China « FCPA Professor

Archive for the ‘China’ Category

Friday Roundup

Friday, December 21st, 2012

Better late than never, Judge Leon pulls a Judge Rakoff, Edmonds sentenced, it’s official, whistleblower statistics, it ought to stop marketing, China related issues, ICE melted quickly, and a U.K. enforcement action. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Under The Microscope

Academic publishing is seldom quick. Yet before the calendar flips into another year, I am pleased to share my article concerning 2011 FCPA enforcement. The abstract of ”The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Under The Microscope” (see here to download) recently published in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law is as follows. Information in the article is current as of January 16, 2012.

For most of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act’s history, key decisions concerning its scope and enforcement were made behind closed doors around conference room tables in Washington, D.C. The FCPA took on a life of its own and, in many instances, the statute came to mean whatever the DOJ or SEC could get putative corporate FCPA defendants (mindful of the consequences of actual prosecuted charges) to agree to behind those closed doors. However, as the enforcement agencies continued to push the envelope on enforcement theories and practices, and as the DOJ brought more individual FCPA enforcement actions, including through manufactured sting operations, business entities and individuals alike began to openly fight back. While many FCPA enforcement decisions and procedures remain opaque, 2011 witnessed the most intense year of public scrutiny in the FCPA’s history. This Article (i) provides an overview of 2011 FCPA enforcement and discusses certain problematic enforcement trends, and (ii) highlights how in 2011 the FCPA was subjected to the most meaningful public scrutiny in its history. FCPA enforcement trends and scrutiny demonstrate that as the FCPA nears its thirty-fifth year, basic legal and policy questions remain as to the purpose, scope, and effectiveness of the FCPA.

Start your collection of FCPA Year in Reviews. For my 2011 (short version), see here. For 2010, see here (short version), here (long version). For 2009, see here (long version).

Judge Leon Pulls a Judge Rakoff

My post concerning the SEC’s March 2011 enforcement action against IBM was titled “Questions Abound in IBM Enforcement Action.” (See here). Among the issues I discussed were the following. That in December 2000, IBM resolved an FCPA enforcement action and consented, as part of the settlement, to the entry of an Order that requires IBM to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violation of [the FCPA's books and records provisions]. I noted that because the March 2011 enforcement action alleged FCPA books and records charges, that IBM was thus in clear violation of the 2000 court order.

The case was assigned to Judge Richard Leon (of Africa Sting fame) and lingered for a long time. This Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents post and this Bloomberg article report that Judge Leon has refused to approve the settlement.

As stated by Bloomberg – “The heart of the dispute is that Leon, who has had the case under review for 22 months, wants reporting on a broader range of possible wrongdoing than the company is willing to turn over. Leon, who spoke loudly and angrily, asked why the regulator would agree to limit such requirements for a company with a history of books-and-records violations. [...] “I guess you want that $10 million judgment on your list of achievements this year,” Leon told [the SEC lawyer]. “Well, it’s not going to happen.” He scheduled a hearing for Feb. 4.”

As stated by Wall Street Journal Corruption Current – “Leon also questioned broader SEC settlement policies and warned that he was among “a growing number of district judges who are increasingly concerned” by those policies.”

In not ”rubber stamping” the SEC – IBM settlement, Judge Leon pulled a Judge Rakoff. Judge Rakoff of the S.D. of N.Y. has been a frequent focus on this site – see here, here, here and here. See also, the discussion of Judge Rakoff in my 2010 article “The Facade of FCPA Enforcement.”

Edmonds Sentence

This past June, David Edmonds, a defendant in the long-running “Carson” enforcement action involving former employees of Control Components Inc., agreed to plead guilty on the eve of trial to substantially reduced charges. (See here for the prior post). Earlier this week, Judge James Selna sentenced Edmonds to four months in prison and four months of home confinement. (See here for Judge Selna’s sentencing memo). As noted in the DOJ’s sentencing memo (here), the DOJ sought a 14 month prison sentence.

Other defendants previously sentenced in the case are Stuart Carson (4 months in prison followed by 8 months of home detention), Hong Carson (3 years probation to include 6 months of home detention) and Paul Cosgrove (13 months home detention).

It’s Official

Imagine a foreign country in which the president is actively seeking and accepting corporate money to fund inaugural festivities. All sorts of red flags right?

But wait, this describes the United States and President Obama’s upcoming inauguration. As detailed in this prior post, President Obama’s fundraising advisers “have urged the White House to accept corporate donations for his January 2013 inaugural celebration rather than rely exclusively on weary donors who underwrote his $1 billion re-election effort.”

It’s now official. As noted by this recent New York Times article “President Obama’s finance team is offering corporations and other institutions that contribute $1 million exclusive access to an array of inaugural festivities.” As noted in the article, Obama’s finance team is offering four different packages “with differing levels of access depending on the level of contribution.”

Our FCPA enforcement agencies are bringing enforcement actions against companies for conduct that includes providing $600 bottles of wine, Cartier watches, cameras, kitchen appliances, business suits, and executive education classes to individuals employed by foreign companies that are allegedly state-owned or state-controlled. (These are all allegations found in recent FCPA enforcement actions).

But remember, as Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer recently declared (see here), “we in the United States are in a unique position to spread the gospel of anti-corruption.”

Whistleblower Statistics

The Dodd-Frank Act enacted in July 2010 contained whistleblower provisions applicable to all securities law violations including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In this prior post from July 2010, I predicted that the new whistleblower provisions would have a negligible impact on FCPA enforcement. As noted in this prior post, my prediction was an outlier (so it seemed) compared to the flurry of law firm client alerts that predicted that the whistleblower provisions would have a significant impact on FCPA enforcement.

So far, there have not been any whistleblower awards in connection with FCPA enforcement actions. Given that enforcement actions (from point of first disclosure to resolution) typically take between 2-4 years, it still may be too early to effectively analyze the impact of the whistleblower provisions on FCPA enforcement.

Whatever your view, I previously noted that the best part of the new whistleblower provisions were that its impact on FCPA enforcement can be monitored and analyzed because the SEC is required to submit annual reports to Congress. Last month, the SEC released (here) its annual report for FY2012.

