Archive for the ‘Vietnam’ Category

« Older Entries

The FCPA Meets Insurance – Aon Resolves Enforcement Action

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

This post analyzes the DOJ and SEC enforcement actions against Aon Corporation (one of the largest insurance brokerage firms in the world) announced yesterday.  Total fines and penalties are approximately $16.3 million ($1.8 million via a DOJ non-prosecution agreement and $14.5 million via a settled SEC civil complaint).

DOJ

The NPA (here) begins as follows.  The DOJ will not criminally prosecute Aon Corporation or its subsidiaries for any crimes “related to Aon’s knowing violation of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the FCPA .. arising from and related to the making of improper payments to government officials in Consta Rica in order to assist Aon in obtaining and retaining business” or “for the conduct related to improper payments and associated recordkeeping [...] relating to Aon’s improper payments in Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Egypt, Indonesia, Myanmar, Panama, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam that it discovered during its thorough investigation of its global operations.”

The NPA has a term of two years.  As is typical in FCPA NPAs or DPAs, Aon agreed “not to make any public statement” contradicting the below facts.

According to the NPA, the DOJ agreed to resolve the action via an NPA based, in part, on the following factors:

(a) Aon’s extraordinary cooperation with the DOJ and SEC;

(b) Aon’s timely and complete disclosure of facts relating to the above payments; [unlike many corporate FCPA enforcement actions, the Aon action does not appear to be the result of a voluntary disclosure; as stated in Aon's most recent quarterly SEC filing, "following inquiries from regulators, the Company commenced an internal review of its compliance with certain U.S. and non-U.S. anti-corruption laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."]

(c) the early and extensive remedial efforts undertaken by Aon, including the substantial improvements the company has made to its anti-corruption compliance procedures;

(d) the prior financial penalty of 5.25 million paid to the U.K. Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) [see here] by Aon Limited, a U.K. subsidiary of Aon, in 2009 concerning certain of the conduct at issue; and

(e) the FSA’s close and continuous supervisory oversight over Aon Limited.

The NPA’s Statement of Facts begin by detailing the business of reinsurance – that is insurance for insurance companies.  Specifically, the NPA states as follows.  “Reinsurance involves the transfer of all or part of the risk of paying claims under a policy from the insurance company that issued the policy to a reinsurance company.  A reinsurance broker arranges this transfer of risk, which takes place under a contract of reinsurance.  The insurance company is the reinsurance broker’s client and the broker acts on behalf of the insurance company.  The broker collects the premium due from the insurance company under the contract of reinsurance, and is typically paid for its services by retaining a portion of the premium for its own account.  The portion of premium retained by the broker is known as ‘brokerage.’”

The conduct at issue focuses on the Instituto Nacional De Deguros (“INS”), Costa Rica’s state-owned insurance company” (here) that “had a monopoly over the Costa Rican insurance industry.”  The NPA states as follows.  “INS was created by Act No. 12 of October 30, 1924, with the aim of meeting the protection needs of Costa Rican society.  All insurance agreements in Costa Rica, including the reinsurance contracts that Aon Limited [a subsidiary of Aon Corporation based in and organized under U.K. law that "reported financially through a series of intermediary entities into its U.S.-based issuer parent] assisted in obtaining to insure Costa Rican entities, were required to be issued through INS.  The head of INS was appointed by the President of Costa Rica.”

According to the NPA, a company Aon Limited acquired established a “Training and Education Fund” or “Brokerage Fund” for the benefit of INS “to sponsor training and education trips for INS officials.”  The NPA states that the “Brokerage Fund eventually became used for a wide variety of purported ‘training’ purposes, as well as to pay for client renewal trips to European insurers.”  The NPA also states that a second training account (the so-called 3% Fund) was funded by premiums to reinsurers and that “INS required that Aon Limited manage the fund, handle the paperwork, and provide reimbursement for the expenses incurred by INS officials.”

According to the NPA, “the supposed purpose of both the Brokerage Fund and the 3% Fund was to provide education and training for INS officials.”  However, the NPA states, “Aon Limited used a significant portion of the funds to reimburse for non-training related activity or for uses that could not be determined from Aon’s books and records.”

The NPA cites an e-mail from a former Aon Limited executive which stated as follows.  “INS started telling [another brokerage company] how [various reinsurers] were inviting their managers to seminars and were contributing positively to INS’s technological improvement with all expenses paid by the reinsurers.  The message was clear to both [the other brokerage company] and ourselves that unless we did the same we would see the gradual process of disintermediation and a continued erosion of our orders.”

The NPA then states as follows.  “Aon Limited disbursed nearly all of the $215,000 in the Brokerage Fund from 1997 until 2002, approximately $650,000 of the money in the 3% Fund from 1999 until 2002, and made a small number of additional disbursements from these funds between 2003 and 2005 to pay for the third-party services used by INS officials. These services often included travel related expenses, such as airfare and hotel accommodations, as well as conference fees, meals,  and other related expenses for INS officials and their relatives. It was common for INS to hire a
travel agency or tourism company to arrange for the particulars of the travel and educational conferences attended by its officials.  The majority of the money paid from the two funds was disbursed to a tourism company in Costa Rica. The director of INS’ reinsurance department, who played an active role in setting up the training funds, served on the board of directors of tourism company.  The director of INS’ reinsurance department himself took fourteen trips from 1996 to 2001 with expenses totaling approximately $44,000 that Aon Limited paid from the two funds. The funds also covered the official’s wife’s attendance on at least five of the trips.  On several occasions, Aon Limited reimbursed the official directly for expenses that were invoiced for his various trips, sometimes with cash payments.  The director of INS took six trips from 1998-2001 with expenses totaling approximately $20,000 that Aon Limited paid from the two funds. The director’s spouse accompanied him on four of these trips. The director of INS, the director of reinsurance at INS, their wives, and another INS official and her husband traveled to Europe in 1998 and charged their expenses of approximately $15,160 to the Brokerage Fund. While these trips had a small business-related component, a significant portion of the funds expended on the trips were used for the personal benefit of the officials and their wives.  A  substantial number of the trips taken by INS offcials were in connection with conferences and seminars in tourist destinations, including London, Paris, Monte Carlo, Zurich, Munich, Cologne, and Cairo. Many of the invoices and other records for these trips do not provide the business purpose of the expenditures, if any, or showed that the expenses were clearly not related to a legitimate business purpose. In addition, the subject matters of some of the better documented conferences and trainings, such as a literary conference and a Mexican information technology conference, had no logical connection to the insurance industry.  INS officials traveled to the United States for approximately twenty-five training events.  Aon Limited paid approximately $115,000 out of the funds in connection with these events in the United States.  In some instances, Aon Limited paid third parties at INS’s direction where the business purpose of the travel or expenses could not be discerned from the documentation, or where the purpose of the travel and expenses appeared to be improper, such as those pertaining to literary conferences, holiday expenses, and pure entertainment. Aon Limited paid large expenses for hotels, without any indication that the stays were business related. Aon Limited’s employees did not question the requests for payment or reimbursement from the funds.  While virtually all payments made in connection with the funds originated in London, Aon Limited made at least forty payments via, or that terminated in, the United States.  From 1995 to 2002, Aon Limited [and the company it acquired] earned profits of approximately $1.840,200 in connection with reinsurance brokerage business with INS.”

As to statute of limitation issues, Aon’s recent quarterly filing states as follows.  Aon “has agreed with the U.S. agencies to toll any applicable statute of limitations pending completion of the investigations.”

