OECD « FCPA Professor

Archive for the ‘OECD’ Category

Report Cards

Thursday, June 30th, 2011

Imagine I give a test to the 37 students in my class. However, because of reasons uniquely relevant to many of the students, not all students are equally capable of passing the test.

I hope all would view this test to be a bit empty.

This post summarizes the OECD Working Group on Bribery Annual Report and Transparency International’s Annual Progress Report of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

For reasons discussed below, these two report cards suffer from the same dynamic described in the above hypothetical.

In many OECD member countries there is no such thing as corporate criminal liability – or even if there is – such corporate liability can only be based on the actions of high-ranking executives or officers. This of course is materially different than in the U.S. where, under respondeat superior principles, a business organization can face legal liability (civil and criminal) based on the actions of any employee to the extent the employee was acting within the scope of his or her duties and to the extent the conduct was intended to benefit, at least in part, the organization.

In most OECD member countries prosecuting authorities have two choices – to prosecute or not to prosecute – there is no such thing as non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements (NPAs/DPAs). Not so in the U.S. where the majority of these alternative resolution vehicles are used to resolve FCPA enforcement actions. As the OECD itself stated in its Phase 3 Report of U.S. enforcement of the FCPA – “it seems quite clear that the use of these agreements is one of the reasons for the impressive FCPA enforcement record in the U.S.” (See here for the prior post). Former DOJ FCPA enforcement chief Mark Mendelsohn was asked directly – if the DOJ “did not have the choice of deferred or non prosecution agreements, what would happen to the number of FCPA settlements every year,” and he stated as follows: “if the Department only had the option of bringing a criminal case or declining to bring a case, you would certainly bring fewer cases.”

In certain other OECD member countries, there is a compliance defense relevant to the prosecution of bribery and corruption offenses. (See here for the prior post).

Given these differing dynamics (among others), it is fairly obvious why OECD member countries have varying degrees of enforcement of bribery and corruption offenses.

With that in mind, on to the report cards.

Transparency International Progress Report 2011 – Enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention

On May 24th, Transparency International (TI) released (here) its seventh annual Progress Report on Enforcement of the OECD Convention.

The report “shows no improvement in the enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in the past year and warns that this could signal a dangerous loss of momentum in the fight against corruption.”

The report covers 37 countries and “shows that there are still only seven countries with active enforcement, nine with moderate enforcement, and 21 with little or no enforcement.” Huguette Labelle, Chair of TI, stated that “the collective commitment to stamp out foreign bribery made by all OECD parties is undermined when a large number of countries have inadequate enforcement.”

The introduction of the report includes the following statement.

“Continued lack of enforcement in 21 countries a decade after the Convention entered into force, notwithstanding repeated OECD reviews, clearly indicates lack of political commitment by their governments. And in some of those with moderate enforcement, the level of commitment is also uncertain. This is a danger signal because the OECD Convention depends on the collective commitment of all parties to ending foreign bribery.”

The reports “major conclusions” include the following: “risk of loss of momentum” and “lack of political commitment.”

As to the former, the report states as follows. “The Convention has not yet reached the point at which the prohibition of foreign bribery is consistently enforced. With little or no enforcement by half of the signatory governments, backsliding by enforcing governments is a serious threat. This concern is aggravated in a troubled global economy in which companies are scrambling for business. Business organisations have increasingly criticised anti-bribery enforcement as a competitive obstacle. The present position of the Convention is unstable, and unless forward momentum is recovered, the progress made in the past decade could unravel.”

As to the “lack of political commitment”, the report states as follows. “Reviews conducted by TI experts indicate that the principal cause of lagging enforcement is lack of political commitment by government leaders. In countries where there is committed political leadership, the OECD’s rigorous monitoring programme has helped improve laws and enforcement programmes. However, in the absence of political will, even repeated OECD reviews have little effect.”

Once again, Canada received a public lashing from TI.

Under the heading “lack of progress in Canada,” the report states as follows. “Canada is the only G7 country in the little or no enforcement category, and has been in this category since the first edition of this report in 2005. It is also the only OECD member that does not provide nationality jurisdiction, which presents a serious obstacle to enforcement. [...] TI welcomes that the government of Canada has publicly reported the number of investigations for the first time. It is promising that 23 foreign bribery investigations are under way. If these investigations lead to prosecutions, Canada may finally move out of the little or no enforcement category.” (A future post will summarize the recent Canadian enforcement action against Niko Resources).

TI’s 2010 report (see here for the prior post) included reference to many big picture enforcement issues such as the use of negotiated settlements (NPAs and DPAs), judicial scrutiny of enforcement actions, and the proper amount of fines and penalties. However, TI’s 2011 report was silent as to many big picture issues.

OECD Working Group on Bribery Annual Report

On April 20th, the OECD Working Group on Bribery released its annual report (here). The release (here) states as follows. “Most governments are not meeting their international commitments to clamp down on bribery and corruption in international business, with only five signatories to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention having sanctioned individuals or companies in the past year.”

The Compliance Defense Around The World

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

As highlighted in this prior post, numerous FCPA reform bills in the 1980′s included a specific defense which stated a company would not be held vicariously liable for a violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions by its employees or agents, who were not an officer or director, if the company established procedures reasonably designed to prevent and detect FCPA violations by employees and agents. An FCPA reform bill containing such a provision did pass the U.S. House, but was not enacted into law.

Amending the FCPA to include a compliance defense is one of the U.S. Chamber’s FCPA reform proposals (see here). In November 2010, Andrew Weissman, on behalf of the Chamber, testified in favor of a compliance defense (and other reform proposals) during the Senate’s FCPA hearing (see here for the prior post) and during the House hearing earlier this month (see here for the prior post), former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, on behalf of the Chamber, also testified in favor of a compliance defense (and other reform proposals).

