Archive for the ‘United Kingdom’ Category

Friday Roundup

Friday, January 9th, 2015

Roundup2From the dockets, cleared, when the dust settles, outreach, and quotable.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

From the Dockets


This recent post highlighted the motion to dismiss filed by Joseph Sigelman.  Among other things, Sigelman challenged the DOJ’s interpretation and application of the “foreign official” element in regards to Ecopetrol, the alleged “the state-owned and state-controlled petroleum company in Colombia.”

On December 30th, U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas denied the motion (as well as addressed other motions) in a 1 page order.


This recent post highlighted the motion to dismiss filed by Lawrence Hoskins. Among other things, the motion argued that the indictment “charges stale and time-barred conduct that occurred more than a decade ago; it asserts violations of U.S. law by a British citizen who never stepped foot on U.S. soil during the relevant time period; and, it distorts the definition of the time-worn legal concept of agency beyond recognition.”

In this December 29th ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Arterton (D. Conn.) denied the motion to dismiss concluding that factual issues remain as to the disputed issues.


Remember Kazuo Okada and Universal Entertainment Corp.  They were at the center of a boardroom battle royal with Wynn Resorts in which a Wynn sanctioned report stated:

“Mr. Okada, his associates and companies appear to have engaged in a longstanding practice of making payments and gifts to his two (2) chief gaming regulators at the Philippines Amusement and Gaming Corporation (“PAGCOR”), who directly oversee and regulate Mr. Okada’s Provisional Licensing Agreement to operate in that country.  Since 2008, Mr. Okada and his associates have made multiple payments to and on behalf of these chief regulators, former PAGCOR Chairman Efraim Genuino and Chairman Cristino Naguiat (his current chief regulator), their families and PAGCOR associates, in an amount exceeding $110,000.”  The report categorizes this conduct as “prima facie violations” of the FCPA.

Universal recently issued this release which states:

“The Prosecutor General of the Philippines has proposed to the Secretary of Justice to terminate the investigation into the groundless suspicion that our group may have offered bribes to officials of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation …”.

When The Dust Settles

It is always interesting to see what happens when the dust settles from an FCPA enforcement action (see here for the prior post).

A portion of the recent Alstom enforcement action alleged improper payments in connection with power projects with the Bahamas Electricity Corporation (“BEC”), the state-owned and state-controlled power company.

According to the Nassau Guardian ”Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson said The Bahamas has requested information from the US regarding the allegations, including the identity of the alleged bribe taker.”

This follow-up report states:

“Former Bahamas Electricity Corporation (BEC) board member Philip Beneby said on Tuesday he would find it hard to believe that any member of the board accepted bribes from a French power company to swing BEC contracts its way. [...] “The allegation is stating that a member of the board received some kickback, but it’s kind of strange to me that a member of the board would receive a kickback if the board unanimously agreed that the contract be awarded to Hanjung out of Korea, then only to find out later that the Cabinet overturned the board’s decision. So that decision to not award Hanjung from Korea the contract came from the Cabinet, not from the board.” According to Beneby and former minister with responsibility for BEC, Bradley Roberts, in 2000 the board of BEC unanimously voted to award a generator contract to Hanjung Co. out of South Korea, but that decision was overturned by the then Ingraham Cabinet, which decided to award the contract to Alstom (then ABB). [...] Former deputy prime minister Frank Watson was the minister at the time responsible for BEC. He said the decision to award the contract to Alstom was a Cabinet decision that involved no bribery. Watson insisted he was unaware of any claims that a bribe had been paid with respect to the award of that particular contract. Beneby, who is the proprietor of Courtesy Supermarket, said he remembers the event quite well as it was the first time a board decision was overturned.”

As explored in this prior post, many FCPA enforcement actions assume an actual casual link between alleged payments and obtaining or retaining business.  However, the reality is that such a casual link is not always present.


This event notice from the New England Chapter of the National Defense Industrial Association caught my eye.

“FBI Seminar on FCPA and International Corruption: Outreach to Industry Education Session

Join us for an engaging morning seminar to learn how to be compliant with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The FBI’s International Corruption Unit (ICU) is conducting private sector outreach and education to support a new initiative.  The FBI recognizes the importance of forging new partnerships and strengthening existing relationships to help level the playing field for US businesses competing internationally.  By fostering better understanding of FCPA requirements, the FBI and private sector can join forces more efficiently to fight international corruption and ensure fair global markets and a strong US economy.

The FBI is excited to showcase five pillars of FCPA compliance in their program: Private Sector Outreach, Training and Education, Dedicated Personnel, Domestic and International Partnerships and Proactive Enterprise Theory Investigations.  Utilizing the five pillars approach, the FBI is gaining new momentum and expertise.

Additionally, the FBI will discuss new analysis outlining bribery hotspots and trends.  Using charts and graphs the FBI will examine the latest bribe payment techniques, who is paying bribes and who is accepting bribes.  Specific regions of the world will be discussed along with the various risks associated with doing business in these areas.

Lastly, the FBI will present a guest speaker who violated the FCPA, cooperated with the FBI and eventually was incarcerated for his crimes.  This segment will provide a unique and impactful insight into the rationalization of an employee who paid bribes, despite knowledge and training on FCPA.The FBI is looking forward to the opportunity to discuss best practices and enhance FCPA compliance with industry partners”


This recent Forbes article ask “isn’t it strange that the U.S. gets to fine Alstom, a French company, for bribery not in the U.S.?” The article concludes:

“It’s most certainly not good economics that one court jurisdiction gets to fine companies from all over the world on fairly tenuous grounds. Who would really like it if Russia’s legal system extended all the way around the world? Or North Korea’s? And I’m pretty sure that the non-reciprocity isn’t good public policy either. Eventually it’s going to start getting up peoples’ noses and they’ll be looking for ways to punish American companies in their own jurisdictions under their own laws. And there won’t be all that much that the U.S. can honestly do to complain about it, given their previous actions.”

