Going Further in Combating Transnational Bribery: Voluntary Disclosure and Federal Transparency in America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Law

The purpose of this research is to analyze the role of incentives and mitigation strategies related to voluntary reporting in enforcing anti-corruption laws, especially in the context of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in the United States. This study shows that voluntary disclosures made by companies in anti-corruption law enforcement, based on an in-depth literature review, play an important role in facilitating effective collaboration between business and government entities. This study shows that voluntary disclosures made by companies in anti-corruption law enforcement, based on an in-depth literature review, play an important role in facilitating effective collaboration between business and government entities. A company's decision to voluntarily report Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations is a complex strategic move influenced by legal incentives, cost-benefit calculations, reputational risks, and financial impacts. Further research is needed regarding longitudinal studies to examine the long-term impact of voluntary reporting on corporate reputation and financial performance. This research underscores the importance of this study and its relevance in a global context that increasingly demands corporate transparency and accountability.


INTRODUCTION
Transnational bribery has become a major problem in international business practice.For nearly four decades, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has been the cornerstone of efforts to eradicate corrupt practices that involve bribing foreign officials for business gain.(Hasen et al., 2021;Vuona, 2019).
However, amidst the United States (US) government's vigorous efforts to address this problem, an important question arises: When should companies strategically self-report potential FCPA violations to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) or the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).)?
Voluntary disclosure and transparency in the context of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in the United States has involved a number of significant transnational corruption cases (Erie, 2019;Legoria et al., 2023).According to Erie, implementing voluntary reporting allows the public and other stakeholders to access relevant information, thereby increasing the accountability of public officials.The FCPA, passed in 1977, was designed to prevent American companies and their associated individuals from engaging in paying bribes to foreign officials to obtain or retain business.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) plays an important role in combating international bribery by establishing strict legal standards for United States companies operating abroad.The FCPA requires companies to maintain accurate financial records and prevent unauthorized payments to foreign officials.In this case, transparency and voluntary reporting are key elements.Voluntary reporting helps increase transparency and accountability, which is important for detecting and preventing corrupt practices.By making data accessible to the public and other stakeholders, voluntary reporting not only strengthens public trust but also reduces opportunities for bribery and corruption.
Case involving Siemens AG (Blanc et al., 2019), Petrobras(Pündrich et al., 2021), Odebrecht/Braskem (Hellvig, and), Walmart (Reich & Bearman, 2018), and Goldman Sachs highlighted a variety of issues related to foreign corrupt practices in the United States.Siemens AG was involved in widespread bribe payments to government officials in various countries, while Petrobras faced a money laundering scandal involving Brazil's national oil company.The Odebrecht/Braskem case highlights the scale of bribe payments made by Brazilian construction companies, while Walmart is faced with the challenge of ensuring FCPA compliance across its global operations.Additionally, Goldman Sachs was involved in the 1MDB scandal in Malaysia involving money laundering and corruption, demonstrating the global impact of foreign corruption laws in the United States.All of this highlights the importance of strict law enforcement and transparency in addressing cross-border corruption (Rabinovych, 2023,Kassimova et al., 2023,Pahlevi & Bustomi, 2023), as well as the complexity of handling corruption issues involving multinational companies.John S. Baker (2004) suggests the paradox that although a company's implementation of a compliance program and disclosure of violations does not guarantee leniency, reluctance to voluntarily implement compliance almost certainly guarantees the imposition of penalties in the event of a violation.(Hopwood, 2019).Laufer's concept shows how governments and corporations often exist in a symbiotic relationship, especially in the context of law enforcement, where both parties seek mutually beneficial solutions amidst financial risks and legal threats (Spahn, 2009).Through negotiation theory, Laufer reveals the importance of negotiation and compromise in the legal system, which allows adaptation and flexibility in handling corporate cases.This emphasizes the need to balance between strict law enforcement and the need for flexible strategies, demonstrating the complexity of achieving fairness and effectiveness in corporate governance and law enforcement (Berridge, 2022;Kaufman et al., 2018;Pizer, 2021).Daniel Andrew Joseph / Going Further in Combating Transnational Bribery: Voluntary Disclosure and Federal Transparency in America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Law 297 Several previous studies, namely Garrett (2020), stated that law enforcement against foreign corruption in the United States, especially based on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), has experienced a significant increase in the size and number of cases, with resolutions dominating the law.enforcement approach, despite DOJ efforts to provide more detailed guidance regarding resolution (Garret, 2020b).Lima-de-Oliveira, (2020) that local content (LC) policies in the Brazilian oil and gas sector have undergone significant review following the revelation of corruption scandals involving Petrobras, suppliers and politicians, with more institutionalized and transparent policies such as contracts.LC obligations in the offering stage still survive(Lima-de-Oliveira, 2020).Martin et al., (2021) that unions succeeded in limiting real wage losses and negotiating the limits of new national legal norms and profit-sharing agreements through interpretive struggles and neutralizing anti-labor reforms in local practices, despite the sudden abolition of the "union tax" -arrive." and organizational challenges (Martin et al., 2021).
