Archive for the ‘Deferred Prosecution Agreements’ Category

Oral Argument Heard In Notable DPA Appeal

Monday, September 14th, 2015

oral argumentNon-prosecution agreements (NPAs) and deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) are the predominate way in which the DOJ resolves Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions against business organizations.

Indeed, as highlighted in this prior post, since 2010 86% of corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions have involved either an NPA or DPA.

Even though U.S. v. Fokker Services is not an FCPA case (it involves criminal charges against the company to unlawfully export U.S. origin goods and services to Iran, Sudan, and Burma) the case has been followed closely here at FCPA Professor because of its potential impact on FCPA enforcement.

As highlighted in this prior post, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon (D.D.C.) refused to rubber stamp the DPA agreed to by the DOJ and Fokker Services.  Judge Leon’s decision is being appealed to the D.C. Circuit and as noted in this prior post the DOJ’s position is basically “hands off our DPAs.” See here for additional briefs filed in the matter.

Last Friday the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the appeal and the audio file of the arguments is here. (For a good summary of the oral argument, see here).

The appeal presents an uncommon situation in which the DOJ and criminal defendant share similar positions – that is, wanting the DPA to be approved so both sides can move on.

Yet as evidenced in the oral argument, the court seems to have serious concerns regarding the substantive and procedural arguments of the parties.

DOJ Tells DC Circuit – Hands Off Our DPAs

Thursday, June 25th, 2015

StopSignThis February post highlighted Judge Richard Leon’s (D.D.C) refusal to rubber stamp a DOJ deferred prosecution agreement in U.S. v. Fokker Services (an enforcement action which resolved criminal charges against Fokker for unlawfully exporting U.S. origin goods and services to Iran, Sudan, and Burma via a DPA).

Although the action was not an Foreign Corrupt Practices Act action, NPAs and DPAs are the predominate way in which the DOJ resolves FCPA enforcement actions against business organization.

Thus the appeal in Fokker Services is certainly worth watching.

Recently the DOJ filed this opening brief in which it argued that courts need to keep their hands off of DOJ DPAs.

In summary fashion, the DOJ argues as follows (internal citations omitted).

“As early in the Nation’s history as the year 1800, then-Congressman (later Chief Justice) John Marshall explained in a speech before the House of Representatives that, under the principle of prosecutorial discretion, the Executive Branch possesses “an indubitable and a constitutional power” to “direct that the criminal be prosecuted no farther.” “This is no interference with judicial decisions,” Marshall explained, “nor any invasion of the province of a court.” Id. Making a similar point in a more recent decision, this Court explained that, “when the government is challenged for not bringing as extensive an action as it might, a district judge must be careful not to exceed his or her constitutional role.” The decision below violates this separation-of-powers principle by improperly interfering with the Executive Branch’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion in a criminal case. Whether through appellate review under the collateral-order doctrine, or by issuing a writ of mandamus, this Court should reverse the district court’s aggrandizement of its judicial role well beyond settled constitutional limits.

It is well-established that the Executive Branch has broad discretion to determine when to prosecute an individual for violation of the criminal laws. That principle applies in a variety of different contexts, such as the dismissal of criminal charges, evaluation of plea agreements, and even review of consent decrees and similar civil agreements. Courts, including this Court, have repeatedly stressed the bedrock principle that Article III courts cannot intrude upon the prosecutorial discretion of the Executive Branch.

The principle is equally applicable in the context of a DPA negotiated to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act. The text, structure, and history of the Speedy Trial Act establish that district courts have authority to review DPAs to ensure that they have been negotiated “for the purpose of allowing the defendant to demonstrate his good conduct.” Nothing in the Speedy Trial Act suggests that Congress altered the established prosecutorial-discretion framework by authorizing district courts to review intrusively the terms of DPAs for excessive leniency toward defendants. Indeed, to the extent that the Act is ambiguous about the scope of district-court review, it must be construed to avoid any clash with established principles of constitutional law.