During the House hearing, there appeared to be bi-partisan support for consideration of an FCPA compliance defense.

Even so, Greg Andres, testifying on behalf of the DOJ, stated that a potential FCPA compliance defense was “novel and risky” and that the “time is not right to consider it.”

Public debate on a potential compliance defense has thus far focused, from a comparative standpoint, on the United Kingdom and Italy.

The purpose of this post is to further inform the public debate on a potential compliance defense by highlighting various compliance-like defenses around the world in other countries that are signatories (like the U.S.) to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

This post is further to my work in progress – Revisiting an FCPA Compliance Defense - and represents hours of research analyzing 38 OECD Country Reports.

The post provides an overview of compliance-like defenses in the following OECD Convention signatory countries: Australia, Chile, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland. [The U.K. Bribery Act, set to go live on July 1st, also contains a compliance-like defense in Section 7].

A first reaction might be – only 12 of the 38 OECD member countries have a compliance-like defense.

However, this number must be viewed against the backdrop of the following dynamics: (i) in many OECD Convention signatory countries, the concept of legal person criminal liability (as opposed to natural person criminal liability) is non-existent; and (ii) in many OECD Convention signatory countries that do have legal person criminal liability, such legal person liability can only result from the actions of high-level executive personnel or other so-called “controlling minds” of the legal person.

Obviously if a foreign country does not provide for legal person liability, there is no need for a compliance defense, and the rationale for a compliance defense is less compelling if legal exposure can result only from the conduct of high-level executive personnel or other “controlling minds.”

When properly viewed against these dynamics, a compliance-like defense (whether specifically part of a foreign country’s “FCPA-like” law or otherwise generally part of a foreign country’s legal principles) is far from a “novel” idea, but rather common among OECD Anti-Bribery Convention signatory countries that – like the U.S. – have legal person criminal liability that can attach based on the conduct of non-executive officers or other “controlling minds.”

[The below information is based strictly on OECD country reports and is subject to the qualification that in many instances the most recent information concerning a particular country may be several years old. If anyone has more recent information concerning any particular country, how the compliance defense in a particular country has worked in practice, or any other relevant information, please leave a comment on this site or contact me at mjkoehle@butler.edu]

*****

Australia

Australian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on December 18, 1999.

Thereafter, a section of the Criminal Code on corporate criminal liability came into full force establishing an organizational model for the liability of legal persons. “Bodies corporate” are liable for offences committed by “an employee, agent or officer of a body corporate acting within the actual or apparent scope of his or her employment, or within his or her actual or apparent authority” where the body corporate “expressly, tacitly, or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence”.

Pursuant to the Criminal Code, authorisation or permission by the body corporate may be established in the following ways: (1) the board of directors intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted it to occur; (2) a high managerial agent intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted it to occur; (3) a corporate culture existed that directed, encouraged, tolerated or led to the offence; or (4) the body corporate failed to create and maintain a corporate culture that required compliance with the relevant provision.

However, under the Criminal Code, “if a high managerial agent is directly or indirectly involved in the conduct, no offence is committed where the body corporate proves that it “exercised due diligence to prevent the conduct, or the authorisation or permission.”

Chile

Chilean law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on October 8, 2002.

In December 2009, a separate Chilean law entered into force establishing criminal responsibility of legal persons for a limited list of offences including bribery of foreign public officials.

In order for a legal person to be held responsible for a foreign bribery offence, the following “three cumulative requirements” must be satisfied: (1) the offence must be committed by a person acting as a representative, director or manager, a person exercising powers of administration or supervision, or a person under the “direction or supervision” of one of the aforementioned persons; (2) the offence must be committed for the direct and immediate benefit or interest of the legal entity. No offence is committed where the natural person commits the offence exclusively in his/her own interest or in the interest of a third party; and (3) the offence must have been made possible as a consequence of a failure of the legal entity to comply with its duties of management and supervision. An entity will have failed to comply with its duties if it violates the obligation to implement a model for the prevention of offences, or when having implemented the model, it was insufficient.”

As to the final element, the OECD report states as follows. “The final cumulative requirement for responsibility stresses that the offence must have been made possible as a consequence of the failure of the legal person to comply with its duties of administration and supervision. The entity will have failed to comply with its duties if it violated the obligation to implement a model for the prevention of offences, or when having implemented the model, the latter was insufficient. It shall be considered that the functions of direction and supervision have been met if, before the commission of the offense, the legal person had adopted and implemented organization, administration and supervision models, pursuant to the following article, to prevent such offenses as the one committed.”

The minimum features of a prevention system under the law are as follows: identify the different activities or processes of the entity, whether habitual or sporadic, in whose context the risk of commission of the offences emerges or increases; establish protocols, rules and procedures that permit persons involved in above-mentioned activities or processes to program and implement their tasks or functions in a manner that prevents the commission of the indicated offences; identify procedures for the administration and auditing that allow the entity to impede their use in the listed offences; establish internal administrative sanctions, as well as procedures for reporting or pursuing pecuniary responsibility against persons who violate the prevention system; introduce the above-mentioned duties, prohibitions and sanctions into the internal regulations of the legal person, and ensure that they are known by all persons bound to apply it (workers, employees, and service providers).

The OECD report states – as to the minimum requirements as follows. “It also aims to introduce a system of self-regulation by companies. Having a code of conduct on paper will not be sufficient to avoid responsibility. If prosecutors can prove that the code does not meet the minimum requirements of or that it is not implemented, the company can be responsible for the offence.”