The novelty of this article lies in its analytical approach that explores the complexities of voluntary disclosure in the context of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement in the United States.This article not only identifies the benefits and risks associated with a company's decision to self-report potential FCPA violations, but also explains the complexities of international business practices and the challenges companies face in managing legal risks.Additionally, this article presents the US federal government's efforts to persuade companies to self-report and participate in FCPA-related investigations, making this research relevant in discussing mitigation and compliance strategies in the context of global anti-corruption laws.
Despite a significant increase in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement cases highlighting successful resolutions and cooperation between companies and the US government, there remains a gap in deep understanding of the long-term impact of voluntary disclosure policies on global business practices and corporate reputations.Previous research tends to focus on case-by-case analyzes or reviews of applicable policies without specifically exploring how companies change their strategy and internal governance post-voluntary disclosure, as well as how these policies influence stakeholder perceptions of corporate integrity.Additionally, the lack of comparative research exploring differences in approaches across industry sectors and their impact on FCPA compliance effectiveness adds to the gap in the existing literature.This gap highlights the need for further research that not only assesses the immediate legal consequences of voluntary disclosure but also considers the long-term strategic and reputational impacts on companies in a global context that increasingly demands corporate transparency and accountability.This article takes the role of an analytical guide that examines the complexities of voluntary disclosure in the context of American FCPA enforcement.In this context, there is debate surrounding the benefits and risks associated with a company's decision to self-report suspected FCPA violations.
Although the US government encourages voluntary disclosure and promises rewards for companies willing to cooperate, these decisions are not always strategically wise from a business perspective.The complexity of carrying out international business practices, as well as the challenges companies face in managing legal risks related to the FCPA.Additionally, this article also highlights policies and programs implemented by the US federal government to encourage companies to self-report and cooperate in FCPA-related investigations.The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role, incentives, and mitigation strategies related to voluntary disclosure in the enforcement of anti-corruption laws, specifically regarding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in the United States.

METHODS
The research method used in this writing is an in-depth literature review (Thomas et al., 2020), this method was chosen because it allows for a comprehensive and thorough understanding of this complex topic that involves a critical analysis of the relevant literature regarding voluntary disclosure in anticorruption law enforcement, particularly regarding the FCPA in the United States.Primary data sources used include academic journals, books, research reports, and official documents from the Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Data collection techniques involve carefully searching and selecting literature and documents related to the research theme (Snyder, 2019).Data collection is carried out through academic databases such as Google Scholar, JSTOR, and ProQuest, as well as official DOJ websites, journals, books, research reports, and official documents from the DOJ and SEC to obtain the latest and most reliable information regarding policies, guidelines, and related cases.
Furthermore, the data analysis techniques used include descriptive approaches and qualitative analysis.Data from the collected literature and documents were systematically analyzed to identify important patterns, trends and findings related to voluntary disclosure in the context of anti-corruption law enforcement.A descriptive approach is used to provide an overview of related concepts, theories and practices, while qualitative analysis is used to understand the context more deeply, including the factors influencing companies' decisions to self-report and the government's response to such actions.
Analysis is carried out by comparing and contrasting data from various sources, as well as considering various points of view and opinions of experts in the field.Additionally, a comparative approach is used to compare existing policies and practices in the United States with other countries that have similar anti-corruption laws.The results of the analysis are used to develop strong arguments and conclusions regarding the effectiveness, incentives, and implications of voluntary disclosure in efforts to eradicate transnational bribery.

