|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: Chiquita charged in terrorism case |
 |
|
The question is why is noone in jail? Why is the US not sending cruise missiles into Chiquita's training camp, I mean headquarters.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17615143/
| Quote: |
Banana company Chiquita Brands International said Wednesday it has agreed to a $25 million fine after admitting it paid a Colombian terrorist group for protection in a volatile farming region.
The settlement resolves a lengthy Justice Department investigation into the company�s financial dealings with terrorist organizations in Colombia.
In court documents filed Wednesday, federal prosecutors said several unnamed high-ranking corporate officers at the Cincinnati-based company paid about $1.7 million between 1997 and 2004 to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, known as AUC for its Spanish initials.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
The AUC has been responsible for some of the worst massacres in Colombia�s civil conflict and for a sizable percentage of the country�s cocaine exports. The right-wing group was designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization in September 2001.
Prosecutors said the company made the payments in exchange for protection for its workers. The company also made similar payments to the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, according to prosecutors.
Colombia�s banana-growing region is a zone over which leftist rebels and far-right paramilitaries have fought viciously. Most companies have extensive security operations to protect employees in the area.
�The information filed today is part of a plea agreement, which we view as a reasoned solution to the dilemma the company faced several years ago,� Chiquita�s chief executive, Fernando Aguirre, said in a statement. �The payments made by the company were always motivated by our good faith concern for the safety of our employees.�
Colombia has one of the highest kidnappings rates in the world. Arrangements between companies and either guerrillas or paramilitaries are not uncommon but it is impossible to know how much money is paid each year.
Details of the settlement were not included in court documents but Aguirre said Chiquita would pay $25 million in fines, which it set aside this year. The company reported the deal to the Securities and Exchange Commission. A plea hearing was scheduled for Monday.
The payments were approved by senior executives at Chiquita, prosecutors wrote in court documents. Prosecutors said Chiquita began paying the right-wing AUC after a meeting in 1997 and disguised the payments in company books.
�No later than in or about September 2000, defendant Chiquita�s senior executives knew that the corporation was paying AUC and that the AUC was a violent paramilitary organization,� prosecutors wrote in Wednesday�s court filing.
Company attorneys made it clear the payments were improper, prosecutors said.
�Bottom line: CANNOT MAKE THE PAYMENT,� the company�s outside counsel advised in February 2003, according to an excerpt of a memo included in court documents.
In April 2003, company officials and lawyers approached the Justice Department and told prosecutors they had been making the payments. According to court documents, the payments continued for months.
The document filed by federal prosecutors is known as an information. Unlike an indictment, it is normally worked out through discussions with prosecutors and is followed by a guilty plea.
. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember those anti-drug commercials back in the States stating that when you buy drugs you're supporting terrorism.
Does this same logic now apply to BANANAS!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Colombia is barely a viable nation-state. Corporations effectively face two alternatives: go with the flow; do not do business in Colombia.
Chiquita, like many others, and in many other times and places, chose the former. One possible consequence of their choosing the latter may have been that a competitor would have moved in. This notwithstanding, Chiquita's actions broke American laws. Justice prosecuted. And now Chiquita must pay fines.
Welcome to the Third-World.
By the way, thanks for posting this story, Octavius. Was just discussing it this afternoon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It is good to see them prosecuting these people who go to the 3rd world and get involved with these people. Aside from my intentionally provocative op-ed comment, it is a good thing that they were fined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| ...it is a good thing that they were fined. |
If an American corporation breaks American laws, it ought to be fined, without passion or prejudice, in my opinion -- but fined nonetheless. Perhaps even more than fined, in cases like these.
One thing, though: actions like these, including Justice's destroying the United Fruit Company's monopoly in summer 1954, would seem to complicate critics' arguments that corporations determine American policy. Do you not agree, Octavius? Not so straightforward, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| One thing, though: actions like these, including Justice's destroying the United Fruit Company's monopoly in summer 1954, would seem to complicate those who hold that corporations determine American policy, do you not agree, Octavius? Not so straightforward, no? |
One could argue that the government picks companies like UFC as a scapegoat to satisfy public outrage while leaving the big boys (oil companies) alone.
Or, because fruit is not a strategic resource, like oil, it was easy to punish them.
But its never simple. Thats what makes life great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| One could argue that the government picks companies like UFC as a scapegoat to satisfy public outrage while leaving the big boys (oil companies) alone... |
LOL.
I guess if you were so inclined, yes, you could suggest that, too. I would like to hope you might have a splinter of direct evidence to cite, however... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OH, if circumstances were different, I'd have to argue that Chiquita would be in a position to be brought down. Perhaps not by cruise missiles but by freezing assets, halting shipments, and revoking business licenses. But...
| Quote: |
In April 2003, company officials and lawyers approached the Justice Department and told prosecutors they had been making the payments. According to court documents, the payments continued for months.
The document filed by federal prosecutors is known as an information. Unlike an indictment, it is normally worked out through discussions with prosecutors and is followed by a guilty plea. |
It seems as if internal lawyers at Chiquita knew that they were in deepsh*t and decided to come clean. The $25 million does seem light, but Chiquita loses more than that. Their brand is tarnished. This harms not only sales but their stocks as well.
I know that I and many others will vote with our dollar. No more Chiquita bananas for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By the way, this seems to be part of a larger scandal in Colombian affairs.
Story has been unfolding for over a month. Think of an octopus, with tentacles everywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Colombia is barely a viable nation-state. Corporations effectively face two alternatives: go with the flow; do not do business in Colombia.
|
Agreed. This is something I've been reading about lately.. Business, if they want to work in the developing world, must pay bribes, tribute, 'speed-money', kickbacks and protection money.
You can argue that then the Western firms should not do business there, but then you will have business from China, Korea etc etc who will fill that void. And they don't blink at playing ball.
It is likely best to turn a blind (regulatory) eye to firms working in terrible situations with an understanding that the firms are on-notice that their actions are under increased scrutiny. I don't know if it is exactly a good thing that China now dominates the Sudanese oil industry... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