Under Chilean law, “the failure to comply with duties of management and supervision is an element of the offence rather than a defence. Therefore the burden of proof lies on prosecutors, i.e. it will be up to prosecutors to prove that the entity failed to comply with its duties of management and supervision.”

The OECD report notes as follows. “This will require prosecutors to prove that the company failed in the design and/or implementation of the offense prevention model including why, in the circumstances, the prevention model was insufficient. This would appear to also require the prosecutor to establish that this failure made perpetration of the offence possible.”

As noted in the OECD report, the Chilean “standard of liability is inspired from the Italian system of liability of legal persons” (discussed below).

Germany

German law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999.

German law establishes the liability of legal persons, including liability for the foreign bribery offence, under an administrative (i.e. non-criminal form) act.

Pursuant to the administrative act, “the liability of legal persons is triggered where any “responsible person” (which includes a broad range of senior managerial stakeholders and not only an authorised representative or manager), acting for the management of the entity commits i) a criminal offence including bribery; or ii) an administrative offence including a violation of supervisory duties which either violates duties of the legal entity, or by which the legal entity gained or was supposed to gain a “profit”.”

As noted in the OECD report, “in other words, Germany enables corporations to be imputed with offences i) by senior managers, and, somewhat indirectly, ii) with offences by lower level personnel which result from a failure by a senior corporate figure to faithfully discharge his/her duties of supervision.”

The OECD report states that the “standards for a violation of supervisory duties include consideration of factors such as whether the company has in place a monitoring system or in-house regulations for employees.”

Hungary

Hungarian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on March 1, 1999.

In 2004, a separate law was enacted specifying the individuals whose actions can trigger the liability of the legal person.

The OECD report states as follows. “The specific persons and additional conditions for liability are defined as follows: (i) the bribery is committed by one of the members or officers [of the legal entity] entitled to manage or represent it, or a supervisory board member and/or their representatives acting within the legal scope of activity of the legal person ; (ii) the bribery is committed by one of the members of the legal entity or an employee acting within the legal scope of activity of the legal person provided the bribery could have been prevented by the chief executive fulfilling his supervisory or control obligations; and (iii) the bribery is committed by a third party individual, provided that the legal entity’s member or officer entitled to manage or represent the it had knowledge of the facts.”

According to the OECD report, the relevant law does not provide any guidance as to the necessary degree of supervision to avoid liability for bribery.

Italy

Italian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on October 26, 2000.

Under Italian law, “criminal liability cannot be attributed to legal persons” however, “administrative liability may be attributed to legal persons for certain criminal offences (including foreign bribery) committed by a natural person.

The relevant administrative decree provides a “defence of organisational models” to a body which makes reasonable efforts to prevent the commission of an offence.

The OECD report states as follows. “… [A] body is not liable for offences committed by persons in senior positions if it proves the following. First, before the offence was committed, the body’s management had adopted and effectively implemented an appropriate organisational and management model to prevent offences of the kind that has occurred. Second, the body had set up an autonomous organ to supervise, enforce and update the model. Third, this autonomous organ had sufficiently supervised the operation of the model. Fourth, the perpetrator committed the offence by fraudulently evading the operation of the model.” The defence of organisation models operates as a full defence which completely exculpates a legal person.

The relevant administrative decree stipulates the essential elements of an acceptable organisational model described in the OECD report as follows. “First, the model must identify activities which may give rise to offences. Second, the model must define procedures through which the body makes and implements decisions relating to the offences to be prevented. It must also prescribe procedures for managing financial resources to prevent offences from being committed. Third, the model must oblige the internal organ responsible for supervision and enforcement to provide information to the body. Finally, the model must include a disciplinary system for non-compliance.”

Japan

Japanese law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999 .

“Under Japanese law, criminal responsibility of a legal person is based on the principle that the company did not exercise due care in the supervision, selection, etc. of an officer or employee to prevent the culpable act.

The burden rests on the legal person to prove that due care was exercised. Where a legal person raises the defence, a person must be identified as having exercised due care, etc., and the court must determine whether it was exercised properly having regard to the nature of the legal person and the circumstances of the case.”

Korea

Korean law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999.

Korean law establishes the criminal responsibility of legal persons for the bribery of a foreign public official, however, a legal person is exempt from liability where it has paid “due attention” or exercised “proper supervision” to prevent the offence.

The statute itself does not provide information about what constitutes “due attention” or “proper supervision.” A representative of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the OECD that “the exemption is triggered when a director or ‘superior person’ exercises due attention.” The Explanatory Manual published by the Ministry of Justice states that “it is difficult to standardize the extent of attention or supervision in deciding whether a legal person can be exempted from criminal punishment.” The Explanatory Manual further states that whether the exemption applies depends upon “general circumstances such as the motive and background that led to the bribery, intervention of exclusive members of the legal person, whether it was informed earlier, and how much effort was usually made by the corporation to prevent bribery, etc.” and that companies involved in international business must prevent violations of the law by all employees and executives of the company “through sufficient necessary management”.

Poland

Polish law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 4, 2001.

Polish law provides “a noncriminal form of responsibility for collective entities.” Among the requirements for liability is the offence was committed “in the effect of at least absence of due diligence in electing the natural person [committing the act] or of at least the absence of due supervision over this person by an authority or a representative of the collective entity.”

According to the relevant Polish legislative history, “the perpetration of a prohibited act by a natural person will trigger liability of the
collective entity where the act occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the authority or representative of the collective entity.”

Portugal

Portuguese law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on June 9, 2001.

Under Portuguese law relevant to corruption in international business transactions, legal persons can be liable for conduct committed “on their behalf and in the collective interest by natural persons occupying a leadership position within the legal person structure” or by “whoever acts under the authority” of such natural persons.

