Archive for the ‘Russia’ Category

HP And Related Entities Resolve $108 Million FCPA Enforcement Action

Thursday, April 10th, 2014

Hewlett-Packard Co. (“HP”) has over 300,000 employees worldwide.

Among the employees during a certain relevant time period, were 5 individuals in Russia employed by a subsidiary, 1 individual in Poland employed by a subsidiary, and a vaguely defined group of individuals in Mexico employed by a subsidiary that worked on one sales deal.

The above individuals engaged in conduct largely occurring 7-14 years ago.

The government alleges that all of these individuals were specifically trained on the FCPA by HP and that HP had other internal controls in place as relevant to these individuals.

Notwithstanding these controls, the government alleges that the individuals willfully circumvented HP’s controls to make alleged improper payments to alleged “foreign officials” by, among other things, creating secret slush funds, concealing certain other information, making false representations, and engaging in other covert means such as anonymous e-mail accounts and pre-paid mobile telephones.

So reads the latest Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action.

Yesterday the DOJ and SEC announced (here and here) a coordinated FCPA enforcement action against various HP and related entities based on alleged conduct in Russia, Poland and Mexico.  As noted in this previous post, HP has been under FCPA scrutiny since early 2010.

The enforcement action involved:

HP and related entities agreed to pay approximately $108.2 million (all guaranteed by HP) to resolve the alleged FCPA scrutiny (approximately $76.7 million in the DOJ actions; and approximately $31.5 million in the SEC action).

The enforcement action, in terms of settlement amount, is the 11th largest of all-time and the 2nd largest of all-time against a U.S. company (recognizing of course that HP’s foreign subsidiaries were a large focus of the enforcement actions).

This post summarizes both the DOJ and SEC enforcement actions based on a review of the original source documents (comprising approximately 175 pages in total).

DOJ Enforcement Action

The enforcement action involved a criminal information against HP Russia resolved via a plea agreement; a criminal information against HP Poland resolved via a DPA; and an NPA concerning HP Mexico.

HP Russia

According to the information, HP Russia is a wholly owned subsidiary of HP and was principally responsible for transacting business in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (“CIS”).  During the relevant time period, the information alleges that HP Russia had approximately 315 and 55o employees and that HP Russia “was subject to HP’s internal accounting controls, and HP Russia’s financial results were included in the consolidated financial statements that HP filed with the SEC.”

The alleged conduct concerns five employees at HP Russia.

  • HP Russia Executive 1
  • HP Russia Executive 2
  • HP Russia Manager 1
  • HP Russia Manager 2
  • HP Russia Manager 3

The conduct at issue concerns “a project to automate the telecommunications and computing infrastructure of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia (“GPO” or “GP”),” a project valued at approximately $100 million.  According to the information, the Russian government used a state-owned entity organized under the Department of Affairs of the President of the Russian Federation, to manage the GPO project tender and execution.”

In pertinent part, the information alleges as follows.

“Between in or about 2000 and 2007, HP Russia and co-conspirators agreed to make and did make improper payments to secure, retain and implement the GPO project.  Members of the conspiracy structured the deal to create a secret slush fund, which by 2003 totaled approximately ($10 million at then-prevailing exchange rates), at least part of which was intended for bribes, kickbacks, and other improper payments.  To execute and hide the scheme, members of the conspiracy failed to implement internal controls intended to maintain accountability over HP’s assets, willfully circumvented existing internal controls, and falsified corporate books and records relied on by HP officers and external auditors to authorize the transaction and prepare HP’s consolidated financial statements.”

Regarding the slush fund, the information alleges that HP Russia “created million of dollars in excess margin for use as a slush fund” by selling product to an “often-used channel partner of HP” which in turn sold product to an intermediary at a mark-up. According to the information, “To keep track of the fund, which was concealed in the project’s financials, HP Russia maintained two sets of project pricing records:  off-the-books versions, known only to conspirators, which identified slush fund recipients, and sanitized versions of the same documents which were provided to HP credit, finance, and legal officers outside of HP Russia.” According to the information, “one example of an off-the-books document was an encrypted, password-protected spreadsheet.”

According to the information, various HP Russia employees concealed the slush fund during HP’s Solution Opportunity Approval and Review (“SOAR”) process which applied to “all-service related projects valued at greater than $500,000 anywhere in the world, including Russia.”  Among other things, the information alleges that HP Russia employees made false representations and falsely certified the adequacy of HP Russia’s internal controls, a certification the information alleges that “was relied upon by HP’s EMEA business to certify to HP’s headquarters in the United States that EMEA’s financial statements were accurate.”

According to the information, the alleged improper payments (approximately €8 million) were made through various intermediaries to “Russian Official A,” a director of a Russian government agency who assumed responsibility for the GPO Project as well as “Individual A,” an associate of Russian Official A, for things such as:

  • “expensive jewelry, luxury automobiles, travel, and other items typically associated with gifts”
  • “travel services, vehicles, tuition, electronic equipment, cotton, textiles, and various other items”
  • a “hotel bill: and “other luxury purchases” such as “expensive watches, swimming pool technology, and other items”
  • “furniture, vehicles, clothing, travel services, household appliances, hotel stays, and other items”

Based on the above alleged conduct, the information charges (i) conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and books and records and internal controls provisions; (ii) one count of violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions; (iii) one count of violating the FCPA’s internal controls provisions; and (iv) one count of violating the FCPA’s books and records provisions.

The conduct alleged in the information allegedly occurred between December 2000 and February 2007.  As to U.S. jurisdictional allegations, the information alleges a 2001 meeting in Rockville, Maryland regarding the GPO project; a 2003 e-mail “which was routed through the United States;” and a 2003 certification “transmitted to HP’s offices in California.”

The above charges were resolved via a plea agreement in which HP Russia agreed to plead guilty to the four charges described above.  Pursuant to the plea agreement, HP Russia agreed to pay a criminal fine of approximately $58.8 million.  In the plea agreement, HP agreed to guarantee HP Russia’s payment as well as other conditions imposed upon HP Russia such as cooperation, and compliance obligations typical in corporate FCPA enforcement actions.  Among other things, the plea agreement imposed upon HP a three year reporting obligation to the DOJ regarding remediation and implementation of various compliance measures. As pertinent to the above allegations, in the plea agreement HP Russia and HP waived any and all statute of limitation defenses.

According to the plea agreement, the advisory fine range based on the alleged conduct at issue was $87 million to $174 million.   The plea agreement states that the approximate $58.8 million fine was appropriate based on the following factors:

“(a) monetary assessments that HP has agreed to pay to the SEC and is expected to pay to law enforcement authorities in Germany relating to the same conduct at issue …; (b) HP Russia’s and HP’s cooperation has been, on the whole, extraordinary, including conducting an extensive internal investigation, voluntarily making U.S. and foreign employees available for interviews, and collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information for the Department; (c) HP Russia and HP have engaged in extensive remediation, including by taking appropriate disciplinary action against culpable employees of HP and enhancing their internal accounting, reporting, and compliance functions; (d) HP has committed to continue enhancing its compliance program and internal accounting controls … (e) the misconduct identified … was largely undertaken by employees associated with HP Russia, which employed a small fraction of HP global workforce during the relevant period; (f) neither HP nor HP Russia has previously been subject of any criminal enforcement action by the Department or law enforcement authority in Russia or elsewhere; (g) HP Russia and HP have agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department and other U.S. and foreign law enforcement authorities, if requested by the Department …”

HP Poland

According to the information, HP Poland is a wholly owned subsidiary of HP and, among other functional responsibilities, HP Poland managed most of HP’s activities in Poland and had more than 200 employees during the relevant time period.   According to the information, HP Poland ”was subject to HP’s internal accounting controls, and HP Poland’s financial results were included in the consolidated financial statements that HP filed with the SEC.”

The specific alleged conduct concerned “HP Poland Executive” (a citizen of Poland who was the District Manager of Public Sector Sales and Public Sector Sales Lead).