That is pretty much what Senator Christopher Coons said during the November 2010 Senate FCPA hearing. “”Today we the only nation that is extending extraterritorial reach and going after the citizens of other countries, we may someday find ourselves on the receiving end of such transnational actions.”

In a recent speech, Stuart Alford QC (Joint Head of Fraud at the Serious Fraud Office) addressed the following question:  ”why have there been no Bribery Act prosecutions; is this Act really being taken seriously?”  In response to his own question, Alford stated, in pertinent part:

“The Bribery Act is not retrospective. Therefore, for conduct to be criminal under the Act it has to have been undertaken after 1 July 2011. Often conduct of this type takes some time to surface; and, once it does, it takes time to investigate. SFO cases must, by definition, be serious or complex and they very often include international parties and conduct. While the SFO is always striving to investigate criminal conduct in as timely a way as possible, these types of cases will take some time to move through the process of investigation and on to prosecution.

The Bribery Act represented a very significant shift in setting the standards for the more ethical corporate culture I referred to a moment ago. When one looks at legislation of this kind, both here and abroad, one can see that a flow of prosecutions can take time to develop. We only have to look at the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the USA, to see that it took many years for that work to build up a head of steam, and not really until the turn of the century did we start to see the level of prosecutions that we do now.”

Spot-on and consistent with my own observations on July 1, 2011 when the Bribery Act went live.

Top Book Review

International Policy Digest recently compiled its top book reviews of 2014.  On the list is the following.

Review of Mike Koehler’s ‘The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the New Era’

By John Giraudo

If you care about the rule of law, ‘The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the New Era’ by Mike Koehler, is one of the most important books you can read—to learn how it is being eroded. Professor Koehler’s book may not make it to the top of any summer reading list, but it is a must read for people who care about law reform.

For more information on the book, see here.


A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Friday, December 26th, 2014

Roundup2Scrutiny alerts and updates, guilty pleas, across the pond, and admiration.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates


The largest FCPA enforcement action of all-time (Siemens) began with a raid by Munich law enforcement on company offices.  Will this be the origin of another large FCPA enforcement action?  Reuters reports:

“Munich prosecutors are carrying out an investigation at Airbus’s defence unit over alleged corruption linked to contracts with Romania and Saudi Arabia [...] The Munich prosecutor’s office said it was investigating EADS, as Airbus Group was formerly called, over suspicion of paying bribes to foreign officials and tax evasion in connection with business in the two countries. It said a small number of people were under investigation and that material confiscated from searches related to those people and different companies was now being evaluated. Prosecutors searched offices on suspicion that bribes were paid to enable the company to obtain contracts worth 3 billion euros (2.3 billion pounds) in Saudi Arabia and Romania [...] Airbus said prosecutors were investigating irregularities in border security projects awarded to Airbus’s defence business, but declined to confirm details.”

Airbus has American Depositary Receipts that trad on U.S. exchanges.

Och-Ziff Capital Management Group

The Wall Street Journal recently reported:

“U.S. investigators probing Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC’s  dealings in Libya are focused on a multimillion-dollar payment by the big hedge-fund firm they believe was funneled in part to a friend of Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son, said people briefed on the inquiry. The scrutiny is part of a broad, three-year foreign bribery investigation by the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission into how Wall Street firms obtained investments from the regime of the former dictator, who was deposed and killed in the country’s 2011 revolution. A key part of the Och-Ziff investigation relates to a fee that Och-Ziff paid to the company of a London middleman for help winning a $300 million investment in Och-Ziff funds from the Gadhafi regime, the people briefed on the matter said.”


In Petrobras-related news and further to “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Ripples,” Reuters reports:

“State-controlled oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA and its top executives face a class-action lawsuit in a federal court in New York over an alleged contract fixing, bribery and kickback scheme that lawyers say inflated the value of the company’s assets. The suit was filed by law firm Wolf Popper LLP in the Southern District of New York on Monday on behalf of investors who bought U.S.-traded shares of the Brazilian company, commonly known as Petrobras, between May 20, 2010, and Nov. 21, 2014. [...] The complaint alleges that Rio de Janeiro-based Petrobras “made false and misleading statements by misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose a culture of corruption at the company that consisted of a multi-billion dollar money-laundering and bribery scheme embedded in the company since 2006.”

Guilty Pleas

As highlighted in this prior post, in April 2014 two additional individual defendants (Benito Chinea and Joseph DeMeneses, the Chief Executive Officer and a Managing Partner, respectively of Direct Access Partners) were added to the FCPA (and related) enforcement action against individuals associated with broker dealer Direct Access Partners.  (See here for the original May 2013 enforcement action against Jose Hurtado and Tomas Clarke and here for an additional individual, Ernesto Lujan, being added to the enforcement action in June 2013). Like in the previous enforcement actions, the additional defendants Chinea and DeMeneses  were criminally charged in connection with alleged improper payments to Maria Gonzalez (V.P. of Finance / Executive Manager of Finance and Funds Administration at Bandes, an alleged Venezuelan state-owned banking entity that acted as the financial agent of the state to finance economic development projects).

The DOJ recently announced that:

Chinea and DeMeneses pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Travel Act.  Chinea and De Meneses have also agreed to pay $3,636,432 and $2,670,612 in forfeiture, respectively, which amounts represent their earnings from the bribery scheme.  Sentencing hearings are scheduled for March 27, 2015.

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

“Benito Chinea and Joseph DeMeneses are the fifth and sixth defendants to plead guilty in connection with this far-reaching bribery scheme, which ranged from Wall Street to the streets of Caracas. The guilty pleas and the forfeiture of assets once again demonstrate that the Department is committed to holding corporate executives who engage in foreign bribery individually accountable and to deny them the proceeds of their corruption.”

Across the Pond

Alstom-Related Charges

The recent FCPA enforcement action against Alstom and related entities was just one prong of the enforcement action.

The enforcement action also involved a United Kingdom component as the Serious Fraud Office announced charges against Alstom Power Limited, Nicholas Reynolds, and John Venskus for violating section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and conspiracy in violation of section 1 of the Criminal Act 1977.

