Bribery Case of an International Business

(A Case Study on
United States Of America V. Titan Corporation)

Fundamentals of B2B Marketing – D

Component I

Submitted to: Dr. Anupama Kotur

By: Aditya Misra

Roll Number: 3005
PRN: 20020621054
Batch: 2020-23
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents 2
Introduction 3
TITAN Bribery Case: 6
Background about the parties involved 12
Facts of the Case 14
Implications of the Case for International Businesses 16
Arguments of the Case 17
Suggestions 19
Conclusion 20
Bibliography 21
 Introduction

Bridging the gap between relativist and universalist approaches to ethics can be challenging, as
the two perspectives can have vastly different views on what is considered acceptable behaviour.

One strategy that non-US managers can adopt to address this issue is to establish a strong code
of conduct for their company. This code should clearly outline the company's stance on bribery
and corruption, and should be widely communicated and understood by all employees. The code
can also include guidelines for identifying and reporting potential ethical violations. By having a
clear and well-communicated code of conduct in place, companies can help ensure that all
employees are operating under a common set of ethical standards. Another approach is to engage
in due diligence when entering into business relationships. This can include checking the
reputation and history of potential partners and ensuring that they have a track record of ethical
behavior.

By working together with other companies and industry organizations, they can help create a
level playing field where all companies are held to the same ethical standards. Finally, by taking
a transparent and ethical approach to business practices, companies can set an example for others
in the industry. By promoting their values and standards, they can encourage others to adopt
similar practices and help create a more ethical business environment.

Some managers might try to offset a competitor’s bribe with a better, total product – ‘You might
offer a lower price, a better product, better distribution or better advertising to offset the benefit
of the bribe to the decision influencer’ (Keegan 1989, p. 201).

In the absence of comprehensive anti-foreign bribery legislation outside of the United States,
companies may face difficulties in curbing bribery from an idealistic position. Given the
imperfect business environment, companies may have limited options for handling bribery. One
option is to internationalise into countries with lower levels of corruption.

For instance, Singapore is often considered a relatively "squeaky-clean" country to do business

in, compared to other countries in the region such as China, Indonesia, India, and Russia, which
are often considered to be among the most corrupt. However, even when operating in countries
with lower levels of corruption, companies may still face challenges in knowing the level of
bribes being offered by competitors and in making decisions on how to improve their total
product to fight bribery. (“Hard graft in Asia” 1995, p. 61).

Furthermore, bribes may not only be paid for projects, but also for day-to-day operations,
making discussions of a better total product less useful. Ultimately, a multinational legal
approach to bribery, such as the one proposed by the United Nations, may be necessary to
effectively address the issue. In the meantime, companies may need to navigate the imperfect
business environment and consider a range of options for handling bribery, including
internationalising into less-corrupt countries, engaging in due diligence, and advocating for
changes in the law.

A code of ethics is a set of guidelines and principles that a company establishes to govern its
behaviour and decision making. In the context of international marketing, where there may be
conflicting cultural, legal-political, economic, competitive and distributive environments, a code
of ethics can help bridge the gap between a relativist and a universalist approach to ethics. The
code of ethics for a non-US company operating in different countries could outline the degree of
standardisation and adaptation for different aspects of bribery, such as expediting bureaucratic
processes, promotion, gifts, wage rates, health and safety standards, and lobbying to influence
government policies.

The code would take into account the specific cultural, legal-political, and economic
environment of each foreign market, and specify when certain actions are acceptable and when
they are not. The organisation could also institute a code of ethics sensitization training for
managers entering or returning from an overseas country, based on cross-cultural sensitization
sessions. This would help raise awareness and understanding of the code of ethics, and ensure
that managers act in accordance with it. The firm could also require that its managers are familiar
with relevant national and international laws, or hire reputable lawyers who are knowledgeable
about local laws and customs.

Overall, a code of ethics can provide a framework for ethical decision making and behaviour in
international marketing, and help the company maintain consistency in its approach to ethics
across different countries and regions.
Ethics audits could also be carried out, emphasising improvement and learning about the
processes used, such as TQM continuous improvement programs do. Furthermore, these audits
would foster an evolving awareness of ethical considerations for each of the eight dimensions in
a particular organisation, and in a particular country.

