Archive for the ‘Individual Enforcement Action’ Category

DOJ And SEC Officials Talk FCPA

Thursday, November 20th, 2014

Speaking8In what has become a mid-November tradition, DOJ and SEC officials yesterday gave speeches at a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act conference.

Topics discussed included the following:  individual prosecutions, voluntary disclosure and cooperation, compliance programs, asset recovery, foreign law enforcement cooperation.  (For factual information concerning DOJ and SEC individuals prosecutions see this prior post and as relevant to the issue of “success” – a topic touched upon in both speeches – you might want to read the article ”What Percentage of DOJ FCPA Losses is Acceptable?“)

In many respects, yesterday’s DOJ and SEC speeches were very similar to previous speeches delivered by enforcement agency officials in September and October (see here, herehere and here for prior posts).

This post excerpts this speech by Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell and this speech by Andrew Ceresney, Direct of the SEC’s Enforcement Division.

DOJ

Caldwell began her remarks as follows.

“I want to focus my remarks on one of our most important enforcement priorities – our efforts to combat corruption around the world.

At the Criminal Division, we are stepping up our efforts in the battle against corruption, at home and abroad.  Through our Public Integrity Section, which prosecutes corruption cases involving U.S. federal, state, and local officials, we are attacking domestic corruption.

More relevant to this audience, we are also deeply committed to fighting corruption abroad.  Now, more than ever, we are bringing to justice individuals and corporations who use foreign bribery as a way to gain a business advantage.  In part, we are doing this using the tools and methods that have made our past enforcement efforts so successful – FCPA prosecutions and penalties.

But there have been some really big changes in the Justice Department’s FCPA work since I last worked there.  First, thanks to the expertise and knowledge we have acquired over the years, we are now able to investigate FCPA cases much more quickly.  We also are better equipped to prosecute individuals who are actually making corrupt payments, as well as intermediary entities hired to serve as conduits for bribes.

And now we also are prosecuting the bribe takers, using our money laundering and other laws.  And, importantly, we have begun stripping corrupt officials of the proceeds of their corruption involving both bribes and kleptocracy, using both criminal and civil authorities.

The Criminal Division’s FCPA enforcement program and our Kleptocracy Initiative are really two sides of the same anti-corruption coin.  We bring those who pay bribes to justice, no matter how rich and powerful they are.  But by itself, that is not enough.  We also attack corruption at its source – by prosecuting and seizing the assets of the corrupt officials who betray the trust of their people.

Another big change – one that has been building for years but now has really developed momentum – is that we increasingly find ourselves shoulder-to-shoulder with law enforcement and regulatory authorities in other countries.  Every day, more countries join in the battle against transnational bribery. And this includes not just our long-time partners, but countries in all corners of the globe.

Together with our foreign law enforcement and regulatory partners we are taking a truly global approach to rooting out international corruption.  And make no mistake, this international approach has dramatically advanced our efforts to uncover, punish and deter foreign corruption.

Increasingly, we and our counterparts share information about bribery schemes.   We report schemes to one another.  And, where appropriate, we discuss strategy and coordinate our use of investigative techniques, so that we can obtain the best possible results, especially in very high-impact cases.

These efforts are incredibly important. The World Bank estimates that more than $1 trillion is paid every year in bribes, which amounts to about 3 percent of the world economy.  That amount is stunningly wasteful.  No one benefits from corruption other than the corrupt officials.

But corruption is far more insidious and harmful than can be measured numerically.  We all know that when corruption takes hold, the fundamental notion of playing-by-the-rules gets pushed to the side, and individuals, businesses and governments instead begin to operate under a fundamentally unfair – and destabilizing – set of norms.  This undermines confidence in the markets and governments, and destroys the sense of fair play that is absolutely critical for the rule of law to prevail.

In emerging economies, corruption stifles economic development that would lift people out of poverty, improve infrastructure, and better people’s lives.  And the fruits of corruption can prop up autocratic and oppressive rulers even in wealthier countries.

