Serious Fraud Office « FCPA Professor

Archive for the ‘Serious Fraud Office’ Category

Friday Roundup

Friday, August 3rd, 2012

Add two more companies to the list, a reply to a retort, Avon developments, Total S.A. perhaps nears a top-5 settlement, the reason for those empty Olympic seats, another FCPA-inspired derivative action is dismissed, Sensata Technologies and more on the meaning of “declination,” one of my favorite reads and additional material for the weekend reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Recent Disclosures

As noted in this Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents post “German healthcare firm Fresenius Medical Care AG has opened an internal investigation into potential violations” of the FCPA. The company’s recent SEC filing (here) states as follows.

“The Company has received communications alleging certain conduct that may violate the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and other anti-bribery laws. In response to the allegations, the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee of the Company’s Supervisory Board is conducting an internal review with the assistance of counsel retained for such purpose. The Company has voluntarily advised the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice that allegations have been made and of the Company’s internal review. The Company is fully committed to FCPA compliance. It cannot predict the outcome of its review.”

In addition, as noted in this Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents post, “the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, the world’s largest manufacturer of generic drugs, for possible violations” of the FCPA. The Israel based company recently stated in an SEC filing (here) as follows.

“Teva received a subpoena dated July 9, 2012 from the SEC to produce documents with respect to compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (“FCPA”) in Latin America. Teva is cooperating with the government. Teva is also conducting a voluntary investigation into certain business practices which may have FCPA implications and has engaged independent counsel to assist in its investigation. These matters are in their early stages and no conclusion can be drawn at this time as to any likely outcomes.”

U.K. DPAs

In this previous post, I discussed my letter to the U.K. Ministry of Justice urging the MoJ to just say no to deferred prosecution agreements. Over at thebriberyact.com (a site that has lead discussion of the issue) the authors disagree with me (see here). That’s all fine and dandy and healthy to the discussion, but the substance of the retort is not persuasive.

The retort is basically that the SFO “frequently has to fight its corner in court” and that “sometimes it loses” whereas in the U.S. “the accepted wisdom [is] that an FCPA investigation would result in a corporate settlement” and the “DOJ simply [does] not have to test its legal theories in court.” In short, the authors state “statistically in the US corporates and their counsel often fold in the face of a DOJ investigation” but “in the UK this is not so.”

Contrary to the suggestion in the retort, I did not ignore the Bribery Act’s Section 7 offense – rather it is all the more reason to reject DPAs.

The retort closes as follows. “Sadly, as it stands, the UK enforcement agencies do not have equality of arms when it comes to their enforcement toolkit. Put another way the DOJ can end run UK enforcement agencies because it does have the potential to enter into DPA’s. This reason alone is justification enough for putting in place a system which delivers a similar result to the US system.”

This confirms in my mind that the UK’s desire for DPAs has little to do with justice and deterring improper conduct, but more to do with enforcement statistics and posturing in an emerging “global arms race” when it comes to “prosecuting” corruption and bribery offenses.

Avon Developments

Avon was in the news quite a bit this week.

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported (here) that “federal prosecutors looking into possible bribery of foreign officials by Avon have asked to speak to Andrea Jung, the former chief executive and current full-time chairman.”

On Wednesday, the company filed its quarterly report and stated, among other things, as follows. “We are in discussions with the SEC and DOJ regarding mutually resolving the government investigations. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be reached or, if a settlement is reached, the timing of any such settlement or that the terms of any such settlement would not have a material adverse effect on us.” During the Q2 earnings call, company CEO Sheri McCoy stated as follows. “We are in discussion with the SEC and DOJ regarding mutually resolving the government investigations.”

On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported (here) that McCoy “frustrated with the pace of Avon’s internal probe, has pushed to bring in a second law firm for advice on the progress of the investigation. The company has held discussions with law firm Allen & Overy LLP for that role.” Arnold & Porter has been leading Avon’s investigation. According to the article, Avon’s “probe has turned up millions of dollars of payments in Brazil and France made to consultants hired to assist with Avon’s tax bills in those countries.”