According to the information, HP Poland “(i) caused the falsification of HP’s books and records; and (ii) circumvented HP’s existing internal controls, in connection with a scheme to make corrupt payments to one or more foreign officials in Poland, including the Polish Official [the Director of Information and Communications Technology within the Polish National Police Agency ("KGP") which was part of the Polish Ministry of the Interior and Administration].”

According to the information, “the conduct was related to HP Poland’s efforts to secure and maintain millions of dollars in technology contracts with the Polish government.”  The information alleges that HP Poland “resorted to corruption to foster a relationship with the Polish Official.”

Specifically, the information alleges that in 2006 the Polish Official attended a technology-industry conference in San Francisco and that the “weekend before the conference” HP Poland “paid for dinners, gifts, and sightseeing by the Polish Official in San Francisco.”  The information also alleges that HP Poland took the Polish Official on a side trip to Las Vegas “with no legitimate business purpose” and that while in Las Vegas HP Poland paid for the Polish Official’s “transportation and expenses … including lodging, drinks, dining, shows, other events on or near the Las Vegas Strip, and a private tour flight over the Grand Canyon.”  As to the above travel and entertainment allegations, the information also alleges that “another global technology company” (“Company A”) also wined and dined the Polish Official and paid for his expenses.

The information also alleges that “beginning in late 2006, HP Poland started providing technology products to the Polish Official for personal use.”  The information states:

“Early gifts included HP products, such as desktop and laptop computers, and later expanded to include additional HP computers, HP-branded mobile devices, an HP printer, iPods, flat screen televisions, cameras, a home theater system, and other items.”

According to the information, the above things of value were provided to the Polish Official “in circumvention of HP’s internal controls” and were not “properly reflected in HP’s books and records.”

The information also alleges that in early 2007, “shortly after receiving the first of these gifts, Polish Official signed a contract with HP Poland on behalf of the Polish government, valued at approximately $4.3 million.  A month later, the Polish Official signed another contract with HP Poland, valued at approximately $5.8 million.”

According to the information, “around the date of the second contract award, HP Poland expanded the bribes to include large cash payments to Polish Official from off-the-books accounts.  HP Poland agreed to pay Polish Official 1.2% of HP Poland’s net revenue on any contract awarded by KGP.”

The information then specifically alleges that in 2007 “Polish Official signed a KGP contract with HP Poland valued at approximately $15.8 million” and that “HP Poland Executive delivered to Polish Official’s personal residence a bag filled with approximately $150,000 in cash.”  The information also alleges another instance in which HP Poland Executive met Polish Official in a Warsaw parking lot and gave Polish Official another bag filled with approximately $100,000 in cash.  Further, the information alleges that in 2008, on at least four separate occasions, HP Poland Executive gave Polish Official bags of cash totaling at least $360,000.  According to the information, in 2008, Polish Official signed three contracts on behalf of KGP with HP Poland for approximately $32 million.

As to the above payments, the information alleges that HP Poland willfully circumvented HP’s internal controls and falsified corporate books and records relied on by HP’s officers and external auditors to prepare HP’s financial statements.  Moreover, the information alleges that HP Poland facilitated the corrupt relationship with Polish Official through covert means such an anonymous e-mail accounts, pre-paid mobile telephones, and other means to circumvent HP’s internal controls.

In total, the information alleges between 2006 and 2010 HP Poland “provided Polish Official cash worth the equivalent of approximately $600,000, gifts valued in excess of $30,000, and several thousand dollars in improper travel and entertainment benefits.” According to the information, “during this same time span, the Polish government awarded to HP Poland at least seven contracts for KGP-related information technology products and services, with a total value of approximately $60 million.

Based on the above conduct, the information charges HP Poland with violating the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.

The above charges were resolved via a DPA in which HP Poland admitted and accepted responsibility for the above conduct.  The DPA has a term of three years and it lists the following relevant considerations considered by the DOJ;

“(a) HP Poland’s cooperation with the Department’s investigation; (b) HP Poland’s ultimate parent corporation, HP, has committed to maintain and continue enhancing its compliance program and internal accounting controls …; and (c) HP Poland and HP have agreed to continue with the Department and other U.S. and foreign law enforcement authorities in any ongoing investigation …”

Based on the advisory guidelines calculation in the DPA, the fine range for the alleged conduct at issue was $19.3 million to $38.6 million.  Pursuant to the DPA, HP Poland agreed to pay approximately $15.5 million, an amount deemed “appropriate” given the “nature and extent of HP Poland’s and HP’s cooperation and their extensive remediation in this matter.”

Like the HP Russia plea agreement, in the HP Poland DPA, HP agrees to guarantee the payment of HP Poland and to implement various compliance measures and report to the DOJ for a three year period.  As is typical in FCPA DPAs, the HP Poland DPA contains a so-called “muzzle clause.”

HP Mexico

The NPA with HP Mexico (a wholly-owned subsidiary of HP based in Mexico) states that beginning in 2008 “HP Mexico began presales activities and discussions with Pemex (Mexico’s alleged state-owned petroleum company) to sell to Pemex a suit of business technology optimization (“BTO”) software, hardware, and licenses.”  According to the NPA, BTO is a niche product that requires sophisticated knowledge to integrate with other software products and the contracts for this software sale were for approximately $6 million.

According to the NPA, “HP Mexico sales managers on the BTO Deal ultimately decided that they could not win the business without working with, and making payments to, a Mexican information-technology consulting company. (“Consultant”)”  According to the information, “HP Mexico sales managers knew that Pemex’s Chief Operating Officer (“Official A”) was a former principal of Consultant” and that “HP Mexico employees also knew that Official A supervised Pemex’s Chief Information Officer (“Official B”), who was a key signatory on behalf of Pemex for the BTO Deal.”

According to the NPA, while the Consultant had prior technical experience, “HP Mexico ultimately retained Consultant in connection with HP Mexico’s bid for the sale to Pemex primarily because of Consultant’s connections to Official A, Official B, and other senior Pemex officials.”  According to the information, as part of its agreement with Consultant, HP Mexico agree to pay Consulant a commission, “which HP Mexico also called an ‘influencer fee,’ equal to 25% of the licensing and support components of the BTO Deal.”

To circumvent HP’s internal controls regarding channel partners, the NPA states that “HP Mexico executives pursuing the BTO Deal arranged for another entity (“Intermediary”), which was already an approved HP Mexico channel partner, to join in the transactions” and that “HP Mexico executives recorded Intermediary as the deal partner in its internal tracking system.”

The NPA states “HP Mexico through the Intermediary, Consultant made a cash payment of approximately $30,000 to an entity controlled by Official B” and that “Consultant made three additional cash payments totaling approximately $95,000 to the Official B controlled entity.”

According to the NPA, “in total, HP Mexico received approximately $2,527,750 as its net benefit on the BTO Deal.”

According to the NPA, the DOJ agreed to enter it based on the following factors:

“(a) HP Mexico and HP’s cooperation, including conducting an extensive internal investigation, voluntarily making U.S. and foreign employees available for interviews, and collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information for the DOJ; (b) HP Mexico and HP have engaged in extensive remediation, including taking appropriate disciplinary action against culpable employees, enhancing their due diligence protocol for third-party agents and consultants, and enhancing their controls for payments of sales commissions to channel partners in Mexico; (c) HP Mexico’s and HP’s continued commitment to enhancing their compliance programs and internal controls; and (d) HP Mexico’s and HP’s agreement to continue to cooperate with the DOJ in any ongoing investigation.”

In the NPA HP Mexico admitted and acknowledged responsibility for the above conduct.  Pursuant to the NPA, HP Mexico agreed to pay a forfeiture of approximately $2.5 million.  Pursuant to the NPA, which has a term of 3 years, HP Mexico and HP agreed to various compliance obligations.  As is typical in FCPA NPAs, the NPA contains a so-called muzzle clause.

In the DOJ release, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz states:

“Hewlett-Packard subsidiaries created a slush fund for bribe payments, set up an intricate web of shell companies and bank accounts to launder money, employed two sets of books to track bribe recipients, and used anonymous email accounts and prepaid mobile telephones to arrange covert meetings to hand over bags of cash.  Even as the tradecraft of corruption becomes more sophisticated, the department is staying a step ahead of those who choose to violate our laws, thanks to the diligent efforts of U.S. prosecutors and agents and our colleagues at the SEC, as well as the tremendous cooperation of our law enforcement partners in Germany, Poland and Mexico.”

