Debatable. I'm more inclined to believe it should be the party paying the fines, because then the punishment would try to deter the first part of the process, rather than the latter (receiving the money). So you'd try to nip the bribing process in the bud.
Plus, if you're say a politician, and everyone throws money at you to bribe you, because they have no risk in doing that (only you do), you may eventually take that risk and cave in (especially since you'd be in a position of power, and you'd think nothing bad could happen to you, even if you do get discovered).
But if you were to punish companies for giving bribes to politicians, I think that would be a more effective way of stopping the whole thing.
Or think if you wanted to bribe a government clerk to do some papers for you faster. You'd know there is a risk for being punished over it, so you may not even try. Even if the clerk would tell you to pay them money to quicken the process, you may think it could be a trap, since he'd be working for the government.
But if the punishment wouldn't affect you, then "it wouldn't hurt to ask" if the clerk accepts bribes to quicken processing your papers. The clerk would be taking the risk, and you wouldn't care if she gets caught. And you'd be willing to pay to get those papers faster.
Based on existing laws, accepting bribes is unethical and usually illegal. There will always be someone willing to bribe you no matter what the penalties are, and going after those who paid bribes will not actually stop that IMO. Companies act illegally all the time, and when its in their interests to do so they will continue.
Making the penalties for accepting bribes be more significant (more than the benefit gained by accepting the bribe) would significantly deter people from taking bribes regardless of how many people or how often.
I think we both have good points, so maybe the solution would be offering and accepting bribes should be illegal and penalized, and both parties should be penalized more than the benefits gained by offering/accepting the bribes. In this case, Qualcomm should be fined a much more significant amount of 4.9%, and apple too should be fined more than the price reductions + payouts they received from Qualcomm
Plus, if you're say a politician, and everyone throws money at you to bribe you, because they have no risk in doing that (only you do), you may eventually take that risk and cave in (especially since you'd be in a position of power, and you'd think nothing bad could happen to you, even if you do get discovered).
But if you were to punish companies for giving bribes to politicians, I think that would be a more effective way of stopping the whole thing.
Or think if you wanted to bribe a government clerk to do some papers for you faster. You'd know there is a risk for being punished over it, so you may not even try. Even if the clerk would tell you to pay them money to quicken the process, you may think it could be a trap, since he'd be working for the government.
But if the punishment wouldn't affect you, then "it wouldn't hurt to ask" if the clerk accepts bribes to quicken processing your papers. The clerk would be taking the risk, and you wouldn't care if she gets caught. And you'd be willing to pay to get those papers faster.