Of the 3,001 whisteblower tips received by the SEC in FY2012, 3.8% (115) related to the FCPA. As noted in this similar post from last year, in FY2011 (a partial reporting year) 3.9% of the 334 tips received by the SEC related to the FCPA.

It Ought to Stop Marketing

In this previous post titled “It Ought to Stop” I focused on the FCPA conference industry and how conference firms drive attendance to their events by touting the public servants who will speak at the event.

Here is how conference firm C5 touts its upcoming conference in a press release (here).

Ask the U.S. DOJ and U.S. SEC directly how your company can remain compliant

Hear the latest on the newly released FCPA guidance. Along with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission’s, Charles E. Cain, the Deputy Chief of the FCPA Unit, Enforcement Division, we will have Matthew S. Queler, from the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, presenting comprehensive, insightful and practical details of the U.S. government’s interpretation of the guidance, and highlight recent examples designed to help prevent future violations. Their session at 14:00 on Day 1, will help you navigate the ever evolving markets and recognize the current enforcement trends; giving you the tools to reanalyse risk profiles and minimize areas of exposure. Finally, to top off the hour you will be given an exclusive opportunity to have your FCPA questions answered. The only way to obtain answers directly from the U.S. DOJ and U.S. SEC is to register for this forum!

The event, depending when you register and which package you select, costs between €4341 – €1795.

It ought to stop.

China Related Issues

An occassional topic of discussion on this site is Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and how such companies are frequently doing business outside its borders, including here in the U.S. (See here, here, and here for prior posts).

Wall Street Journal Columnist Dennis Berman “hit the nail on the head” in his recent column when he noted that one of “the most intriguing business stories of the past month has been taking place in San Francisco, where a group of U.S. developers is planning the biggest real-estate expansion there since the 1906 earthquake. The group—which includes Lennar Corp., Ross Perot Jr. and others —isn’t getting financing from an American bank or pension fund. No, the money, some $1.7 billion of it, is coming from the China Development Bank, a policy arm of the Chinese state. As Berman further notes, a financing contingency is that China Railway Construction Corp. – a state-owned infrastructure builder with roots in the People’s Liberation Army—take part in the projects, which will develop up to 20,000 new homes.

Another occasional topic of discussion on this site is how Chinese companies are listing shares on U.S. exchanges and thus becoming “issuers” for purposes of the FCPA. (See here for a prior post). A core FCPA enforcement action of a Chinese issues has never occurred, but I predict it will some day – diplomatic and foreign policy issues aside. Only now, the universe of potential targets is shrinking. As noted in this recent Wall Street Journal article, several Chinese companies have delisted from U.S. exchanges. The article provides the following information. “At the peak, at year-end 2010, 167 Chinese companies were listed on Nasdaq and 99 on the NYSE. That compares with 84 China-based companies on NYSE and 129 on Nasdaq as of Nov. 30, 2012, according to the exchanges.” For more, see this recent article from the New York Times.

ICE Melted Quickly

This recent post highlighted the cert petition of Instituto Constarricense de Electricidad of Costa Rica (“ICE”) to the Supreme Court related to victim issues in connection with the December 2010 Alcatel-Lucent FCPA enforcement action. After several unsuccessful 11th Circuit appeals, ICE petitioned the Supreme Court to hears it case (see here). The question presented for review is as follows. “Whether a crime victim who is denied rights conferred by the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act has a right to directly appeal the denial of those rights.”

The ice melted quickly as recently the Supreme Court denied ICE’s petition.

U.K. Enforcement Action

Earlier this week, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office announced (here) charges against former employees of Swift Group (an oil and gas services provider) following “a two-year investigation into allegations of corruption in relation to the tax affairs of Swift Technical Energy Solutions Ltd, a Nigerian subsidiary of the Swift Group of companies.” According to the SFO release, ”the value of the bribes alleged to have been paid is approximately£180,000.”

The SFO release notes that Paul Jacobs (the former Chief Financial Officer of Swift), Bharat Sodha (the former Tax Manager of Swift), Nidhi Vyas (the former Financial Controller of Swift), and Trevor Bruce (the former Area Director for Nigeria of Swift) were charged in relation to “bribes to tax officials to avoid, reduce or delay paying tax on behalf of workers placed by Swift. The charges relate to payments said to have been made to agents of the Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue and the Lagos State Board of Internal Revenue, both in Nigeria. The payments were made in 2008 and 2009.”

*****

A happy holiday season to all.

China Potpourri

Thursday, October 18th, 2012

A collection of recent China-related developments and issues.

First, a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce report titled “China’s Approval Process for Inbound Foreign Direct Investment” which details a number of trade barriers and distortions (which can serve as breeding grounds for harassment bribery) when doing business in China.

Second, U.S. developments which demonstrate that trade barriers and distortions are a two-way street. A recent House Intelligence Committee report recommending that the U.S. block acquisitions or mergers involving two Chinese telecom companies and President Obama’s recent Executive Order directing the divestiture by a U.S. company (owned by Chinese nationals) of its investment in Oregon wind farms and a subsequent lawsuit brought by the company.

China’s Approval Process for Inbound Foreign Direct Investment

Why do Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations occur?

To be sure, certain violations have occurred because a company has a corrupt culture and has used bribery and corruption as a short-sighted business strategy. However, such occurrences - as evidenced by actual enforcement actions alleging such egregious facts - are rare. Rather, as I argue in “Revisiting a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Defense” (here) many FCPA violations occur because companies are subject to various trade barriers and conditions in foreign markets.

In short, trade barriers (ranging from customs procedures, licensing and certification requirements, foreign government procurement policies, etc.) create the conditions in which harassment bribes flourish as companies are funneled into an arbitrary world of low-paying civil servants.

As relevant to China (a jurisdiction in which many recent FCPA violations have occurred and in which many companies are currently the subject of FCPA scrutiny), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently released an extensive report titled “China’s Approval Process for Inbound Foreign Direct Investment: Impact on Market Access, National Treatment and Transparency” (see here). The report, based on research conducted by Covington & Burling at the Chamber’s request, should be must read for practitioners advising clients on FDI in China as well as others generally interested in the topic of trade barriers. Although the report does not contain the words bribery or corruption, it is very much on topic.

The report draws on interviews conducted with foreign companies doing business in China and discusses, among other topics, the following.

