Archive for the ‘Individual Enforcement Action’ Category

An Open Invitation To The DOJ And SEC To Refute These Numbers

Tuesday, October 14th, 2014

As highlighted in this prior post, at a recent American Bar Association event Kara Brockmeyer (Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit) and Patrick Stokes (Chief of the DOJ’s FCPA Unit) spoke on a panel titled “DOJ-SEC FCPA Update:  Trends and Significant Developments.”

Towards the end of the panel, after hearing Brockmeyer and Stokes carry forward enforcement agency rhetoric concerning individual prosecutions, I asked the following general question.

The DOJ and SEC frequently talk about individual FCPA enforcement actions and indeed recognize the importance of individual enforcement in maximizing deterrence.  However, the reality is that since 2008 approximately 80% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions lack any related enforcement action against company employees.  Indeed, the SEC has not brought an individual FCPA enforcement action in nearly 2.5 years.  Is one possible explanation for these statistics – that corporate FCPA enforcement actions do not necessarily represent provable FCPA violations?

Both Brockmeyer and Stokes strongly disagreed with my statistics and called them false, wrong, deeply flawed, etc.

Stokes also seemed to hint at FCPA enforcement that is not public (see this prior post regarding apparent secret FCPA enforcement) as well as FCPA charges that are currently under seal and thus not yet publicly known.  The later point is obviously valid as the public can only keep FCPA enforcement statistics based on information currently in the public domain.

In other respects however, Stokes merely did what former DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney General Denis McInerney did when I highlighted the same general statistics at a public conference in May 2013 (see here); in other words Stokes talked about the small minority of cases in which a corporate employee has indeed been charged in connection with a corporate FCPA enforcement action.

In addition, Stokes also mentioned a number of instances in which the DOJ has charged individuals with FCPA charges. This of course is true, but as highlighted in prior posts here and most recently here, it must be noted that the DOJ appears to follow a clear “clustering” approach in charging individuals.  For instance (with statistics calculated through the end of 2013,  53% of the individuals charged by the DOJ with FCPA criminal offenses since 2008 have been in just four cases and 75% of the individuals charged by the DOJ since 2008 have been in just nine cases.  In other words, just a few cases (such as 22 individuals in the failed Africa Sting case, 9 individuals in the Haiti Teleco case, 8 individuals in the Control Components case, 8 individuals in the Siemens case – and most recently 6 individuals in the April 2014 Indian mining license case) account for the substantial bulk of individual FCPA charges.

For approximately two years (see prior posts here and here) I have been keeping the below statistics.

I now “show my work” and the below data is based on public information found on the DOJ and SEC’s websites (see here and here).

I invite the DOJ and SEC to refute these numbers and commit to publishing any response the DOJ and SEC sends to me.  I can be e-mailed at fcpaprofessor@gmail.com

For starters, the easiest statistic is the fact that the SEC has not brought an individual FCPA enforcement action in approximately 2.5 years.  As clearly evidenced from the SEC’s FCPA website, the last individual FCPA action was in April 2012 against Garth Peterson.

The next statistic is that since 2008, the SEC has brought 68 corporate FCPA enforcement actions.  As highlighted by the below chart, 12 of these actions have resulted in a related enforcement action against a company employee.  Thus, 82% of corporate SEC FCPA enforcement actions since 2008 have not resulted in any related enforcement action against a company employee.

SEC

Year

 

Corporate Action

Related Action Against Any Employee 

2008

Fiat

No

2008

Siemens

Yes

2008

Con-Way

No

2008

Faro

Yes

2008

Willbros

Yes

2008

AB Volvo

No

2008

Flowserve

No

2008

Westinghouse Air Brake

No

2009

UTStarcom

No

2009

AGCO

No

2009

Nature’s Sunshine

Yes

2009

Helmerich & Payne

No

2009

Avery Dennison

No

2009

United Industrial Corp.

Yes

2009

Novo Nordisk

No

2009

ITT Corp.

No

2009

KBR/Halliburton

Yes

2010

Alcatel-Lucent

No

2010

RAE Systems

No

2010

Panalpina

No

2010

Pride Int’l

Yes

2010

Tidewater

No

2010

Transocean

No

2010

GlobalSantaFe

No

2010

Noble Corp.

Yes

2010

Royal Dutch Shell

No

2010

ABB

No

2010

Alliance One

Yes

2010

Universal

No

2010

GE/Ionics

No

2010

Eni/Snamprogetti

No

2010

Veraz Networks

No

2010

Technip

No

2010

Daimler

No

2010

Innospec

Yes

2010

Natco

No

2011

Magyar Telekom

Yes

2011

Aon

No

2011

Watts Water

Yes

2011

Diageo

No

2011

Armor Holdings

No

2011

Tenaris

No

2011

Rockwell

No

2011

Johnson & Johnson

No

2011

Comverse

No

2011

Ball Corp.

No

2011

IBM

No

2011

Tyson

No

2011

Maxwell Tech.

No

2012

Eli Lilly

No

2012

Allianz

No

2012

Tyco

No

2012

Oracle

No

2012

Pfizer

No

2012

Orthofix

No

2012

Biomet

No

2012

Smith & Nephew

No

2013

Philips

No

2013

Parker Drilling

No

2013

Ralph Lauren

No

2013

Total

No

2013

Diebold

No

2013

Stryker

No

2013

Weatherford Int’l

No

2013

ADM

No

2014

Alcoa

No

2014

HP

No

2014

Smith & Wesson

No

The next statistic is that since 2008, the DOJ has brought 63 corporate FCPA enforcement actions.  As highlighted by the below chart, 16 of these actions have resulted in a related enforcement action against a company employee.  Thus, 75% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions since 2008 have not resulted in any related enforcement action against a company employee.

