Archive for the ‘DOJ Enforcement Action’ Category

Louis Berger International And Two Former Employees Resolve Enforcement Action

Monday, July 20th, 2015

LBLast Friday, the DOJ announced the second corporate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action of 2015.

It was against Louis Berger International Inc. (LBI, a New Jersey-based infrastructure and development company) and focused on the conduct of two former employees (one located in the Philippines, the other located in India) that allegedly occurred approximately 5 – 17 years ago in connection with projects in Indonesia, Vietnam, India and Kuwait.

The former employees are described as:

  • Richard Hirsch was a high-level executive at the Company, located in the Philippines, who at times oversaw the Company’s overseas operations in, inter alia, Indonesia and Vietnam.
  • James McClung was a high-level executive at the Company, located in India, who at times oversaw the Company’s overseas operations in Vietnam and India.

According to the DOJ, LBI directly and indirectly made payments totaling approximately $3.9 million to foreign government officials in India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Vietnam and elsewhere. To resolve the enforcement action, LBI agreed to pay $17.1 million pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement and to engage a compliance monitor for a three year period.

Criminal Complaint

The criminal complaint charges LBI with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.

According to the criminal compliant, the purpose of the conspiracy “was to make and conceal corrupt payments to foreign officials in India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Vietnam and elsewhere in order to obtain and retain contracts with government entities in those countries and, thus, to enrich the Company and the co-conspirators with the full economic benefits anticipated from such contracts.” In addition, the criminal complaint alleges that “terms like ‘commitment fee,’ ‘counterpart per diem,’ ‘marketing fee,’ and ‘field operation expenses’ [were used] as code words to conceal the true nature of the bribe payments” and that “cash disbursement forms and invoices [were utilized] which did not truthfully describe the services provided or the purpose of the payment.” Moreover, the complaint alleges that members of the conspiracy created “ostensibly legitimate but ultimately illicit accounts, or “slush funds,” for the payment of bribes through third parties.”

Deferred Prosecution Agreement

The criminal charges were resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement.

The Statement of Facts in the DPA state, under the heading “Overview of the Bribery Scheme” as follows.

“From in or about 1998 until in or about 2010, the Company, through its employees and agents, engaged in a scheme to pay bribes to various foreign officials in Indonesia, Vietnam, India and Kuwait to secure contracts with government agencies and instrumentalities in those countries on behalf of the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates.  The Company, through its employees and agents, together with others, discussed making the bribe payments to the foreign officials and the ways in which they intended to conceal the corrupt payments.  For example, the Company, through its employees and agents, together with others, used terms like ‘commitment fee,’ ‘counterpart per diem,’ ‘marketing fee’ and ‘field operation expenses’ as code words to conceal the true nature of the bribe payments and utilized cash disbursement forms and invoices which did not truthfully describe the services provided or the purpose of the payment.

In order to effectuate the payments, the Company, through its employees and agents, utilized various methods.  In many instances, employees and agents of the Company submitted inflated and fictitious invoices to generate cash that was then used later for the payment of bribes through intermediaries.  The Company, through its employees and agents, would then wire certain funds from bank accounts of the Company in New Jersey to bank accounts in various other countries for the purpose of making payments to foreign officials.  In Vietnam, the Company, through its employees and agents, used the Foundation – which was in part a local labor pool – as a conduit for the payment of bribes to foreign government officials in Vietnam to conceal the bribe payments.

In total, the Company, through its employees and agents, together with others, made payments directly and indirectly to foreign officials, including in Indonesia, Vietnam, India and Kuwait, totaling approximately $3,934,431.”

Under the heading “Corrupt Conduct in Indonesia,” the DPA states that “beginning in approximately 2005, the Company sought contracts with the Indonesian government as a subcontractor by interposing a one-man consulting company as the prime contractor in order to avoid directly paying bribes to foreign officials even though the Company was well aware that the prime contractor was paying bribes.”  According to the DPA, in 2008 “when the law firm handling the Company’s internal review directed scrutiny [at a citizen and national of Indonesia employed by the Company in Jakarta] Richard Hirsch and others attempted to discourage [the employee] from speaking with the Company’s review team.” According to the DPA, Hirsch also communicated with co-conspirators on his personal e-mail account to avoid detection by the company.