What to make of the above information?

It is unusual for the enforcement agencies to want to speak to a former CEO and current chairman in connection with an FCPA inquiry. But then again, prosecutors have reportedly spoken to several other Avon executives in connection with the probe. Given Avon’s disclosure that it has begun settlement discussions, this would suggest that the factual portion of the enforcement agencies investigation is over.

Avon’s FCPA scrutiny has perhaps been most notable for the amount of pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses – approximately $280 million. Thus, yesterday’s report that the company is considering bringing in a second law firm nearly four years into the investigation is interesting and unusual.

Even though Avon has disclosed it is in settlement talks, an enforcement action in 2012 is not certain. In many cases, companies have disclosed the existence of FCPA settlement discussions, but the actual enforcement action did not happen for 6-12 months (or longer).

Whenever the enforcement action occurs, and whatever the ultimate fine and penalty is, Avon’s greatest financial hit has likely already occured - its pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses. For instance, assuming a settlement amount would match the $280 million, this would be the sixth largest FCPA settlement of all time, and none of the enforcement actions in the top 5 were outside the context of foreign “government” procurement.

Total Settlement Near?

For some time, there has been speculation that Total S.A. (you better sit down for this) would actually mount a defense and put the DOJ and SEC to its burden of proof in an enforcement action. Information in a recent company press release suggests that this is unlikely to occur. In this recent release, Total stated as follows. “Total has been cooperating with the … SEC and DOJ in connection with an investigation concerning gas contracts awarded in Iran in the 1990′s. Total, the SEC, and the DOJ have conducted discussions to resolve issues arising from the investigation. In light of recent progess in these discussions, Total has provisioned 316 million euros [$389 million] in its accounts in the second quarter of 2012.”

A $389 million settlement would be a top five FCPA settlement in terms of fine and penalty amounts. For additional coverage, see here from Reuters.

Empty Olympic Seats

A reason, perhaps, for those empty Olympic seats? According to a recent study (see here) by the Society for Corporate Compliance and Ethics “tighter than anticipated corporate entertainment and gift policies.”

Smith & Wesson Derivative Action Dismissed

Even against the backdrop of generally frivolous plaintiff derivative claims in the FCPA context, the action against Smith & Wesson (“S&W”) stood out. After S&W employee Amaro Goncalves was criminally indicted in the manufactured Africa Sting case, certain investors filed a derivative claim in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts suing members of the board of S&W and company officers derivatively on behalf of the corporation for failing to have effective FCPA controls and oversight, thereby breaching their duty of care.

In dismissing the complaint (see here for the decision) Judge Michael Ponsor characterized the complaint as follows. “[I]n essence, that the company enjoyed an increase in international sales and then had an employee indicted for FCPA violations. This indictment, later dropped, supposedly evidenced a failure to implement proper controls.”

For another recent dismissal of an FCPA inspired derivative claim against Tidewater, see this prior post. See also this recent post from Kevin LaCroix at The D&O Diary blog.

Sensata Technologies

In October 2010, Sensata Technologies disclosed in a quarterly report (here) as follows.

“An internal investigation has been conducted under the direction of the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors to determine whether any laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), may have been violated in connection with a certain business relationship entered into by one of the Company’s operating subsidiaries involving business in China. The Company believes the amount of payments and the business involved was immaterial. The Company discontinued the specific business relationship and its investigation has not identified any other suspect transactions. The Company has contacted the United States Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to begin the process of making a voluntary disclosure of the possible violations, the investigation, and the initial findings. The Company will cooperate fully with their review.”

In its most recent quarterly report (here), the company disclosed as follows.

“During 2012, the DOJ informed us that it has closed its inquiry into the matter but indicated that it could reopen its inquiry in the future in the event it were to receive additional information or evidence. We have not received an update from the SEC concerning the status of its inquiry.”

Did Sensata ”win a declination” as the FCPA Blog suggested here?

