Slashdot Mirror


US Probes Panasonic Unit For Alleged Bribery Violations (bloomberg.com)

A Panasonic inflight entertainment and communications systems subsidiary is under investigation by U.S. authorities for allegedly breaking bribery and securities laws. From a report: Panasonic Avionics Corp. is being probed by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Securities Exchange Commission for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Osaka-based company said in a statement Thursday. Panasonic said it's cooperating with the agencies, and evaluating the potential financial impact of the probe. The announcement of the probe mars an otherwise positive earnings release for Panasonic, which raised its full-year profit and revenue forecasts. The subsidiary is part of a corporate division that also makes mobile phones, projectors and surveillance cameras with a total of 33,000 employees. The segment had $6.7 billion in sales in the nine months ended Dec. 31, or 14 percent of total revenue.

28 comments

  1. Trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FFS, how can you enforce bribery laws, when you won't even enforce them for the squatter in the Whitehouse?

    Or have we forgotten, that all the pipelines of money still flow into his company and he's neither sold it nor divested any of the foreign income businesses? He has however started renaming rooms in each hotel, as "The President Suite", presumably planning to sleep there to justify the name?

    And then there's the barter. He got to power by a Russian cyber attack, and now he refuses to sign the cyber security bill. He won't even defend the USA from Russian cyber attacks.... yet I distinctly remember that Republicans were pro-security, pro-business, pro-trade.

    If Panasonic bribe Trump is that OK now Republicans? Because I've forgotten what you stand for now. He creates a parallel power structure of cronies that ignore the laws, the courts, the congress the senate and they obey illegal Trump executive orders, and you lot, sit in you office and cry like little girls and do nothing. Simply pretending Russia are our best buddies and Republicans are all about attacking business.

    1. Re:Trump? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> If Panasonic bribe Trump is that OK

      Given that the investigation probably started under Obama, and that Obama's been tight with Google, Apple and other US-based phone makers, and Obama's Justice Department took time off police brutality to go after the phone division of Panasonic...I'd probably start looking for any corrupt links on the Democratic aisle for this one.

    2. Re:Trump? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      It's all in the name: The US "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" forbids US persons and corporations from employing corruption in the course of business abroad.

      The US "Domestic Corrupt Practices Act" does not exist.

    3. Re:Trump? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      FFS, how can you enforce bribery laws, when you won't even enforce them for the squatter in the Whitehouse?

      You cannot. But you need to make the occasional public sacrifice of some minor player in order to give the appearance to be doing something. Otherwise the shee^H^H^H^H voters may wake up to the fact that they made a really dumb decision and may even do something about it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But as with all such matters, the republicans won't stop it either.

      After all, corruption is a bipartisan affair.

  2. Rough English Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Panasonic has not been bribing US officials enough, and is being publicly warned to up their "contributions" to the same level as the other corporations who've ordered this here probe.

  3. Well that settles it. by Jethro · · Score: 2

    Dammit, Panasonic. Now I need to get a new TV.

    Yes I've been looking for a reason to get a new TV even though there's nothing really wrong with the Panasonic one I have now. And yes I've been looking at a Samsung TV and yes I know the only thing Samsung does better than electronics is corporate corruption, but you know what? Shut up, that's what.

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    1. Re:Well that settles it. by BlackSupra · · Score: 1

      Panasonic 'smart-tv' displaying an advertising banner when you change the volume wasn't enough?
      https://www.cnet.com/how-to/tu...

    2. Re:Well that settles it. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Wow, I hadn't heard that one... I would've thought it was a joke. I'd have immediately returned the TV to point of sale rather than changed settings.

    3. Re:Well that settles it. by Jethro · · Score: 1

      My TV's too old to have that. And I abhor "smart" functionality. I realise it might be unavoidable but I'm not going to use any of those features.

      That said, that /is/ ridiculous.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    4. Re:Well that settles it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True! Ridiculous...

      _______________
      https://fastlocksmithbrooklyn.com

  4. Re:President Trump tweets by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Sad.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  5. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, SCOTUS vs Clinton by raymorris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > his company and he's neither sold it nor divested any of the foreign income businesses?

    Three of our first four presidents (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison) also had businesses which had foreign customers. None of the founding fathers had a problem with that. If someone wants to buy tobacco from Washington's field (or a hotel room from Trump's hotel) that's not a problem, the founders said.