Melinda Haag (U.S. Attorney for the N.D. of California) states:

“The United States Attorney’s Office, working alongside our colleagues in the Criminal Division, will vigorously police any efforts by companies in our district to illegally sell products to foreign governments using bribes or kickbacks in violation of the FCPA,  Today’s resolution with HP reinforces the fact that there is no double standard: U.S. businesses must respect the same ethics and compliance standards whether they are selling products to foreign governments or to the United States government.”

Valerie Parlave (Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office) states:

“This case demonstrates the FBI’s ability to successfully coordinate with our foreign law enforcement partners to investigate and bring to justice corporations that choose to do business through bribery and off-the-book dealings.  I want to thank the agents who worked on this case in Washington, New York and in our Legal Attaché offices in Mexico City, Moscow, Berlin and Warsaw as well as the prosecutors.  Their work ensures a level playing field for businesses seeking lucrative overseas government contracts.”

Richard Weber (Chief of the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation) states:

“This agreement is the result of untangling a global labyrinth of complex financial transactions used by HP to facilitate bribes to foreign officials.  IRS-CI has become a trusted leader in pursuit of corporations and executives who use hidden offshore assets and shell companies to circumvent the law.  CI is committed to maintaining fair competition, free of corrupt practices, through a potent synthesis of global teamwork and our dynamic financial investigative talents.”

SEC Enforcement Action

The enforcement action involved an administrative cease and desist order against HP and is based on the same Russia, Poland and Mexico conduct described above.

Under the heading “Summary,” the order states:

“From approximately 2003 to 2010 (the “relevant period”), HP Co.’s indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries in Russia, Mexico and Poland, by and through their employees, agents and intermediaries, made unlawful payments to various foreign government officials to obtain business. These payments were also falsely recorded in the subsidiaries’ books and records and, ultimately, in HP Co.’s books and records. In Russia, HP Co.’s subsidiary (“HP Russia”) made payments through HP Russia’s agents to a Russian government official to retain a multi-million dollar contract with the federal prosecutor’s office. The payments were made through shell companies engaged by the agents to perform purported services under the contract. In Poland, certain agents or employees of HP Co.’s Polish subsidiary (“HP Poland”) provided gifts and cash bribes to a Polish government official to obtain contracts with Poland’s national police agency. In Mexico, HP Co.’s Mexican subsidiary (“HP Mexico”) made improper payments to a third party in connection with a sale of software to Mexico’s state-owned petroleum agency. HP Co. and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, “HP”) earned approximately $29 million in illicit profits as a result of this improper conduct.

The payments and improper gifts to government officials made directly or through intermediaries were falsely recorded in the relevant HP subsidiaries’ books and records as legitimate consulting and service contracts, commissions, or travel expenses. In fact, the true purpose of the payments and gifts was to make improper payments to foreign government officials to obtain lucrative government contracts for HP. During the relevant period, HP lacked sufficient internal controls to detect and prevent the improper payments and gifts made by executives and representatives of certain of its foreign subsidiaries.”

As to HP Russia, the order also states under the heading “Additional Conduct,” as follows.

“In June and July 2006, several European HP subsidiaries, including HP Russia, arranged for a high-profile customer marketing event in connection with the FIFA World Cup soccer tournament in Germany. Despite managerial directives not to invite representatives of government customers, certain HP sales employees arranged for a number of government or state-owned customers to attend the event. In all, HP Russia and other European subsidiaries of HP paid tens of thousands of dollars in travel and entertainment expenses for these government customers, and HP Co.’s internal controls failed to detect or prevent the conduct.

Finally, in June 2005, HP Russia paid more than $2.5 million to a third party distributor for the supply of software and implementation services to a Russian state-owned enterprise. HP Russia’s records do not reflect what, if any, work was actually performed by the distributor for these payments, and communications among HP Russia employees suggest that the distributor may have played an influential role in connection with obtaining the contract. The payments to the distributor were recorded in HP Russia’s books and records as a payment for providing software and services, even though there was minimal evidence concerning what was actually provided for these payments.”

Based on the above, the order finds violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.  Specifically, the order states:

“HP’s global operations are organized by geographic regions and sub-regions, as well as business units. Employees in HP’s foreign subsidiaries may report to a supervisor in both their geographic region and their business unit. During the relevant period, HP’s foreign subsidiaries operated pursuant to compliance policies and directives developed by HP and implemented at the local subsidiary level by the country or regional management. Although HP had certain anti-corruption policies and controls in place during the relevant period, those policies and controls were not adequate to prevent the conduct described herein and were insufficiently implemented on the regional or country level. Further, HP failed to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that: (1) access to assets was permitted only in accordance with management’s authorization; (2) transactions were recorded as necessary to maintain accountability for assets; and (3) transactions were executed in accordance with management’s authorization.

[...]

As described above, HP Co. violated Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act. Its subsidiaries in Russia, Poland and Mexico falsely recorded the payments made to agents as payments for legitimate services or commissions, when the true purpose of these payments was to make corrupt payments to government officials to obtain business. The false entries were then consolidated and reported by HP in its consolidated financial statements. HP Co. also violated Section 13(b)(2)(B) by failing to devise and maintain sufficient accounting controls to detect and prevent the making of improper payments to foreign officials and ensure that payments were made only to approved channel partners.”

Under the heading “Remedial Efforts,” the order states:

“In response to the Commission’s investigation, HP retained outside counsel to assist it in conducting an internal investigation into improper conduct in the jurisdictions that were the subject of the staff’s inquiry, as well as in other jurisdictions where HP identified additional issues. HP cooperated with the Commission’s investigation by voluntarily producing reports and other materials to the Commission staff summarizing the findings of its internal investigation. HP also cooperated by, among other things, voluntarily producing translations of numerous documents, providing timely reports on witness interviews, and by making foreign employees available to the Commission staff to interview.

HP has also undertaken significant remedial actions over the course of the Commission’s investigation, including by implementing a firm-wide screening process for its channel partners, training its public sector sales staff on its policies for dealing with business intermediaries, increasing compliance-related training for its global work force, and implementing additional enhancements to its internal controls and compliance functions. In addition, HP took disciplinary actions against certain of its employees in response to the conduct identified by the Commission staff and by the company through its internal investigation.”

In resolving the matter, the SEC ordered HP to cease and desist from committing future violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions and to pay disgorgement of $29 million and prejudgment interest of $5 million. According to the order, approximately $2.5 million of the disgorgement amount will be satisfied by HP’s payment of $2.5 million in forfeiture in connection with the HP Mexico DOJ action.  The order also requires HP to report to the SEC for a three year period regarding the status of its remediation and implementation of various compliance measures.

In the SEC release, Kara Brockmeyer (Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit) states:

“Hewlett-Packard lacked the internal controls to stop a pattern of illegal payments to win business in Mexico and Eastern Europe. The company’s books and records reflected the payments as legitimate commissions and expenses.  Companies have a fundamental obligation to ensure that their internal controls are both reasonably designed and appropriately implemented across their entire business operations, and they should take a hard look at the agents conducting business on their behalf.”

Gibson Dunn attorneys Joseph Warin and John Chesley represented the HP entities.

In this release (a release HP had to consult with the DOJ before issuing) HP Executive Vice President and General Counsel John Schultz states:

“The misconduct described in the settlement was limited to a small number of people who are no longer employed by the company.  HP fully cooperated with both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission in the investigation of these matters and will continue to provide customers around the world with top quality products and services without interruption.”

HP’s stock closed yesterday up approximately .8%

Diebold Resolves $48 Million FCPA Enforcement Action Based Primarily On Excessive Travel And Entertainment Payments By Subsidiaries

Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013

Yesterday, the DOJ and SEC announced (here and here) that Ohio-based Diebold, Inc. agreed to resolve a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action concerning alleged business conduct by its subsidiaries in China, Indonesia and Russia.  The enforcement action has been expected for some time (as noted in this prior post, in August the company disclosed that it had agreed in principle to the settlement announced yesterday).

