Archive for the ‘Brazil’ Category

Dallas Airmotive Inc. The Latest Aircraft Maintenance Company To Resolve An FCPA Enforcement Action

Friday, December 12th, 2014

Dallas Air

First it was Oklahoma-based BizJet International in 2012 (see here).  Then it was Oklahoma-based The NORDAM Group in 2012 (see here). The latest aircraft maintenance company to resolve a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action is Texas-based Dallas Airmotive.

Earlier this week, the DOJ announced that “Dallas Airmotive Inc., a provider of aircraft engine maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services based in Grapevine, Texas, has admitted to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and agreed to pay a $14 million criminal penalty to resolve charges that it bribed Latin American government officials in order to secure lucrative government contracts.”

As highlighted in this post discussing unsealed documents in connection with individual FCPA prosecutions of BizJet executives, all three enforcement actions seemed to be casually related.

Criminal Information

The Dallas Airmotive criminal information focuses on the conduct of Dallas Airmotive do Brasil (DAB), a corporate affiliate under the direction and control of Dallas Airmotive Inc. (DAI), and the information states that DAB’s employees were supervised and managed by directors and managers of DAI.  According to the information, DAB assisted DAI in providing MRO engine services to customers in Latin America, including to governmental and other customers.  The information states that DAB also bid on and secured engine service contracts with Brazilian government and commercial customers, the work for which was often done in part by DAI.

According to the information, DAI conspired with a DAI Sales Director (an individual responsible for overseeing DAI’s sales efforts in Latin America), a DAI Sales Agent (an individual responsible for obtaining and retaining MRO business for DAI and DAB in Latin America, including with commercial and government customers), a DAI Sales Manager (an individual responsible for obtaining and retaining MRO business for DAI and DAB in Latin America, including with commercial and government customers), DAB Manager A (an individual responsible for obtaining and retaining MRO business for DAI and DAB in Latin America, including with commercial and government customers), DAB Manager B (an individual responsible for obtaining and retaining MRO business for DAI and DAB in Latin America, including with government customers), Official 1 (a Sub-Officer in the Brazilian Air Force – BAF), Official 2 (a Sergeant in the BAF), Official 3 (a Captain for the Governor of the Brazilian state of Roraima), Front Company A (a Brazil-based sales and logistics services company that was affiliated with Official 1), Front Company B (a Brazil-based sales and logistics services company that was beneficially owned by Official 1), and a Intermediary Company (a Brazil-based company that was used to make payments for the benefit of Official 3), and others to make improper payments to the foreign officials to assist DAI in obtaining and retaining business.

According to the information, the purpose of the conspiracy was to obtain and retain engine MRO service business for DAI and DAB from foreign government customers in Latin America, including the BAF, the Peruvian Air Force, the Office of the Governor of the Brazilian State of Roraima, and the Office of the Governor of the Argentinean State of San Juan, by paying bribes to foreign officials employed by such customers.

According to the information, DAI, through its employees and agents, including employees of DAB, discussed in person and via e-mail making bribe payments – which they called “commissions” or “consulting fees” – and granting other benefits to employees of customers, including foreign government customers, in order to obtain and retain for DAI and DAB business to perform engine MRO services.  According to the information, certain bribe payments were wired from DAI’s bank account in New York and DAB’s bank account in Brazil to bank accounts of Front Company A, Front Company B, and Intermediary Company in Brazil.

The information also alleges that DAI/ DAB paid for a vacation for Official 2 and his spouse in exchange for Official 2′s assistance in securing MRO business.

As to Peru and Argentina, the information alleges that payments were made to a bank account of a third party commercial representative in Florida and Argentina (respectively) while knowing that the funds, at least in part, would be passed on to officials of the Peruvian Air Force and the office of the Governor of the Argentinean State of San Juan.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, DAI was also charged with one substantive violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.

Deferred Prosecution Agreement

The above charges were resolved via this DPA in which DAI admitted, accepted and acknowledged that it was responsible for the acts alleged in the information.  The 3 year DPA states, under relevant considerations, as follows.