Since August 2010 (see here for the prior post) I have proposed that when a company voluntarily discloses an FCPA internal investigation to the DOJ and the SEC, and when the DOJ and/or SEC decline enforcement, the DOJ and/or the SEC should publicly state, in a thorough and transparent manner, the facts the company disclosed to the agencies and why the agencies declined enforcement on those facts.

Perhaps then we would know if the DOJ concluded it could prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the necessary elements of an FCPA charge, yet decided not to pursue Sensata – which is my definition of declination as noted in this prior post. Anything else, is what the law commands, not a declination.

Favorite Read

One of my favorite reads is always Shearman & Sterling’s “Recent Trends and Patterns in the Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” See here for the most recent edition.

As to “foreign official,” the report states as follows. ”[T]he government does not appear to have been deterred by the [foreign official] debate. In most of the cases brought in 2012, the relevant government officials were employed by “instrumentalities” such as state health insurance plans (Orthofix), a state-owned nuclear plant (Data Systems & Solutions), government hospitals (Biomet and Smith & Nephew), a state-owned real estate development company (Peterson) a state-owned oil company (Marubeni), and state-owned airlines (NORDAM).”

As to FCPA guidance, the report states as follows. ”We understand that this guidance will be issued before October, when the US is scheduled to issue a written progress report on its implementation of the OECD Working Group on Bribery’s recommendations.”

A final kudos – Shearman & Sterling keeps its FCPA enforcement statistics the best way. As it explains – “we count all actions against a corporate “family” as one action. Thus, if the DOJ charges a subsidiary and the SEC charges a parent issuer, that counts as one action.” This is consistent with my “core” approach (see here), but unlike many others in the industry.

Weekend Reading Stack

An interesting and informative article (here) in Fortune about the Alba-Alcoa tussle and the role of Victor Dahdaleh. For more on the underlying civil suit between Alba and Alcoa see this recent Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents post.

SOX’s executive certification requirements were supposed to be a panacea for corporate fraud. It has not happened. See here from Alison Frankel (Reuters) and here from Michael Rapoport (Wall Street Journal). As noted in this prior post concerning the Paul Jennings (former CFO and CEO of Innospec) enforcement action, SOX certification charges were among the charges the SEC filed against Jennings. Then SEC FCPA Unit Chief Cheryl Scarboro stated, “we will vigorously hold accountable those who approve such bribery and who sign false SOX certifications and other documents to cover up the wrongdoing.” Speaking of Jennings, as noted in this recent U.K. Serious Fraud Office, Jennings recently pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to corrupt Iraqi public officials and other agents of the Government of Iraq.

*****

A good weekend to all.

Oxford Publishing Resolves U.K. SFO / World Bank Actions

Wednesday, July 4th, 2012

Last July, the U.K. publisher resolving an enforcement action concerning textbook and other sales in East Africa was Macmillian Publishing (see here for the prior post). This July, it is Oxford Publishing Limited (OPL), a wholly owned subsidiary of Oxford University Press (OUP).

Yesterday the U.K. Serious Fraud Office announced (here) an enforcement action against OPL regarding “unlawful conduct related to subsidiaries incorporated in Tanzania and Kenya.” The conduct at issue included “participating in public tenders for contracts to supply governments with text books and other educational materials for the school curricula.”

Pursuant to a civil recovery order under the Proceeds of Crime Act, OPL agreed to pay £1,895,435.

Under the heading “self referral” the SFO release states as follows.

“In 2011, OUP became aware of the possibility of irregular tendering practices involving its education business in East Africa. OUP acted immediately to investigate the matter, instructing independent lawyers and forensic accountants to undertake a detailed investigation. As a result of the investigation, in November 2011 OUP voluntarily reported certain concerns in relation to contracts arising from a number of tenders which its Kenyan and Tanzanian subsidiaries … entered into between the years 2007 and 2010. [...] The investigation was thorough – involving numerous interviews and an extensive review of documents and electronic data – and completed to the satisfaction of the SFO. The substantial product of those investigations was presented to the SFO [...] The product of that work led the SFO … to believe that [OPL subsidiaries] had offered and made payments, directly and through agents, intended to induce the recipients to award competitive tenders and/or publishing contracts for schoolbooks.”

