It was noted in the prior post that similar issues were also presented in the SEC’s FCPA enforcement action against former Siemens executive Herbert Steffen, also in the S.D.N.Y.

Yesterday, Judge Shira Scheindlin (a federal court judge well versed in FCPA issues giving her involvement in the Bourke case) granted Steffen’s motion to dismiss the SEC’s complaint.  (See here for the opinion and order).  Because Judge Schneindlin concluded, as an initial threshold matter, that personal jurisdiction over Steffen exceeded the limits of due process, she did not address Steffen’s other challenges, including as to statute of limitations issues.  Unlike the defendants in Straub, Steffen was not alleged to have signed any management representation letters used in connection with financial reporting.

In short, Judge Scheindlin stated as follows.

“If this Court were to hold that Steffen’s support for the bribery scheme satisfied the minimum contacts analysis, even though he neither authorized the bribe, nor directed the cover up, much less played any role in the falsified filings, minimum contacts would be boundless.  [...] [U]nder the SEC’s theory, every participant in illegal action taken by a foreign company subject to U.S. securities laws would be subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts no matter how attenuated their connection with the falsified financial statements.  This would be akin to a tort-like foreseeability requirement, which has long been held to be insufficient.”

The remainder of this post provides context and summarizes Judge Scheindlin’s decision.

As noted in this previous post summarizing the allegations in the SEC’s December 2011 complaint against seven former Siemens executives, the conduct at issue involved a sliver of the overall conduct at issue in Siemens high-profile 2008 FCPA enforcement action.  In short, the allegations concerned an alleged bribery scheme in Argentina concerning a national identity card contract and - as to Steffen (the former CEO of Siemens S.A. Argentina who retired in 2003) Judge Scheindlin summarized the allegations as follows.

 ”The Complaint alleged that [Defendant] Sharef recruited Steffen ‘to facilitate the payment of bribes’ to officials in Argentina because of his longstanding connections in Argentina, which he acquired during his tenure at Siemens Argentina.  Following the cancellation of the contract, beginning in December 2000, Steffen and Sharef began renegotiating with the Argentine government, including the newly elected President, which demanded that Siemens paid it bribes in order to reinstate the contract.  In order to facilitate payment of bribes to the Argentine officials, Steffen met several times with [Defendant] Regendantz, who become the Chief Financial Officer of [Siemens Business Services - SBS] in February 2002, and ‘pressured’ Regendantz to authorize bribes from SBS to Argentine officials.  In April 2002, Steffen told Regendantz that SBS had a ‘moral duty’ to make at least an ‘advance payment’ of ten million dollars to the individuals who had previously handled the bribes because he and other individuals were being threatened as a result of the unpaid bribes.  Once Regendantz authorized the bribes, the allegations against Steffen are limited to participation in a phone call initiated by Sharef from the United States in connection with the bribery scheme, and that in the first half of 2003, defendants including Steffen ‘urged Sharef to meet the demands [of Argentine officials] and make the additional payments.”

Judge Scheindlin next addressed whether the SEC’s complaint alleged sufficient facts to establish the two components of the due process – minimum contacts and reasonableness.  Judge Scheindlin noted that because the SEC alleged specific jurisdiction over Steffen, this required that he “purposefully directed his activities towards [the U.S.] and the litigation arises out of or is related to [Steffen's ] contact with the forum.

Judge Scheindlin then stated as follows.

“It is well-established that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant who causes an effect in the forum by an act committed elsewhere.  However, ‘this is a principle that must be applied with caution, particularly in an international context.’  ‘Foreseeability’ alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.’  Rather defendants must have ‘followed a course of conduct directed at … the jurisdiction of a given sovereign, so that the sovereign has the power to subject the defendant to judgment concerning the conduct.  The effects in the United States must ‘occur as a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct outside the territory’ and defendant ‘must know,or have good reason to know, that his conduct will have effects in the [forum] seeking to assert jurisdiction over him.”

After noting the legal standards for “reasonableness,” Judge Scheindlin concluded that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Steffen in that the SEC did not establish minimum contacts and that the exercise of jurisdiction over Steffen was not reasonable.

As to minimum contacts, Judge Scheindlin stated as follows.

“The SEC’s allegations are premised on Steffen’s role in encouraging Regendantz to authorize bribes to Argentine officials that ultimately resulted in falsified filings.  While Steffen’s actions may have been a proximate cause of the false filings – and that is a matter of some doubt – Steffen’s actions are far too attenuated from the resulting harm to establish minimum contacts.  Steffen was brought into the alleged scheme based solely on his connections with Argentine officials.  In furtherance of his negotiations with those officials, Steffen ‘urged’ and ‘pressured’ Regendantz to make certain bribes.  However, Regendantz did not agree to make the bribes until he communicated with several ‘higher ups’ whose responses he perceived to be instructions to make the bribes.  Once Regendantz agreed to make the bribes – following receipt of instructions from Siemens’ management rather than Steffen – Steffen’s alleged role was tangential at best.  Steffen did not actually authorize the bribes.  The SEC does not allege that he directed, ordered or even had awareness of the cover ups that occurred at SBS much less that he had any involvement in the falsification of SEC filings in furtherance of those cover ups.”