“The DOJ enters into this Agreement based on the individual facts and circumstances presented by this case and the Company. Among the factors considered were the following: (a) the Company’s substantial cooperation, including conducting an internal investigation, voluntarily making U.S. and foreign employees available for interviews, and collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information for the DOJ; (b) the Company’s improvements to date to its compliance program and internal controls, as well as its commitment to continue to enhance its compliance program and internal controls, including ensuring that its compliance program satisfies the minimum elements set forth in the DPA; (c) the nature and scope of the offense conduct; and (d) the Company’s agreement to continue to cooperate with the DOJ in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of the Company and its officers, directors, employees, and agents relating to possible violations under investigation by the DOJ.”

As highlighted in the DPA, the advisory guidelines fine range was $17.5 million to $35 million.  The DPA states as follows.

“The Company agrees to pay a monetary penalty in the amount of $14,000,000 to the United States Treasury within ten (10) days of the filing of the Information. The Company and the Office agree that this fine is appropriate given the facts and circumstances of this case, including the cooperation in this matter and the nature and scope of the offense conduct.”

As common in FCPA DPAs, DAI “expressly agree[d] that it shall not, through present or future attorneys, officers, directors, employees, agents or any other person authorized to speak for the Company, make any public statement, in litigation or otherwise, contradicting the acceptance of responsibility by the Company set forth [in the DPA and Information].”

Karen Seymour (Sullivan & Cromwell) represented Dallas Airmotive.

This Wall Street Journal Risk & Compliance post notes:

“A spokeswoman for the company said the U.S. Justice Department acknowledged the firm’s cooperation and the improvements it made to its compliance program. She said the company upholds high standards articulated in its code of business ethics, but it regrets that “those standards were breached by a limited number of third-party agents and employees of Dallas Airmotive’s business in South America” from 2008 through 2012. “These individuals are no longer with the company, and Dallas Airmotive do Brasil and our South American sales team are operating under new leadership,” the spokeswoman said in an email.”

Items Of Interest From The Recent Dutch Enforcement Action Against SBM Offshore

Monday, December 1st, 2014

Dutch-based SBM Offshore recently resolved an enforcement action in the Netherlands.  With a settlement amount of $240 million, the SBM Offshore enforcement action is believed to be the third largest bribery enforcement action of 2014 with China’s $490 million enforcement action against GlaxoSmithKline and the U.S.’s $384 million enforcement action against Alcoa consisting of the top two.

The enforcement action was pursuant to Article 74 of the Dutch Penal Code, a provision of Dutch law that has been criticized by the OECD.

As stated by the OECD, Article 74 of the Dutch Penal Code “essentially involves the payment of a sum of money by the defendant to avoid criminal proceedings.”  Regarding such out-of-court settlements, the OECD has further noted that “out-of-court settlements in the Netherlands do not require an admission of guilt.”

In its December 2012 Phase 3 review of the Netherlands, one of the follow-up items listed was: “the use of out-of-court transactions for foreign bribery offences, as governed by article 74 of the  Dutch Penal Code, to ensure that they result in the imposition of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions (Convention, Article 3.1).”

Regarding the SBM Offshore action, the Dutch Prosecutor’s Service announced:

“SBM Offshore has accepted an offer from the Dutch Public Prosecutor’s Service to enter into an out-of-court settlement. The settlement consists of a payment by SBM Offshore … of US$ 240,000,000 in total. This amount consists of a US$ 40,000,000 fine and US$ 200,000,000 disgorgement. This settlement relates to improper payments to sales agents and foreign government officials in Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Brazil in the period from 2007 through 2011 [...]. According to the [Dutch prosecutors] those payments constitute the indictable offences of bribery in the public and the private sector as well as forgery.”

According to the release, the reasons for the out-of-court settlement include:

  • SBM Offshore itself brought the facts to the attention of the authorities …SBM Offshore itself investigated the matter and agreed to fully cooperate with subsequent criminal investigations …;
  • there has been a new Management Board since 2012;
  • after it became aware of the facts, the newly established Management Board of SBM Offshore, at its own initiative, has taken significant measures to improve the company’s compliance; and
  • as noted in SBM Offshore’s press release, the current Management Board and Supervisory Board regret the failure of control mechanisms in place in the past.