The SFO release states that “a number of relevant features … led to the decision to pursue a civil recovery order in place of a criminal prosecution.” Those factors include the following: “OUP has conducted itself in a manner which fully meets the criteria set out in the SFO guidance on self reporting matters of overseas corruption” and “there is no evidence of Board level (or the equivalent) knowledge or connivance within OUP in relation to the business practices which led to the case being referred to the SFO.” The SFO release also states as follows. “The products supplied were of a good standard and provided at ‘open market’ values. This means that the jurisdictions involved have not been victims as a result of overpaying for the goods or as a result being supplied goods which were unsuitable or not required.”

The SFO release further states as follows.

“Since the occurrence of the conduct that is the subject matter of the civil recovery order, OUP has introduced enhanced compliance procedures intended to significantly reduce the risk of recurrence of such conduct within OUP. These procedures will be subject to review by a monitor who will report to the Director of the SFO within twelve months …”.

As noted in the SEC release, OUP also “unilaterally offered to contribute £2,000,000 to not-for-profit organisations for teacher training and other educational purposes in sub-Saharan Africa. This was a reflection of the seriousness with which OUP views the course of events that were subject to the investigation and a wish to acknowledge that the conduct of [its subsidiaries] fell short of that expected within its wider organisation.” As to this contribution, the SFO releases states that it “decided that the offer should not be included in the terms of the court order as the SFO considers it is not its function to become involved in voluntary payments of this kind.”

In the release, SFO Director David Green states as follows. “This settlement demonstrates that there are, in appropriate cases, clear and sensible solutions available to those who self report issues of this kind to the authorities. The use of Civil Recovery powers has been exercised in accordance with the Attorney General’s guidelines. The company will be adopting new business practices to prevent a recurrence of these issues and these new procedures will be subject to an extensive and detailed review.”

Finally, the SFO release notes that it ”has previously been subject to criticism in relation to the transparency of the processes and proceedings in civil recovery matters.” Thus the SFO release links to a number of documents including this Claim Form which sets forth specific claim details.

Based on the same core conduct, the World Bank also announced yesterday (here) that “OUP has agreed to make a payment of US$500,000 to the World Bank.” In addition, as part of a negotiated resolution, the World Bank “announced the debarment of two wholly-owned subsidiaries of OUP, namely: Oxford University Press East Africa Limited (OUPEA) and Oxford University Press Tanzania Limited (OUPT) – for a period of three years following OUP’s acknowledgment of misconduct by its two subsidiaries in relation to two Bank-financed education projects in East Africa.”

In a statement (here) OUP Chief Executive Nigel Portwood stated as follows.

“OUP is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards, and we have been deeply concerned to discover evidence of wrongdoing in two of our African subsidiaries. We do not tolerate such behaviour. As soon as these matters came to light we acted immediately to investigate thoroughly and report to the relevant authorities. We have strengthened our management in the region and are taking appropriate disciplinary action in respect of those involved in this conduct.”

UK Bribery Act – Year One

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

Today’s post is from Robert Amaee (former Head of Anti-Corruption and Head of Proceeds of Crime at the UK Serious Fraud Office and currently of counsel at Covington & Burling – see here). Amaee is the United Kingdom Expert for FCPA Professor.

*****

UK Bribery Act – Year One

The UK Serious Fraud Office is yet to take enforcement action under the UK Bribery Act (“Bribery Act”). This is hardly a surprise to those familiar with the demands of an investigation into complex economic crime. The type of bribery cases that the SFO is duty bound to investigate and prosecute are precisely those that involve a heavy commitment of resource and time. The SFO is reported to currently spend an average of three and a half years and £1.5 million ($2.25 million) investigating each bribery case. These are not the Munir Patel type of bribery prosecutions that are typically handled by the UK Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”).