Voluntary Disclosure Cases
The dynamics between companies involved in violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and United States law enforcement agencies particularly the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) present a complex theater, where the dance between punishment and cooperation is played out in great detail.fluent.At its core, it is a question of how a company should tread the dangerous path between voluntarily disclosing its violations and risking punishment as a consequence.John S. Baker ( 2004) offers a sharp perspective on the Sentencing Commission's potentially more punitive approach, highlighting a paradox in the current system: While the implementation of compliance programs and self-disclosure of corporate misconduct does not guarantee leniency, but there is a reluctance to "voluntary efforts" to achieve compliance almost guaranteeing punishment if punishment occurs (Hopwood, 2019).
Professor Laufer outlines this scenario as not without merit; This highlights the reality where companies, faced with significant financial risks and legal threats, are often in a position where they must seek mutually beneficial solutions with regulatory authorities.The need for reciprocal promises, in this context, is rarely questioned.This is not a simple game, but a necessity that arises from limited resources, the complexity of corporate structures, and the enormous evidentiary challenges faced by prosecutors.
This situation, as explained by Professor Laufer, reveals an important aspect in corporate law and governance: governments and corporations, although often seen as adversaries, are in many cases intertwined in a symbiotic relationship, forced by reality to seek a middle ground.These bargained exchanges of favors, although motivated by potential sanctions, ultimately became an important tool for both sides to achieve their goals.
Laufer not only reveals the power dynamics between governments and corporations, but also invites us to consider the value and effectiveness of legal systems that provide room for negotiation and compromise (Laufer, 2017).Through the lens of negotiation theory, he shows how threats and negotiations form the basis of many corporate decisions in dealing with the law, inviting us to reflect on the balance between strict law enforcement and strategic flexibility in handling corporate cases (Berridge, 2022;Kaufman et al., 2018;Pizer, 2021).
Filip's memo, officially entitled "Principles for the Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations" or better known as Principles of Prosecution, has become an important guide for federal prosecutors in determining whether to prosecute a company or business entity.(Buell, 2020;Diamantis & Laufer, 2019;Garrett, 2020a).Codified in the US Attorney's Manual on August 28, 2008, the Principles of Prosecution instruct prosecutors to consider nine important factors before making a decision.First of all, the Principles of Prosecution emphasize the nature and seriousness of the offense committed, including the risk of harm to the community involved.This factor is very important in determining corporate prosecution priorities for certain categories of crimes.Apart from that, prosecutors are also asked to consider the extent of violations that occurred within the company, including whether company management was directly involved or allowed the violations to occur.Company history is also an important consideration, including criminal, civil and law enforcement actions that have been carried out against previous companies.The company's timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing and its willingness to cooperate with the investigation are factors that strengthen the likelihood of prosecution.Next, the existence and effectiveness of pre-existing corporate compliance programs will be evaluated.Corrective actions taken by the company, such as implementing or enhancing compliance programs, replacing responsible management, paying compensation, and collaborating with relevant government agencies are also important considerations.Prosecutors are also asked to consider the collateral impact of prosecution, including collateral damage.comparable to shareholders, pension holders, employees and other parties who are not proven personally guilty, as well as the impact on society as a whole.In addition, the adequacy of prosecution of individuals responsible for corporate irregularities and legal remedies such as civil or regulatory law enforcement actions are also considerations for prosecutors.By considering all these factors, prosecutors can make wise and fair decisions in determining whether a company or business entity will be prosecuted for the offense committed.The Principles of Prosecution are a very valuable guide in ensuring justice in corporate law enforcement.
Data shows that voluntary disclosures made by companies regarding FCPA violations can provide significant benefits (Lawson et al., 2019;Salbu, 2018), such as reducing sanctions or reducing fines if the company is forced to be tried and proven guilty.Incentives are also offered by the US government to companies that voluntarily report FCPA violations, such as suspension or reduction of sanctions, DPA agreements, or other awards.However, the decision to voluntarily report FCPA violations is a strategic decision that companies must consider carefully, weighing the costs and benefits, including reputational risks, financial impacts, and possible legal implications.
Voluntary disclosure in the fight against transnational bribery is an important strategy used by many countries and legal institutions to address corrupt practices involving business entities.Data and information related to voluntary disclosure in this context can be found in various sources, including reports and studies related to anti-corruption, legal analysis, and academic research.