DOJ

Year

Corporate Action

Related Action Against Any Employee 

2008 Faro No
2008 AGA Medical No
2008 Nexus Technology Yes
2008 Fiat No
2008 Flowserve No
2008 AB Volvo No
2008 Siemens Yes
2008 Willsbros Yes
2008 Westinghouse Air Brake No
2009 Control Components Yes
2009 Helmerich & Payne No
2009 KBR / Halliburton Yes
2009 Latin Node Yes
2009 UTStarcom No
2009 AGCO No
2009 Novo Nordisk No
2010 Innospec No
2010 Daimler No
2010 Technip No
2010 Snamprogetti No
2010 Alliance One Yes
2010 Universal No
2010 Mercator Yes
2010 ABB Yes
2010 Lindsey Yes
2010 Panalpina No
2010 Pride International No
2010 Tidewater No
2010 Transocean No
2010 Noble No
2010 Royal Dutch Shell No
2010 RAE Systems No
2010 Alcatel-Lucent Yes
2011 Maxwell Yes
2011 Tyson No
2011 JGC No
2011 Comverse No
2011 Johnson & Johnson No
2011 Tenaris No
2011 Cinergy Telcommunications Yes
2011 Armor Holdings Yes
2011 Bridgestone Yes
2011 Aon No
2011 Magyar / Deutsche Telekom No
2012 Marubeni No
2012 Smith & Nephew No
2012 BizJet / Lufthansa Yes
2012 Biomet No
2012 Data Systems & Solutions No
2012 Orthofix No
2012 NORDAM Group No
2012 Pfizer No
2012 Tyco No
2013 Parker Drilling No
2013 Ralph Lauren No
2013 Total No
2013 Diebold No
2013 Weatherford No
2013 Bilfinger No
2013 ADM No
2014 Alcoa No
2014 Marubeni No
2014 HP No

Friday Roundup

Friday, October 10th, 2014

A tribute, resource alert, bureaucratic brazennessscrutiny alerts and updates, a bushel, quotable, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

James McGrath

I join Tom Fox (FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog) in paying tribute to James McGrath.  Owner of his own Ohio-based firm McGrath & Grace and founder and editor of his own Internal Investigations Blog, McGrath was a bear of a man as Fox wrote.  Yet a gentle and kind bear and I will remember Jim for his desire to learn and engage with students.  He was an occasional contributor to FCPA Professor (see here) and his candid wit resulted in this classic post.  I last communicated with Jim a few weeks ago and he was excited to share some new things in his life and I was happy and excited for him.  Moreover, Jim paid me a visit in Southern Illinois this past spring which is no small feat as one has to make a big of effort to get here.  I enjoyed our visit and discussion.

You will be missed Jim, rest in peace.

Resource Alert

The University of Houston Law Center announced:

“[Release of] a searchable database that contains the compliance codes for Fortune 500 companies.  The project was led by Houston attorney Ryan McConnell, an adjunct professor at the University of Houston Law Center. McConnell worked with a team of recent graduates and current students to develop the database, which covers 42 different topics. “The free database allows any company to conduct benchmarking on virtually every compliance area covered in a code of conduct and to spot compliance trends within their industry,” McConnell explained. “In addition to proactively building a program, when compliance failures occur, whether a foreign bribery violation or environmental issue, stakeholders – whether they are shareholders in a lawsuit or criminal investigators – frequently scrutinize the company’s compliance program.  This database provides a powerful tool for anyone to evaluate the strength of a company’s compliance program, including subject matters addressed in the code and the organization’s core values.”

Bureaucratic Brazenness

This recent Wall Street Journal column “The New Bureaucratic Brazenness” caught my eye.

“We’re all used to a certain amount of doublespeak and bureaucratese in government hearings. That’s as old as forever. But in the past year of listening to testimony from government officials, there is something different about the boredom and indifference with which government testifiers skirt, dodge and withhold the truth. They don’t seem furtive or defensive; they are not in the least afraid. They speak always with a certain carefulness—they are lawyered up—but they have no evident fear of looking evasive. They really don’t care what you think of them. They’re running the show and if you don’t like it, too bad.

[...]

Everything sounds like propaganda. That will happen when government becomes too huge, too present and all-encompassing. Everything almost every level of government says now has the terrible, insincere, lying sound of The Official Line, which no one on the inside, or outside, believes.

[...]

We are locked in some loop where the public figure knows what he must pronounce to achieve his agenda, and the public knows what he must pronounce to achieve his agenda, and we all accept what is being said while at the same time everyone sees right through it. The public figure literally says, “Prepare my talking points,” and the public says, “He’s just reading talking points.” It leaves everyone feeling compromised. Public officials gripe they can’t break through the cynicism. They cause the cynicism.”

I sort of feel this way when I hear DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement attorneys speak.  Do you?

For instance, last year I attended an event very early in tenure of a high-ranking SEC enforcement official.  This person – who came to the SEC from private practice – candidly stated something to the effect that given his very new position he did not yet know what he was supposed to say.

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates

Sanofi

As recently reported in this Wall Street Journal article:

“Sanofi said it has told U.S. authorities about allegations of improper payments to health-care professionals in the Mideast and East Africa, joining a lineup of pharmaceutical companies that have faced similar claims. Among the allegations are that Sanofi employees made improper payments to doctors in Kenya and other East African nations, handing out perks based on whether the doctors prescribed or planned to prescribe Sanofi drugs, according to the firm and e-mails from a tipster The Wall Street Journal viewed. The French pharmaceutical company said it hired New York law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP to look into the claims and the investigation is continuing. “At this stage, it is too early to draw conclusions,” a company spokesman said. “Sanofi takes these allegations seriously.”

[...]