How China’s Foreign Investment Catalogue requires “different levels of approval scrutiny or tougher application requirements” for non-Chinese prospective investors and how the Catalogue “may require that investment take certain forms and/or that the foreign shareholder’s proportion of investment in the enterprise be limited.”

Various project and regulatory approvals needed to do business in China and how various characteristics of the approval process have resulted in “application of vaguely written or unpublished rules in ways that restrict or unreasonably delay market entry by foreign companies” and how in other instances “approval authorities have orally communicated deal-specific conditions for investment approval beyond those required by written law.” As to China’s licensing regimes, the report notes that licenses are required for more than 100 business activities in China and that government approval is also needed for certain modifications to an enterprise “such as change of registered capital, change of shareholders, amendment of business scope, merger, or the acquisition of a company in a restricted industry.”

As if the various Chinese governmental approvals were not enough, the report also notes that obtaining certain governmental approvals is exacerbated by the fact that in certain Chinese – foreign joint ventures, the local partner may serve in certain instances as the applicant and “control the communications channels between the foreign investor and the government approval authorities …”.

House Intelligence Committee Report

As noted in this recent Wall Street Journal article, the House Intelligence Committee has concluded that two Chinese companies (Huawei Technologies and ZTE Inc.) pose security risks to the U.S. because their equipment could be used for spying on Americans, The House Committee recommended that the U.S. block acquisition or mergers involving the two companies through the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. (“CFIUS”).

The report (here) also accuses Huawei of bribery and corruption. Page 35 of the report states as follows. ”[Huawei] employees have alleged instances [of] fraud and bribery when seeking contracts in the United States.” The apparent lack of a “foreign official” may take this alleged conduct outside the scope of the FCPA, but the Travel Act may remain relevant.

President Obama’s Executive Order and Subsequent Lawsuit

As noted in this recent Reuters article, President Obama recently issued an Executive Order ordering Ralls Corp. (a U.S. company owned by two Chinese nationals) to sell off four planned winds farms in Oregon due to national security threats. As noted in the article, President Obama’s recent order is the first time since 1990 that a President has formally blocked a business transaction.

The Executive Order (here) states that “there is credible evidence” that Ralls Corp. ”might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States.” President Obama’s order followed a recommendation by CFIUS (see here) recommending the divestiture.

In response, Ralls Corp. filed this lawsuit against President Obama, CFIUS and others. In pertinent part, the suit alleges as follows.

“At no time has Ralls ever had any opportunity to view, review, respond to, or rebut any evidence that CFIUS, the President, or any person or entity acting on their behalf has obtained, reviewed, or relied upon in reviewing the transaction in question, concluding that the transaction raises national security concerns, issuing the aforementioned orders, and imposing the foregoing extraordinary prohibitions and restrictions. In issuing their respective orders, CFIUS and the President acted in an unlawful and unauthorized manner. By exceeding the powers granted to it [by law] and failing to provide any evidence or reasoned explanation for its decision, CFIUS violated the Administrative Procedure Act. By imposing restrictions far beyond the limited scope of the powers specifically granted to him [by law], the President has committed ultra vires acts in violation of the law. By failing to provide Ralls with sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard prior to prohibiting its acquisition of the windfarms and imposing extraordinary restrictions on the use and enjoyment of its property interests, CFIUS and the President have unconstitutionally deprived Ralls of its property absent due process. And by unfairly and unjustly singling out Ralls for differential treatment compared to similarly situated parties, CFIUS and the President have violated Ralls’s right to equal protection of the law.”

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement (here) represents Ralls. For additional analysis, see this recent Covington & Burling alert and this recent Mayer Brown client alert.

Of Note From the Tyco Enforcement Action

Thursday, September 27th, 2012

[A new job has been posted to the FCPA Professor Jobs Board - see here. If your organization is seeking FCPA or related talent, the Jobs Board is an easy and efficient vehicle to connect with thousands of sophisticated readers.]

Yesterday’s post (here) went long and deep as to the Tyco enforcement action. This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional notable issues.

The Tyco Enforcement Action Should Be An FCPA Practitioners New Best Friend

During the negotiation phase of resolving an FCPA enforcement action with the DOJ and/or the SEC, a topic that often comes up, and an analysis that an FCPA practitioner frequently performs, is comparing the conduct at issue in the current case to prior enforcement actions. The enforcement agencies typically dismiss such comparative efforts by practitioners by saying that every enforcement action (and negotiation) is unique and that what the agencies did in one enforcement action is not binding in another. On the flip side, and a position I think is imminently reasonable, is that the enforcement agencies ought to be bound by some consistency in enforcement approaches.

If so, the Tyco enforcement action should be the FCPA practitioners new best friend.

For starters, this enforcement action involved a company that settled a wide-ranging fraud action in 2006 – one that involved a material FCPA component (see here for the prior SEC action). In that 2006 action, Tyco was permanently enjoined from, among other things, future FCPA violations. (For more on so-called “obey the law injunctions – see this recent guest post and this prior post).

The government bluntly stated in this week’s enforcement action that certain of the misconduct occurred even after the 2006 injunction. In addition, and per the government, the alleged misconduct in this week’s enforcement action was carried out by several different methods, the conduct occurred over a lengthy time period and involved conduct in approximately 25 countries.

Even so, against this backdrop of an injunction being violated and widespread misconduct in approximately 25 countries, Tyco was offered a non-prosecution agreement by the DOJ and the government did not require an imposition of a corporate monitor.

Should an FCPA practitioner in the future be faced with anything other than a DOJ NPA or should a monitor be insisted upon by the government, the Tyco enforcement action should be your new best friend.

Assessing Tyco’s Culpability

Yes, as noted above, Tyco is now an FCPA ”recidivist.” By my count, it has now joined ABB, Baker Hughes, and General Electric in that category.

Yet in reading the Tyco enforcement action, I am hardly surprised nor shocked. The company is a diversified global company operating in more than 60 countries with more than 100,000 employees worldwide. The vast majority of the conduct at issue in the enforcement actions allegedly occurred between 2000 and 2006.