One relevant example is data that reveals that voluntary disclosures made by companies regarding FCPA violations can provide significant benefits.According to a report from Transparency International, companies that voluntarily report FCPA violations often receive reduced sanctions or Daniel Andrew Joseph / Going Further in Combating Transnational Bribery: Voluntary Disclosure and Federal Transparency in America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Law 301 lower fines if they are forced to stand trial and are found guilty.This reflects the view that voluntary disclosure can be considered a form of constructive cooperation with authorities in enforcing anticorruption laws.
The data also shows that there are incentives offered by the US government, specifically the DOJ and SEC, for companies that voluntarily report FCPA violations.These incentives can be in the form of a suspension or reduction of sanctions, the possibility of deferring a prosecution agreement (DPA), or other rewards such as a positive assessment of the company's compliance program.Case studies of companies that have successfully resolved FCPA cases through voluntary disclosures can also provide valuable insight into the benefits and consequences of such actions.
In addition, the data also reflects the view that the decision to report FCPA violations voluntarily is a strategic decision that must be carefully considered.There is a cost-benefit calculation that companies must consider, including reputational risks, financial impacts, and possible legal implications.In some cases, companies may judge that voluntary disclosure is more beneficial than risking more severe sanctions if the violation is uncovered through a government investigation.
Relevant data on voluntary disclosure in combating transnational bribery demonstrate the complexity and importance of factors that companies must consider in making decisions.Voluntary disclosure of information can be an effective tool in combating corruption abroad, but strategic wisdom and a deep understanding of the consequences are necessary.Case studies, policy analysis and further research can provide deeper insight into the dynamics and best practices in this regard.
Cases of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) highlighting transnational bribery practices and voluntary disclosures by companies demonstrate the importance of transparency and cooperation in fighting corruption (Forbes, 2019;Legoria et al., 2023;Olczak, 2021;Routh, 2018).In some cases, such as those of Alstom SA, Siemens AG, Alcoa World Alumina LLC, and Daimler AG, voluntary disclosure was not made by these companies, but this did not stop legal proceedings or potential reductions in the penalties they could receive.These cases provide insight into how the United States justice system handles transnational bribery offenses and how companies can interact with legal authorities to mitigate the impact of their actions.
In the case of Alstom SA, the company faced significant criminal fines after admitting it was guilty of violating the FCPA, both in terms of books and records and internal controls.Despite making no voluntary disclosures and initially refusing to cooperate, Alstom ultimately provided full cooperation, including assisting with investigations of other individuals and entities, which factored into the determination of their fine (Snchez-Bordona, 2022).
Siemens AG, in the face of FCPA violations, also did not make a voluntary disclosure but ultimately cooperated with the US Department of Justice (Zimmerer, 2020).The fine imposed on Siemens was much lower than the minimum threshold, thanks to the substantial cooperation and remediation efforts undertaken by the company, even though the company did not initially disclose its violations.Alcoa World Alumina LLC, which admitted to violating the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, received a reduced fine due to several factors such as the potential impact on the company's financial condition and competitive ability, substantial cooperation in the investigation, and significant remediation efforts following the violation.Appear (Bray, 2019).
Daimler AG, which faced similar violations, did not report itself voluntarily but provided significant cooperation in the investigation, resulting in lower fines than they might have faced otherwise.Their collaboration highlights the importance of transparency and cooperation with legal authorities in addressing corruption issues.
From these cases, there are several lessons that can be learned regarding the importance of voluntary disclosure and cooperation with legal authorities.First, although voluntary disclosure does not always occur, subsequent cooperation can have a significant impact on the outcome of the case, including the potential for reduced fines.Second, efforts to remediate and improve corporate practices after violations show the company's commitment to correcting mistakes and preventing the recurrence of violations.Finally, these cases highlight the importance of having an effective internal compliance program to detect and prevent corrupt practices, as well as highlight the important role of good corporate governance in preventing transnational bribery.
Analysis conducted by Professors Stephen Choi and Kevin Davis, as well as findings from studies conducted by other researchers, highlight the fact that voluntary disclosure does not always result in reduced monetary sanctions in cases of FCPA violations.This can be seen in several cases, including those involving large companies such as Siemens and Daimler AG, where even though they did not report themselves, they still received significant reductions in their sentences.These findings are consistent with researchers' conclusions that mitigation measures such as voluntary disclosure, cooperation, or remediation do not consistently impact the reduction of sentences imposed by the federal government.