    What they DID have a problem with, and prohibited in the Constitution, was accepting payments not for a product or service, but as a result of the President's position. For example, if a President or Secretary of State received a "gift" of $100,000 from a foreign government, rather than selling a product worth $100,000 THAT'S an unconstitutional emolument. The Supreme Court has confirmed that.

    Guess which President and Secretary of State got big "gifts" (emoluments) from from other countries? Hint - they are married, one was president, one was secretary of state. Both took foreign payments just for being in high office, not as part of a routine business transaction selling something.

     

  6. Next time you're in DC, Panasonic, why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    don't you stay at tRump Hotel? Dial 6 for the "room service" hotline, and I'm sure with enough "room service" fees, your problems will melt away. Act now, because the Trump presidency may not last the full four years.

  7. Re: President Trump tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't take a bit of levity, eh, Maritz?

    Or does it hit too close to home? Do you secretly suspect it has the ring of truth, rather than absurdity?

  8. Re: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, SCOTUS vs Clin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Three of our first four presidents (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison) also had businesses which had foreign customers. None of the founding fathers had a problem with that. If someone wants to buy tobacco from Washington's field (or a hotel room from Trump's hotel) that's not a problem, the founders said.

    They also had no problem owning people and keeping them in bondage, even while ostensibly purporting to oppose it, little interest in universal suffrage, and no idea of the corrupt machinations of today's corporate establishment. So in moral terms, relying on the cloak of the dead Founders is of little help. If anything, it discredits you.

    The products they sold? Resulted from abominable conduct. If they were alive today, we would have to face their cruelty and selfishness. They would be repugnant, not for their inability to sell a washing machine, but for what they would truthfully say.

    What they DID have a problem with, and prohibited in the Constitution, was accepting payments not for a product or service, but as a result of the President's position. For example, if a President or Secretary of State received a "gift" of $100,000 from a foreign government, rather than selling a product worth $100,000 THAT'S an unconstitutional emolument. The Supreme Court has confirmed that.

    Oh sorry, no, it's not. You forgot one salient detail. What is it?

    Guess which President and Secretary of State got big "gifts" (emoluments) from from other countries? Hint - they are married, one was president, one was secretary of state. Both took foreign payments just for being in high office, not as part of a routine business transaction selling something.

    Ah, undocumented accusations is it? Too bad you'll never sustain an investigation with a man known to be corrupt, so corrupt he's had to settle numerous lawsuits by his own admission. He couldn't report a murder without looking suspicious.

    That's your own fault, you never held your own to account.

  9. Trump as a service? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both Bush and Obama ethics lawyers have said it's not OK. You clearly want to pretend its a partisan issue that Trump is received large amounts of money for comedy services in return (e.g. name licenses, consultancy fees etc.), but that fools nobody of either party. It's also not the extent of the money, there are transfers for which no accountant transaction is available, simply money sent into Trump coffers for which he's never listed a reason.

    And then there's the accounts, he provided a set of income figures to the ethics committee during his election. These figures were false. Simply lies. We had the little "he over-reported" claim, but actually he didn't report his income at all, only a bunch of lies about his company. Claimed profits were really losses, you can see his Washington Post Office project, he's skimmed money off investors and bank loans into Trump corp, that money seems to be laundered and used to keep loss making projects afloat like the Scottish golf course. Money borrowed from Deutsch bank, laundered and used to make interest payments to Deutsch bank.

    But hey, he's the red flag leader! It's just not the Republican red flag.

    1. Re:Trump as a service? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Both Bush and Obama ethics lawyers have said it's not OK.

      Thankfully, they're not actual lawyers, as ethics aren't laws.

      The constitution is very clear. Trump isn't being given a title of nobility and he's not receiving emoluments from a foreign state. Receiving an emolument from a foreign state would include Russia or Putin giving him a bag of cash, a plot of land, or some other such gift for no reason or for policy reasons. Having a business in a foreign state does not violate this clause, nor does that business making money.

      Further, any purported violation could be approved by congress.

      Presidents receive gifts all the time. They simply are given to the President, and not the person. When the person leaves the office, the gift stays. Personal gifts are excepted and allowed if they are indeed personal gifts. Again, congress can make the call if anyone raises a stink.