The enforcement action involved a DOJ criminal information resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement and a SEC settled civil complaint.  Diebold agreed to pay approximately $48.1 million to resolve its alleged FCPA scrutiny ($25.2 million to resolve the DOJ enforcement action and $22.9 million to resolve the SEC enforcement action).

DOJ

The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information against Diebold resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement.  (See here for the original source documents).

Information

Under the heading “conduct in China and Indonesia” the information alleges:

“Diebold sold ATMs and provided ATM-related services to banks in China and Indonesia, including state-owned banks such as Bank 1 and Bank 2″

Both Bank 1 and Bank 2 are described as follows.

“[The Banks] were controlled and approximately 70% owned by the [Chinese government] … and were [two] of several state-owned banks in [China] that together maintained a monopoly over the banking system in [China] and provided core support for the government’s projects and economic goals.  The government retained a controlling right in [the Banks], including appointing or nominating a majority of board of directors and top managers at the bank.  [The Banks] were an ‘instrumentality’ of a foreign government [under the FCPA].”

The information then alleges:

“The contracts between Diebold and the banks in China provided that Diebold would train employees from the bank customers with respect to Diebold’s ATMs.”

“In order to secure and retain business with bank customers, including state-owned banks such as Bank 1 and Bank 2, Executive A, Executive B, Employee A, Employee B, and other Diebold employees repeatedly provided things of value, including payments, gifts, and non-business travel for employees of the banks, totaling approximately $1.75 million over a five year period.”

“Executive A, Executive B, Employee A, Employee B, and other Diebold employees attempted to disguise the payments and benefits through various means, including by making payments through third parties designated by the banks and by inaccurately recording leisure trips for banks employees as ‘training.’”

Executive A is described as a “senior executive at Diebold” who “held several positions, initially overseeing Diebold’s operations in the Asia Pacific region and later overseeing Diebold’s international operations.”  [The SEC's complaint refers to an Executive A as being a citizen of Taiwan and a resident of China].

Executive B is described as “a vice president of Diebold’s Asia Pacific division” with responsibilities ”overseeing Diebold’s operations in the Asia Pacific region.”  [The SEC's complaint refers to an Executive A as being a citizen of Taiwan and a resident of China].

Employee A is described as “an employee in Diebold’s Asia Pacific division” who was “involved in sales and customer relations in the Asia Pacific region.”

Employee B is described as “an employee in Diebold’s Asia Pacific division” who was “in the Finance Department responsible for the Asia Pacific region.”

Under the heading “conduct in Russia,” the information alleges that in connection with sales efforts to “privately-owned banks in Russia,” Diebold entered into a distributor agreement with Distributor 2.  According to the information, Diebold, through its employees and agents, “created and entered into false contracts with Distributor 2 for services that Distributor 2 was not performing” and that “Distributor 2, in turn, used the money that Diebold paid to it, to pay bribes to employees of Diebold’s privately-owned bank customers in Russia in order to obtain and retain contracts with those customers.”

The information also alleges that “in connection with due diligence being conduct [by a Diebold employee] and other Diebold employees for a potential acquisition of Distributor 1 in Ukraine, [the employees] learned that Distributor 1 paid bribes to employees of bank customers to secure business.”

Based on the above allegations, the information charges (i) conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and books and records provisions; and (ii) substantive FCPA books and records violations.

DPA

The above charges against Diebold were resolved via a DPA in which Diebold admitted, accepted, and acknowledged that it was responsible for the acts of its officers, employees, agents as charged in the information.

The DPA has a term of three years and under the heading “relevant considerations” it states:

“The Department enters into this Agreement based on the individual facts and circumstances presented by this case and Diebold.  Among the facts considered were the following:  (a) following discovery of the FCPA violations during the course of acquisition-related due diligence, Diebhold initiated an internal investigation and voluntarily disclosed to the DOJ the misconduct …; (b) Diebold cooperated fully and conducted an extensive internal investigation; (c) Diebold has committed to continue to enhance its compliance program and internal controls …; and (d) Diebold has agreed to continue to cooperate with the DOJ in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of the company and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and consultants.

The DPA specifically mentions a previous accounting fraud enforcement action by the SEC (see here for the prior post) and states:  “the DOJ believes that the Company’s remediation is not sufficient to address and reduce the risk of recurrence of the company’s misconduct and warrants the retention of an independent corporate monitor …”.

Pursuant to the DPA, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for the conduct at issue was $36 million to $72 million.  The DPA states that the monetary penalty of $25.2 million “is appropriate given the facts and circumstances of this case, including the nature and extent of the Company’s voluntary disclosure and cooperation.”

Pursuant to the DPA, Diebold agreed to review its existing internal controls, policies and procedures regarding compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws.   The specifics are detailed in Attachment C to the DPA.  The DPA also requires Diebold to engage a corporate compliance monitor for ”a period of not less than 18 months from the date the monitor is selected.”  The specifics, including the Monitor’s reporting obligations to the DOJ, are detailed in Attachment D to the DPA.  As is common in FCPA corporate enforcement actions, the DPA contains a “muzzle clause” prohibiting Diebold or anyone on its behalf “contradicting the acceptance of responsibility by the company” as set forth in the DPA.

In the DOJ’s release, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman stated:

“In China, Indonesia and Russia, Diebold chose to pay bribes for business and falsify documents to cover its tracks.  Through its corrupt business practices, Diebold undermined the sense of fair play that is critical for the rule of law to prevail.  Today’s action – which holds Diebold accountable for its criminal conduct, while also recognizing its cooperation and voluntary disclosure to the government of its conduct – underscores that fighting global corruption is and will remain a mainstay of the Criminal Division’s mission.”

In the same release, Steven Dettelbach (U.S. Attorney for the N.D. of Ohio) stated:

“Companies that pay bribes to public officials, whether those officials are in Cleveland, in Ohio or overseas, violate the law.  Corporate earnings cannot be placed above the rule of law, and today’s penalties – nearly $50 million in all – send the message again, loud and clear, that such conduct is unacceptable.  We hope that Diebold will use this opportunity, including the internal controls and compliance monitor required by today’s agreement, to turn the page to a newer and more ethical corporate culture.”

SEC

The SEC’s complaint (here) is based on the same core set of facts alleged in the above DOJ action.

In summary fashion, the complaint alleges:

“This matter concerns violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal control provisions of the FCPA by Diebold [...]  From 2005 through 2010, Diebold, through its agents and subsidiaries, lavished international leisure trips, entertainment, and other improper gifts on foreign officials to obtain and retain lucrative business with government owned banks in China and Indonesia. During that same period, Diebold, through its Russian subsidiary, paid bribes in connection with the sale of ATMs to private banks in Russia.  In all, Diebold made approximately $3 million in illicit payments in China, Russia, and Indonesia.”

“From 2005 through 2010, through its subsidiary Diebold Financial Equipment Company (China), Ltd. (“Diebold China”), Diebold provided international leisure trips and entertainment to officials of government owned banks in China. This included trips to Europe, with stays in Paris, Amsterdam, Florence, Rome, and other European cities, and trips to the United States, with travel to the Grand Canyon, Napa Valley, Disneyland, Las Vegas, and other popular tourist destinations. Diebold spent approximately $1.6 million on leisure trips, entertainment, and other improper gifts for government bank officials in China. During this same time period, through its subsidiary P.T. Diebold Indonesia (“Diebold Indonesia”), Diebold spent over $147,000 on leisure trips and entertainment for officials of government owned banks in Indonesia. Diebold executives in charge of the company’s operations in Asia knew of these improper practices.  The illicit payments were falsely recorded in Diebold’s books and records as training or other legitimate business expenses.”

“From 2005 through 2008, through its subsidiary Diebold Self-Service Ltd. (“Diebold Russia”), Diebold also paid bribes on the sale of ATMs to private banks in Russia. These bribes, which totaled approximately $1.2 million, were funneled through a Diebold distributor in Russia. Diebold Russia executed phony service contracts with its distributor to hide and falsely record the payments as legitimate business expenses.’

