I am specifically asking about the method in this example:
>Exchange of funds through a legitimate business: A firm controlled by a public official pays a large sum of money to an unrelated corporation in return for fictitious invoices for alleged consulting fees. That corporation in turn makes checks payable to one of its corporate officers who then cash the checks with the aid of a bank official. The cash is returned to the first corporation’s officers who include the public official.
So what exactly is happening in this example? I am confused who is being bribed and who is doing the bribing (i.e. who the money is coming from and who the money is going to). It seems like the public official is just bribing himself as the large sum of money comes from his firm only for it to end up back in his pocket. This makes zero sense to me.
​
In: 2
>Exchange of funds through a legitimate business:
>A firm controlled by a public official pays a large sum of money to an unrelated corporation in return for fictitious invoices for alleged consulting fees.
Step one: the money comes from the firm’s budget, let’s say it’s taxpayer money. The public official wants to put that money into their own pocket, but that’s super illegal. So, they pay for “consulting services.” This is the justification for where that money went when the auditor comes knocking.
>That corporation in turn makes checks payable to one of its corporate officers who then cash the checks with the aid of a bank official.
Step two: the 2nd corporation passes the money (minus their cut) to one of their employees. This is *their* justification for where that money went when the auditor comes knocking.
>The cash is returned to the first corporation’s officers who include the public official.
Step 3: the guy who got the check and cashed it passes the money (minus his cut) back to the corrupt official under the table. This is the part that’s kept secret.
The scenario above isn’t really bribery, it’s more like embezzlement. I believe the term is “graft”.
Latest Answers