Some commentators had set unrealistic expectations for the speed at which enforcement actions would appear, predicting a swift procession of dawn raids and arrests. This sense of anticipation and the inevitable anti-climax may well, at least in part, explain the findings of recent surveys, including a poll conducted by Deloitte. The poll found that fewer than one in ten of the 1200 compliance professionals polled expressed any concern about the possibility of a Bribery Act enforcement action being brought against their organisation. There appears to be little to fear from the SFO for the vast majority of those polled. In spite of the undoubted challenges that confront the SFO in the year ahead, it is important for companies and senior individuals to guard against complacency.

In the year since the Bribery Act came into force, David Green CB QC has taken over as Director of the SFO and the UK government has made tangible strides towards the adoption of a UK version of the US Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”). The new director will have little choice but to continue the SFO’s policy of guiding, assisting and engaging with responsible corporates and senior individuals, but there is no doubt that he will instil a more hard edged prosecutorial approach at the SFO than has been the case in the past. Green is a seasoned barrister who has defended and prosecuted serious economic crime cases during his 25 year career at the criminal bar. He also has prior experience of leading two prosecutions agencies. He was appointed the first director of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (“RCPO”) in April 2005, and served as director of the CPS Central Fraud Group from January 2010 until his return to the bar in April 2011.

Green began his four year term at the SFO on 23 April 2012. Since then, he has started to articulate his plans for the SFO in interviews with the Financial Times and most recently in a keynote address he delivered at an anti-corruption conference held in London on 26 June. At the conference, Green described this as a “challenging but exciting time” for the SFO. In a likely reference to the Tchenguiz case, he accepted that some of the recent “trenchant” criticism of the SFO has been justified, but stated that the SFO was “here to stay.” He warned against the “dilution” of the SFO brand by chasing “eye-catching quick results or taking short cuts” and said that he will not “sacrifice solid prosecutorial demands for easy headlines.” Green will focus the SFO’s “blood and treasures” on only the “most important cases *** that undermine confidence in UK Plc. and the City of London” and those that “undermine a level playing field.” He said that the SFO would not pursue cases of “crooks overcharging” but would look to use its “unique set up and capabilities to do what others cannot do.”

Green made no reference to the CPS Inspectorate-led review of the SFO that is currently underway, but explained that he has set about re-organising the SFO into four operational divisions; two dedicated to bribery and two to fraud. He is in the process of recruiting four senior civil servants into the “divisional head” roles. In addition, he is seeking to appoint a General Counsel to “shape and critique” cases, and a “Specialist Advisor” to “sharpen cases” and advise him on DPAs and civil settlements. Green made it clear that he is looking to bring external expertise into the organisation. He said that he wants to “foster and encourage a revolving door between private practice and the SFO” and extended an invitation to members of the junior bar, solicitors, investigators and accountants to join the SFO, either on a permanent basis or on secondment.

Green reiterated his support for the introduction of a UK DPA mechanism, stating that prosecutors should have “access to the broadest possible range of prosecutorial tools” so that they are not “outdone by the opposition.” He talked about strengthening his intelligence unit and made it clear that he would welcome a debate on whether UK whistle-blowers should be financially rewarded. He would like to “extend the reach” of the SFO and “encourage and increase self-reporting.” He expressed the view that the “advantages of self-reporting need to be articulated” so that companies are “inclined” to self-report. While he cannot give guarantees, he said that “self-reporting is a strong factor in deciding whether to prosecute or not.” If a prosecution is not in the public interest he said that the SFO is “likely to seek a civil settlement.” It is clear that the civil recovery mechanism, afforded by the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, will continue to play a major role in future SFO enforcement actions.

Anti-corruption enforcement remains a priority for Green’s SFO which will continue to bring cases under the old UK bribery laws as well as the Bribery Act. Green confirmed that the SFO is currently handling four self-referrals and that eleven further cases are “being developed.” He said that most of these involve allegations of corruption. In relation to the Bribery Act, Green expressed his desire to bring cases that would help clarify the boundaries of the “adequate procedures” defence. In respect of the term “carries on business or part of a business in the UK” he warned that, in any court case, the SFO would “argue against an overly technical interpretation.”