Measured against this yardstick, the district court’s order was clearly erroneous. The court expressly premised its decision on its view that the government had been too lenient toward the corporate defendant — as well as, remarkably, its surprise that the government did not prosecute any individual corporate officers. Nothing within the district court’s supervisory powers allows it to intrude on the prosecutorial function and violate the separation of powers in this fashion.”

See here for Fokker Services opening brief.

Friday Roundup

Friday, May 8th, 2015

Roundup2The anti-bribery business, quotable, scrutiny alerts and updates, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday Roundup.

“The Anti-Bribery Business”

Several articles have been written about FCPA Inc., a term I coined in April 2010 (see here), as well as the “facade of FCPA enforcement” (see here for my 2010 article of the same name).

The articles have included: “Cashing in on Corruption” (Washington Post); “The Bribery Racket” (Forbes); and “FCPA Inc. and the Business of Bribery” (Wall Street Journal).

I talked at length with The Economist about the above topics and certain of my comments are included in this recent article “The Anti-Bribery Business.”

“The huge amount of work generated for internal and external lawyers and for compliance staff is the result of firms bending over backwards to be co-operative, in the hope of negotiating reduced penalties. Some are even prepared to waive the statute of limitations for the conclusion of their cases. They want to be sure they have answered the “Where else?” question: where in the world might the firm have been engaging in similar practices?

In doing so, businesses are egged on by what Mr Koehler calls “FCPA Inc”. This is “a very aggressively marketed area of the law,” he says, “with no shortage of advisers financially incentivised to tell you the sky is falling in.” Convinced that it is, the bosses of accused companies will then agree to any measure, however excessive, to demonstrate that they have comprehensively answered the “Where else?” question. So much so that even some law enforcers have started telling them to calm down. Last year Leslie Caldwell, head of the DOJ’s criminal division, said internal investigations were sometimes needlessly broad and costly, delaying resolution of matters. “We do not expect companies to aimlessly boil the ocean,” she said.

Her words have provided scant comfort: defence lawyers say that their clients feel that if they investigate problems less exhaustively, they risk giving the impression that they are withholding information. Some say the DOJ is maddeningly ambiguous, encouraging firms to overreact when allegations surface.”


Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell is spot-on in this recent Q&A in Fraud Magazine as to the importance of uniquely tailored compliance.

“I think companies have to tailor their compliance programs and their investigative mechanisms to their businesses. There’s no one-size-fits-all compliance program. Different businesses have different risks. And a company needs to do an assessment that’s very tailored to their risks and game out what could go wrong and figure out how to prevent that from happening.”

She is less than clear though when describing when the DOJ would like companies to voluntarily disclose:

“We don’t want a company to wait until they’ve completed their own investigation before they come to us. We’ll give them room to do that, but there may be investigative steps that we want to take that maybe the company is not even capable of taking. We definitely don’t want to send a message that the company should complete its own investigation and then come to us. However, we obviously don’t expect a company to report to us as soon as it receives a hotline report that it hasn’t even checked into yet.”

For your viewing pleasure, here is the video of a recent speech by Caldwell (previously highlighted here) along with Q&A.

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates


Reuters reports:

“German engineering firm Bilfinger has become the first international company to disclose to Brazil that it may have paid bribes as it seeks leniency under a new anti-corruption law, Comptroller General Valdir Simão said on Thursday. By reporting potential graft to the comptroller, known by the acronym CGU, Bilfinger hopes to continue operating in Brazil, Simão said, though it may still pay damages. ”The company knows it will be punished in Brazil; it is not exempt from fines,” Simao said at a conference in Sao Paulo adding that in exchange the company could be guaranteed the right to keep operating in Brazil. Companies that are convicted for bribery could be banned from future contracts in Brazilunder the law, which took effect in January 2014. Bilfinger said in March that it may have paid 1 million euros to public officials in Brazil in connection with orders for large screens for security control centers during the 2014 soccer World Cup. It is conducting an internal investigation and collaborating with Brazilian authorities, Bilfinger said in a statement at the time. Five companies are pursuing leniency deals with the CGU, Simao said, adding that such deals are “quite new” for the country. Four are tied to a scandal at Brazil’s state-run oil firm Petroleo Brasileiro SA, he said.”

