Archive for the ‘Individual Enforcement Action’ Category

DOJ Prosecution of Individuals – Then vs. Now

Thursday, January 22nd, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOJ Prosecution Of Individuals – Are Other Factors At Play?

Wednesday, January 21st, 2015

What woudl you doYesterday’s post (here) focused on DOJ FCPA individual prosecutions and highlighted the following facts and figures.

  • Since 2008, the DOJ has charged 99 individuals with FCPA criminal offenses.
  • 58% of the individuals charged by the DOJ with FCPA criminal offenses since 2008 have been in just five cases and 78% of the individuals charged by the DOJ since 2008 have been in just eleven cases.
  • There have been 67 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions since 2008 and of these actions, 50 (or 75%) have not (at least yet) resulted in any DOJ charges against company employees.

These statistics should cause alarm, including at the DOJ as it has long recognized that a corporate-fine only enforcement program is not effective and does not adequately deter future FCPA violations.   For instance, in 1986 John Keeney (Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, DOJ) submitted written responses in the context of Senate hearings concerning a bill to amend the FCPA. He stated as follows:

“If the risk of conduct in violation of the statute 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 Hank Walther (Deputy Chief Fraud Section) stated that a corporate fine-only FCPA enforcement program allows companies to calculate FCPA settlements as the cost of doing business.

In 2013 Daniel Suleiman (DOJ Deputy Chief of Staff, Criminal division) stated that “there is no greater deterrent to corporate crime that the prospect of prison time … if people don’t go to prison, then enforcement can come to be seen as merely the cost of doing business.”

More recently, Patrick Stokes (DOJ FCPA Unit Chief) stated that DOJ is “very focused” on prosecuting individuals as well as companies and that “going after one or the other is not sufficient for deterrence purposes.”

Earlier this week, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sung-Hee Suh rightly acknowledged that “corporations do not act criminally, but for the actions of individuals.”

In my 2010 Senate FCPA testimony (here), I noted that the absence of individual FCPA charges in most corporate FCPA enforcement actions causes one to legitimately wonder whether the conduct giving rise to the corporate enforcement action was engaged in by ghosts.

Others have rightly asked the “but nobody was charged” question, including James Stewart in a New York Times column highlighted in this previous post.

However, as I stated in my Senate testimony, there is an equally plausible reason why no individuals have been charged in connection with many corporate FCPA enforcement actions.  The reason has to do with the quality and legitimacy of the corporate enforcement action in the first place.

Readers know well of the prevalence of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements (NPAs / DPAs)  in the FCPA context. As highlighted in this recent post, since 2010, 86% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions have involved either an NPA or DPA.

Informed observers also understand how NPAs and DPAs, not subject to any meaningful judicial scrutiny, are often agreed to by companies for reasons of ease and efficiency, and not necessarily because the conduct at issue violates the FCPA.

Indeed, prior to becoming SEC Chair, Mary Jo White stated a “fear [that] the deferred prosecution [agreement] is becoming a vehicle to show results” (here) and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has stated as follows.

“It is “easy, much easier quite frankly” for the DOJ to resolve FCPA inquiries with NPAs and DPAs; such resolution vehicles have “less of a toll” on the DOJ’s budget and such agreements “provide revenue” to the DOJ.  It is all “unfortunate”

“In an ironic twist, the more that American companies elect to settle and not force the DOJ to defend its aggressive interpretation of the [FCPA], the more aggressive DOJ has become in its interpretation of the law and its prosecution decisions.”

Moreover, Mark Mendelsohn (former chief of the DOJ’s FCPA Unit), has talked about the “danger” of NPAs and DPAs and how “it is tempting for the [Justice Department] or the SEC…to seek to resolve cases through DPAs or NPAs that don’t actually constitute violations of the law.” (See “Mark Mendelsohn on the Rise of FCPA Enforcement,” 24 Corporate Crime Reporter 35, September 10, 2010).

For more on the above dynamics, see my article “The Facade of FCPA Enforcement.”

Individuals, on the other hand, face a deprivation of personal liberty, and are more likely to force the DOJ to satisfy its high burden of proof as to all FCPA elements.

In other words, perhaps the more appropriate question is not “but nobody was charged,” but rather do corporate NPAs and DPAs always represent provable FCPA violations?  For a recent excellent article asking the same general question, see here.

