Lubrication and Subornation

Another variation of bribery is the difference between lubrication and subornation. Lubrication involves a relatively small sum of cash, a gift, or a service given to a low ranking official in a country where such offerings are not prohibited by law. The purpose of such a gift is to facilitate or expedite the normal, lawful performance of a duty by that official. This is practice common in many countries of the world. A small payment made to dock workers to speed up their pace so that unloading a truck takes a few hours rather than all day is an example of lubrication.

Subornation on the other hand generally involves giving large sums of money – frequently not properly accounted for – designed to entice an official to commit an illegal act on behalf of the one offering the bribe. Lubrication payments accompany requests for a person to do job more rapidly or more efficiently; subornation is a request for officials to turn their heads to not do their jobs or to break the law.

Agent’s Fees: A third type of payment that can appear to be a bribe but may not be is an agent’s fee. When a businessperson is uncertain of a country’s rules and regulations, an agent may be hired to represent the company in that country. For example, an attorney may be hired to file an appeal for a variance in a building code on the basis that the attorney will do a more efficient and thorough job than someone unfamiliar with such procedures. While this is often a legal and useful procedure, if a part of that of that agent’s fee is used to pay bribes, the intermediary’s fees are being used unlawfully. Under US law an official who knows of an agent’s intention to bribe may risk prosecution and jail time. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits US businesses from paying bribes openly or using intermediaries as conduits for a bribe when the US manager knows that part of the intermediary’s payment will be used as bribe. Attorneys, agents, distributors and so forth may function as conduits for illegal payments. The process is further complicated by legal codes that vary from country to country; what is illegal in one country may be winked at in another and be legal in a third.

The answer to the questions of bribery is not an unqualified one. It is easy to generalize about the ethics of political payoffs and other types of payments; it is much more difficult to make the decision to withhold payment of money when the consequences of not making the payment may affect the company’s ability to do business profitability or at all. With the variety of ethical standards and levels of morality that exist in different cultures, the dilemma of ethics and pragmatism that faces international business cannot be resolved until the anticorruption accords among the OECD and OAS members are fully implemented and multinational businesses refuse to pay off bribes.

The Foreign Corrupt practices Act has had a positive effect. According to the latest Department of Commerce figures since 1994 American businesses have bowed out of 294 major overseas commercial contracts valued to $ 145 billion rather than pay a bribe. This information corroborates the academic evidences cited above. Even though there are numerous reports indicating a definite reduction in US firms paying bribes, the lure of contracts is too strong for some companies. Lockheed Corporation made $ 22 million in questionable foreign payments during the 1970s. More recently the company pled guilty to paying $ 1.8 million in bribes to a member of the Egyptian national parliament in exchange for lobbying for three air cargo plans worth $ 79 million to be sold to the military. Lockheed was caught and fined $ 25 million, and cargo plane exports by the company were banned for three years. Lockheed’s actions during the 1970s were a major influence on the passing of the FCPA. The company now maintains one of the most comprehensive ethics and legal training programs of any major corporations in the US.

It would be naïve to assume that laws and the resulting penalties alone will put an end to corruption. Change will come only from more ethically and socially responsible decisions by both buyers and sellers and by government willing to take a stand.

Recently conferences have become unpopular since they are believed to take up time of many
Have you ever regarded casino gambling as a way of making an investment, similarly to
Training programs are designed with a business need in mind. However in reality, after the
Anil is a new customer for a car. He does not know what to look
You now know what results the three categories of buyers generally look for in your

  • Appellate Authority (RTI) 10.04.2011
    O/o Chairman – cum-Managing Director The New India Assurance Company Ltd,(NIACL) 87,M.G.Road,Fort,Mumbai-400001.


    Re: Appeal under section 19 of the RTI Act application dated 11.03.2011**
    Against CPI cell/HO/2010-11/501** dated 28.03.11 dispatch date 6.04.11

    The CPIO,namely,A.R.Shenoy, has denied all the information from p(1) to P(7) invoking section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
    That the arguments of CPIO have been based upon fallacy of red herring ,an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

    You are requested to order for disclosure of all informaiton sought by the appellant at the earliest ,and without any further fee ,under intimation to the appellant whisle blower.

    Yours Sincerely,

    ShriGopal Soni, (Tel 01452644106)
    C231,PanchSheel Nagar,Ajmer-30004.
    **enclosed full text.