Under the heading “Books and Records/Internal Controls,” the NPA states as follows.  “The books and records of Aon Limited were consolidated into those of Aon Corporation. With respect to the Costa Rican training funds, although Aon Limited maintained accounting records for the payments that it made from both the Brokerage Fund and the 3% Fund, these records did not accurately and fairly reflect, in reasonable detail, the purpose for which the expenses were incurred. A significant portion of the records associated with payments made through tourist agencies gave the name of the tourist agency with only generic descriptions such as “various airfares and hotel.”  Additionally, to the extent that the accounting records did provide the location or purported educational seminar associated with travel expenses, in many instances they did not disclose or itemize the disproportionate amount of leisure and non-business related activities that were also included in the costs.  As a result, during the relevant time period, Aon failed to make and keep books, records and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflected the transactions and disposition of its assets and failed to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls with respect to foreign sales activities sufficient to ensure compliance with the FCPA.”

Pursuant to the NPA, “Aon admits, and accepts and acknowledges responsibility” for the above conduct; however, there is no suggestion or implication in the NPA that anyone at Aon Corporation  knew of, participated in, or authorized the conduct at issue.

See here for the DOJ’s release.

Pursuant to the NPA, Aon agreed to pay a monetary penalty in the amount of $1.76 million.  The NPA states as follows.  “This substantially reduced monetary penalty reflects the Department’s determination to credit meaningfully Aon for its extraordinary cooperation with the Department, including its thorough investigation of its global operations and complete disclosure of facts to the Department, and its early and extensive remediation.  In agreeing to this monetary penalty, the Department also took into account the penalty paid to the FSA relating to Aon Limited’s systems and controls in countries other than Costa Rica.”  Pursuant to the NPA, Aon also agreed to “continue to strengthen its compliance, bookkeeping, and internal controls standards and procedures” as set forth in “Corporate Compliance Program” appendix to the NPA.

SEC

The SEC’s settled civil complaint (here) begins as follows.  “From as early as 1983 until as recent as 2007, subsidiaries of Aon Corporation in numerous countries made improper payments to various parties as a means of obtaining or retaining insurance business in those countries.  During this period, over $3.6 million in such payments were made, including some directly or indirectly to foreign government officials who could award business directly to Aon subsidiaries, who were in position to influence others who could award business to Aon subsidiaries, or who could otherwise provide favorable business treatment for the Company’s interest.  These payments were not accurately reflected in Aon’s books and records.  During this period, Aon failed to maintain an adequate internal control system reasonably designed to detect and prevent these payments.”

According to the SEC complaint, “the improper payments made by Aon’s subsidiaries fall into two general categories:  (i) training, travel and entertainment provided to employees of foreign-government owned clients and third parties and (ii) payments made to third-party facilitators.”

As to the first category of payments, the SEC complaint is largely focused on the same Costa Rica / INS payments described in the DOJ’s NPA.  Additional payments concern Egypt and the complaint alleges that from 1983 to 2009 Aon (or its predecessor) “served as insurance broker for an Egyptian government-owned company, the Egyptian Armament Authority (“EAA”), and its U.S. arm, the Egyptian Procurement Office (“EPO”).  According to the complaint, delegation trips for EAA and EPO officials to various U.S. destinations “had some business component” but also “included a disproportionate amount of leisure activities and lasted longer than the business component would justify.”  According to the SEC, the company’s “books and records did not fairly and accurately reflect the true nature of the payments made in connection with the delegation trips.”

As to the second category of payments, under the heading “Payments to Third-Party Facilitators” the complaint alleges as follows.  “Aon’s subsidiaries also made payments to third parties that were retained to assist in obtaining accounts in several countries.  In some instances, the subsidiaries made payments to the third parties without taking steps to assure that they would not be passed to foreign government officials.  The subsidiaries made some payments under circumstances in which the third parties appeared to have performed no legitimate services relating to the prospective accounts, thereby suggesting that they were simply conduits for improper payments to government officials in order to obtain or retain business for Aon.”

In Vietnam, the complaint alleges that “Aon Limited served as a co-broker on an insurance policy for Vietnam Airlines, a Vietnamese government-owned entity, since 2003.”   According to the complaint, a third-party facilitator assisted in securing the account and “company record indicate that the third-party facilitator did not provide legitimate services, but instead transferred some of the money that Aon Limited paid under its consultancy agreement to unidentified individuals referred to as ‘related people.’”

In Indonesia, the complaint alleges that “Aon Limited served as a broker on reinsurance contracts with BP Migas and Pertamina, two Indonesian state-owned entities in the oil and gas industry.”    The complaint alleges that “several former Aon Limited employees authorized improper payments to government officials in Indonesia to secure the Pertamina and BP Migas accounts for Aon Limited.”

In the United Arab Emirates, the complaint alleges that “Aon Limited provided brokerage services to a privately-held insurance company” and that payments were made “to the general manager of the insurance company as inducements to secure and retain the account for Aon Limited.”

In Myanmar, the complaint alleges that “Aon Limited retained an introducer in Myanmar to assist Aon Limited in connection with its account with Myanmar Airways and Myanmar Insurance, two government-owned entities.”  According to the complaint, “company records indicate that the introducer likely used a portion of his commission to improperly influence a government official on Aon Limited’s behalf in connection with the Myanmar account.”

In Bangladesh, the complaint alleges that “Aon Limited made approximately $1.07 million in payments to secure its account with Biman Bangladesh Airways and Sudharan Bima Corporation, two government-owned entities.”

Based on the above allegations, the SEC complaint alleges FCPA books and records and internal controls violations – but not FCPA anti-bribery violations – notwithstanding the fact that the DOJ’s NPA refers to “Aon’s knowing violation of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls.”

As stated in the SEC’s release (here), without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, Aon consented to entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining it from future FCPA books and records and internal controls violations and ordering the company to pay “disgorgement of $11,416,814 in profits together with prejudgement interest thereon of $3,128,206 for a total of $14,545,020.”

In a release (here) Aon stated as follows.  “Since beginning an internal review of these issues in 2007, Aon has put in place a comprehensive, global and robust anti-corruption program designed to prevent and detect improper conduct.”  Greg Case, Aon’s President and Chief Executive Officer stated as follows.  “Acting with integrity is Aon’s core value and we embody this in our commitment to the highest professional standards for our clients, markets and colleagues.  Aon has invested a significant amount of time and resources in anti-corruption compliance and transparency to greatly enhance our controls and processes.”

Kirkland & Ellis attorneys Laurence Urgenson (here) and Craig Primis (here) represented Aon.

Foreign Enforcement Action Roundup

Thursday, August 4th, 2011

The U.S., of course, is not the only country with an FCPA-like law. Canada’s version is the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (“CFPOA”).  Australia’s version is part of its general Criminal Code.

For years, Canada and Australia have been hammered by various civil society organizations for its general lack of enforcement. For instance, Transparency International’s recent Annual Progress Report of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (here) noted that “Canada is the only G7 country in the little or no enforcement category, and [it] has been in this category since the first edition of [TI's] report in 2005.”  Australia likewise was in the little to no enforcement category and TI stated as follows.  “The continued absence of prosecution for the past decade under the Criminal Code, as well as the absence of cases reported under the taxation law for this type of bribery offence, makes it difficult to demonstrate that successful prosecution is feasible under the present system.”

Against this backdrop, it was noteworthy that Canada and Australia authorities recently brought enforcement actions.  This post summarizes the enforcement actions as well as recent developments in the U.K.

Canada

Niko Resources

On June 24th, it was announced that Niko Resources (an oil and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Calgary) agreed to resolve a CFPOA enforcement action.

The Agreed Statement of Facts (here) states that Niko “did, in order to obtain or retain an advantage in the course of business provide goods and services to a person for the benefit of Foreign Public Officials to induce the officials to use their position to influence any acts or decisions of the foreign state for which the official performs duties or functions, contrary” to the CFPOA. 

