FBI Sting Shakes Shot Show

Remember "Abscam" from 1978-1980, when Congressman John Jenrette went to prison for accepting bribes from an FBI agent posing as an Arab businessman? His wife, Rita, had to accept an offer to pose nude for Playboy because they needed the money to pay his legal defense costs. One of the defendants in this case was a former Secret Service agent and he got caught too? That surprises me. A Congressman without LE experience, yes, but a seasoned federal lawman? Apparently, either the FBI did a damn good job setting up the scam or the ex-Secret Service guy did a piss-poor job of investigating those he did business with.
 
Having once worked for a company that was too dumb to know how to pay bribes to foreign officials to do business in their countires, I know first-hand how little chance a US company has unless they play by the local rules. If a company has a foreign subsidiary to manage the bribes, they just lose it in the books. Companies without foreign subsidiaries either bribe at risk or get shut out. Oh, they still meet with you and go through the process, but you don't win the bid.

So a doc gets $6-7 figures for consulting and honoraria from drug companies, and a poor former US Gov't employee can't make a few thousand?

"Zero Tolerance" levels the playing field too - everyone playing loses.
 
Here is the part about the "Bribe" that I don't get at all.

"The defendants allegedly agreed to pay an illegal 20 percent commission to a sales agent they believed represented the defense minister of an unnamed African country. The sales agent was actually an undercover FBI agent, and no defense minister was involved." - Boston Globe.

Now I know that the globe often gets the facts very wrong, but if this isthe source of the Bribe I really am at a loss. Quite honestly a 20% commission to sell any product into africa seems fairly reasonable to me. Obviously there must be more here becuase as Derek points out the government could't possibly have wasted that kind of money on a commission overcharge.

Oh wait a minute, I read that wrong, of course they could have because this is all about the headline and they couldn't lose face over all that work and had to do something. My prediction without knowing any actual facts whatsoever is that this whole thing quietly goes away now. They'll get one more headline out of this. "Evil Gun manufacturer was unable to be charged with a crime becuase of a technicality....see how evil they are.....they are so evil that....evil" And then it will be done.
 
Read the indictments - they are available on the web. The issue is not the 20% commission, but that the indictees allegedly knew that 50% of that 10% would be used for a bribe. Even "intentional ignorance" (the Sgt. Schutlz approach) is a FCPA violation.

PS - cause if a 20% commission is illegal on firearms sales into africa, why can't we get that law here in the US as well
Click to expand...
A 20% commission is not illegal. Participating in bribery, even through an intermediary, is.
 
Last edited:
hminsky said:
It always pisses me off when I hear about one contractor elbowing another one out for a deal by offering a bribe, even if they are selling
inferior stuff, and I think prosecuting bribery is something that sets us apart from third world sh#tholes.

On the other hand, a big entrapment operation for this is just stupid. They couldn't actually find and
prosecute an actual case of bribery, instead of making this hugely expensive charade?
Click to expand...

It isnt entrapment.
 
While I understand bribing a US government official should be a crime in the United States, I fail to understand why the US believe it needs to mak bribing foreign governments illegal in the US. Why is it the job of the FBI to protect foreign governments from US contractors?

This is just one more thing that our government is spending tax payer money on to punish US companies for trying to do export business. Heaven forbid that we should allow US companies to do business in foreign countries by foreign rules (like everyone they're competing with)

How does this protect US citizens?
How does this protect US interests?
How does this strengthen the US economy?

It doesn't.


Bostonasphalt is correct.

Entrapment is a protection law which protects a person from criminal prosecution when performing an illegal action under the direction of a law official. While courts have extended this considerably in case law, the actual law only protects you if a reasonable person would have believed the person asking you to break the law was a law enforcement official AND you wouldn't have taken the illegal action unless you believed the requester was a law enforcement official.

Example:
A police officer identifies himself as a police officer and tells you he is working as part of a sting operation against a local firearms dealer who is knowning making staw sales. He asks you to go into the shop and ask the shop owner to sell you a handgun for your brother, because your brother can't buy one himeself.

Entrapment laws are intended to protect you from being arrested by the police officer for making a straw purchase or posessing said purchase without an FID card (should you not have one)
 
derek said:
But, but, but it's guns...
Click to expand...

SecondAmdFirst said:
Hmmmm....not all that different that what is going one with the Obama administration and one particular "green" window company. The difference.....the POTUS can do it and gun dealers can't.
Click to expand...

Will Brink said:
A very poor use of the FBI's resources and your/my tax $$$$$. Of all the things 150 agents can focus on and all the issues we have to face, and that's worth their time and our $$$? Big fail there. I suspect if one were to shake the bushes, someone or some dept. agenda would fall out....
Click to expand...

