Anything of Value « FCPA Professor

Archive for the ‘Anything of Value’ Category

Friday Roundup

Friday, April 26th, 2013

Simply inexcusable, tell us who, an interesting case study, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Simply Inexcusable

The government holds those subject to the FCPA to high standards. If the proverbial “right hand” in a company doesn’t know what the “left hand” is doing, the government is likely to call that an internal control failure.

Ought not the government be held to the same standard?

What follows is simply inexcusable.

In February 2012, Judge Lynn Hughes (S.D.Tex.) signed this final dismissal of the FCPA enforcement action against John O’Shea. The motion followed Judge Hughes granting O’Shea’s motion for acquittal after the DOJ’s case in chief in the FCPA trial. (See here for the prior post). During the case, Judge Hughes stated, among other things, as follows. “The problem here is that the principal witness against Mr. O’Shea . . . knows almost nothing. . . .; The government should have been prepared before they brought the charges to the Grand Jury. . . . You shouldn’t indict people on stuff you can’t prove.’’

Following the acquittal and dismissal, O’Shea has attempted to resume a normal life without the specter of criminal charges and possible jail time occupying his mind. It is understandable that O’Shea wants his reputation and “old” life back. But removing the taint of being labeled a criminal law violator by the government has not come easy for O’Shea.

Case in point is the following story.

O’Shea was recently hired by a company and traveled to Canada for a business trip. The trip was uneventful until O’Shea tried to enter Canada. It turns out the relevant government databases were not updated to reflect the disposition of his case – something that happened 14 months ago!

O’Shea indicated that he spent the entire afternoon with officials of the Canadian government to persuade them that he should not be put on the next plane back to the U.S. with U.S. marshals. O’Shea reports that the Canadian official was open-minded enough to visit internet sites suggested by O’Shea (including FCPA Professor) as proof that he was no longer a criminal defendant in the U.S.

After his business trip to Canada, O’Shea also had problems re-entering the U.S. from Canada and could not help but wonder whether someone would be waiting for him upon arrival in Houston. O’Shea reports that thankfully his fears were not realized, but he can not help but wonder what would have happened if his business trip was to some country other than Canada.

In short, the government’s internal control failure was simply inexcusable.

Tell Us Who

In the aftermath of this week’s Ralph Lauren enforcement action (see here for the prior post) alleging payments to Argentine customs officials, the Argentine government wants to know who the customs officials are.

As noted in a Law360 article, “in a letter to U.S. Ambassador to Argentina Vilma Martinez, the head of Argentina’s tax agency, Ricardo Echegaray, said that it was necessary for the Argentine government to have names and more detailed information about the alleged bribery to aid in a newly launched criminal investigation into the matter.” The article further stated as follows. “While seeking the names of Argentine officials implicated in the scheme, Echegaray also put the blame on Ralph Lauren’s customs brokers, who are not government officials, but rather private professionals hired to deal with trade matters. Echegaray likened these brokers’ roles to those of a tax adviser or accountant which companies hire for assistance.”

The question asked by the Argentine official is obviously a legitimate question.

But query whether the DOJ and/or SEC even know who the officials are.

As noted in this previous post concerning the SEC’s briefing in the Jackson and Ruehlen case involving alleged payments to Nigerian customs officials, the SEC argued that the name, titles and exact positions of foreign officials allegedly bribed need not be known in order to state a claim under the FCPAs anti-bribery provisions.

As highlighted in this previous post, in ruling on Jackson and Ruehlen’s motion to dismiss, Judge Keith Ellison (S.D.Tex.) noted in a footnote as follows.

“[T]he Court must disagree with Judge Hughes’s oral statements in a recent criminal FCPA prosecution. [U.S. v. O'Shea] (“You can’t convict a man promising to pay unless you have a particular promise to a particular person for a particular benefit. If you call up the Basurtos and say, look, I’m going to send you 50 grand, bribe somebody, that does not meet the statute.”). This Court holds that asking a third-party to bribe a government official, in order to induce that official to act in one of the proscribed ways detailed in [the FCPA], would meet the statute. The government does not have to “connect the payment to a particular official.”