The conduct at issue focused on Bangladesh and Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Limited (an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary) and specifically how Niko Bangladesh “provided the use of a vehicle [a Toyota Land Cruiser] costing [$190,984 Canadian dollars] to AKM Mosharraf Hossain, the Bangladeshi State Minister for Energy and Mineral Resources in order to influence the Minister in dealings with Niko Bangladesh within the context of ongoing business dealings.”  In addition, the Statement of Facts states that “Niko paid the travel and accommodation expenses for Minister AKM Mosharraf Hossain to travel from Bangladesh to Calgary to attend GO EXPO oil and gas exploration, and onward to New York and Chicago, so that the Minister could visit his family who lived there, the cost being approximately $5000.”

According to the Statement of Facts, Canada’s investigation began after news stories surfaced concerning a possible violation of the CFPOA by Niko.

The total fine imposed on Niko was $8,260,000 plus a 15% Victim Fine Surcharge for a total of $9,499,000 (all Canadian dollars).  This would seem to be a very aggressive fine amount for providing a Toyota Land Cruiser to a Bangladeshi Minister and paying $5,000 of non-business travel expenses to the official.  The Statement of Facts states that the “fine reflects that Niko made these payments in order to persuade the Bangladeshi Energy Minister to exercise his influence to ensure that Niko was able to secure a gas purchase and sales agreement acceptable to Niko, as well as to ensure the company was dealt with fairly in relation to claims for compensation for the blowouts, which represented potentially very large amounts of money.”  The Statement of Facts further state that Canadian authorities were “unable to prove that any influence was obtained as a result of providing the benefits to the Minister.”

The Probation Order (here) in the case reads very much like a U.S. style plea agreement or NPA/DPA in the FCPA context.  Among other things, Niko agreed to continue its cooperation in the investigation, to implement a series of compliance undertakings, and to report to relevant Canadian authorities concerning its compliance and remediation.

In this Bulletin, Mark Morrision and Michael Dixon of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP noted that “a particularly significant aspect of this case is the amount and nature of the penalty imposed upon Niko” given that the only prior conviction under the CFPOA - in 2005 against Hydro Kleen - resulted in a $25,000 fine. The Bulletin notes that “the sentencing precedents submitted by the Prosecutor were U.S.Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases and the authors state that “the court’s willingness to accept these precedents and impose a fine of this amount now sets the benchmark for CFPOA fines in Canada.”

For additional coverage of the Niko enforcement action, see here from The Globe and Mail. For a related development connected to the Niko enforcement action involving a former member of Canada’s Parliament, see here from The Globe and Mail.

In a press release (here), Niko Chairman and CEO Ed Sampson stated as follows. “What happened was wrong. We acknowledge this. We accept responsibility, and we appreciate the seriousness of the actions. As a result of these events we have taken extensive steps in all aspects of our organization. One such step is the creation of the position of Chief Compliance Officer who reports directly to our Board, to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again.” Niko’s release notes that since 2009 it has “adopted a full anti-corruption compliance program, training program and processes for risk assessment due diligence and compliance monitoring and reporting around the world.”

Australia

Securency International, et al

For years there has been news of an investigation of Securency International and certain of its executives for alleged breaches of Australia’s criminal code which prohibit payments to foreign government officials to obtain a business advantage.  See here and here for the prior posts.

On July 1st, the Australian Federal Police commenced prosecutions against Securency International (“Securency”), Note Printing Australia Ltd (“NPA”) and a number of senior executives of those companies for criminal offences concerning the bribery and corrupting of various foreign public officials.  Criminal charging documents are not publicly available in Australia, but Robert Wyld of  Johnson Winter & Slattery (see here) provides this overview based on press reports.

“The event generated considerable publicity and banner headlines in Victoria where The Age has been prominent in investigating and following the story. The Federal Police commander, Chris McDevitt was quoted by The Age as saying that the case should send “a very clear message to corporate Australia” about avoiding bribery overseas.

The Securency allegations might be summarised as follows, taken from the news coverage of the events, noting that all corporations and individuals charged are innocent until proven guilty.

Securency and NPA have each been charged with criminal offences.  The CEO (Myles Curtis), the CFO (Mitchell Anderson) and a Sales Executive (Ron Marchant) of Securency together with the CEO (John Leckenby), the CFO (Peter Hutchinson) and a Sales Executive (Barry Brady) of NPA and each been charged with bribery offences contrary to sections11.5(1) and 70.2 of the Criminal Code.  The offences are alleged to have taken place between 1999 and 2005 and involved payments totalling nearly $10 million.  The conduct in question involved activity in Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam concerning the payment of moneys to consultants or others characterised as public officials in circumstances which resulted in the  award of contracts to Securency and NPA for the printing of foreign currency polymer banknotes.  Specifically,  in Malaysia, Securency and NPA secured a contract to print the 5 ringgit polymer banknotes through the services of an arms broker and a United Malays National Organisation MP and official and a former Malay central bank assistant governor has been charged with bribery by Malaysian authorities.  In Indonesia, Securency and NPA secured a contract to print 500 million 100,000 rupiah polymer banknotes through the services of a consultant, Radius Christanto who received nearly US$4.9 million in commissions.  In Vietnam, Securency secured a contract to print all Vietnamese currency on polymer banknotes, through the services of a local agent Anh Ngoc Luong (said to be a colonel in the Vietnam internal spy agency) and his company CFTD (whose directors were said to be relatives of Communist Party officials).  In  addition, in Nigeria, investigations are ongoing concerning up to $20 million that may have been paid to intermediaries to secure contracts.  Further investigations are ongoing in Europe, the UK and in the US involving the identified conduct and potentially, conduct in other countries.

To the extent that any offences result in convictions, the applicable penalties will be determined under the old Criminal Code regime which existed (and was heavily criticised by the OECD and by Transparency International) before the penalties were substantially amended in February 2010.”

U.K.

Macmillan Publishers

On July 22nd, the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) announced (here)  that an Order was made under the Proceeds of Crime Act  for Macmillan Publishers Limited (“MPL”)  ”to pay in excess of  £11 million in recognition of sums it received which were generated through unlawful conduct related to its Education Division in East and West Africa. ”  As noted in the SFO release, “the initial enquiry commenced following a report from the World Bank” (see here for a prior post discussing the World Bank debarment proceeding of the MPL.)   The SFO release goes into detail regarding the “ procedure based on the guidance contained within [the SFO's] published protocol document” that the SFO required MPL to follow and the release also sets forth  “a number of relevant features, which have informed the resolution” of the matter.   This SFO guidance will be of interest to those following SFO expectations in this Bribery Act era.  For more on the MPL enforcement action see here from Field Fisher Waterhouse.

Willis Limited 

On July 21st, the U.K. Financial Services Authority announced (here) a £6.895 million fine against Willis Limited for “failings in its anti-bribery and corruption systems and controls.”  The FSA release states as follows.  “Between January 2005 and December 2009, Willis Limited made payments to overseas third parties who assisted it in winning and retaining business from overseas clients, particularly in high risk jurisdictions. These payments totalled £27 million. The FSA investigation found that, up until August 2008, Willis Limited failed to: ensure that it established and recorded an adequate commercial rationale to support its payments to overseas third parties; ensure that adequate due diligence was carried out on overseas third parties to evaluate the risk involved in doing business with them; and adequately review its relationships on a regular basis to confirm whether it was still necessary and appropriate for Willis Limited to continue with the relationship.  These failures contributed to a weak control environment surrounding payments to overseas third parties and gave rise to an unacceptable risk that these payments could be used for corrupt purposes, including paying bribes. In addition, between January 2005 and May 2009, Willis Limited failed to adequately monitor its staff to ensure that each time it engaged an overseas third party, an adequate commercial rationale had been recorded and that sufficient due diligence had been carried out. Although Willis Limited improved its policies in August 2008, it failed to ensure that its staff were adequately implementing them. Lastly, throughout the period, Willis Limited’s senior management did not receive sufficient information about the performance of Willis Limited’s relevant policies to allow them to assess whether bribery and corruption risks were being mitigated effectively. During the FSA investigation, Willis Limited identified as suspicious a number of payments totalling $227,000 which it made to two overseas third parties in respect of business carried out in Egypt and Russia.”