The SEC complaint alleges as follows concerning “international leisure trips that Diebold provided to government bank officials in China.”

“In 2005, Diebold paid for a fifteen-day leisure trip to the U.S. for two officials from Bank A, a bank owned and controlled by the government of China. This trip included travel to Universal Studios and Disneyland in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, the Grand Canyon, Washington, DC, New York City, San Francisco, and Hawaii.”

“In 2006, Diebold paid for a twelve-day trip to Europe for eight officials from Bank B, a bank owned and controlled by the government of China. This was a leisure and sightseeing trip to Rome, Italy, and Stockholm, Sweden.”

“Also in 2006, Diebold paid for a two-week leisure trip to Australia and New Zealand for five officials from Bank C, a bank owned and controlled by the government of China.”

“In 2007, Diebold paid for a two-week trip to France for thirteen Bank A employees. While purportedly for training at Diebold’s offices, the primary purpose of the trip was leisure.”

“In 2008, Diebold paid for a two-week leisure trip to Europe for eight officials of Bank D, a bank owned and controlled by the government of China. The trip included travel to Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, Salzburg, Vienna, Klagenfurt, Venice, Florence, and Rome.”

“Also in 2008, Diebold paid for a two-week leisure trip to the U.S. for three officials from Bank E, a bank owned and controlled by the government of China.”

“Also in 2008, Diebold paid for a two-week leisure trip for ten employees of Bank F, a bank owned and controlled by the government of China. This trip included travel to Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, and Bali.”

“In 2009, Diebold paid for a two-week trip to the U.S. for twenty-four Bank A employees that included travel to Chicago; to Las Vegas for sightseeing, a dance show, and tour of the Grand Canyon; to Los Angeles for a tour of Universal Studios; to San Diego and San Francisco, which included a tour of Napa Valley.”

The SEC further alleges that “many of the government bank employees who received these leisure trips and other improper gifts were senior officials who had the ability to influence purchasing decisions by the banks.”

As to internal controls, the complaint alleges that “Diebold lacked sufficient internal controls to detect and prevent these illicit payments, many of which were paid to third-parties in China” and that “all of the illicit payments were falsely recorded in the company’s books and records as training or other legitimate business expenses.”

As to Executive A and B, the SEC complaint states that “even after these Diebold executives received FCPA training administered by the company in 2007, they took no action to halt these improper practices.  Instead, these executives took further steps to hide the leisure nature of these trips including, on at least one occasion, providing false information to the company’s auditors in China.”

The complaint further states:

“Other executives at Diebold were on notice of potential corruption issues at Diebold China. In 2007, a regional government agency in China, the Chengdu Administration of Industry & Commerce (“CDAIC”), opened an investigation involving, among other issues, leisure trips and gifts Diebold China had provided to bank officials. Company executives in China and the U.S. learned of the investigation after a Diebold field office in Chengdu was raided by authorities. Executives A and B took the lead in responding to the investigation. Diebold was able to settle the matter with no corruption charges filed, by paying CDAIC an administrative penalty of 600,000 RMB (approximately $80,000) for business registration violations. Despite being on notice of potential corruption issues at Diebold China, Diebold failed to effectively investigate and remediate these problems.”

Based on the above conduct, the SEC’s complaint charges violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and books and records and internal controls provisions.

As noted in the SEC release, Diebold agreed to pay $22.9 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, appoint an independent compliance monitor, and consent to a final judgment permanently enjoining the company from violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records and internal controls provisions.  In the release, Scott Friestad (Associate Director of Enforcement) stated:

“A bribe is a bribe, whether it’s a stack of cash or an all-expense paid trip to Europe.  Public companies must be held accountable when they break the law to influence government officials with improper payments or gifts.”

Jonathan Leiken (Jones Day) represented Diebold.

This Law360 article states:

“Mike Jacobsen, a spokesman for [...] Diebold, called the settlement ‘an important step for the company moving forward.’  ‘It’s imperative for Diebold to recognize these issues head on, acknowledge responsibility, put the FCPA investigation period behind it and get on with the business of managing the company,’ Jacobsen said in a statement. ‘Given the experience the company has gained and its continued focus on global ethics and compliance, Diebold is confident in its ability to manage ethics-related issues as they arise.’”

Yesterday Diebold’s stock was up approximately .7%.

Who Will Be The Real Medal Winners At Sochi?

Saturday, February 9th, 2013

Today’s post is from Ethan Burger.  Burger is a D.C.-based attorney who has followed Russian-connected transnational crime and corruption for over a decade and until recently was a member of University of Wollongong’s Law Faculty.  He can be contacted at ethansb@post.harvard.edu.

*****

Who Will Be The Real Medal Winners At Sochi?

Corruption exists throughout the world, but its forms vary according to numerous factors such as form, scale, consequences and beneficiaries.  It is difficult not to be a little bit skeptical over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent agitation over his sudden appreciation of the magnitude of the apparent corruption in connection with the preparations for the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.

According to recent press reports, Russia’s Winter Games will be the most expensive Olympics ever – more so than the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics — the cost of which is estimated to have exceeded the equivalent of $40 billion – an exact figure cannot be determined given the non-market nature of the Chinese economy.

Earlier this week, it was revealed (here) that the Sochi Winter Olympics will cost the Russian people at least five times greater than was originally budgeted by approximately 1.5 trillion rubles ($51 billion at current exchange rates).  These are not matters of mere cost overruns.  This particular situation is either the product of large-scale petty corruption or the political realities of contemporary Russia.  It would be unrealistic to think that this could take place without money passing hands – furthermore, it is unlikely that all the work for the games is being accomplished solely by Russian companies and individuals.

Russian President Putin fired one of the Vice Presidents of the Russian Olympic Committee Akmet Bilalov, reported to be the owner of a company which was constructing the ski jump and related facilities before selling its stake to state-owned Sberbank last year.  This situation is likely to prove just the tip of the iceberg.  One wonders whether the Russian President is more upset over the existence of the situation or that this apparent manifestation of corruption was not benefiting his people.   In any event, such public corruption is not good for Russia or the President’s image.

Indeed, there is some indication that Mr. Putin and his favorites may be treating the Games as his latest cash cow. (See here from NBC News).  For instance, the world’s largest gas company, Gazprom, formerly state-owned, seems to control directly or indirectly a large share of the construction activity related to the Olympics. According to one report (here) about 6 years ago, “in a sensational interview in Germany’s Die Welt Stanislav Belkovsky, the well-connected insider who initiated the Kremlin campaign against Yukos in 2003, made specific claims about Putin’s wealth. He alleged that Putin owned . . . 4.5 percent of Gazprom.”  The report further noted that Mr. Putin’s total personal fortune was likely to be greater than $41 billion making him one of the world’s 10 wealthiest persons.  In the view of some observers, Russia is a contemporary equivalent of the English East India Company.   It is not business acumen that has made the Russian President one of the richest men in the world.  No one knows how many of his subordinates are his shills or how many shell companies he is a partial beneficial owner in does business in Russia or with the backing of the Russian state outside its territory.

To my knowledge, bribery, kickbacks and rigged-bidding is illegal within the territory of all of the world’s more than 200 states. The use of the term “state” is deliberate here since most of the world’s polities represented in the Olympic Games could be thought of as mere territories where elites control particular territories.  The individuals who inhabit such territories are not subject to a “social contract” where they pay taxes in exchange for the receipt of services and they are often powerless to change the ruling governments even if they might root for the teams carrying their “nation’s” flag.

One might classify states where people exercise genuine civil and political rights as countries. The fact that the World Olympic Committee allows a state to send a team to participate in the games or the United Nations grants a state the right to participate in the international body’s activities does not a country make.  Many elites of many states enrich themselves through the sale of licenses, the collection of custom duties or the sale of raw materials.  In some respects, they resemble kleptocracies – where the equivalent of organized crime groups conduct their business, but under the guise of legal authority.  The Winter Olympics constitute major opportunities to earn money.