In a footnote, Judge Scheindlin then stated as follows.

“Neither Sharef’s call to Steffen from the United States nor the fact that a portion of the bribery payments were deposited in a New York bank provide sufficient evidence of conduct directed towards the United States to establish minimum contacts.  First, Steffen did not place the calls to Sharef.  Further, Steffen did not direct that the funds be routed through a New York bank.  [...]  His conduct was focused solely on ensuring the continuation of the Siemens contract in Argentina.”

Judge Scheindlin then noted that in SEC v. Straub, the defendants not only orchestrated a bribery scheme aimed at the Macedonia government but also as part of the bribery scheme “signed off on misleading management representations to the company’s auditors and signed false SEC filings.”

Judge Scheindlin next stated as follows.

“If this Court were to hold that Steffen’s support for the bribery scheme satisfied the minimum contacts analysis, even though he neither authorized the bribe, nor directed the cover up, much less played any role in the falsified filings, minimum contacts would be boundless.  Illegal corporate action almost always requires cover ups, which to be successful must be reflected in financial statements.  Thus, under the SEC’s theory, every participant in illegal action taken by a foreign company subject to U.S. securities laws would be subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts no matter how attenuated their connection with the falsified financial statements.  This would be akin to a tort-like foreseeability requirement, which has long been held to be insufficient.  The allegations against Steffen fall far short of the requirement that he ‘follow a course of conduct directed … the jurisdiction of a given sovereign, so that the sovereign has the power to subject the defendant to judgment concerning that conduct.  Absent any alleged role in the cover ups themselves, let alone any role in preparing false financial statements the exercise of jurisdiction here exceeds the limts of due process, as articulated by the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit.”

As to reasonableness, Judge Scheindlin stated as follows.

“The decision not to exercise jurisdiction in this case is bolstered by my conclusion that requiring Steffen to defend this case in the United States would be unreasonable.  [...]  When a defendant is not located in the United States, ‘great care and reserve should be exercised when extending our notions of personal jurisdiction into the international context.  Steffen’s lack of geographic ties to the United States, his age, his poor proficiency in English, and the forum’s diminished interest in adjudicating the matter, all weight against personal jurisdiction.  [...] [I]t would be a heavy burden on this seventy-four year old defendant to journey to the United States to defend against this suit.  Further, the SEC and the Department of Justice have already obtained comprehensive remedies against Siemens and Germany has resolved an action against Steffen individually.  The SEC’s interest in ensuring that this type of conduct does not go unpublished will not be furthered by continuing the suit against Steffen, in light of his age, the burden to defend this suit, and the previous adjudications.”

*****

Steffen was represented by  Skadden lawyers Erich Schwartz (here – former Assistant Director of the SEC Enforcement Division) and Amanda Grier (here).  In an e-mailed statement, Schwartz stated as follows.  “We are extremely pleased with this decision, and in particular that the Court recognized the unreasonableness under the circumstances of forcing Mr. Steffen to answer these charges in the U.S.”

Sleepless Nights

According to this recent article by Ashby Jones of the Wall Street Journal, FCPA enforcement is one of “three concerns costing big-company lawyers the most sleep.”

Briefings Complete

One of the bigger FCPA stories of 2012, and one that will reach into 2013 as well, are challenges by foreign defendants in two separate SEC Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions.

Prior posts here and here have discussed the briefing in SEC v. Herbert Steffen (a former Siemens executives).

Prior posts here and here have discussed the briefing in SEC v. Elek Straub, Andras Balogh and Tamas Morvai (former Magyar Telecom executives).

Defendants in both actions recently filed reply briefs.

Steffen (here) argues in summary fashion, as follows.

“In its opposition, the SEC asks this Court to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (1) who is a German citizen and resident; (2) who conducted no business in the United States; (3) whose only alleged U.S. “contact” resulted from the unilateral actions of another party; (4) whose allegedly improper conduct occurred entirely outside the United States; and (5) whose conduct was not aimed at and caused no injury in the United States. This request should be rejected. Because the SEC has not met its burden to plead legally sufficient allegations establishing personal jurisdiction over Mr. Steffen, its complaint must be dismissed. In addition, the SEC has failed to explain how its action against Mr. Steffen is not barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2462. In addition, although the SEC acknowledges that the purpose of the statutory tolling provision is to ensure that a defendant does not evade U.S. prosecution by “fleeing to another country” where he is “difficult to locate and serve,” it ignores that Mr. Steffen did nothing to evade the SEC, and that the SEC was able to locate him and obtain an order to serve him by publication in Germany, the country of his nationality and residency. Under these circumstances, accepting the SEC’s argument would mean that claims against foreign-national defendants who reside abroad are perpetual, not subject to any time limitations. Finally, even if this Court were to accept a continuing violation theory for securities violations, it does not help the SEC’s case because Mr. Steffen did not take any unlawful acts within the limitations period. For all of these reasons, the motion to dismiss should be granted with prejudice.”

