Archive for the ‘Double Standard’ Category

Friday Roundup

Friday, August 28th, 2015

Roundup2The latest edition of the double standard, survey says, when the dust settles, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Double Standard

An individual currently holds political office in one unit of government, yet is also a candidate for a higher unit of government.

Among the contributors to organizations supporting the individual’s campaign for higher office are companies that have secured millions in contracts from the lower unit of government run by the individual.  After all, the individual may not prevail in the higher office race and thus return to the lower unit.

A prudent FCPA practitioner would spot the “red flags” as the contributions could be viewed as a way to curry favor with the individual upon return to the lower unit of government.

However, the individual (more accurately individuals) are not “foreign officials” they are current governors Chris Christie, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, and Scott Walker who are also running for President.

For the latest edition of the double standard, see this Wall Street Journal article.

Bribery?

Silly you for even mentioning the “b” word.  This is all about “First Amendment rights” according to a source in the article.

Why do business interactions with “foreign officials” seem to be subject to different standards than business interactions with U.S. officials? Why do we reflexively label a “foreign official” who receives “things of value” from private business interests as corrupt, yet generally turn a blind eye when it happens here at home or call it something different such as participation in the political process? Is the FCPA enforced too aggressively or is enforcement of the U.S. domestic bribery statute too lax? Ought not there be some consistently between enforcement of the FCPA and the domestic bribery statute?

For approximately 50 other post highlighting these double standards, see this subject matter tag.

Survey Says

According to this recent ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Business Outlook Survey:

“The risk of pressure to bribe officials for essential licenses and permits varies greatly depending on the country from which executives responded. Less than half of the respondents in Brunei, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Singapore foresee that this risk will hinder their long-term operations, while large percentages of respondents in Cambodia (89%), Laos (85%), and Vietnam (74%) foresee that it will.”

“In contrast, facilitation payments for routine government services are a more common part of international business. (Routine government services may include processing governmental papers, such as visas and work orders, or such services as police protection, power supply, phone service, etc.) In nearly all countries, the risk of pressure to bribe officials to speed up routine government services is slightly higher than the comparable risk for essential licenses and permits.”

In passing the FCPA, Congress recognized the inherent difficulties companies encounter in foreign markets and thus elected not to capture payments in connection with licenses, permits and the like in the anti-bribery provisions.  (To learn more, see “The Story of the FCPA“).  Congress also chose to exempt facilitation payments from the anti-bribery provisions.

When The Dust Settles

FCPA enforcement actions only focus on alleged bribe payers.  However, when an FCPA enforcement action concludes, there is still an alleged “foreign official” who allegedly received the bribe payments.  When the dust settles, what happens to the “foreign official”?

For years, guest contributor Mike Dearington followed the DOJ’s 2011 enforcement action against Juthamas Siriwan, the former government officer of the Tourism Authority of Thailand, and Jittisopa Siriwan, the daughter of the alleged “foreign official” who was also alleged to be an “employee of Thailand Privilege Card Co. Ltd.” an entity controlled by TAT and an alleged “instrumentality of the Thai government.”  The Siriwan’s allegedly received improper payments from Gerald and Patricia Green who were convicted of FCPA and related offenses in 2009 and served time in federal prison. (See prior posts at this subject matter tag).

In short, the federal court judge overseeing the DOJ’s money laundering case against Siriwan stayed the case pending expected legal proceedings in Thailand against Siriwan.

Earlier this week, the Bangkok Post reported:

“The Criminal Court has indicted former Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) governor Juthamas Siriwan and her daughter in a film festival bribery case, the Office of the Attorney-General spokesman said Wednesday.  Prosecutors indicted Mrs Juthamas, 68, and her daugther Jittisopha, 41, in the Criminal Court on Tuesday on charges of taking bribes, corruption and bid-rigging, plus breaching Section 6 of the law dealing with state employees’ offences and Section 12 of the law governing submitting tenders to state agencies, which carries a maximum jail term of 20 years.”