The charges were based on the following allegation.

Alstom Power Limited, Nicholas Reynolds, John Venskus and others, between February 14, 2002 and March 31, 2010 “did corruptly give or agree to give an official or officials or other agents of AB Lietuvos Elektrine, gifts or consideration, namely money, disguised as payments in respect of a Consultancy Agreement with Vilmentrona UAB as an inducement or reward for showing favour to the Alstom Group in relation to the award or performance of a contract between Alstom Power Limited and said AB Lietuvos Elektrine for the Low NOx Burners project at the Elektrenai Power Plant in Lithuania.”

See here for Alstom’s January 2012 release regarding the project.

According to a SFO release, ”Alstom Power Ltd, Nicholas Reynolds and John Venskus’ case has been formally sent from Westminster Magistrates’ Court, for a Preliminary Hearing at Southwark Crown Court on 5 January 2015.”

Smith and Ouzman Ltd., et al

Earlier this week, the SFO announced:

“Smith and Ouzman Ltd and two employees were convicted today at Southwark Crown Court as a result of a Serious Fraud Office investigation into corrupt payments made for the award of business contracts to the company.  The corrupt payments totalling £395,074 were made to public officials for business contracts in Kenya and Mauritania. The company, Smith and Ouzman Ltd, a printing firm based in Eastbourne which specialises in security documents such as ballot papers and certificates, was convicted of three counts of corruptly agreeing to make payments, contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. Christopher John Smith, former chairman of Smith and Ouzman, age 71, from East Sussex, was convicted of two counts of corruptly agreeing to make payments. Nicholas Charles Smith, former sales and marketing director of Smith and Ouzman, age 43, from East Sussex was convicted of three counts of corruptly agreeing to make payments. Timothy Hamilton Forrester, former international sales manager of Smith and Ouzman, age 57, from East Sussex was acquitted of all three counts of corruptly agreeing to make payments. Mr Abdirahman Mohamed Omar, a sales agent for Smith and Ouzman, age 38, from London, was acquitted of one count of corruptly agreeing to make payments in relation to a contract in Somaliland.”

Director of the SFO, David Green commented:

“This is the SFO’s first conviction, after trial, of a corporate for offences involving bribery of foreign public officials. Such criminality, whether involving companies large or small severely damages the UK’s commercial reputation and feeds corrupt governance in the developing world. We are very grateful to the Kenyan authorities for their assistance in this case.”

Sentencing is due to take place on 12 February 2015.

Anti-Corruption Plan

The U.K. government recently released this ”Anti-Corruption Plan.” It is described as “bring[ing] together, for the first time, all of the UK’s activity against corruption in one place.”

The pamphlet-style document is so general in nature, it is difficult to offer any constructive comments.


My admiration for Judge Jed Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) continues.

In this recent piece titled “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty,” Judge Rakoff writes:

“The criminal justice system in the United States today bears little relationship to what the Founding Fathers contemplated, what the movies and television portray, or what the average American believes. To the Founding Fathers, the critical element in the system was the jury trial, which served not only as a truth-seeking mechanism and a means of achieving fairness, but also as a shield against tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The Constitution further guarantees that at the trial, the accused will have the assistance of counsel, who can confront and cross-examine his accusers and present evidence on the accused’s behalf. He may be convicted only if an impartial jury of his peers is unanimously of the view that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and so states, publicly, in its verdict. The drama inherent in these guarantees is regularly portrayed in movies and television programs as an open battle played out in public before a judge and jury. But this is all a mirage. In actuality, our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is very largely determined by the prosecutor alone.”

Job Opening

Sig Sauer Inc. (based in Newington, NH) is actively looking for an Associate General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer with corporate compliance experience. If interested, please contact


A good weekend to all.


A Suggested Read On A Variety Of Topics

Monday, November 10th, 2014

Read ThisSeveral prior posts (here, here, and here) have focused on basic causation issues in connection with many Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions.

The lack of causation between an alleged bribe payment and any alleged business obtained or retained is not a legal defense because the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions prohibit the offer, payment, promise to pay or authorization of the payment of any money or thing of value.  Indeed, several FCPA enforcement actions have alleged unsuccessful bribery attempts in which no business was actually obtained or retained.

Nevertheless, causation ought to be relevant when calculating FCPA settlement amounts, specifically disgorgement.  However, the prevailing FCPA enforcement theory often seems to be that because Company A made improper payments to allegedly obtain or retain Contract A, then all of Company A’s net profits associated with Contract A are subject to disgorgement.

Call it the “but for” theory. “But for” the alleged improper payments, Company A would not have obtained or retained the business.

However, this basic enforcement theory ignores the fact that Company A (as is often the case in FCPA enforcement actions) is generally viewed as selling the best product for the best price and because of this, or a host of other reasons, probably would have obtained or retained the business in the absence of any alleged improper payments.

If this general issue is of any interest to you (and it ought to be because it is instructive on many levels) you should read a recent U.K. decision in a civil case arising out of the same core facts alleged in the 2010 FCPA enforcement action against Innospec (see here for the prior post).

In addition, if the so-called “victim” issue in FCPA enforcement actions is of interest to you (i.e. because the FCPA involves bribery and corruption, when there is an FCPA enforcement action, there must be a victim) , you also should read the recent U.K. decision because it is instructive on this issue as well.

Prior to discussing the recent U.K. decision, a bit of background is necessary.

In 2010, Innospec agreed to pay approximately $26 million to resolve DOJ and SEC enforcement actions (see here).  The conduct was wide-ranging in that the enforcement action involved alleged violations of U.S. sanctions regarding doing business in Cuba in addition to alleged conduct in violation of the FCPA.  Even as to the FCPA conduct, the enforcement action was wide-ranging and included “standard” Iraq Oil-for-Food allegations found in a number of previous enforcement actions (i.e. inflated commission payments to an agent which were then used to pay kickbacks to the government of Iraq) as well as alleged conduct in Indonesia.