Case Study

This post earlier this week regarding Wal-Mart noted that savvy investors should have recognized the NY Times induced “FCPA dip” of the company’s stock as a buying opportunity because the market often overreacts to FCPA issues.

In this post earlier this week regarding Ralph Lauren Corp.’s (RLC) FCPA enforcement action, it was noted that the RLC enforcement action was a rare instance of an issuer not previously disclosing its FCPA scrutiny. Thus, the first instance of public scrutiny appears to have been announcement of the enforcement action on Monday morning. RLC’s stock dipped approximately 2% on the news and closed at $165.93. The “FCPA dip” lasted only a day, as Tuesday the stock rebounded and then some and closed yesterday at $175.38.

Reading Stack

Miller & Chevalier’s seasonal FCPA alerts are always information reads. The firm recently released its FCPA Spring Review 2013.

Is sex as a “thing of value”? See here from Wendy Wysong (Clifford Chance) – with a particular focus on Asia.

Should you be looking for further citations that more FCPA enforcement is good for FCPA Inc., see this recent article in Lawyers Weekly, an Australian publication. The article begins as follows. “A crackdown on foreign bribery has created “a mountain of work” for lawyers, a Jones Day partner has said ahead of a major international anti-corruption conference.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Friday, March 8th, 2013

Well represented, scrutiny alerts / updates, and a timetable. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Well Represented

Companies that have resolved FCPA enforcement actions or have been otherwise the subject of FCPA scrutiny are well represented in Ethisphere’s recent World’s Most Ethical Companies list.

I point this out not to argue that Ethisphere’s methodology if flawed, but to demonstrate, consistent with this prior post, that just because a company resolves an FCPA enforcement action does not therefore mean that the company is a bad or unethical company. To the contrary, many FCPA enforcement actions involve companies, such as those on World’s Most Ethical Companies list, that have pre-existing FCPA compliance policies and procedures, yet because of respondeat superior, face legal exposure based on the conduct of a small group of individuals.

Companies appearing on the list that have recently resolved FCPA enforcement actions, or have otherwise been the subject of FCPA scrutiny, are: ABB, Deere & Company, Dun & Bradstreet, General Electric, Rockwell Automation, and Sempra Energy.

Scrutiny Alerts / Updates

Optimer Pharmaceuticals

Christopher Matthews (Wall Street Journal – Corruption Currents) reported earlier this week (here) that Optimer Pharmaceuticals is “investigating whether an attempted grant of stock options to the company’s co-founder violated the FCPA. According to the company’s recent earnings call transcript, the conduct under investigation relates to an ”attempted grant in September of 2011 to Dr. Michael Chang of 1.5 million technical shares of Optimer Biotechnology, Inc. (“OBI”) as well as “a potentially improper $300,000 payment in July 2011 to a research laboratory involving an individual who was also associated with the OBI share grant.” The company has disclosed the results of its preliminary investigation to the DOJ and SEC.

As noted in this previous post, business interests or equity interests have previously been a basis for FCPA scrutiny and FCPA enforcement actions.

Tesco Corporation

Tesco (a Houston based oil services company) disclosed in a recent SEC filing as follows.

“On December 26, 2012, we received a request by the staff of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that the Company take steps to preserve and retain five categories of documents relating to commercial agents who perform services for the corporate group in a foreign jurisdiction, the Company’s general use of commercial agents in that jurisdiction, and compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This request stated that it “should not be construed as an indication by the Commission, or its staff, that any violations of law have occurred; nor should it be considered an adverse reflection upon any person, entity, or security.” We have, under the advice and through independent external legal counsel, cooperated with and have provided the SEC staff with specific information which it has requested. External legal counsel for the Company has been advised by the SEC staff that no formal order of investigation has been issued. The outcome of the SEC’s review and any future financial impact resulting from this matter are indeterminable at this time.”

Bio-Rad

Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., a company that previously disclosed FCPA scrutiny, disclosed earlier this week (see here) that it would be unable to file its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2012 prior to the filing deadline. The SEC filing states, in pertinent part, as follows.