Make no mistake, the effects of foreign corruption are not just felt overseas.  In today’s global economy, the negative effects of foreign corruption inevitably flow back to the United States.  For one, American companies are harmed by global corruption.  They are denied the ability to compete in a fair and transparent marketplace.  Instead of being rewarded for their efficiency, innovation, and honest business practices, U.S. companies suffer at the hands of corrupt governments and lose out to corrupt competitors.

International corruption also presents broader public safety concerns.  Indeed, criminal networks of all kinds, including narcotics traffickers, cyber criminals, terrorists, and human traffickers, often take advantage of countries whose commitment to the rule of law is weakened by corruption of its officials.  And, as we’ve seen in the more extreme cases, thoroughly corrupted regimes have created safe havens for criminals by giving them a secure base from which they can orchestrate their criminal activities.

You have no doubt heard my predecessors speak of the evils of corruption.  It is because of these evils that the fight against international bribery has been, and continues to be, a core priority of the Department of Justice.

Our commitment to the fight against foreign bribery is reflected in our robust enforcement record in this area, which includes charges against corporations and individuals alike from all over the world.  Since 2009, we have convicted more than 50 individuals in FCPA and FCPA-related cases, and resolved criminal cases against more than 50 companies with penalties and forfeiture of approximately $3 billion.  Twenty-five of the cases involving individuals have come since 2013 alone.  And those are just the cases that are now public.  These individuals run the gamut of actors involved in bribery schemes: corporate executives, middlemen, and corrupt officials.”

Caldwell next focused on asset recovery and international cooperation:

“As our enforcement actions demonstrate, we are focusing our attention on bribes of consequence – ones that fundamentally undermine confidence in the markets and governments.  And our record of success in these prosecutions has allowed us to show – rather than just tell – corporate executives that if they participate in a scheme to improperly influence a foreign official, they will personally risk the very real prospect of going to prison.

[...]

Stripping individuals of the proceeds of their conduct – and thus depriving them of the very profits that are driving the corrupt conduct in the first place – is one technique that we are using increasingly in our fight against foreign bribery.  And, we are not just pursuing these corrupt proceeds through criminal actions.

The FCPA Unit’s efforts to eradicate foreign corruption also are assisted by the work of our Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, through which prosecutors in the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and Office of International Affairs are pursuing ill gotten riches from corrupt officials using our civil authority. [...] [W]e are ready, willing, and able to confiscate the riches of corrupt leaders who drain the resources of their countries for their own benefit.”

[O]ur efforts to hold bribe takers as well as bribe payors accountable for their criminal conduct are greatly aided by our foreign partners.  Transnational bribery is a global problem and an international solution truly is beginning to develop.  Every day, more countries reject the notion that bribery in international business is inevitable and acceptable.  Indeed, in just the last few years several countries have enacted new anti-corruption laws or enhanced existing laws.  Admittedly, the global trend against foreign corruption continues to face many challenges, but the tide has turned and I truly believe that it is now on our side.

This level of collaboration is the product of hard work and strategic coordination, which has allowed us to forge the international partnerships that are essential to fight global corruption.  For example, just a couple of weeks ago, about 200 judges, prosecutors, investigators, and regulators from more than 50 countries, multi-development banks, and international organizations around the world joined prosecutors, investigators, and regulators from the Criminal Division, SEC, and FBI in Washington, D.C., for a week long training course to exchange ideas and best practices on combating foreign corruption.

I had the opportunity to participate in this meeting and saw its value first-hand.  The meeting provided a critical opportunity for the people who fight global corruption in the trenches every day to meet face-to-face, discuss ongoing cases, identify new opportunities to collaborate, and improve intelligence sharing.

The results from this increased international collaboration speak for themselves.”

[...]

[T]hese coordinated global actions sent a powerful message – countries all over the world are now engaged in the fight against foreign bribery and together, we can and will hold to account individuals and companies who engage in corruption, regardless of where they operate or reside.

The increase in international collaboration is not only enhancing our own FCPA enforcement efforts but it is also resulting in anti-corruption enforcement actions by other countries.”