Under the heading “Corrupt Conduct in Vietnam,” the DPA states that “the Company began its operations in Vietnam during the early 1990s and secured numerous public contracts across the county.  In order to obtain and maintain these contracts, the Company through its employees and agents paid bribes to Vietnamese officials through the Foundation [a non-governmental organization which the Company engaged as a local sponsor, and which served as a key source for local labor and operational support in Vietnam.]  Sometimes the bribe money was disguised as ‘donations’ to the Foundation paid from the Company’s bank accounts in New Jersey to a bank account jointly held by the Company and the Foundation in Vietnam.  On other occasions the bribe money was masked by invoices from the Foundation that were paid from the Company’s New Jersey account to a joint account.”  The DPA further states that beginning in “approximately 2005, when James McClung assumed responsibility for the Company’s Vietnam operations, the Company through its employees and agents generated bribe money by paying vendors for services that had never actually been rendered; those vendors would then serve as conduits for the payment of bribe money to foreign officials.”

Under the heading “Corrupt Conduct in India,” the DPA states: “Along with several consortium partners, the Company won two water development projects in Goa and Guwhati.  The Company paid bribes to win both of those contracts.  The bribe money was disguised as payments to vendors for services that had never actually been rendered.  The Company through its employees and agents and its consortium partner kept track of the bribe payments by circulating a spreadsheet amongst themselves showing the proportionate share of each bribe that they had paid to the foreign officials overseeing their work on the Goa and Guwhati projects.”

Under the heading “Corrupt Conduct in Kuwait,” the DPA states: “In approximately 2005, the Company won a $66 million road construction project with the Kuwait Ministry of Public Works.  In order to secure that contract, the Company through its employees and agents and its joint venture partner made a series of corrupt payments [totaling approximately $71,000) to an official with the Ministry of Public Works.  Some of the payments were made upfront under the guise of ‘proposal’ costs.  Other payments were made through a purported contract for ‘business development’ with another firm.”

In the 3-year DPA, LBI admitted, accepted and acknowledged responsibility for the conduct as described above.

Under the heading “relevant considerations,” the DPA states:

“[The DOJ enters] into this Agreement based on the individual facts and circumstances presented by this case and by LBI … Among the factors considered were the following:  (a) after the government had made LBI … aware of a False Claim Act investigation, [the Company] conducted an internal investigation, discovered potential FCPA violations, and voluntarily self-reported to the [DOJ] the misconduct …; (b) [the Company's] cooperation, including conducting an extensive internal investigation, voluntarily making U.S. and foreign employees available for interviews, collecting analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information for [the DOJ] and providing updates to the [DOJ] as the conduct and results of the internal investigation; (c) [the Company] has engaged in extensive remediation, including terminating the employment of officers and employees responsible for the corrupt payments, enhancing its due diligence protocol for third-party agents and consultants, and instituting heightened review of proposals and other transactional documents for all Company contracts; (d) [the Company's] improvements to date to its compliance program and internal controls, as well as its commitment to continue to enhance its compliance program and internal controls, including ensuring that its compliance program satisfies the minimum elements [set forth in the DPA]; (e) the nature and scope of the offense conduct; and (f) [the Company's] agreement to continue to cooperate [with the DOJ] in any ongoing investigation.”

The Sentencing Guidelines calculation in the DPA sets forth an advisory fine range of $17.1 million – $34.2 million. The DPA states that the ultimate $17.1 million fine “is appropriate given the facts and circumstances of this case, including the cooperation in this matter and the nature and scope of the offense conduct.”  As indicated in the DPA, $7.1 million of the fine amount is payable immediately with the remaining amount payable within 12 months.

Pursuant to the DPA, LBI is required to retain an independent compliance monitor for a three year period.

Typical of most corporate FCPA enforcement actions, the DPA contains a “muzzle clause” in which LBI agreed that it shall not directly or indirectly make any public statement contradicting the information set forth in the DPA.

As noted in the DOJ’s release, Hirsch (61, of Makaati, Philippines) and McClung (59, of Dubai, United Arab Emirates) each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and one substantive count of violating the FCPA. The sentencing hearings for Hirsch and McClung are scheduled for Nov. 5, 2015.

Louis Berger issued this release which states:

“Louis Berger International, has agreed to a three-year deferred prosecution agreement and $17.1 million fine with the U.S. Department of Justice for self-reported improper business activities principally conducted overseas by former managers between 1998 and 2010. All of the managers associated with these improper business activities were separated from the company following the early findings of Louis Berger’s internal investigations.

“The DOJ has acknowledged the extensive global reforms undertaken at Louis Berger since 2010,” said Nicholas J. Masucci, Louis Berger chairman. “2010 was a pivotal year in our company’s history. It marked a clear departure from the past as we assumed new management, new processes and comprehensive system reforms that are the core of our global operations today. Today’s settlement is the critical final milestone in our reform, as it was important for us to take responsibility for the historic actions of former managers and close the chapter on the company’s pre-2010 era.”