However, “[t]he liability of legal persons and equivalent entities is excluded when the actor has acted against the orders or express instructions of the person responsible.”

Sweden

Swedish law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on July 1, 1999.

Under Swedish Law, only natural persons can commit crimes. However, pursuant to the Swedish Penal Code, a “kind of quasi-criminal liability is applied to an ‘entrepreneur’ (a general term meaning “any natural or legal person that professionally runs a business of an economic nature) for a ‘crime committed in the exercise of business activities.’”

However, one requirement under the Penal Code is that “the entrepreneur has not done what could reasonable be required of him for prevention of the crime.”

Switzerland

Swiss law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on May 1, 2000.

Article 100quater of the Swiss Criminal Code requires “defective organisation as a condition for corporate criminal liability.”

In order to incur criminal liability, “the enterprise must not have taken all reasonable and necessary organisational measures to prevent the individual from committing the offence.”

Under Swiss law, the burden is on the prosecutor to furnish proof of defective organization and according to Swiss authorities contacted by the OECD “steps should be taken to assess whether employees have been sufficiently informed, supervised and controlled” and “the fact that an enterprise is organised in compliance with international management standards will not be sufficient to rule out all liability on its part; it will be one element to take into consideration among others …”. In the view of Swiss authorities, “ shifting the burden of proof in criminal cases would contravene Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Russian FCPA: The Law Has Been Signed, Will The Culture Change Result?

Friday, June 17th, 2011

Last month, Russian President Dimitri Medvedev signed legislation that criminalizes foreign bribery, with monetary sanctions for companies and individuals who bribe foreign public officials. Soon thereafter, the OECD formally invited Russia to join the OECD’s Working Group on Bribery and to accede to the OECD’s Anti-Bribery Convention (see here for the OECD release).

Max Chester (Senior Counsel at Foley & Lardner – see here) takes the stage today with this guest post. Chester, a native speaker of Russian with significant experience representing U.S. clients in commercial transactions in Russia, provides an overview and analysis of the new Russian “FCPA-like” law.

*****

Russian FCPA: The Law Has Been Signed, Will The Culture Change As A Result?

On May 4, 2011, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev signed into law a measure that significantly increases fines for bribery in Russia and now specifically applies to bribery of foreign government officials. The new federal law (here) is entitled “Federal Law dated May 4, 2011 No. 97-FZ On inclusion of changes to the Criminal Code of Russian Federation and to the Code of Administrative Offences in Connection with the Improvement of Government Administration in the Area of Fighting Corruption.” While the Russian title of the new law is not easy to understand even for a native Russian speaker, its objective is clear: it is intended to fight corruption in Russia, one of President Medvedev’s highest stated priorities, and to support Russia’s bid to accede to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Because the new law specifically prohibits offering or acceptance of a bribe by a foreign government official, we’ll refer to the new law as the “Russian FCPA.” Because the Russian FCPA prohibits commercial bribery and both receiving and offering corrupt payments to foreign government officials, the new law appears to resemble the UK Bribery Act and can be said to have even further reach than the US FCPA.

With respect to commercial bribery, the new law changes art. 46 of the Criminal Code and imposes the maximum fine for bribery in the amount of 100 times the amount of the bribe not to exceed 500 million rubles) (approximately $17.8 million). Prior to the amendment, the maximum monetary fine for acceptance of a bribe was 1 million rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for the previous 5 year period and the maximum monetary fine for offering a bribe was 500,000 rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for the previous 3 year period. The monetary fines for commercial grease payments (подкуп “podkup” in Russian) were even lower: the offeror could face a maximum fine of only 300,000 rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for the previous 2 year period, and the acceptor could face a maximum fine of only 1 million rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for a 5 year period.

While incarceration up to 12 years for bribery/grease payments was possible prior to the amendment, according Larisa Brycheva, the chair of the Office of Legal Affairs to the President of Russian Federation, only 26% of those convicted for bribery-related offenses were incarcerated. Furthermore, most of those convicted were offering/accepting small bribes (from 500 rubles to 10,000 rubles), making it difficult for Russian judges to impose sentences of up to 12 years in prison resulting from bribes equaling the cost of an average dinner for two at a Moscow restaurant.

Given this unimpressive to-date enforcement regime, the Russian lawmakers have decided that a significantly higher monetary fine would be more effective than a possibility of a lengthy prison sentence. While the anti-corruption professionals should welcome this change in the Russian law, a big question still remains exactly how aggressively Russian authorities will enforce the new law. It may not be palatable to impose a 500 million ruble fine on a Russian bureaucrat whose official government salary is 40,000 rubles and whose only official assets are his apartment (where his family lives and thus is not subject to forfeiture) and his dacha, the title to which is likely held by his relatives. The same can not be said of foreign businesses, however, on whom it would be much easier for Russian authorities to impose and collect fines equaling 100 times the bribe. There is no indication in the Russian FCPA that it would not apply to US companies doing business in Russia. In other words, if a US company or its constituents engage in commercial or foreign government official bribery in Russia, the offenders would be subject to fines and potential incarceration in Russia.

The Specific Provisions of the New Law

Acceptance of a Bribe

The Russian FCPA now specifically prohibits bribery involving foreign government officials. Thus, art. 290 of the Criminal Code (which prohibits acceptance of bribes directly or through intermediaries) as amended applies to government officials, foreign government officials or officials of public international organizations. The new law breaks down the fines into several categories depending on the conduct at issue and the amount of the bribe. In every case, however, in addition to the monetary penalty or a prison sentence with a monetary penalty, the offender may be restricted from occupying certain positions in government or commercial entities. For example, part 1 of art. 290 of the Criminal Code now imposes a penalty between 25-50 times the bribe amount or incarceration up to 3 years with a fine equaling 20 times the bribe amount if the bribe is under 25,000 rubles and was used to have an official perform an act (or refrain from performing an act) which falls within the official’s duties and responsibilities. Part 2 of article 290 states further that if the bribe amount is between 25,000 and 150,000 rubles, then the maximum penalty for a violation is a fine between 30-60 times the bribe amount or incarceration up to 6 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe.