As highlighted in this previous post, in December 2013 German-based Bilfinger paid approximately $32 million to resolve an FCPA enforcement action concerning alleged conduct in Nigeria.  The enforcement action was resolved via a three-year deferred prosecution agreement.


Reuters reports:

“A Chinese regulator investigated Siemens AG last year over whether the German group’s healthcare unit and its dealers bribed hospitals to buy expensive disposable products used in some of its medical devices, three people with knowledge of the probe told Reuters. The investigation, which has not previously been reported, follows a wide-reaching probe into the pharmaceutical industry in China that last year saw GlaxoSmithKline Plc fined nearly $500 million for bribing officials to push its medicine sales. China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) accused Siemens and its dealers of having violated competition law by donating medical devices in return for agreements to exclusively buy the chemical reagents needed to run the machines from Siemens, the people said.”

In 2008, Siemens paid $800 million to resolve DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement actions that were widespread in scope.  The enforcement action remains the largest of all-time in terms of overall settlement amount.

Dun & Bradstreet

The company recently disclosed the following update regarding its FCPA scrutiny.

“On March 18, 2012, we announced we had temporarily suspended our Shanghai Roadway D&B Marketing Services Co. Ltd. (“Roadway”) operations in China, pending an investigation into allegations that its data collection practices may have violated local Chinese consumer data privacy laws. Thereafter, the Company decided to permanently cease the operations of Roadway. In addition, we have been reviewing certain allegations that we may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and certain other laws in our China operations. As previously reported, we have voluntarily contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to advise both agencies of our investigation, and we are continuing to meet with representatives of both the SEC and DOJ in connection therewith. Our investigation remains ongoing and is being conducted at the direction of the Audit Committee.

During the three months ended March 31, 2015 , we incurred $0.4 million of legal and other professional fees related to matters in China, as compared to $0.3 million of legal and other professional fees related to matters in China for the three months ended March 31, 2014.

As our investigation and our discussions with both the SEC and DOJ are ongoing, we cannot yet predict the ultimate outcome of the matter or its impact on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Based on our discussions with the SEC and DOJ, including an indication from the SEC in February and March 2015 of its initial estimate of the amount of net benefit potentially earned by the Company as a result of the challenged activities, we continue to believe that it is probable that the Company will incur a loss related to the government’s investigation. We will be meeting with the Staff of the SEC to obtain and to further understand the assumptions and methodologies underlying their current estimate of net benefit and will subsequently provide a responsive position. The DOJ also advised the Company in February 2015 that they will be proposing terms of a potential settlement, but we are unable to predict the timing or terms of any such proposal. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any loss, although it is possible that the amount of such loss could be material.”


The company disclosed as follows concerning civil litigation filed in the aftermath of its November 2014 FCPA enforcement action (see here for the prior post).

“On January 23, 2015, the City of Riviera Beach General Employees’ Retirement System filed a new shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County against three of our current directors and one former director. We are also named as a nominal defendant. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by failing to ensure that we had sufficient internal controls and systems for compliance with the FCPA; that we failed to provide adequate training on the FCPA; and that based on these actions, the directors have been unjustly enriched. Purportedly seeking relief on our behalf, the plaintiff seeks an award of restitution and unspecified damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees). We and the individual defendants have filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the complaint in this case.

On January 30, 2015, we received a demand pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law from the law firm of Scott + Scott LLP on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Pension Fund to inspect certain of our books and records. The alleged purpose of the demand is to investigate potential wrongdoing, mismanagement, and breach of fiduciary duties by our directors and executive officers in connection with the matters relating to our FCPA settlement with the SEC and DOJ, and alleged lack of internal controls. We objected to the demand on procedural grounds by letter. On May 1, 2015, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Pension Fund filed an action against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel the inspection of the requested books and records.