Furthermore, there is no allegation or suggestion that Tyco (the parent company entity) knew of or participated in the improper conduct. For instance, the closest Tyco connection alleged is in the SEC’s complaint concerning conduct in Turkey. However, even there, the SEC only alleges a dual officer structure between the relevant subsidiary and executive officers while at the same time alleging that there was “no indication that any of these individuals [the dual officers] knew of the illegal conduct.” In other respects, the resolution documents allege or suggest that various indirect subsidiaries took steps to conceal the conduct at issue or circumvent Tyco’s internal controls.

I’ve said before and I will say again (based on nearly a decade of FCPA practice experience conducting FCPA internal investigations around the world) that if every large multi-national company with diverse global business units, with tens of thousands of employees scattered across the world, would hire FCPA counsel to do a complete and thorough world-wide review of the company’s operations, given the current enforcement theories, including the standardless books and records and internal controls theories of enforcement, 95% of companies would find problematic conduct (the other 5% of companies either hired counsel not well versed on the current enforcement theories and/or counsel did not look hard enough).

It Takes A While … Just To Negotiate

As noted in this previous post regarding Pfizer, the gray cloud that is FCPA scrutiny can hang over a company for a long time. On this issue, it is interesting to note that Tyco’s most recently quarterly filing stated that the company began its negotiations with the DOJ and SEC in February 2010.

The FCPA As An M&A Issue

The $26 million in combined fines and penalties will not be borne entirely by Tyco and its shareholders. The FCPA frequently finds its way into corporate divestitures and other transactions.

On this note, Tyco’s most recent quarterly filing stated as follows concerning previously spun off business units and now separate companies. “Covidien and TE Connectivity agreed, in connection with the 2007 Separation, to cooperate with the Company in its responses regarding these matters. Any judgment required to be paid or settlement or other cost incurred by the Company in connection with the FCPA investigation matters would be subject to the liability sharing provisions of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, which assigned liabilities primarily related to the former Healthcare and Electronics businesses of the Company to Covidien and TE Connectivity, respectively, and provides that the Company will retain liabilities primarily related to its continuing operations. Any liabilities not primarily related to a particular segment will be shared equally among the Company, Covidien and TE Connectivity.”

In addition, as noted in the NPA, one of Tyco’s business units is poised to be spun-off to Pentair Inc. later this week. The NPA states as follows. “Tyco agrees that if this separation and merger occur during the term of this Agreement, Tyco shall, for any business entities, operations, or units involved in the conduct [at issue] and included in the spin-off and merger, including provisions in any separation agreement binding the relevant and culpable entities to the [compliance] obligations [set forth in the NPA]. Tyco shall no longer be responsible for ensuring compliance by any separated entities, operations or units with the obligations described in the [NPA].”

More Foreign Healthcare Providers as “Foreign Official”

This recent post traced the origins and prominence of the enforcement theory that employees of certain foreign health care systems are “foreign officials” under the FCPA. Add the Tyco enforcement action to the list as the enforcement action included conduct involving Chinese health care providers, Saudi Arabian health care providers, and Polish health care providers.

With the Tyco action on the list, 5 of the 9 (55%) core corporate enforcement actions this year have been based, in whole or in part, on this theory.

More Chinese Design Institutes

The number of FCPA enforcement actions involving Chinese design institutes (an entity category that has given many an FCPA practitioner a headache trying to figure them out) has grown with the Tyco enforcement action. As noted in this previous post concerning Watts Water Technologies, other enforcement actions that have involved, in whole or in part, Chinese design institutes include the following: Rockwell Automation (here), ITT (here), and Avery Dennison (here).

In Depth On The Tyco Enforcement Action

Wednesday, September 26th, 2012

Earlier this week, the DOJ and SEC announced a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Tyco International Ltd. (“Tyco”) and a subsidiary company. Total fines and penalties in the enforcement action were approximately $26.8 million (approximately $13.7 million in the DOJ enforcement action and approximately $13.1 million in the SEC enforcement action).

This post goes long and deep as to the DOJ’s and SEC’s allegations and resolution documents (approximately 85 pages in total). Tomorrow’s post will discuss various items of note from the enforcement actions.

DOJ

The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information (here) against Tyco Valves & Controls Middle East Inc., (an indirect subsidiary of Tyco) resolved through a plea agreement (here) and a non-prosecution agreement (here) entered into between the DOJ and Tyco.

Criminal Information

The criminal information begins by identifying Tyco Valves & Controls Middle East Inc. (TVC ME) as a Delaware company headquartered in Dubai that “sells and markets valves and actuators manufactured by other entities throughout the Middle East for the oil, gas, petrochemical, commercial construction, water treatment,and desalination industries.”

According to the information, Tyco Flow Control Inc. (“TFC) was TVC ME’s direct parent company and TFC was a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Tyco. According to the information, “TVC ME’s financials were consolidated into the books and records of TFC for the purposes of preparing TFC’s year-end financial statements, and in turn, TFC’s financials were consolidated into the books and records of Tyco for the purposes of preparing Tyco’s year-end financial results.”

The information alleges a conspiracy as follows.

Between 2003 and 2006 TVC ME conspired with others to ”obtain and retain business from foreign government customers, including Aramco, ENOC, Vopak, NIGC, and other customers by paying bribes to foreign officials employed by such customers.”

The information alleges: that Saudi Aramco (“Aramco”) was a Saudi Arabian oil and gas company that was wholly-owned, controlled, and managed by the government, and an ”agency” and “instrumentality” of a foreign government; that Emirates National Oil Company (“ENOC”) was a state-owned entity in Dubai and an “agency” and “instrumentality” of a foreign government; that Vopak Horizon Fujairah (“Vopak”) was a subsidiary of ENOC based in the U.A.E. and an “agency” and “instrumentality” of a foreign government; and that the National Iranian Gas Company (“NIGC”) was a state-owned entity in Iran and an “agency” and “instrumentality” of a foreign government.

Under the heading “manner and means of the conspiracy” the information alleges in pertinent part as follows.