If the actions (inactions) of government officials, foreign government officials or officials of public international organizations for which they accept a bribe are considered illegal, Part 3 of art. 290 of the Criminal Code now imposes a penalty equaling 40-70 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of 3-7 years with a fine equaling 40 times the bribe amount.

Even stiffer penalties (60-80 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of 5-10 years with a fine equaling 50 times the bribe amount) apply if the bribe is accepted by a federal Russian government official or an official of an equivalent body of local government administration. Art. 290, Part 4.

If the actions prohibited by parts 1-3 above involve a conspiracy, or a threat or the amount at issue is over 150,000 rubles, the penalty is 70-90 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of 7-12 years. Art. 290, Part 5

If the actions prohibited by parts 1-4 involve an amount greater than 1 million rubles, then the penalty is 80-100 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of 8-15 years with a penalty equaling 70 times the bribe amount.

Giving of a Bribe

The Russian FCPA similarly amends art. 291 of the Criminal Code, which now prohibits giving of a bribe (directly or through an intermediary) to a government official, foreign government official or an official of a public international organization. The giving of a bribe in the amount less than 25,000 rubles is punishable by a fine equaling 15-30 times the bribe amount or incarceration of up to 2 years with a fine equaling 10 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part 1.

The giving of a bribe in the amount between 25,000 rubles and 150,000 rubles is punishable by a fine equaling 20-40 times the bribe amount or incarceration of up to 3 years with a fine equaling 15 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part. 2.

If the actions prohibited by parts 1-3 above involve a conspiracy or the amount at issue is over 150,000 rubles, the penalty is 60-80 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of 5-8 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part 4.

The giving of a bribe in the amount exceeding 1 million rubles is punishable by a fine equaling 70-90 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period between 7 and 12 years with a fine equaling 70 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part. 2.

Giving of a bribe to a government official, foreign government official or an official of a public international organization to secure an action/inaction which is itself deemed illegal is punishable by a fine equaling 30-60 times the bribe amount or incarceration of up to 8 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part 3.

Aiding and Abetting Bribery

The Russian FCPA also introduces new article 2911 to the Criminal Code, which prohibits aiding and abetting bribery if the amount of the bribe exceeds 25,000 rubles. In such circumstances, the Russian FCPA imposes a fine equaling 20-40 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of up to 5 years with a fine equaling 20 times the bribe amount.

If an aider assists with a bribery for an official’s act that itself is considered illegal or if an aider uses his official position in aiding the bribery, the penalty is 30-60 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of time between 3-7 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe amount.

If the aiding is committed by an organized group or pursuant to a conspiracy, or the amount of the bribe exceeds 150,000 rubles, the penalty is 60-80 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of time between 7-12 years with a fine equaling 60 times the bribe amount.

The penalty for aiding bribery in the amount exceeding 1 million rubles is 70-90 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of time between 7-12 years with a fine equaling 70 times the bribe amount.

A promise or an offer to aid in the bribery is also punishable by a penalty equaling 15-70 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of up to 7 years with a fine equaling 10-60 times the bribe amount.

Definition of Foreign Government Official

The Russian FCPA defines a “foreign government official” as any appointed or elected official who has a position in any legislative, executive, administrative, or judicial branch of a foreign country or an individual who serves any public function for a foreign country or a public agency or a public enterprise. This definition seems to suggest that Russian lawmakers embrace the position taken by the DOJ that employees of government owned enterprises are “foreign government officials” for purposes of the FCPA. It would be interesting to see if Russian authorities deem employees of General Motors, AIG or other large US companies where the US government has a substantial equity position, “foreign government officials” for purposes of the Russian FCPA.

Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences of Russian Federation

The Russian FCPA also amends several provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of Russian Federation. Among those is amendment to article 19.28, which imposes penalties on legal entities for commercial bribery or bribery of foreign government officials if a payment of a bribe or an offer of a bribe was made on a legal entity’s behalf. In such circumstances, the penalty is 3 times the amount of the bribe but not less than 1 million rubles. If the amount of the bribe at issue is greater than 1 million rubles, then the penalty is up to 30 times the bribe amount but not less than 20 million rubles. If the amount of the bribe at issue is over 20 million rubles, then the penalty is up to 100 times the bribe amount but not less than 100 million rubles.

In addition, the Russian FCPA introduces several new protocols for Russian authorities to seek information from their foreign counterparts in connection with the investigation by Russian authorities of violations set forth above as well as protocols for Russian authorities to respond to inquiries from foreign law enforcement agencies in connection with foreign law enforcement agencies’ investigation of crimes. These provisions will undoubtedly strengthen the level of cooperation between Russian and foreign law enforcement agencies in implementing anti-corruption measures. Such efforts are already underway, as evidenced by the recent meetings between Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom in London, with Richard Alderman, Director of the Serious Fraud Office.

Conclusion

No law by itself can change overnight or even within a short period of time the “threatening” level of corruption that exists in Russia, as acknowledged by the Russian President himself. The current state of affairs in Russia is a product of 70+ years of socialist dictatorship and the resulting mindset of many government officials. This state of affairs will change, undoubtedly, and the passing of the Russian FCPA is the step in the right direction for Russia. It is up to the Russian authorities to follow through on the provisions of the new law.