[...]

Continued international collaboration is absolutely critical if we are going to have a meaningful impact on corruption across the globe and we are committed to maintaining – and enhancing – our working relationships with our foreign partners.

By enhancing our coordination with our overseas counterparts, continually improving our already successful methods of investigating and prosecuting FCPA cases, and increasing our efforts to prosecute corrupt officials and recover their ill-gotten gains, we are now, more than ever, making a tangible difference in the fight against foreign bribery.”

Caldwell next shifted to voluntary disclosure and cooperation and stated:

“When I last worked at the department and even over the 10 years that I was in private practice, it seemed that many FCPA investigations were initiated by self-disclosures.  While we of course still welcome self-disclosure, today we are far from reliant on it.

[...]

And in a world of whistleblowers and international cooperation, I expect that will be the case more often than not going forward.  That said, we still encourage and reward self-disclosure and cooperation.

When you detect significant potential criminal conduct at your company, or a company that has retained you, I encourage you to disclose it to the Justice Department – and to do so in a timely manner.  As I am sure you all know, the department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations provides that prosecutors should consider “the corporation’s timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing and its willingness to cooperate in the investigation of its agents” in deciding how to proceed in a corporate investigation.

So, in addition to promptly disclosing the conduct to us, I also encourage you to conduct a thorough internal investigation and to share with us the facts you uncover in that investigation.  We do not expect you to boil the ocean in conducting your investigation but in order to receive full credit for cooperation, we do expect you to conduct a thorough, appropriately tailored investigation of the misconduct.

And we expect you to provide us useful facts in a timely manner.  And that includes, importantly, facts about the individuals responsible for the misconduct, no matter how high their rank may be.

[...]

The sooner you disclose the conduct to us, the more avenues we have to investigate culpable individuals.  And, the more open you are with us about the facts you learned about that conduct during your investigation, the more credit you will receive for cooperation.

But, if you delay notifying us about an executive’s conduct or attempt to whitewash the facts about an individual’s involvement, you risk receiving any credit for your “cooperation.”

This does not mean that we expect you to use law-enforcement style techniques to investigate your employees.  To the contrary, it simply means that when you do an internal investigation, and you choose to cooperate with us, you should understand that we will expect to hear not just what happened, but who did what, when, and where.

We also expect that a truly cooperating company will provide relevant documents in a timely fashion, even if those documents are located overseas.  We recognize that some countries’ laws pose real challenges to data access and transfer of information, but we also know that many do not.

The Criminal Division investigates and prosecutes a large volume of international cases and through these cases, we have developed an understanding of these laws.  We will not give full cooperation credit to companies that hide behind foreign data privacy laws instead of providing overseas documents when they can.  Foreign data privacy laws exist to protect individual privacy, not to shield companies that purport to be cooperating in criminal investigations.

Put simply, cooperation – and the quality and timeliness of that cooperation – matter.  This is a well-established principle that we have applied in criminal cases across the spectrum – from violent and organized crime cases to corporate fraud cases – for decades.

If a company works with us, it not only helps the Department, but it helps itself.

[...]

Fighting corruption is not a choice we have made. It is, increasingly, a global imperative.  Given the critical nature of this mission, we are bringing more resources to bear than ever before – and we will continue doing so.  We have achieved significant successes using our traditional FCPA enforcement tools.  We are building on those successes and continuing to evolve our enforcement efforts.  Especially with the power of so many countries now standing by our side, we are determined to use every lawful means available to hold the perpetrators of corruption to account.”

SEC

Ceresney began his remarks as follows.

“Pursuing such [FCPA] violations remains a critical part of our enforcement efforts, as international bribery has many nefarious impacts, including sapping investor confidence in the legitimacy of a company’s performance and undermining the accuracy of a company’s books and records. Our specialized FCPA unit as well as other parts of the Enforcement Division continue to do remarkable work in this space, bringing significant and impactful cases often in partnership with the DOJ and FBI. [...] Looking ahead, I anticipate another productive year of FCPA enforcement, as we have a robust pipeline of investigations across the globe. I thought I would spend my time this morning discussing some areas we will be focusing on in the coming year and beyond, and then, if we have time, I can take some questions.”