“TVC ME, together with others, decided to pay bribes to employees of end-customers in Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Iran, including to employees at Aramco, ENOC, Vopak, and NIGC, in order to obtain or retain business. TVE ME, together with others, found ways to obtain cash in order to make the bribe payments. TVE ME, together with others, made payments through Local Sponsor [a company in Saudi Arabia that acted as a distributor for TVC ME in Saudi Arabia]. Local Sponsor provided TVC ME with false documentation, such as fictitious invoices for consultancy costs, bills for fictitious commissions, or ‘unanticipated costs for equipment,’ to justify the payments to Local Sponsor that were intended to be used for bribes. TVE ME, together with others, approved and made payments to Local Sponsor for the purpose of paying bribes. TVC ME, together with others, paid bribes to employees of foreign government customers in order to remove TVC manufacturing plans from various Aramco ‘blacklists’ or ‘holds’; win specific bids; and/or obtain specific product approval. TVC ME, together with others, improperly recorded the bribe payments in TVC ME’s books, records, and accounts, and instead falsely described the payments, including as consultancy costs, commissions, or equipment costs. TVC ME earned approximately $1.153,500 in gross margin as a result of the bribe payments.”

Based on the above conduct, the information charges conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.

Plea Agreement

The plea agreements sets forth a Sentencing Guidelines range of $2.1 million – $4.2 million. In the plea agreement, the parties agreed that $2.1 million was “appropriate.” Pursuant to the plea agreement, TVC ME agreed “to work with its parent company in fulfilling the obligations” described in Corporate Compliance Program attached to the plea agreement.

NPA

The DOJ also entered into an NPA with Tyco in which the DOJ agreed “not to criminally prosecute [Tyco] related to violations of the books and records provisions of the FCPA … arising from and related to the knowing and willful falsification of books, records, and accounts by a number of the Company’s subsidiaries and affiliates …”.

The NPA contains a Statement of Facts.

Under the heading, “details of the illegal conduct” the NPA states as follows.

“[From 1999 through 2009] certain Tyco subsidiaries falsified books, records, and accounts in connection with transactions involving customers of Tyco’s subsidiaries, including government customers, in order to secure business in various countries, including China, India, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Libya, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Mauritania, Congo, Niger, Madagascar, and Turkey. During that time period, certain Tyco subsidiaries made payments, both directly and indirectly, to government officials and falsely described the payments to government officials in Tyco’s corporate books, records, and accounts as legitimate charges, including as ‘consulting fees,’ ‘commissions,’ ‘unanticipated costs for equipment,’ ‘technical consultation and marketing promotion expenses,’ ‘conveyance expenses,’ ‘cost of goods sold,’ ‘promotional expenses,’ and ‘sales development’ expenses. As early as 2004, Tyco alerted the Securities and Exchange Commission to payments at certain of Tyco’s subsidiaries that could violate the FCPA. In 2006, Tyco acknowledged that ‘prior to 2003 Tyco did not have a uniform, company-wide FCPA compliance program in place or a system of internal controls sufficient to detect and prevent FCPA misconduct at is globally dispersed business units’ and that ‘employees at two Tyco subsidiaries in Brazil and South Korea did not receive adequate instruction regarding compliance with the FCPA, despite Tyco’s knowledge and awareness that illicit payments to government officials were a common practice in the Brazilian and South Korean construction and contracting industries.’ However, despite Tyco’s knowing of a high probability of the existence of improper payments and false books, records, and accounts, the improper payments and falsification of books, records, and accounts continued until 2009.”

As to Thailand, the Statement of Facts states a follows.

“[Between 2004 and 2005] ET Thailand [Earth Tech (Thailand) Ltd. - a Thai corporation that was approximately 49% indirectly owned by Tyco] made payments in the amount of approximately $292,286 to a consultant and recorded those amounts as fictitious disbursements related to the NBIA project [New Bangkok International Airport]. In connection with these improper payments, ET Thailand earned approximately $879,258 in gross profit.”

“[Between 2000 to 2006] ADT Thailand [ADT Sensormatic Thailand an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] recorded payments in the amount of approximately $78,000 to one of its subcontractors as payments for site surveys for a government traffic project in Laos, but the payments instead were channeled to other recipients in connection with ADT Thailand’s business in Laos. During the same time period, ADT Thailand made payments to one of its consultants related to a contract for the installation of a CCTV system in the Thai Parliament House, and ADT Thailand and the consultant created invoices that stated that the payments were for ‘renovation work’ when no renovation work was actually performed. During that same time period, ADT Thailand made three payments in connection with a design and traffic survey that ADT Thailand provided from the city of Pattaya, in Southern Thailand, but the payments were issued pursuant to falsified invoices without any evidence that work was ever performed. In connection with these improper transactions, ADT Thailand earned approximately $473,262 in gross profit.”

As to China, the Statement of Facts state as follows.

“[Between 2003 and 2005] TTC Huzhou [Tyco Thermal Controls (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] authorized approximately 112 payments in the amount of $196,267 to designers at design institutes owned or controlled by the Chinese government, and falsely described the payments in company books, records, and accounts as ‘technical consultation’ or ‘marketing promotion’ expenses. In 2005, in connection with a contract with China’s Ministry of Public Security, TTC Huzhou paid a commission to one of its sales agents that was used, in part, to pay the ‘site project team’ of a state-owned corporation, and that was improperly recorded in the company’s books and records. In connection with these improper transactions, TTC Huzhou earned approximately $3,470,180 in gross profit.”

“TFCT Shanghai [Tyco Flow Control Trading (Shanghai) Ltd. an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] made approximately eleven payments in the amount of approximately $24,000 to employees of design institutes, engineering companies, subcontractors and distributors which were inaccurately described in its books and records. In connection with these improper transaction, TFCT Shanghai earned approximately $59,412 in gross profit.”

“[Between 2005 and 2006] TFC HK [Tyco Flow Control Hong Kong Limited] and Keystone [Beijing Valve Co. Ltd.] [both indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Tyco] made payments in the amount of approximately $137,000 to agencies owned by approximately eight Keystone employees, who in turn gave cash or gifts to employees of design institutes or commercial customers, and then improperly recorded these payments. [From 2005 to 2006] Keystone made payments to one of its sales agents in connection with sales to Sinopec, for which no legitimate services were actually provided, and then improperly recorded the payments as ‘commissions.’ In connection with these improper transactions, Keystone earned approximately $378,088 in gross profits.”