In international marketing, bribery is a common issue that can cause confusion and frustration
for both organisations and individuals. There are two perspectives on bribery: relativist and
universalist. The relativist view accepts that bribery has different cultural roots in different
countries, while the universalist view holds that there is a universal set of ethical values that
applies globally. To address these differing views, it is important to understand the cultural
forces that influence attitudes towards bribery, and to develop a code of conduct that allows for
some flexibility in specific situations in different countries. This code should be based on
negotiation between the values of the organisation and those of local officials and should be able
to adapt to the different dimensions of bribery in each country.

The Benin Bribery case involving Titan Corporation is a significant event in the international
business arena, as it highlights the importance of corporate social responsibility and
accountability. This case has revealed the need for international businesses to take a more
proactive approach to ethical and legal compliance in their operations, especially in countries
with a high risk of corruption. In order to avoid such scandals, it is essential for international
businesses to implement strong internal control systems, establish a clear code of ethics and
conduct, and provide adequate training and resources to employees to promote ethical behaviour.

This essay seeks to analyse the facts of the case and the implications of the case for international
businesses, as well as to provide arguments and solutions related to the case.

TITAN Bribery Case

The Benin Bribery case involves the former US defence contractor Titan Corporation, which
was accused of paying bribes to foreign officials in order to secure telecommunications
contracts in several African countries, including Benin. The case brought attention to the
issue of bribery in international business and the need for companies to be held accountable
for their actions in foreign countries. The case highlights the importance of corporate social
responsibility and ethical conduct in the international arena, and serves as a warning for other
businesses to be mindful of the laws and regulations surrounding bribery in the countries in
which they operate.

Washington, D.C., March 1, 2005 - The Titan Corporation, a San Diego-based military
intelligence and communications company, was charged by the US Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The SEC's
complaint alleged that Titan had used its agent in Benin to funnel approximately $2 million
towards the election campaign of Benin's then-incumbent President. The company was
accused of anti-bribery, internal control, and bookkeeping violations.

Without admitting or denying the allegations, Titan agreed to settle the case by

● paying approximately $15.5 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest,

● paying a $13 million penalty, and hiring an independent consultant to review the
company's FCPA compliance and procedures. The company's payment of the penalty
was deemed satisfied by the payment of criminal fines of the same amount in parallel
proceedings brought by the US Attorney's Office and the US Department of Justice.

● retaining an independent consultant to review the company's FCPA compliance and

procedures and to adopt and implement the consultant's recommendations.

"Illicit payments to government officials are inconsistent with fair play and vigorous
competition and are a violation of U.S. law," said Stephen M. Cutler, Director of the SEC's
Division of Enforcement. "Capital formation and corporate enterprise thrive when all parties
participate on a level playing field."

The SEC also issued a Report of Investigation to provide guidance on potential liability
under the antifraud and proxy provisions of the federal securities laws for false or misleading
 disclosures in merger and other contractual agreements.

● The SEC's Report of Investigation in the Titan Corporation (Benin Bribery) case
emphasizes the importance of truthful and accurate public disclosures by companies. The
report states that when a company makes a public disclosure, it has a responsibility to
ensure that the information is not misleading by considering whether additional
information is necessary to provide context. The company cannot avoid this obligation by
claiming that the information was only contained in a non-disclosure document. This case
serves as a reminder to all companies of their obligations under the federal securities laws
and the importance of transparency in public disclosures.

The SEC, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, is a government agency that regulates the
securities industry and protects investors from fraud and other illegal activities. The SEC will
take enforcement action against companies that make materially misleading representations or
omit material facts that are necessary for a proper understanding of the disclosure. This is to
ensure that shareholders have accurate and complete information about the company and its
operations, which is essential for informed investment decisions. If the SEC determines that a
company has made materially misleading statements, it may bring an enforcement action, which
could result in fines, penalties, or other sanctions against the company. Bribery is a significant
issue that many companies face, and its consequences can be severe. Confronting bribery can be
challenging as different countries have different views on what constitutes bribery. For example,
managers in some countries may view bribery as acceptable in certain situations, while it is
viewed as unethical or even illegal in other countries. Paying bribes also carries the risk of
damaging the company's reputation in the country where the bribes are paid, as well as
domestically. Additionally, a company that is willing to pay bribes may develop a more relaxed
attitude towards other illegal practices, which can further harm the company's reputation and
legal standing. For these reasons, it is important for companies to maintain high ethical standards
and avoid engaging in bribery and other illegal practices.
The SEC's action against Titan highlights the government's increased focus on examining
companies' foreign payments and their disclosures about potential corruption, particularly in the
context of mergers. The SEC is putting pressure on companies to reveal any suspicious overseas
payments made by firms they are looking to acquire, both publicly and to the government. In this
case, Titan's foreign bribery was discovered by Lockheed Martin during the acquisition
negotiations. Although both companies cooperated with the investigation, the resolution of the
probe was delayed and led to the collapse of the $1.6 billion deal in June.