This development is expected to functionally end the U.S. prosecution.

In other news relevant to the above enforcement action, the Hollywood Reporter reports that Gerald Green recently died.  He was 83.

Reading Stack

The most recent edition of the always informative FCPA Update by Debevoise & Plimpton has a nice write-up of the recent BNY Mellon enforcement action (see here and here for prior posts).  In pertinent part, the Update states:

In the SEC’s View, a Thing of Value Can Be Purely Psychological

[T]he government’s investigations in this area face a key threshold legal issue under the FCPA: can providing a job or internship to an official’s relative constitute a thing of value to the official him/herself? Can offering the purely psychological benefit of helping a child or relative land a job give rise to an actionable attempt at bribery? The official does not stand to see any personal financial gain from the internship, except in the arguable circumstance of reducing the official’s financial obligations to a dependent. But the SEC seems to have purposely disclaimed – or at least strained – that theory here, given that one of the internships at issue was unpaid. The SEC addressed this thorny issue in a single sentence in the Order, asserting that “[t]he internships were valuable work experience, and the requesting officials derived significant personal value in being able to confer this benefit on their family members.”

The SEC has previously suggested that an intangible benefit can be a “thing of value” under the FCPA, having faulted Schering-Plough for providing a requested donation to a legitimate charity with which a foreign official and his spouse were closely involved, in an alleged attempt to influence the official. The BNYM Order, however, seems to represent a significant expansion of that thinking. Notably, in Schering-Plough the SEC charged only a “books and records” violation, not a violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. Moreover, even assuming intangible prestige or listing an internship on a resumé can be a thing of value, Schering-Plough at least involved a transfer of funds at the official’s request, which arguably allowed the official himself to reap the prestige of the donation. Here, the prestigious and valuable work experiences – one of which was entirely unpaid – went not to the official but to the official’s family member, and thus only indirectly benefited the official.

Evidentiary Issues: Quid Pro Quo or Internal Speculation?

The BNYM case and others like it also raise difficult evidentiary issues for FCPA enforcement authorities. How can one draw the line between a genuine quid pro quo – an actual exchange of a personal benefit to an official for a business assignment – from mere internal speculation and anxiety about potentially damaging an important relationship? Here, the BNYM Order is notable for what it does not say: the Order does not place the internship hiring requests in the context of any specific business opportunity, or any review or re-evaluation of whether the Sovereign Wealth Fund should maintain its existing business relationship with BNYM. Rather, the cited internal communications reflect a generalized desire to gather additional business in the future or to a perception that existing business could be diminished relative to competitors.

Here, the lack of any tie to a concrete business opportunity could simply be a function of the asset management business, in which funds for investment are (in general terms) fungible. Time will tell whether, in other contexts, courts or enforcement authorities will focus more on an attempt to win a specific business opportunity rather than simply an effort to create or maintain good relations that may (or may not) bear fruit over time. For now, the SEC appears to have followed the controversial “quid pro quo lite” theory that has garnered some success in DOJ criminal domestic bribery prosecutions; in that sense, the reach of the Order may not be that surprising – although its theoretical underpinnings in the FCPA arena remain largely untested.

The SEC’s justification for the imposition of a disgorgement remedy is also difficult to locate within its factual recitation. The disgorgement amount of $8.3 million cannot be explained by the relatively minor new investment with BNYM (of less than $1 million). It stands to reason, then, that the disgorgement amount is based, at least in part, on BNYM’s retention of its existing business with the Sovereign Wealth Fund. The causation analysis on that point is not transparent, as the facts stated do not suggest any meaningful way to assess the degree to which the intern hires arguably contributed to maintaining the existing relationship. The result may be the product of any number of unstated factors that went into the settlement, highlighting once again, why settlements should not make law.

[...]