    Enclosed: Annexure: 1.Mechanical format of refusal used by the CPIO
    CPI Cell/HO/2010-11/501 (Current application No. 200..since April 2007 )
    Mr. Shri Gopal Soni (ex-employee)
    C-231,Panch Sheel Nagar,
    Ajmer-305 004

    Dear Sir,

    Re: Information under RTI Act,2005-Shri Gopal Soni

    We are in receipt of your application dated 11.03.2011 received by us on 18.03.2011seeking informaiton under Right to Information Act,2005.
    You are well aware that you are an ex-employee of the Company who has been dismissed from the services of the Company and a serial petitioner. Till date you have filed as many as 200 applications (since April 2007) at HO seeking voluminous,detailed,frivolous and vexatious informaiton which are repetitive in nature and most the same relates to your suspension and dismissal from the services of the Comapny.
    It may be noted that while passing Order dated 26.08.2010 in Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000102,the applicant has been directed by Hon’ble Central Information Commission to us the rights betowed upon him by the RTI Act,2005 with responsibility and he has/had* been warned that the RTI act which is a unique legislation must be used only for obtaining precise and identifiable information.
    It may also be noted that while passing order dated 28.01.2011 in Appeal No. CUC/DS/A/2010/001428 commission reiteraterates the observations outlines in several orders of the commision about the irresponsible manner in which you have used the right bestowed upon you by the RTI act and warned you to be more careful in future failing which the Commission will be constrained to dismiss your applications without hearing on the grounds of being vexatious and repetitive and with motivated intentions.
    Inspite of the specific warning given by Hon’ble CIC,the applicant is still submitting frivolous and vexatious applications.Time and again,Hon’ble CIC has cautioned the applicant that the provisions of the Act should not be utilized to settle scores.
    Your above application attracts provisions of section 7(9) of the Act and does not serve any larger public interest,as well against the statement of objects and reasons of the RTI act Act,2005,the undersigned is constrained to refuse the information sought by you.
    Time Limit for filing an appeal:30 days
    First Appellate Authority
    Dy. General Manager & Appellate Authority
    The New India Assurance Co Ltd.,87,M.G.Road,Fort,Mumbai 400001.
    Thanking You,
    Yours Faithfully,
    Chief MANAGER & CPIO

    A2.Text of RTI application dated 11.03.11

    Chairman – cum-Managing Director 11.03.2011 The New India Assurance Company Ltd,(NIACL) 87,M.G.Road,Fort,Mumbai-400001.


    Re:Information under the RTI Act

    The applicant consistently writes RTI applications to root out deep rooted evil of corruption in the insurance sector sector particularly that of NIACL
    (New India Assurance Co Ltd,87,M.G.Road,Fort Mumbai-1) and on the basis of more than 100 RTI replies there is reasonable presumption of systematic corruption and embezzlement of public money due to violation of prescribed rules of law and misuse of discretionary power to the extent that almost all the corrupt officials are well paid in the NIACL

    Desired Information

    1. The complete name (title )of all the rules with which employees of NIACL have been charge sheeted with criminal misconduct from the financial year 2003 to date.

    2. List of employees (name,salary ) with alleged criminal misconduct who have been getting full salary & benefits merely because they have not been suspended from services of NIACL from the financial year 2003 to date. The information (name,salary ) of all competent authorities need also be supplied.

    3. NIACL CDA Rules-2003 ,the rules to take action against criminal misconduct in the NIACL have never been enforced with any written circular in any of about one thousand offices of NIACL
    The applicant needs full information of all written circular(s),if any,with which the aforesaid rules have been communicated to ensure transparency.

    4.Information of name of all files/folders where the record of each official charge -sheeted with criminal misconduct is kept.

    5. Information of such employees that though charge sheeted with criminal misconduct,yet awarded with promotion in the NIACL

    6. Information of those employees who are enjoying annual increment despite being charge sheeted for criminal misconduct

    7. A list of the employees whose services have been ordered to be terminated despite no charge of criminal misconduct.

    Yours Sincerely,

    ShriGopal Soni, (Tel 01452644106)
    C231,PanchSheel Nagar,Ajmer-30004.

    *enclosed IPO No.95E 141090 required fee under the RTI Act. *annexure
    Few of the well paid employees of doubtful integrity in the vast sea of corruption in the NIACL

    Public Servant (Salary No) Misconduct Proof of collusion
    S.R.No (16347) Defied transfer orders by not reporting to duty from 1.08.08 to 15.03.09 Continuously paid full salary and arrears entitled for pension,gratuity etc.
    S.R.No (13559)
    Paid gross arrears 238515* As per FIR dt.6.08.96 issued fake cover note defrauding of Rs.5.96 lakh “ “ “ “ No serious action even after 15 years
    S.R.No (22828)
    Paid gross arrears 279709*
    Under RC- 26(A)1991 CBI advised major penalty “ “ “ “
    Mere warning, promoted despite Rs. 50K cash of public money still missing
    S.R.No (28470)
    Paid gross arrears 140909*
    Jaipur CBI traps red-handed ,arrests with bribe 10.02.09 CS filed-Neither dismissed nor ordered suspension till date
    S.R.No. (22832)
    Paid gross arrears 250888* Caught with PORN in Bikaner NIACL under Jaipur RO Entitled for Gratuity,Pension etc. Subsequently Promoted

  • I have been dismissed from employment of 20 years without stigma upon the only “grave” alleged violation of rule of leaving Headquarters,a fictitous chage for which an advocate was appointed from public money. However,all the officials involved in deep rotted corruption including bribe takers caught red-handed have been well paid in the insurance company owned by Govt of India.