In 2011, Russia enacted, but selectively implemented legislation that prohibited the payment of bribes abroad to obtain or retain business.  Granted, given limited resources, there is always an element of discretion to law enforcement activity.    In early 2012, Russia became a signatory to the 1997 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (the Anti-Bribery Convention), which entered into force in 1999.  If recent events are any indication (e.g. the 2010 Commonwealth Games held in New Delhi or the 2008 Summer Olympics held in Beijing), it is not a matter of whether there will be corruption in the preparation and carrying out of the games, but its scale.

What makes Russia a special case is the high degree of politicalization of law enforcement, much of which is seemingly feudal in nature – with the central authorities usually controlling the most profitable business endeavors.  Perhaps, Mr. Putin’s concern about corruption is for public consumption or reflects anger that he and his favorites are not the beneficiaries of the corrupt conduct.

In 2011, Transparency International published a survey of 3,000 business executives from developed and developing countries, which ranked Russian companies as the most likely to have firms that paid bribes to obtain business.  The concept of nationality of a company can be misleading since where it is formed need not indicate the nationality of the beneficial owners of the actual bribe payers.  Thus, one needs to be careful when analyzing the characteristics contributing to the high cost of next year’s very expensive Winter games.

Nevertheless, at the Olympics, individuals will win medals.  Fans will cheer.  Food and beverages will be consumed as well as souvenirs sold and hotel rooms filled.   Let there be no doubt, the real winners of the games in Sochi will be the public officials and business persons – many of whom will be the same people – and a large share of whom will have obtained their business opportunities through bribes paid to public officials.   There should be no doubt that many of the same persons will also regard themselves as fortunate that Russia will be hosting the 2018 World Cup Games.

Friday Roundup

Friday, December 28th, 2012

Sleepless nights, briefings complete, Africa Sting lawyers recognized, a leader of the FCPA bar on voluntary disclosure, small bribes in Russia, and satire.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Sleepless Nights

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

Briefings Complete

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

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

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

Defendants in both actions recently filed reply briefs.

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

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

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

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

Africa Sting Lawyers Recognized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voluntary Disclosure

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

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

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

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

Small Bribes In Russia

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

FCPA Satire

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

*****

A good weekend to all.

Next Up – Eli Lilly

Thursday, December 27th, 2012

First it was Johnson & Johnson (see here – $70 million in combined fines and penalties in April 2011).  Then it was Smith & Nephew (see here - $22 million in combined fines and penalties in February 2012).  Then it was Biomet (see here – $22.8 million in combined fines and penalties in March 2012).  Then it was Pfizer / Wyeth (see here  – $60 million in combined fines and penalties in August 2012).

Next up is Eli Lilly in a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action announced last week by the SEC.   This post goes long and deep as to the SEC’s allegations which resulted in a $29 million settlement.

In summary, the SEC alleges in a civil complaint (here) as follows.

“Eli Lilly and Company violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the activities of its subsidiaries in China, Brazil, Poland, and Russia.  Between 2006 and 2009, employees of Lilly’s China subsidiary falsified expense reports in order to provide improper gifts and cash payments to government-employed physicians. In 2007, a pharmaceutical distributor hired by Lilly in Brazil paid bribes to government health officials in a Brazilian state in order to assure sales of a Lilly product to state government institutions. In Poland, between 2000 and 2003, Lilly’s subsidiary made eight payments totaling approximately $39,000 to a small charitable foundation that was founded and administered by the head of one of the regional government health authorities at the same time that the subsidiary was seeking the official’s support for placing Lilly drugs on the government reimbursement list. Finally, Lilly’s subsidiary in Russia paid millions of dollars to off-shore entities for alleged “services” beginning as early as 1994 and continuing through 2005 in order for pharmaceutical distributors and government entities to purchase Lilly’s drugs. In some instances, the off-shore entities appear to have been used to funnel money to government officials or others with influence in the government in order to obtain business for the subsidiary. These off-shore entities rarely provided the contracted-for services. Moreover, between 2005 and 2008, contemporaneous with requests to government officials to support the government’s purchase or reimbursement of Lilly’s products, the subsidiary in Russia made proposals to government officials about how the company could donate to, or otherwise support, various initiatives that were affiliated with, or important to, the government officials.  As a result of this conduct, Lilly violated [the FCPA's internal controls provisions] by failing to have an adequate internal controls system in place to detect and prevent illicit payments.  Lilly violated [the FCPA's books and records provisions] by improperly recording each of those payments in its accounting books and records.  Lilly also violated the [FCPA's anti-bribery provisions] in connection with certain activities of its subsidiary in Russia.”

As indicated by the above paragraph, conduct in Poland, China, and Brazil gave rise to FCPA books and records and internal controls violations only.

Poland

The SEC’s allegations relating to Poland are substantively identical to allegations made against Schering-Plough in this 2004 FCPA enforcement action.

In pertinent part, the SEC alleges in its complaint against Eli Lilly as follows.

“During 2000 through 2003, Lilly’s wholly-owned subsidiary in Poland (“Lilly- Poland”) made eight payments totaling approximately $39,000 to the Chudow Castle Foundation (“Chudow Foundation”), a small charitable foundation in Poland that was founded and administered by the Director of the Silesian Health Fund (“Director”). The Director established the Chudow Foundation in 1995 to restore the Chudow Castle in the town of Chudow and other historic sites in the Silesian region of Poland.

The Silesian Health Fund (“Health Fund”) was one of sixteen regional government health authorities in Poland during the period. Among other things, the Health Fund reimbursed hospitals and healthcare providers for the purchase of certain approved products.  The Health Fund, through the allocation of public money, exercised considerable influence over which pharmaceutical products local hospitals and other healthcare providers in the region purchased.

Beginning in early 2000 and into 2002, Lilly-Poland was in negotiations with the Health Fund over, among other things, the Heath Fund’s financing of the purchase of Gemzar, one of Lilly’s cancer drugs, by public hospitals and other healthcare providers. Those negotiations occurred primarily between a team manager at Lilly-Poland (“Lilly Manager”) and the Director. Continuing at intervals throughout these negotiations, the Director asked that Lilly Poland contribute to the Chudow Foundation. The initial request came directly from the Director and the subsequent requests came from the Chudow Foundation.

The Lilly-Poland Manager knew that the Director had established the Chudow Foundation and that it was a project to which he was devoted and lent much effort. The Manager requested the approval of payments to the Chudow Foundation. The Manager falsely described the first payment as being for the purchase of computers for the Chudow Foundation. The second Lilly-Poland payment request falsely characterized the proposed payment as “[t]o support foundation in its goal to develop activities in [Chudow Castle].” That request documentation also noted that the “value of the request” was “[i]ndirect support of educational efforts of foundation settled by Silesia [Health Fund].” Similarly, the remaining payments were mischaracterized as monies paid by Lilly-Poland to secure the use of the Chudow Castle for conferences after its renovation. No such conferences took place.

Lilly-Poland eventually made a total of eight payments to the Chudow Foundation, starting in June 2000 and ending in January 2003.  [...]  The Manager requested the approval of the payments to the Chudow Foundation with the intent of inducing the Health-Fund Director to allocate public monies to hospitals and other health care providers in the Health Fund for the purpose of purchasing Gemzar.

China

As to China, the SEC alleges, in full, as follows.

“Lilly’s wholly-owned subsidiary through which it does business in China (“Lilly- China”) employs more than one-thousand sales representatives whose main focus is on marketing Lilly products to government-employed health-care providers. During the relevant period, the sales representatives worked from regional offices and traveled throughout the country, interacting with the health-care providers in order to convince them to prescribe Lilly products. The sales representatives were directly supervised by District Sales Managers who, in tum, were supervised by Regional Managers. Sales representatives paid out-of-pocket for their travel expenses and submitted receipts and other documentation to the company for reimbursement.

Between 2006 and 2009, various sales representatives and their supervisors abused the system by submitting, or instructing subordinates to submit, false expense reports. In some instances, Lilly-China personnel used reimbursements from those false reports to purchase gifts and entertainment for government-employed physicians in order to encourage the physicians to look favorably upon Lilly and prescribe Lilly products.