A Q&A With Homer Moyer

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

In running a site called “FCPA Professor” it is only appropriate to touch base with a “Dean” on occasion.

I do so in this post with Homer Moyer, a “dean” of the FCPA bar. Moyer, a partner with Miller & Chevalier (see here) addresses a variety of topics in this Q&A – from evolution of the FCPA and FCPA enforcement to voluntary disclosure and investigative fees. Moyer closes out the Q&A with a few FCPA reform proposals of his own.

*****

Your government experience prior to law practice was with the Commerce Department, not the DOJ or SEC as is typical of many FCPA enforcement lawyers. How has your Commerce Department experience informed your FCPA practice?

I was at the Commerce Department when the FCPA was enacted, and I chaired an inter-agency group on FCPA issues. Of greater value to my later FCPA practice, however, was having served as general counsel of the Department that deals most directly with corporate issues and that both promotes and regulates American businesses. Also of great value were the experiences of having litigated cases as both a prosecutor and defense counsel. Perhaps most important, however, is having now seen hundreds of different FCPA issues for dozens of different clients.

Working on FCPA cases at the SEC or DOJ provides prosecutors with unique experience, but not the opportunity to counsel and represent corporate clients, manage complex legal issues for them, or help them devise and implement innovative compliance programs.

Describe your first FCPA matter or case? What were the issues? What were your client’s concerns?

One of my early cases, some 20 years ago, presented a host of issues that had not yet become commonplace. The case I have in mind involved potential vicarious liability for the acts of a third party, a third party who claimed that the work it did for a U.S. company created a “constructive partnership” that entitled it to share the company’s profits, questions of whether to consult voluntarily with DOJ, an industry with which DOJ was not yet well-acquainted, innovative compliance enhancements, related civil litigation, and forged evidence presented to a court.

That matter ended well, but it presented issues of first impression and foreshadowed how complicated FCPA cases could be.

The FCPA has evolved much since your first case. From your perspective, has this evolution been positive? Any negative aspects of this evolution? How has this evolution affected your practice and your clients?

The evolution of FCPA enforcement has unquestionably brought more and more attention to the issue of official corruption and has had an indisputable impact on corporate behavior, or the “supply side” of the bribery equation. In addition, it has done something that unilateral U.S. laws rarely do, namely, led to a far-reaching change and consensus in the international legal landscape, as now reflected in international anti-corruption conventions to which more than 150 countries have become signatories.

Despite two sets of amendments, the FCPA itself has changed relatively little since it was adopted in 1977. Its “evolution” has primarily been through a steady escalation in enforcement — the number and variety of enforcement actions, expansive interpretations of key provisions, the size and variety of penalties, the frequency of voluntary disclosures, and a steady rise in the levels of sophistication the government looks for in independent investigations, due diligence processes, and compliance programs.

Has this evolution been positive or negative? Few people would now dispute that corruption and bribery of foreign officials imposes staggering economic and social costs, frequently on countries that can afford it least. The question then becomes whether FCPA enforcement has made a positive difference in reducing or eliminating corruption. It probably has, but more relevant today is the continuing pervasiveness of official corruption and the daunting challenges to controlling it on a global basis.

With respect to the FCPA itself, complaints that it has created an “uneven playing field” have been somewhat undercut by aggressive FCPA enforcement against non-U.S. companies, by new international anti-corruption conventions, and by the beginnings of genuine enforcement in some other countries. And the lament that few FCPA cases are adjudicated in court does not distinguish FCPA enforcement from the enforcement patterns of many other regulatory laws. The infrequency of judicial review may occasionally embolden the government to overreach, but it has rarely resulted in abusive prosecutions.

In terms of our own practice, the increase in enforcement has plainly caused clients to be far more focused on anti-corruption issues than was once the case. This has certainly caused Miller & Chevalier’s long-standing FCPA practice to grow dramatically. It also appears to have created something of a traffic jam of newly minted “FCPA lawyers.”

Your point “that few FCPA cases are adjudicated in court does not distinguish FCPA enforcement from the enforcement patterns of many other regulatory laws” is a very valid point. However, isn’t a key difference though that other laws have benefited from several dozen circuit court opinions and perhaps a few Supreme Court decisions, such that the parameters of the law are at least set by someone other than the enforcement agencies? [Granted, 2011 will likely see several trial court decisions as to certain FCPA elements, but the FCPA is still a law that is lacking much meaningful precedential case law.]

One has to take the view — and I certainly do — that independent judicial review is a good thing — a critical part of our legal system and important to preserving the rule of law. Judicial review, or the prospect of judicial review, can help prevent regulatory or enforcement excesses. In some regulatory programs — environmental statutes come to mind — the level of judicial review is robust. And we are beginning to see more judicial review in FCPA cases involving individual defendants.

At the same time, some regulatory areas have been subject to as little, or even less, judicial scrutiny than the FCPA. Statutory restrictions on judicial review and judicial deference to agency interpretations of regulations having “national security” ramifications effectively reduce judicial oversight. One can look long and hard for good case law on the regulations enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Controls (“OFAC”) or on export controls rules under the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), each of which has seen regulatory overreaching and little accountability. One recent Federal Circuit Court opinion referred to the discretion reserved by the Executive Branch combined with the lack of clarity in the ITAR as something that would be expected of a totalitarian regime, not the United States Government.

In the end, however, the amount of judicial review is determined by the private sector. Clients are, of course, free to challenge FCPA enforcement actions, although historically corporate clients have tended to favor settlement as a preferable route. Moreover, recent FCPA court decisions reflect that courts will not necessarily interpret laws differently from enforcement agencies. Nonetheless, both corporate and individual defendants are free to challenge agency interpretations of the laws they enforce, and I and many other counsel would undoubtedly be available to help.