Prior to Louis Berger’s 2010 settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice for improper billing on U.S. government overhead accounts, the company undertook a thorough review of past practices of former managers, including improper overseas business activities. The company self-discovered and self-reported potential Foreign Corrupt Practices Act infractions to the U.S. government starting in 2010 and has been working with the government to resolve these issues since that time. In total, the company self-identified and self-reported findings of misconduct in Vietnam, Indonesia, India and Kuwait between 1998 and 2010 totaling $3.9 million in bribes.

Since 2010, Louis Berger has undergone a massive $25+ million reform effort that resulted in new internal controls, new policies and procedures, and comprehensive systems investments, including a new global accounting system.

The company has actively supported the government in its investigation of the culpable individuals and their activities. In addition to separating these former managers from the company, the firm also has added new managers to key positions, including chief financial officer and controller, and regional management teams throughout Asia and the Middle East. Additionally, the company implemented a new corporate operational model to ensure greater centralized oversight and control of overseas business activities. Moreover, the company has reformed its ownership structure by implementing an Employee Stock Ownership Program.

The company established an independent compliance and ethics department under the oversight of an independent audit committee, introduced a global helpline through which employees can report potentially non-compliant activities, and implemented a global code of business conduct. Investments also have funded annual worldwide compliance, ethics and anti-corruption training for all employees.

Under the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, the company will work with a government-appointed monitor to test and report on its internal processes and controls as well as its compliance and ethics policies and training for three years.

“Transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of a sustainable business, and we are a much more efficient, responsible and transparent company today than we were five years ago,” said Masucci. “We will continue to monitor and improve our existing compliance system while delivering quality work to our clients with a level of integrity they expect.”

Brian Whisler (Baker & McKenzie) and Michael Himmel (Lowenstein Sandler) represented LBI.

DOJ Brings First Corporate FCPA Enforcement Action Of 2015

Thursday, June 18th, 2015

IAPNo doubt it was a coincidence, but it was hard to ignore the timing.

Hours after the formal conclusion of the DOJ’s latest FCPA trial court debacle in U.S. v. Sigelman (see here, here and here for prior posts), the DOJ announced its first corporate FCPA enforcement action of 2015.

The enforcement action was against IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. (a small Florida-based company that provides facilities management, contingency operations, and professional and technical services in contracting capacities to the U.S. military and other governmental agencies world-wide).

According to its website, approximately 30% of IAP’s workers are veterans and the company was recently recognized by U.S. Veterans Magazine’s as one of the Top Veteran-Friendly Companies in 2014.  IAP has several contracts with the U.S. Government including the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force.

Per the DOJ’s allegations, the improper conduct occurred 7-10 years ago and was engaged in by one individual at IAP who left the company approximately 7 years ago.

The allegations focus on James Rama who was IAP’s Vice President of Special Project and Programs between 2005 and 2007. Prior to arriving at IAP, Rama, while employed in Kuwait by a large American defense contractor not affiliated with IAP, was introduced to a Kuwaiti Consultant and learned that the Kuwaiti Ministry of the Interior (MOI) was planning to build a large-scale homeland security systems called the KSP.

When Rama joined IAP he began pursuing Phase I of the KSP contract on behalf of IAP as well as the more lucrative Phase II of the KSP project.  According to the DOJ, Rama and others formed Ramaco International Consulting LLC “to hide IAP’s involvement in the KSP bidding and contracting process.”

According to the DOJ:

“In or about November 2005, IAP (through Rama) received non-public indications that the MOI would select it for the Phase I contract, although the formal bidding process had not yet begun. In February 2006, at the direction of the MOI and Kuwaiti Consultant, Rama and others agreed to and did set up Ramaco as a shell company to “bid” on the Phase I contract. One purpose of setting up Ramaco was to allow IAP to hide its involvement in Phase I and participate in the later Phase II without any apparent conflict of interest. Ramaco began acting as the agent for IAP on the KSP.

IAP agreed with the MOI that it would perform the KSP Phase I contract for approximately $4 million. Of that amount, IAP agreed that half, or approximately $2 million, would not be for actual work executing the KSP Phase I contract, but instead would be diverted to Kuwaiti Consultant.

In or about 2006, IAP, Ramaco, Rama, and others structured an illicit payment scheme to funnel approximately 50% of the payments received on the Phase I contract to Kuwaiti Consultant so that he could pay bribes to Kuwaiti government officials and took numerous steps to hide these payments and prevent the detection of their scheme. IAP, Ramaco, and Rama understood that to pay Kuwaiti Consultant, Kuwaiti Company would first inflate its invoices to IAP by charging IAP for the total amount of both the legitimate services that Kuwaiti Company was providing and the payments that Kuwaiti Company was funneling to Kuwaiti Consultant without listing or otherwise disclosing the payments that were funneled to Kuwaiti Consultant. After the MOI paid Ramaco for work on the KSP Phase I contract, Ramaco would transfer funds to a bank account of IAP, and IAP would then transfer funds to Kuwaiti Company. IAP, Ramaco, and Rama knew that Kuwaiti Company was then paying Kuwaiti Consultant approximately 50% of the KSP Phase I contract amount. IAP, Ramaco, and Rama knew that these payments to Kuwaiti Consultant were often further disguised.