Under the heading “Focus on Individuals,” Ceresney stated:

“Let me start with cases against individuals. It is a hot topic of the day, in the face of some significant enforcement actions against entities alone, to ask the question of whether enforcement actions against entities are as impactful as actions against individuals, and whether actions against entities actually deter misconduct.

I always have said that actions against individuals have the largest deterrent impact. Individual accountability is a powerful deterrent because people pay attention and alter their conduct when they personally face potential punishment. And so in the FCPA arena as well as all other areas of our enforcement efforts, we are very focused on attempting to bring cases against individuals.

That is not to say that cases against companies are unimportant — in fact, I think FCPA enforcement is perhaps one of the best examples of how actions against entities can have a tremendous deterrent effect. Our actions against entities have had a tremendous impact in the last 10 years on FCPA compliance. Companies have increased their compliance spending and focus exponentially — the attendance at this conference is but one example of that. And these actions continue to provide significant deterrence and send important messages about areas that companies should be focused on. Every action we bring is scrutinized closely and dissected for information on areas of risk. That is a great dynamic and one we should continue to foster. But individual accountability is critical to FCPA enforcement — and imposing personal consequences on bad actors, including through bars and monetary sanctions, will continue to be a high priority for us.

Now it is important to recognize that FCPA cases against individuals can present some unique challenges for us and we simply are unable to bring cases against individuals in connection with a number of our cases. For example, in many cases we face significant investigative hurdles, including difficulties in gathering specific testimony and documents from overseas that will be admissible at trial. This is one area where we have been working closely with our counterparts in other jurisdictions, to access foreign witnesses, bank statements, and company records. These efforts have been more and more successful as we form strong partnerships with other countries to combat corruption.

When the conduct involves foreign nationals — as it often does — another challenge can be establishing personal jurisdiction over the bad actor. We have had some favorable decisions in this area, but it still remains a challenge in certain cases. Statute of limitations issues also complicate these cases.

Despite these various challenges, we continue to vigorously pursue cases against individuals.”

Under the heading “Importance of FCPA Compliance Programs,” Ceresney stated:

“This is a message that I think has started to get through in the past 5 years. Nothing situates a company better to avoid FCPA issues than a robust FCPA compliance program.

The best companies have adopted strong programs that include compliance personnel, extensive policies and procedures, training, vendor reviews, due diligence on third-party agents, expense controls, escalation of red flags, and internal audits to review compliance. You can look to our Resource Guide on the FCPA that we jointly published with the DOJ, to see what some of the hallmarks of an effective compliance program are. I won’t mention them all because you should be familiar with many that relate to policies, procedures and training. But, I’ll highlight just a few others. Companies should perform risk assessments that take into account a host of factors listed in the guide and then place controls in these risk areas. Companies should have disciplinary measures in place to deter violations and compliance programs should be periodically tested and reviewed to ensure they are keeping pace with the business. Such programs, properly implemented, will also help companies avoid other problems at foreign subsidiaries, like self-dealing, embezzlement and financial fraud.

As part of our settlements, we have on occasion required the retention of a monitor to assist in administering such compliance programs. For those companies that have developed robust programs during the investigation, we have required self-reporting and certifications. But the overwhelming message that one has to take away from our actions is how important such programs are for ensuring compliance.

Of course, it is critical for such programs to be real programs. When I was in private practice, I saw companies that had great paper programs but did not implement them effectively. When the business would push back, they would remove requirements and make exceptions. The best companies would put the compliance program ahead of business interests and allow decisions to be made to ensure compliance with the law, no matter the business consequences. It is that sort of attitude that is the measure of whether such programs will be successful.