According to the SEC's civil action, some of the illegal payments were approved by a senior
Titan officer and several former officers, who were not identified. This case demonstrates the
importance of companies being transparent and compliant with anti-bribery and anti-corruption
regulations, as well as the consequences of non-compliance, including potential enforcement
actions by the government and negative impacts on business transactions.

Titan responded to the SEC's enforcement action by stating that it has taken steps to
improve its internal controls and increase ethics training. As part of the settlement,
the company is required to provide all evidence of possible wrongdoing discovered
by its own internal investigation. Court documents show that Titan neglected
internal warnings of fraud and lacked an effective system of internal controls in one
of its units, where commissions paid to foreign agents accounted for nearly half of
its revenue in some years. Despite having a large network of representatives in over
60 countries, Titan was unable to properly monitor its foreign agents.

These events highlight the importance of companies having strong internal controls
and a robust ethics program to ensure compliance with anti-bribery and anti-
corruption regulations. Neglecting internal warnings and failing to have proper
oversight can have serious consequences, including enforcement actions by the
government and damage to a company's reputation. Companies must take proactive
measures to ensure compliance and maintain high ethical standards.
According to court documents, Titan established a joint venture with a government
company in Benin in 1998 to construct a wireless telephone network. The company
then hired a local agent who was known to be a business advisor to President
Mathieu Kerekou. From 1999 to December 2001, Titan paid over $3.5 million to
this agent, including $2 million that was falsely invoiced as consulting services but
was actually used to support the President's re-election campaign. The money was
also used to reimburse the agent's purchase of campaign T-shirts and to pay for a
pair of earrings worth $1,850 for the President's wife.

This case highlights the importance of proper due diligence and proper accounting
of payments made to foreign agents. Companies must ensure that payments are
made for legitimate business purposes and that they are properly accounted for in
accordance with regulations and standards. Payments made to support political
campaigns or made for personal gain can be viewed as bribes and are illegal under
anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws. Companies must take steps to prevent such
payments from being made and to maintain compliance with these regulations to
avoid potential enforcement actions and damage to their reputation.

The payments were made to increase the management fees for the joint venture in
Benin. Some of the funds were transferred from Titan's San Diego headquarters to
an account in Monaco, while over $1 million was paid in cash to the agent in Benin.
A former senior Titan officer also hired a World Bank official as a consultant for
the project and wired $15,000 to an account under the name of the official's wife.
The SEC and the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Diego filed these details in court
documents. In addition to Benin, Titan allegedly created false documents to conceal
commissions to agents in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. An agent in the
Philippines was reported to have made payments to high-ranking military officials
to obtain business, while an agent in South Africa expressed concerns about the
legality of certain payments but was advised by a Datron official not to worry about
it. These details demonstrate the wide extent of Titan's corrupt practices, which
were conducted across several countries, and highlights the need for companies to
be vigilant in their compliance with anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws.
Companies must take proactive steps to ensure that they conduct business in a
transparent and ethical manner and to prevent such illegal practices from taking
place.

The government's case against Titan highlights the company's disregard for
potential corruption, despite being warned as early as 2000. The external auditor
Arthur Andersen identified the lack of controls in tracking overseas payments, and
when Titan managers raised allegations of forged invoices and bribes in Benin, a
senior Titan officer failed to order a proper investigation. The situation had gotten
so bad by 2002 that a Benin auditing firm identified $1.8 million in "missing cash."
These allegations demonstrate the importance of companies being proactive in
addressing and investigating any potential corruption or unethical behavior.
Companies must implement adequate controls and systems to detect and prevent
such practices from occurring, and to take appropriate action when necessary.
Failure to do so can result in serious consequences, both legally and in terms of
reputation.