“Bio-Rad is unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 10-K”) prior to the filing deadline because the Company has not finalized its assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting due in part to recently raised issues and has not finalized an accrual for royalties payable by the Company as of December 31, 2012 under certain patent licenses from a third party. As previously reported, the Company has implemented enhancements to its internal control over financial reporting and is continuing to evaluate and improve its internal controls, including processes and procedures relating to the Company’s compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). The Company is currently in the process of finalizing its assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012 and will be unable to file the Form 10-K until the Company completes this assessment. “

Brookfield Asset Management

Prior posts here and here discussed the scrutiny of Brookfield Asset Management for conduct in Brazil. Today, the Wall Street Journal reported (here) that the “SEC is looking into allegations that a Brazilian unit” of the company “paid bribes to win construction permits.” According to the article, “a member of the SEC’s enforcement division is scheduled to interview a former executive in the Sao Paulo unit of Brookfield who made the allegations.” According to the article “the allegations include that Brookfield employee hired an armored truck to deliver cash to two city officials to speed the permits.”

Timetable

Via thebriberyact.com, a timetable for DPAs becoming real in the U.K. This is unfortunate, as discussed in this prior post.

*****

A good weekend to all.

Data Systems & Solutions LLC Resolves FCPA Enforcement Action

Thursday, June 21st, 2012

Earlier this week, Data Systems & Solutions LLC (“DS&S”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rolls Royce Holdings and based in Reston Virginia, resolved a DOJ FCPA enforcement action. The total fine was $8.82 million.

DS&S’s business includes the design, installation, and maintenance of instrumentation and controls systems at nuclear power plants, fossil fuel power plants, and other critical infrastructure facilities. According to the information, “DS&S’s instrumentation and controls business customers included state-owned nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe.” The charged conduct focuses on DS&S’s business with Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (“INPP”) described as a “state-owned nuclear power plant in Lithuania and an ‘agency’ and ‘instrumentality’ of a foreign government, as that term is used in the FCPA.” For more on INPP, see its website here.

According to the charging documents, payments were made by DS&S to various INPP employees primarily through subcontractors. The INPP employees are described as follows. Official 1 (the Deputy Head of the Instrumentation & Controls Department at INPP with influence over the award of contracts); Official 2 (the Head of Instrumentation & Controls Department at INPP with influence over the award of contracts); Official 3 (the Director General at INPP with influence over the award of contracts); Official 4 (the Head of International Projects Department at INPP with influence over the award of contracts); and Official A (the lead software engineer at INPP with influence over the award of contracts). All officials are alleged to “foreign officials as that term is used in the FCPA.”

The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information (here) against DS&S resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement (here).

Criminal Information

The information charges conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and one substantive FCPA anti-bribery violation. As to the conspiracy charge, the information alleges that between 1999 to 2004, DS&S and others conspired to “obtain and retain contracts for DS&S from INPP to design, install, and maintain INPP’s instrumentation and controls systems through the promise and payment of bribes to foreign officials employed by INPP.”

According to the information, DS&S would and did attempt to conceal the payments to foreign officials by using Subcontractor A Subcontractor B and Subcontractor C (an alleged U.S. shell company) to funnel bribes from DS&S to INPP officials. The information further alleges that: (i) ”Subcontractor A would and did pay bribes to INPP officials on behalf of DS&S by issuing tens of thousands of dollars in checks to INPP officials for deposit into the officials’ bank accounts in the United States”; (ii) DS&S “would and did pay INPP employees who were also employed by Subcontractor B significantly above-market rates for services performed by Subcontractor B in connection with DS&S contracts with INPP in exchange for the INPP employees’ support for the award of contracts to DS&S” and in a manner designed to allow those employees to avoid taxes on the payments from DS&S; (iii) DS&S “would and did provide gifts, travel, and entertainment to employees of INPP in exchange for those foreign officials’ agreements to help DS&S secure contracts with INPP. The travel alleged includes trips to Florida and Hawaii and gifts alleged include a Cartier watch.

Executive A (vice president of marketing and business development at DS&S during the relevant time period responsible for marketing and business development efforts in connection with DS&S’s nuclear services, including power plant customers in Eastern Europe) is alleged to have engaged in a variety of the improper conduct.