As I said, we have seen many companies improving and properly implementing their compliance programs, as the message from our cases over the years has penetrated the legal and compliance community. But there is still more work to be done, particularly for small-to-medium sized companies trying to enter foreign markets to grow their businesses. As those businesses seek to expand and globalize, their compliance functions must keep pace.

[...]

The bottom line is that no responsible company should operate overseas without a comprehensive compliance program to guard against FCPA risk.

One other aspect of compliance programs is the benefit that companies will derive from having them if a problem should arise. I can tell you that the SEC staff will look well on companies that have robust programs and that the existence of such programs will pay dividends should an FCPA issue arise despite the existence of such programs.”

Under the heading “Cooperation,” Ceresney stated:

“Related to the issue of the existence of FCPA compliance programs, I wanted to focus for a moment on self-reporting and cooperation. The existence of FCPA compliance programs place the company in the best position to detect FCPA misconduct. But the question is what a company does once it learns of such misconduct. There has been a lot of discussion recently about the advisability of self-reporting FCPA misconduct to the SEC. Let me be clear about my views — I think any company that does the calculus will realize that self-reporting is always in the company’s best interest. Let me explain why.

Self-reporting from individuals and entities has long been an important part of our enforcement program. Self-reporting and cooperation allows us to detect and investigate misconduct more quickly than we otherwise could, as companies are often in a position to short circuit our investigations by quickly providing important factual information about misconduct resulting from their own internal investigations.

In addition to the benefits we get from cooperation, however, parties are positioned to also help themselves by aggressively policing their own conduct and reporting misconduct to us. We recognize that it is important to provide benefits for cooperation to incentivize companies to cooperate. And we have been focused on making sure that people understand there will be such benefits. We continue to find ways to enhance our cooperation program to encourage issuers, regulated entities, and individuals to promptly report suspected misconduct. The Division has a wide spectrum of tools to facilitate and reward meaningful cooperation, from reduced charges and penalties, to non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements in instances of outstanding cooperation.

Last year, for example, we announced our first-ever non-prosecution agreement in an FCPA matter with a company that promptly reported violations and provided real-time, extensive cooperation in our investigation.

More commonly, we have reflected the cooperation in reduced penalties. Companies that cooperate can receive smaller penalties than they otherwise would face, and in some cases of extraordinary cooperation, pay significantly less.

[...]

The bottom line is that the benefits from cooperation are significant and tangible. When I was a defense lawyer, I would explain to clients that by the time you become aware of the misconduct, there are only two things that you can do to improve your plight — remediate the misconduct and cooperate in the investigation. That obviously remains my view today. And I will add this — if we find the violations on our own, and the company chose not to self-report, the consequences will surely be worse and the opportunity to earn significant credit for cooperation may well be lost.

[...]

The SEC’s whistleblower program has changed the calculus for companies considering whether to disclose misconduct to us, knowing that a whistleblower is likely to come forward. Companies that choose not to self-report are thus taking a huge gamble because if we learn of the misconduct through other means, the result will be far worse.”

Under the heading “Items of Value,” Ceresney stated:

“The statute precludes the payment or provision of “anything of value” to a foreign official in order to induce that official to take official action for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Obviously, money or property is an item of value. Gifts to foreign officials also easily qualify as items of value.

But we also have successfully brought FCPA cases where other, less traditional, items of value have been given in order to obtain or retain business. For example, in three separate actions, Stryker, Eli Lilly and Schering-Plough, we brought bribery charges against pharmaceutical or medical technology companies that made contributions to charities that were headed by or affiliated with foreign government officials to induce them to direct business to the companies.

We also have charged companies for providing items of value to family members of foreign officials. In Tyson Foods, for example, we charged the company for providing no-show jobs to the spouses of foreign officials who were responsible for certifying the company’s products for export. More recently, in Weatherford, we charged the company for a variety of bribes to foreign officials and their families, including paying for the honeymoon of an official’s daughter and a religious trip by an official and his family that was improperly recorded as a donation.