Titan's guilty plea to charges of bribery, false accounting, and aiding and abetting
filing a false tax return highlights the severe consequences that companies can face
when engaging in unethical behavior. Despite reaching a draft agreement to settle
its legal troubles, the company faced hurdles posed by the State Department and the
SEC, which delayed the deal. As a result, Lockheed Martin Corporation, which was
seeking to acquire Titan, pulled out of the $1.6 billion deal. The previous largest
penalty for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was $24.8 million paid by
Lockheed Martin in 1995, showing the continued enforcement of strict regulations
and penalties for such violations. These incidents serve as a reminder for companies
to conduct business ethically and with transparency, as the consequences of
 violating laws and regulations can be significant.Titan stock rose 4.5%, or 75 cents,
to $17.35 in New York Stock Exchange 4pm composite trading.

BENIN AS A COUNTRY:

Benin is a country located in West Africa and is made up of five natural regions. The coastal
region is characterised by low, flat, and sandy land that is backed by tidal marshes and lagoons.
This region is mostly composed of a long sandbar where coconut palms grow in clumps. The
lagoons in the west are narrower compared to those in the east, which are wider. Some of these
lagoons in the east are interconnected and provide a natural waterway to the port of Lagos in
Nigeria.

Despite attempts at greater national unity and integration since 1960, differences among Benin's
ethnic groups still persist to a large extent. The Fon, who make up about two-fifths of the
population, live in various parts of the country, particularly in Cotonou. The Yoruba, who are
related to the Nigerian Yoruba, live mainly in southeastern Benin and constitute about one-eighth
of the country's population. The Goun and Yoruba are so intermixed in the vicinity of Porto-
Novo that it is difficult to distinguish between the two groups. Other southern groups in Benin
include various Adja peoples, such as the Aizo, Holi, and Mina.

Benin is composed of several ethnic groups, each with its own unique cultural traditions. The
French colonial rule, along with the country's close ties with France, has had a profound impact
on the cultural life of the educated population and cities in the southern part of the country. The
country is divided into two main regions - the largely Muslim north and the largely animist and
Christian south - and each region has its own cultural traditions that have been preserved over the
centuries. The French influence can be seen in all aspects of cultural life, and it is particularly
noticeable in the southern cities.

Cotonou, the largest city in Benin, reflects the cultural diversity of the country. It has a modern,
commercial side with restaurants, cafes, movie theaters, hotels and discotheques, and is home to
many foreign diplomats and local elite. However, traditional cultural practices still dominate the
daily life of many in other parts of the city, where extended families live in family compounds
and celebrate festivals with music, dance, and religious rites. The markets, where foodstuffs,
clothing, traditional medicines, and arts are sold, are also important centres of daily life in the
town.

Background about the parties involved

ABOUT TITAN AS A COMPANY:

Titan Corporation was a U.S. based defense contractor that provided various products and
services to the United States Department of Defense, Intelligence Community, and other federal
agencies. Founded in 1981, the company was headquartered in San Diego, California, and had
operations in numerous locations throughout the United States and internationally. The
company's primary business areas included systems engineering, intelligence, communication
systems, and security.

VISION: “We aspire to be a world class and excellently managed holding company, principled
on the foundations of INTEGRITY, EXCELLENCE and SOCIAL & MORAL UPRIGHTNESS
to bring a positive influence to our world, one step at a time.”

MISSION: “To be the premier provider of information technology and communications

solutions and services to U.S. defence, intelligence and civilian government agencies and to
allied governments.”

Titan Corporation was known for its advanced technology solutions and expertise in developing
and deploying complex systems and networks. The company was also a leading provider of
intelligence and communication services, including satellite and wireless communications, data
processing, and information management.

In 2005, Titan Corporation was acquired by Lockheed Martin, one of the largest aerospace and
defence contractors in the world. The acquisition strengthened Lockheed Martin's position as a
leading provider of defence and intelligence solutions and allowed Titan to expand its reach and
capabilities as part of a larger organisation.