According to the release, “from 2007 to 2011, SBM Offshore paid approximately US$ 200 million in commissions to foreign sales agents for services.  The largest part of these commissions totaling US $180.6 million, relate to Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Brazil.”

As to Equatorial Guinea, the release states:

“In early 2012, it came to SBM Offshore’s attention that one of its former sales agents might have given certain items of value to government officials in Equatorial Guinea. This reportedly involved one or more cars and a building. In the opinion of the Openbaar Ministerie and the FIOD, SBM Offshore’s former sales agent paid a significant portion of the commissions paid to him by SBM Offshore on to third parties, who in turn would have forwarded parts of these payments to one or more government officials in Equatorial Guinea. There also are other payments, such as education and health insurance costs. In the opinion of the [Dutch authorities], such (forwarded) payments took place with the knowledge of people who at the time were SBM Offshore employees, including someone who at the time was a member of the Management Board. From 2007 through 2011, SBM Offshore paid that particular sales agent USD 18.8 million in total in relation to Equatorial Guinea.”

As to Angola, the release states:

“In the period from 2007 through 2011, SBM Offshore also used several sales agents in Angola. These sales agents received commissions for services regarding certain projects in Angola. In the opinion of the [Dutch authorities], Angolan government officials, or persons associated with Angolan government officials, who are associated with at least one of these sales agents, received funds. In addition, there are payments for travel and study costs to one or more Angolan government officials or their relatives. Also with respect to Angola, the [Dutch authorities] are of the opinion that such payments took place with the knowledge of people who at the time were SBM Offshore employees. In the period from 2007 through 2011, SBM Offshore paid USD 22.7 million in commissions to its sales agents in connection with Angola.”

As to Brazil, the release states:

“With regard to Brazil, certain “red flags” relating to the main sales agent used in Brazil were found during the internal investigation commissioned by SBM Offshore. These red flags included:

  • the high amounts (in absolute terms) of commission that were paid to the sales agent and its companies;
  • a split between commissions paid to the sales agent between its Brazilian and its offshore entities; and
  • documents indicating the sales agent had knowledge of confidential information about a Brazilian client.

The internal investigation conducted by SBM Offshore did not yield any concrete evidence that payments may have been made to one or more government officials in Brazil. In the period from 2007 through 2011, SBM Offshore paid USD 139.1 million in commissions to its sales agents in connection with Brazil.

A mutual legal assistance request in the context of the investigation conducted by the [Dutch authorities] established that payments were made from the Brazilian sales agent’s offshore entities to Brazilian government officials. These findings resulted from means of investigation inaccessible to SBM Offshore.”

The release states, under the heading “Further Investigation” as follows.

“It appears from the criminal investigation that certain natural persons have been involved in the criminal offences committed in the opinion of the [Dutch authorities]. In a case like the one at hand, the [Dutch authorities] has jurisdiction if criminal acts are committed in the Netherlands, or when criminal acts are committed abroad by persons with the Dutch nationality. From the current state of affairs of the investigation, this does not appear to be the case. The [Dutch authorities] will cooperate fully with the countries that have jurisdiction to prosecute the natural persons involved.”

In this release, SBM Offshore stated that “the United States Department of Justice has informed SBM Offshore that it is not prosecuting the Company and has closed its inquiry into the matter.”

The SBM Offshore release further states:

Self-Reporting

The settlement with the [Dutch authorities] is a result of the discussions between the [Dutch authorities] and SBM Offshore, which started after SBM Offshore voluntarily informed the [Dutch authorities] and the United States Department of Justice of its self-initiated internal investigation in the spring of 2012. The findings of the internal investigation were communicated in SBM Offshore’s press release of April 2, 2014. SBM Offshore fully cooperated with the [Dutch authorities] and the United States Department of Justice.