In or about April 2006, Ramaco opened a bank account in Kuwait for Ramaco that would be used, in part, to pay Kuwaiti Consultant a portion of the money that IAP and Ramaco received from the KSP Phase I contract.

On or about May 10, 2006, Rama signed the KSP Phase I contract between Ramaco and the Government of Kuwait, which included a markup of approximately $2 million that would be kicked back, in whole or in part, to Kuwaiti government officials through Kuwaiti Consultant.

On or about September 19, 2006, IAP wired KD 120,000 (approximately $420,000) from its bank account to Kuwaiti Company’s bank account, and, on or about that same day, Kuwaiti Company paid that amount to Kuwaiti Consultant.

In or about October 2006, employees of IAP and G3 met with Rama and others at IAP’s office in Arlington, Virginia, which is in the Eastern District of Virginia, in an effort to persuade IAP to continue making payments to Kuwaiti Consultant.

On or about October 18, 2006, IAP wired KD 63,000 (approximately $220,500) from its bank account to Kuwaiti Company’s bank account, and, on or about that same day, Kuwaiti Company paid that amount to Kuwaiti Consultant.

On or about June 5, 2007, IAP wired KD 29,962.27 (approximately $105,000) from its bank account in the United States to Kuwaiti Company’s bank account in Kuwait so that Kuwaiti Company could pay Kuwaiti Consultant, and, on or about June 13, 2007, IAP wired that amount from its bank account in the United States to Kuwaiti Company’s bank account.

On or about December 6, 2007, Ramaco paid Kuwaiti Consultant KD 52,250 (approximately $183,000). 22. On or about March 10, 2008, Ramaco paid Kuwaiti Consultant KD 44,250 (approximately $155,000).

Between September 2006 and March 2008, IAP and its co-conspirators paid Kuwaiti Consultant at least KD 509,625 (approximately $1,783,688) on the understanding that some or all of that money would be provided as bribes to Kuwaiti government officials to assist IAP in obtaining and retaining the KSP Phase I contract and to obtain the KSP Phase II contract.”

The above allegations were resolved via a non-prosecution agreement in which IAP agreed to pay”a monetary penalty in the present value amount of $7.1 million”.  Pursuant to the NPA, the penalty is to be paid in four yearly installments of $1.775 million. The NPA, which has a three year term, states as follows:

“Among the facts considered were the following: (a) the Company has cooperated with the Offices, including conducting an extensive internal investigation, voluntarily making U.S. and foreign employees available for interviews, and collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information for the Offices; (b) the Company has engaged in remediation, including disciplining the officers and employees responsible for the corrupt payments or terminating their employment, enhancing its due diligence protocol for third-party agents and consultants, and instituting heightened review of proposals and other transactional documents for relevant Company contracts; (c) the Company has committed to continue to enhance its compliance program and internal controls, including ensuring that its compliance program satisfies the minimum elements set forth in Attachment C to this Agreement; and (d) the Company has agreed to continue to cooperate with the Offices in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of the Company and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and consultants relating to possible violations under investigation by the Offices.”

As noted in the DOJ’s release:

“[The] non-prosecution agreement requires IAP to conduct a review of its existing internal controls, policies and procedures, and make any necessary modifications to ensure that the company maintains accurate record keeping and a rigorous anti-corruption compliance program.  The non-prosecution agreement further requires IAP to report periodically to the Criminal Division and to the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia regarding remediation and implementation of the aforementioned compliance program and internal controls, policies and procedures.”

Typical of most corporate FCPA enforcement actions, the NPA contains a “muzzle clause” in which IAP agreed that it shall not directly or indirectly make any public statement contradicting the information set forth in the NPA.

Based on the same core conduct alleged in the NPA, the DOJ announced a plea agreement with James Rama to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.  See here for the plea agreement, here for the Statement of Facts, and here for the criminal information.

For additional coverage of the enforcement action see here from Reuters.

 

DOJ Prosecution of Individuals – Then vs. Now

Thursday, January 22nd, 2015

Thenvs.Yesterday’s post highlighted the following statistics concerning Foreign Corrupt Practices Act individual criminal prosecutions by the DOJ.

Since NPAs and DPAs were first introduced to the FCPA context in December 2004 (see here), there have been 83 corporate DOJ FCPA criminal enforcement actions. 53 of these corporate enforcement actions were resolved solely with an NPA or DPA. In only 5 of these actions – 9% – was there related criminal charges of company employees.