On March 13, 2015, we received a demand pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law from the law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on behalf of Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System to inspect certain of our books and records. The alleged purpose of the demand is to investigate potential wrongdoing, mismanagement, and breach of fiduciary duties by our directors and executive officers in connection with the matters relating to our FCPA settlement with the SEC and DOJ, and alleged lack of internal controls. We objected to the demand on procedural grounds by letter. On April 21, 2015, Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System filed an action against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel the inspection of the requested books and records.”


The company disclosed its FCPA scrutiny earlier this year and stated as follows in its recent quarterly filing:

“For the first quarter of 2015 approximately $1 million was recorded for legal and other professional services incurred related to the internal investigation of this matter. The Company expects to incur additional costs relating to the investigation of this matter throughout 2015.”

For the Reading Stack

From Global Compliance News by Baker & McKenzie titled “When a DPA is DOA:  What The Increasing Judicial Disapproval of Corporate DPAs Means for Corporate Resolutions With the U.S. Government.”

“The legal setting in which corporations are negotiating with U.S. regulators is always evolving. Federal judges’ increasing willingness to second-guess negotiated settlements between the government and corporations is likely to encourage government attorneys to seek even more onerous settlements to ensure that judges do not reject them or criticize the agency in open court. Companies and their counsel should be ready to push back, using the judicial scrutiny to their advantage where possible.”


A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Friday, April 24th, 2015

Roundup2Really no big deal, scrutiny alerts, across the pond, quotable, and for your viewing pleasure.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Really No Big Deal

Lockheed’s request (which the SEC does not oppose) to be relieved of an SEC permanent injunction stemming from a 1976 (pre-FCPA) enforcement action has been receiving some recent ink (see here and here ”Lockheed Wants Out of 40-Year Old Disclosure Demand”).

I don’t really see this as a big deal given that Lockheed’s reporting obligation is not disappearing, it’s just now subject to a more specific law.

As stated in the unopposed motion:

“On April 13, 1976, the Commission filed a Complaint against Lockheed Martin for violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and the Commission’s Rules promulgated thereunder) arising out of alleged payments to foreign government officials in the early 1970s. Simultaneous with the filing of the Commission’s Complaint, Lockheed Martin consented to the entry of a final judgment of permanent injunction (the “Final Judgment”) without admitting or denying the Commission’s non jurisdictional allegations.

The Final Judgment was entered by the Court that same day. The Final Judgment incorporated by reference a “Consent and Undertaking” entered into and filed by Lockheed Martin (the “Consent”), pursuant to which Lockheed Martin agreed to undertake several remedial actions. [...] Those actions included (a) the creation of an independent Special Committee to conduct an investigation into the matters alleged in the Commission’s Complaint; (b) the preparation and submission of a full report of the Special Committee’s investigation to the Court, the Commission, and Lockheed Martin’s Board of Directors; and (c) the adoption of a “Statement of Policies and Procedures” regarding “unlawful payments to government officials” (hereinafter “Anti-Corruption Policies and Procedures”).  In addition, Lockheed Martin agreed that it would file a Form 8-K with the Commission at least 10 days in advance of any future changes to its Anti-Corruption Policies and Procedures.  This prospective requirement—which Lockheed Martin has now complied with for nearly four decades—is the only aspect of the Final Judgment at issue in this motion.

In 2003, the Commission issued a final rule implementing Section 406 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), which directed the Commission to devise and promulgate requirements for the disclosure of “codes of ethics” by public companies. The final rule defines a “code of ethics” as “written standards that are reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote,” among other things, “[c]ompliance with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations.”  The Commission’s final rule requires public companies to disclose their codes of ethics to the public by either (i) filing them as an exhibit to an annual report (on Form 10-K), or (ii) posting them on the company’s website. The final rule also requires that certain types of changes to a company’s code of ethics must be disclosed within four business days of the change where the company elects to disclose its code of ethics on its website.

