Tuesday, April 10, 2018

J.P. Morgan And Chase Bribes High Powered Relatives With Big Jobs

JP Morgan and Chase in the years of 2006 through 2012 was involved in
a bribery scandal (SEC.gov). JP Morgan’s Asia-Pacific region was
investigated in 2013 and later found guilty (Nytimes.com). Asia-Pacific
executives were found guilty of creating a client referral program which
would grant job candidates referred to through the program with well-paying,
career advancing positions (SEC.gov) These candidates would take
precedence over job seekers who had to go through the normal hiring process.
Moreover, the client referral program was only offered to client executives and influential
persons within the government. So for six years the Asia-Pacific
sector was breaking protocol and affecting thousands of applicants
lives applying for the job. There is no doubt this act is impermissible
and arguably this stands true for most theories.
From an individualist standpoint the stakeholders are bank clients, bank
investors, executives, employees and community (These stakeholders stand
true for all schools of ethics). An individualist is business minded, believing
the only ethics in business is to make money and act within the confines of
the law. Knowing this is illegal, immediately points to impermissibility from an
individualist. From a utilitarian perspective at first glance seemingly impermissible
but when diving deep does make sense. A utilitarian would argue that by hiring
relatives of client executives and government influencers this makes not
only the new employee happy, but the clients of the bank and also the
company itself is put into a good position. This increases happiness for a
larger amount of people than just by hiring one person with no ties, that
being said it could be considered permissible. From a kant perspective
he would not consider this act permissible. As we know Kantian ethics is
derived from categorical imperatives, if it they are applicable to us and
we break it, it is ethically impermissible (csus.com). This case can be
summed up by a kant as follows: “You must follow hiring
procedures”, contradiction immediately arises. From a virtue perspective
it depends entirely on which branch of virtue you follow. Virtue theory
states you must be increasing your value of life in your actions. Meaning
a person must be doing what is best for them, but also being rational
(plato.stanford.edu). Keyword, being rational, the rationality of this situation
is grey area. One might claim it is not completely irrational, but for
a person to break the law in such a high position is a very high risk move.
Furthermore, this move does break several virtuous traits of business such as trust,
fairness and honesty. Making it a poor moral decision as it goes against necessary traits of
business. Thus, claimable as impermissible.

Works Cited

Hursthouse, Rosalind, and Glen Pettigrove. “Virtue Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Stanford University, 18 July 2003, plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/.

“JPMorgan Chase Paying $264 Million to Settle FCPA Charges.” SEC, SEC, 17 Nov. 2016,       

“Utilitarianism.” Ethics Unwrapped, University of Texas,

“Kantian Ethics.” Csus, California State University Sacramento,

Stevenson, Ben Protess and Alexandra. “JPMorgan Chase to Pay $264 Million to Settle Foreign
Bribery Case.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Nov. 2016,

No comments:

Post a Comment