17. On December 31, 2009, the SEC sued Alameda, California–based telecommunications company
UTStarcom, Inc., with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for authorizing millions of
dollars in unlawful payments by its wholly owned Chinese subsidiary to foreign government
officials in Asia. UTStarcom agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and pay a $1.5 million fine to the
SEC and another $1.5 million to the Department of Justice. One of the items cited as violating the
FCPA was a payment of nearly $7 million between 2002 and 2007 for hundreds of overseas trips
by employees of Chinese government-controlled telecommunications companies that were
customers of UTStarcom, purportedly to provide customer training. In reality the trips were
entirely for sightseeing.
a. Why would such payments by UTStarcom violate the FCPA?
These payments are bribes to foreign government o&cials to induce them to do what
they otherwise would not necessarily be expected to do, absent supporting
b. The FCPA permits a company to assert an affirmative defense against allegations of violating
the FCPA if the payments were lawful under the written laws of the foreign country. Do you
believe it is ethically appropriate to allow such a defense when illegal payments are made?
Why or why not?
The court case sites the $7 million in overseas trips for Chinese government-owned
telecommunications companies that were customers of UTStarcom; these are
considered bribes to obtain or retain business. The case further alleged that
UTStarcom provided lavish gifts and all-expense paid executive training programs in
the U.S. for existing and potential foreign government customers in China and
Thailand; these are considered bribes to obtain or retain business. UTStarcom also
allegedly hired individuals a&liated with foreign government customers to work in
the U.S. and provided work visas, even though the individuals did not work for
UTStarcom. These improper payments to sham consultants in China and Mongolia