According to the FSA,  Willis’s “failings created an unacceptable risk that payments made by Willis Limited to overseas third parties could be used for corrupt purposes.”  The FSA release states that the fine is the  largest “in relation to financial crime systems and controls to date.”  For more on the Willis Limited enforcement action see here from Adam Greaves of McGuireWoods.  The FSA’s Willis Limited enforcement action is similar to a January 2009 enforcement action against Aon Limited (see here).

Is There A Difference?

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

In September 2010, during the sentencing of Nam Quoc Nguyen, one of the Nexus Technology defendants (see here for the post on the sentences), the DOJ called to the witness stand the former U.S. commercial attache from Vietnam who was asked to testify as to the “seriousness of the offense as it impacts Vietnam.” (See here for relevant portions of the sentencing transcript).

While in Vietnam, the commercial attache oversaw a staff of about ten in delivering services to American companies to help them grow their exports and he managed an advocacy portfolio in Vietnam to assist U.S. companies in selling directly to the Vietnam government. The individual testified that his group “constantly advise[d] companies on strategies to enter the market, to bid on government contract, to win business.”

The former commercial attache described Vietnam as a “corrupt country” and the DOJ presumably expected the individual to stay on message as to how corruption in Vietnam is not a victimless crime and to describe who suffers from corruption in Vietnam. He did that.

But the individual drifted it seemed in his testimony and said, “I make no bones about it. It’s very difficult to do business in Vietnam. It’s not very transparent but American companies are making money and there are a number of strategies that companies can follow.”

The individual was asked “is it possible to do business in Vietnam without paying bribes.” He answered “it is.”

One of the strategies he discussed was the following.

“Often it [obtaining Vietnamese government business] may require a personal visit by the Ambassador or another high-ranking official to a government official or an official of a state-run enterprise. It could take the form of a letter from a high-ranking U.S. government official to another official in the Vietnamese government or state-owned enterprise.” (See pg. 68).

The individual then specifically talked about a $180 million commercial satellite contract Lockheed Martin was awarded by Vietnam Post and Telematics Group (a “major state-owned enterprise”). See here for Lockheed’s press release.

According to the individual’s testimony, Lockheed (he described the company as “one of our clients”) “was in a competitive position to provide $180 million commercial satellite to one of the major state-owned enterprises, Vietnam Post and Telematics Group, VNPT.”

At this point, even the judge asked the DOJ attorney, “what does this have to do with what you said you were calling this witness to tell us about?”

After an exchange between the judge and the DOJ attorney, the individual finished by saying. “The bottom line is, we have been able to help companies work through. In this particular case, a European country was offering payment with regards to winning the bid but the intervention of the Ambassador with the Chairman of VNPT and the Minister of Information Communications, was a critical element to help the company win the business, and they have stated as such.”

According to this October 2010 article, Lockheed is among the “biggest corporate campaign contributors in U.S. politics.”

Is there a difference between (a) when a company (or its employees) gives something of value to a foreign official to obtain or retain business with a foreign government; and (b) when a company (or its employees) gives something of value to U.S. political parties or candidates, or spends millions lobbying the U.S. government, and then the U.S. government assists the company obtain or retain business with a foreign government?

What about those U.S. diplomats that act as “marketing agents” for U.S. companies such as Boeing as recently profiled by the New York Times (here).

Disconnected … Another Telecommunications Company Settles An FCPA Enforcement Action

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

Yesterday, Veraz Networks, Inc. (see here) joined a long list of telecommunications companies to recently settle an FCPA enforcement action. Veraz, a California-based telecommunications provider, went public in April 2007 and sells its telecommunication products through both direct and indirect sales channels with a majority of its revenue coming from sales outside of the U.S.

Other telecommunications companies, or individuals employed in that industry, to recently resolve FCPA enforcement actions include: UTStarcom (see here and here for the enforcement action), Latin Node, Inc. (see here for the enforcement action), Lucent Technologies (see here and here for the enforcement action), Siemens (in part, see here for the enforcement action), various individuals in connection with the Haiti Teleco matter (see here for the enforcement action), and various employees of ITXC Corporation (see here for the enforcement action). Pending FCPA enforcement actions against telecommunications companies presumably include: Magygar Telekom (see here) and Global Crossing Limited (see here).

That’s a long list.

Back to Veraz.

According to the SEC release (see here), Veraz violated the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions in connection with “improper payments made by Veraz to foreign officials in China and Vietnam after the company went public in 2007.”

The SEC complaint (see here) alleges that “from 2007 to 2008, Veraz resellers, consultants, and employees made and offered payments to employees of government-controlled telecommunications companies in China and Vietnam with the purpose and effect of improperly influencing these foreign officials to award or continue to do business with Veraz.” According to the complaint, a Veraz supervisor referred to certain of these payments as the “gift scheme.” The complaint further alleges that “Veraz failed to accurately record these improper payments on the Company’s books and records, and failed to implement or maintain a system of effective internal accounting controls to prevent them in violation of the FCPA [...] and to put in place internal controls that are reasonably designed to ensure that their books and records are accurate.”

The SEC’s sparse factual allegations fall under two headings: “Veraz Made Improper Payments to Chinese Government Officials” and “Veraz Made Improper Payments to Vietnamese Government Officials.”

As to payments to “Chinese Government Officials,” the SEC alleges that Veraz engaged a consultant in China to assist Veraz sell products “to a telecommunications company controlled by the government of China.” The complaint further alleges that the consultant “provided approximately $4,500 worth of gifts to officials” of the telecommunications company “in an attempt to secure a business deal for Veraz.” The complaint further alleges that the consultant “also offered a separate improper payment to officials” at the telecommunications company “to secure a deal for Veraz valued at approximately $233,000.” According to the complaint, “Veraz discovered this improper offer of payment prior to receiving any money from the transaction and cancelled the sale.”

As to payments to “Vietnamese Government Officials,” the SEC alleges that “Veraz sold products to a telecommunications company controlled by the government of Vietnam through a Singapore-based reseller.” According to the complaint, a “Veraz employee, through the Singapore-based reseller, at times made or offered illicit payments to the CEO” of the telecommunications company “in order to win business for Veraz.” The complaint further alleges that Veraz “approved of and reimbursed its employee for questionable expenses related” to the telecommunications company “including gifts and entertainment” for employees of the company and “flowers for the wife of the CEO” of the company.

In both instances, according to the complaint: (i) Veraz did not make or keep books, records, and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflected the improper gifts or payments provided by Veraz; and (ii) Veraz failed to devise and maintain an effective system of internal controls to prevent or detect violations of the FCPA.

Based on these allegations, the SEC charged Veraz with violating the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions.

According to the SEC’s release, Veraz, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, consented to entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining Veraz from future FCPA violations and ordering Veraz to pay a $300,000 civil penalty.

In an article to be published later this summer titled “The Facade of FCPA Enforcement,” I highlight four pillars which contribute to the facade of FCPA enforcement.

The first pillar highlights the frequency in which FCPA enforcement actions are resolved based on uninformative, bare-bones, and legal conclusory statements of facts or allegations. Check as to the Veraz enforcement action. Just who were those Chinese and Vietnamese Government officials? The SEC complaint contains these wonderfully descriptive allegations: “a telecommunications company controlled by the government of China” and a “telecommunications company controlled by the government of Vietnam.” What was the nature of the “illicit payments” made or offered to the CEO of the Vietnamese telecommunications company and what were the “questionable expenses” related to the same company? The complaint does not elaborate.