As these examples make clear, bribes come in many shapes and sizes. So it is critical that we carefully scrutinize a wide range of unfair benefits to foreign officials when assessing compliance with the FCPA — whether it is cash, gifts, travel, entertainment, or employment of the family and friends of foreign officials. We should and will continue to pursue a broad interpretation of the FCPA that precludes bribery in all forms.”

In conclusion, Ceresney stated:

“[T]he Enforcement Division will continue to look for opportunities to enhance our impact with respect to FCPA enforcement. We have made significant progress over the last 10 years but there is still much more we can do. We will continue our efforts to level the playing field for companies doing business abroad and hold corrupt actors accountable when they fail to play by the rules.”

“World Tour” For Saudi Officials Results In Individual SEC FCPA Enforcement Action

Tuesday, November 18th, 2014

World TourYesterday, for the first time since April 2012, the SEC brought a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against an individual.  Like the previous five SEC corporate FCPA enforcement actions in 2014, the enforcement action was brought via the SEC’s administrative process.

The enforcement action was against Stephen Timms and Yasser Ramahi, individuals who worked in sales at FLIR Systems Inc., (an Oregon-based company that produces thermal imaging, night vision, and infrared cameras and sensor systems).

The enforcement action is similar to previous FCPA enforcement actions against Lucent Technologies and UTStarcom in that the action focused on certain bona fide business travel that morphed into excessive travel and entertainment of foreign officials.

In summary fashion, the SEC’s order states:

“During 2009, Stephen Timms and Yasser Ramahi arranged expensive travel, entertainment, and personal items for foreign government officials in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in order to influence the officials to obtain new business for their employer, FLIR Systems, Inc. and to retain existing business for FLIR with the Saudi  Arabia Ministry of Interior (the “MOI”). Timms and Ramahi subsequently provided false explanations for the gifts to FLIR and attempted to conceal the gifts’ true value by submitting false documentation to the company.”

In the order Timms is described as follows.

“Stephen Timms … is a United States citizen who resides in Thailand. FLIR hired Timms in November 2001. He was promoted to Middle East Business Development Director for FLIR’S Government Systems division in September 2007. Timms was the head of FLIR’s Middle East office in Dubai during the relevant time period, and was one of the company executives responsible for obtaining business for FLIR’s Government Systems division from the MOI.”

Ramahi, a United States citizen who resides in the United Arab Emirates, is described as follows.

“Ramahi was hired by FLIR in late 2005 and worked in business development in Dubai. During the relevant period, Ramahi’s manager was Timms, the head of FLIR’s Middle East office.”

Under the heading “FLIR’s Business with the Saudi Ministry of Interior,” the order states:

“In November 2008, FLIR entered into a contract with the MOI to sell thermal binoculars for approximately $12.9 million. Ramahi and Timms were the primary sales employees responsible for the contract on behalf of FLIR. In the contract, FLIR agreed to conduct a “Factory Acceptance Test,” attended by MOI officials, prior to delivery of the binoculars to Saudi Arabia. The Factory Acceptance Test was a key condition to the fulfillment of the contract. FLIR anticipated that a successful delivery of the binoculars, along with the creation of a FLIR service center, would lead to an additional order in 2009 or 2010.

At the same time, Ramahi and Timms were also involved in FLIR’s negotiations to sell security cameras to the MOI. In May 2009, FLIR signed an agreement for the integration of its cameras into another company’s products for use by the MOI. The contract was valued at approximately $17.4 million and FLIR hoped to win additional future business with the MOI under this agreement.”

Under the heading “World Tour” for Saudi Officials” the order states:

“In February 2009, Ramahi and Timms began preparing for the Factory Acceptance Test, which was scheduled to occur in July 2009 in Billerica, Massachusetts. Timms requested the names of the MOI officials who would attend the test so that travel arrangements could be made for them by FLIR’s travel agent in Dubai, UAE. Timms subsequently contacted the United States Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for assistance to obtain visas for the MOI officials to attend the Factory Acceptance Test.