More broadly, other statistics recently published on this site highlighted how in this new era of FCPA enforcement approximately 75% of corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions have not (at least yet) resulted in any DOJ charges against company employees.

Prior posts proposed, based on these statistics, that instead of asking the “but why was nobody charged” question in connection with most corporate DOJ FCPA criminal enforcement actions, the more appropriate question is asking whether NPAs and DPAs necessarily represent provable FCPA violations.

To best highlight how NPAs and DPAs have transformed the nature and quality of FCPA enforcement, it is useful to analyze FCPA enforcement statistics prior to the introduction of NPAs and DPAs to the FCPA context in 2004.

For starters, it must be recognized that few meaningful conclusions can be drawn when comparing early FCPA enforcement (lets say 1977 – 2004) to FCPA enforcement 2005 to the present.

Growing pains associated with a new law, and a pioneering one at that, were understandable as both business organizations and enforcement agencies alike were absorbing the law and its new expectations and challenges.  More substantively, for much of the FCPA’s history there were material differences in the law, enforcement agency policies, and the global business environment that all impacted early FCPA enforcement.  

Nor can any meaningful conclusions be drawn from comparing fine and penalty amounts in early FCPA enforcement actions to fine and penalty amounts in this new era.  For starters, the FCPA’s statutory fine and penalty amounts have changed over time.  Perhaps more significantly, criminal fine amounts in FCPA enforcement actions are rarely based on the statutory amounts, but rather based on the Alternative Fines Act, a statute passed in 2006, which can result in a fine amount up to twice the benefit the payer sought to obtain through the improper payment. Moreover, for much of the FCPA’s history, the SEC did not have authority to assess civil monetary penalties in a wide variety of securities law enforcement actions including FCPA enforcement actions, and disgorgement, a central feature of most SEC FCPA enforcement actions in this new era, was not used for most of the FCPA’s history.

Although certain historical comparisons of FCPA enforcement lack meaningful value, other comparisons are noteworthy.

For instances, while one can question how the DOJ held individuals accountable (i.e whether the criminal fines and sentences were too lenient) for most of the FCPA’s history, the DOJ did frequently hold individuals accountable when a company resolved an FCPA enforcement action.

Indeed, from 1977 to 2004, approximately 90% of DOJ criminal corporate FCPA enforcement actions RESULTED in related charges against company employees.

Compare that to FCPA enforcement in this new era when approximately 75% of DOJ criminal corporate FCPA enforcement actions HAVE NOT RESULTED (at least yet) in related charges against company employees. 

Consider also that when a DOJ criminal corporate FCPA enforcement action is resolved solely with an NPA or DPA, approximatley 90% of such actions HAVE NOT RESULTED (at least yet) in related charges against company employees.

In other words, NPAs and DPAs have significantly distorted the nature and quality of FCPA enforcement and if the statistics recently published on this site do not convince you of this, no statistics ever will.

DOJ Enforcement Of The FCPA – Year In Review

Thursday, January 8th, 2015

DOJ2This previous post highlighted facts and figures from SEC enforcement of the FCPA in 2014.

This post highlights facts and figures from DOJ FCPA enforcement in 2014.

(See here for a similar post from 2013, here for a similar post from 2012, here for a similar post from 2011, and here from 2010).

 

Settlement Amounts and Specifics

In 2014, the DOJ brought 7 corporate FCPA enforcement actions.  By comparision, in 2013 the DOJ brought 7 corporate enforcement action; in 2012 the DOJ brought 9 corporate FCPA enforcement actions; in 2011 the DOJ brought 11 corporate enforcement actions; and in 2010 the DOJ brought 17 corporate enforcement actions.  (Note:  these figures  use the “core” approach to FCPA statistics – see here for the prior post – an approach also endorsed by the DOJ – see here).

In the 7 corporate FCPA enforcement actions from 2014, the DOJ collected approximately $1.25 billion in criminal fines, an all-time record in terms of yearly FCPA settlement amounts. By way of comparison, in the 7 corporate FCPA enforcement actions from 2013, the DOJ collected approximately $420 million in criminal fines; in 2012, the DOJ collected approximately $142 million in criminal fines; in 2011, the DOJ collected approximately $355 million in criminal fines ($504 million including the $149 million forfeiture in the Jeffrey Tesler individual enforcement action); and in 2010, the DOJ collected approximately $870 million in criminal fines.

DOJ FCPA enforcement in 2014 ranged from $772 million in criminal fines (Alstom) to $14 million in criminal fines (Dallas Airmotive).  3 FCPA enforcement actions in 2014 were DOJ only (Alstom, Dallas Airmotive and Marubeni).