Research conducted by Choi and Davis, as well as other researchers, controlled for important factors such as the amount of bribery involved, but still found no significant relationship between mitigation activities and a reduction in total monetary penalties.This shows that even though there is pressure placed on companies to make voluntary disclosures, the outcome of investigations and determination of penalties are still strongly influenced by the underlying facts, not simply whether the company self-reports or not.
Evidence from the experience of legal practitioners also confirms that the outcome of investigations and penalties depend more on the seriousness of the case and the available evidence than on whether Daniel Andrew Joseph / Going Further in Combating Transnational Bribery: Voluntary Disclosure and Federal Transparency in America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Law 303 the company self-reports.Although the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have threatened harsher penalties for companies that do not report, the reality is that the results of investigations are determined more by the facts at hand.Voluntary disclosure in the fight against transnational bribery, particularly under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), is emerging as a distinct strategy for companies, influenced by factors such as reputational risk, financial impact, and legal implications.Although the US government offers incentives such as reduced sanctions or deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), the decision to selfreport remains strategic and complex, as seen in cases involving Alstom SA, Siemens AG, Alcoa World Alumina LLC, and Daimler AG.These cases demonstrate diverse approaches to voluntary disclosure, demonstrating companies' efforts to balance legal compliance, corporate responsibility, and business interests.Therefore, voluntary disclosure should be seen as part of a broader compliance strategy and not an isolated measure, emphasizing the importance of proactively preventing corruption alongside legal compliance.
Corporate governance theory underscores the importance of companies' decisions regarding voluntary disclosure, highlighting their efforts to maintain a balance between legal compliance, corporate responsibility, and business continuity (Rose, 2015).Although voluntary disclosure offers incentives, implementation is influenced by considerations beyond legal benefits, such as reputational risks and financial implications.Therefore, companies must prioritize compliance and proactively prevent corruption while recognizing that voluntary disclosure is a strategic component and not an end in itself.This perspective underscores the complexity of voluntary disclosure strategies and emphasizes the broader goal of achieving corporate integrity and fair law enforcement through comprehensive compliance efforts.

Application of International Corruption Law
Application of corruption laws abroad through cooperation between companies and law enforcement authorities is an increasingly common approach to handling cases of FCPA violations (Koehler, 2019;Trautman & Kimbell, 2018).One prominent example is the settlement of the case against Ralph Lauren Corporation, in which the company provided extensive cooperation to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) after discovering violations in its business practices in Argentina.In the case of the Ralph Lauren Corporation, the company discovered that its Argentinian subsidiary had paid bribes to customs and government officials to facilitate the import of products into the country.After discovering the violation through an internal audit, the company immediately reported it to the SEC and DOJ.This fast and proactive response is the key to resolving this case through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
Ralph Lauren Corporation's cooperation with law enforcement authorities is highly appreciated by the SEC and DOJ (Matias, 2023;McCoy & Chi, 2022).The company provided thorough information regarding its bribery practices in Argentina, provided complete documentation, and even conducted an internal review of its operations in various countries (Kussainov et al., 2023;Nikolaienko et al., 2024).
This action shows the company's commitment to improving and correcting mistakes made.
Settlement of cases through NPA or Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) has become a common approach in enforcing corruption laws abroad.This allows companies to avoid lengthy and expensive litigation, while admitting their mistakes and being willing to make improvements.
The implementation of corruption laws abroad through cooperation also shows that companies willing to report themselves and cooperate with law enforcement authorities can gain significant benefits.In the case of Ralph Lauren Corporation, although the company had to pay a sizable settlement, their cooperation with the SEC and DOJ allowed them to avoid criminal prosecution and obtain an NPA.
Implementing corruption laws abroad through cooperation between companies and law enforcement officials is an effective approach in handling cases of FCPA violations.This collaboration allows for quick and efficient resolution, while ensuring that companies are accountable for their actions and committed to making necessary changes in their business practices.Therefore, this collaboration plays an important role in global efforts to eradicate corruption and improve good corporate governance.
After learning of bribery practices involving customs brokers, Ralph Lauren Corporation immediately took firm steps to stop these violations (Hemel & Lund, 2018;Vredenburg & Giroux, 2018).