When President Obama, high-ranking DOJ officials and others in government talk about corruption and bribery, they talk about the bridge that crumbles because the contractor was selected based on a bribe payment or other similar scenarios. However, very few FCPA enforcement actions fit this scenario, rather the alleged violator is generally viewed as an industry leader that sells the best products for the best prices. Do you agree that a divide exists between such government or civil society statements and typical FCPA enforcement action scenarios? If so, how do we bridge this divide?

Bribery of foreign officials is, in the first instance, typically designed to overcome market forces and to distort competition, not to ensure the purchase of the best products at the best price. Whether or not a bridge is the best metaphor, FCPA violations reflect illicit payments that are made to enrich corrupt officials and that shift that cost to consumers and taxpayers. The consistent scenario in FCPA enforcement actions is that an alleged violator, or someone acting on its behalf, did, in fact, pay bribes, often egregious ones.

The most significant “divide” today is the uneven enforcement among signatories to anti-corruption conventions. Whereas the 1980s saw an industry push to repeal or relax the FCPA on the grounds that it was creating a competitive disadvantage for American companies, the more common complaint today is that other countries must consistently and meaningfully enforce their own anti-corruption laws to assure that the proverbial playing field is level.

Many calls to roll back the FCPA are now anomalous, as they would put the United States out of compliance with international conventions that the FCPA inspired and that the United States fought hard to achieve. They also run counter to the anti-corruption momentum of the last 20 years and would effectively legalize some practices that are coming to be universally condemned, if not yet universally punished.

I find that most U.S. multinational corporations would be delighted to compete on the merits. Indeed, some companies are affirmatively using integrity in the marketplace to gain a competitive advantage. Many have voluntarily prohibited “facilitating payments,” even though they are permissible under the FCPA. It is also interesting to note that Siemens, after paying record-shattering FCPA fines and taking aggressive steps to transform its entire corporate culture, has been posting record profits.

What is your reaction to this statement from a recent high-ranking DOJ official – ““the government sees a profitable program, and it’s going to ride that horse until it can’t ride it anymore.” Do you believe that FCPA enforcement has become a government cash cow? FCPA enforcement fines and penalties simply go into the U.S. Treasury. Are there better places for this money accepting the notion that bribery results in victims?

FCPA fines probably don’t rise to the level of a governmental “cash cow.” In fiscal terms, they are of no real moment. The government unfortunately needs some much bigger revenue cows.

I do believe, however, that law enforcement penalties should be a consequence of, not a reason for, enforcing criminal laws. And although penalties have risen, I do not have the sense that revenue production has been a driver of FCPA enforcement.

Your interesting question about whether penalties might be used to compensate the “victims” of corruption is a favorite in developing countries. It highlights the difficulties of tracing, seizing, and repatriating funds that corrupt officials have stolen from their countries. Even where recovery of funds is possible, assuring that they are then used to benefit the citizens who were cheated by official corruption is a challenge. That is, however, the right use of repatriated funds.

Because countries that have been cheated by their own rulers have rarely been able to recover the stolen funds, some have asked whether they should be compensated with funds collected as penalties in anti-corruption enforcement actions. This would be a break from past law enforcement patterns, and the idea appears not to have gained significant traction. The strongest case for making that break probably relates to funds collected as disgorgement of profits rather than pure fines. Indeed, one could argue that it would be more just for the bounties that whistleblowers can now earn under the Dodd-Frank law to go not to whistleblowers, but rather to the countries affected for the benefit of the victims of corruption.

Your response speaks of corrupt “officials,” “official corruption” and “rulers.” Yet, the vast majority of FCPA enforcement actions involve no such individual – rather the alleged recipient of the bribe is an employee of an alleged state-owned or state-controlled enterprise. In these cases, would not the most direct victim be the competitor who lost the contract or did not have the opportunity to bid. Are you in favor of an FCPA private right of action?

In most FCPA violations, there is more than one victim. Competitors can certainly be victims. So can government agencies or instrumentalities that are procuring goods or services. Even where there is an admitted bribe, however, determining which competitors may have been “victims” would undoubtedly be a messy and imperfect process. And allegations of improper payments are far more common than proof of improper payments, as any practitioner knows, and the complications of trying to identify victims and allocate compensation among everyone claiming status as a victim might make us long for the days when the principal issues were simply the ones you have asked about here.

What percentage of internal investigations you have worked on in the past 3-5 years that ended with a conclusion that the company violated the FCPA resulted in a voluntary disclosure? Same question for investigations you worked on during the time period 1995-2005? Why the difference?

Although we have clients who, after weighing all the relevant factors, have elected not to disclose, the percentage of matters that result in voluntary disclosures has plainly been rising. The reasons include changes in the sentencing guidelines, the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, greater Audit Committee oversight of investigations, the campaign by enforcement agencies to assure companies that voluntary disclosure and cooperation will result in “tangible benefits,” and the gradually spreading view that this is true, if not numerically predictable.

With Avon’s recent disclosure that it has spent over $100 million in professional fees and expenses in connection with an FCPA inquiry and other similar disclosures (albeit perhaps not as dramatic) have professional fees and expenses (law firm, accounting firm, etc.) associated with FCPA internal investigations gotten out of control?

I have to confess to being stunned at some of the reported costs of investigations. To be sure, the costs of investigations have risen with increased emphasis on electronic documents and the insistence that investigations must be independent, thorough, and knowledgeable.

Accepting those requirements, the cost-effectiveness of an investigation can be significantly improved by developing a careful work plan, utilizing a firm with experienced FCPA lawyers at all levels of seniority, tailoring the type of investigation to the type of issue, and making informed and reasonable judgments about when to stop an investigation and focus on remediation. In my experience, it is often possible to have a reasoned and productive dialogue with enforcement agencies about the scope and extent of investigations.