I set out to test this with the following working hypothesis.

  • Instances in which the DOJ brings actual criminal charges against a company or otherwise insists in the resolution that the corporate entity pleads guilty to FCPA violations, represent a higher quality FCPA enforcement action (in the eyes of the DOJ) and is thus more likely to result in related FCPA criminal charges against company employees.
  • Instances in which the DOJ resolves an FCPA enforcement action solely with an NPA or DPA, represent a lower quality FCPA enforcement action and is thus less likely to result in related FCPA criminal charges against company employees given that an individual is more likely to put the DOJ to its high burden of proof.

The below statistics provide a compelling datapoint concerning the quality and legitimacy of many corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions.

Since NPAs and DPAs were first introduced to the FCPA context in December 2004 (see here), there have been 83 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions.

  • 14 of these corporate enforcement actions were the result of a criminal indictment or resulted in a guilty plea by the corporate entity to FCPA violations.  10 of these corporate enforcement actions – 71% – resulted in related criminal charges of company employees.
  • 53 of these corporate enforcement actions were resolved solely with an NPA or DPA.  In only 5 instances – 9% – was there related criminal charges of company employees.
  • A third type of corporate FCPA enforcement action is what I will call a hybrid action in which the resolution includes a guilty plea by some entity in the corporate family – usually a foreign subsidiary – and an NPA or DPA against the parent company.  Since the introduction of NPAs and DPAs in the FCPA context, there have been 16 such corporate enforcement actions.  In 5 of these actions – 31% -  there was related criminal charges of company employees. This percentage is what one might expect compared to the two types of corporate FCPA enforcement actions discussed above, although it is interesting to note the following regarding 3 of these 5 instances.  The DOJ ended up dismissing the charges against Si Chan Wooh (Schnitzer Steel), John O’Shea (ABB) was not found not guilty, and Bobby Elkin (Alliance One) received a probation sentence after the sentencing judge questioned many aspects of the enforcement action (see here for the prior post).

Although NPAs and DPAs were first introduced to the FCPA context in 2004, their use by the DOJ was sporadic at first and such alternative resolution vehicles did not become a fixture of FCPA enforcement until approximately 2007.

Thus, in testing the above hypothesis, 2007 is perhaps the best starting point.  Since 2007, there have been 77 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions.

  • 12 of these corporate enforcement actions were the result of a criminal indictment or resulted in a guilty plea by the corporate entity to FCPA violations.  9 of these corporate enforcement actions – 75% – resulted in related criminal charges of company employees.
  • 50 of these corporate enforcement actions were resolved solely with an NPA or DPA.  In only 5 instances – 10% – was there related criminal charges of company employees.
  • A third type of corporate FCPA enforcement action is what I will call a hybrid action in which the resolution includes a guilty plea by some entity in the corporate family – usually a foreign subsidiary – and an NPA or DPA against the parent company.  Since 2007, there have been 15 such corporate enforcement actions.  In 4 of these actions – 26% -  there was related criminal charges of company employees. This percentage is what one might expect compared to the two types of corporate FCPA enforcement actions discussed above.

If the above statistics do not cause one to question the quality and legitimacy of many corporate FCPA enforcement actions, no empirical data ever will.  For those who believe NPAs and DPAs always represent provable FCPA violations, the ball is now in your court to offer credible explanations for following datapoints.

Since NPAs and DPAs were introduced to the FCPA context in 2004, if a corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement action is the result of a criminal indictment or resulted in a guilty plea by the corporate entity to FCPA violations, there is a 71% chance that related criminal charges will be brought against a company employee.  If a corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement action is resolved solely with an NPA or DPA, there is a 9% chance that criminal charges will be brought against a company employee.

Since 2007, when NPAs and DPAs become a fixture of DOJ FCPA enforcement, if a corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement action is the result of a criminal indictment or resulted in a guilty plea by the corporate entity to FCPA violations, there is a 75% chance that related criminal charges will be brought against a company employee.  If a corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement action is resolved solely with an NPA or DPA, there is a 10% chance that criminal charges will be brought against a company employee.