“The Sanofi investigation began after the firm received a series of anonymous allegations that wrongdoing occurred between 2007 and 2012 in parts of the Middle East and East Africa, the company said. One allegation was that employees of subsidiary Sanofi Kenya bribed medical professionals, a claim made via emails sent to Sanofi senior management last October and in March and viewed by the Journal. Sanofi paid for influential medical professionals to attend conferences, many of which were abroad, and gave them cash and gifts at its own events to win business, the emails allege. Copies of letters the tipster said were sent to Sanofi Kenya by medical professionals, as well as what the emails describe as other Sanofi documents, which were also reviewed by the Journal, indicate that doctors would request money from Sanofi Kenya to attend conferences and events and that Sanofi employees would take into account the applicant’s value to Sanofi’s business before deciding whether to sponsor them or not.”

As highlighted in this August 2013 post, Sanofi’s conduct in China has also been under scrutiny.

GSK

As recently reported in this Reuters article:

“GlaxoSmithKline, which was slapped with a record $489 million fine for corruption in China last month, said on Tuesday it was looking into allegations of corruption in the United Arab Emirates. Britain’s biggest pharmaceuticals group confirmed the investigation following allegations of improper payments set out in a whistleblower’s email sent to its top management on Monday. The email, purporting to be from a GSK sales manager in the Gulf state, was seen by Reuters. The company is already investigating alleged bribery in a number of Middle East countries, including Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq, as well as Poland. ”As we have already said, we are undertaking an investigation into our operations in the Middle East following complaints made previously. This investigation continues and these specific claims were already being investigated as part of this process,” a GSK spokesman said.”

DynCorp

The Washington Times reports here

“State Department investigators uncovered evidence that agents working for one of the largest U.S. military contractors paid tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to Pakistani officials to obtain visas and weapons licenses, but records show the government closed the case without punishing DynCorp.

[...]

But investigators closed the case after deciding they couldn’t prove or disprove the company had the “requisite corrupt” intent required to prove a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which bars U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials.

“There was no evidence to support the allegations that DynCorp or its employees had specific knowledge of bribes paid Pakistani government officials,” an investigator wrote in a memo closing out the case last year.

Still, investigators concluded there were violations of the FCPA involving both Speed-Flo and Inter-Risk, both of which are based in Islamabad.”

AgustaWestland / Finmeccanica Related

As noted in this Wall Street Journal article:

“An Italian court found Giuseppe Orsi, the former chief executive of defense firm Finmeccanica, not guilty of international corruption, absolving him of the most serious charge he faced in connection with a 560-million-euro contract won in 2010 to supply the Indian government with 12 helicopters. The three judge panel found Mr. Orsi, 68, guilty of falsifying invoices and sentenced him for that crime to two years in prison, a penalty that was immediately suspended. “A nightmare is over for me and my family,” a visibly relieved Mr. Orsi told reporters after the judge had read the verdict. Italian prosecutors had argued that Mr. Orsi, who at the time of the alleged corruption was CEO of Finmeccanica unit AgustaWestland, directed a plan to pay tens of millions of dollars to Indian officials, including the former top officer in the Indian air force, to win the helicopter-supply competition. Mr. Orsi rose to become CEO of Finmeccanica in 2011 and resigned last year when the corruption charges surfaced. The court also absolved Bruno Spagnolini, who followed Mr. Orsi as CEO of AgustaWestland, of corruption while finding him guilty of falsifying invoices. In reading the verdict, the judge said that while prosecutors had proven that fake invoices had been issued, there was no corruption. Prosecutors had argued there was a direct connection between the false invoices and the payment of kickbacks.”

A Bushel

Matthew Fishbein (Debevoise & Plimpton) was awarded an FCPA Professor Apple Award for this this recent article titled “Why Aren’t Individuals Prosecuted for Conduct Companies Admit.”  Fishbein continues with his spot-on observations in this recent Corporate Crime Reporter Q&A.  For additional reading on the same topics see:

The Facade of FCPA Enforcement“ (2010)

My 2010 Senate FCPA testimony (“The lack of individual prosecutions in the most high-profile egregious instances of corporate bribery causes one to legitimately wonder whether the conduct was engaged in by ghosts. [...]  However, a reason no individuals have been charged in [most FCPA] enforcement actions may have more to do with the quality of the corporate enforcement action than any other factor. As previously described, given the prevalence of NPAs and DPAs in the FCPA context and the ease in which DOJ offers these alternative resolution vehicles to companies subject to an FCPA inquiry, companies agree to enter into such resolution vehicles regardless of the DOJ’s legal theories or the existence of valid and legitimate defenses. It is simply easier, more cost efficient, and more certain for a company … to agree to a NPA or DPA than it is to be criminally indicted and mount a valid legal defense – even if the DOJ’s theory of prosecution is questionable …”.

But Nobody Was Charged” (2011)

“DOJ Prosecution of Individuals – Are Other Factors At Play?” (2011) (2013) (2014)

Why You Should Be Alarmed by the ADM Enforcement Action” (2014).

Quotable

In this recent speech, SEC Chair Mary Jo White stated:

“In fiscal year 2013, we brought more than 675 enforcement actions and obtained orders for $3.4 billion in total penalties and disgorgement.  We will soon be announcing the results for our 2014 fiscal year, which ended yesterday.  It was another very productive year as those numbers will show. But numbers only tell part of the story. The quality and breadth of actions are really the more meaningful measure of an effective enforcement program. (emphasis added).”

As to international cooperation, White stated:

“International cooperation is essential to the SEC’s enforcement program, and indeed, to all of our enforcement programs.  In today’s global marketplace, fraudulent schemes and other misconduct commonly have cross-border elements, and the need for seamless cooperation among us has never been greater.

The SEC’s investigations and enforcement actions often involve witnesses and evidence in different countries around the world.  And I know that the same is true in your investigations and enforcement cases.