DPA

The DOJ’s charges against DS&S were resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement. Pursuant to the DPA, DS&S admitted, accepted and acknowledged that it is responsible for the acts of its officers, directors, employees, and agents as charged in the information.

The term of the DPA is two years and it states that the DOJ entered into the agreement based on the following factors: “(a) following the receipt of subpoenas in connection with the government’s investigation, DS&S initiated an internal investigation and provided real-time reports and updates of its investigation into the conduct described in the Information; (b) DS&S’s cooperation has been extraordinary, including conducting an extensive, thorough, and swift internal investigation; providing to the Department searchable databases of documents downloaded from servers, computers, laptops, and other electronic devices; collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information to provide to the Department in a comprehensive report; and responding promptly and fully to the Department’s requests; (c) DS&S has engaged in extensive remediation, including terminating the officers and employees responsible for the corrupt payments; dissolving the joint venture and reorganizing and integrating the Company as a subsidiary with a more rigorous compliance program; enhancing its due diligence protocol for third-party agents and subcontractors, including CEO review and approval of the retention of any agent or subcontractor; strengthening its ethics policies, including the appointment of a Company Ethics Representative who reports directly to the CEO and provides regulator reports to the Members Committee at each Committee meeting; providing FCPA training for all agents and subcontractors; and establishing heightened review of most foreign transactions; (d) DS&S has committed to continue to enhance its compliance program and internal controls …; and (e) DS&S has agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of DS&S and its officers, directors, employees, agents and subcontractors relating to violations of the FCPA.

Pursuant to the DPA, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for the conduct at issue was $12.6 – $25.2 million. The DPA states as follows. “DS&S agrees to pay a monetary penalty in the amount of $8,820,000, an approximately thirty-percent reduction off the bottom of the fine range [...] DS&S and the Department agree that this fine is appropriate given the facts and circumstances of this case, including the nature and extent of DS&S’s extraordinary cooperation and extensive remediation in this matter.”

Pursuant to the DPA, DS&S agreed to report to the DOJ “periodically, at no less than twelve-month intervals during the two-year term, regarding remediation and implementation of the compliance program and internal controls, policies, and procedures” described in an attachment to the DPA. As is customary in FCPA DPA’s, DS&S agreed that it shall not make any public statement contradicting its acceptance of responsibility.

See here for the DOJ’s release. Given the allegation in the information that INPP officials received payments into their bank accounts in the U.S., it will be interesting to see whether the INPP officials are charged with non-FCPA offenses. Such a U.S. nexus was used to prosecute certain of the “foreign officials” in the Haiti Teleco enforcement action (see here for a summary of those actions) as well as the Siriwan’s in connection with the Green matter (see here for the prior post).

Carl Rauh (Hogan Lovells – here) represented DS&S.

Friday Roundup

Friday, June 15th, 2012

Checking in on Wal-Mart, an enforcement action that flew under the radar from beginning to end, a guilty plea in the U.K., and is sex a thing of value? It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Wal-Mart

Various reports this week reported on the expansion of Wal-Mart’s FCPA probe. As many readers know, this is hardly surprising as most FCPA inquiries result in the “where else” question as indicated in this prior guest post. Even if the enforcement agencies do not actually ask the “where else” question, a company knows it will eventually be asked and will thus likely conduct a broader review of certain other FCPA high-risk jurisdictions not part of the original inquiry on its own initiative and to demonstrate to the enforcement agencies its committment to compliance and its cooperation.

This June 12th letter from Elijah Cummings (D-MD, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) and Henry Waxman (D-CA, Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce) to Wal-Mart CEO Michael Dukes references that Wal-Mart’s review has expanded beyond Mexico to also include Brazil, China, South Africa and India. Indeed, the letter references that Wal-Mart is “conducting a worldwide assessment of the company’s anti-corruption policies” something Wal-Mart indicated it was already doing. In short, Wal-Mart’s FCPA inquiry is following a typical path.