Of the approximate $1.25 billion the DOJ collected in 2014 corporate FCPA enforcement actions, $772 million (62%) was in one enforcement action (Alstom) and $981 million (78%) was in two enforcement actions (Alstom and Alcoa).

In 4 of 6 corporate FCPA enforcement actions where an analysis was possible, the DOJ agreed to a criminal fine below the minimum range suggested by the sentencing guidelines.  In these 4 actions, the average was approximately 29% below the minimum guidelines range and the distribution range was 9% below the minimum guidelines range (Avon) to 53% below the minimum guidelines range (Alcoa).  In 2 corporate FCPA enforcement actions in 2014 (Alstom and Marubeni), the company paid a criminal fine within the guidelines range.

[Note - why are only 6 of the 7 corporate enforcement actions included in the above analysis? 1 corporate enforcement action (Bio-Rad) was resolved via an NPA and the DOJ does not set forth a guidelines range in NPAs]

Corporate vs. Individual Prosecutions

How many corporate FCPA enforcement actions in 2014 involved related individual prosecutions of company employees by the DOJ (recognizing that such prosecutions may be forthcoming in the future)?  Of the 7 corporate DOJ enforcement actions in 2014, 1 (14%) has thus far resulted in related DOJ prosecutions of company employees. This action was the Alstom action (in which the DOJ alleged conduct concerning Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Bahamas, and Taiwan) and the related individual prosecutions related only to the Indonesia conduct alleged by the DOJ.

The DOJ brought or announced 10 individual FCPA enforcement actions in 2014 in 3 core actions (5 individuals associated with DF Group in connection with Indian mining licenses, 2 individuals associated with Direct Access Partners and 3 individuals associated with PetroTiger).

Stay tuned for future posts specifically about DOJ and SEC individual FCPA enforcement actions.

NPAs / DPAs

What about non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements vs. old fashioned law enforcement (i.e. if a company committed a crime the DOJ charged it and if the company did not commit a crime the DOJ did not charge it)?  In 2014, 5 of the 7 (71%) corporate enforcement actions included an NPA or DPA.  Marubeni and Alcoa were plea agreements only. [Note, the Alstom enforcement action involved two plea agreements and two DPAs; the Avon enforcement action involved  a plea agreement and DPA; and the HP enforcement action involved a plea agreement, DPA and NPA].

By way of comparison, in 2013, 100% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions involved either an NPA or DPA; in 2012 100% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions involved either an NPA or a DPA;  in 2011 82% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions involved either an NPA or DPA; and in 2010 94% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions involved either an NPA or DPA.

Since 2010, 86% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions have involved either an NPA or DPA.

Voluntary Disclosures

Of the 7 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions in 2014, 2 enforcement actions (29%) were the result of corporate voluntary disclosures (Avon and Bio-Rad),  3 enforcement actions (43%) were the result of previous foreign law enforcement investigations or related thereto (Alstom, Marubeni, and HP), 1 enforcement action was related to a previous FCPA enforcement action (Dallas Airmotive) and 1 enforcement action was the result of civil litigation (Alcoa).

By way of comparison, in 2013 57% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of corporate voluntary disclosures or the direct result of a related voluntary disclosure; in 2012, 78% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of corporate voluntary disclosures or casually related to previous corporate voluntary disclosures; in 2011, 73% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of corporate voluntary disclosures.

Monitors

Of the 7 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions in 2014, 1 (14%) enforcement action (Avon) resulted in a corporate monitor. By way of comparison, of the 7 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions in 2013, 4 enforcement actions (57%) involved a monitor; of the 9 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions in 2012, 3 enforcement actions (33%) involved a monitor; of the 11 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions in 2011, 1 enforcement action (9%) involved a corporate monitor; of the 17 corporate DOJ enforcement actions in 2010, 7 enforcement actions (41%) involved a corporate monitor.

This remainder of this post provides an overview of corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement in 2014.

Alstom and Related Entities (December 22nd).

See here and here for prior posts

Charges:  As to Alstom S.A., violation of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.  As to Alstom Network Schweiz AG, conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.  As to Alstom Power Inc., conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.  As to Alstom Grid Inc., conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.

Resolution Vehicle:  As to Alstom and Alstom Network Schweiz, plea agreements.  As to Alstom Power and Alstom Grid, DPAs.

Guidelines Range:  As to Alstom $532.8 million to $1.065 billion

Penalty:  As to Alstom, $772 million (the other entities were not required to pay separate penalties).

Disclosure:  The enforcement action presumably originated from a prior 2011 Swiss enforcement action (see here and here).

Monitor:  No

Individuals Charged:  Yes (as to the Indonesia conduct – see here).