The second pillar highlights the increasing and alarming trend of FCPA enforcement actions being resolved based on tenuous, dubious and untested legal theories. Check as to the Veraz enforcement action. True, the enforcement action does not allege antibribery violations, but let’s face it, if Veraz’s books and records did not adequately reflect sales and marketing expenses associated with domestic customers and if Veraz did not have sufficient internal controls to prevent and detect such expenses, we would not be reading about this case as an “FCPA enforcement action” even though such conduct would similarly violate the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions. Rather, this is an FCPA enforcement action (in the traditional sense) because the improperly recorded payments were directed at “foreign officials” – so alleges the SEC under the theory, never accepted by a court, that employees of state-owned or state-controlled enterprises are “foreign officials” under the FCPA.

The third pillar highlights highlights the opaque nature of FCPA enforcement and how similar enforcement actions, based on the government’s own allegations, are resolved with materially different charges and penalties. Check as to the Veraz enforcement action. If ever there were carbon copy FCPA enforcement actions, it would seem to be Veraz, UTStarcom and Lucent. All principally involved providing things of value to Chinese “foreign officials” (employees of alleged state-owned enterprises). One would expect then that the charges would be similar as well. Wrong. Veraz appears to be only an SEC enforcement action charging only FCPA books and records and internal control violations. UTStarcom involved a DOJ non-prosecution agreement and an SEC enforcement action charging FCPA antibribery as well as books and records and internal control violations. Lucent also involved a DOJ non-prosecution agreement and an SEC enforcement action charging only FCPA books and records and internal control violations. Thus, three similar cases resolved three distinct ways.

[The fourth pillar highlights how seemingly clear-cut instances of corporate bribery and corruption (per the government's own allegations) are resolved without FCPA antibribery charges. Veraz is not BAE, Siemens, or Daimler - and thus this pillar is of little significance here].

One final point demonstrated by the Veraz enforcement action: resolution fines/penalties represent merely the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of the costs associated with an FCPA inquiry.

The final fine amount, $300,000, is 1/10 the amount of expenses incurred by the company in connection with the SEC investigation. As stated in the company’s most recent 10-Q filing (May 2010) (see here) “as of March 31, 2010, the Company has incurred expenses relating to the SEC investigation of approximately $3 million.”

No wonder Forbes (see here) recently termed the increase in FCPA enforcement the “bribery racket.” No wonder the Wall Street Journal Law Blog (see here) recently posed the question – “is the FCPA Just a Full-Employment Act for the Private Bar?”

Dissecting Daimler

Monday, March 29th, 2010

April Fool’s Day is a day traditionally full of practical jokes and pranks.

Thus, it is only fitting that on April 1st U.S. District Court Richard Leon will hold a hearing on the Daimler FCPA enforcement action during which he is expected to approve a DOJ – Daimler brokered deferred prosecution agreement and other various aspects of the settlement discussed below.

If so, one pillar which contributes to the “facade of FCPA enforcement” (more on that in a future post) – bribery, yet no bribery – will have a new poster-child in addition to the Siemens and BAE bribery, yet no bribery FCPA enforcement actions (see here for prior Siemens posts and here for prior BAE posts).

At least, Siemens and BAE pleaded guilty to something - even if that something was not an FCPA antibribery charge.

The Daimler enforcement action appears to take the “facade” one step further in that Daimler will not have to plead guilty to anything … zero … zilch.

Rather, Daimler will agree to a deferred prosecution agreement despite clear evidence (per the DOJ’s own allegations as set forth below) of FCPA antibribery violations.

One can legitimately ask, what did Innospec Inc. and Control Components, Inc. (two companies that recently pleaded guilty to FCPA antibribery violations) do that Daimler also didn’t do?

Sure, two insignificant entities in Daimler’s massive corporate hierarchy, Daimler Export and Trade Finance GmbH (“ETF”) and DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia SAO (“DCAR”), are expected to plead guilty to FCPA antibribery charges. EFT is a finance arm far down on Daimler’s corporate hierarchy and DCAR sells spare parts for Daimler in Russia.

In other words, it sure looks and feels like two junior, indirect subsidiaries are being offered up as “sacrificial corporate lambs” to take the fall for the more significant, powerful parent.

The end result is that the DOJ can boast it secured two FCPA antibribery pleas while allowing Daimler to say that it never violated the FCPA’s antibribery provisions, thus allowing Daimler to escape debarment in Europe – a factor clearly at issue in this enforcement action as highlighted below.

Yet another instance of bribery, yet no bribery is not the only reason why the Daimler enforcement action contributes to the facade of FCPA enforcement.

In addition, wrapped into allegations which clearly establish all the elements of an FCPA antibribery violation, are numerous dubious and untested theories of FCPA liability.

Most notably, the entire criminal information against DaimlerChrysler China Ltd. (“DCCL”) is premised, as so many recent FCPA enforcement actions are, on employees of alleged Chinese state-owned entities (companies doing business all over the world and companies with publicly traded stock) being “foreign officials” under the FCPA. As in other FCPA enforcement actions, the allegations as to these entities are bare-bones, uninformative, and replete with legal conclusions as to why these entities are “instrumentalities” of a foreign government.

Because these dubious and untested theories of FCPA liability are embedded into the much larger bribery, yet no bribery charges against Daimler which are being resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement, these dubious and untested theories will once again escape judicial scrutiny.

Because of the general lack of substantive FCPA case law, the entire Daimler enforcement action (including theories of liability premised on the dubious and untested legal theories) will once again be viewed as de facto FCPA case law.

The Daimler bribery, yet no bribery enforcement action is wide in scope and allegations of improper conduct go all the way up to senior levels of the company. The “things of value” are numerous, the “foreign officials” include bona fide government officials (as well as the dubious “foreign officials” referenced above) and the amount of business allegedly obtained or retained through bribery and corruption is in the hundreds of millions.

The countries in which the payments were allegedly made are numerous (in fact, the label function at the bottom of this post only allows so many characters and I was unable to separately label each country in which the alleged improper payments occurred).

The alleged improper payments involved dozens and dozens of third parties, including several located in the U.S., which were allegedly utilized by Daimler and its affiliates to bribe foreign officials. Given Daimler’s use of numerous U.S. based entities, it will be interesting to see if any of these U.S. entities and/or entity employees will be prosecuted for their role in the respective bribery schemes.

The Daimler bribery, yet no bribery case involves involves ineffective internal controls, lack of effective third-party due diligence, and intentional misrecording of bribe payments on Daimler’s books and records (and those of its affiliates).

Yet in another interesting twist, Daimler also escapes criminal charges for knowingly failing to implement effective internal controls, even though the DOJ’s own allegations would seem to support such a charge. (Even Siemens plead guilty to both criminal books and records and internal controls charges).

This a long post.

However, the more that is known about the Daimler FCPA enforcement action and the more that is understood about the facade of FCPA enforcement, the greater the chance the facade of FCPA enforcement will be exposed and addressed.

It all starts with the person standing between the DOJ and Daimler and that is Judge Richard Leon and he would be doing a great public service by rejecting the proposed settlement and injecting the “rule of law” into the current facade of FCPA enforcement.

This post details the Daimler criminal information, the Daimler deferred prosecution agreement, the three separate criminal informations against Daimler subsidiaries, and the DOJ omnibus sentencing memorandum.

The Daimler AG Bribery, Yet No Bribery Allegations

According to the criminal information (see here) filed against Daimler AG (and the Statement of Facts in the below described deferred prosecution agreement), the company “engaged in a long-standing practice of paying bribes to ‘foreign officials’ as that term is defined in the FCPA … through a variety of mechanisms, including the use of corporate accounts [such as cash desks], offshore bank accounts, deceptive pricing arrangements, and third-party intermediaries.”