Faced with this simple reality, if we are to continue to conduct these investigations successfully, and prosecute the offenses and wrongdoers to the fullest extent of our laws, broad and effective use of the MMoU, and our bilateral agreements, is more important than ever.

No one knows that better than the SEC.  Virtually every week, I meet with my fellow Commissioners to decide which cases to bring.  Rarely is there a week when one or more of the cases recommended by the enforcement staff does not involve critical international assistance.  In fact, in the last fiscal year, the SEC made more than 900 requests for international assistance and, as a result, we were able to obtain critical evidence that helped us prosecute wrongdoers for a vast array of serious offenses.

In one recent FCPA case, for example, the SEC obtained valuable evidence — bank and other corporate records — from German prosecutors. [HP] And, we received great support from regulators in Australia, Guernsey, Liechtenstein, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom in another major FCPA action. [Alcoa].”

From the Houston Chronicle, a Q&A with former Deputy Attorney General – and current FCPA practitioner – George Terwilliger.

Q: How will enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) hinder U.S. energy companies from doing business abroad?

A: Notwithstanding all the good things that are happening with energy upstream production in the United States, the real growth opportunities remain overseas. And a lot of them are in places that are ethically challenged at best in terms of their business and legal cultures. Two things cause problems for companies subject to U.S. law.

One, ambiguities are in the law itself. What is a foreign official? What organizations are covered as entities of foreign governments that are state-owned enterprises three times removed?

Then there’s the uncertainty of the parameters of enforcement policy. Why is this case prosecuted and that one isn’t? Why does this case settle for this much money and that one for that much money? There’s not a lot of transparency, and it’s not apparent to the people who work at this all the time exactly where those parameters are.

Q: Why is that a problem?

A: A company subject to U.S. law that is looking at an opportunity overseas looks at what the profitability model is and then they look at the risk inherent in doing business in that environment. The least little thing that comes up in that process — there’s a piece of real estate they want us to use as a staging area that’s owned by the brother-in-law of the cousin of the oil minister — and they look at it and go, “You know what? We’re not going to do that. It’s not worth the risk.”

Q: Are companies passing up business opportunities because of those risks?

A: Yes, that happens. Companies forgo economic opportunities because the uncertainties are perceived to be too great given the potential return on the investment. The objective of the law is to have a corruption-free level playing field. Most American business people I think believe that given a level playing field they can compete very well, particularly with foreign competitors. The problem is when that playing field is knocked out of kilter by the influence of corruption. Perhaps companies from other countries don’t operate under these constraints, then the playing field isn’t level anymore.

Q: What can mitigate those risks and balance the playing field for U.S. companies abroad?

A: For some time I have advocated some kind of corporate amnesty for companies that investigate themselves, fix their problems and disclose them to the government. If companies become aware of corrupt activity, I think given an incentive to report that they would do it. And that will help the government and help the objectives of this program rather than playing a kind of gotcha game.

Q: Are there any incentives now for companies to disclose potential violations?

A: The Securities Exchange Commission and the Justice Department have articulated policies that whatever the penalty should be for some wrongdoing, it will be less if you self-report, cooperate with an investigation and so forth. I don’t think that’s widely believed in the U.S. corporate community. And it’s almost impossible to measure. I have represented companies where we have made voluntary disclosures that have not been prosecuted. And the government has said the reason they are not prosecuting is because of internal investigation and cooperation. So I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. At the end of the day, companies wrestle with the question of, “Is it really worth it?” All the heartache that’s going to flow from a voluntary disclosure, particularly on something that may be marginal as a violation, is it worth what that’s going to cost? In terms of damage to reputation, shareholder issues, management issues with the board and so forth, is that going to be worth it in terms of what a company might get in terms of some forbearance of penalty?

Reading Stack

“It’s as if the FCPA Super Bowl just ended in a tie.”  (See here from Bracewell & Giuliani attorneys Glen Kopp and Kedar Bhatia regarding the Supreme Court recently declining to hear the “foreign official” challenge in U.S. v. Esquenazi).   

A legitimate concern or a bluff?  (See here from The Globe and Mail – “The head of Canadian engineering giant SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. says any move by authorities to charge the company in connection with an extensive bribery scandal would immediately threaten its future and could force it to close down.”).

An interesting video on Bloomberg’s “Market Matters” regarding the DOJ’s approach to prosecuting alleged corporate crime. The FCPA is not specifically discussed, although the issues discussed are FCPA relevant.

From the Economist “The Kings of the Courtroom:  How Prosecutors Came to Dominate the Criminal-Justice System.” (“The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America,” said Robert Jackson, the attorney-general, in 1940. As the current attorney-general, Eric Holder, prepares to stand down, American prosecutors are more powerful than ever before. Several legal changes have empowered them. The first is the explosion of plea bargaining, where a suspect agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge if the more serious charges against him are dropped. Plea bargains were unobtainable in the early years of American justice. But today more than 95% of cases end in such deals and thus are never brought to trial.”).

*****

A good weekend to all.

How The DOJ Can Better Achieve Its FCPA Policy Objectives

Wednesday, September 24th, 2014

Last week the DOJ’s Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Marshall Miller, delivered this speech focused on how the DOJ is “addressing criminal conduct when it takes place at corporations and other institutions.”  While not specific to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Miller did reference the FCPA several times during the speech.

The post is not about the DOJ’s empty rhetoric when it comes to individual FCPA prosecutions – that post was published last week the same day that Miller carried forward DOJ talking points on individual prosecutions.

Nor is this post about Miller carrying forward the DOJ’s talking points on Morgan Stanley’s so-called declination.  That post was published here in 2012.