The bulk of the enforcement action though concerned DOJ allegations that Ousama Naaman (Innospec’s agent in Iraq) paid various bribes to officials in Iraq’s Ministry of Oil (“MoO”) to “ensure” that a competitor’s product “failed a field trial test and therefore would not be used by the MoO” as well as other allegations that Naaman paid other bribes to officials of the MoO to obtain and retain contracts with MoO on Innospec’s behalf.

The DOJ’s criminal information alleged (or perhaps merely assumed) a casual connection between the alleged bribes and the failed field test, as well as two specific contracts: a 2004 Long Term Purchase Agreement (“LTPA”) and a 2008 Long Term Purchase Agreement.

As often happens in this day and age, an Innospec competitor used the core conduct alleged in the DOJ’s enforcement action “offensively” in bringing civil claims against Innospec and various individuals in a U.K. court.

As highlighted in the U.K. decision, the claims were brought by a Jordanian company which alleged that Innospec “conspired to injure the claimants by engaging in corrupt practices, in particular the bribery of officials within the [MoO] with the intention of inducing its refineries to buy TEL rather than MMT …”.

TEL refers to a lead based fuel additive called tetraethyl lead and MMT refers to methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, a product developed as a manganese based octane boosting and antiknock additive which was less toxic than TEL.

The U.K. decision is extremely dense as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the MoO’s decision to use TEL vs. MMT.

Relevant to the “but for” causation topic of this post, and as described by the U.K. court, the claimants “claim damages for the losses they allege they have suffered as a consequence of the conspiracy on the basis that, but for the bribery and corruption, the MoO would have started to purchase MMT ….”.  As further described by the U.K. court, ”the claimants also allege that between 2002 and 2008 payments were authorized by Innospec for travel and other expenses, including pocket money for Iraqi officials to incur goodwill and ensure continued orders of TEL.”

In the words of the U.K. court, in order for the claims to succeed, the claimants had to establish, among other things, that the decision to replace TEL with MMT “was not implemented because the promise of bribes by Mr. Naaaman procured the MoO to enter into the 2004 LTPA and that prevented sales of MMT” and “that, but for the promise of bribes, the decision would have been implemented and the MoO would have replaced TEL with MMT from early 2004 onwards, so that the counterfactual scenario on which the claim is based would have occurred.”  (Confusing verbiage to be sure, but that is what the decision says).

As noted in the U.K. decision, Innospec denied that bribes or the promise of bribes induced the 2004 LTPA, lead to the requirement of the field test or its result, or induced the 2008 LTPA.  Innospec argued that despite its admissions in the FCPA enforcement actions, the “court must look carefully and analytically at the evidence there is as to what bribes were paid and promised and when and whether any bribes paid or promised actually led to a decision different from that which would have been made anyway.”

In short, instead of merely alleging or assuming causation between alleged bribe payments and business or other benefits like the U.S. did in the FCPA enforcement action, the U.K. court held approximately 15 days of hearings with multiple witnesses to actually determine if there was a casual link between the alleged bribe payments or other benefits that Innospec obtained.

The end result of this process is that the U.K. court did not find any casual links and indeed found false certain allegations in the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement action.

For instance, as to the DOJ’s allegations that “Naaman, on behalf of Innospec, paid approximately $150,000 in bribes to officials of the MoO to ensure that MMT … failed a field trial test and therefore would not be used by the MoO as a replacement for TEL,” the U.K. court concluded that Naaman never made such payments.  Indeed, the U.K. court noted Naaman’s admission (which occurred after resolution of Innospec’s FCPA enforcement action) ”that he had never in fact paid the U.S. $150,000 in bribes to MoO officials to fail the field test, but had simply pocketed the money himself.”

In the words of the court, ”this has an important impact on the issue of causation.”

Regarding Innospec’s admission in the FCPA enforcement action that Naaman did indeed make such payments, the U.K. court stated:

“Unbeknownst to Innospec at the time they admitted these allegations, Mr. Naaman never in fact paid any of these monies to Iraqi officials, but notwithstanding that, Innospec had committed the relevant offense under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by making payments to him, believing they were reimbursing him for bribes paid, even though in truth they were not.”

In the words of the U.K. court, Naaman became upset that Innospec was not reimbursing him for certain expenses he viewed as being owed to him and that Naaman “saw the field test on MMT as an opportunity to recoup those expenses and informed Innospec that he proposed bribing the Iraqi engineers to fail the field test.  Innospec readily agreed and paid him some U.S. $150,000, expecting it would be used for bribes.  He kept the funds himself, believing that MMT would fail the field test [...]  On the material before the court, this was the first time it had emerged (some 10 months after Innospec signed the [U.S.] Plea Agreement) that money Innospec had paid to Mr. Naaman believing he had paid or promised to pay bribes was not so paid but simply pocketed by him.”

Regarding the 2004 LTPA that the DOJ alleged was a result of alleged improper payments to Iraqi officials, the U.K. court first noted the following about the U.S. invasion of Iraqi:

“[T]he U.S. authorities put Kellogg, Brown & Root in charge of procurement for the requirements of the Iraqi refineries, effectively replacing the finance department within the MoO.  All spending had to be approved by KBR which was the only entity which could actually conclude contracts and purchase products.”

“It seems to me that claimants’ case overlooks the fact that any switch to MMT would have had to be approved by KBR, and the weight of evidence at this time in August 2003 and thereafter is that KBR was not particularly enamoured of MMT, pointing strongly to the likelihood that, even if the claimants were right that there was a decision to continue with TEL and not to switch to MMT, which was in some way induced by bribery, the MoO may well have been driven to the same decision irrespective of bribery, because of the attitude of KBR.”

Elsewhere, the U.K. court termed it “fanciful in the extreme” certain of claimants’ evidence which sought to establish causation between the alleged bribes and business to Innospec.

In short, the U.K. court concluded that the 2004 LTPA was not procured by bribery.  Further the U.K. court stated:

“[T]he decision to enter the LTPA had to be and was endorsed by the American authorities .  Since there is no basis for saying that they were corrupted by the payment or promise of bribes, that is further demonstration that the LTPA was not procured by bribery.”