Overall, the BNYM Order highlights two areas of frequent criticism of FCPA enforcement. First, the activity under scrutiny bears a strong similarity to what are perceived as common practices in the private sector in which firms seek to accommodate client representative requests in order to maintain good relations with key decision makers. In this way, enforcement authorities risk criticism that they are using the FCPA to excise business practices affecting relationships with foreign officials abroad that are routinely tolerated in the private sector in the United States – and that are not unprecedented or even rare in the context of companies’ relationships with officials employed by the United States federal, state, and local governments.

Second, the SEC’s choice of a consented-to cease-and-desist order to announce a new and expansive interpretation of the FCPA leaves its interpretations of the law entirely untested by judicial scrutiny and adversarial process. Given that BNYM did not admit the allegations in the Order, BNYM had very little incentive to challenge the SEC’s view of the facts and law, yet as with Schering-Plough’s resolution (referenced above), the SEC’s debatable interpretive position may go years (or decades) without judicial scrutiny.

As noted at the outset, the BNYM Order is just the first resolution of a case of this kind. Others may follow, including in DOJ matters, which will likely shed additional light on the landscape in this area.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Friday, July 31st, 2015

RoundupScrutiny alerts, noisy exit, double standard, quotable and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Scrutiny Alerts

FIFA-Related

As predicted in this May post about the FIFA-related enforcement action, while the enforcement action was not an FCPA enforcement action it was likely to lead to scrutiny of various companies concerning books and records and internal controls issues.

Sure enough.

Various reports (see here and here for instance) suggest that the SEC is :examining the behavior of several companies with links to FIFA or other soccer bodies caught up in a major corruption scandal to see if there were possible violations of U.S. federal bribery laws, a person with knowledge of the matter said.”  According to the article:

“The civil probe, which is in its early stages and may not lead to any findings of wrongdoing or enforcement action, is being conducted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.” [...] The SEC probe centers on publicly-traded companies who have been involved in soccer contracts, such as athletic shoes and sportswear company Nike Inc, said the source, who asked not to be named because of the non-public nature of the investigation. The exact scope of the probe and the names of other companies being scrutinized could not be learned. An SEC spokeswoman declined to comment.”

GSK

Reuters reports:

“Drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline, which was fined a record 3 billion yuan ($483 million) for corruption in China last year and is examining possible staff misconduct elsewhere, faces new allegations of bribery in Romania. GSK confirmed it was looking into the latest claims of improper payments set out in a whistleblower’s email sent to its top management on Monday. A copy of the email was seen by Reuters. The company is already probing alleged bribery in Poland, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. The latest allegations say GSK paid Romanian doctors hundreds, and in one cases thousands, of euros between 2009 and 2012 for prescribing its medicines, including prostate treatments Avodart and Duodart and Parkinson’s disease drug Requip. According to the email, the doctors were notionally paid for speaking engagements, but in three out of six cases, including the most highly paid one, they did not give any speech. The other three medics gave only one speech each, despite receiving multiple payments. GSK also provided doctors with many international trips and made payments to them under the guise of participation in advisory boards, the email said. [...] The sender of the Romania email said its contents would be passed on to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which are investigating GSK for possible breaches of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”

Noisy Exit

My article “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Ripples” chronicles, among other things, how the FCPA is increasingly being used offensively by litigants.  One such example is a “noisy exit” a term coined by FCPA Professor in 2010 to describe an employee alleging unfair employment practices in connection with some aspect of FCPA scrutiny or enforcement.

The latest example is this civil complaint recently filed by Keisha Hall (a certified public accountant, certified fraud examiner and former director of finance for the Latin America region of Teva Pharmaceutical USA, INC.’s (“Teva”).

According to the complaint,  Teva allegedly fired Hall after she “began cooperating in a Securities and Exchange Commission/Department of Justice investigation into potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”), stemming from, among other things, allegations of bribery of government officials in the region.”

As highlighted in this prior post, Teva has been under FCPA scrutiny since July 2012.

Double Standard

A few weeks after an official is sworn in to a high-ranking government position, the official asserts herself into a pending government investigation against a corporation and brokers a settlement (an unusual task given the official’s position).