In the letter, Cummings and Waxman again express disappointment as to Wal-Mart’s cooperation in their own Congressional probe. For more on Cummings and Waxman’s interest in Wal-Mart, see this prior post (and links therein).

Meanwhile on the civil litigation front, a 12th lawsuit has been filed in the wake of April’s New York Times story. As noted in this release from the New York City Comptroller, New York City Pension Funds filed a shareholder derivative action in the Delaware Chancery Court alleging “that Wal-Mart’s officers and directors breached their fiduciary duty to the company and its shareholders by failing to properly handle credible claims of the bribery allegations and attempting to cover up details of the scandal.”

Under the Radar

This post from March 2011 highlighted how criminal charges against Manual Salvoch flew under the radar in that the DOJ did not issue a press release announcing the charges and the enforcement action appeared to escape coverage elsewhere. Salvoch is the former CFO of LatiNode and was charged in connection with payments to Hondutel (see here - according to the charging documents a state-owned telecommunications company in Honduras responsible for providing telecommunications services in Honduras). The Hondutel payments also resulted in criminal charges against Jorge Granados (the founder and former CEO and Chairman of the Board of LatiNode), Manuel Caceres (a former Vice President of Business Development) and Juan Vasquez (a former senior commercial executive).

This prior post highlights the sentences of Granados, Caceres and Vasquez.

Last week, Salvoch was sentenced by Judge Paul Huck (S.D. of Florida) t0 10 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. Just like the beginning, the end of the Salvoch enforcement action also flew under the radar.

The final sentencing scorecard in the LatiNode individual prosecutions is thus as follows.

Granados – 46 months

Caceres – 23 months

Vasequez – 3 years probation

Salvoch – 10 months.

U.K. Plea

Previous posts (here and here) discussed charges on both sides of the Atlantic against Paul Jennings, the former CEO of Innospec. Earlier this week, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office announced (here) that Jennings pleaded guilty to the following charges: “Two allegations of conspiracy to corrupt in that he gave or agreed to give corrupt payments to public officials and other agents of the Government of Indonesia (between 14 February 2002 and 31 December 2008) and Iraq (between 1 January 2003 and 31 January 2008) as inducements to secure, or as rewards for having secured, contracts from that Government for the supply of its products including Tetraethyl Lead by Innospec.”

As noted in this previous post, in March 2010, Innospec resolved enforcement actions on both sides of the Atlantic based on the same core set of facts.

Thing of Value?

At its core, the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions require “anything of value” to a “foreign official” to “obtain or retain business.”

This recent Reuters story concerning an employee of Oracle’s business unit in Singapore has a “foreign official” (the former head of the city-state’s anti-narcotics agency) and the article describes that the thing of value was provided to the “foreign official” as “an inducement to help further the firm’s business interest.”

The thing of value?

Sex.

Can sex be a thing of value under the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions? I guess it depends, it’s a factual issue.

On that note, a good weekend to all.

Cobalt Experiences The Front Page Effect As Well

Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

Wal-Mart’s stock is not alone in experiencing a wild ride based on recent front page news coverage of FCPA issues. Last week, Cobalt International (a Houston based oil exploration and production company) experienced a wild ride as well.

On Friday, April 13th, Cobalt’s shares closed at $28.38.

On Sunday, April 15th, the Financial Times (“FT”) published two articles: “Spotlight Falls on Cobalt’s Angola Partner” and “Angola Officials Held Hidden Oil Stakes” that spooked investors the following day. Never mind that, as in Wal-Mart’s case, Cobalt disclosed FCPA scrutiny weeks earlier – see here for the prior post. (Point taken that market reaction to Wal-Mart – the stock was down an additional 3% yesterday, down approximately 8% this week – is likely not just based on Wal-Mart’s potential FCPA scrutiny, but Wal-Mart’s response (or lack thereof) to the payments since 2005 and the impact this could have for senior leadership at the company).