In one sales area, in 2006 and 2007, a District Sales Manager for Lilly’s diabetes products instructed subordinates to submit false expenses reports and provide the reimbursement money to her. She then used the reimbursements to purchase gifts, such as wine, specialty foods and a jade bracelet, for government-employed physicians. At least five sales representatives in the oncology sales group submitted false expense reports and then used those reimbursements to provide meals, visits to bath houses, and card games to government-employed physicians.

Similarly, in three other provinces, three sales representatives submitted false expense reports and then used the reimbursements to provide government-employed physicians with visits to bath houses and karaoke bars. In another city, five sales representatives submitted false reimbursements and then their Regional Manager used the money to provide door prizes and publication fees to government-employed physicians. In another city, seven sales representatives and the District Sales Manager for the diabetes sales team used reimbursements to buy meals and cosmetics for government-employed physicians.

Between 2008 and 2009, members of Lilly-China’s “Access Group,” which was responsible for expanding access to Lilly products in China by, among other things, convincing government officials to list Lilly products on government reimbursement lists, engaged in similar misconduct. At least six members of the sixteen-member Access Group, including two associate access directors, falsified expense reports and used the proceeds to provide gifts and entertainment to government officials in China. The gifts included: spa treatments, meals, and cigarettes.

Although the dollar amount of each gift was generally small, the improper payments were wide-spread throughout the subsidiary. Lilly has terminated, or otherwise disciplined, the various employees who submitted false expense reports and/or used the proceeds to provide gifts and services to government officials.”

Brazil

As to Brazil, the SEC alleges, in full, as follows.

“Between 2007 and 2009, Lilly-Brazil distributed drugs in Brazil through third party distributors who then resold those products to both private and government entities. As a general rule, Lilly-Brazil sold the drugs to the distributors at a discount; the distributors then resold the drugs to the end users at a higher price and took the discount as their compensation.  Lilly-Brazil negotiated the amount of the discount with the distributor based on the distributor’s anticipated sale. The discount to the distributors generally ranged between 6.5% and 15%, with the majority of distributors in Brazil receiving a 10% discount.

In early 2007, at the request of one of Lilly-Brazil’s sales and marketing managers at the time, Lilly-Brazil granted a nationwide pharmaceutical distributor, unusually large discounts of 17% and 19% for two of the distributor’s purchases of a Lilly drug, which the distributor then sold to the government of one of the Brazilian states. Lilly-Brazil’s pricing committee approved the discounts without further inquiry. The policies and procedures in place to flag unusual distributor discounts were deficient. They relied on the representations of the sales and marketing manager without adequate verification and analysis of the surrounding circumstances of the transactions. In May 2007, Lilly sold 3,200 milligrams of the drug to the distributor for resale to the Brazilian state; in August 2007, Lilly-Brazil sold 13,500 milligrams of the drug to the distributor for resale to the Brazilian state. Together the sales were valued at approximately $1.2 million.

The distributor used approximately 6% of the purchase price (approximately $70,000) to bribe government officials from the Brazilian state so that the state would purchase the Lilly product. The Lilly-Brazil sales and marketing manager who requested the discount knew about this arrangement.”

Russia

As to Russia, in pertinent part, the SEC complaint alleges as follows.

“From 1994 through 2005, Lilly-Vostok, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lilly, sold pharmaceutical products either directly to government entities in the former Soviet Union or through various distributors, often selected by the government, who would then resell the products to the government entities. Along with the underlying purchase contract with the government entity or distributor, Lilly-Vostok sometimes entered into another agreement with a third-party selected by a government official or by the government-chosen pharmaceutical distributor. Generally, these third-parties, which had addresses and bank accounts located outside of Russia, were paid a flat fee or a percentage of the sale. These agreements were referred to as “marketing” or “service” agreements.  In total, Lilly-Vostok entered into over 96 such agreements with over 42 third-party entities between 1994 and 2004.

Lilly-Vostok had little information about these third-party entities, beyond their addresses and bank accounts. Rarely did Lilly-Vostok know who owned them or whether the entities were actual businesses that could provide legitimate services. Senior management employees in Lilly-Vostok’s Moscow branch assisted in the negotiation of these agreements. The contracts themselves were derived from a Lilly-Vostok-created template and enumerated various broadly-defined services, such as ensuring “immediate customs clearance” or “immediate delivery” of the products; or assisting Lilly-Vostok in “obtaining payment for the sales transaction,” “the promotion of the products,” and “marketing research.”

Contrary to what was recorded in the company’s books and records, there is little evidence that any services were actually provided under any of these third-party agreements. Indeed, in many instances, the “services” identified in the contract were already being provided by the distributor, a third-party handler (such as an international shipping handler) or Lilly itself. To the extent services such as expedited customs clearance or other services requiring interaction with government officials were provided, Lilly-Vostok did not know or inquire how the third party intended to perform their services.

Contemporaneous documents reflect that Lilly-Vostok employees viewed the payments as necessary to obtain the business from the distributor or government entity, and not as payment for legitimate services.

The SEC also alleges that in 1997 and in 1999 Lilly conducted a business review of Lilly-Vostok.  According to the SEC, the reports raised concerns about Lilly-Vostok’s business practices and the reports “recommended that Lilly-Vostok modify its internal controls to ensure that [certain third-party] services were documented” and to “assure itself that [certain third-party] agreements accurately and fairly reflect the services to be provided.”

However, the SEC alleged as follows.

“Lilly did not curtail the use of marketing agreements by its subsidiary or make any meaningful efforts to ensure that the marketing agreements were not being used as a method to funnel money to government officials, despite recognition that the marketing agreements were being used to “create sales potential” or “to ‘support’ activities leading to agreement-signing” with government entities. In fact, during the 2000-2004 period — after the above-described reports, but prior to the company ending use of the agreements– Lilly-Vostok entered into the three most expensive of these arrangements.”

The three arrangements are as follows.

First, the SEC alleged that in response to a 2002 Russian Ministry of Health tender, the ministry selected a “large Russian pharmaceutical distributor” for which to purchase the products and the distributor in turn negotiated with Lilly-Vostok for the purchase of diabetes products.  According to the SEC, the distributor required Lilly-Vostok, “as a condition of their agreement” to enter into various agreements with an entity incorporated in Cyprus.

According to the SEC.

“Lilly’s due diligence regarding the entity in Cyprus was limited to ordering a Dun and Bradstreet report and conducting a search using an internet service to scan publicly available information. Neither the Dun and Bradstreet report nor the internet search revealed the Cyprus entity’s beneficial owner or anything about its business. Nonetheless, pursuant to the terms of its arrangement with the distributor, Lilly-Vostok paid the entity in Cyprus over $3.8 million in early 2003.

The Cyprus entity was, in fact, owned by the Russian businessman who was the owner of the distributor. There is no evidence of services provided to Lilly-Vostok by the Cyprus entity in consideration for Lilly-Vostok’s $3.8 million in payments. Lilly’s books and records improperly reflected these payments as payments for services.”

Second, the SEC alleges “at least two instances” involving foreign government officials and alleges as follows.

“Between 2000 and 2005, Lilly-Vostok sold significant amounts of pharmaceutical products to a major Russian pharmaceutical distributor for resale to the Russian Ministry of Health. The pharmaceutical distributor was owned and controlled by an individual who, at the beginning of the distributor’s relationship with Lilly-Vostok, was a close adviser to a member of Russia’s Parliament. In 2003, this official became a member of the upper house of Russia’s Parliament. Throughout the period, this official exercised considerable influence over government decisions relating to the pharmaceutical industry in Russia.

As part of most of the sales arrangements with the distributor, the official demanded that Lilly-Vostok enter into separate “marketing” agreements with entities with addresses and bank accounts in Cyprus. Under the arrangement, Lilly-Vostok paid the Cypriot entities up to thirty percent of the sales price of the underlying sales contracts in return for the Cypriot entities entering into an agreement “to offer all assistance necessary” in various areas like storage, importation and payment.