In summary fashion, the information charges that “between 1998 and January 2008, Daimler made hundreds of improper payments worth tens of millions of dollars to foreign officials in at least 22 countries – including China, Croatia, Egypt, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Latvia, Nigeria, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and others – to assist in securing contracts with government customers for the purchase of Daimler vehicles valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.”

According to the information, “in some cases, Daimler wired these improper payments to U.S. bank accounts or to the foreign bank accounts of U.S. shell companies in order to transmit the bribe.” The information alleges that “in at least one instance, a U.S. shell company was incorporated for the specific purpose of entering into a sham consulting agreement with Daimler in order to conceal improper payments routed through the shell company to foreign government officials.” According to the information “certain improper payments even continued as late as January 2008.” The information charges that “in all cases, Daimler improperly recorded these payments in its corporate books and records.”

Despite being a German company, the information charges that “as a result of Daimler’s filing of periodic reports with the SEC, and Daimler’s use of U.S. bank accounts and U.S. companies in transacting certain business with foreign governments and officials, the company is subject to the FCPA.”

According to the information, “Daimler’s longstanding violations of the FCPA resulted from a variety of factors, including: (1) an inadequate compliance structure; (2) a highly decentralized system of selling vehicles through a myriad of foreign sales forces, subsidiaries, and affiliates, with no central oversight; (3) a corporate culture that tolerated and/or encouraged bribery; and (4) the involvement of certain key executives, such as the then head of its overseas sales division (“DCOS”), the then head of internal audit, and the then CEO’s of several subsidiaries and affiliates.”

According to the information, “in total, the corrupt transactions with a territorial connection to the United States resulted in over $50,000,000 in pre-tax profits for Daimler.”

The information alleges improper conduct at the highest levels of the country. For instance, in 1999 during a Daimler “Board of Management meeting, Daimler’s then head of internal audit proposed that the company adopt an integrity code that included anti-bribery provisions …” However, the information charges that “participants in the meeting discussed that adopting such policies (and stopping the practice of making ‘useful payments’) would result in Daimler losing business in certain countries.” Even though the company did adopt “an integrity code with anti-bribery provisions” at the meeting, the information charges that Daimler, among other things, “failed to make sufficient efforts to enforce the code, train employees on compliance with the FCPA or other applicable anti-bribery statutes” or “otherwise attempt to ensure that the company was not continuing to make improper payments in order to obtain or retain government business overseas.”

Elsewhere, the information charges that “in or about 2000 or 2001″ “Daimler’s internal audit department was aware that Daimler employees had made and could make bribe payments” and that the department drafted a document identifying 14 separate improper payment mechanisms. According to the information, the same document noted that “payment of ‘useful expenditures’ through these methods was subject to criminal prosecution in countries such as the United States.” However, the document also noted the “level of difficulty” law enforcement authories would have in “proving corruption carried out through the various methods.”

The Daimler information, as to conduct in Russia, China, and Croatia, contains the same substantive allegations as set forth in the separate criminal informations against DCAR, ETF, and DCCL (described more fully below).

Vietnam

As to Vietnam, the information charges that “Daimler employees working at Mercedes Benz Vietnam (“MBV”) made improper payments and provided gifts and other things of value to Vietnamese government officials in exchange for business from Vietnamese government owned and controlled customers.” According to the information, “these improper payments were routinely paid to government officials through broker commissions” and the payments were “improperly categorized as broker commissions, cost of goods sold, and/or gifts” in MBV’s books and records.

The information states that between “2000 and 2005, MBV was majority owned (70%) and controlled by Daimler through its subsidiary Daimler Benz Vietnam Investments Singapore Pte. Ltd., which Daimler wholly owned from June 30, 2003 through 2006.” The information further states that “although a Vietnamese government entity, Saigon Auto Corp., was a minority owner (30%) of MBV” and that “MBV was managed primarily by German Daimler employees.”

According to the information, the “foreign official” recipients of the improper payments included employees of Saigon Passenger Transport Company (“Saigon Bus”) (see here), an alleged “instrumentality” of the Vietnamese government and “Vietnamese government officials in the Ministry of Public Security.”

The information alleges that “MBV agreed to make the improper payments to the Saigon Bus official through” an account of Trading & Investment Houston, a U.S. based entity. The information also alleges that during negotiations of the Saigon Bus deal, “a Vietnamese government official with the government-owned Saigon High Tech Park suggested that MBV make a contribution [approximately $22 million over a five yeard period] to the high tech park as a condition of Daimler and MBV winning the business contract.”

The information also alleges that in connection with the 2004 Asia Europe Meeting (“ASEM 5″), “Vietnamese government officials sought to obtain 78 Mercedes Benz passenger cars in order to transport officials attending the conference.” According to the information, MBV “agreed to lend the vehicles to the Vietnamese government free of charge” and that in exchange “the Vietnamese government allowed MBV to import these 78 completely assembled passenger cars into Vietnam at a tariff rate of only 25%, when the standard tariff rate for completely assembled vehicles was 100%.” According to the information, following the conference, when MBV sold the vehicles, it was thus able to make a “much higher profit, approximately €1.65 million, because of the lower tariff costs.”

According to the information, “the making of [these] improper payments was known about and encouraged at the highest levels of the former MBV management.”

Turkmenistan

As to Turkmenistan, the information alleges that Daimler, and its Vienna based distributor (IPC) delivered to high-level Turkmen government officials various gifts, including “an armored Mercedes Benz S-class passenger car, valued at more than €300,000 for his birthday.” According to the information, “neither the Turkmen Government Official nor the Turkmen government paid for the vehicle” but that Daimler affiliate employees “agreed to provide this birthday gift to the Turkmen Government Official with the expectation that [Daimler] would receive large contracts for the purchase of vehicles by the Turkmenistan government in the coming year.”

Nigeria

As to Nigeria, the information focuses on the conduct of Anambra Motor Manufacturing Company (“Anammco”), “a joint venture between Daimler and the Nigerian government” that Daimler utilized to sell vehicles into Nigeria. According to the information, “Daimler owned 40% of Anammco and controlled Anammco, inter alia, through Anammco’s then managing director, who was a German expatriate and dual employee of both Daimler and Anammco.”

According to the information, “Daimler entered into a contract to sell vehicles to the Nigerian State House, which was also known as the Nigerian Presidential Complex, and was the office and residence of the Nigerian President (the ‘State House Contract’) and that pursuant to this contract, Daimler charged “the State House approximately 21% over the wholesale price for the vehicles, parts, and services.” According to the information, “in connection with these sales to the State House, Daimler made €1,427,242 in improper commission payments … with the understanding that these funds would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Nigerian officials to secure the State House Contract.”

The information also charges that Daimler made improper payments to high-level executive branch officials in Nigeria in connection with the State House Contract; that Anammco entered into contracts worth $4.6 million with Savannah Sugar Company Ltd. (an alleged instrumentality of the Nigerian government) to supply Daimler vehicles, spare parts, and tools on which approximately €554,396 in “consultant” payments were made; and that “Daimler entered into a contract with the Nigerian Police Force” in which Anammco requested that Daimler make payment to a member of the Nigerian Police Force in his German bank account.

The information also alleges that Daimler made various payments to Nigerian government officials in connection with selling “54 buses to the Nigerian Ministry of Industry” to provide transport for the World Youth Championship games held in Nigeria. The informatin further alleges that Anammco agreed to provide $500,000 in support of the “All-Africa Games” and that Anammco supplied numerous vehicles for the games, but that the Nigeria organizing committee for the games did not pay for the vehicles.