From that point forward, the corporation significantly increases its contributions to a charitable organization set up by the official’s family and pays the official’s spouse $1.5 million to participate in a series of question and answer sessions with the corporation’s CEO.

A prudent FCPA practitioner would immediately see numerous red flags and recommend an internal investigation.

But wait, the official is not a foreign official, it’s a U.S. official and once again it is Hillary Clinton.  (See here for the Wall Street Journal’s recent article “Clinton’s Complicated UBS Ties.”)

*****

On the other side of the Presidential ticket is Donald Trump.  Regardless of what you think of “The Donald” he is blunt.  In this recent Wall Street Journal article, Trump explains why he previously donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and other political campaigns.

“As a businessman, [Trump] needed to curry favor with an influential senator from his home state. In turn, he said, [Clinton] had incentive to court him as a campaign donor. “As a businessman and a very substantial donor to very important people, when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do,” Mr. Trump said. “As a businessman, I need that.”

Quotable

In this recent Law360 article “FCPA Challenges Make for Spotty Trial Record for DOJ,” Michael Levy (Paul Hastings) states:

“We’ve seen several trials in which the judges have been skeptical, if not outwardly hostile, to some of the government’s more aggressive interpretations of the FCPA. While those trials may have fallen apart for other reasons, that skepticism still played, I believe, a substantial role.”

“Without the development of the law through judicial decisions, it’s very unclear what judges believe the FCPA means compared to what the DOJ think the FCPA means.”

(See here for Levy’s FCPA Professor guest post titled “Prosecutorial Common Law”).

In the same article, George Terwilliger (McGuireWoods and a former high-ranking DOJ official) states:

“It is fundamental to due process that a person of ordinary intelligence should be able to read a law and understand what is required or prohibited, as the case may be. Many people of great intelligence on both sides of an FCPA question debate just such issues.”

“That does not produce the fair warning that those subject to the law deserve to have.”

For the Reading Stack

An informative article here by Jon N. Eisenberg (K&L Gates) titled “Are Public Companies Required to Disclose Government Investigations.”  While not FCPA-specific, the article is FCPA relevant and begins as follows.

“For many public companies, the first issue they have to confront after they receive a government subpoena or Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) is whether to disclose publicly that they are under investigation. Curiously, the standards for disclosure of investigations are more muddled than one would expect. As a result, disclosure practices vary—investigations are sometimes disclosed upon receipt of a subpoena or CID, sometimes when the staff advises a company that it has tentatively decided to recommend an enforcement action, sometimes not until the end of the process, and sometimes at other intermediate stages along the way. In many cases, differences in the timing of disclosure may reflect different approaches to disclosure. We discuss below the standards that govern the disclosure decision and practical considerations. We then provide five representative examples of language that companies used when they disclosed investigations at an early stage.”

“Log Rolling” Is Not Corruption But Rather A “Common Exercise” In Politics

Thursday, July 30th, 2015

logrollingThe Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is about corruption, at least corruption of a certain type.

However, there are numerous other forms of corruption as well including here in the United States. Yet an uncomfortable truth is that here in the United States we accept many forms of corruption by assigning various euphemisms, code words and metaphors to the underlying conduct.

For instance, in both Citizens United and McCutcheon (cases dealing with various aspects of campaign finance laws)  the Supreme court stated: “ingratiation and access are not corruption” when it involves U.S. officials or political actors even though it would most certainly be corruption if it involved foreign official or foreign political actors.

Likewise, the Second Circuit recently stated the following about corporate lobbying:

“Lobbying has been integral to the American political system since its very inception.  […] In order to more effectively communicate their clients’ policy goals, lobbyists often seek to cultivate personal relationships with public officials. This involves not only making campaign contributions, but sometimes also hosting events or providing gifts of value such as drinks, meals, and tickets to sporting events and concerts.”

Yet if one were to provide those gifts or things of value to foreign public officials there would likely be an FCPA enforcement action.