“[Between 2001 to 2002] THC China [Tyco Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] gave publicly-employed healthcare professionals (HCPs) approximately $250,00o in meals, entertainment, domestic travel, gifts and sponsorships. [Between 2004 to 2007] employees of THC China submitted expenses claims related to entertaining HCPs that were supported by fictitious receipts, including references to a non-existent company, in order to circumvent Tyco’s internal guidelines. In connection with medical conferences involving HCPs, THC China employees submitted false itineraries and other documentation that did not properly identify trip expenses in order to circumvent internal controls and policies. Approximately $353,800 in expenses was improperly recorded as a result of the false documentation relating to these improper expenditures.”

As to Slovakia, the Statement of Facts state as follows.

“[Between 2004 to 2006] Tatra [a Slovakian joint venture that was approximately 90 percent indirectly owned by Tyco] made payments in the amount of approximately $96,000 to one of its sales agents in exchange for the sale agent’s attempt to have Tatra products included in the specifications for tenders to a government customer, while at the same time the sales agent was getting paid by the government customer to draw up the technical specifications for the tenders. Tatra improperly recorded the payments to the sales agent as ‘commissions’ in Tatra’s books and records. In connection with these improper transactions, Tatra earned approximately $226,863 in gross profit.”

As to Indonesia, the Statement of Facts state as follows.

“[Between 2003 and 2005] Eurapipe [Tyco Eurapipe Indonesia Pt. an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] made approximately eleven payments in the amount of approximately $358,000 to a former employee of Banjarmasin provincial level public water company (PDAM) and two payments to the project manager for PDAM Banjarmasin in connection with the Banjarmasin Project. During the same time period, Eurapipe made payments in the amount of approximately $23,000 to sales agents who then passed some or all of the payments on to employees of government entities in connection withe projects other than the Banjarmasin Project. Eurapipe improperly recorded the payments as ‘commissions payable’ in Eurapipe’s books and records. In connection with these improper transactions, Eurapipe earned approximately $1,298,453 in gross profit.”

“[Between 2002 and 2005] PT Dulmision Indonesia [an Indonesia corporation 99% indirectly owned by Tyco] made payments to third parties, a portion of which went to employees of PLN [a state-owned electricity company in Indonesia], including approximately seven payments one of PT Dulmison’s sales agents, who in turn passed money on to the PLN employees. PT Dulmison Indonesia improperly recorded the payments in PT Dulmison Indonesia’s books, records and accounts. In addition, PT Dulmison Indonesia improperly recorded travel expenses in company books and records, including payments for non-business entertainment in connection with visits by PLN employees to TE Dulmision Thailand’s factory and paid hotel costs incurred as part of a social trip to Paris for PLN employees following a factory visit to Germany, as ‘cost of goods sold’ in PT Dulmison Indonesia’s and TE Dulmison Thailand’s records. In connection with these improper transactions, PT Dulmision Indonesia and TE Dulmison Thailand earned approximately $109,259 in gross profit.”

As to Vietnam, the Statement of Facts state as follows.

“[Between 2001 and 2005] TE Dulmison Thailand [a Thai corporation approximately 66% indirectly owned by Tyco] made nine payments in the amount of approximately $68,426, either directly or through intermediaries, to employees of a public utility owned by the Government of Vietnam and recorded these payments in the books and records of the relevant subsidiaries as ‘cost of goods sold.’”

As to Mauritania, Congo, Niger and Madagascar, the Statement of Facts state as follows.

“[Between 2002 to 2007] Isogard [a branch of Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions France (TFIS France0, an indrect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] made payments to a security officer employed by a government-owned mining company in Mauritania involved in the technical aspects of sales projects for the purpose of introducing Isogard to local buyers in Africa. Isogard made the payments to the security officer’s personal bank account in France without any written contract or invoice and improperly recorded the payments in Isogard’s books and records. Isogard paid sham ‘commissions’ to approximately twelve other intermediaries in Mauritania, Congo, Niger and Madagascar, half of which were to employees, or family members of employees, of Isogard customers. In total, TFIS France made paments in the amount of approximately $363,839 since 2005.”

As to Saudi Arabia, in addition to the conduct at issue in TVC ME’s criminal information, the Statement of Facts state as follows.

“[Between 2004 through 2006] Saudi Distributor maintained a ‘control account’ from which a number of payments were made at THC Saudi Arabia’s [an operational entity within Tyco Healthcare AG, a indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] direction to Saudi hospitals and doctors, some of whom were publicly employed HCPs. Several expenses from the control account were booked improperly as ‘promotional expenses’ and ‘sales development’ expenses. In connection with these improper transactions, THC Saudi earned approximately $1,960,000 in gross profit.”

As to Turkey, the Statement of Facts state as follows.

“[Between 2001 and 2006] SigInt [a division of M/A-Com, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] products were sold through a sales representative to government entities in Turkey. The sales representatives sold the SigInt equipment in Turkey at an approximately twelve to forty percent mark-up over the price at which he purchased the equipment from M/A-Com and also received a commission on one of the sales. The sales representative transferred part of his commission and part of his mark-up to a government official in Turkey to obtain orders. In connection with these improper transactions, M/A-Com earned approximately $71,770 in gross proft.”

The Statement of Facts also states as follows.

“[Between 2004 and 2009] Erhard [a subsidiary of Tyco Waterworks Deutschland GmBH (TWW Germany), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] made payments in the amount of approximately $2,371,094 to at least thirteen of its sales agents in China, Croatia, India, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates for the purpose of making payments to employees of government customers, and improperly booked the payments as ‘commissions.’ In connection with these improper transactions, TWW Germany earned approximately $4,684,966 in gross profits.”

In the NPA, Tyco admitted, accepted and acknowledged responsiblity for the above conduct and agreed not to make any public statement contradicting the above conduct.

The NPA has a term of three years and states as follows.

“The Department enters into this Non-Prosecution Agreement based, in part, on the following factors: (a) the Company’s timely, voluntary, and complete disclosure of the conduct; (b) the Company’s global internal investigation concerning bribery and related misconduct; (c) the Company’s extensive remediation, including the implementation of an enhanced compliance program, the termination of employees responsible for the improper payments and falsification of books and records, severing contracts with the responsible third-party agents, the closing of subsidiaries due to compliance failures, and the agreement to undertake further compliance enhancements ….; and (d) the Company’s agreement to provide annual, written reports to the Department on its progress and experience in monitoring and enhancing its compliance policies and procedures …”.

