to pay gargantuan fines. BHP Billiton, a giant mining company, has admitted that it may have been involved in bribery. America’s Department of Justice is investigating some 150 companies, targeting oil and drugs firms in particular.


The ethical case against corruption is too obvious to need spelling out. But many companies still believe that, in this respect at least, there is a regrettable tension between the dictates of ethics and the logic of business. Bribery is the price that you must pay to enter some of the world’s most difficult markets (the “when in Rome” argument). Bribery can also speed up the otherwise glacial pace of bureaucracy (the “efficient grease” hypothesis). And why not? The chances of being caught are small while the rewards for bending the rules can be big and immediate.

When in Rome, behave like a Swede

But do you really have to behave like a Roman to thrive in Rome? Philip Nichols, of the Wharton School, points out that plenty of Western firms have prospered in emerging markets without getting their hands dirty, including Reebok, Google and Novo Nordisk. IKEA has gone to great lengths to fight corruption in Russia, including threatening to halt its expansion in the country, firing managers who pay bribes and buying generators to get around grasping officials holding up grid connections. What is more, Mr Nichols argues, it is misguided to dismiss entire countries as corrupt. Even the greasiest-palmed places are in fact ambivalent about corruption: they invariably have laws against it and frequently produce politicians who campaign against it. Multinationals should help bolster the rules of the game rather than pandering to the most unscrupulous players.


And is “grease” really all that efficient? In a paper published by the World Bank, Daniel Kaufmann and Shang-Jin Wei subjected the “efficient grease” hypothesis to careful scrutiny. They found that companies that pay bribes actually end up spending more time negotiating with bureaucrats. The prospect of a pay-off gives officials an incentive to haggle over regulations. The paper also found that borrowing is more expensive for corrupt companies, probably because of the regulatory flux.


The hidden costs of corruption are almost always much higher than companies imagine. Corruption inevitably begets ever more corruption: bribe-takers keep returning to the trough and bribe-givers open themselves up to blackmail. Corruption also exacts a high psychological cost on those who engage in it. Mr Nichols says that corrupt business people habitually compare their habit to having an affair: no sooner have you given in to temptation than you are trapped in a world of secrecy and guilt. On the other hand, the benefits of rectitude can be striking. Texaco, an oil giant now subsumed by Chevron, had such an incorruptible reputation that African border guards were said to wave its jeeps through without engaging in the ritual shakedown.



Moreover, the likelihood of being caught is dramatically higher than it was a few years ago. The internet has handed much more power to whistle-blowers. NGOs keep a constant watch on big firms. Every year Transparency International publishes its Corruption Perceptions Index, its Bribe Payers Index and its Global Corruption Barometer.

The likelihood of prosecution is also growing. The Obama administration has revamped a piece of post-Watergate legislation—the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)—and is using it to pursue corporate malefactors the world over. The Department of Justice is pursuing far more cases than it ever has before: 150 today compared with just eight in 2001. And it is subjecting miscreants to much rougher treatment. Recent legislation has made senior managers personally liable for corruption on their watch. They risk a spell in prison as well as huge fines. The vagueness of the legislation means that the authorities may prosecute for lavish entertainment as well as more blatant bribes.


America is no longer a lone ranger. Thirty-eight countries have now signed up to the OECD’s 1997 anti-corruption convention, leading to a spate of cross-border prosecutions. In February Britain’s BAE Systems, a giant arms company, was fined $400m as a result of a joint British and American investigation. Since then a more ferocious Bribery Act has come into force in Britain. On April 1st Daimler was fined $185m as a result of a joint American and German investigation which examined the firm’s behaviour in 22 countries.

Companies caught between these two mighty forces—the corruption and anti-corruption eruptions—need to start taking the problem seriously. A Transparency International study of 500 prominent firms revealed that the average company only scored 17 out of a possible 50 points on “anti-corruption practices” (Belgium was by far the worst performing European country). Companies need to develop explicit codes of conduct on corruption, train their staff to handle demands for pay-offs and back them up when they refuse them. Clubbing together and campaigning for reform can also help. Businesses played a leading role in Poland’s Clean Hands movement, for example, and a group of upright Panamanian firms have formed an anti-corruption group.

This may all sound a bit airy-fairy given that so many companies are struggling just to survive the recession. But there is nothing airy-fairy about the $1.6 billion in fines that Siemens has paid to the American and German governments. And there is nothing airy-fairy about a spell in prison. The phrase “doing well by doing good” is one of the most irritating parts of the CSR mantra. But when it comes to corruption, it might just fit the bill.

http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16005114