Nor is this post about Miller’s suggestion that PetroTiger did not face any charges “of any kind [...] and no non-prosecution agreement was entered” because the company voluntarily disclosed and cooperated.  As highlighted in this post regarding the charges against the former PetroTiger executives, the core DOJ allegations concerned self-dealing by the executives and not disclosing conflicts of interest to their employer and other investors involved in a business deal.  To be sure, there have been several companies – ADM, Diebold, Ralph Lauren, Maxwell Technologies, and Tyson Foods to name just a few –  that have voluntarily disclosed and cooperated yet received NPAs or DPAs in the FCPA context.

Nor is this post about the “wow” factor of Miller’s speech – as termed by the FCPA Blog – because contrary to the suggestion by the FCPA Blog, the FCPA information in Miller’s speech was not new – all was previously mentioned in original source documents and/or previously highlighted in prior FCPA Professor posts or by others (see herehere, and here).

Rather, this post highlights for the DOJ (and others) how an FCPA reform proposal can help the DOJ better achieve its policy objectives, as sensibly articulated in Miller’s speech,. in the FCPA context.

For starters, I realize – based on reliable information – that I am a persona non grata within the DOJ’s FCPA Unit.  Nevertheless, I share an interest in advancing policies to make FCPA enforcement more effective so that the laudable objectives of the FCPA can best be achieved.

I’ve written about the below issue several times (see here for “Revisiting a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Defense” and see here for the prior post “Seeing the Light From the Dark Ages”).

In his speech, Miller stated the following sensible policy objectives.

“[W]e would like corporations to cooperate.  We will ensure that there are appropriate incentives for corporations to do so.

[...]

I want to focus today on an aspect of [The Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organization and/or the DOJ's internal "Filip" factors]  that I believe, at times, receives insufficient attention – but that lies at the heart of our approach at the Criminal Division.   And that is what the factors have to say about the importance of individual prosecutions to the decision on how to approach a corporation.

[...]

[In analyzing cooperate cooperation], companies are always quick to tout voluntary disclosure of corporate misconduct and the breadth of an internal investigation.   What is sometimes given short shrift, however, is in many ways the heart of effective corporate cooperation: whether that cooperation exposed, and provided evidence against, the culpable individuals who engaged in criminal activity [...].

The importance of cooperating regarding individuals is set forth, in black and white, in the text of the [Principles of Prosecution] itself.   Factor Four expressly states that prosecutors should evaluate a corporation’s “willingness to cooperate in the investigation of [its] agents.”   This key point is fleshed out later in the guidance section, where prosecutors are directed to consider the corporation’s “willingness to provide relevant information and evidence and identify relevant actors within and outside the corporation, including senior executives.”

Voluntary disclosure of corporate misconduct does not constitute true cooperation, if the company avoids identifying the individuals who are criminally responsible.  Even the identification of culpable individuals is not true cooperation, if the company fails to locate and provide facts and evidence at their disposal that implicate those individuals.

This principle of cooperation is not new or unique to companies.   We have applied it to criminal cases of all kinds for decades.   Take, for example, organized crime cases.   Mob cooperators do not receive cooperation credit merely for halting or disclosing their own criminal conduct.   Attempted cooperators should not get reduced sentences if they refuse to provide testimony or fail to turn over evidence against other culpable parties.   A true cooperator – whether a mobster or a company – must forthrightly provide all the available facts and evidence so that the most culpable individuals can be prosecuted.

The importance of this principle is enhanced by a second Filip factor – Factor Eight – which states that, in deciding whether to charge a corporation, prosecutors must consider “the adequacy of the prosecution of individuals responsible for the corporation’s malfeasance.”   So, effective and complete corporate cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of culpable individuals is not only called for by Factor Four, but reinforced by Factor Eight.

[...]

Corporations do not act criminally, but for the actions of individuals.   The Criminal Division intends to prosecute those individuals, whether they’re sitting on a sales desk or in a corporate suite.

The prosecution of individuals – including corporate executives – for white-collar crimes is at the very top of the Criminal Division’s priority list under Assistant Attorney General Caldwell.”

The above are all sensible policy statements from the DOJ and are consistent with Attorney General Eric Holder’s similar sensible policy statements articulated on the same day in a different speech.  As Holder stated:

“[T]he department recognizes the inherent value of bringing enforcement actions against individuals, as opposed to simply the companies that employ them.  We believe that doing so is both important – and appropriate – for several reasons:

First, it enhances accountability.  Despite the growing jurisprudence that seeks to equate corporations with people, corporate misconduct must necessarily be committed by flesh-and-blood human beings.  So wherever misconduct occurs within a company, it is essential that we seek to identify the decision-makers at the company who ought to be held responsible.

Second, it promotes fairness – because, when misconduct is the work of a known bad actor, or a handful of known bad actors, it’s not right for punishment to be borne exclusively by the company, its employees, and its innocent shareholders.

And finally, it has a powerful deterrent effect.  All other things being equal, few things discourage criminal activity at a firm – or incentivize changes in corporate behavior – like the prospect of individual decision-makers being held accountable.  A corporation may enter a guilty plea and still see its stock price rise the next day.  But an individual who is found guilty of a serious fraud crime is most likely going to prison.”

Again, sensible policy statements.

The problem is – at least in the FCPA context – the DOJ is not achieving its policy objectives.  This is the unmistakable conclusion from the following statistics.

  • As highlighted in this previous post (with statistics calculated through the end of 2013) since 2008 approximately 75% of corporate FCPA enforcement have not (at least yet) resulted in any DOJ charges against company employees.
  • As highlighted in this previous post, in the 20 most recent DOJ corporate FCPA enforcement actions, only one has resulted (at least yet) in any DOJ charges against company employees.

An FCPA compliance defense can help the DOJ better achieve its above-stated policy objectives.

As stated in my article “Revisiting a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Defense.”