Straub, Balogh and Morvai’s reply brief (here) addresses many of the same jurisdictional and statue of limitations issues at issue in the Steffen challenge.  In addition, the former Magyar Telekom executive’s brief argues that: (1) the pertinent SEC filing the SEC relies upon in making certain allegations was not even filed with the Commission, (2) the SEC has failed to allege corrupt use of an instrumentality of interstate commerce by the defendants; and (3) the SEC has failed to allege the identity of the alleged foreign bribery recipients.

With both the DOJ and SEC bringing more FCPA enforcement actions against foreign actors – for instance in 2011 90% of DOJ individual prosecutions were against foreign nationals and 100% of SEC individual prosecutions were against foreign nationals – the challenges are noteworthy.  Particularly so because Judge Leon, in the Africa Sting case, rejected the DOJ’s jurisdictional theory against U.K. national Pankesh Patel (see here for the prior post) in what was believed to be the first instance of judicial scrutiny concerning FCPA jurisdiction against foreign nationals.

Africa Sting Lawyers Recognized

Two Africa Sting defense lawyers were recently recognized by Law360 as White Collar MVPs.

Michael Madigan (Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe) represented John Gregory Godsey, who was found not guilty by the jury.  (See here for the prior post).  Commenting on the Africa Sting cases, Madigan stated as follows.  “This case stands out as a significant one. There are certain cases that come along that alter the system of justice and I think this is really one of them.”

In the Law360 article, Madigan was specifically cited for his leadership in leading defense discovery efforts which resulted in the FBI having to turn over its text messages with Richard Bistrong.   According to the article, the Africa Sting case was the ”first major criminal trial to achieve court-ordered production in discovery of thousands of text messages between FBI agents of the government’s key cooperating informant.”  As noted in the article – “The texts showed FBI agents joking with the informant that ‘you could sell snow to an Eskimo’ — a notion that undercut allegations that Godsey and other defendants were willing participants in a bribery scheme. The texts also revealed FBI agents wondering who would play them when Hollywood made a movie about the investigation.”

Eric Dubelier (Reed Smith) was also recognized for his work on the Africa Sting case, specifically his pro bono representation of R. Patrick Caldwell, a former secret service agent and Vietnam veteran, who was also found not guilty by the jury.

In the Law360 article, Dubelier stated as follows regarding his representation of Caldwell.  “Having spent time in the government myself and knowing people like Pat, I thought, You know what? If anyone deserves to represented, this guy does.  Pat really had held only two jobs his entire life: the first as a US soldier in combat, the second as a U.S. Secret Service agent.  His whole career had been in service to the U.S., but it had earned him nothing close to the resources he needed to defend himself against this prosecution. Providing Pat with the defense he deserved was simply the right thing to do.”

As noted by the Law360 article, “After the acquittals — and the mistrials of three additional defendants — and after a concerned jury foreman penned an open letter expressing deep skepticism about the case, the government ultimately dropped the case against the remaining defendants including those awaiting trial and three who already had pled guilty.”

See here for the February 6, 2012 guest post on FCPA Professor by the Africa Sting jury foreman.

Voluntary Disclosure

Willkie Farr & Gallagher FCPA attorneys Martin Weinstein, Robert Meyer and Jeffrey Clark recently published a new book, “The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act:  Compliance, Investigations and Enforcement.”

In this recent Metropolitian Corporate Counsel interview, the authors answer various questions, including the following.

Q: Do you advise your clients to self-report?

Weinstein: We are very cautious about self-reporting to the government. We certainly sometimes advise companies to self-report, but in general we believe that most companies can handle their compliance problems properly without disclosure or government involvement and can appropriately remediate compliance issues and be prepared to respond should the government ever inquire.  Companies across industries fix compliance problems – for instance, in a target company that they are acquiring or have just acquired – every day, without the assistance of the U.S. government.  This is good all around: it allows the acquiring company to proceed with the acquisition, raises the standard of compliance in the acquired company, and permits the government to deploy its enforcement resources where they are needed most. Our book clearly sets forth how to proceed down such a path. That said, the book also discusses the kinds of circumstances in which self-disclosure may be necessary or advisable and helps readers navigate through that fact-specific, critical strategic decision.

