that firms that pay more bribes are also likely to spend. more, not less, advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, toa foreign management time with bureaucrats negotiating regulations, and face public official, for that official or for a third party, in order that the higher, not lower, cost of capital.”). official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of 8 For example, in a number of recent enforcement actions, the same official duties, in order to obtain or retain business or other improper employees who were directing or controlling the bribe payments were advantage in the conduct of international business.” The Convention also enriching themselves at the expense of the company. See, 2g, and its commentaries also call on all parties (a) to ensure that aiding and Complaint, SEC vy. Peterson, No. 12-cv-2033 (E.D.NY. 2012), ECF abetting and authorization of an act of bribery are criminal offenses, (b) No. 1, available at hetp:/ /www.sec.gov/litigation/ complaints/ 2012/ to assert territorial jurisdiction “broadly so that an extensive physical comp-pr2012-78.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Peterson, connection to the bribery act is not required,” and {c) to assert nationality No. 12-cr-224 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), ECF No. 7 [hereinafter United States v. jurisdiction consistent with the general principles and conditions of each Peterson|, available at http: //www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fepa/ cases/ party’s legal system. Jd. at art. 1.2, cmts. 25, 26. petersong/ petersong-information.pdf; Plea Agreement, United States v. 2 See International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998, Pub. Stanley, No. 08-cr-597 (S.D. Tex. 2008), ECF No. 9 [hereinafter United L. 105-366, 112 Stat. 3302 (1998); see also S. Rep. No. 105-277, at 2-3 States v. Stanley], available at hetp:/ /www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ (describing amendments to “the FCPA to conform it to the requirements fcpa/ cases/, stanleya/ 09-03-08stanley-plea-agree.pd