MaverickNH said:
...So a doc gets $6-7 figures for consulting and honoraria from drug companies, and a poor former US Gov't employee can't make a few thousand?

"Zero Tolerance" levels the playing field too - everyone playing loses.
Click to expand...

Taken all together, something smells rotten in Denmark.
 
ShadeWPI said:
While I understand bribing a US government official should be a crime in the United States, I fail to understand why the US believe it needs to mak bribing foreign governments illegal in the US. Why is it the job of the FBI to protect foreign governments from US contractors?
Click to expand...

Maybe they are protecting other US manufacturers who are not bribing officials and thus leveling the playing field for them to win foreign contracts.
 
From what I'm hearing through the grapevine (FFL's who know FFL's involved), this wasn't the big scandal that they're making it out to be, and at least some of the dealers involved were only involved peripherally, FWIW.
 
ShadeWPI said:
Entrapment is a protection law which protects a person from criminal prosecution when performing an illegal action under the direction of a law official. While courts have extended this considerably in case law, the actual law only protects you if a reasonable person would have believed the person asking you to break the law was a law enforcement official AND you wouldn't have taken the illegal action unless you believed the requester was a law enforcement official.
Click to expand...

That's entrapment by Estoppel.

Regular old entrapment is a different ballgame. The idea is that the police or authorities should not be able to induce you to commit a crime when you ordinarily would not.

An example would be the following- say the police really hate some guy, so they find some kiddy porn, put it in a box, and mail it to him anonymously. They stake out his house and wait until the mail comes, and then they see him open the box, and then arrest him for possessing kiddy porn. Such a prosecution would not fly due to entrapment laws.... because the guy had no way of knowing what was in the box without opening it.

It would be hard to argue that it applies in this case. The defense would have to show that the undercover LEO basically "forced" the defendant to commit a crime that they ordinarily would not have through their actions. One example would be if the FBI agent said something like "I need you to do this or I will kill your family" or if the same agent was shown to be relentless in terms of inducing the defendant to commit a crime. Of course there is a lot of gray as to how this flies in the courts. Standard of evidence varies. If the guy in the OP did this at the drop of a hat, he has no chance in hell of getting off on entrapment, however dumb the laws on this issue may be.

-Mike
 
the actual law only protects you if a reasonable person would have believed the person asking you to break the law was a law enforcement official AND you wouldn't have taken the illegal action unless you believed the requester was a law enforcement official.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are some more requirements - for example, a representation made by a state level LE official regarding a federal offense may not be used as the basis for this defense, which also causes me to wonder if a "reasonable belief" is enough or if the person making the representation actually has to be LE.
 
drgrant said:
It would be hard to argue that it applies in this case. The defense would have to show that the undercover LEO basically "forced" the defendant to commit a crime that they ordinarily would not have through their actions. One example would be if the FBI agent said something like "I need you to do this or I will kill your family" or if the same agent was shown to be relentless in terms of inducing the defendant to commit a crime. Of course there is a lot of gray as to how this flies in the courts. Standard of evidence varies. If the guy in the OP did this at the drop of a hat, he has no chance in hell of getting off on entrapment, however dumb the laws on this issue may be.
Click to expand...

Did any of the courts rule on whether or not Randy Weaver was "entrapped"?
 
GSG said:
Did any of the courts rule on whether or not Randy Weaver was "entrapped"?
Click to expand...

Not directly, but after the dust settled the jury pretty much cleared him of any wrongdoing. I think the only charge that stuck in the end was "Failure to appear" because he missed his court date.... (Which was, to some degree, arguably the government's fault, too. )

-Mike
 
What interests me is not the alleged crime, but when and where the FBI chose to make the arrests. It went down at the largest firearms convention in the nation....probably the world. Who ordered the arrests to be made at that time and at that location? I'll give 10 to 1 odds that it came directly from Holder himself. I hate that SOB. No one has done more to undermine our national security and put American lives at unnecessary risk than that sh_t-for-brains.

Holder has to go before his profoundly stupid policies get more Americans killed. [angry]
 
RFWAVELENGTH said:
Remember "Abscam" from 1978-1980, when Congressman John Jenrette went to prison for accepting bribes from an FBI agent posing as an Arab businessman? His wife, Rita, had to accept an offer to pose nude for Playboy because they needed the money to pay his legal defense costs.
Click to expand...

She had wicked nice boobs.
 
MassBites said:
What interests me is not the alleged crime, but when and where the FBI chose to make the arrests. It went down at the largest firearms convention in the nation....probably the world. Who ordered the arrests to be made at that time and at that location? I'll give 10 to 1 odds that it came directly from Holder himself.
Click to expand...