The SFO’s priorities in relation to enforcement under the Bribery Act will become clearer in the year ahead. However, companies must not expect early answers on some of the thornier issues under the Bribery Act, such as the extent of the UK’s jurisdiction over non-UK companies; the extremities of third party liability; and the borderline between acceptable corporate hospitality and a prosecutable bribe. The SFO is likely to begin enforcement under the Bribery Act by seeking prosecutions or settlements in cases where there is clear criminal culpability, before it ventures on to tackle cases that test the boundaries of the Bribery Act. As we await further clarity from the UK, the recent US Department of Justice declination in the Morgan Stanley case provides companies with valuable insights into considerations that can successfully persuade a prosecutor not to prosecute. The relevance of this guidance to an assessment of the adequacy of a company’s policies and controls in the context of the Bribery Act will not be lost on readers of this publication. The DoJ is set to provide further assistance to us all when it launches its much anticipated FCPA guidance. This is expected in the next few weeks.

Here’s To You Mr. Alderman

Friday, April 20th, 2012

I remember the day well. In July 2010, an e-mail appears in my inbox from the U.K. Serious Fraud Office in which I am told that Richard Alderman (Director of the SFO), a reader of FCPA Professor, would like to have a discussion with me about anti-corruption issues. FCPA Professor was then 1 year old and learning of readers the caliber of Mr. Alderman … well, let’s just say that was awesome. Since then, I’ve had the pleasure to visit the SFO’s offices in London and continue the dialogue with Alderman, including through his contributions to this website.

In “A Conversation with Richard Alderman” (here), Alderman responded to approximately thirty detailed questions I submitted covering a broad range of topics and he: (i) compares and contrasts the SFO’s role with the DOJ’s role in enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including the more active and independent role U.K. courts have in reviewing SFO charging decisions; (ii) talks about voluntary disclosure, and the role of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements; (iii) discusses reputational harm, debarment, and reparations; and (iv) talks specifically about the Bribery Act.

In this follow-up after BAE’s settlement, Alderman responsed to six pointed questions I submitted concerning the BAE case and his responses address the following topics. (i) how the U.K. law on double jeopardy significantly affected the SFO’s investigation of BAE and how the “current system [in the U.K.] for dealing with parallel criminal investigations conducted in a number of different countries does not work effectively and needs change;” (ii) whether the U.K. government was faithful to its OECD obligations in its handling of the BAE matter; (iii) criticism of the SFO-BAE plea agreement by the U.K. sentencing judge; and (iv) “shortcomings” in the U.K. system and how Alderman would like a system that “is far more transparent [...] that commands public confidence, together with a much stronger role for the judiciary.”

In this guest post, Mr. Alderman discusses engagement with companies and compliance effects in the aftermath of the Bribery Act.

Active engagement was a hallmark of Alderman’s tenure at the SFO – and his willingness to engage with me on topics we occassionaly sparred has been one of the highlights of my young academic career.

So on this, your last day at the SFO, here’s to you Mr. Alderman.

What’s next for Alderman? He told me in a recent e-mail (published with his permission) the following – all the more reason for me to tip my hat to him.

“When I leave here at the end of this week I shall not be going through the revolving door into some well paid job in a legal firm. Nor will I be taking on anything that will bring me into any contact with the SFO. My successor needs to get on with the job himself. What I shall be looking for instead are opportunities to work on anti-corruption initiatives that make a real difference in other countries. This will not be by way of a job or a consultancy. There are very many interesting people in this area that I admire very much and who do so much to fight corruption and the damage it causes. I shall obtain real satisfaction if I can find ways of helping them as I move on.”

Where Should The Money Go?