Pursuant to the NPA, the company agreed to pay a penalty of $13.68 million (the $2.1 million TVC ME agreed to pay pursuant to the plea agreement is included in this figure). Pursuant to the NPA, Tyco also agreed to a host of compliance undertakings and agreed to report to the DOJ (at no less than 12 month intervals) during the three year term of the NPA regarding “remediation and implementation of the compliance program and internal controls, policies, and procedures” required pursuant to the NPA.

In this DOJ release, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer stated as follows. “Together with the SEC, we are leading a fight against corruption around the globe.”

SEC

In a related enforcement action, the SEC brought a civil complaint (here) against Tyco.

The introductory paragraph of the complaint states as follows. “This matter concerns violations by Tyco of the books and records, internal controls, and anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.”

The complaint then states as follows.

“In April 2006, the Commission filed a settled accounting fraud, disclosure, and FCPA injunctive action against Tyco, pursuant to which the company consented to entry of a final judgment enjoining it from violations of the anti-fraud, periodic reporting, books and records, internal controls, proxy disclosure, and anti-bribery provisions of the federal securities laws and ordering it to pay $1 in disgorgement and a $50 million civil penalty. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered the settled Final Judgment against Tyco on May 1, 2006. At the time of settlement, Tyco had already committed to and commenced a review of its FCPA compliance and a global, comprehensive internal investigation of possible additional FCPA violations. As a result of that review and investigation, certain FCPA violations have come to light for which the misconduct occurred, or the benefit to Tyco continued, after the 2006 injunction. Those are the violations that are alleged in this Complaint. [...] The FCPA misconduct reported by Tyco showed that Tyco’s books and records were misstated as a result of at least twelve different, post-injunction illicit payment schemes occurring at Tyco subsidiaries across the globe. The schemes frequently entailed illicit payments to foreign officials that were inaccurately recorded so as to conceal the nature of the payments. Those inaccurate entries were incorporated into Tyco’ s books and records. Tyco also failed to devise and maintain internal controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that all transactions were properly recorded in the company’s books, records, and accounts. [...] As reflected in this Complaint, numerous Tyco subsidiaries engaged in violative conduct, the conduct was carried out by several different methods, and the conduct occurred over a lengthy period of time and continued even after the 2006 injunction. Through one of the illicit payment schemes, Tyco violated the FCPA anti-bribery provisions. Specifically, through the acts of its then-subsidiary and agent, TE M/A-Com, Inc. Tyco violated [the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions] by corruptly making illicit payments to foreign government officials to obtain or retain business.”

As to the SEC’s anti-bribery charge based on the conduct of TE M/A-Com, Inc. the complaint alleges that M/A Com retained a New York sales agent who made illicit payments in connection with a 2006 sale of microwave equipment to an instrumentality of the Turkish government. The complaint alleges that “employees of M/A-Com were aware that the agent was paying foreign government customers to obtain orders” and cites an internal e-mail which states as follows – “hell, everyone knows you have to bribe somebody to do business in Turkey.” The complaint then alleges as follows. “Tyco exerted control over M/A-COM in part by utilizing dual roles for its officers. At the time of the September 2006 transaction, four high-level Tyco officers were also officers of M/A-COM, including one who was M/A-COM’s president. Additionally, one of those Tyco officers served as one of five members of M/A-COM’s board of directors. While there is no indication that any of these individuals knew of the illegal conduct described herein, through the corporate structure used to hold M/ A-COM and through the dual roles of these officers, Tyco controlled M/A-COM. As a result, M/A-COM was Tyco’s agent for purposes of the September 2006 transaction, and the transaction was squarely within the scope of M/ACOM’s agency. The benefit obtained by Tyco as a result of the September 2006 deal was $44,513.”

The SEC’s complaint contains substantially similar allegations compared to the NPA Statement of Facts. In addition, the SEC complaint alleges additional improper conduct in Malaysia, Egypt, and Poland.

As to Malaysia, the complaint alleges as follows.

“[Between 2000 to 2007] TFS Malaysia [an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] used intermediaries to pay the employees of its customers when bidding on contracts. Payments were made to approximately twenty-six employees of customers, and one of those payees was an employee of a government-controlled entity. TFS Malaysia inaccurately described these expenses as ‘commissions’ and failed to maintain policies sufficient to prohibit such payments. As a result, Tyco’s books and records were misstated. Tyco’s benefit as a result of these illicit payments was $45,972.”

As to Egypt, the complaint alleges as follows.

“[Between 2004 to 2008] an Egyptian agent of TFIS UK [a indirect wholly owned subsidiary] wired approximately $282,022 to a former employee’s personal bank account with the understanding that the money would be used in connection with entertainment expenses for representatives of a company majority-owned by the Egyptian government. A portion of the funds was used to pay for lodging, meals, transportation, spending money, and entertainment expenses for that company’s officials on two trips to the United Kingdom and two trips to the U.S. TFIS UK made payments pursuant to inflated invoices submitted by the company’s Egyptian agent, who wired funds to the former employees to be used to entertain foreign officials. TFIS U.K. books and records did not accurately reflect TFIS’s U.K.’s understanding that the funds would be used for entertainment of government officials, and TFIS UK did not maintain sufficient internal controls over its payments to agents. As a result, Tyco’s books and records were misstated. Tyco’s benefits as a result of these illicit payments was $1,589,374.”

As to Poland, the complaint alleges as follows.

“[Between 2005 to 2007] THC Polska [an indirect wholly owned subsidiary] used ‘service contracts’ to hire public healthcare professionals in Poland for various purposes, including conducting training sessions, performing clinical studies, and distributing marketing materials. Approximately five such service contracts involved falsified records and approximately twenty-six other service contracts involved incomplete and inaccurate records, including some related expenses paid by THC Polska to family members of healthcare professionals. As a result, Tyco’s books and records were misstated. In connection with the transactions related to these inaccurate books and records, Tyco’s benefit was approximately $14,673.