Judicial blessing of forms of corruption through assigning various euphemisms, code words and metaphors to the underlying conduct continued recently as the Seventh Circuit held that a politician trading one favor for another (in which the politician would personally benefit) is not corruption, but “log rolling” – a rather “common exercise” in politics.

The recent opinion was in U.S. v. Blagojevich and involved former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich who is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence after being criminally convicted of various counts several years ago. Among the facts serving as a basis for certain of the convictions were the following as described by the court.

“Through intermediaries (his own and [those of President elect Obama]), Blagojevich sought a favor from Sen. Obama in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett, who Blagojevich perceived as the person Sen. Obama would like to have succeed him. Blagojevich asked for an appointment to the Cabinet or for the President-elect to persuade a foundation to hire him at a substantial salary after his term as Governor ended, or find someone to donate $10 million and up to a new “social welfare” organization that he would control. The President elect was not willing to make a deal, and Blagojevich would not appoint Jarrett without compensation, saying: “They’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them.”

As noted by the court, “the indictment charged [the above] negotiations as attempted extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951, plus corrupt solicitation of funds (18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 666(a)(1)(B)) and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346).”

As next stated by the court:

“[A] problem in the way the instructions told the jury to consider the evidence requires us to vacate the convictions on counts that concern Blagojevich’s proposal to appoint Valerie Jarrett to the Senate in exchange for an appointment to the Cabinet. A jury could have found that Blagojevich asked the President-elect for a private-sector job, or for funds that he could control, but the instructions permitted the jury to convict even if it found that his only request of Sen. Obama was for a position in the Cabinet. The instructions treated all proposals alike. We conclude, however, that they are legally different: a proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is fundamentally unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment.

Because the instructions do not enable us to be sure that the jury found that Blagojevich offered to trade the appointment for a private salary after leaving the Governorship, these convictions cannot stand.

[...]

A political logroll … is the swap of one official act for another. Representative A agrees with Representative B to vote for milk price supports, if B agrees to vote for tighter controls on air pollution. A President appoints C as an ambassador, which Senator D asked the President to do, in exchange for D’s promise to vote to confirm E as a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Governance would hardly be possible without these accommodations, which allow each public official to achieve more of his principal objective while surrendering something about which he cares less, but the other politician cares more strongly. A proposal to appoint a particular person to one office (say, the Cabinet) in exchange for someone else’s promise to appoint a different person to a different office (say, the Senate), is a common exercise in logrolling. We asked the prosecutor at oral argument if, before this case, logrolling had been the basis of a criminal conviction in the history of the United States. Counsel was unaware of any earlier conviction for an exchange of political favors. Our own research did not turn one up. It would be more than a little surprising to Members of Congress if the judiciary found in the Hobbs Act, or the mail fraud statute, a rule making everyday politics criminal.

[...]

The prosecutor insists, however, that Blagojevich’s situation is different and uncommon because he sought a post in the Cabinet for himself. It isn’t clear to us that this is unusual. The current Secretary of State was appointed to that position from a seat in the Senate, and it wouldn’t surprise us if this happened at least in part because he had performed a political service for the President. Ambassadors, too, come from the House or Senate (or from state politics) as part of political deals. Some historians say that this is how Earl Warren came to be Chief Justice of the United States: he delivered the California delegation at the 1952 Republican convention to Eisenhower (rather than Senator Taft) in exchange for a commitment to appoint him to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.

If the prosecutor is right, and a swap of political favors involving a job for one of the politicians is a felony, then if the standard account is true both the President of the United States and the Chief Justice of the United States should have gone to prison. Yet although historians and political scientists have debated whether this deal was made, or whether if made was ethical (or politically unwise), no one to our knowledge has suggested that it violated the statutes involved in this case. (Whether it might have violated 18 U.S.C. §599, and whether that statute is compatible with the First Amendment, are issues we do not address.)

What we have said so far requires the reversal of [various criminal convictions], though the prosecutor is free to try again without reliance on Blagojevich’s quest for a position in the Cabinet.”