[Note – the above data was assembled using the “core” approach as well as the definition of an FCPA enforcement action described in this prior post]

A Focus On DOJ FCPA Individual Prosecutions

Tuesday, January 20th, 2015

Criminal LawThis post highlights certain facts and figures concerning the DOJ’s prosecution of individuals for FCPA offenses in 2014 and historically.

As highlighted in recent posts herehere, and here, the DOJ frequently talks about the importance of individual FCPA prosecutions. Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell has stated that “certainly…there has been an increased emphasis on, let’s get some individuals” and that it is “very important for [the DOJ] to hold accountable individuals who engage in criminal misconduct in white-collar (cases), as we do in every other kind of crime.” DOJ FCPA Unit Chief Patrick Stokes has said that the DOJ is “very focused” on prosecuting individuals as well as companies and that “going after one or the other is not sufficient for deterrence purposes.”

Against this backdrop, what do the facts actually show?

Since 2000, the DOJ has charged 133 individuals with FCPA criminal offenses.  The breakdown is as follows.

  • 2000 – 0 individuals
  • 2001 – 8 individuals
  • 2002 – 4 individuals
  • 2003 – 4 individuals
  • 2004 – 2 individuals
  • 2005 – 3 individuals
  • 2006 – 6 individuals
  • 2007 – 7 individuals
  • 2008 – 14 individuals
  • 2009 – 18 individuals
  • 2010 – 33 individuals (including 22 in the Africa Sting case)
  • 2011 – 10 individuals
  • 2012 – 2 individuals
  • 2013 – 12 individuals
  • 2014 – 10 individuals

An analysis of the numbers reveals some interesting points.

Most of the individuals – 99 (or 74%) were charged since 2008.  Thus, on one level the DOJ is correct when it states that there has been an “increased emphasis” on individual prosecutions – at least as measured against the historical average given that between 1978 and 1999, the DOJ charged 38 individuals with FCPA criminal offenses.

Yet on another level, a more meaningful level given that there was much less overall enforcement of the FCPA between 1978 and 1999, the DOJ’s statements about its focus on individuals represents hollow rhetoric as demonstrated by the below figures.

Of the 99 individuals criminally charged with FCPA offenses by the DOJ since 2008:

  • 22 individuals were in the Africa Sting case;
  • 9 individuals (minus the “foreign officials” charged) were in the Haiti Teleco case;
  • 8 individuals were in connection with the Control Components case;
  • 8 individuals were in connection with the Siemens case;
  • 5 individuals were associated with DF Group in the Indian mining licenses case;
  • 5 individuals were associated with Direct Access Partners;
  • 4 individuals were in connection with the Lindsey Manufacturing case;
  • 4 individuals were  in connection with the LatinNode / Hondutel case;
  • 4 individuals were in connection with the Nexus Technologies case;
  • 4 individuals were in connection with the BizJet case; and
  • 4 individuals were in connection with the Alstom case.

In other words, 58% of the individuals charged by the DOJ with FCPA criminal offenses since 2008 have been in just five cases and 78% of the individuals charged by the DOJ since 2008 have been in just eleven cases.

Considering that there has been 67 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions since 2008, this is a rather remarkable statistic.  Of the 67 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions, 50 (or 75%) have not (at least yet) resulted in any DOJ charges against company employees.  (See here for the chart with details – current when published in October 2014).

In short, and as demonstrated by the statistics, DOJ FCPA individual enforcement actions are significantly skewed by a small handful of enforcement actions and the reality is that 75% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions since 2008 have not (at least yet) resulted in any DOJ charges against company employees.

Another very interesting and significant picture emerges when analyzing DOJ individual prosecution data based on whether the corporate entity employing or otherwise involved with the individual charged was a public or private entity.

Of the 99 individuals charged by the DOJ with FCPA criminal offenses since 2008, 71 of the individuals (72%) were employees or otherwise affiliated with private business entities.  This is a striking statistic given that 53 of the 67 corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions since 2008 (79%) were against publicly traded corporations.

In the 14 private entity DOJ FCPA enforcement actions since 2008, individuals were charged in connection with 7 of those actions (50%).  In contrast, in the 53 public entity DOJ FCPA enforcement actions since 2008, individuals were charged in connection with 10 of those cases (19%).  In short, and based on the data, a private entity DOJ FCPA enforcement is approximately three times more likely to have a related DOJ FCPA criminal prosecution of an individual than a public entity DOJ FCPA enforcement action.