Indeed, in the words of the U.K. court, “bribery [was] the least likely explanation” for certain MoO decisions regarding the conduct at issue.  Elsewhere, the court stated that any suggestion that considerations made by the MoO “was induced or influenced by bribery by Innospec would be frankly ridiculous” and a “logical non-sequitur and a step too far.”

In closing, the U.K. court stated that even if it were wrong – and that the 2004 LTPA was procured by bribery ” that the MOO would always have followed the course they did, of continuing to use TEL given the octane boost they needed …”.

In terms of the 2008 LTPA, the U.K. court found that “no orders were ever placed under the LTPA, since the investigations by the U.S. authorities intervened.”

In short, what happened in the U.K. action was rather remarkable.

Certain facts alleged in a DOJ FCPA enforcement were subjected to an adversarial process and the resulting judicial scrutiny found certain facts false.  Moreover, instead of merely alleging or assuming causation, as if often the case in FCPA enforcement actions as relevant to determining settlement amounts, the U.K. court analyzed causation and found it lacking.

The U.K. action is also instructive when it comes to analyzing whether there are so-called “victims” in all FCPA enforcement actions.  In the past several years, there has been calls by some for portions of FCPA settlement amounts to be paid out to “victims” of the conduct alleged in the FCPA enforcement action.  (See here and here for prior posts). The general theory seems to be – for example – that if an FCPA enforcement action alleges bribes paid in Nigeria, Nigerian citizens must therefore be the “victims” of the conduct and thus somehow entitled to compensation.

As highlighted in prior posts, while this proposal “feels good,” it is not warranted for many different reasons.  In short, this proposal assumes two things:  (i) that FCPA enforcement actions always represent provable FCPA violations; and (ii) that there is a always a casual connection between the alleged bribes influencing “foreign official” conduct, that then always causes harm to the citizens of the “foreign official’s” country.

As to the first issue, such an assumption is not always warranted given that the vast majority of FCPA enforcement actions are resolved via non-prosecution agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, neither admit nor deny SEC settlements, or SEC administrative orders.  These resolution vehicles often represent the end result of a risk adverse business decision, not necessarily provable FCPA violations.  For instance, in the words of the Second Circuit, SEC neither admit nor deny settlements are not about the truth, but pragmatism.  For this reason, a typical FCPA resolution vehicle should not automatically trigger other actions or issues (whether plaintiff litigation, whistleblower bounties, or payments to an ill-defined group of alleged victims).

As to the second issue, such an assumption is also not always warranted.  Several FCPA enforcement actions fit into one of the following categories: (i) unsuccessful bribery attempts; (ii) payments to receive what the company was otherwise legitimately owed by a foreign government; or (iii) other situations where – for a variety of reasons – there would seem to be a lack of causation between the alleged bribes influencing “foreign official” conduct, that then causes harm to the citizens of the “foreign official’s” country. Indeed, most corporate FCPA enforcement actions involve companies that are otherwise viewed as selling the best product for the best price.  Moreover, as highlighted in this prior post, in one FCPA enforcement action a court found that an alleged bribery scheme benefited a foreign country.

Despite the above observations which I have long held, the failed field test allegations in the Innospec FCPA enforcement action legitimately caused me to ponder victim issues in FCPA enforcement actions.  After all, the DOJ alleged that Iraqi MoO officials were induced to sabotage a field test of a competitor product that resulted in the more harmful product, from a public health standpoint, to stay on the market.

It was a relatively convincing casual connection between an FCPA enforcement action and potential victims.

However, as highlighted above, the U.K. court found the failed field test allegation false and otherwise found deficient other causal links between other alleged conduct and actual business or benefits obtained or retained.

In short, the U.K. action should instruct the proponents of “victim” compensation that hinging a policy proposal on FCPA resolution documents is not always sound or warranted.

Friday Roundup

Friday, September 5th, 2014

Knox to FCPA Inc., DOJ response brief filed, SFO speeches, and asset recovery.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Knox to FCPA Inc.

As highlighted in this prior post, over the summer Jeffrey Knox (DOJ Fraud Section Chief) followed the same tired script on a number of FCPA issues.  It will be interesting to hear / read of Knox’s positions in the future as – following a well-traveled career path for DOJ FCPA enforcement attorneys – he is leaving government service for the private sector to provide FCPA investigative and compliance services to business organizations subject to the current era of FCPA enforcement.  (See here from the Washington Post, here from the Wall Street Journal, and here from the New York Times).

Knox is headed to Simpson Thatcher (also home to former SEC FCPA Unit Chief Cheryl Scarboro – see here for the prior post). This Simpson Thatcher release states in pertinent part:

“Mr. Knox will be a partner based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C. office and a member of the Firm’s Government and Internal Investigations Practice. During his tenure at the DOJ, Mr. Knox served as the Chief and, before then, the second-ranking official of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, which has responsibility for some of the nation’s most significant fraud cases, including … Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) criminal investigations and prosecutions in the United States.”


“We are pleased to welcome Jeff back to the Firm,” said Bill Dougherty, Chairman of Simpson Thacher’s Executive Committee. “His deep experience in overseeing high-stakes government investigations and enforcement actions will be a significant asset to our clients as they navigate an increasingly complex enforcement landscape.” “We are very excited that Jeff is joining our Government and Internal Investigations team here at Simpson Thacher. As Chief of the Fraud Section, Jeff has presided over many of the most significant financial fraud, healthcare fraud, and FCPA investigations in recent years, and we know that he is greatly respected within both the DOJ and the white collar bar. His experience and insight will provide substantial value to our clients,” added Mark J. Stein, Head of the Firm’s Government and Internal Investigations Practice.”

The release further states: “[Knox] was a contributor to the DOJ and SEC’s A Resource Guide to the FCPA, published in 2012.”