Remedial Measures

With its voluntary reporting of the internal investigation to the [Dutch authorities], the United States Department of Justice and the market in April 2012, SBM Offshore made it clear that it wants to conduct its business transparently. The Supervisory Board appointed a new Management Board that took office in the first half of 2012. The new Management Board has repeatedly stressed the importance of compliance inside and outside the organisation. The Company, with the assistance of its advisors, enhanced its anti-corruption compliance program and related internal controls. The Company shared these measures with the [Dutch authorities] and the United States Department of Justice. The measures include:

  • the appointment of [a] Chief Governance and Compliance Officer, a newly created Management Board position;
  • the appointment of a seasoned compliance professional as Compliance Director, another newly created position;
  • the enhancement of anti-corruption related policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance by Company employees as well as third parties;
  • at the inception of the internal investigation, a review of all sales agents who were active at that time;
  • a decision to no longer use sales agents in those countries where the Company itself has a substantial presence;
  • the enhancement of compliance procedures related to the retention of sales agents, other intermediaries and joint venture partners;
  • the launch of a significant training effort for employees in compliance-sensitive positions;
  • the enhancement of mechanisms to report potential wrongdoing;
  • the enhancement of the Company’s internal financial controls related to anti-corruption compliance and internal audit processes; and
  • disciplinary actions against employees who were involved in or had knowledge of possible improper payments, including termination of employment agreements.

Although the current Management Board and the Supervisory Board regret that in the past, SBM Offshore’s processes relating to the monitoring of its sales agents appeared to not have been of a standard that allowed SBM Offshore to ensure the integrity of the actions taken by its sales agents, SBM Offshore believes that with these measures it offers a transparent and open Company to its clients and other stakeholders.

In the release Bruno Chabas (CEO of SBM Offshore) stated:

“SBM welcomes the conclusion of all discussions with the Dutch and U.S. authorities. We have been open, transparent and accountable throughout this difficult process which has addressed issues from a past era. We can now focus on the future, secure in the knowledge that we have put in place an enhanced compliance culture which embeds our core values.”

To some, the lack of a DOJ enforcement action against SBM Offshore was a declination.  However, such a conclusion implies that there was actually an FCPA enforcement action to bring against SBM Offshore.

Two points are relevant to this issue.  First, as noted in this Global Investigations Review article, SBM Offshore’s outside counsel comments that the company disclosed to the Dutch authorities an the DOJ “before we had done much of the internal investigation.” Second, SBM Offshore could only be prosecuted for FCPA anti-bribery violations to the extent the conduct at issue had a U.S. nexus.

World Cup Puts Focus on Complex Compliance Issues In Brazil

Wednesday, June 11th, 2014

Today’s post is from Gregory Paw (Pepper Hamilton LLP).

*****

Tomorrow afternoon, Brazil begins what many hope will be a month-long showcase of “joga bonito” – the Brazilian passion for football summarized by Pelé as “play beautifully” – with the opening game of the 2014 World Cup pitting the host team against Croatia in São Paulo.  Yet the days leading to the opening have been filled with anxious scenes of subway strikes by groups of laborers, social advocates and students, and the accompanying snarls of traffic clogging the streets of the nation’s biggest city.  The protests are not as large as those of last spring, but nonetheless put into context the issues of the past year as Brazil adjusts to a post-boom economy and debates the public spending priorities that favored sports venues over other public works projects.  All of these events are of importance to compliance professionals watching the Brazilian business landscape for important anti-corruption trends and a better understanding of the current risk environment.

The past year has seen passage of landmark anti-corruption legislation, and the growing pains that can come with implementing a law that ushers important change.  Brazil currently lacks a centralized enforcement infrastructure for its powerful new anti-corruption law.  Brazil’s 27 states and its municipalities, as well as each branch of national government, all can launch investigations and render interpretations on open issues under the new law, such as the critical issue of whether any liability cap exists.  The inevitable inconsistencies will make compliance an ongoing challenge.

Equally important is the persistent culture of corruption that continues to dominate the Brazilian business news.  Many of the recent stories have focused on infrastructure projects in preparation for the World Cup and the 2016 Olympics.  Cost overruns for Brazil’s 12 World Cup host stadiums are soaring.  For example, an audit from the Court of Accounts of the Brazilian Federal District demonstrated a near-doubling from the $312 million 2012 estimated cost, with overpriced construction work alone accounting for $196 million of this overrun.  Political donations from connected companies “are making corruption in this country even worse and making it increasingly difficult to fight,” said an Audit Court arbiter in recent local press reports.  “These politicians are working for those who financed campaigns.”  At least a dozen other federal investigations are underway.