In light of the Commission’s final rule, Lockheed Martin—like many other public companies—has elected to make its code of ethics (as well as certain other corporate policies) available to the public by posting them on its corporate website. Among other things, Lockheed Martin’s “Code of Ethics and Business Conduct”—which applies to anyone “conducting business on behalf of Lockheed Martin” (including, but not limited to, its employees), and is made available in 16 different languages—requires strict compliance with all applicable anticorruption laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). Lockheed Martin also makes its more detailed policy on “Compliance with the Anti-Corruption Laws” available on its website. By virtue of the Final Judgment, however, Lockheed Martin must continue to file a Form 8-K before making any change to its Anti-Corruption Policies and Procedures, notwithstanding its compliance with the Commission’s final rule.”

Scrutiny Alerts

Interpublic Group

The bribery and corruption news from Brazil continues to flow.  First it was Petrobras-related bribery, then it was various corporate interactions with tax authorities, and now it is advertising industry.

Advertising Age reports

“A former executive at Lowe & Partners’ Brazilian agency, Borghi/Lowe, was detained by police last Friday and a federal judge authorized the agency’s financial and other records to be searched … Ricardo Hoffman, Borghi/Lowe’s former VP and head of the agency’s office in the nation’s capital Brasilia, is said by Federal judge Sergio Moro [...] to have instructed third parties to make payments to then-Congressman Andre Vargas in connection with two government accounts handled by Borghi/Lowe.”

Lowe & Partners is a unit of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., a New York based company.

See here for a 1989 FCPA enforcement action against an advertising agency and various executives.

SOCO International

Voice of America highlights allegations of bribery and corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) by London-based SOCO (a company with ADRs registered with the SEC).

According to the article:

“A member of DRC’s Parliament allegedly admitted to taking monthly payments from SOCO to lobby for the oil company and a high-level SOCO official and a company contractor allegedly admitted that the company paid rebels.


SOCO has “categorically denied” corruption allegations.

“The company operates in accordance with the [British] Bribery Act of 2010, and any allegation to the contrary is categorically denied,” SOCO said in a statement [...]. “Payments to rebel groups have never been, or will ever be, sanctioned by SOCO.”

Across the Pond highlights the 5th birthday of the U.K. Bribery Act (from the date passed, not the date the law went live – July 1, 2011) and asks – “the Bribery Act has moved from crawling to walking.  Anyone for cake?”  The post notes:

“The Bribery Act was born amid a huge public fanfare, plenty of hype and lots press coverage. Prosecutions would be imminent and UK PLC would be seriously disadvantaged on the global stage as a result of the ‘red tape’ of the Bribery Act. In 2015 it is hard to square the reality of what happened with what the naysayers forecast.  A handful of individual prosecutions under the Act but none of them are ‘Bribery Act’ cases in the true sense of the word. Put another way, the hype around the Bribery Act focussed on the potential enforcement of new UK anti-corruption laws against corporates UK and foreign who fell under the long arm jurisdiction of the Act. To date, there has been no corporate prosecution launched and no Deferred Prosecution Agreement disposing of a Bribery Act case. Five years on the UK economy is the strongest in Europe and predictions of the the demise of UK PLC turn out to have been premature. So.  What was all the fuss about?”

Precisely.  Here was my two cents on the date the Bribery Act went live in 2011.

“As with any new law, there is likely to be a learning phase for both the enforcement agencies and those subject to the law. That was certainly the case in the U.S. in the years following passage of the FCPA in 1977. Thus, it very well may be the case that there are no enforcement actions for some time (recognizing that it often takes a few years from beginning of an inquiry to resolution of an action). Thus the greatest immediate impact of the Bribery Act is sure to be the compliance ethic it inspires. I expect that the enforcement actions that may develop over time to focus on egregious instances of corporate conduct on which no reasonable minds would disagree. I do not get the sense, based on public comments of the Ministry of Justice and the Serious Fraud Office, that the envelope will be pushed too far in the early years of the Bribery Act.”


