Avon and Bribery Scandal
Avon Company is one of the biggest cosmetics companies dealing with door to door delivery across the globe (Baker 2010). Even so, the company is still held in a court fight accusing it of bribery scandals. This is a case that the company has been dealing with four years down the line following internal corruption investigation that had taken place (Baker 2010).
There are also evaluations by the federal prosecutors of Avon having connections with the US anti-bribery lows (Bixby 2010). There is also evidence that is before the grand panel of the United States judges. The report, issued in the year 2005 established that the company had paid thousands of dollars to officials from China in the financial year. The actions were also recorded to have been via wrong measures according to Foreign Corrupt Practices, a low that was passed by the United States back in 1977.
The purpose of the law was to deter US companies from offering bribes to foreigners (Allan 2010). There are additionally many laws and acts that have been put in place with an effort to manage cases involving foreign bribery. The Foreign Practices Act is one of the documents that have been utilized.
Despite the fact that bribery is a criminal act, it is still a lifestyle to many individuals across the globe (McSorley 2011). Bribery can also determine the way in which international trade is a given area is being carried out and is considered illegal in many jurisdictions across the globe. What’s more, bribery act calls for huge penalties in relevance to the level at which the matter weighs (Cassin 2008).
There are also different laws that have been employed to control bribery act to the international levels ( Deming 2010). Unless a company is willing to comply with all set laws, then there is no transaction that can take place. However, it is regrettable to observe that corruption is more of a culture in businesses across various divisions in the world. Therefore, this paper will try to consider the prominent case of Avon Company that has been in the court for almost five years in regards to corruption allegations in the workplace (Bixby 2010).
The long trial period is consensually lengthy because Avon cites unfairness during trials. The beauty products global best seller has also cited large amounts in the case deal with about $140 million (Baker 2010) being considered as Chinese foreigners bribe. The company has additionally noted that it could pay a lot of money in the probe to bribery if the issue if not put to rest any time soon.
The company still argues that there is need for dismissible justice in the proceedings under a just court. The main barrier that has prevented Avon corruption pursuit is the feeling that the case is not given fair trial. Additionally, Avon argues that in the United States judicial systems, there are provisions governing the right to permissible trial to persons and organizations (Tarun&Tomczak 2010).
The right to permissible justice in the judicial system is one of the most significant majority rights of all citizens in the US. In essence, it is any person or an organization to access justice and in the highest sense of it. The fair court hearing is one of the elementary rights that are embraced by many members of the states. The courts therefore practice highest level of justice when it comes to making a verdict on a person or an organization (O’melveny & Myers 2005).
The above case is not only applicable to cases within the court confines but it is additionally embraced in many companies with administrative and disciplinary boards. In the modern society, one of the most significant features of admissible trial is the necessity for lawful representation. The entire idea of permissible trial must additionally be accompanied by legal representation requirement that has also gained a lot of popularity in the workplace.
The legal representation idea in the court can be traced back to many years ago during the times of ancient Rome or ancient Greece (Cassin 2008). However, it has been embraced in modern day society by various states in the US, more specifically, in their bill of rights.
The US has also instituted this kind of provision as an important right in the US Convention of Foreign Corrupt Practices (section six) as Allan (2010) suggests and this is further asserted by O’melveny & Myers (2005), stating that the law is common and that the courts and workplaces across the US must always respect.
In accordance with the convention sixth article, it is the fundamental right of every accused individual to be accorded fair trial where their constitutional provisions are upheld and the public hearing is carried out in a sensible time frame (Engle 2011). An individual’s determination of rights and responsibilities or any charges against him or her is often based on the judicial process.
What’s more, it is within the law provisions that the accused person must be heard before a neutral, impartial or a tribunal court that has been instituted by the law (Allan 2010). All judgements furthermore reached by the court or the tribunal must be publicly announced but still, there are special provisions and in such cases, it may not be made public by preventing the press or the general public from the proceedings. This is common when moral interests are involved through the request of the accused or in the event where the case is sensitive for state security (O’melveny & Myers 2005).
The confirmation from article six of the convention confirms that there is still a right to permissible justice on legal representation basis and the accused always has the free will of the choice of the individual to represent them legally in a board or a tribunal (Baker 2010). The accused in this regard is allowed to defend themselves in person or has access to free will and to make a choice on their legal representation, whether the person or a lawyer is offered by the state (Baker 2010).
This part also clarifies further that an authorization that is guaranteed legally to help look for legal representation in the event where their financial standing does not allow them to hire such services (Cole 2011). This further explains that it is a state commitment to offer legal representation and it is part and parcel of any judicial system. Therefore, the interests must be addressed and within the anticipated period of time (Tarun & Tomczak 2010).