The problems are not limited to sports stadiums.  A scandal involving as many as 15 public transportation systems is said to have revealed corruption by several multi-national companies and inflated project costs in an area of vital public need.  The multi-nationals mentioned as part of the probe, Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier, have denied wrongdoing and pledged cooperation.  But in January 2014, a federal court banned Siemens from bidding on new government work, and a public prosecutor in São Paulo is said to have sought to cancel Alstom’s corporate registration.

Touching deeper to the core of the Brazilian economy are corruption investigations at Petrobras, the state-run oil and gas company.  Swimming under a mountain of debt and declining stock value, Petrobras has launched an internal review of alleged bribery by a Dutch company that serviced off-shore oil rigs.  The Brazilian Congress also has launched a probe into two deals that have turned very expensive – one involving the purchase of a refinery in Texas and the other involving a refinery in the northeastern Brazilian coastal town of Recife.  Both deals cost many times more than their expected prices.  Petrobras’ president recently met federal police personally to turn over company files pursuant to a court order.  Petrobras says the cost overruns come from insufficient infrastructure in Brazil’s poor-but-growing northeast, but critics focus on mismanagement and an alleged culture of graft as these issues play out in advance of a presidential election in October.  The arrest in March of the former head of the company’s refining and supply unit in a money laundering probe has added to the swirl of rumors.  For her part, President Dilma Rousseff – also the former chair of Petrobras – has defended the company, explaining in April 2014 local press reports that “Petrobras will never be stained with any wrongdoing.  Whatever needs to be investigated will be investigated with maximum rigor.”

Against this backdrop, Brazilian economic growth has slowed by more than half of its peak 2010 rate, and a March 2014 poll by a Brazilian news organization found that more than two-thirds of the population thought corruption was lower during Brazil’s time of dictatorship.  Perhaps part of that feeling comes from the current greater media transparency on corruption probes.  But companies operating in Brazil can expect that the focus on anti-corruption issues will only continue to remain a complicated compliance challenge.  Most important is a continuing focus on compliance fundamentals:

  • Leadership setting clear expectations on ethics and compliance
  • Risk awareness, coupled with controls designed to address those risks
  • Due diligence and monitoring of business partners
  • Nurturing the compliance commitment through training and communications
  • Promptly follow up if potential issues arise

These fundamental steps will best protect companies operating in Brazil, where hope runs high that the attention from the World Cup will highlight the Brazilian spirit and creativity which has proven so resilient through past eras of change.

Bribery Of A Foreign Official On U.S. Soil

Thursday, April 17th, 2014

[This post is part of a periodic series regarding "old" FCPA enforcement actions]

The core enforcement action described below highlights a rare instance of FCPA violations being charged along with violations of the U.S. domestic bribery statute.  The enforcement action is also a rare instance of the United States being the location where the foreign official was allegedly bribed.

Control Systems Specialist / Darrold Crites

In this 1998 criminal information, the DOJ alleged that Control Systems Specialist, Inc. (“Control Systems” a company engaged in the purchase, repair, and resale of surplus military equipment) and its President Darrold Crites made improper payments to a Brazilian Air Force Lt. Colonel (“Col. Z”) stationed at Wright Patterson Air Force Based in Ohio.  The information describes Col. Z  as follows.

“Col. Z was the Foreign Liaison Officer for the Air Force of the Republic of Brazil … and was authorized to make purchases of military equipment on behalf of the Brazilian Aeronautical Commission (“BAC”), the purchasing agent of the Brazilian Air Force.  The BAC was an “instrumentality” of the Government of Brazil.”

The DOJ alleged that Crites met with a civilian employee of the United States Air Force who worked at Wright Patterson Air Force Base as the Command Country Manager (“Country Manager”) for Brazil and was responsible for representing the United States Air Force in dealings with Col. Z.

According to the DOJ, “Country Manager agreed to provide Crites with surplus part numbers, model numbers, and U.S. military sources of surplus parts in exchange for the promise of payments of money, using information he would obtain through his position as a civilian employee of the United States Air Force.”