Avon Entities (December 17th)

See here and here for prior posts

Charges:  As to Avon China, conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s books and records provisions.  As to Avon Products, conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s books and records provisions and violation of the FCPA’s internal controls provisions.

Resolution Vehicle:  As to Avon China, a plea agreement; as to Avon Products a DPA.

Guidelines Range:  As to Avon China, $73.9 million to $147.9 million; as to Avon Products, $84.6 million to $169.1 million.

Penalty:  As to Avon China, $67.6 million; as to Avon Products $67.6 million but the Avon China penalty was deducted from this amount.

Disclosure:  Voluntary Disclosure.

Monitor:  Yes

Individuals Charged:  No

Dallas Airmotive (December 10th)

See here for the prior post

Charges:  Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.

Resolution Vehicle:  DPA

Guidelines Range:  $17.5 million to $35 million

Penalty:  $14 million

Disclosure:  The enforcement action appears to be casually related to a prior enforcement action against BizJet International and certain of its executives

Monitor:  No

Individuals Charged:  No

Bio-Rad (November 3rd)

See here and here for prior posts

Charges:  Not applicable

Resolution Vehicle:  NPA

Guidelines Range:  Not set forth in the NPA

Penalty:  $14.4 million

Disclosure:  Voluntary Disclosure

Monitor:  No

Individuals Charged:  No

HP Related Entities (April 9th)

See here for the prior post

Charges:  As to HP Russia - (i) conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and books and records and internal controls provisions; (ii) one count of violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions; (iii) one count of violating the FCPA’s internal controls provisions; and (iv) one count of violating the FCPA’s books and records provisions; As to HP Poland – violation of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions; As to HP Mexico – not applicable.

Resolution Vehicle:  As to HP Russia, a plea agreement; as to HP Poland a DPA; as to HP Mexico an NPA.

Guidelines Range:  As to HP Russia $87 million to $174 million; as to HP Poland $19.3 million to $38.6 million; as to HP Mexico not specified in the NPA.

Penalty:  As to HP Russia $58.8 million; as to HP Poland $15.5 million; as to HP Mexico $2.5 million.

Disclosure:  The enforcement action appears to have been the result of a previous German and Russian law enforcement investigation (see here for the prior post).

Monitor:  No

Individuals Charged:  No

Marubeni (March 19th)

See here for the prior post

Charges:  Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and 7 substantive FCPA anti-bribery violations

Resolution Vehicle:  Criminal information resolved via a plea agreement

Guidelines Range:  $63.7 million to $127.4 million

Penalty:  $88 million

Disclosure:  Related to the April 2013 FCPA enforcement action against various current and former employees of Alstom

Monitor:  No

Individuals Charged:  No

Alcoa (January 9th)

See here for the prior post

Charges:  One count of violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.

Resolution Vehicle:  Criminal information against Alcoa World Alumina LLC resolved via a plea agreement.

Guidelines Range:  $446 million – $892 million.

Penalty:  $209 million (plus administrative forfeiture of $14 million)

Disclosure:  A 2008 civil lawsuit between Alba and Alcoa.

Monitor:  No

Individuals Charged:  No

DOJ Brings First FCPA Enforcement Action Of 2015

Wednesday, January 7th, 2015

European BankThis February 2014 post foreshadowed a future FCPA enforcement action against Dmitrij Harder in connection with a notable Third Circuit grand jury proceeding.

Yesterday, the DOJ announced the enforcement action against Harder, the former owner and President of Chestnut Consulting Group Inc. and Chestnut Consulting Group Co. (together “Chestnut Group”), for allegedly bribing an official with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The enforcement action is notable in that it invokes the rarely used “public international organization” prong of the FCPA’s “foreign official” element.

In the indictment, Harder is described as “Russian national, naturalized German citizen and permanent resident alien of the United States” who purportedly used the Chestnut Group entities to “provide, among other things, consulting services to companies seeking financing from multilateral development banks.”

According to the indictment:

“Between in or around 2007 through in or around 2009, Harder engaged in a scheme to pay approximately $3.5 million in bribe payments for the benefit of a foreign official to corruptly influence the foreign official’s actions on applications for financing submitted to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“EBRD”) by the clients of Harder and the Chestnut Group, and to corruptly influence the foreign official to direct business to Harder and the Chestnut Group, and others.”

The EBRD is described as follows.

“The EBRD was a multilateral development bank headquartered in London, England, and was owned by over 60 sovereign nations. Among other things, the EBRD provided debt and equity financing for development projects in emerging economies, primarily in Eastern  Europe. On or about June 18, 1991, the President of the United States signed Executive Order 12766 designating the EBRD as a “public international organization.” The EBRD was thus a “public international organization,” as that term is defined in the FCPA.”

The EBRD Official is described as follows.