“An FCPA compliance defense will better facilitate the DOJ’s prosecution of culpable individuals and advance the objectives of its FCPA enforcement program. At present, business organizations that learn through internal reporting mechanisms of rogue employee conduct implicating the FCPA are often hesitant to report such conduct to the enforcement authorities. In such situations, business organizations are rightfully diffident to submit to the DOJ’s opaque, inconsistent, and unpredictable decision-making process and are rightfully concerned that its pre-existing FCPA compliance policies and procedures and its good faith compliance efforts will not be properly recognized. The end result is that the DOJ often does not become aware of individuals who make improper payments in violation of the FCPA and the individuals are thus not held legally accountable for their actions. An FCPA compliance defense surely will not cause every business organization that learns of rogue employee conduct to disclose such conduct to the enforcement agencies. However, it is reasonable to conclude that an FCPA compliance defense will cause more organizations with robust FCPA compliance policies and procedures to disclose rogue employee conduct to the enforcement agencies. Thus, an FCPA compliance defense can better facilitate DOJ prosecution of culpable individuals and increase the deterrent effect of FCPA enforcement actions.”

Is the DOJ capable of viewing an FCPA compliance defense, not as a race to the bottom, but a race to the top?  Is the DOJ capable of viewing an FCPA compliance defense as helping it better achieve its FCPA policy objectives?

Let’s hope so.

*****

In his speech, Marshall also provided specifics as to what type of cooperation the DOJ looks for.  He stated:

“[I]f a corporation wants credit for cooperation, it must engage in comprehensive and timely cooperation; lip service simply will not do.

Corporations are often too quick to claim that they cannot retrieve overseas documents, emails or other evidence regarding individuals due to foreign data privacy laws.   Just as we carefully test – and at times reject – corporate claims about collateral consequences of a corporate prosecution, the department will scrutinize a claimed inability to provide foreign documents or evidence.   We have forged deepening relationships with foreign governments and developed growing sophistication and experience in analyzing foreign laws.   A company that tries to hide culpable individuals or otherwise available evidence behind inaccurately expansive interpretations of foreign data protection laws places its cooperation credit at great risk.   We strongly encourage careful analysis of those laws with an eye toward cooperating with our investigations, not stalling them.

Understand too, that we will use our own parallel investigation to pressure test a company’s internal investigation: to determine whether the company actually sought to root out the wrongdoing and identify those responsible, as far up the corporate ladder as the misconduct goes, or instead merely checked a box on a cooperation punch list.

Companies that have not conducted comprehensive investigations will not secure significant cooperation benefits.   Worse, companies that hamper the government’s investigation while conducting an internal investigation – for example, by conducting interviews that serve to spread corporate talking points rather than secure facts relating to individual culpability – will pay a price when they ask for cooperation credit.

A few final words: when you come in to discuss the results of an internal investigation to the Criminal Division and make a Filip factor presentation – expect that a primary focus will be on what evidence you uncovered as to culpable individuals, what steps you took to see if individual culpability crept up the corporate ladder, how tireless your efforts were to find the people responsible.

At the risk of being a little too Brooklyn, I’m going to be blunt.

If you want full cooperation credit, make your extensive efforts to secure evidence of individual culpability the first thing you talk about when you walk in the door to make your presentation.

Make those efforts the last thing you talk about before you walk out.

And most importantly, make securing evidence of individual culpability the focus of your investigative efforts so that you have a strong record on which to rely.”

DOJ’s Empty Rhetoric On Individual FCPA Prosecutions Continues

Wednesday, September 17th, 2014

This previous post highlighted the empty rhetoric of a former DOJ Criminal Division Chief regarding individual FCPA prosecutions.

A change in leadership at the DOJ Criminal Division has not brought about a change in the rhetoric.

As noted in this Reuters FCPA article, current Chief of the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell stated:

“Certainly…there has been an increased emphasis on, let’s get some individuals.”

“It’s very important for us to hold accountable individuals who engage in criminal misconduct in white-collar (cases), as we do in every other kind of crime.”

Once again, the rhetoric is empty.

Sure the DOJ can point to a few core actions in which the DOJ has “clustered” multiple defendants into one action to achieve notable individual prosecution numbers.  The April 2014 action against six individuals allegedly involved in a conspiracy to obtain Indian mining licenses is a good example as was the “clustering phenomenon” in the enforcement action against five individuals associated with Direct Access Partners.   As highlighted in this previous post (with statistics calculated through the end of 2013), 53% of the individuals charged by the DOJ with FCPA criminal offenses since 2008 have been in just four cases and 75% of the individuals charged by the DOJ since 2008 have been in just nine cases.

In the vast majority of corporate FCPA enforcement actions (based presumably on the conduct of real individuals not ghosts as I indicated in my 2010 Senate FCPA testimony), the talk of individual prosecutions is nothing more than empty rhetoric.  Indeed, as highlighted in this previous post (with statistics calculated through the end of 2013) since 2008 approximately 75% of corporate FCPA enforcement have not (at least yet) resulted in any DOJ charges against company employees.

Consider the below chart with the 20 most recent corporate FCPA enforcement actions.  Only one has resulted (at least yet) in any DOJ charges against company employees.

Corporate Action

Related Prosecution of Company Employees

 

HP

No

Marubeni

No

Alcoa

No

ADM

No

Bilfinger

No

Weatherford

No

Diebold

No

Total

No

Ralph Lauren

No

Parker Drilling

No

Tyco

No

Pfizer

No

Nordam Group

No

Orthofix

No

Data Systems & Solutions

No

Biomet

No

BizJet / Lufthansa

Yes

Smith & Nephew

No

Marubeni

No

Magyar / Deutsche Telekom

No

The DOJ has long recognized that an FCPA enforcement program based solely on corporate fines is not effective and does not adequately deter future FCPA violations. For instance, in 1986 the DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney General stated:

“If the risk of conduct in violation of the [FCPA] becomes merely monetary, the fine will simply become a cost of doing business, payable only upon being caught and in many instances, it will be only a fraction of the profit acquired from the corrupt activity. Absent the threat of incarceration, there may no longer be any compelling need to resist the urge to acquire business in any way possible.”