As to the SEC’s internal controls charge, the complaint contains the following allegation. “Tyco failed to devise and maintain … a system of internal controls and was therefore unable to detect the violations … Numerous Tyco subsidiaries engaged in violative conduct, the conduct was carried out by several different methods, and the conduct occurred over a lengthy period of time, and it continued even after the 2006 injunction.”

The SEC complaint contains the following paragraph.

“As its global review and investigation progressed, Tyco voluntarily disclosed this conduct to the Commission and took significant, broad-spectrum remedial measures. Those remedial measures include: the initial FCPA review of every Tyco legal operating entity ultimately including 454 entities in 50 separate countries; active monitoring and evaluation of all of Tyco’s agents and other relevant third-party relationships; quarterly ethics and compliance training by over 4,000 middle-managers; FCPA-focused on-site reviews of higher risk entities; creation of a corporate Ombudsman’s office and numerous segment-specific compliance counsel positions; exit from several business operations in high-risk areas; and the termination of over 90 employees, including supervisors, because of FCPA compliance concerns.”

As noted in this SEC release, Tyco consented to a final judgment that orders the company to pay approximately $10.5 million in disgorgement and approximately $2.6 million in prejudgment interest. Tyco also agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating the FCPA.

In this release, SEC Associate Director of Enforcement Scott Friestad stated as follows. “Tyco’s subsidiaries operating in Asia and the Middle East saw illicit payment schemes as a typical way of doing business in some countries, and the company illictly reaped substantial financial benefits as a result.”

Martin Weinstin (Willkie Farr & Gallagher - here) represented the Tyco entities.

Friday Roundup

Friday, September 7th, 2012

A focus on entertainment and calling out FCPA / Bribery Act Inc. and a recent disclosure from a company that is part of FCPA history. It’s all here in the (slimmer than normal) Friday roundup.

Recent Comments From The Director of the U.K. SFO

The briberyact.com previously mentioned here recent comments made by David Green (Director of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office) in a Daily Mail article (here) that “mainstream corporate entertaining” is of little concern to the SFO. Green states in the article as follows. “We are not interested in that sort of case. We are interested in hearing that a large company has mysteriously come second in bidding for a big contract. The sort of bribery we would be investigating would not be tickets to Wimbledon or bottles of champagne. We are not the ‘serious champagne office.’”

The same can not always be said of the DOJ or SEC. Although such seemingly minor corporate entertainment expenditures have never been the sole focus of an enforcement action, several enforcement actions have included such allegations. For instance, the UTStarcom enforcement action (see here for the prior post) contained allegations about a $600 bottle of wine. The Data Systems and Solutions enforcement action (see here for the prior post) contained allegations regarding a Cartier watch. The IBM enforcement action (see here for the prior post) contained allegations about a camera. The RAE Systems enforcement actions (see here for the prior post) contained allegations about kitchen appliances, business suits, and high-priced liquor. Numerous other examples abound. One must assume that the enforcement agencies included such allegations in the resolution documents for a reason, not just to fill up paper.

Alexandra Wrage (President of Trace International) noted the U.K. / U.S. irony in this recent piece for Corporate Counsel. ”[W]hereas the U.S. law permits these expenditures [facilitation payments and reasonable entertainment expenses], within reason, and then enforces when companies overstep, the U.K. prohibits them, but assures the public that they won’t be prosecuted.”

Green’s comments to the Daily Mail were also notable for his calling out of FCPA (or as the case may be Bribery Act) Inc. The Daily Mail article notes as follows. “[Green] criticised American law firms that had taken advantage of the uncertainty. ‘It is in their interest to focus attention on the Bribery Act. They put up talking heads and arrange conferences. It is a huge industry.’” Green’s comments are similar to those noted in this prior post by Kenneth Clark (the U.K.’s anti-corruption champion) who stated, in the House of Commons, leading up to the Bribery Act as follows. “I hope to put out very clear guidance [regarding the Bribery Act] to save [businesses] from the fears that are sometimes aroused by the compliance industry, the consultants and lawyers who will, of course, try to persuade companies that millions of pounds must be spent on new systems that, in my opinion, no honest firm will require to comply with the Act.”

Harris Corp.

As previously noted in this Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents post, Harris Corporation disclosed as follows in its recent annual report.

“[I]n April 4, 2011, we completed the acquisition of Carefx and thereby also acquired its subsidiaries, including in China (“Carefx China”). The consolidated revenue of the Carefx China operations for fiscal 2012 was approximately $1.4 million, or less than 0.1% of our consolidated revenue. In connection with our integration activities and the subsequent audit of the financials of the Carefx China operations, we became aware that certain entertainment, travel and other expenses in connection with the Carefx China operations may have been incurred or recorded improperly. In response, with the concurrence of our Audit Committee, we initiated an internal investigation, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, to determine whether violations of the FCPA potentially occurred. In the course of our investigation, we learned that certain employees of the Carefx China operations had provided pre-paid gift cards and other gifts and payments to certain customers and potential customers. Although our investigation is not complete, we have already taken remedial actions related to the Carefx China operations, including changes to internal control procedures, termination of the gift-giving practice, additional compliance training and termination of the employment of certain individuals. The preliminary results of the investigation have been disclosed to our Audit Committee, Board of Directors and auditors, and we have also contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and the SEC to voluntarily disclose that we are conducting the investigation and to advise that it is our intent to fully cooperate with any investigation that they may conduct with respect to this matter. We cannot predict at this time any regulatory action that may be taken with respect to this matter or any other potential consequences that may result. However, based on the information available to date, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.”

As noted in this previous post, Harris Corp. is part of FCPA history. It is believed to be the first, and to this day only, publicly traded company to have put the DOJ to its burden of proof at trial. As noted in the post, Harris Corp. prevailed in the enforcement action (1990-1991). I noted in the previous post as follows. If non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements existed in 1990, would Harris have resolved the enforcement action via such a resolution vehicle? Likely yes. Yet Harris and the individual defendants all prevailed at trial.

If the conduct Harris recently disclosed gives rise to an enforcement action, will Harris likewise this time around put the DOJ to its burden of proof? Even if it has valid legal and factual defenses, not a chance. NPAs and DPAs exist today and resolving FCPA inquiries is often more about cost-beneft / risk-reward, than law and facts.

*****

A good weekend to all.