In this recent Q&A on the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog, James Koukios, a lawyer who recently left the DOJ’s FCPA Unit for private practice, states:

“Because the Fraud Section has the exclusive mandate for FCPA prosecutions, we were able to formulate—and execute—policy decisions in a manner that, I believe, had a significant impact on corporate compliance programs and the global anti-corruption movement.”

As I have long argued, special enforcement policies require special rules.  As to DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement attorneys who have supervisory and discretionary positions and articulate government FCPA policies, it is in the public interest that such individuals be prohibited, upon leaving government service, from providing FCPA defense or compliance services in the private sector for a five-year period.

For Your Viewing Pleasure

Calling all Judge Jed Rakoff fans.  In this video of a recent speech, Judge Rakoff talks about corporate criminal liability and judicial review of NPAs and DPAs.


A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Friday, April 17th, 2015

Roundup2In-depth, scrutiny alert, further Alstom-developments, quotable, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.


In November 2014, Dutch-based SBM Offshore resolved an enforcement action in the Netherlands.  With a settlement amount of $240 million, the SBM Offshore enforcement action was one of the largest bribery-related enforcement actions of 2014 – regardless of country.

This recent article titled “The Cover-Up at Dutch Multinational SBM” in Vrij Nederland (a Dutch magazine) goes in-depth as to SBM’s scrutiny.  The article has largely escaped the attention of Western media and the FCPA-related blogosphere, but is worth the time to read.  The article begins as follows.

“The corruption scandal at Dutch multinational SBM Offshore, which in November reached a $240 million out-of-court settlement with the Dutch Public Prosecutor (OM), is much larger than thought, as testimony of a former employee now shows. The company has actively pursued a strategy of “containment” and has consistently misled the market. So why did the OM settle?”

Among other things, the article highlights the role of U.S. lawyers and law firms involved in the SBM representation.

Scrutiny Alert

In this recent article, the L.A. Times details, based on obtained documents, the expenditures involved in filming the movie Sahara. Among the expenditures, according to the article - ”local bribes” within the Kingdom of Morocco.  The article states:

“Courtesy payments,” “gratuities” and “local bribes” totaling $237,386 were passed out on locations in Morocco to expedite filming. A $40,688 payment to stop a river improvement project and $23,250 for “Political/Mayoral support” may have run afoul of U.S. law, experts say.


According to Account No. 3,600 of the “Sahara” budget, 16 “gratuity” or “courtesy” payments were made throughout Morocco. Six of the expenditures were “local bribes” in the amount of 65,000 dirham, or $7,559.

Experts in Hollywood accounting could not recall ever seeing a line item in a movie budget described as a bribe.


The final budget shows that “local bribes” were handed out in remote locations such as Ouirgane in the Atlas Mountains, Merzouga and Rissani. One payment was made to expedite the removal of palm trees from an old French fort called Ouled Zahra, said a person close to the production who requested anonymity.

Other items include $23,250 for “Political/Mayoral support” in Erfoud and $40,688 “to halt river improvement project” in Azemmour. The latter payment was made to delay construction of a government sewage system that would have interrupted filming.”

Further Alstom Developments

Yesterday, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office announced:

“Charges have been brought by the SFO against Alstom Network UK Ltd and an Alstom employee in phase three of its ongoing investigation.

Alstom Network UK Ltd, formerly called Alstom International Ltd, a UK subsidiary of Alstom, has been charged with a further two offences of corruption contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, as well as two offences of conspiracy to corrupt contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Michael John Anderson, 54, of Kenilworth in Warwickshire, who was working as a business development director for Alstom Transport SA in France, has been charged with the same offences.