In 2010, the DOJ Deputy Chief of the Fraud Section likewise stated that a corporate fine-only FCPA enforcement program allows companies to calculate FCPA settlements as the cost of doing business.   In this new era, the DOJ has consistently stated that prosecution of individuals is a “cornerstone” of its FCPA enforcement strategy and in a 2012 speech the Assistant Attorney General stated: “If you look at the FCPA over the past 4 years, you’ll see we really have been vigorous about holding individuals accountable.” Add Caldwell’s recent statements to this long line of empty rhetoric.

Despite the rhetoric, the actual statistics demonstrate that FCPA enforcement is largely corporate enforcement only.

An FCPA Enforcement Action With Many Interesting Wrinkles

Wednesday, August 27th, 2014

[This post is part of a periodic series regarding "old" FCPA enforcement actions]

The 1998 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Saybolt Inc., Saybolt North America Inc. and related individuals had many interesting wrinkles:  a unique origin; a rare FCPA trial; a fugitive still living openly in his native land; and case law in a related civil claim.

As to the unique origin, Saybolt Inc. was a U.S. company whose primary business was conducting quantitative and qualitative testing of bulk commodities, such as oil, gasoline, and other petrochemicals, as well as grains, vegetable oils and other commodities.  The Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division (“EPA-CID”) was investigating the company for allegedly submitting false statements to the EPA about the oxygen content of reformulated gasoline blended in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.  The investigation was initiated by reports of data falsification at Saybolt’s Massachusetts facility.

During the course of the investigation EPA-CID interviewed Steven Dunlop (the general manager for Latin American operations for Saybolt) who provided the following information.

During a trip to Panama in 1994, Dunlop was advised of new business opportunities that were being offered to Saybolt Panama through the Panamanian Ministry of Commerce and Industries.  Specifically, the DOJ’s criminal complaint alleged that Hugo Tovar (the General Director of the Hydrocarbon Directorate, a division of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries) and Audo Escudero (the Sub-Director of the Hydrocarbon Directorate), offered to Saybolt Panama an opportunity to: (1) receive a substantial reduction in Saybolt Panama’s tax payments to the government of Panama; (2) obtain lucrative new contracts from the government of Panama; and (3) secure a more permanent facility for Saybolt Panama’s operations on highly coveted land near the Panama Canal.  According to the criminal complaint, this parcel of land was coveted because Saybolt Panama “only had a tenuous legal claim on its existing facility” and as a result its operations were continually at risk.

The complaint details various communications between Dunlop and David Mead (the President and CEO of Saybolt) in which Dunlop informed Mead of a $50,000 “fee” that would be needed to accomplish the above opportunities.

The complaint details a 1995 board of directors meeting at Saybolt during which discussion concerned the “$50,000 payoff demanded by the Panamanian officials with whom Saybolt was negotiating.  According to the complaint, present at this meeting were Board members Frerik Pluimers and Philippe Schreiber as well as Mead and Saybolt’s Chief Financial Officer Robert Petoia.  According to the complaint, Dunlop received instructions from Mead that he was to “take the necessary steps to ensure that the $50,000 was paid to the Panamanian officials in order to secure the deal” and that Schreiber was to be his primary contact on all issues concerning the Panamanian transaction.

According to the complaint, “in the minutes leading up to the time he was scheduled to leave his house for the airport” to travel to Panama,” Dunlop had a telephone conversation with Schreiber who advised him “that the action [he] was about to take would constitute a violation of the FCPA.”

According to the complaint, while in Panama Dunlop “learned that the Saybolt funds needed to make” the payment had not yet been received and that Dunlop then tried to contact Mead.  According to the complaint, Mead sent Dunlop an e-mail which stated: “Per telecon undersigned and capo grande Holanda the back-up software can be supplied from the Netherlands.  As previously agreed, you to detail directly to NL attn FP.” According to the complaint, “capo grande Holanda” was a reference to Pluimers (the President of the Dutch holding company that controlled Saybolt, Inc.” and the “back-up software” was a reference to the $50,000 payment.”

The complaint alleged that the funds never arrived in Panama and that Dunlop was receiving pressure from the Panamanian officials “to make the $50,000 payment prior to the upcoming Christmas holidays.”  According to the complaint, Mead told Dunlop on a telephone call to make the $50,000 payment using funds that were in the operating account of Saybolt Panama.

According to the complaint, the $50,000 in cash was obtained by laundering a check through a local construction company and that a “sack full of currency” was handed over to Escudero at a bar in Panama City by the individual who was serving as Saybolt Panama’s liaison with Escudero.  Further, according to the complaint, “shortly after this payment was made, the Ministry of Commerce and Industries and other necessary government agencies acted favorably on Saybolt’s proposal.”

In April 1998, the DOJ filed this indictment against Mead (a citizen of the U.K. and resident of the U.S. and Pluimers (a national and resident of the Netherlands) based on the above conduct.  The indictment charged Mead and Pluimers with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and the Travel Act, two substantive violations of the FCPA, and two substantive violations of the Travel Act.