Small Bribes In Russia

Relevant to the question I often ask – do FCPA violations occur because companies have bribery as a business strategy or because companies are subject to difficult and opaque business conditions abroad  – is this recent Washington Post article concerning the prevalence of small bribes in Russia.

FCPA Satire

If you like satire, you must check out this post by James McGrath at his Internal Investigations blog.

*****

A good weekend to all.

As noted in the previous post, two of the challenges focus on the SEC’s alleged jurisdiction over foreign nationals.  With both the DOJ and SEC bringing more FCPA enforcement actions against foreign actors – for instance in 2011 90% of DOJ individual prosecutions were against foreign nationals and 100% of SEC individual prosecutions were against foreign nationals – the challenges are noteworthy.  Particularly so because Judge Leon, in the Africa Sting case, rejected the DOJ’s jurisdictional theory against U.K. national Pankesh Patel (see here for the prior post) in what was believed to be the first instance of judicial scrutiny concerning FCPA jurisdiction against foreign nationals.

Recently the SEC filed its opposition brief (here) to Herbert Steffen’s motion to dismiss.  Steffen is a former Siemens executives who was charged in December 2011 (see here for the prior post).

In summary, the SEC states as follows.

“Steffen’s motion contends (1) that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him and (2) that the SEC’s claims are time-barred under the five-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2462. The Court should deny the motion on both grounds.

Steffen is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court because his conduct caused foreseeable consequences in the United States. The complaint alleges that Steffen played a central role in a long-running bribery scheme at Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (“Siemens”); that he coerced a reluctant lower-ranking official to authorize and cover up bribe payments; and that his actions caused Siemens to file annual and quarterly reports with the SEC in the United States that misrepresented the company’s financial statements and that included false Sarbanes-Oxley certifications. The exercise of personal jurisdiction over Steffen on these facts is consistent with a long line of Second Circuit case law and entirely reasonable. Because Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, provides for nationwide service of process, the Court need not look to New York’s long-arm statute, the N.Y. C.P.L.R., as a basis for jurisdiction.

Nor are the SEC’s claims time-barred. The plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2462 provides that the five-year limitations period runs only “if, within the same period, the offender . . . is found within the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.” 28 U.S.C. § 2462. Steffen is a German national who, by his own admission, has lived outside the United States during the entire relevant period. And even if he had spent the last five years in this country, the bribery scheme Steffen was a part of did not conclude until February 6, 2007, when Siemens realized the scheme’s objective, a $217 million arbitration award against the Argentine government. The SEC filed its complaint less than five years later, on December 13, 2011. Finally, as a long line of decisions in the Southern District of New York have recognized, the SEC’s claims for equitable relief — in this case, an injunction and disgorgement — are not subject to Section 2462 at all.”

In addition to its “foreseeable consequences” assertion, the SEC brief also contains the following sentence as to its alleged jurisdiction.

“Steffen also discussed the bribery scheme over the telephone with defendant Sharef while Sharef was in the United States, and a portion of the payments that Steffen pressured Regendantz to make were deposited in a New York bank.”  [As noted in this previous post, Sharef has agreed in principle to a settlement with the SEC and Regendantz previously settled with the SEC].

In its brief, the SEC acknowledges that there is no case law interpreting its Section 2462 tolling position.

Until very recently, the last time the SEC was challenged in a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action was 2002 in the Eric Mattson and James Harris enforcement action.  As noted in this previous post, the SEC lost.

After a 10 year period enforcing the FCPA against cooperating corporate and individual defendants, this past summer Mark Jackson and James Ruehlen’s challenged the SEC in an FCPA enforcement action.  (See here for the briefing, oral arguments are set for Halloween).

This post last week noted that former Maygar Telekom executives Elek Straub, Andras Balogh and Tamas Morvai plan on challenging the SEC’s enforcement action against them.  Briefing is to be completed in mid-December and oral arguments are scheduled for mid-January 2013.

Strange things happen in threes.

Last week, Chris Matthews (Wall Street Journal – Corruption Currents) reported here that former Siemens executive Herbert Steffen has filed a motion to dismiss the SEC’s charges against him.

As noted in this previous post, Steffen is among a group of former Siemens executives charged by the SEC (and DOJ) in connection with the Argentina conduct at issue in the widespread Siemens enforcement action from 2008.

In his motion to dismiss (here) Steffen moves to dismiss the SEC complaint for lack personal jurisdiction and for the SEC’s failure to file the complaint within the applicable five-year statute of limitations.

The motion states as follows.