*****

The most recent issue of the always informative FCPA Update from Debevoise & Plimpton states as follows regarding the Blagovevich decision.

“[T]he Seventh Circuit’s decision in the Blagojevich matter raises serious questions whether some of the broader theories invoked by the government in FCPA cases (or by government officials in published remarks) are valid.

 

“The Most Corrupt Health System Globally Is That in the US. Unfortunately It is Also the Most Influential Medical System”

Tuesday, July 21st, 2015

PillsIn response to this recent post, I received the following from an individual who prefers to be called “a fraud investigator from the United Kingdom.”

*****

I was interested to read your points and observations about health care and the foreign official issue. Notwithstanding whether or not employees and physicians connected to state owned or controlled hospitals etc are foreign officials, there is a very real concern, certainly in the UK, that financial interests undermine medical decision making. Indeed there are various studies which appear to prove the effect.

I know from experience there is a resultant detriment to state funds here, so in this context and in the absence of other meaningful regulation of health care corruption, the broad use of “foreign officials” is welcome.

Many people working in my industry recognise that health care presents unique issues with corruption. This may be explained by market forces. For example, if you ‘marketize’ an essential service where the purchasers are entirely reliant on people with financial interests (Physicians) to decide what is best for them, and at the same time patients cannot challenge those people without potentially jeopardizing their own care, it is arguable that such a market cannot ever function effectively, particularly when huge amounts of money are involved.

Health care is also unique in how and why it is utilized. You can walk away from your lawyer, accountant etc if you feel uncomfortable, but you can’t so easily walk away from a Physician who may hold the key to curing you. It follows that you are very unlikely to question or care about their financial interests, particularly when your insurer or the government is paying most of the costs.

Ultimately though, patients not only trust Physicians based on them being people of high public standing, but they also have to trust Physicians if they are to be confident of getting well. It is this inherent trust which is exploited and undermined by financial interests. I think everyone knows fundamentally how wrong it is for payments to be made to Physicians and other health care professionals, the question is how to stop the practices and to cure the underlying cultural cause.

Within the US health care sector there are agencies who use well intentioned laws to prosecute wrongdoing such as under Stark or the Federal Anti-Kickback statute; HHS-OIG and the FBI publicize high profile prosecutions very frequently. However, those efforts appear never ending – presumably because the profits are so great that for many people it is considered worth taking the risk. However, I also know in some parts of the US that businesses are unable to compete for patients on a legitimate basis because all other providers are paying kickbacks to secure business.

My interest and point in contacting you, is one of culture. Health care is an essential need for everyone and the corruption of those services affects all levels of society globally. Unfortunately, the US has suffered so much misconduct in medical practices that it has become almost the norm. For example, the very idea of so called “Patient Recruiters” goes against everything I understand to be reasonable yet they form part of the structure of health care provision in the US.

If you consider – Pharma payments, medical devices such as cardiac implants, CPD coding, patient recruiting, hospital kickbacks, pathology overuse, durable medical equipment and ambulatory care as headline issues (there are many others), you will find the US system is rife with problems. Although nowhere near to the same extent here in the UK, it is clear that in India, Serbia, Greece, China, Russia and many other countries there are massive issues with corruption in health care. However, my view and I suspect that of many others, is the most corrupt health system globally is that in the US, primarily due to conflicts of interest. Unfortunately it is also the most influential medical system.

The corruption is partly explained by the lack of transparency around pricing and proven clinical benefits. For example, I travelled to the US not so long ago and required a common over the counter remedy available in the UK for about 15 dollars. In the US, the same medicine is prescription only and costs $150 dollars plus $150 dollars to see a Physician for the prescription. Fortunately, a colleague had brought some with him as on his last trip he had ended up paying the $300 dollars.

Another example is just looking at all the people wearing physiotherapy aids. I couldn’t quite believe it when I was just walking around a US city, but came to understand that there is big money in prescribing pointless wrist, knee, elbow supports and the like. The reason for these two simple examples is to show that pricing in the US is out of control and that treatments of questionable clinical benefit are routinely offered and accepted.