Monday, March 26th, 2012

[A new job has been posted to the Jobs Board - see here. Both job seekers and organizations seeking to hire individuals with FCPA or related experience will benefit from a wide selection of job listings, so please spread the word and send the job link to your HR department and professional contacts]

It is a thorny question with no easy answer. Where should the money go when a company resolves an FCPA enforcement action? It was addressed last year in connection with the Alcatel-Lucent enforcement action. (See here, and here for prior posts). Two recent events raise the issue again.

*****

Earlier this month, it was announced (here) that the U.K. “Serious Fraud Office, the Government of Tanzania, BAE Systems and the Department for International Development (DFID) … signed a Memorandum of Understanding enabling the payment of £29.5 million [$47 million USD] plus accrued interest to be paid by BAE Systems for educational projects in Tanzania.” As noted in the release, “textbooks will be purchased for all 16,000 primary schools in the country and as a result 8.3 million children will benefit” in subjects such as Kiswahli, English, Maths and Science. The release further notes that funds will also be used to ”provide all 175,000 primary school teachers with teachers’ guides, syllabi and syllabi guides to help improve their teaching skills” as well as the purchase of desks. In the release, SFO Director Richard Alderman stated as follows. “This agreement is a first for the SFO which piloted it through the UK legal system. It provides a satisfactory outcome for all concerned but most of all for the Tanzanian people and I am personally delighted that SFO staff were able to achieve this.”

In this release, BAE stated as follows. “We are glad to finally be able to make the payment to the Government of Tanzania and bring this matter to a close. We are grateful to DFID for their work in agreeing the Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Tanzania.” The BAE release states that the “payment follows the settlement agreed between BAE Systems and the SFO.” For a prior post on the settlement, see here.

To be sure, BAE’s payment to Tanzania, and the role of the SFO in brokering the payment, feels good. What is not to like about children receiving textbooks?

However, the feel good nature of this most recent BAE development should not mask the significant problems with the BAE enforcement action (on both sides of the Atlantic). As noted in this prior post, even the U.K. judge who accepted the SFO-BAE plea agreement called it “loosely and hastily drafted” and said the fine he levied reflected that he couldn’t “sentence for an offense which the prosecution failed to charge.”

And let’s not forgot how this story began. In 2004, the SFO began investigating whether BAE made bribe payments to secure Saudi fighter jet contracts. However, in late 2006, the SFO was forced to halt its investigation under pressure from the U.K. government, which cited national security concerns should the investigation go forward. However, because BAE also allegedly made bribe payments in numerous other countries to secure business, the SFO, under a new Director, revived its investigation of BAE, at least as to non-Saudi issues, including whether the company paid bribes to secure contracts in various European and African countries. After settlement talks stalled – the conventional wisdom is that BAE was unwilling to plead guilty to bribery related offenses given the collateral effect of the mandatory European Union debarment provisions – the SFO pressed ahead with the case. In late January 2010, the SFO issued a release (here) stating that Count Mensdorff, a former BAE agent, was criminally charged with “conspiracy to corrupt” and for “conspiring with others to give or agree to give corrupt payments […] to officials and other agents of certain Eastern and Central European governments, including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Austria as inducements to secure, or as rewards for having secured, contracts from those governments for the supply of goods to them, namely SAAB/Gripen fighter jets, by BAE Systems Plc.” Then, in early February 2010, the SFO announced (here) its long-awaited resolution of the BAE matter. Despite allegations of wide-spread bribery on a global scale, and despite BAE’s agent being criminally indicted a few days earlier in connection with bribe payments in “certain Eastern and Central European countries” (presumably on evidence that such payments did indeed occur), the SFO resolution related solely to the company’s failure “to keep reasonable and accurate accounting records in relation to its activities in Tanzania.” Most dramatic, and in a strange turn of events, the SFO announced that it had withdrawn the criminal charges filed days earlier against Count Mensdorff. The same release also noted that “[t]his decision brings to an end the SFO’s investigations into BAE’s defense contracts.” For more on “BAE – Inside the SFO”, see this prior post.

In any event, at least some children in Tanzania received some textbooks from BAE as a result.