Unfortunately, Titan Corporation faced several controversies during its existence, including
allegations of overcharging the government and involvement in the abuse of detainees at the Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq. The company was eventually acquired by L-3 Communications in 2005,
after which the Titan name was retired.
 Facts of the Case

In 2006, it was revealed that Titan had paid bribes to government officials in Benin in order to

secure the contract for the construction of the dam. This led to a US government investigation
into the matter, which eventually led to the company being charged with violating the Foreign

Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

In 2010, Titan Corporation agreed to pay a fine of $28 million in order to resolve the charges.

The settlement was the largest FCPA settlement at that time, and it was seen as a clear warning

to other companies that the US government would not tolerate foreign bribery.

The Benin Bribery case was significant because it demonstrated the US government's

commitment to enforcing the FCPA and cracking down on corrupt business practices. The case

also showed that companies operating in foreign countries must be aware of the laws and

regulations governing their activities, and that they can face significant consequences if they

engage in corrupt practices.

Titan was a company that engaged in corrupt practices between 1999 and December
2001, according to documents filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Diego and
the SEC. During this time, the company paid an agent more than $3.5 million in
total, with some $2 million of that being falsely invoiced as consulting services but
actually used to support the re-election campaign of the President of the country
where the joint venture was taking place.

Some of these funds were transferred from Titan's headquarters in San Diego to the
agent's account in Monaco. The rest of the payments, which totaled more than $1
million, were made in cash directly to the agent in Benin. The reason for these
payments was to secure higher management fees for the joint venture of a telephone
company in which Titan was involved. Although the government did not accuse the
President, Kerekou, of knowing about these corrupt payments, the payments were
made in order to influence the outcome of the re-election campaign.
 Additionally, a former senior Titan officer hired a World Bank official as a
consultant for the Benin project. This consultant was paid $15,000, which was
wired to an account under the name of the official's wife. These details were part of
the documents filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Diego and the SEC.

According to the SEC, Titan not only engaged in corrupt practices in Benin but also
in other countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka by creating false
documents to disguise commissions paid to agents. In the Philippines, an agent
made payments to high-ranking military officials to secure business deals. In South
Africa, another agent expressed concerns about the legality of certain payments but
was told by a Datron official not to worry about it. These actions by Titan indicate a
pattern of corruption and unethical behaviour that went beyond just the payments
made in Benin.

Background to the Benin Project

A Partnership Agreement was signed on February 1, 1996 between the Postal and
Telecommunications Office of the Republic of Benin (OPT), a state-owned enterprise, and
Afronetwork Ltd. to develop a telecommunications network in Benin. At the time of signing the
agreement, the founder and principal of Afronetwork was a relative of the Benin Minister of
Telecommunications, creating a close relationship between the two parties involved in the joint
venture. This close relationship could have had an impact on the fairness and impartiality of the
development of the telecommunications network in Benin.

Implications of the Case for International Businesses

This case has significant implications for international businesses and the way they conduct their
operations. Firstly, it emphasises the importance of corporate social responsibility and
accountability. Companies need to be mindful of the laws and regulations in the countries they
are operating in and adhere to them, as well as act in an ethical manner and avoid practices like
bribery.

Another implication is the need for risk assessment in international business dealings. The case
demonstrates the potential risks involved in international contracts, and businesses must be
aware of these risks before entering into such transactions. It is important for companies to
conduct thorough due diligence, have a clear understanding of their business partners, and have
contingency plans in place to mitigate potential risks.

Additionally, this case shows that corruption can have far-reaching consequences for companies
and their stakeholders, including legal and financial repercussions, reputational damage, and
harm to the local community. Companies must be proactive in addressing and preventing
corruption and other unethical business practices in order to maintain the trust of their
stakeholders and protect their interests.

1. Legal consequences: The individuals and companies involved in the bribery case faced
legal penalties, including fines and jail time.

2. Reputation damage: The case damaged the reputation of Titan and the individuals
involved, leading to a loss of public trust and credibility.

3. Stricter regulations: The case highlighted the need for stricter regulations and increased
oversight in the business world, leading to the implementation of stronger anti-bribery
laws.

4. Negative impact on business: The bribery case had a negative impact on the business
operations of Titan and related companies, leading to decreased profits and potential
difficulty in securing future business deals.