The necessity establishes that an accused individual in the workplace or in a legal court should be represented legally, if the judicial process nature calls for representation and must be given. Avon Company is alleged to have paid a lot of money in terms of consultancies overseas with the purpose of enhancing tax operations in the country. It is therefore questionable if the organized observed any law enforcement measures from the 2005 case, which is still pending in court.
Even so, it is clear that the company hired legal representatives in the form of lawyers as called for by the law. Generally under the US laws as provided by the article, the necessity for legal representation sections is not well defined. Therefore, it is up to the court and the tribunal to determine the most ideal interpretation in the case they are faced with (Engle 2011). In other words, the article recommends that the courts have to use common law provisions in the course of its interpretation to the right of admissible justice under the legal representation requirement (Sheahen 2010).
US authorities have also stated that their main purpose is to ensure justice for those who lawfully violate regulations put in place and at the same time enhance an increasing level of engaging in business and being in a position to get rid of corruption cases.
In the law statutes provided in the US, there is a cycle of legal resources that act as guidelines under which, the court can make reference to and reach sound judgements and fair rulings. In the R v SSHD ex p Tarrant (1985) QB 251, for instance, it was beyond doubt that natural justice involves the opportunity to accuse and an individual’s right to legal representation (Subrin 2011).
The courts further argued that it is not right for a prisoner to transgress against legal justice of the prison board and trial by a board of a visitor which is allowed and is lawfully created (Barton 2010). It was further suggested that it is the duty of the board to offer the prisoner unlimited opportunity to be personal representatives in their cases, where they were entitled to legal representation or not.
The court additionally suggested that it is a prisoner’s right to seek representation by a legal advisor or a close friend and the court should also establish whether the conditions for discretion in a board permitted for representation or assistance ( Sax 2010).
In reference to Pett v GRA (1968) 2 All ER 545, in present content, one of the most significant aspects of permissible justice is counsel engagement on behalf of the accused person in any lawful proceedings (Hancock 1978). The courts also argued further that a lawyer’s presence in a representative is attached inherently to the accused rights to be represented before the judicial system or a board (Subrin 2011).
Under the US laws, the legal representation requirement sections are not well defined. Therefore, it is upon the courts or the tribunals to determine the best interpretation of the circumstances they are faced with (Engle 2011). Lord Denning arguments recommend that not everyone can access the full capacity to defend themselves and that not every person can bring out weaknesses or strengths in support of their stance.
He also noted that people have different capabilities in relevance to speech as some can be tongue tied, anxious or even baffled and in some cases, can exhibit intellectual inefficiencies at the trial point. What’s more, he noted that it may not be easy for it cannot be possible for a person to grill or analyze the witness in the event of trial because of personal issues (Baker 2010).
A personal experience by Lord Denning for instance clearly demonstrates that the accused persons can present as speech as opposed to cross examining a witness when permitted by the court of law to do so. Consequently, it is imperative that such people should be given time to seek legal representation from a lawyer to cater for the deficiencies mentioned above (Jordan 2010).
According to Judge Dr. Johnson, the legal counsel representing the accused person should always possess good attributed characterized by familiarity of the law and the ability of applying the same when presenting arguments based on facts that is often permissible or that is of complex relevance as deemed to be evidence (Elsevier, Latzer & McCord 2010).
The judge further suggests that counsels is a representation of a class in the community, from who, through their training and experiences have achieved substantial art as well as organization power and evidence application to the case in question (Biegelman &Biegelman 2013).
The general rationale for a counsel’s presence is to ensure that the accused person would have done the same, were they in a position to do so (Sheahen 2010). The above clearly points out that the external provisions of the right to representation is not just a right but also a preference for the right individual to act a legal representation before the judicial system is considered a right.
It is all applicable to the level and amount of knowledge that a counsel has mastered in the time of training, education and professional life (Sax, 2010). Drawing from the case of Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital (2009), the law offers an illustration for circumstances under which organizations can be allowed to seek legal representation in a legally instituted board.
The court allowed Mr. D Jonathan and John Henry (Old Square Chambers) to represent Dr. Kulkarni, and it was planned that the NHS’s doctors and dentists were allowed to have legal representation at any internal disciplinary proceeding that sought to evaluate the behaviors in their professions.
Secondly, public organizations that internal disciplinary communities and have the right to fire their staff must always conform to the provided statutes in the article six of the aforementioned US convention permitting legal representation of the accused person (Malpass, Tredouxn & McQuiston-Surrett, 2013). From the above discussion therefore, it is allowed to state that the law allows prisoners, organizations or the accused person to seek legal representation by a counsel, who credibility has been recognized legally and should also be supported by institutions and courts with internal disciplinary committees (Murphy 2011).
In the midst of all claims brought forth by Avon regarding unjust court trials, the organization further states that there has been a lot of laxity in case probing, a case that forced the CEO of the company to hire an external law company to push for progress on the issue. In the year 2008 in a counter reaction, Avon began analyzing possible infringements on the case by the FCPA.