*****

As previously highlighted on the FCPA Blog (here), Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (“SERAP”) (a non-governmental civil society organization in Nigeria) recently wrote a letter (here) to SEC Enforcement Division Director Robert Khuzami (with a copy to Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer and Deputy Chief, Fraud Section Charles Duross) regarding “FCPA civil penalty and disgorgement proceeds that companies agree to pay to resolve US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigations.” As the letter notes, “currently such proceeds, once paid, are retained by the U.S. government.”

In summary, the SERAP letter requests “that the Enforcement Division establish a case-by-case policy or process that would enable foreign governmental entities that have been victims of corruptly-procured contracts to apply for, subject to appropriate anti-corruption safeguards, some or all of the civil penalty and disgorgement proceeds that would eventually be paid by companies alleged to have violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” SERAP also suggests that “civil society groups in the home country, or U.S. non-profit organizations serving that country, be eligible within a short time-period to apply for such proceeds as well, or instead, for use for ‘public benefits projects’ in the affected foreign country, again subject to anti-corruption safeguards.”

The SERAP letter notes, among other things, as follows. “… Many citizens in a country where such bribery has occurred might consider FCPA civil penalties and disgorgement payments imposed by the US, and then kept by the US, as in fact representing funds that rightfully ‘belong’ to the victim.”

Stating that “corruptly procured contracts ‘cost’ the victim at least 10 percent extra” the SERAP letter says that “this figure ought to be a presumed measure of possible funds available for third-party application in the context of a civil FCPA settlement, particularly since the Enforcement Division typically settles an investigation before extensive evidence of damages, as opposed to liability, is placed in the public realm.”

The specific SERAP proposal is as follows. “…[A]fter, and ony after, public notice of an FCPA settlement agreement, the victim foreign government entity and any applicant NGO would have 60 days to file a request that the Enforcement Division pay some or all of the agreed payment proceeds to or for the benefit of the victim government entity or to a home country-based or US based NGO that would present a proposal [to] spend the proceeds for public purposes (e.g. on public health programs) in the country of the victim entity. Thereafter, the Enforcement Division would have 60 days to act upon the request, favorably or not in its discretion; in this context the Enforcement Division should provide a brief statement of its reasons for its decisions. In reaching its decisions the Enforcement Division would have the inherent authority to consult with Executive Branch agencies of the US government.

The SERAP letter raises some interesting issues regarding alleged victims of FCPA enforcement actions. The SERAP letter also raises some interesting questions, including the following.

If the SEC would be required to relinquish a certain portion of money recovered in an FCPA enforcement action, what impact would this have on FCPA enforcement? Would the SEC be less aggressive in bringing enforcement actions or perhaps more aggressive because more enforcement actions would be needed to sustain the current FCPA ”revenue stream”? For instance, 10% of SEC FCPA “revenue” in 2011 was approximately $15 million, in 2010 approximately $53 million.

The SERAP proposal appears to assume that all FCPA enforcement actions involve foreign government procurement. This is not the case. Approximately 50% of recent FCPA enforcement actions (i.e. in the past five years) do not involve foreign government procurement, but rather issues relating to foreign taxes, customs duties, or foreign licenses, permits, certifications and the like. Is the victim analysis the same in these FCPA enforcement actions compared to foreign government procurement enforcement actions?

Are individuals or organizations located in the country giving rise to the FCPA enforcement action really the most direct victims of the conduct at issue? In the procurement context, what about a competitor who may have lost out on the foreign business because it was unwilling to make an improper payment? With victim issues attracting new attention, should an FCPA private right of action receive new attention?

Last, but certainly not least, companies settling SEC FCPA enforcement actions are allowed to settle without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations. Even the SEC itself has stated that this settlement device often leads to settlements that ”do not necessarily reflect the triumph of one party’s position over the other.” Given this dynamic, would SERAP’s proposal lead to undeserved “windfalls” for civil society organizations? [In this prior post, I asked the same question as to Dodd-Frank Act whistleblowers.]