Ramahi and Timms then sent MOI officials on what Timms later referred to as a “world tour” before and after the Factory Acceptance Test. Among the MOI officials for whom Ramahi and Timms provided the “world tour” were the head of the  MOI’s technical committee and a senior engineer on the committee, who played a key role  in the decision to award FLIR the business.

In June 2009, Ramahi made arrangements for himself and MOI officials to travel from Riyadh to Casablanca, where they would stay for several nights at FLIR’s expense. The MOI officials then traveled to Paris with FLIR’s third-party agent, where they would also stay for several nights at a luxury hotel, also paid for by FLIR. Ramahi met the MOI officials and FLIR’s third-party agent in Boston for the equipment inspection at FLIR’s nearby facilities. On the way back from Boston, Ramahi traveled with most of the MOI officials to Dubai and arranged airfare and hotel accommodations for one MOI official to travel to Beirut before returning to Riyadh, all at FLIR’s expense. Timms received the travel itinerary ahead of the officials’ departure on the “world tour.”

The trip proceeded as planned. In total, the MOI officials traveled for 20 nights on their “world tour,” with airfare and hotel accommodations paid for by FLIR. In addition, while the MOI officials were in Boston, Ramahi and the third-party agent also took the MOI officials on a weekend trip to New York City at FLIR’s expense. There was no business purpose for the stops outside of Boston.

While in the Boston area, the MOI officials spent a single 5-hour day at FLIR’s Boston facility completing the equipment inspection. The agenda for their remaining 7 days in Boston included just three other 1-2 hour visits to FLIR’s Boston facility, some additional meetings with FLIR personnel at their hotel, and other leisure activities, all at FLIR’s expense.

Timms approved expenses incurred by Ramahi and the MOI officials in connection with the extended travel, and Timms’ manager approved the expenses for the air travel provided to the MOI officials in connection with their “world tour.” FLIR’s  finance department processed and paid the approved air expenses the next day.”

Under the heading “Expensive Watches for Saudi Officials,” the order states:

“In March 2009, while Ramahi was present, Timms provided expensive gifts to five MOI officials. At Timms’ and Ramahi’s instruction, in February 2009, FLIR’s third-party agent purchased five watches in Riyadh, paying approximately 26,000  Saudi Riyal (about U.S. $7,000).

In mid-March 2009, Ramahi and Timms traveled to Saudi Arabia for a nine-day business trip to discuss several business opportunities with MOI officials. According to Timms’ expense report, the purpose of the trip was to meet with MOI officials regarding FLIR’s efforts to sell its security cameras. During the trip, Timms, with Ramahi’s knowledge, gave the five watches to MOI officials. Ramahi and Timmsbelieved the MOI officials to be important to sales of both the binoculars and the security cameras. The MOI officials who received the watches included two of the MOI officials who subsequently went on the “world tour” travel.

Within weeks of his visit to Saudi Arabia, Timms submitted an expense report to FLIR for reimbursement of the watches. At the time of his submittal, Timms confirmed that each watch cost $1,425 and was for “Executive Gifts.” Shortly thereafter, Timms identified the names of the MOI officials who received the watches. The reimbursement was approved by Timms’ manager and paid out to Timms.”

Under the heading “The Cover Up,” the order states:

“In July 2009, in connection with an unrelated review of expenses in the Dubai office, FLIR’s finance department flagged Timms’ reimbursement request for the watches. In response to their questions, Timms claimed that he had made a mistake and falsely stated that the expense report should have reflected a total of 7,000 Saudi Riyal(about $1,900) rather than $7,000 as submitted.

At his supervisors’ request, Ramahi secured a second, fabricated invoice reflecting that the watches cost 7,000 Saudi Riyal, which Timms submitted to FLIRfinance in August 2009. Ramahi also told FLIR investigators that the watches were each purchased for approximately 1,300-1,400 Saudi Riyal (approximately $377) by FLIR’s third-party agent.