      The more you fucking retards try to grasp at straws to invalidate Trump's Presidency the dumber you look. This shit is dumber than the birther claims for Obama.

    2. Re:Trump as a service? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more you fucking retards try to grasp at straws to invalidate Trump's Presidency the dumber you look. This shit is dumber than the birther claims for Obama.

      The more you desperately try to deny the corruption inherent in Trump's business, even aside from the presidency, the more willfully blind you look. Trying to compare it to the birther nonsense, which Donald Trump gleefully and willingly embraced, only highlights how frenetic you are.

      A serious person would recognize the concerns. A honest person would seek to remove all doubt. Trump? He pretends that rejecting the Presidential salary is a meaningful act, when it just subjects him to MORE corruption. I'd rather he live on the sufferance of the citizenship for the rest of his life, with his entire business held by the people, to be divested upon his death, to his heirs, than what he has chosen to do.

      Which is put forth a con-job and hope useful idiots like you shill it for him.

      The only question I have is...why are you so incompetent at it?

  10. Re:Washington, Jefferson, Madison, SCOTUS vs Clint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why was WJC not impeached and removed from office for this? Instead we had a trial over presidential blowjobs. Republican Congress presumably was aware of this and chose not to go forward.

  11. From TFS: by fyngyrz · · Score: 0

    US Probes Panasonic Unit For Alleged Bribery Violations

    ...and congress will get right on this as soon as they settle today's transactions with the lobbyists parked in their congressional waiting rooms. Priorities, people, priorities. Your government at work. Take a breath. If it were easy, we could just elect any asshole to do it.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  12. Re:President Trump tweets by Layzej · · Score: 1

    Hopefully Donald will step in and remove these burdensome regulations that plague Panasonic and other companies. Bribery is a form of free speech and is protected by the constitution.

  13. Two presidents impeached: Clinton and Johnson by raymorris · · Score: 1

    In a word, politics.

    > So why was WJC not impeached and removed from office for this? Instead we had a trial over presidential blowjobs.

    As you may know, two presidents have been impeached - Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The impeachment charges were perjury and obstruction of justice. The Clintons are of course pretty good at obstructing justice, they aren't stupid criminals - Hillary has virtually bragged about that. It's tough to prove the underlying crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, but the obstruction is apparent.

    Bill Clinton pled guilty to perjury in state court and was fined $90,000 along with losing his law license for five years.

    The masses enjoyed talking about blowjobs, some talked about Hillary's role smearing Paula Jones and others that Bill harassed/had afairs with, but the typical man on the street doesn't sit around talking about obstruction of justice (or emoluments). The trial was about the perjury and obstruction of justice, though, not blowjobs.

    An impeachment on violations of the emoluments charge would have been more difficult because of the relative lack of clear law on the matter, and the Clinton's skill at skirting the edges of what legislation does exist. The perjury and obstruction charges were much more clear - again, Bill pled guilty to perjury. He wouldn't have pled guilty to violating the emoluments clause, he would have had much more wiggle room.

    1. Re:Two presidents impeached: Clinton and Johnson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you may know, two presidents have been impeached - Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

      And both were illegitimate prosecutions. What a surprise.

      Bill Clinton pled guilty to perjury in state court

      Clinton made no such guilty plea in ANY state court. Nor Federal. Sorry, but you lie, Raymorris.

      Or will you correct yourself, immediately, promptly, and with full abashment?

      again, Bill pled guilty to perjury.

      You lie twice.

      Or will you correct yourself, immediately, promptly, and with full abashment?

      Or can you produce actual documents with such a plea?

      No?

      Then you lie.

  14. Re:President Trump tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully Donald will step in and remove these burdensome regulations that plague Panasonic and other companies. Bribery is a form of free speech and is protected by the constitution.

    Its only free speech when you use your slush fund of a charity to bribe I mean talk to the AG investigating your university.

  15. Global laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the Osaka-based company ...

    So is the subsidiary company in the USA, or is the US government telling a Japanese company to obey US laws?

  16. Re: President Trump tweets by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Can't take a bit of levity, eh, Maritz?

    Or does it hit too close to home? Do you secretly suspect it has the ring of truth, rather than absurdity?

    Nope, just lampooning how Trump puts "sad" at the end of his tweets.

    Are you embarrassed? If you are there's hope for you yet. ;)

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.