The FT articles document how in 2008 Cobalt was looking to obtain rights to drill for oil in Angolan waters. According to the FT, an Angolan government stipulation was that Cobalt would have partner with Nazaki Oil & Gaz, described by the FT as “an obscure local company.” According to the articles, FT confirmed that “three of the most powerful figures in the Angolan regime have held interests in Nazaki.” The FT stated that these individuals “interests in Cobalt’s local partner could raise questions about compliance with U.S. anti-corruption laws, which make it a crime to pay or offer anything of value to foreign officials to win business.” For its part, Cobalt stated in the articles that its extensive and ongoing due diligence “has not found any credible support for the central allegation that Angolan government officials, and specifically the officials identified … have any ownership in Nazaki” and that the company “has at all times complied fully with both U.S. and Angolan laws.”

Nevertheless, in mid-day trading on Monday, April 16th, the company’s stock plunged approximately 11% and closed at $26.35, down approximately 7% from its previous close.

After watching its stock dive based on the FT article, Cobalt issued a release (here) strongly refuting “any allegations of wrong doing and once again stood behind its principles of full compliance with all laws in all jurisdictions in which it operates.” According to Cobalt’s release, “prior to publication of [the FT] articles, Cobalt went on the record asking for any documentation that the Financial Times could offer which was at odds with its position. The Financial Times declined Cobalt’s repeated requests for supporting documentation. In fact, in the course of these communications, Cobalt informed the Financial Times of certain egregious, demonstrably false allegations that it provided to Cobalt.” As noted in the release, “Cobalt began its investigation into its Angola business relationships in 2007. Cobalt has based its decisions and actions on the results of these extensive investigations and will continue to maintain rigorous due diligence in all of its worldwide activities. Cobalt remains confident that it has not violated any US or Angolan Law and will vigorously defend its reputation and legal rights in this matter.”

On Tuesday April 17th, as if on cue, a plaintiff shareholder firm announced (here) that it is investigating “potential claims on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Cobalt International Energy Inc. concerning whether the company and certain of its officers and directors have violated federal securities laws.” Other shareholder firms have joined in as well – see here.

Also on Tuesday April 17th, Morgan Stanley, in a morning equity summary, said that the “market is overreacting to worries of alleged” Cobalt violations and that Cobalt “has no risk of losing” its interest in the Angola blocks. The company’s shares climbed approximately 4% and closed at $27.44. Since then the company’s stock has generally trended downward, yesterday it closed at $26.41.

What to make of Cobalt’s potential FCPA exposure?

Time will tell of course, but the DOJ has previously brought FCPA enforcement actions where the thing of value given to the “foreign official” was provided in the context of a business relationship with a company owned or controlled by a “foreign official” or family members.

For instance, in both the Charles Jumet and John Warwick (these individuals were employed by Ports Engineering Consultants Corporation) charging documents (here and here) the DOJ generally alleged as follows.

“Government Official A was the Administrator of Panama’s National Maritime Ports Authority (APN), the Panamanian governmental entity responsible for operating and maintaining the lighthouses and buoys in the waterways near the Panama Canal.” ”Government Official B” was at various times the Deputy Administrator or Administrator of APN. “Government Official C was a very high-ranking executive official of the Republic of Panama.”

According to the charging documents, Government Official A owned a shell corporation, Soderville Corporation, which become a majority shareholder of Ports Engineering Consultants Corporation (PECC). Government Official B’s relatives were corporate officers of Warmspell Holding Corporation, which became a shareholder of PECC.

The DOJ alleged a conspiracy “to pay money secretly to Panamanian government officials in return for awarding PECC contracts to maintain lighthouses and buoys along Panama’s waterways.” According to the DOJ, part of the conspiracy was that Government Official A and Government Official B received “corrupt payments” in the form of purported ‘dividends’ and that Government Official C received “bearer” shares from PECC as part of the conspiracy.

Doing business with a “foreign official” of course is not per se illegal under the FCPA and several FCPA Opinion Procedure Releases discuss the issue – see here, here and here for instance.

Yet one of the red flags when engaging foreign partners is when a company is told by the foreign government who to do business with. In such a situation, a company needs to ask itself – why are we being told to do business with this company? A company needs to do sufficient pre-engagement due diligence, as Cobalt claims it did in Angola, to understand who the owners are to be satisfied that it is not being told to do business with the particular entity simply as an indirect way of enriching foreign officials.