My guess... and it is only that..... would be that this was the place where all of the involved parties were going to be at the same time and maybe there was some finalization to the conspiracy that was to take place there. No different than taking down biker gang investigations at Daytona and/or Sturgis.
 
Half Cocked said:
My guess... and it is only that..... would be that this was the place where all of the involved parties were going to be at the same time and maybe there was some finalization to the conspiracy that was to take place there. No different than taking down biker gang investigations at Daytona and/or Sturgis.
Click to expand...
Hey, FBI agents want to see the booth babes and hit the slots too - they are only human... [laugh]

Expenses sir, lots and lots of casework related expenses... [rofl2]
 
Half Cocked said:
My guess... and it is only that..... would be that this was the place where all of the involved parties were going to be at the same time and maybe there was some finalization to the conspiracy that was to take place there. No different than taking down biker gang investigations at Daytona and/or Sturgis.
Click to expand...


I see your point, HC. Though I must admit, cekim's explanation was much funnier. [wink]

PS: Vegas baby. Hell yeah. It is my home away from home.

I love that town. [grin]
 
In the OLD DAYS, it was the BUYER who demanded the Pay-O-La. All you had to do was make sure the buyer was legit, and decide whether you wanted to play ball or not.
Having been a sales guy my whole career, I am proud to say that I have never ever sunk to the level where I would play that game. And here's why:

As soon as someone with DEEPER pockets comes along, you lose the business anyways.

I have made my career based on honest deals with honest customers, and have made loyal friends.

You can't go around making dishonest deals on behalf of your company.

I'm expecting that the owners of all of the companies will issue stern warnings to all employees on this subject.

Now, there's the subject of the intermediate BROKERS in all of this....... those are the real GUN RUNNERS... No rules apply!
 
DukeInMaine said:
I'm expecting that the owners of all of the companies will issue stern warnings to all employees on this subject.
Click to expand...
most/many already had... As a consultant/contractor I've sat through more "ethics seminars" than I can count and I am an engineer...

This is why I don't have a lot of sympathy. I do wonder if the "greater good" done here is justified by the cost and allocation of resources...

I know the argument is that if they bent the rules here, they likely bent them elsewhere, but I'd rather see a prosecution of a real crime on both sides of the table rather than one invented by the FBI.
 
Their work is not done yet!!!!! I just got back from the Shot Show and was told that 27 guns were stolen from the show along with a $25,000 Swarovski scope.
 
cekim said:
I do wonder if the "greater good" done here is justified by the cost and allocation of resources...

I know the argument is that if they bent the rules here, they likely bent them elsewhere, but I'd rather see a prosecution of a real crime on both sides of the table rather than one invented by the FBI.
Click to expand...

My guess is that the firearms companies who are not bribing people and are subsequently losing millions of dollars to those who are....... would disagree...

Would your position be different if the investigation was on a democratic politician instead of the firearms industry?
 
Last edited:
Half Cocked said:
My guess is that the firearms companies who are not bribing people and are subsequently losing millions of dollars to those who are....... would disagree...

Would your position be different if the investigation was on a democratic politician instead of the firearms industry?
Click to expand...
Fair question, particularly in light of the ACORN scandal...

The answer, in this case, is not quite that easy as the "opportunity cost" of those companies obeying the law is the same regardless... They (the law abiding companies) would not have gotten that business anyway right?

There is also the matter that our current administration's view of international arms dealing is woefully naive, if they honestly believe people are driving to TX to arm the cartels rather than any number of cheaper and easier sources of arms around the world. That's not to say that _some_ are not doing this, but I find it hard to believe, given the premium charged in our markets that we represent more than a drop in the bucket compared to theft from governments we arm directly and other sources of arms around the world that cost 1/2 to 1/10th what you'd have to pay in the US for the same weapon...

So, when you get down to it - I place the harm done to the "greater good" of this particular crime as much lower than influence peddling of our domestic politicians...

I don't care if its Democrat or Republican - the damage done to our nation is much greater in that case. I wasn't trying to indict the concept of buy-side stings - just a relative judgment of this one's value.

They (politicos in the FBI) like it because its "big bad gun dealers". I could give a hoot because its small potatoes and as I mentioned, the opportunity cost to law abiding dealers is small to nill since the market of African cleptocracies are closed to them anyway...
 

Similar threads

FBI Figures Show Crime Fell as Americans Stocked Up on Guns in 2023
Replies
1
Views
107
MaverickNH
MaverickNH
Biden Closing "Gun show loophole"
2
Replies
30
Views
879
zboys
zboys
FBI: Alleged American ISIS sympathizer planned to shoot up churches
Replies
9
Views
291
mothybee
mothybee
Show me your latest purchase
Replies
11
Views
467
AmeriKHAN
A
File under: Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime…
Replies
2
Views
279
ridleyman
R
Back
Top Bottom