Finally, the information charges that Daimler’s wholly-owned subsidiary in Brazil utilized the services of an entity owned by a senior Nigerian diplomat in Brazil and his wife to help facilitate the sale of buses to a Nigerian state and that approximately $60,000 in commission payments were paid to the Nigerian diplomat.

Ivory Coast / West Africa

As to the Ivory Coast and West Africa, the information states that “from at least 1992 to 2007, Daimler sold passenger cars in the Ivory Coast and other West African countries through its majority owned (89%) and controlled subsidiary, Star Auto S.A. (“Star Auto”)” and that Star Auto made direct sales of Daimler passenger cars to various government customers in West Africa, including government ministries, the military, and government agencies, including for use by diplomats and heads of state.” In connection with these sales, Daimler employees “authorized and made improper payments to government officials at its customers in the Ivory Coast and elsewhere in West Afria…”

Among other conduct, the information alleges that commission payments were made to an entity that would pass on, in whole or in part, the payments to Ghanaian Army officials in connection with a contract to sell trucks to the Army of Ghana, and that Daimler, to assist in securing a contract to provide trucks to an Indonesian firm operating a logging project in Liberia, “gave a then senior executive branch official of Liberia a gift of an armored Mercedes passenger car worth approximately €267,000.”

Latvia

As to Latvia, the information charges that EvoBus GmbH (“EvoBus”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daimler and part of a Daimler business unit called Daimler Buses, paid approximately €1,800,000 in ‘commision’ payments to third parties with the understanding that such improper payments would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Latvian government officials to influnce the award of contracts to EvoBus.” According to the information, the contracts were awarded by the Riga City Council Traffic Department and EvoBus paid bribes to members of the Riga City Council. To make these “commission payments and to disguise their true nature and purpose” the information charges that “EvoBus entered into sham consulting contracts with, among others, two U.S. based entities: Oldenburgh Financial Corporation, incorporated in Delaware, and United Petrol Group LLP, incorporated in Oregon.”

Austria / Hungary

As to Austria and Hungary, the information charges that, to help facilitate the sale of 32 used buses to a state-owned regional public transport company in Hungary, EvoBus Austria GmbH agreed to pay a “commission of €333,370 to a U.S. based corporation called USCON Ltd. with the understanding that the payment would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Hungarian government officials.”

Turkey

As to Turkey, the information charges that Daimler’s Corporate Audit Department “discovered three binders located in a safe at MB Turk’s [a Daimler subsidiary in Turkey] offices in Istabul” that, along with other evidence, demonstrated that “MB Turk made approximately €6.05 million in payments to third parties in connection with vehicle export transactions that involved the sale of vehicles to non-Turkish government customers in North Korea, Latvia, Bulgaria, Libya, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other countries in deals with revenues of approximately €95 million.” According to the information, at least €3.88 million of the €6.05 million comprised of “improper payments and gifts [...] paid to foreign government officials or to third parties with the understanding that the payments and gifts would be passed on, in whole or in part, to foreign government officials to assist in securing the sale of Daimler vehicles to government customers.”

Indonesia

As to Indonesia, the information charges that “Daimler’s local affiliates provides gifts, travel and entertainment to government officials associated with Perum Damri in order to secure business.” According to the information, Perum Damri (see here) is a “state-owned bus company” and an “instrumenality of the Indonesian government” thus making its employees “foreign officials” under the FCPA. The information alleges that between 1998 and 2005, “Daimler’s local affiliates spent approximately $41,000 on such gifts, including golf clubs, wedding gifts for the children of a senior offical at Perum Damri, golf outings for Perum Damri officials, and gifts that were raffled off to low-level employees on the occasion of Perum Damri’s anniversary. According to the information, Perum Damri purchased approximately $8.36 million worth of buses from Daimler’s Indonesian affiliates. The information also alleges that “Daimler’s local affiliates also made several large cash payments to tax officials in Indonesia for the purpose of reducing their tax obligations.”

Iraq

As to Iraq, the information charges, what has become, standard Iraqi Oil for Food Program allegations in that Daimler “agreed to pay a 10% commission to the government of Iraq in connection with sales of its vehicles under the [Oil for Food Program].” Yet in a twist, the information states certain sales between “Daimler and the Iraqi government were prepared, negotiated and finalized by employees at Daimler’s headquarters in Germany” and that “Daimler negotiated its [Oil for Food Contracts] directly with the government of Iraq.” (In many of the prior Oil for Food cases, the Iraqi government contracts were prepared, negotiated, and finalized primarily by third-party agents retained by the offending company). When third party agents were used by Daimler to make sales to the Iraqi government, the information charges that Daimler executives “understood that Daimler’s contract partners would pay illegal kickbacks to Iraqi ministries.”

After this laundry list of bribes in several differnt countries, the information then alleges that “prior to 2005, Daimler’s anti-bribery compliance program was inadequate.” Among other things, the information alleges that Daimler had “inadequate guidelines and controls concerning the disbursement of cash from cash desks;” inadequate controls over other corporate accounts; “inadequate controls over the opening and maintaining of bank accounts;” “inadequate controls over the selection, use, and making of payments to agents and intermediaries;” and “inadequate training of Daimler employees on FCPA or other anti-bribery compliance.”

Against this backdrop, one might assume that Daimler was charged with FCPA antibribery violations – which generally prohibit the payment of money or anything of value, to a foreign official, in order to obtain or retain business.

However, in this current facade era of FCPA enforcement, nothing can be taken for granted and the Daimler enforcement action is yet another instance of bribery, yet no bribery, as Daimler was merely charged with two counts: (i) conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s books and records provisions; and (ii) knowingly falsifying books, records, and accounts – a criminal charge under 78m(b)(5).

Even more troubling, Daimler will not even by pleading guilty to these charges, because the charges are being resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”).

Daimler AG’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement

The DPA (see here) is a fairly standard FCPA DPA in that in return for the DOJ deferring prosecution of the criminal charges against Daimler, Daimler “admits, accepts, and acknowledges that is is responsible for the acts of its employees, subsidiaries, and agents” as set forth above. As is common, Daimler also agrees to a host of compliance undertakings, including hiring an independent monitor for a three year period (an issue discussed in this prior post).

The term of the DPA is an unusual two years and seven months after the guilty pleas of ETF and DCAR (most FCPA NPAs or DPAs are for whole year terms). Also unusual is that the DPA states that if the DOJ finds “in its sole discretion, that there exists a change in circustances sufficient to eliminate the need for the corporate compliance monitor … and that other provisions of [the DPA] have been satisfied, the Term of the Agreement may be terminated early.”

Like other NPAs and DPAs, the Daimler DPA essentially muzzles Daimler, its directors, its employees, and agents, from making “any public statement … contradicting the acceptance of responsibility by Daimler” for the facts set forth in the charging documents. In this way, DOJ is able to insulate itself from criticism from the only other party besides DOJ (i.e. Daimler) that actually knows the precise facts and issues relevant to the charged conduct. Specifically, if Daimler wants to issue a press release relevant to this case, it must first get DOJ’s approval.

The DPA also states: “with respect to Daimler’s present reliability and responsibility as a government contractor, the Department agrees to cooperate with Daimler, in a form and manner to be agreed, in bringing facts relating to the nature of the conduct underlying this Agreement and to Daimler’s cooperation and remediation to the attention of governmental and other debarment authorities, including Multinational Development Banks, as requested.”

Thus, as in the BAE and Siemens bribery, yet no bribery enforcement actions, debarment seems to have been a key factor in selecting the actual charges against Daimler – a fact confirmed by the DOJ’s sentencing memorandum described below.