Despite the US accusations of the company, it is essential to not that there are other measures that have been put in place to govern bribery across global market (Sax 2010). The OECD of the convention was enforced in 1997 and is responsible for anti-bribery management. As a result, there are many sources that can be used to bring the organization into justice (Deming 2010).
What’s more, the convention has a task of identifying cases of bribery in global borders. The convention begun its operations in 1994, with final guidelines being drafted in 1997 (Biegelman&Biegelman 2013). There are also investigations have been carried out on regular basis on the company’s internal operations.
Additionally, there is information from documents and emails that has been utilized to examine the operations of the organization (McSorley 2011). The organization has been identified to have paid a lot of cash in form of consultancies in other countries including Brazil and France, with the purpose of enhancing tax operations in the country. It is therefore, questionable that the company observed any law enforcement measures from the case of 2005 that is still pending in court (Tarun&Tomczak 2010).
All the available governance laws of bribery in the global level do not offer the amount as well as any minimum requirement that can be termed as bribe. Therefore, the lawyers chamber representing the organization argue that any product such as a bar of chocolate when given to a foreigner with the purpose of achieving favor can been as a bribe (Elsevier, Latzer &McCord 2010).
Authorities in the United States of America on the other hand have noted that main goal is to ensure justice to anyone who violates FCPA regulations while also enhancing a higher level of engaging in business and being in a position to eliminate all corruption cases.
The international organizations and businesses are in many cases looking forward to the implementation of strong programs dedicated to hindrance and preventing of bribery cases. Therefore, what should be done is that prevention measures and programs need to be designed properly with global view and standards in place. Additionally, there should be external clarification of programs to ensure that all business associates and staff should respect and hold on to the system in high esteem.
The external system can also be utilized as a means of evidence to establish that was carried out was possible because of the systems effort to prevent bribery. Many organizations may not be in a position to determine whether corruption has ever taken place in their systems and what they can do is to offer facts at all times on the things they have done to prevent it.
Additionally, relevant authorities have noted that will not be eager to put down the laws because they would be motivating more organizations to setting the least laws for realization of set regulations.
Allan. D., (2010).enthusiastic enforcement, informal legislation: the unruly expansion of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Georgia Law Review, 45(2).
Baker, R. C., (2010). Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.Am. Crim. L. Rev., 47, 647.
Barton, B. H., (2010). Against civil Gideon (and for pro se court reform).
Biegelman, D. R., &Biegelman, M. T. (2013). Foreign corrupt practices act compliance guidebook protecting your organization from bribery and corruption. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.
Bixby, M. B., (2010). Lion Awakes: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act-1977 to 2010, The. San Diego Int’l LJ, 12, 89.
Cassin, R. L., (2008). Bribery abroad: lessons from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Morrisville, N.C., Lulu.com].
Cole, S., (2011).On Babies and Bathwater: The Arbitration Fairness Act and the Supreme Court’s Recent Arbitration Jurisprudence.
Deming, S. H., (2010). The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the new international norms.Chicago, Ill, American Bar Association.
Engle, E., (2011). I Get by with a Little Help from My Friends? Understanding the UK Anti-Bribery Statute, by Reference to the OECD Convention, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In Understanding the UK Anti-Bribery Statute, by Reference to the OECD Convention, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, (November 3, 2010).The International Lawyer (American Bar Association) (Vol. 44, pp. 1173-1188).
Hancock, W. A., (1978). Foreign corrupt practices act reporter. Chesterland, Ohio, Business Laws.
Jordan, J., (2010). Recent Developments in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the New UK Bribery Act: A Global Trend Towards Greater Accountability in the Prevention of Foreign Bribery. NYUJL & Bus., 7, 845.
Latzer, B., & McCord, D. (2010).Death penalty cases: Leading US Supreme Court cases on capital punishment.
Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., &McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2013).Lineup construction and lineup fairness.The handbook of eyewitness psychology, 2, 155-178.
McSorley, T., (2011).Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.Am. Crim. L. Rev., 48, 749.Westbrook, Murphy, A. G., (2011). Foreign Corrupt Practices Act a practical resource for managers and executives.Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.
O’melveny& Myers., (2005).Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. [Los Angeles], O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Sax, J. L., (2010). Land use regulation: Time to think about fairness. Nat. Resources J., 50, 455.
Sheahen, K. P., (2010). I’m Not Going to Disneyland: Illusory Affirmative DefensesUnder the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Wis. Int’l LJ, 28, 464.
Subrin, S., (2011).Ashcroft v. Iqbal: contempt for rules, statutes, the constitution, and elemental fairness. Nev. LJ, 12, 571.)
Tarun, R., W., &Tomczak, P. P., (2010).Proposal for a United States Department of Justice Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Leniency Policy, A. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 47, 153.