In September 2009, the FLIR finance department attempted to contact FLIR’s third-party agent. In e-mail correspondence, the FLIR finance department asked the agent a series of questions about the watches. Unknown to the finance department, Timms drafted responses to the questions on behalf of the agent. At Timms’ direction, the agent maintained the false cover story: that the watches cost a total of 7,000 Saudi Riyal, not U.S. $7,000.

In July 2009, Ramahi and Timms claimed that the MOI’s luxury travel and “world tour” had been a mistake. They told the FLIR finance department that the MOI had used FLIR’s travel agent in Dubai to book their own travel and that it had been mistakenly charged to FLIR. They promised to send an invoice to the MOI to pay for the“world tour” travel. Instead, however, Ramahi and Timms used FLIR’s agent to give the appearance that that the MOI paid for their travel. Timms also oversaw the preparation of false and misleading documentation of the MOI travel expenses that was submitted to FLIR’s finance department. For example, Timms obtained an invoice from the Dubai travel agency showing direct flights from Boston to Riyadh—a route not taken by the MOI officials on their “world tour.” Timms submitted the false invoice to FLIR finance as the “corrected” travel documentation.”

Under the heading, “FLIR’s FCPA-Related Policies and Training,” the order states:

“At all relevant times, FLIR had in place a code of conduct which prohibited FLIR employees from violating the FCPA. The policy required employees to record information “accurately and honestly” in FLIR’s books and records, with “no materiality requirement or threshold for a violation.”

Both Ramahi and Timms received training on their obligations under the FCPA and FLIR’s policy prior to the provision of expensive gifts of travel, entertainment, and personal items to the MOI. On or around May 13, 2007 and on or around December 2, 2008, Timms completed FLIR’s two-part FCPA-specific online training courses, including courses focused on “Understanding the Law” and “Dealing with Third Parties.” Ramahi only completed part one of the two-part series in May 2007. The training course completed by both Ramahi and Timms, entitled “Understanding the Law,” gave examples of prohibited gifts under the FCPA and specifically identified gifts of luxury watches, vacations and side trips during official business travel.”

As stated in the order:

“Respondents violated [the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions] by corruptly providing expensive gifts of travel, entertainment, and personal items to the MOI officials to retain and obtain business for FLIR. Respondents also violated Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, by knowingly circumventing FLIR’s existing policies and controls, placing a fabricated invoice for the watches into FLIR’s books and records and falsifying FLIR’s records regarding the MOI officials’ extended personal travel paid by FLIR. As a result of this same conduct, Respondents caused FLIR’s books and records to be not accurately maintained in violation of [the books and records provisions of the FCPA].”

As noted in the SEC’s order and release, “without admitting or denying the findings, Timms and Ramahi consented to the entry of the order and agreed to pay financial penalties of $50,000 and $20,000 respectively.”

In the SEC’s release, Andrew Ceresney (Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division) states:

“This case shows we will pursue employees of public companies who think it is acceptable to buy foreign officials’ loyalty with lavish gifts and travel. By making illegal payments and causing them to be recorded improperly, employees expose not only their firms but also themselves to an enforcement action.”

According to media reports, Timms is represented by Solomon Wisenberg (Nelson Mullins) an Ramahi is represented by Lisa Prager (Schulte Roth & Zabel).

According to the SEC’s release, “the SEC’s investigation is continuing.”  As relevant to any potential FCPA enforcement action against FLIR, the SEC’s order states under the heading “FLIR Profits from Sales to the Saudi Ministry of Interior” as follows.

“Following the equipment inspection in Boston, the MOI gave its permission for FLIR to ship the thermal binoculars. The MOI later placed an order for additional binoculars for an approximate price of $1.2 million. In total, FLIR received payments from the MOI for the binoculars that exceeded $10 million.

From September 2009 through August 2012, FLIR also shipped the security cameras and related accessories to the MOI. FLIR received payments for the cameras exceeding $18 million. FLIR subsequently submitted a bid to sell additional security cameras to the MOI. The bid expired before the contract was awarded by the MOI.”

Based on a review of FLIR’s SEC filings, it does not appear that the company has disclosed any FCPA scrutiny.

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.”