What I wonder is:

  • How much global health care corruption can be accounted for by large corporates which are either directly based or primarily selling in the US (Pharma and device manufacturers in particular)?
  • Is the issue in fact that financial practices designed to influence Physicians’ independent decision making have become so commonplace in the US that they are replicated overseas as a matter of course? In other words if usual business practice in the US is on a corrupt basis, and indeed is necessary just to compete with rivals, then when those corporate move into overseas markets the natural tendency must be to use the same methods. This is certainly evident in FCPA cases in China. It would be easy to make a lot more discussion around what happens when US corporate practices are applied in countries with endemic corruption issues.
  • Would it be better to have an anti-corruption focus and international agreement specifically targeting designated sectors – health in this case but also perhaps mining, energy and other areas where problems are similar on a global level, are well known about and the market is one which all people are to an extent dependent on?

One final thought/question. Should the US be policing health care overseas under the guise of the “foreign official” enforcement theory or should the US be policing it by redefining how businesses operate in the US as a starting point and then applying those standards overseas?

I will certainly continue to watch developments on your website with interest and thank you for your excellent insights – do keep up the good work.

Friday Roundup

Friday, July 17th, 2015

Roundup2A reading stack edition of the Friday roundup.

*****

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

Regarding the DOJ’s latest FCPA trial court debacle in the Sigelman case (see hereherehere and here for prior posts), the review states:

“The DOJ’s prosecution and trial of Joseph Sigelman deserves special notice, as it was the DOJ’s first trial of an individual on FCPA charges since the acquittal in January 2012 of John Joseph O’Shea. Sigelman’s trial … lasted nine days and ended with prosecutors entering into a negotiated guilty plea with Sigelman on only one of the six counts with which he was charged after a key government witness admitted to lying on the stand. Sigelman’s sentence of probation with no imprisonment was essentially a victory for Sigelman, and the judge was particularly critical of the government’s key witness as well as its sentencing recommendation. The trial adds to a string of recent FCPA prosecutions involving individuals in which the government has failed to secure a conviction or its recommended sentence, highlighting the difficulties the DOJ has sometimes encountered when forced to bear its burden of proof in court.”

*****

Relevant to the double standard issues frequently highlighted on these pages, one interesting side note to come out of the Sigelman trial was testimony about the alleged “commonplace” practice among certain law firms of providing expensive tickets to high-profile sporting events to corporate clients.   (See here from Bloomberg).

Do that with certain other clients or potential clients and the DOJ/SEC would be apt to call that bribery.

*****

My Southern Illinois University School of Law colleague Lucian Dervan co-authored an article with Ellen Podgor (White Collar Crime Prof Blog) titled “White Collar Crime: Still Hazy After All These Years.” The abstract states:

“With a seventy-five year history of sociological and later legal roots, the term “white collar crime” remains an ambiguous concept that academics, policy makers, law enforcement personnel and defense counsel are unable to adequately define. Yet the use of the term “white collar crime” skews statistical reporting and sentencing for this conduct. This Article provides a historical overview of its linear progression and then a methodology for a new architecture in examining this conduct. It separates statutes into clear-cut white collar offenses and hybrid statutory offenses, and then applies this approach with an empirical study that dissects cases prosecuted under hybrid white collar statutes of perjury, false statements, obstruction of justice, and RICO. The empirical analysis suggests the need for an individualized multivariate approach to categorizing white collar crime to guard against broad federal statutes providing either under-inclusive or over-inclusive examination of this form of criminality.”

*****

Bruce Carton (Securities Docket) recently hosted this webinar titled “The U.K. Bribery Act After Five Years – Where Are We Now?” Panelists were Barry Vitou (author of thebriberyact.com) and Anne-Marie Ottaway of the law firm Pinsent Masons; Vivian Robinson QC, former general counsel to the UK’s Serious Fraud Office and now a partner at McGuireWoods; and Julian Glass of FTI Consulting.

*****

A good weekend to all.