“EBRD Official” was a Russian and United Kingdom national residing in or around London, England, and was a senior banker working in the Natural Resources Group at the EBRD. As a senior banker, EBRD Official served as an Operations Leader in the Natural Resources Group and was responsible for leading the review of applications submitted to the EBRD for project financing, including loans and equity investments. EBRD Official thus had the authority to influence the process for approving project financing, and setting the terms and conditions for that financing. EBRD Official was a “foreign official,” as that term is used in the FCPA.  [...] Harder  knew EBRD Official from business associations dating back to at least 1999.”

The indictment also described the EBRD Official’s Sister as follows.

“EBRD Official’s Sister” was a Russian and United Kingdom national residing in or around London, England, and was the sister of EBRD Official. EBRD Official’s Sister purportedly provided consulting and other business services for the Chestnut Group. In reality, however, EBRD Official’s Sister provided no such services to the Chestnut Group or Harder.”

According to the indictment:

“Between in or about 2007 and in or about 2009, Harder, through the Chestnut Group, worked as a financial consultant to companies seeking project financing from the EBRD. For at least four of these applications, including those of Company A [a Russian independent oil and gas company] and Company B [an oil and gas company incorporated in the United Kingdom with operations in Russia] EBRD Official was the Operations Leader responsible for leading the management of the application process and negotiating the terms and conditions of any financing provided by the EBRD. Chestnut Inc. was retained by Company A and Company B despite its relatively small size, distant location from the EBRD, and unproven track record as a financial advisor. [...] [T]he EBRD ultimately approved the applications for project financing for Company A and Company B.”

[...]

In all, Chestnut Inc. received payments from Company A totaling approximately $2.9 million, and Harder caused payments to be made to EBRD Official’s Sister totaling approximately $1.06 million. While EBRD Official’s Sister purportedly received these payments as a result of providing consulting and other business services to the Chestnut Group, in reality, EBRD Official’s Sister provided no such services. Instead, EBRD Official’s Sister received these payments for the benefit of EBRD Official, to corruptly influence the foreign official’s actions on applications for financing by the clients of Harder and the Chestnut Group, and to corruptly influence the foreign official to direct business to Harder and the Chestnut Group.”

[...]

“[A]fter Chestnut Inc. received the success fees from Company B, Harder caused a payment of approximately $2,478,580.89 to be made to EBRD Official’s Sister. Although EBRD Official’s Sister purportedly received these payments as a result of providing consulting and other business services to the Chestnut Group, in reality, EBRD Official’s Sister provided no such services. Instead, EBRD Official’s Sister received these payments for the benefit of EBRD Official, to corruptly influence the foreign official’s actions on applications for financing by the clients of Harder and the Chestnut Group, and to corruptly influence the foreign official to
direct business to Harder and the Chestnut Group.”

Under the heading “concealment of the bribe payments,” the indictment alleges:

“Through the Chestnut Group, Harder paid EBRD Official’s Sister approximately $3.5 million in bribe payments for the benefit of EBRD Official. To conceal and cover up these bribe payments, Harder and EBRD Official’s Sister created false paperwork to make it appear that EBRD Official’s Sister had provided services to the Chestnut Group for these payments, when in fact no such services were provided.”

Based on the above allegations, the indictment charges Harder with one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and Travel Act, five counts of violating the FCPA, five counts of violating the Travel Act, one count of conspiracy to commit international money laundering, and two counts of money laundering.

In the DOJ’s release, Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell stated:

“We are committed to combating foreign corruption, across the globe and across all industries, through enforcement actions and prosecutions of companies and the individuals who run those companies. As alleged, in this case, the owner and chief executive of a Pennsylvania financial consulting firm secured hundreds of millions of dollars in business by bribing a European banking official. He now faces an indictment for corruption in federal court.  Bribery of foreign officials undermines the public trust in government and fair competition in business.  The charges returned today reflect the clear message that we will root out corruption and prosecute individuals who violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”

U.S. Attorney Zane Memeger of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stated:

“We will aggressively investigate and prosecute individuals in our district who use corrupt means like bribery to influence foreign officials.  Our criminal statutes in this arena must be enforced to ensure fair dealing in a competitive global marketplace where foreign officials often hold significant decision-making authority.  The alleged conduct here was particularly reprehensible because it undermined the legitimacy of a process designed to support businesses for the citizens of developing nations.”

Special Agent in Charge Edward Hanko of the FBI’s Philadelphia Division stated:

“This is a great example of the FBI’s ability to successfully coordinate with our international law enforcement partners to tackle corruption. Bribery – foreign or domestic – cripples the notion of fair competition in the marketplace.”

For more information on the conduct alleged in the enforcement action, see this 2012 Bloomberg article.