As I have done in all previous instances of high-ranking DOJ or SEC FCPA enforcement attorneys leaving government services for lucrative FCPA related jobs in the private sector (see here for instance), I will restate my position.

As to DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement attorneys who have supervisory and discretionary positions and articulate government FCPA policies, it is in the public interest that such individuals be prohibited, upon leaving government service, from providing FCPA defense or compliance services in the private sector for a five-year period.

DOJ Response Brief Filed

This previous post highlighted the motion to dismiss filed by former Alstom executive Lawrence Hoskins in the criminal FCPA action against him.  In short, the motion to dismiss stated that the DOJ’s indictment “charges stale and time-barred conduct that occurred more than a decade ago; it asserts violations of U.S. law by a British citizen who never stepped foot on U.S. soil during the relevant time period; and, it distorts the definition of the time-worn legal concept of agency beyond recognition.”  As noted in the prior post, much of Hoskins’s brief focuses on the issue of whether he withdrew from the alleged criminal conspiracy involving alleged improper payments at the Tarahan power plant project in Indonesia.

Earlier this week, the DOJ filed this response brief.  In pertinent part, the DOJ’s brief states:

“The defendant seeks to have the Court take the extraordinary step of dismissing the Indictment against him at this pretrial phase based on his interpretation of the legal import of  certain allegations contained in the Indictment, supplemented by his own selective version of events contained in an affidavit attached to his motion. The Indictment, however, sets forth more than sufficient facts to support the charged crimes. Moreover, at trial the Government expects to present substantial additional evidence supporting the charges, including facts that bear directly on the arguments raised by the defendant in his motion. The defendant’s motion thus represents a novel effort to – in effect – invent and obtain summary judgment in the criminal process based on the claim that he has established the factual basis for his defenses. For good reason, the law provides that only after the Government has presented its case should a judge and jury grapple with the legal and factual sufficiency of that evidence. Thus, the defendant’s motion should be denied. Even addressing the merits of his arguments at this premature stage, however, the defendant’s motion should fail.

In particular, the defendant’s motion fails because: (1) the issue of withdrawal is necessarily a factual one to be decided by a jury and, nonetheless, the defendant did not withdraw from the charged conspiracies; (2) the Indictment has adequately alleged, and the Government will prove at trial, that the defendant was an “agent” of a domestic concern under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), the charged conduct is domestic (not extraterritorial), and Congress has not specially excepted the defendant from prosecution under the FCPA and, thus, he can be liable for causing, aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit an FCPA violation even if he is not guilty as a principal; and (3) the Indictment alleges continuing transactions (the bribe payments) that were initiated from Connecticut and alleges that the defendant aided and abetted the transactions through acts in Connecticut, and thus the money laundering charges are properly venued in the District of Connecticut.”

SFO Speeches

David Green’s (Director of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office) recent speech regarding a “cross-section of SFO cases” included the following in the foreign bribery space:

  • Barclays/Qatar: is an investigation, begun in 2012, into the circumstances surrounding Barclays’ £8bn recapitalisation in 2008.
  • Rolls Royce: concerns allegations of bribery carried out by local agents in return for orders in various markets, touching several divisions of Rolls Royce business activity.
  • GlaxoSmithKline: this is an investigation into allegations that bribes were paid in order to increase business in several jurisdictions.
  • GPT: this investigation concerns a subsidiary’s business relationship with the Saudi National Guard.
  • Alstom: this is an ongoing investigation into the use of British subsidiaries of a major French multinational to dispense bribes in several jurisdictions in order to secure large infrastructure contracts. Charges have already been laid against a subsidiary.
  • The Sweett Group: this investigation concerns allegations of bribes paid in return for building contracts in North Africa.

For another recent speech by Alun Milford (General Counsel of the SFO) on cooperation and disclosure, see here.

Asset Recovery

In news related to the DOJ’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative (under which prosecutors in the DOJ Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section work in partnership with federal law enforcement agencies to forfeit the proceeds of foreign official corruption – see this 2009 post highlighting Attorney General Holder’s announcement of the program), the DOJ announced:

“The Department of Justice has seized approximately $500,000 in assets traceable to corruption proceeds accumulated by Chun Doo Hwan, the former president of the Republic of Korea.   This seizure brings the total value of seized corruption proceeds of President Chun to more than $1.2 million.  [...] Chun Doo Hwan orchestrated a vast campaign of corruption while serving as Korea’s president,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell.   “President Chun amassed more than $200 million in bribes while in office, and he and his relatives systematically laundered these funds through a complex web of transactions in the United States and Korea.   Today’s seizure underscores how the Criminal Division’s Kleptocracy Initiative – working in close collaboration with our law enforcement partners across the globe – will use every available means to deny corrupt foreign officials and their relatives safe haven for their assets in the United States.”


A good weekend to all.


Friday Roundup

Friday, August 8th, 2014

Scrutiny alerts and updates, an FCPA fumble, checking in with the SFO, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates

Cobalt International Energy

Cobalt has been under FCPA scrutiny since 2011 for its alleged business relationships in Angola.  (See here and here for prior posts).

In this recent SEC filing, the company states:

“As previously disclosed, the Company is currently subject to a formal order of investigation issued in 2011 by the SEC related to its operations in Angola.  [...] In connection with such investigation, on the evening of August 4, 2014, the Company received a “Wells Notice” from the Staff of the SEC stating that the Staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC institute an enforcement action against the Company, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. In connection with the contemplated action, the Staff may recommend that the SEC seek remedies that could include an injunction, a cease-and-desist order, disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and civil money penalties. The Wells Notice is neither a formal allegation nor a finding of wrongdoing. It allows the Company the opportunity to provide its reasons of law, policy or fact as to why the proposed enforcement action should not be filed and to address the issues raised by the Staff before any decision is made by the SEC on whether to authorize the commencement of an enforcement proceeding. The Company intends to respond to the Wells Notice in the form of a “Wells Submission” in due course.