5. Importance of due diligence: The case highlights the need for thorough due diligence
and the importance of understanding local laws and regulations when conducting
business in foreign countries. Companies must ensure that their business practices align
with the laws of the countries they operate in.
 6. Consequences of unethical behavior: The case demonstrates the negative impact that
bribery and corruption can have on a company's reputation, stakeholders, and the local
community. Companies must be mindful of the potential consequences of unethical
behavior and prioritize compliance with local laws and ethical business practices.

7. Legal and financial repercussions: The case also shows that bribery and corruption can
have serious legal and financial consequences, including fines, legal proceedings, and
reparations. Companies must be aware of these risks and take steps to prevent bribery and
corruption in order to avoid these consequences.

8. Ethical considerations: The case sparked a wider discussion about ethics and corruption
in the business world, leading to a greater emphasis on corporate responsibility and the
importance of ethical behaviour.

Arguments of the Case

In the end, Titan Corporation was fined by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

(FCPA). The FCPA prohibits U.S. companies and their officers, employees, agents, and directors
from making corrupt payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining

business. The SEC also ordered Titan to implement internal controls to prevent future violations

of the FCPA.

The case serves as a warning to international businesses about the consequences of engaging in

bribery and corruption, and the importance of adhering to ethical business practices and local

laws. It also highlights the significance of effective risk management, due diligence, and

compliance with international laws and regulations.

In the Titan bribery case, there could be arguments made by both the prosecution and defence.

Arguments made by the prosecution include:

● Clear evidence of bribery and corruption: The prosecution presented clear evidence of
illegal payments made by the company to government officials in exchange for
favourable business deals, violating anti-corruption laws and regulations.

● Threat to the integrity of public institutions: The bribery by Titan Corporation had
serious implications on the integrity of public institutions in Benin and undermined the
rule of law.

● Damage to the reputation of the country: The bribery case damaged the reputation of
the country, leading to a decrease in foreign investment and a negative image in the
international community.

● Violation of international treaties: The prosecution argued that the company's actions
violated international treaties, such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption
(UNCAC) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Anti-Bribery Convention, which aim to combat corruption.
 ● Financial harm to the government: The prosecution argued that the government of
Benin suffered financial losses as a result of the bribery and that the company should be
held liable for such damages.

Arguments made by the defence include:

● Lack of clear evidence linking the company directly to the bribes.

● Evidence of steps taken by the company to prevent corruption, such as internal

compliance measures.

● Arguments that the bribes were made by individuals acting outside the scope of their
authority and without the knowledge of the company.

● Lack of clear and specific laws in the country of operation, which made it difficult for the
company to understand what was considered illegal.

● Lack of clear knowledge or intent on the part of the company to engage in bribery or
corruption. The common practice of bribery and corruption in the industry and the
country of operation, which made it difficult for the company to refuse to participate
without damaging its business prospects.

● The company's argument that the payments were made to agents and consultants, not
directly to government officials, and that they had no direct knowledge of the use of the
funds for illegal purposes.

The defence could argue that the senior Titan officer and former executives were not aware of
the illegal nature of the payments and acted in good faith. They could argue that the company
had a standard due diligence process in place and that the payments made to the agent were not
outside the scope of normal business practices in the industry. Additionally, they could argue that
the services described in the invoices were provided and that the company had no reason to
suspect otherwise. The defence may also argue that the agent acted independently and without
the knowledge or approval of the senior Titan officer or former executives.

In the Titan and Benin bribery case, the prosecution argued that the company was involved in
illegal activities such as bribery and political campaign financing. The prosecution claimed that
senior officers of the company, located in the United States, were aware of and approved these
illegal payments, which were funnelled through an agent in Benin. The prosecution also argued
that Titan failed to conduct proper due diligence into its agent, failed to ensure that the services
described in the invoices were actually provided, and improperly recorded the payments in its
books and records.

The prosecution also accused Titan of lacking an effective system of internal controls, having
inadequate FCPA policies, disregarding and circumventing limited FCPA procedures in effect,
and having insufficient oversight over its foreign agents. These actions, according to the
prosecution, damaged the integrity of public institutions and systems, and violated anti-
corruption laws and regulations.