“Mr. Steffen, 74 years of age, is a German citizen residing in Germany. He is trained as an engineer, and spent his entire career at Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (“Siemens”) and its subsidiaries with postings in Germany, Brazil, and Argentina. He was never employed in the United States, and never travelled to the United States on business for Siemens during the entire period alleged in the complaint. The complaint alleges he had managerial positions in Siemens’ Argentina business from 1983 through 1989 and again in 1991.   There are no allegations of any improprieties during the period he had such responsibilities. He retired from Siemens nearly ten years ago and has not been employed since.  The complaint alleges that between 2000 and 2003, when Mr. Steffen was Group President of Siemens Transportation Systems in Germany, he was recruited to assist in efforts to recover a contract that the Argentine government planned to terminate.  It further alleges that in that capacity he engaged in conduct that the SEC contends violated or aided and abetted violations of Sections 13(b)(2), 13(b)(5) and 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The last alleged act attributed to Mr. Steffen in the complaint is alleged to have occurred sometime in “the first half of 2003.”  The complaint does not allege that Mr. Steffen ever entered the United States. Nor does it allege that he initiated any contact with anyone in the United States. Although it alleges that he participated in “one or more telephone conversations with defendant Sharef” (another Siemens employee), it expressly alleges that Mr. Sharef “called him from the United States.”  Because the complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Mr. Steffen, and because the SEC’s claims are barred because they were not filed within the applicable five-year statute of limitations, we respectfully move to dismiss all the claims against Mr. Steffen pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12.”

The statute of limitations portion of Steffen’s states, among other things, as follows.

“At the September 28, 2012 scheduling conference before this Court, the SEC expressed the view that the applicable statute of limitations was tolled indefinitely because Mr. Steffen is a foreign defendant who has not been in the United States and does not own property in the United States. The SEC’s rationale for this novel argument was language in a sixty-year-old statute that neither expressly mentions tolling the statute of limitations nor has been held by any court to support the interpretation offered by the SEC.  The interpretation advanced by the SEC is particularly nonsensical, given the relative ease with which service of process can be effected on foreign defendants residing abroad. Moreover, the proposed interpretation—which as a practical matter would extend indefinitely the statute of limitation as to those individuals with the least connection to the United States— disregards, with no indication from Congress, the strong judicial policy favoring statute of limitations. [… Because the SEC cannot overcome its lack of diligence in pursuing its claims within the five-year statute of limitations, its claims against Mr. Steffen should be dismissed.”

Steffen is represented by Skadden lawyers Erich Schwartz (here - former Assistant Director of the SEC Enforcement Division) and Amanda Grier (here).

As noted in Chris Matthew’s Corruption Currents post, “the SEC said in a court letter filed last Friday it had reached an agreement with Uriel Sharef, a former member of Siemens’ managing board, to settle the foreign bribery charges pending against him.”

On the same day the SEC enforcement action was brought in December 2011, the SEC announced settlement of the charges against Bernd Regendatz.  As to the other defendants charged by the SEC, the docket notes a default by Ulrich Bock and Stephan Singer and that Andrews Truppel was recently served.  The docket contains no information as to Carlos Sergi.

As noted in the December 2011 post, the DOJ also charged several former Siemens executives as well.  The docket does not contain any entries since December 2011.

DOJ Indictment

As noted in the previous post, the DOJ indictment (here) charges the following individuals.  Uriel Sharef, Herbert Steffen, Andres Truppel, Ulrich Bock, Stephan Signer, Eberhard Reichert, Carlos Sergi and Miguel Czysch.

The below defendants are  described as “officers, directors, employees and agents” of an “issuer” (Siemens AG).

According to the indictment, Sharef (a dual citizen of Israel and Germany) was employed by Siemens from 1978 to December 31, 2007.  The indictment alleges that from 2000 until his departure from Siemens, Sharef was a member of Siemens AG’s Managing Board and Corporate Executive Committee (“CEC”), with oversight responsibilities for Siemens AG’s power operations group, including Siemens Power Transmission and Distribution (“Siemens PTD”), and Siemens AG’s operations in the Americas region, including Siemens Argentina.

According to the indictment, Steffen (a German citizen) was a long-time Siemens employee who left the company in 2003.  The indictment alleges that Steffen, at various times, was: group president of Siemens AG’s transportation systems operating division; group president of Siemens PTD; CEO of Siemens Argentina; and chairman of the Supervisory Board of Siemens Argentina.

According to the indictment, Truppel (a dual citizen of Germany and Argentina) was employed by Siemens until 2002 when he then became a consultant to Siemens until 2004.  The indictment alleges that until his “shift to consultant status” Truppel was CFO of Siemens Argentina.

According to the indictment, Bock (a German citizen) was a long-time employee of Siemens until 2001 when he then became a paid consultant to Siemens until 2007.  While a Siemens employee, Bock was commercial head of Siemens Business Services (“SBS” – a wholly-owned subsidiary of Siemens AG and a unit in Siemens information and communications operating group).

According to the indictment, Reichert (a German citizen) was a long-time Siemens employee until 2001.  He was the technical head of SBS’s Major Projects subdivision.

According to the indictment, Signer (a German citizen) was a long-time Siemens employee until 2011.  The indictment alleges that from 2000 to 2007, Signer worked for SBS as a commercial director in various capacities.