FCPA reform proposals are floating around and are reportedly being considered by certain members of Congress. In your view what reform proposals have merit and what issues are at the top of Homer Moyer’s FCPA reform list?

I find some of the calls for statutory reform less than compelling. Proposals to change the statute in ways that would be inconsistent with international conventions to which the U.S. is committed are unlikely to be successful, in my view, and could well open the door to other “reforms” that advocates for change might dislike, such as eliminating the exception for facilitating payments.

To be sure, in enforcing the FCPA, the government tries to overreach from time to time — exercising anti-bribery jurisdiction over foreign subsidiaries and aggressive applications of dd-3 jurisdictional on the grounds that some step in the process took place “in the territory of the United States” come to mind as occasional examples. When enforcement agencies overreach, they should be challenged.

My dream list of “reforms” might read something like the following:

• Internal DOJ guidance that voluntarily disclosed matters must normally be resolved by the Department within 90 days after completion of an internal investigation; that agencies should make public their calculations of credit for voluntary disclosure and coordination; and that the Department will publish sanitized summaries of its declinations.

• An amendment to tweak the whistle-blower provision of Dodd-Frank to relieve the SEC of the conundrum of implementing the statute consistent with its terms but in a manner that does not undercut effective corporate compliance programs;

• An agreement among prosecutors that in the case of parallel investigations by more than one country, private parties may request state-to-state consultations (as called for by the OECD convention), and the consulting states should assure that investigations are coordinated and penalties made complementary so that companies do not face redundant penalties or unnecessarily overlapping investigations.

• Insistence by the OECD that OECD membership for China, Russia, and India must include accession to the Anti-Corruption Convention, accelerated peer review, and possible reconsideration of OECD membership if implementation and enforcement of anti-corruption laws prove to be insufficient.

• Multilateral reform measures designed to minimize current legal impediments to identifying and seizing funds stolen by corrupt officials and to facilitate repatriation of such funds.

Stay Tuned for More

Monday, May 2nd, 2011

As have been widely reported (see here for the New York Times article), an FCPA sweep of the pharmaceutical / medical device industry is currently underway. Merck, Medtronic, Zimmer and several other companies are reportedly under investigation.

For instance, last week Eli Lilly disclosed (here) that it is “in advanced discussions with the SEC to resolve their investigation” that began in August 2003 as to “compliance by Polish subsidiaries of certain pharmaceutical companies, including Lilly, with the [FCPA].”

AstraZeneca disclosed (here) last week as follows. “As previously disclosed, AstraZeneca has received inquiries from the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with an investigation into Foreign Corrupt Practices Act issues in the pharmaceutical industry across several countries. AstraZeneca is cooperating with these inquiries and is investigating, among other things, sales practices, internal controls, certain distributors, and interactions with healthcare providers, institutions, and other government officials. AstraZeneca is investigating inappropriate conduct in certain countries, including China.”

Johnson & Johnson, previously included in the group of companies under investigation, resolved an FCPA enforcement action last month (see here for the prior post).

Many have suggested that J&J’s voluntarily disclosed conduct served as the point of entry for the industry wide sweep based on this sentence from the J&J deferred prosecution agreement – “J&J has cooperated and agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department in the Department’s investigations of other companies and individuals in connection with business practices overseas in various markets.”

Thus, the J&J enforcement action in many ways provides a glimpse into potential future FCPA enforcement actions involving the pharmaceutical / medical device industry.

Two issues likely to be found in such future FCPA enforcement actions are discussed below.

42 USC 1320a-7(a)

The J&J deferred prosecution agreement states – for why the DOJ agreed to resolve the case the way it did – as follows. “Were the Department to initiate a prosecution of J&J or one of its operating companies and obtain a conviction, instead of entering into this Agreement to defer prosecution, J&J could be subject to exclusion from participating in federal health care programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a).” (See here for those provisions).

This component of the J&J enforcement is nothing new – as many companies such as Siemens, BAE and others – have escaped the most serious consequences of the alleged criminal conduct because of “who” the companies were (i.e. the products sold and to whom).

This feature of FCPA enforcement is controversial (for additional reading – see here for my Q&A exchange with former Senator Arlen Specter and here for the recent article titled “FCPA Sanctions: To Big to Debar”).

In recent months, the DOJ has pledged allegiance to the OECD Convention on Bribery to defend certain of its sentencing and “foreign official” enforcement positions (see here for instance).

Does the OECD Convention say anything about enforcement agencies looking at the unique aspects of an alleged violator and then crafting a resolution to fit that alleged violator?

Yes it does.

Article 5 of the OECD Convention (here), under the heading “Enforcement,” states that investigation and prosecution of bribery offenses “shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.”

Health-Care Providers as “Foreign Officials”

As noted in the prior J&J post (here) the principal FCPA enforcement theory at issue in the pharmaceutical / medical device industry sweep would seem to be the notion that [insert country] had a national healthcare system wherein most [insert country] hospitals are publicly owned and operated and thus health care providers who work at publicly-owned hospitals are government employees providing health care services in their official capacities. According to the DOJ, the individuals are therefore “foreign officials” “as that term is defined in the FCPA.”

Against this backdrop, it is interesting to observe that in the United States approximately 20% of hospitals are owned by state or local governments (see here). In addition, approximately 150 more medical centers are run by the Veterans Health Administration (see here).

Are we calling 20+% of U.S. health-care providers U.S. officials? If not, why not and why the difference?

Something to keep in mind as additional pharmaceutical / medical device FCPA enforcement actions burst onto the scene.