The Company has fully cooperated with the SEC in this matter and intends to continue to do so. The Company has conducted an extensive investigation into these allegations and the receipt of the Wells Notice does not change the Company’s belief that its activities in Angola have complied with all laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the SEC’s investigation or any action that the SEC may decide to pursue.”

Rare are so-called Wells Notices in the FCPA context for the simple reason that few issuers actually publicly push back against the SEC.  However, this is the second instance in the past four months of the SEC sending an issuer a Wells notice in connection with an FCPA inquiry. (See here for the prior post regarding Qualcomm).

As highlighted by the below excerpts, the Wells notice was a hot topic during Cobalt’s most recent quarterly earnings call.  The below excerpts also capture the candid statements of Cobalt’s CEO concerning the SEC’s position.

Joseph Bryant - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Before we get into the Q&A, let me say a few words about our 8-K disclosure from earlier this morning. As it noted, last evening, less than 24 hours ago, we received a Wells Notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission related to the investigation the agency has been conducting relating to Cobalt’s operations in Angola and the allegations of Angolan government official ownership of Nazaki Oil and Gas, one of the other working interest owners in Blocks 9 and 21 offshore Angola. In the notice, the staff of the SEC stated that it had made a preliminary and, in our view erroneous, determination to recommend that the SEC move forward with an enforcement action against the company. I think it’s important to point out that the Wells Notice is neither a formal allegation nor a finding of wrongdoing. It merely allows Cobalt the opportunity to provide its reasons of law, policy and fact as to why the proposed enforcement action should not be filed before any enforcement decision is made by the SEC. As you know, we have fully cooperated with the SEC and the investigation since it began nearly 3.5 years ago. And we will continue to do so. In the same vein, we will, of course, take this opportunity and respond to the SEC as part of the Wells process. But let me be very clear. This Wells Notice does nothing to change our prior conclusion that our activity in Angola have fully complied with all laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and Cobalt continues to strongly refute any allegation of any wrongdoing.”


Evan Calio – Morgan Stanley, Research Division

I appreciate your comments on the Wells Notice and underlying FCPA claims. Is there any — can you comment if there’s any potential collateral effect in a negative outcome scenario, meaning other than a potential fine? Could it affect your career or anything in your leases?


Well, good question, Evan. We obviously disagree with the staff’s position in the Wells Notice and we’ll respond to the notice in due course. As we’ve stated repeatedly over the past several years, Cobalt has and always will conduct all aspects of our business to the highest ethical standards and in full compliance with all laws and regulations in all jurisdictions, not just Angola, where we operate. This is the case of all of our Angolan operations. We fully plan and expect to pursue the exploration, appraisal and development of all of our Angolan assets, including Cameia development in a timely manner as we’ve previously discussed. And that’s about all I can say, Evan.


Okay, that’s great. And do you have a hearing date on the Wells Notice? Or is that — just not at this time?


No. There’s a process, but to be honest, it’s just like some other things, it can just wander on.


Joseph Allman - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division

So just back to the Wells Notice for a few minutes, John. Are you planning on taking a reserve? I assume it’s not estimable at this point if there is any fine, so I assume the answer is no. And then just — could you just describe the next steps a little bit? I think you guys have to write a response. If I’m not mistaken, you’ve got about 2 weeks to file that response. Is that correct? Could you just give us some more details on that?

John Wilkerson – Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Executive Vice President

We are not planning on taking a reserve.


And yes, there is a formal process that we respond to. Our view of the facts — and of course, we know the facts incredibly well since we’ve been investigating this for a very long time, and so we will submit our facts to the SEC here in the next several weeks.


Edward Westlake – Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division

Let’s then get into the Wells Notice as well. So I mean, my understanding, which may be incorrect, of the FCPA is that one aspect of it is doing due diligence, which is the standard of reasonable inquiries, and then the other aspect of it is if some exchange took place in order to get access to the block. It seems from the outside to me that perhaps some disagreements with you and the SEC on how much due diligence was needed could be a civil sort of issue whereas if there was some exchange, that seem to me would be more criminal. So I’m just trying to get a sense of what it is that the SEC, if you know, disagree with you on in terms of their assessment as to why they’d want to go towards an enforcement.


Well, the way the process works is it’s somewhat opaque, to be honest with you, on one side, but it’s fully transparent on our side. So we know all the facts, we know them very well. And I’ve said many times that we built Cobalt the right way from day 1 before we ever considered leases in Angola. All of our FCPA, all of our compliance, all of our due diligence systems were built into the company from day 1. I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday and neither did any of these guys around the table. We know all about FCPA and we weren’t about to wander into anything there unknowingly. So all I can say for sure is we know what we’ve done. We know what compliance is required. We’ve gone above and beyond that and we’ll stand firm on our actions.


Okay. And all of the due diligence which I’ve done also suggests that your staff has done a very good job in terms of doing their due diligence. But maybe a different way of asking the question, do you think it’s just the level of due diligence which the SEC disagree with you on? Or do you think that there has been some exchange? I understand that Nazaki is a full paying member of the consortium, in fact, was imposed on you rather than something that you chose. But I’m just trying to get some understanding as to what it is you think they disagree with you on.


Ed, I appreciate your probing nature, but I really can’t answer that. Again, what I can tell you is, again, we understand the requirements. We understand the law, we understand compliance, we understand due diligence. And we have gone above and beyond in every case. And we sit here today confident in our position, and I cannot and will not speculate on what the SEC’s views are.


Okay. And then have there been any inquiries from the DOJ?


We have — at every step of the last 3.5 years, we have managed both the SEC and the DOJ simultaneously to make sure that both of those federal agencies are fully up to speed on what we’ve done and what we know about. So I would say constant communication with both agencies has been a routine over the past 3 years.



Right. And maybe just a follow-up on the Wells Notice. Will we ever see the actual SEC letter? Is that a public domain or is it private in terms of their allegations, when eventually they make them.


It’s currently private, and we’ll — I hope we’re demonstrating how transparent we are. When we know something, we’ll tell you. And when we have something we can release, we’ll release it. That’s about all really I can say about it.