One of the first steps taken was to terminate customs brokers involved in these corrupt practices, demonstrating the company's commitment to ending these illegal practices outright.
Ralph Lauren Corporation faced legal issues related to corrupt practices and responded with significant internal improvement measures, including strengthening their FCPA compliance program.
The company took concrete steps such as changing its anti-corruption policy and translating it into eight languages, improving due diligence procedures for third parties, and providing anti-corruption training for all employees.Additionally, Ralph Lauren Corporation ceased its retail operations in Argentina and initiated the process to wind down its other operations in the country, demonstrating their commitment to avoiding the risk of future corrupt practices.The company also cooperated extensively with the SEC and DOJ, providing necessary documentation and information as well as making witnesses available for interviews, demonstrating their dedication to the investigative process and improving the company's practices.
On the other hand, this case raises questions regarding the use of Non-Prosecution Agreements

305
(NPA) or Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA) in resolving corruption cases, which allow companies to avoid criminal prosecution by fulfilling certain conditions without having to admit their mistakes in court.The use of NPAs and DPAs is often seen as giving governments broad powers in negotiations, burdening companies with hefty fines and extensive liability without any definitive proof of their wrongdoing.This raises questions regarding the fairness of the negotiation process and the balance of relations between companies and law enforcement authorities, highlighting the need for further review of NPA and DPA agreements to ensure a fair and transparent case resolution process for all parties involved.Implementation of laws combating transnational corruption, particularly in the context of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), faces complex challenges and dynamics.The company's decision to voluntarily report suspected corruption violations to the authorities is a strategic step that is full of risks and benefits.Voluntary reporting provides an opportunity for companies to control the narrative and demonstrate their commitment to legal compliance, which can strengthen a company's image as a responsible and proactive entity in managing corruption risks.However, increased reporting mechanisms by whistleblowers, particularly through programs introduced by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, have increased the risks for companies that choose not to report violations they discover.
In the context of mergers and acquisitions, due diligence has become an important tool for identifying potential FCPA violations, often acquiring companies requiring the target company to report such violations as a condition of the transaction.This reflects a growing understanding that legal responsibility can shift to the acquiring company, making the identification and mitigation of corruption risks an important component of the due diligence process.International cooperation and increased exchange of information between regulators also play an important role in detecting and combating cross-border corruption.
On the other hand, the consequences of voluntary reporting can be significant and detrimental, including reputational damage, stock price declines, and civil litigation, in addition to further investigation and enforcement by foreign governments and international organizations.Investigationrelated costs can include significant financial resources as well as employee time and effort.Companies should weigh the benefits of voluntary reporting against the potential negative consequences, while continuing to work to strengthen internal compliance programs and an organizational culture that rejects corruption.Cooperation and dialogue between the private sector and regulators are also important in creating a more transparent and fair international business environment.The Ralph Lauren Corporation case illustrates how joint efforts between corporations and law enforcement authorities can be an effective strategy in confronting the challenge of transnational corruption.This highlights the importance of commitment to compliance and integrity in the global business environment.These findings contribute to a broader understanding of voluntary reporting in the context of the FCPA, demonstrating that transparency, accountability and international cooperation are key in fighting corruption worldwide.

CONCLUSION
This study shows that voluntary disclosures made by companies in anti-corruption law enforcement, based on an in-depth literature review, play an important role in facilitating effective collaboration between business and government entities.A company's decision to voluntarily report Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations is a complex strategic move influenced by legal incentives, cost-benefit calculations, reputational risks, and financial impacts.Voluntary reporting is a complex but important strategy in enforcing anti-corruption laws, and the success of this strategy depends on a balance between legal incentives, reputational risks, and financial impacts.The limitation of this study is that this research is mainly based on a literature review and may require further research with empirical data to strengthen these findings.Further research is needed regarding longitudinal studies to examine the long-term impact of voluntary reporting on corporate reputation and financial performance.This research underscores the importance of this study and its relevance in a global context that increasingly demands corporate transparency and accountability.
Daniel Andrew Joseph / Going Further in Combating Transnational Bribery: Voluntary Disclosure and Federal Transparency in America's  Foreign Corrupt Practices Law Daniel Andrew Joseph / Going Further in Combating Transnational Bribery: Voluntary Disclosure and Federal Transparency in America's  Foreign Corrupt Practices Law