According to the indictment, the purposes and objectives of the conspiracy were:

  • To obtain contracts for Saybolt de Panama and its affiliates to perform import control and inventory inspections for the Ministry of Hydrocarbons, and the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, both departments of the Government of the Republic of Panama;
  • To obtain and to expedite tax benefits for Saybolt de Panama and its affiliates from the Government of the Republic of Panama, including exemptions from import taxes on materials and equipment and reductions in annual profit taxes;
  • To obtain from an agency of the Government of the Republic of Panama a secure and commercially attractive operating location for an inspection facility in Panama; and
  • To “lock out” Saybolt’s competitors by retaining possession and control of Saybolt de Panama’s existing location in Panama.

In September 1998, the DOJ filed this superseding indictment substantially similar to the first and including the same charges.

Mead moved to strike the indictment of allegations that he violated the FCPA and for dismissal of the indictment for failure to state an offense under the Travel Act, and for a Bill of Particulars.   In a one page order, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Thompson denied the motions. Dunlop was given full immunity as was the American attorney present at the board meeting and involved in several conversations with Pluimers, Mead, and Dunlop concerning the alleged payments.

Mead argued that the FCPA only prohibited payments to assist a domestic concern in obtaining and retaining business” and he used Saybolt’s rather complex corporate structure to argue that the business sought to be obtained or retained was for a different Saybolt entity, not a domestic concern.  In his motion, Mead stated “because the government ignores the corporate legal structure and does violence to the FCPA by attempting to end-run congressional policy, the Court must justifiably refuse.”  Elsewhere, the motion stated:

“Whether the government labels foreign corporations as ‘agents of a domestic concern’ or members of an ‘unincorporated organization,’ the government still may not manipulate the Act’s broad language to end-run this congressional policy (of deliberately excluding both foreign subsidiaries and non-subsidiary foreign corporations from FCPA liability).”

The motion also argued that the indictment was devoid of any allegation that Mead acted “willfully” (i.e. with the specific intent to violate the law) because he followed the legal advice of counsel in making the alleged payments.

In response, the DOJ stated that the indictment “describes in detail how Mead – himself a U.S. resident, and also the President of one U.S. corporation (Saybolt Inc.), Executive Vice-President of a second U.S. corporation (Saybolt North America Inc.), and Chief Executive Officer of an unincorporated association (Saybolt Western Hemisphere) – and others decided to send a Saybolt Inc. employee to Panama City, Panama, to oversee the payment of a $50,000 bride, which they believed would be provided to high level government officials, in exchange for favorable treatment of Saybolt’s business interests in Panama.  The Indictment charges that Mead gave the order to go forward with the bribe and it details the contents of the e-mail message that Mead sent from his office in New Jersey to the Saybolt employee in Panama City.”

At trial, Mead argued that the Government failed to meet its burden of proof and that he acted in good faith belief that the payment to the Panamanian officials was lawful.  The relevant jury instructions stated as follows.

“If the evidence shows you that the defendant actually believed that the transaction was legal, he cannot be convicted.  Nor can he be convicted for being stupid or negligent or mistaken.  More is required than that.  But a defendant’s knowledge of a fact may be inferred from “willful blindness” to the knowledge or information indicating there was a high probability that there was something forbidden or illegal about the contemplated transaction and payment.  It is the jury’s function to determine whether or not the defendant deliberately closed his eyes to the inferences and the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence here.”

According to this docket sheet, Mead’s trial occurred in October 1998 and he was found guilty of all charges.  According to the docket, Mead was sentenced to four months imprisonment, to be followed by four months of home confinement, to be followed by three years of supervised release.  According to the docket, he was also ordered to pay a $20,000 criminal fine. After sentencing, US Attorney Donald Stern of Boston, stated: ”This sentence puts American executives on notice there will be a price to pay, far more than the monetary cost of the birbe, when they buy off foreign officials.”  For additional reading on Mead’s case, see this transcript of an in-depth CNN story about Mead that aired in 1999.

What about Pluimers?

As indicated by this docket sheet, there has been no substantive activity in the case since 1999 and Pluimers remains a fugitive – albeit living openly in his native Netherlands.  According to this 2011 New York Times article citing a Wikileaks cable, “Pluimers simply has too much influence with high-ranking Dutch officials to be handed over to U.S. authorities.”

What about Saybolt?

In August 1998, the DOJ the filed two separate criminal informations against Saybolt Inc. and its parent corporation Saybolt North American Inc. The first information charged Saybolt with conspiracy and wire fraud related to the company’s “two year conspiracy to submit false statements to the EPA about results of lab analyses. The second information charged Saybolt and Saybolt North America with conspiracy to violate the FCPA and one substantive charge of violating the FCPA.

As noted in this plea agreement, Saybolt agreed to plead guilty to all charges in the informations and agreed to pay a total fine of $4.9 million allocated as follows:  $3.4 million for the data falsification violations and $1.5 million for the FCPA violation. Saybolt also agreed to a five year term of probation.

The conduct at issue in the Saybolt and related enforcement actions also spawned a related civil malpractice action alleging erroneous legal advice by counsel regarding the above-described payments to Panamanian officials.  In Stichting v. Schreiber, 327 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2003), the Second Circuit analyzed whether a company, in pleading guilty to FCPA anti-bribery violations, acknowledged acting with intent thus undermining its claims that the erroneous legal advice was the basis for its legal exposure.

The court stated:

“Knowledge by a defendant that it is violating the FCPA – that it is committing all the elements of an FCPA violation – is not itself an element of the FCPA crime.  Federal statutes in which the defendant’s knowledge that he or she is violating the statute is an element of the violation are rare; the FCPA is plainly not such a statute.”

The court also stated concerning “corruptly” in the FCPA:

“It signifies, in addition to the element of ‘general intent’ present in most criminal statutes, a bad or wrongful purpose and an intent to influence a foreign official to misuse his official position.  But there is nothing in that word or anything else in the FCPA that indicates that the government must establish that the defendant in fact knew that his conduct violated the FCPA to be guilty of such a violation.”