I mean, it would be helpful, I think, for investors to see what the allegation specifics are to be able to make a judgment call but, obviously, I leave that up to you.


Got it.


Al Stanton – RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division

[J]ust back to the Wells notice. Can I ask whether the letters are addressed to the company or do they actually name specific individuals?


The company.

Staying with Cobalt-related issues, Global Witness recently issued this press release stating:

“BP and its partners including Houston-based Cobalt have contributed US$175 million over the past two-and-a-half years to fund a project in Angola known as the Sonangol Research and Technology Center (SRTC), with another US$175 million due to be paid by January 2016. Global Witness asked BP and Cobalt to provide any information that confirms the SRTC exists. The companies did not provide this information in their responses. BP stated that Sonangol, Angola’s state-owned oil company, “has informed BP that the SRTC is still in planning stage.” Cobalt said they “monitor the progress of our social contributions in Angola, including the Research and Technology Center” but did not provide any further information about the project. Global Witness asked Sonangol for information to confirm the existence of the SRTC, but the company did not respond. We commissioned interviews with well-placed industry insiders, but none of them could confirm that the SRTC exists.  Global Witness is calling on the Angolan authorities to disclose where this money has gone.”

SBM Offshore

The company has been under FCPA (and related scrutiny) since 2012 concerning allegations primarily in Equatorial Guinea and Angola and disclosed in this press release as follows.

“As previously disclosed in various press releases, SBM Offshore voluntarily reported in April 2012 an internal investigation into potentially improper sales practices involving third parties to the relevant authorities, and has since been in dialogue with these authorities. SBM Offshore is discussing a potential settlement of the issues arising from the investigation. While these discussions are ongoing, it is sufficiently clear that a resolution of the issues will have a financial component, and consequently SBM Offshore has recorded a non-recurring charge of US$240 million in the first half of 2014, reflecting the information currently available to the Company. Until the matter is concluded, SBM Offshore cannot provide further details regarding a possible resolution of the issues arising from the investigation, and no assurance can be given that a settlement will actually be reached. As always, the Company will inform the market as soon as further information can be provided.”

FCPA Fumble

U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) is not the first member of Congress to fumble an FCPA issue, just the latest.  As noted in this Radio Free Europe article:

“A U.S. senator has asked federal authorities to investigate whether a powerful Russian media mogul seen as the mastermind behind the Kremlin-funded RT network used dirty money to purchase pricey California real estate.   U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (Republican-Mississippi) has asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Mikhail Lesin, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s former press minister, violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or laundered money by acquiring multimillion-dollar homes in the Los Angeles area.”  [See here for Senator Wicker’s letter to the DOJ].

Dear Senator Wicker, alleged “foreign officials” are not subject to the FCPA.  See U.S. v. Castle, 925 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1991).

Checking In With the SFO

The U.K. Serious Fraud Office recently announced the following sentences of individuals in connection with the Innospec prosecution.

Dennis Kerrison, 69, of Chertsey, Surrey, was sentenced to 4 years in prison. Paul Jennings, 57, of Neston, Cheshire, was sentenced to 2 years in prison. Miltiades Papachristos, 51 of Thessaloniki, Greece, was sentenced to 18 months in prison. David Turner, 59, of Newmarket, Suffolk, was sentenced to a 16 month suspended sentence with 300 hours unpaid work

Mr Kerrison and Dr Papachristos were convicted of conspiracy to commit corruption in June 2014 in relation to Indonesia only. Mr Jennings pleaded guilty in June 2012 to two charges of conspiracy to commit corruption and in July 2012 to a further charge of conspiracy to commit corruption in relation to Indonesia and Iraq. Dr Turner pleaded guilty to three charges of conspiracy to commit corruption in January 2012 in relation to Indonesia and Iraq.

Further information on the guilty verdict delivered in the trial of Mr Kerrison and Dr Papachristos can be found here, while information on the guilty pleas entered into by Dr Turner and Mr Jennings can be found here and here.

Upon sentencing the defendants, HHJ Goymer said:

“Corruption in this company was endemic, institutionalised and ingrained… but despite being a separate legal entity it is not an automated machine; decisions are made by human minds.

“None of these defendants would consider themselves in the same category as common criminals who commit crimes of dishonesty or violence….. but the real harm lies in the effect on public life, the effect on community and in particular with this corruption, its effect on the environment.  If a company registered or based in the UK engages in bribery of foreign officials it tarnishes the reputation of this country in the international arena.”

Concerning the sentencing of Dr Turner, the Judge also said:

“It is necessary to give encouragement to those involved in serious crime to cooperate with authorities.  You [Dr Turner] very narrowly indeed escaped going to prison.”

David Green CB QC, Director of the SFO said:

“This successful conclusion to a long-running investigation demonstrates the SFO’s ability and determination to bring corporate criminals to justice.”

Innospec itself pleaded guilty in March 2010 to bribing state officials in Indonesia and was fined $12.7 million in England with additional penalties being imposed in the USA.

Dr Turner was also ordered to pay £10,000 towards prosecution costs and Mr Jennings was ordered to pay £5000 towards these costs.  Dr Turner and Mr Jennings have already been subject to disgorgement of benefit by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.  The matter of costs for Mr Kerrison and Dr Papachristos has been adjourned pending the hearing of confiscation proceedings against them.”

For more on the sentences, see here from

Reading Stack

Professor Stephen Bainbridge knows Delaware corporate law and related corporate governance issues as well as anyone.  In regards to the Wal-Mart Delaware action (see here for the prior post noting that despite the hype, the decision was much to do about little), Professor Bainbridge writes:

“There’s been a fair bit of blawgosphere chatter about [the Wal-Mart Delaware action].”  [...]  Personally, it just doesn’t seem that big a deal. Somebody want to explain to me why I should care more?”



Sometimes a suitable proxy for potential red flags may be whether, upon reading a certain set of facts and circumstances, one becomes dizzy.  This recent New York Times article regarding former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair may make you dizzy.


A good weekend to all.