If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   E-mails show JP Morgan gave jobs to children of prominent Chinese officials in direct return for government and business contracts, in apparent violation of the FCPA. Analysts worry this revelation could harm Morgan's otherwise spotless reputation   (dealbook.nytimes.com) divider line 39
    More: Obvious, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Infraction, Chinese, Wen Jiabao, heightened scrutiny, document review, reputation  
•       •       •

1059 clicks; posted to Business » on 09 Dec 2013 at 1:20 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-09 01:34:23 PM
At least they are culturally sensitive.
 
2013-12-09 01:53:21 PM

FrancoFile: At least they are culturally sensitive.


Yes indeedy,. and it's for the children too. [AOL Smiley]
 
2013-12-09 01:54:19 PM
Apparently December 9 is International Anti-Corruption day.

No, really.
 
2013-12-09 01:58:14 PM
i'm sure they'll be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. and by that, i mean that they'll be left unmolested by the government to do whatever the hell they want as usual.
 
2013-12-09 02:14:12 PM
And HR just covered conflict of interest with us this morning in new employee orientation. I wonder what the compliance people would say about this story?
 
2013-12-09 02:21:24 PM

Weaver95: And HR just covered conflict of interest with us this morning in new employee orientation. I wonder what the compliance people would say about this story?


These are executives, not actual human beings, so HR wouldn't deal with it.
 
2013-12-09 02:25:12 PM
Geez, I'm sure somebody's wrist will be sore after the slapping that results from this.
 
2013-12-09 02:29:23 PM

EyeballKid: Geez, I'm sure somebody's wrist will be sore after the slapping that results from this.


I'm sure their wrists will be sore from something at least. Pray they wash their hands after.
 
2013-12-09 02:38:28 PM

Hoarseman: Weaver95: And HR just covered conflict of interest with us this morning in new employee orientation. I wonder what the compliance people would say about this story?

These are executives, not actual human beings, so HR wouldn't deal with it.


That's true. The rules and laws that apply to me don't apply to the rich and powerful.
 
2013-12-09 03:47:02 PM
Silly plebs...thinking that "laws" and "regulations" mean anything to these folks. That's funny.
 
2013-12-09 04:27:27 PM
It's not what you know, it's who you know.
 
2013-12-09 04:38:17 PM
Blunt! FCA!

/couldn't resist
 
2013-12-09 04:41:14 PM

sendtodave: It's not what you know, it's who you know.


Actually it's who knows you.
 
2013-12-09 04:57:07 PM

sendtodave: It's not what you know, it's who you know blow.


FTFY.
 
2013-12-09 05:00:18 PM
Meanwhile some stoner is getting a few months in jail (after having his car and home torn apart) for selling a few joints.
 
2013-12-09 05:07:53 PM
Not to defend JP Morgan, but I don't really see any wrongdoing here.  Like it or not, this is how business gets done.  You get hired for your connections.  Since the dawn of civilization, people have been getting preferential treatment because they happened to have the right parents.
 
2013-12-09 05:12:11 PM
So, they are outsourcing nepotism. Seems like old times, eh?
 
2013-12-09 05:13:48 PM

NewWorldDan: Not to defend JP Morgan, but I don't really see any wrongdoing here.  Like it or not, this is how business gets done.  You get hired for your connections.  Since the dawn of civilization, people have been getting preferential treatment because they happened to have the right parents.


I was asked that on an interview survey at Kinkos when I was sixteen.

I agreed that who you knew was often more important that what you knew. Apparently that was the wrong answer.

Didn't get the job.

/didn't know anyone working there
 
2013-12-09 05:59:17 PM

sendtodave: I was asked that on an interview survey at Kinkos when I was sixteen.

I agreed that who you knew was often more important that what you knew. Apparently that was the wrong answer.

Didn't get the job.


There are things you -know- and things you -say-. Know the difference.
 
2013-12-09 07:16:25 PM

NewWorldDan: Not to defend JP Morgan, but I don't really see any wrongdoing here.  Like it or not, this is how business gets done.  You get hired for your connections.  Since the dawn of civilization, people have been getting preferential treatment because they happened to have the right parents.


Breaking federal and international law usually is considered some level of "wrongdoing".

Not to mention, from a strictly moral (and legal) standpoint, hiring your buddy's kid for a job, or hiring a key client's kid to continue a relationship, is quite different than hiring government officials and their children in order to receive preferential treatment.
 
2013-12-09 07:33:20 PM
Most HR types I have known preferred to hire from personal contacts because it was too much to wade through 5000 resumes for that "perfect" applicant.

Federal law in this case flies in the face of how business is done and is stupid. Passing laws that our companies have to abide by in other countries is stupid especially since we already have one that does that. Been on the books since the late 1700's and has never, ever been enforced. It's only been close to being enforced once in my lifetime and the oil company involved settled just before a ruling was issued on the matter.

Why is this particular law one we focus on, when it undercuts our companys' ability to establish themselves in other countries? Because that is all I have ever seen this law as doing. It has nothing to do with good governance and everything to do with certain people thinking that the world will dance to our tune. It is like our reluctance to bail out major employers. When nobody else plays according to rules like that, it is stupid to hamstring yourself.

I know that things like "nepotism" is considered bad. Why, I don't know. It flies in the face of family-run businesses, and that is about it. I guess Wall Street doesn't like them because they tend to not be stock-issuing or allow enough shares in the wild to really give hedge fund types enough leverage to demand changes. It's not like any amount of degrees or experience keeps "qualified" executives from ruining businesses for fun and personal profit.
 