The alleged offences are said to have taken place between 1 January 2006 and 18 October 2007 and concern the supply of trains to the Budapest Metro.

The first hearing in this case will take place at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 12 May 2015.”


In this recent speech, DOJ Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell stated:

“Through deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements – or DPAs and NPAs – in cases against companies, we are frequently able to accomplish as much as, and sometimes even more than, we could from even a criminal conviction.  We can require remedial measures and improved compliance policies and practices.  We also can require companies to cooperate in ongoing investigations, including investigations of responsible individuals.  To ensure compliance with the terms of the agreements and to help facilitate companies getting back on the right track, we can impose monitors and require periodic reporting to courts that oversee the agreements for their terms.

Some of these outcomes may resemble remedies that can be imposed by regulators. But these agreements have several features that cannot be achieved by regulatory or civil resolutions.

Criminal Division resolutions require that an entity admit to its misconduct.  Commerzbank, for example, admitted responsibility and agreed to a detailed statement of facts that was filed with the court.  Whereas some regulators permit “no admit, no deny” resolutions – for legitimate reasons of their own – we require that individuals and entities acknowledge their criminal culpability if they are entering into a NPA, DPA or pleading guilty.

Where we enter into DPAs, a criminal information is filed with the court and prosecution of the information is deferred for the time of the agreement.  Where a company fails to live up to the terms of its agreement, an information is already filed, and we can tear up the agreement and prosecute based on the admitted statement of facts.  That’s a powerful incentive to live up to the terms of the agreements.

When we suspect or find non-compliance with the terms of DPAs and NPAs, we have other tools at our disposal, too.  We can extend the term of the agreements and the term of any monitors, while we investigate allegations of a breach, including allegations of new criminal conduct.  Where a breach has occurred, we can impose an additional monetary penalty or additional compliance or remedial measures.  And let me be clear: the Criminal Division will not hesitate to tear up a DPA or NPA and file criminal charges, where such action is appropriate and proportional to the breach.

Obviously, not every breach of a DPA warrants the same penalty.  We are committed to pursuing an appropriate remedy in each case, and we will calibrate the penalty we pursue to fit the nature of the violation and the corporation’s history and culture.  And we will do so transparently, with an explanation of what factors led to the resolution in each case.


[C]riminal prosecution is the best manner in which to punish culpable individuals.  And the seriousness of potential or actual punishment for felony criminal convictions, including incarceration for individuals, and the stigma and reputational harm associated with criminal charges or convictions, serve as powerful deterrents.”

For the Reading Stack

This Wall Street Journal Risk & Compliance post suggests that the ongoing corruption investigations in Brazil are becoming full-employment events for FCPA Inc.  According to the article:

“Multinationals with operations in Brazil are making frightened calls to their lawyers, as the country’s spreading corruption scandal reaches more companies.


Attorneys say companies with operations in Brazil are scrambling to assess whether they could get swept up in the probe. “They are very worried,” said Ruti Smithline, an anti-bribery specialist at Morrison & Foerster LLP. “The investigation is so widespread. If you have business in Brazil, the likelihood that this is going to touch you in some way is very high.”

Companies are racing to discover questionable activities before authorities in Brazil do. “They are asking: ‘Is our house clean? If authorities look at these relationships what are they going to find?’” Ms. Smithline said.”

The WSJ post asserts:

“[Brazil's  new anti-corruption law, the Clean Companies Act] holds companies to even higher standards and stricter liability than the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. For example, unlike the FCPA, under the Brazilian law a company can be prosecuted for corruption even if didn’t realize it was paying a bribe and had a great compliance program in place.”

This is a most off-target statement as Brazil law does not even provide for corporate criminal liability like the FCPA.  Moreover, business organizations are often the subject of FCPA enforcement actions even though the company had in place pre-existing compliance policies and procedures.


Miller & Chevalier’s FCPA Spring Review 2015 is here.


A good weekend to all.