In conjunction with outside counsel, Lilly-Vostok conducted limited due diligence on these third-parties. However, the due diligence did not identify the beneficial owners of these third-parties or determine whether the third-parties were able to provide the contracted-for assistance. Nonetheless, Lilly-Vostok concluded that it could proceed with the transactions and paid the Cypriot entities over $5.2 million. In fact, the Cypriot entities were owned by an individual associated with the distributor controlled by the member of the upper house of Russia Parliament. The Cypriot entity transferred the payments from Lilly-Vostok to other off-shore entities.”

Third, the SEC alleges “in connection another series of contracts, from 2000 through 2004, Lilly-Vostok sold products to a distributor, headquartered in Moscow, which was wholly-owned by a Russian government entity.

The SEC alleged as follows.

 ”The purchase agreements were signed on the government-owned distributor’s behalf by its General Director. As part of the arrangement, the government-owned distributor selected a third-party entity with an address in the British Virgin Islands (“the BVI entity”) with which Lilly-Vostok entered into agreements for the broadly defined “services” enumerated in the Lilly-Vostok template (see above). Under the terms of the agreements between Lilly-Vostok and the BVI entity, Lilly-Vostok was to pay the BVI entity up to 15% of the price of the product purchased by the government-owned distributor. Accordingly, from 2000 through 2005, Lilly-Vostok made approximately 65 payments to the BVI entity totaling approximately $2 million.

There is no evidence that the BVI entity performed any of the services listed in its agreement with Lilly-Vostok. There is also no evidence that Lilly-Vostok performed any due diligence or inquiry as to whether the BVI entity was able or did perform the contracted-for services. Lastly, there is no evidence that Lilly-Vostok performed any due diligence or inquiry into the identity of the beneficial owner of the BVI entity. In fact, the beneficial owner of the BVI entity was the General Director of the government-owned distributor, and he ultimately received the payments from the BVI entity.”

As to these various arrangements, the SEC alleges as follows.  “Lilly did not direct Lilly-Vostok to cease entering into these third-party agreements until 2004. However, Lilly permitted the subsidiary to continue making payments under already existing third-party contracts as late as 2005.”

As to the above Russian conduct, the complaint charges violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.  Of note, the complaints specifically pleads as follows regarding knowledge.  “When knowledge of the existence of a particular circumstance is required for an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of the existence of such circumstances, unless the person actually believes that the circumstance does not exist.”

The SEC complaint also contains the following allegation.

“From 2005 through 2008, Lilly-Vostok made various proposals to government officials in Russia regarding how Lilly-Vostok could donate to or otherwise support various initiatives that were affiliated with public or private institutions headed by the government officials or otherwise important to the government officials. Examples included their personal participation or the participation of people from their institutions in clinical trials and international and regional conferences and the support of charities and educational events associated with the institutes. At times, these proposals to government officials were made in a communication that also included a request for assistance in getting a product reimbursed or purchased by the government. Generally, Lilly-Vostok personnel believed these proposals were proper because of their relevance to public health issues and many of the proposals were reviewed by counsel. Nonetheless, Lilly-Vostok did not have in place internal controls through which such proposals were vetted to ascertain whether Lilly-Vostok was offering something of value to a government official for a purpose of influencing or inducing him or her to assist Lilly-Vostok in obtaining or retaining business.”

As to Lilly’s books and records, the SEC alleges as follows.

“[S]ubsidiaries of Eli Lilly made numerous payments that were incorrectly described in the company’s books and records. In China, payments were falsely described as reimbursement of expenses when, in fact, the money was used to provide gifts to government-employed physicians. In Brazil, money that was described in company records as a “discount” for a pharmaceutical distributor was, in actuality, a bribe for government officials. In Poland, payments classified as charitable donations were not intended for a genuine charitable purpose but rather to induce a government official to assent to the purchase of a Lilly product. Finally, in Russia, millions of dollars in payments, described in the company’s books and records as for various services, were actually payments to assure that Lilly was able to conduct business with certain pharmaceutical distributors.”

As to Lilly’s internal controls, the SEC alleges as follows.

“During the relevant period, Lilly and its subsidiaries failed to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the company maintained accountability for its assets and transactions were executed in accordance with management’s authorization. Particularly, Lilly did not adequately verify that intermediaries with which the company was doing government-related business would not provide a benefit to a government official on Lilly’s behalf in order to obtain or retain business. Lilly and its subsidiaries primarily relied on assurances and information provided in the paperwork by these intermediaries or by Lilly personnel rather than engaging in adequate verification and analyzing the surrounding circumstances of the transaction. Lilly and its subsidiaries’ employees considered and offered benefits to government officials at the same time they were asking those government officials to assist with the reimbursement or purchase of Lilly’s products with inadequate safeguards to assure that its employees were not offering items of values to a government official with a purpose to assist Lilly in retaining or obtaining business.

Moreover, despite an understanding that certain emerging markets were most vulnerable to FCPA violations, Lilly’s audit department, based out of Indianapolis, had no procedures specifically designed to assess the FCPA or bribery risks of sales and purchases. Accordingly, transactions with off-shore entities or with government-affiliated entities did not receive specialized or closer review for possible FCPA violations.  In assessing these transactions, the auditors relied upon the standard accounting controls which primarily assured the soundness of the paperwork. There was little done to assess whether, despite the existence of facially acceptable paperwork, the surrounding circumstances or terms of a transaction suggested the possibility of an FCPA violation or bribery.

As to Lilly’s remedial efforts, the SEC complaint states as follows.

“Since the time of the conduct noted in this Complaint, Lilly has made improvements to its global anti-corruption compliance program, including: enhancing anticorruption due diligence requirements for relationships with third parties; implementing compliance monitoring and corporate auditing specifically tailored to anti-corruption; enhancing financial controls and governance; and expanding anti-corruption training throughout the organization.”

As noted in this SEC release,  Lilly, without admitting or denying the allegations, agreed to pay disgorgement of $13,955,196, prejudgment interest of $6,743,538, and a penalty of $8.7 million for a total payment of $29,398,734.  The release also notes that “Lilly also agreed to comply with certain undertakings including the retention of an independent consultant to review and make recommendations about its foreign corruption policies and procedures.”

In Lilly’s release (below) the retention period of the consultant is identified as 60 days and in the SEC’s proposed final judgement, the consultant is identified as FTI Consulting which has been assisting Lilly in connection with a previous Corporate Integrity Agreement.

The case has been assigned to Judge Beryl A. Howell (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia).

William Baker III (Latham & Watkins) represented Lilly.

In the SEC’s release, Kara Novaco Brockmeyer (Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Unit) stated as follows. “Eli Lilly and its subsidiaries possessed a ‘check the box’ mentality when it came to third-party due diligence. Companies can’t simply rely on paper-thin assurances by employees, distributors, or customers. They need to look at the surrounding circumstances of any payment to adequately assess whether it could wind up in a government official’s pocket.”  In the same release, Antonia Chion (Associate Director in the SEC Enforcement Division) stated as follows.  “When a parent company learns tell-tale signs of a bribery scheme involving a subsidiary, it must take immediate action to assure that the FCPA is not being violated.  We strongly caution company officials from averting their eyes from what they do not wish to see.”

This Lilly release quotes Anne Nobles (Lilly’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer and Senior VP of Enterprise Risk Management) as follows.  “Lilly requires our employees to act with integrity with all external parties and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.  Since ours is a business based on trust, we strive to conduct ourselves in an ethical way that is beyond reproach. We have cooperated with the U.S. government throughout this investigation and have strengthened our internal controls and compliance program globally, including significant investment in our global anti-corruption program.”  The Lilly release further states as follows.  “The SEC noted that since the time of the conduct alleged in its complaint, Lilly has made improvements to its global anti-corruption compliance program, including: enhancing anti-corruption due diligence requirements for relationships with third parties; implementing compliance monitoring and corporate auditing specifically tailored to anti-corruption; enhancing financial controls and governance; and expanding anti-corruption training throughout the organization.”  The release further notes that “Lilly was first notified of the investigation in August 2003″ and describes the independent compliance consultant as conducting a ”60-day review of the company’s internal controls and compliance program related to the FCPA.”