The below defendants are described as “agents” of Siemens AG who served as “intermediaries between Siemens and officials of the Government of Argentina” – the so-called “Intermediary Defendants.”

According to the indictment, Sergi (a citizen of Argentina) “was a prominent businessman in Latin America with extensive high-level government contacts in Argentina.”  The indictment states that Sergi was for a 15 year period ending in 2003 a member of the Supervisory Board of Siemens Argentina along with Sharef.

According to the indictment, Czysch (a German citizen and resident of Switzerland) was a business associate of Sergi.

For both set of defendants, the indictment invokes 78dd-1 of the FCPA.   The jurisdictional hook under 78dd-1 for non-U.S. “issuers” is “use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce” in furtherance of a bribery scheme.  As described below, the indictment alleges certain conduct in the U.S. as well as wire transfers of money through U.S. bank accounts in furtherance of the bribery scheme.

The indictment also refers to six unindicted co-conspirators (two individuals described an attorneys in Argentina and former senior officials in the Argentine Ministry of Justice; a former CEO of Siemens Argentina; a former deputy general counsel in the Legal Services office at Siemens AG headquarters; a business partner of Sergi; and a business partner of Czysch).

Under the heading “Overview of the Conspiracy” the indictment alleges as follows.  “In or about August 1994, the Government of Argentina issued a tender for bids to replace an existing system of manually created national identity booklets with state-of-the-art national identity cards” – the so-called DNI (Documento Nacional de Identidad) project.  According to the indictment, the “total estimated value of the DNI project was approximately $1 billion.”    In 1998, the President of Argentina issued a decree awarding the DNI project to Siemens IT Services S.A. (“SITS”), a special-purpose subsidiary created by SBS for the purpose of bidding on the DNI project.  According to the indictment, from 1996 to 2009, the defendants and others “engaged in a conspiracy on behalf of Siemens to obtain the lucrative proceeds of the DNI project, and to foster future business, by means of bribery, fraud, and other forms of corruption.”

The indictment specifically alleges as follows.  “Members of the conspiracy won the DNI project for Siemens by bribing Argentine government officials.  They paid more bribes in the hope of reviving the project when, in or about 2001, the DNI project was stalled.  Ultimately [...] the DNI project was terminated altogether.  Even after this point, members of the conspiracy continued to pursue the profits that Siemens had expected to gain from the project.  They did so through additional bribes and corrupt conduct, including the pursuit of a fraudulent arbitration in Washington, D.C. against the Argentine government, demanding nearly $500 million while actively hiding the corruption from the tribunal.”

According to the indictment, “some of conspirators were employed by Siemens as executives, lawyers, and managers working on DNI project matters; others served as agents and conduits for the payment of bribes to Argentine government officials who were in a position to influence the direction of the DNI project.”  The indictment alleges as follows.  “Integral to the conspiracy, and to the concealment of the illegal objects of the conspiracy, was the conspirators’ use of at least 17 conduit entities (collectively, the ‘Conduit Entities’) controlled or otherwise affiliated with the Intermediary Defendants and with various Argentine government officials and candidates for office who were the recipients or intended recipients of bribe payments (the ‘Argentine Officials’).

The conduct alleged in the indictment starts with “initial bribe commitments and payments.”   The indictment alleges that various co-conspirators “committed Siemens to paying nearly $100 million in bribes to sitting officials of the Argentine government, members of the opposition party, and candidates for office who were likely to come to power during the performance of the project.”   According to the indictment, many of these payments were made pursuant to “black contracts, that is unwritten contracts” with third-parties who later sought reimbursement from Siemens.

Argentine officials described in the indictment are “Argentine Official A” (a senior official in the Office of the President and thereafter a candidate for office and member of the Argentine Congress), “Argentine Official B” (a senior official in the Ministry of Interior and thereafter a member of the Argentine Congress); and “Argentine Official C” (a senior official in the Ministry of Migration and the Office of Internal Security and thereafter a member of the Argentine Congress).  The indictment alleges that certain defendants “caused SBS to transfer two wires in the aggregate amount of approximately $7.4 million to a bank account in Manhattan, New York” in furtherance of the bribe scheme.

The indictment next alleges that in 1999 “with work on the DNI project underway, the Government of Argentina suspended the project, as the country faced a mounting economic crisis and a presidential election” and that a “new administration, which came to power [...] maintained the suspended status of the DNI project.”  The indictment alleges that Sharef and Steffen “led a campaign on Siemens’s part to restart the DNI project” and that “renegotiation of the contract governing the DNI project was a part of the campaign.”  The indictment charges that various defendants “lobbied Argentine government officials” and that Sharef met with a “Argentine Official D” (a senior official in the office of the Argentine President).  According to the indictment, “the meeting engendered optimism at Siemens that the President of Argentina would soon issue a decree authorizing the resumption of the DNI project” and that “continuing the payment of bribes was part of the conspirators’ effort to revive the DNI project.”