Are other factors at play when it comes to the fact that 75% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions since 2008 have not (at least yet) resulted in any DOJ charges against company employees?  A future post will highlight a relevant datapoint.

[Notes – the above data was assembled using the “core” approach – see this prior post for an explanation.  The term “public entity”  is not limited to “issuers” under the FCPA, but rather a public entity regardless of which market it shares trade on.  Thus, for instance, JGC Corp. of Japan and Bridgestone are both public entities even though its shares are not traded on a U.S. exchange.]

DOJ Brings First FCPA Enforcement Action Of 2015

Wednesday, January 7th, 2015

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

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

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

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

According to the indictment:

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

The EBRD is described as follows.

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

The EBRD Official is described as follows.

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

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

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

According to the indictment:

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s What Would Get More Companies To Self-Disclose Bribery

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

This recent Wall Street Journal Risk & Compliance post asks “what would get more companies to self-disclose bribery?”  The article discusses several  answers (publicize declinations, start a leniency program, lower the amount of fines), but the best answer  is depicted in the below picture (with an FCPA compliance defense being the red arrow).

Compliance Defense As A Gap

There currently exists an informational gap between those with evidence of FCPA violations (i.e. companies and their counsel who conduct FCPA internal investigations) and the government agencies (DOJ and SEC) who enforce the FCPA.

Although – as highlighted in this recent post – approximately 60% of recent FCPA enforcement actions are the result of corporate voluntary disclosures, it should be an uncontroversial observation that many more FCPA violations (at least based on current enforcement theories) are happening in the global marketplace on a daily basis.

This observation is based on my nearly ten years of FCPA practice experience (and will be recognized as a self-evident truth by other FCPA practitioners) as well as my frequent conversations with FCPA practitioners.  While I am not suggesting the following is empirical evidence, the general thrust of comments I hear from FCPA practitioners is that approximately only 50% of FCPA issues in public companies are disclosed to the DOJ/SEC and that very, very few FCPA issues in private companies are disclosed to the DOJ.  The follow-up question I then ask is – in the situations in which the company has not voluntarily disclosed, has the DOJ/SEC ever found out about the problematic conduct at issue.  The universal response I have received is no.

Put this all together and the resulting landscape is that there are many FCPA violations occurring (at least based on current enforcement theories) that are not disclosed to the enforcement agencies.  Because the violations are not disclosed to the enforcement agencies, there is no enforcement action. Because there is no enforcement action, the individual engaging in the problematic conduct are not being held accountable.  Because the individual engaging in the problematic conduct is not being held accountable, FCPA enforcement is not as effective as it could be.

The DOJ (and SEC) clearly recognize the gap that exists and in recent months enforcement officials have tried to articulate policies that can help close this gap (see here, here, and here for summaries of recent speeches).

As highlighted in this prior post,  the policies articulated by DOJ officials are sensible (voluntarily disclose, cooperate, and identify culpable individuals).

Problem is, this is the same policy the enforcement agencies have been talking about for nearly a decade and its seems not to be closing the gap that exists between evidence of FCPA violations and prosecution of FCPA violations, including individuals.  Indeed, as highlighted by this prior post, 82% of corporate SEC FCPA enforcement actions since 2008 have not resulted in any related enforcement action against a company employee and 75% of corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions since 2008 have not resulted in any related enforcement action against a company employee.

An FCPA compliance defense will not close this gap completely, but it will help bridge the gap.

As stated in my 2012 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.”

Are the enforcement agencies capable of viewing an FCPA compliance defense, not as a race to the bottom, but a race to the top? Are the enforcement agencies capable of viewing an FCPA compliance defense as helping them better achieve their FCPA policy objectives?

Let’s hope so, because the gap is problematic.

Might a compliance defense result in 1 or 2 fewer corporate enforcement actions per year?  Perhaps, but against this slight drop in “hard” enforcement would be an increase in “soft” enforcement of the FCPA (see here and here), and indeed because the gap would be narrowed there would be more “hard” enforcement of culpable individual actors.

See here and here for prior posts on the same topic.