In turn, the DOJ alleged that “Crites would thereafter purchase the surplus equipment identified by the Country Manager, recondition it, and resell the same to the BAC.”  According to the DOJ, Col. Z would approve the BAC’s purchase from Control Systems in exchange for payments of money.  Specifically, the DOJ alleged that Crites paid Col. Z “a series of bribes, disguised as ‘consultant fees,’ for each bid accepted by Col. Z on behalf of the BAC.”

The DOJ also alleged that Crites formed a separate company (“Company Y”) with the assistance of an Ohio businessman (“Businessman X”) to pay bribes to Col. Z “in exchange for his approval of Company Y’s bids to sell surplus U.S. military equipment to the BAC.”

According to the DOJ, Crites and Businessman X, as officers of Company Y “arranged not less than forty-four purchases of surplus U.S. military equipment for repair and resale to the BAC.”  The DOJ alleged as follows.

“Some of the surplus equipment was obtained by the BAC through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and then provided to Control Systems for repair.  Other equipment was purchased directly by Control Systems or Company Y, repaired, and then sold to the BAC.  In all cases, after each purchase was effected, Col. Z was paid for his approval of the transactions.”

According to the DOJ, Crites, Control Systems and others “paid a total of $99,000 to the Country Manager and a total of $257,139 to Col. Z.”

Based on the above allegations, the DOJ charged Control Systems and Crites with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and a substantive violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provision.  Based on the allegations involving the Country Manager, the DOJ also charged Control Systems and Crites with violating 18 USC 201, the domestic bribery statute.

Pursuant to this plea agreement, Crites pleaded guilty to the three charges described above.  In the plea agreement, Crites agreed to cooperate with the DOJ.  According to the statement of facts in the plea agreement, “Crites and Control Systems received approximately $672,298 as a result of the contracts received from the government of Brazil.”  According to a docket entry, Crites was sentenced to three years probation (with the first six months of probation to be spent in home confinement with electronic monitoring with work release privileges) and 150 hours of community service.

Pursuant to this plea agreement, Control Systems also pleaded guilty to the three charges described above.  According to a docket entry, Control Systems was ordered to pay a $1,500 fine and was sentenced to one year probation.

International Materials Solutions Corp. / Thomas Qualey

Based on the same core allegations in the Control Systems / Crites enforcement action, in 1999 the DOJ also alleged in this criminal information that International Materials Solutions Corporation (“IMS” – like Control Systems an Ohio company that engaged in the purchase, repair, and resale of surplus military equipment) and Thomas Qualey (the President of IMS) conspired to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and violated the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.  According to the information, IMS and Qualey paid a total of $67,563 to Col. Z to induce the approval by Col. Z of a bid by IMS for the acquisition and repair of ten fork lift trucks.

Pursuant to this plea agreement, Qualey pleaded guilty to the two charges described above.  According to the Statement of Facts in the plea agreement, Qualey and IMS “received approximately $392,250 as a result of the contracts received from the Government of Brazil.”  According to this judgment, Qualey was sentenced to three years probation ((with the first four months of probation to be spent in home confinement with electronic monitoring with work release privileges) and 150 hours of community service and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine.

Pursuant to this plea agreement, IMS pleaded guilty to the two charges described above.  According to this judgment, IMS was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine plus and was sentenced to one year probation.

See this prior post for another FCPA enforcement in connection with the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program.

Friday Roundup

Friday, January 31st, 2014

What others are saying, more candy, seriously out-of-whack, not first hand, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday Roundup.

What Others Are Saying

Last week, I published this article “Why You Should Be Alarmed By The ADM FCPA Enforcement Action.”  I’ve received a higher than norm amount of feedback – all positive - about the article via e-mail and social media.  Below is what others are saying about the article.

“For many reasons this is a terrific article.  [You are] very brave to write this necessary and timely analysis.”

“Just wanted to say thank you for keeping me updated on your FCPA-related work.  It looks like your 2010 Facade article is still holding up pretty well, despite the DOJ’s “Guidance” from last year.  It will be interesting to see how long the agencies can continue with their relatively unconstrained enforcement practices.”