According to the indictment, the conspirators committed to pay additional bribes to Argentine Officials A, B, C, D, as well as “Argentine Official E” (a senior official in the Ministry of the Interior and thereafter a member of Congress), “Argentine Official F” (a senior official in the Ministry of the Interior and thereafter a candidate for office in the Argentine Congress), and “Argentine Official G” (a senior official in the Ministry of Interior).  According to the indictment, conspirators “agreed to funnel payments on all existing and new bribe obligations through the Intermediary Defendants” and “also agreed to conceal the bribe payments under a ‘white contract’ – that is, a contract that appeared legitimate on its face, but which did not reflect an actual transaction of business.”

The indictment next alleges that in 2001 “the anticipated decree authorizing the resumption of the DNI project still was not issued.”  According to the indictment, “the Argentine government was instead conducting an assessment of the merits of continuing the DNI project through a body” called the General Accounting Agency of the Nation (“SIGEN”) and that “in a further effort to prevent termination of the DNI project, members of the conspiracy determined to influence SIGEN’s assessment in Siemens’s favor by bribing a SIGEN board member (“Argentine Official H”).

According to the indictment, “despite Siemens’s efforts and bribe payments intended for various foreign officials, the Government of Argentina officially terminated the DNI project” in 2001.  Nevertheless, the indictment alleges that certain defendants and conspirators assembled a Crisis Management Team (“CMT”) continued a bribe scheme to “(i) ensure that Siemens recognized the economic benefits of the contract for the DNI project, notwithstanding its termination and the corrupt manner by which it had been procured, (ii) prevent public disclosure of the bribery associated with the DNI project, and (iii) ensure Siemens’s ability to secure future government contracts in Argentina and elsewhere in the region.”  According to the indictment “the conspirators sought to achieve these related goals by paying down outstanding bribe obligations to Argentine Officials through a complex series of transactions, paying down bribe obligations through a sham arbitration in Switzerland, and seeking to recoup the anticipated financial benefits of the DNI project through a fraudulent arbitration in Washington D.C.”

Specifically, the indictment charges that certain defendants met with Sergi and Czysch in Miami, Florida to “re-negotiate the amount of outstanding bribe commitments to the Argentine Officials.”  The indictment further alleges certain “wire transfer instructions for payment through a bank account in Manhattan, New York” and payments through a New York-based account.  The indictment further alleges that one of the Conduit Entities had Miami, Florida addresses.  The indictment further alleges that certain defendants also met in Manhattan, New York “to discuss the outstanding bribe obligations.”

Thereafter, the indictment alleges that Sergi (the prominent businessman in Latin America with extensive high-level government contracts in Argentina who served as an agent of Siemens AG) filed a formal claim against SBS in a Swiss arbitral tribunal in 2005 to recover under a sham contract used to make certain bribe payments.  The indictment states that “although the members of the conspiracy knew that none of the services described in the contract were performed and were not expected to be performed, and that the contract was a sham used to disguise illegal bribe obligations, none of the conspirators acknowledged as much before the Swiss tribunal.”   According to the indictment,  SBS settled the claim for approximately $8.8 million, but that the “settlement was actually a mechanism to disguise a partial payment of bribe obligations to the Argentine Officials.”  According to the indictment, certain of the settlement money passed through bank accounts in Manhattan, New York.

As to the Washington D.C. arbitration, the indictment alleges that certain of the defendants and co-conspirators “orchestrated the filing of a fraudulent arbitration claim in Washington D.C. in 2002 to cause the Argentine government to pay Siemens AG damages in an amount equivalent to incurred expenses and the total profits the company would have earned from the DNI project had it not been terminated.”  According to the indictment, “exposure of the bribery associated with the DNI project would have likely rendered the arbitration claim futile because the contract would have been procured through illegal corruption.”  The indictment alleges that certain defendants and co-conspirators “successfully kept evidence of bribery out of the arbitration in Washington D.C.” by filing witness statements containing “material misrepresentations and omissions relating to the DNI’s project origins, among other matters.”  According to the indictment, despite later claims by Argentina that the DNI project bidding was corrupted – claims Siemens denied, the arbitral tribunal sided with Siemens AG and on February 2007 it awarded Siemens AG approximately $218 million in loss of investment, plus interest.  However, the factual portion of the indictment ends with the following statement – in August 2009 “Siemens AG personnel who were not members of the conspiracy caused the company to waive its right to the award.”

Based on the above conduct, the indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery, books and records and internal control provisions; conspiracy to commit wire fraud; conspiracy to commit money laundering; and substantive wire fraud.