Suggestions
If faced with a bribery scandal like the Titan and Benin bribery case, there are several steps a
company can take to mitigate the negative effects and regain trust:
 1. Conduct an internal investigation: A thorough internal investigation can help the
company determine the extent of the problem and identify any areas for improvement in
their compliance and ethics program.

2. Cooperate with authorities: Cooperation with law enforcement and regulatory agencies
can demonstrate the company's commitment to transparency and accountability.

3. Implement or enhance compliance measures: Companies can implement or enhance

their internal compliance measures to prevent future incidents of bribery and corruption.
This may include regular training programs for employees, stronger internal controls, and
improved due diligence processes.

4. Communicate transparently with stakeholders: Companies should be transparent

about the steps they are taking to address the bribery allegations and any findings from
their internal investigation. This can help rebuild trust with stakeholders.

5. Use technology solutions: There are various technology solutions available, such as
fraud detection software, that can help detect instances of bribery and corruption.

6. Consider making amends: Depending on the severity of the situation, companies may
consider making amends, such as compensating those affected by the bribery or making a
public apology.

It is important to note that taking these steps may not guarantee that the company will avoid legal
consequences or repair its reputation, but they can demonstrate a commitment to addressing the
problem and implementing changes to prevent future incidents.

A few general ways of reducing corruption and bribery cases like these can be:

● Organisations should take a zero-tolerance approach towards bribery and corruption. It

is important to ensure that there is adequate communication and training to raise
awareness and understanding of the nature and consequences of bribery. Companies
 should also have robust policies and procedures in place to prevent, detect, and
investigate such cases, as well as to ensure that employees are held accountable.

● Organisations should also ensure that they have an effective whistleblower policy in
place that allows employees to report suspicious activities without fear of retribution.
They should also review and update the policy regularly to ensure that employees are
aware of the channels and procedures for reporting.

● Additionally, companies should review and update their anti-bribery and anti-
corruption policies periodically to ensure that they remain effective.

● Finally, organisations should also ensure that they have effective risk management
systems in place to identify and address any potential risks associated with bribery and
corruption.

● They should also regularly review and audit their internal control systems to ensure
that they are effective and are meeting the organisation’s compliance requirements.

● Companies should conduct thorough due diligence on their business partners, including
agents and intermediaries, to ensure they are reputable and not engaged in corrupt
practices.

● Companies should maintain accurate financial records and ensure all transactions are
transparent and properly accounted for in their books and records.
 Conclusion

The Titan Corporation bribery case involved allegations of bribery by Titan Corporation, a US-
based defence contractor, in order to secure contracts with the government of Benin. The US
Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission conducted an investigation into
the matter and found that Titan had made payments to government officials in Benin, which were
falsely recorded in the company's books and records.

Titan Corporation was charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which
prohibits US companies from bribing foreign officials to secure business. The company agreed to
pay $28 million in fines and penalties to settle the charges.

The Titan and Benin bribery case has important implications for international businesses, as it
highlights the need for corporate social responsibility and accountability. International
businesses must be aware of the laws and regulations of the countries they are operating in and
must act ethically when engaging in business activities. They must also be aware of the risks
involved in international business transactions, including the risk of violating anti-corruption
laws.
To prevent cases like the Titan and Benin bribery case in the future, companies should
implement strong anti-corruption policies and procedures, conduct regular due diligence on their
foreign agents and partners, and have meaningful oversight over their foreign operations. They
should also educate their employees and executives on the importance of compliance with anti-
corruption laws and the consequences of violating such laws.

The case demonstrates the consequences that can result from bribery and corruption, including
legal and financial penalties, damage to reputation, and loss of trust. It also shows the importance
of due diligence and the implementation of effective internal controls to prevent illegal activities
such as bribery. Companies must be vigilant in their compliance with anti-corruption laws and
regulations, and must act in accordance with the highest ethical standards. The case also
demonstrates the need for companies to have effective systems in place to prevent and detect
illegal activities, including proper due diligence, internal controls, and compliance policies. By
taking steps to prevent corruption, companies can not only protect themselves, but also help to
maintain the integrity of the global business community.

This case serves as a cautionary tale for international businesses, and highlights the need for
them to be responsible and accountable in all their business dealings. These lessons serve as a
reminder that bribery and corruption have significant consequences and that companies must
prioritise ethics and compliance to avoid such issues.
Bibliography