Thanks for sharing Mike. And don’t change: you are as good as ever!

“Excellent article, Mike!  Readable even by those of us who are not lawyers.  The conclusion about why ADM chose settlement is undoubtedly true of many others who are charged, but leads to a question of the [conduct] of those who are charged to extract “easy takings” rather than have to justify themselves to the SEC or DOJ.  On whose behalf are they acting?”

Also a thank you for the many positive and encouraging comments I’ve received since publishing two posts (here and here) concerning the recent departure of the DOJ’s FCPA Unit Chief.

In other news on that front, White & Case recently announced here that Kathleen Hamann will join the firm as a partner “from the DOJ where she was an anticorruption policy counsel and trial lawyer assigned to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Team in the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.”  The head of White & Case’s Global White Collar Practice stated: “Kathleen’s experience at the DOJ gives her a strong understanding of the complexities of the FCPA and the federal government’s anticorruption policies.  Kathleen is a wonderful addition to our global white collar team, and will further strengthen our ability to represent and defend clients around the world in all phases of investigations, and criminal and civil enforcement proceedings.”

More Candy

This previous post “Like a Kid In A Candy Store” highlighted the abundant offerings of FCPA year in reviews this time of year.

There is more candy to digest.

See here for the slick Global Bribery and Corruption Review 2013 from Hogan Lovells.

See here for Mayer Brown’s FCPA Update:  Year-End 2013.

But again, be warned - the divergent enforcement statistics are likely to make you dizzy at times and as to certain issues.  [Given the increase in FCPA Inc. statistical information and the growing interest in empirical FCPA-related research, I again highlight the need for an FCPA lingua franca (see here for the prior post), including adoption of the “core” approach to FCPA enforcement statistics (see here for the prior post), an approach endorsed by even the DOJ (see here), as well as commonly used by others outside the FCPA context (see here)]

Seriously Out-Of-Whack

One could have either of the following positions.

DOJ enforcement of criminal laws is more about leverage against public companies and risk aversion by corporate leaders rather than facts and law.  Therefore, even if a company settles various enforcement actions for approximately $20 billion in a year, it is not surprising that a company’s profits and stock price are up and that the company’s CEO is therefore given a substantial raise.

DOJ enforcement of criminal laws is about facts and law and if a company settles various enforcement actions for approximately $20 billion in a year, it is just not right that the company’s CEO is given a substantial raise.

Regardless of your position (I know where I fall), you would have to agree that things are seriously out-of-whack these days.

See here and here for articles regarding the compensation of James Dimon (CEO of JPMorgan).  As highlighted in the Wall Street Journal article.

“J.P. Morgan Chase’s board delivered a strong endorsement of Chief Executive James Dimon, boosting his pay 74% for a year in which the nation’s largest bank agreed to more than $20 billion in legal payouts …”  [...] The raise reflects the view among the board that most shareholders believe Mr. Dimon is doing a good job protecting the bank’s earnings power and driving the stock price higher despite the high-profile legal settlements, according to people familiar with the board’s conversations. [...] Many large shareholders seem comfortable with the bank’s leadership, too. The company’s stock price rose 33% during 2013, outpacing the 30% increase in the S&P 500 stock index. If not for its billions in legal expenses, J.P. Morgan likely would have earned record profits.  [...]   Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who personally owns an undisclosed number of shares in J.P. Morgan, described Mr. Dimon as a “bargain.” “If I owned J.P. Morgan Chase, he would be running it, and he would be making more money than the directors are paying him,” said Mr. Buffett, who has publicly defended the bank executive before.”

“Not First Hand”

JPMorgan of course is under FCPA scrutiny for its alleged hiring practices in China.  (See here among other posts).

In this video interview, Goldman Sach’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein talks about hiring issues at his company.  As noted in the related article, “asked whether he had seen any hiring that looked like a bribe, Mr. Blankfein paused for a moment” and said “not first hand.”

Reading Stack

From BalkanInsight, an in-depth piece regarding the Magyar Telecom enforcement action (see here for the prior post).

From the Economist regarding Brazil’s new FCPA-like law.

*****

A good weekend to all.