2013-12-09 07:36:59 PM
Now that's some Tiger Mom-ing.
 
2013-12-09 08:02:02 PM
This happens here too. Rule #s' 1-10 at my company: do not flirt with, comment upon, or for the love of god hook up with any summer interns. They are all connected to important people within the company or clients outside the company.
 
2013-12-09 09:09:15 PM
Eh, it's China. It's a shady place with lots of corruption. I'm not excusing JPM, but this isn't the first time I've heard of an American company resorting to bribery to get into the Chinese market. And the other one was a small company whose name rhymes with Shupper Shdeck. The stories I've heard. Oh, the stories!
 
2013-12-09 09:10:48 PM
Wait till the Feds here about how many Chinese children Apple and Nike have hired.
 
2013-12-09 09:55:49 PM

BolloxReader: Why is this particular law one we focus on, when it undercuts our companys' ability to establish themselves in other countries? Because that is all I have ever seen this law as doing. It has nothing to do with good governance and everything to do with certain people thinking that the world will dance to our tune. It is like our reluctance to bail out major employers. When nobody else plays according to rules like that, it is stupid to hamstring yourself.


I work for a multinational with very strict policies against this sort of quid pro quo when attempting to secure contracts. it's been pretty well established through experience that once you begin playing that game it ceases to about the odd internship or jobs for children of officials. Once it becomes known that you will go down that road it becomes a matter of special "consulting fees" and "access charges".

The well of corruption in many nations is bottomless. We have laws against becoming partners in it for a reason.
 
2013-12-09 10:16:32 PM
Lets do a list of U.S. people that got jobs because of their political parents.

Go!

Chelsea Clinton
John F Kennedy
George Bush
 
2013-12-09 10:51:50 PM

mrlewish: Lets do a list of U.S. people that got jobs because of their political parents.

Go!

Chelsea Clinton
John F Kennedy
George Bush


John-John Kennedy (what?  he's a natural as a magazine publisher)
Lisa Murkowski (father was senator-for-life from Alaska)
Caroline Kennedy
 
2013-12-09 11:11:02 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: BolloxReader: Why is this particular law one we focus on, when it undercuts our companys' ability to establish themselves in other countries? Because that is all I have ever seen this law as doing. It has nothing to do with good governance and everything to do with certain people thinking that the world will dance to our tune. It is like our reluctance to bail out major employers. When nobody else plays according to rules like that, it is stupid to hamstring yourself.

I work for a multinational with very strict policies against this sort of quid pro quo when attempting to secure contracts. it's been pretty well established through experience that once you begin playing that game it ceases to about the odd internship or jobs for children of officials. Once it becomes known that you will go down that road it becomes a matter of special "consulting fees" and "access charges".

The well of corruption in many nations is bottomless. We have laws against becoming partners in it for a reason.


Doesn't having to play aboveboard hinder access to those markets?
 
2013-12-09 11:50:33 PM

FlashHarry: i'm sure they'll be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. and by that, i mean that they'll be left unmolested by the government to do whatever the hell they want as usual.


I'm sure there will be a hefty fine.  Isn't that enough punishment?  What kind of monster are you?
 
2013-12-10 12:05:56 AM
Somebody said decades ago "The business of America is Business" and "What's good for Business is good for America".  That person was a rich evil bastard and I hope he died of ass cancer.
 
2013-12-10 12:09:35 AM

Weaver95: And HR just covered conflict of interest with us this morning in new employee orientation. I wonder what the compliance people would say about this story?


I remember when HR was called Personnel.  That implied "Persons".  But they changed it to HR, because it's easier on the balance sheets and consciences (few that they are) if we're resources like lumber and potatoes.
 
2013-12-10 12:37:05 AM
Will they get fined an amount less than they made?  Less than they set aside from what they made in case they got busted?  Less than the amount they set aside that they still made interest on?  Will the whole 'ordeal' of being busted show up as a plus on their ledger?  Will people be bonused millions of dollars for all of that?  Will those bonused people then move on to executive positions of other corporate 'people' and do the same?  Will they avoid jail?  Will they be credited with creating jobs by moving money around and not actually employing people?

Yes.
 
2013-12-10 01:49:29 AM

Aquapope: Weaver95: And HR just covered conflict of interest with us this morning in new employee orientation. I wonder what the compliance people would say about this story?

I remember when HR was called Personnel.  That implied "Persons".  But they changed it to HR, because it's easier on the balance sheets and consciences (few that they are) if we're resources like lumber and potatoes.


Actually, considering that seems more honest, considering they're just buying our labor.
 
2013-12-10 02:22:21 AM
I was told today by my manager (Iranian) that I need to stop performing work before she tells me to do it.

I've been working with multi-national employees for over 8 years and this is typical.  No creativity.
 
2013-12-10 04:31:53 AM
Been overseas on business.  this is how its done over there.  JPMorgan should have kept them at arms distance-ie had a third party company hire them with a deniable cutout.  Doing it direct like this was just asking for it.
 
2013-12-10 06:57:57 AM

NewWorldDan: Not to defend JP Morgan, but I don't really see any wrongdoing here.  Like it or not, this is how business gets done.  You get hired for your connections.  Since the dawn of civilization, people have been getting preferential treatment because they happened to have the right parents.


But you did nonetheless.
 
2013-12-10 11:48:15 AM
Corrupt company acts corrupt in a corrupt country.

What a shock.
 
2013-12-10 09:27:56 PM
I'm sure this violates JP Morgan's strict "No getting caught" rule.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report