SEC Complaint

The SEC’s complaint (here) is based on the same core conduct alleged above.  Reichert and Czysch are not named as defendants in the SEC action, but the SEC complaint includes as a defendant Bernd Regendantz (the CFO of SBS who allegedly authorized certain bribe payments).  Each of the SEC defendants are charged with violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions;  aiding and abetting Siemens’ FCPA violations – both anti-bribery violations and books and records and internal controls; and violating other securities laws by falsifying documents, including invoices and sham consulting contracts in furtherance of the bribery scheme.

According to the SEC, “over the course of the bribery scheme, Siemens paid an estimated total of over $100 million in bribes, approximately $31.3 million of which were made after [...] Siemens became subject to the U.S. securities laws.”

In addition, Regendantz is charged with violating Rule 13b2-2 by signing false internal certifications pursuant to SOX.  As to Regendatz, the SEC complaint alleges that he “had no prior dealings with the DNI contract” when he became CFO of SBS in 2002 and that he had resisted other defendants pressure to authorize additional bribe payments.  According to the complaint, “Regendantz sought guidance from Siemens’ Head of Compliance, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer, and two members of the Managing Board.”  The complaint alleges that “in each instance, Regendantz explained that the payment demands lacked any legitimate commercial basis and that he was reluctant to authorize them.”  The complaint then states as follows.  “In each instance, Regendantz explained that the payment demands lacked any legitimate commercial basis and that he was reluctant to authorize them.  In each instance, Regendantz’s superiors gave every indication that they were familiar with the DNI Contract and with the nature of the payment demands.  And in each instance, his superiors told Regendantz that it was his responsibility to find a solution to the problem.  Regendantz understood these responses from his superiors to be an instruction that he authorize the bribe payments.”

The SEC’s release noted that Regendantz settled the SEC charges without admitting or denying the allegations and consented to entry of a final judgment that enjoins him from future violations.  The release states that Regendantz previously paid a $40,000 administrative fine ordered by the Munich prosecutor.

Since the 2008 enforcement action, U.S. enforcement authorities have been under pressure to charge culpable individuals.  See here for a prior post and here for the transcript of the November 2010 Senate FCPA hearing during which former Senator Specter again called for individual accountability, an occurrence which prompted him to ask me several questions after the hearing about the “most egregious examples of individual conduct associated with the Siemens prosecution.”  See here for my responses.

Today, the DOJ announced that “eight former executives and agents of Siemens AG and its subsidiaries have been charged for allegedly engaging in a decade-long scheme to bribe senior Argentine government officials to secure, implement and enforce a $1 billion contract with the Argentine government to produce national identity cards.”

The defendants charged in the indictment (here) are:  Uriel Sharef (a former member of the central executive committee of Siemens AG); Herbert Steffen (a former chief executive officer of Siemens Argentina); Andres Truppel (a former chief financial officer of Siemens Argentina); Ulrich Bock, Stephan Signer and Eberhard Reichert (former senior executives of Siemens Business Services); and Carlos Sergi and Miguel Czysch (who allegedly served as intermediaries and agents of Siemens in the bribe scheme).  None of the individuals are U.S. citizens and during a press conference today Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer indicated that none of the defendants are in U.S. custody.

The indictment, filed in the Southern District of New York, charges the defendants and their co-conspirators with conspiracy to violate the FCPA and the wire fraud statute, money laundering conspiracy and wire fraud.

In the DOJ release, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer stated as follows.  “Today’s indictment alleges a shocking level of deception and corruption.  The indictment charges Siemens executives, along with agents and conduits for the company, with committing to pay more than $100 million in bribes to high-level Argentine officials to win a $1 billion contract.  Business should be won or lost on the merits of a company’s products and services, not the amount of bribes paid to government officials.  This indictment reflects our committment to holding individuals, as well as companies, accountable for violations of the FCPA.”  During the press conference, Breuer stated that today’s action is the “first time a former Board member of a Fortune 50 company” has ever been charged with FCPA violations.  Breuer also stated that  ”Siemens was a remarkably cooperative and helpful party throughout our investigation.”

In a parallel civil enforcement action also announced today (here), the SEC charged seven former Siemens executives with violating the FCPA for their involvement in the same bribery scheme.  The following individuals are charged in the civil action:  Sharef, Bock, Signer, Steffen, Truppel, Sergi and Bernd Regendantz (a former chief financial officer of Siemens Business Services).  The civil complaint (here) alleges FCPA anti-bribery violations, aiding and abetting Siemens’ FCPA anti-bribery violations, as well as other charges.  Robert Khuzami (Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement) stated as follows.  “Business should flow to the company with the best product and the best price, not the best bribe.  Corruption erodes public trust and the transparency of our commercial markets, and undermines corporate governance.”  During today’s press conference, Khuzami called the action the “largest [SEC] action ever against individuals” in the FCPA’s history.

Additional analysis of the DOJ and SEC enforcement actions will follow.