Daimler Export and Trade Finance GmbH and the Croatian Firetrucks

DOJ also filed a two count criminal information against Daimler Export and Trade Finance GmbH (“ETF”) which is described as wholly-owned subsidiary of Daimler Financial Services AG (“DFS”), which in turn is described as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daimler AG. According to the information, “ETF specialized in the structuring and arranging of customized financing solutions for exports by Daimler and external customers to countries without a local DFS company.” “In addition,” the information charges that “ETF participated in business ventures outside of Daimler’s core businesses of the manufacture and sale of passenger cars and vehicles.”

The charged conduct involves selling fire trucks to the Croatian Ministry of the Interior (“MOI”) as well as the conduct of IM Metal (“IMM”) an alleged “Croatian government controlled and partially owned former weapons manufacturer.” The information charges that “IMM was an ‘instrumentality’ of the Croatian government, and executives employed by IMM, or their designess were ‘foreign officials’ as those terms are used in the FCPA …” The charged conduct also involves Biotop Group, Inc. (“Biotop”), a Delaware corporation and Marketing Research and Consultants LLC (“MRC”), a Wyoming corporation.

Count one of the information charges conspiracy and alleges that “from in or about 2002, through in or about January 2008″ ETF, and others were engaged in a conspiracy to “make improper payments to Croatian government officials to induce them to cause the Croatian government agencies and instrumentalities to purchase Daimler vehicles.”

Among other things, the information charges that:

prior to be awarded a €85 million fire truck contract, “ETF understood that improper payments to Croatian government officials would be required in order to secure the Fire Truck Contract from the Croatian MOI;”

“ETF made improper payments directly to Croatian government officials and to third parties with the understanding that the payments would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Croatian government officials to assist in the Fire Truck Contract;”

“between 2002 and January 2008, ETF made approximately €3.02 million in payments to IMM and/or its principles in connection with the contract to sell fire trucks to the Croatian MOI with the understanding that all or a portion of the funds were paid to IMM’s employees, themselves foreign government officials, and that another portion of the funds were paid to Croatian government officials outside IMM in exchange for assistance in securing for the ETF-led consortium the Fire Truck Contract;” and

“in total, between 2002 and January 2008, ETF made approximately €1,673,349 in improper payments to Biotop and MRC in connection with the Fire Truck Contract with the understanding that those payments would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Croatian government officials” and that “neither Biotop nor MRC performed legitimate services for ETF sufficient to warrant payments in those amounts.”

The information alleges that “ETF entered into a sham consulting contract with Biotop in order to conceal the nature of improper payments ETF made to Biotop, and with the understanding that these funds would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Croatian government officials to assist in securing the Fire Trucks Contract with the Croatian MOI.” As to MRC, the information alleges that “six days after MRC’s incorporation, ETF executed a written consulting contract with MRC in order to conceal the nature of improper payments being made to MRC, with the understanding that the payments to MRC would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Croatian government officials.”

Count two of the information charges an FCPA antibribery violation. Because ETF is a foreign entity, the applicable section of the statute is 78dd-3 which requries a U.S. nexus. The information charges “ETF entered into sham consulting contracts with shell companies incorporated in Delaware and Wyoming for the purpose of making improper payments to Croatian government officials, and made payments to those companies’ accounts outside the United States with the understanding that such payments would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Croatian government officials.”

Because the information charges that ETF’s payments to Biotop and MRC were to the companies’ accounts “outside the United States” it appears that the sole U.S. nexus DOJ is using to charge ETF with an FCPA antibribery is the act of entering into a contract with a U.S. company.

DaimlerChrysler China Ltd. and the Chinese “Foreign Officials”

DOJ also filed a two count criminal information against DaimlerChrysler China Ltd. (“DCCL”), a “Beijing-based, wholly-owned Daimler subsidiary and cost center that managed Daimler’s business relationships in [China], assisted Daimler in selecting and managing joint ventures in China, and helped manage Daimler’s expatriate employees in China.” According to the information, “although DCCL did not itself sell any vehicles directly into China, certain DCCL employees assisted with the sale of vehicles by various Daimler divisions in Germany to government customers in China.”

The charged conduct focuses solely on three Chinese state-owned entities the DOJ alleges are “instrumentalities” of the Chinese government.

First, the DOJ alleges that “The Bureau of Geophysical Prospecting (“BGP”) was a division of the China National Petroleum Corporation (“CNPC”), a Chinese state-owned oil company” and that “among other things, BGP was involved in searching for oil in various regions of China” and that “BGP was an ‘instrumentality’ of the Chinese government, and individuals employed by BGP were ‘foreign officials’” under the FCPA. According to its website (see here), BGP is a limited liability company and it has “forty overseas branches and offices have been established in Asia, America, Africa and the Middle East” (see here). According to its website (here), CNPC ” is China’s largest oil and gas producer and supplier, as well as one of the world’s major oilfield service providers and a globally reputed contractor in engineering construction” and it has “a presence in almost 70 countries.” CNPC’s corporate hierachy (here) looks similar to other commercial enterprises and one of CNPC’s largest holdings is PetroChina, an entity with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange as well as other exchanges (see here).

Second, the DOJ alleges that “Sinopec Corp. (“Sinopec”) was a Chinese state-owned energy company involved in, among other things, exploration and production of petroleum and natural gas, as well as the refining and sale of petroleum products” and that “Sinopec was an ‘instrumenality’ of the Chinese government, and individuals employed by Sinopec were ‘foreign officials’” under the FCPA. According to its website (here) Sinopec is “a listed company on domestic and international stock exchanges” and it has shares traded in Shanghai, Hong Kong, New York and London.

Third, the DOJ alleges that “Changqing Petroleum Exploration Bureau (“Changqing”) was a Chinese state-owned oil and natural gas extracting company” and that “Changqing was an ‘instrumentality’ of the Chinese government and individuals employed by Changqing were ‘foreign official’” under the FCPA. Changqing is an entity within CNPC’s extensive organization.

According to the information, “between 2000 and 2005, DCCL employees and/or Daimler employees through DCCL made at least €4,173,944 in improper payments in the form of ‘commissions,’ delegation travel, and gifts for the benefit of Chinese government officials and their designees, in connection with over €112,357,719 in sales” of vehicles to Chinese government customers. The information alleges that “these sales to Chinese government customers were made directly from Daimler’s [divisions] in Germany through various intermediaries with the assistance of DCCL employees in the commercial vehicles division.”

According to the information, “to make improper payments to Chinese government officials, Daimler and DCCL typically inflated the sales price of vehicles sold to Chinese government customers and then maintained the overpayments in debtor accounts on Daimler’s books and records, including one debtor account called the ‘special commissions’ account.” The information alleges that “DCCL employees, including its then head of sales and marketing disbursed payments” from the account and “at the time, no checks or policies were in place to ensure the legitimacy or appropriateness of such payments.”

According to the information, “DCCL and Daimler also employed agents to assist in securing” vehicles from Chinese government customers, but that “neither DCCL nor Daimler performed due diligence on these agents, and there were inadequate controls in place to ensure that payments made to these agents were not passed on to Chinese government officials and their designees.” The information states that “the agency agreements were often not in writing” and that “DCCL and Daimler lacked adequate oversight into the appropriateness or purpose of payments from debtor accounts that ultimately went to government officials in China and their designees.” The information charges that “finance and controls oversight was so lacking with respect to Daimler’s sale of commercial vehicles in China that DCCL’s Sales and Marketing Head was able to remove at least approximately €230,000 from a company debtor account without detection, and then direct those funds to the offshore bank account of his wife.”

Count one of the information charges conspiracy and alleges that DCCL, and others, were engaged in a conspiracy to “make improper payments to Chinese government officials to induce them to cause Chinese government agencies and instrumenalties to purchase Daimler vehicles.”

Among other things, the information charges that:

“in total, Daimler and DCCL made approximately €2,599,694 in improper payments to Chinese government officials associated with these entities to assist in obtaining sales worth approximately €71,562,882;”

“between 2001 and 2004, DCCL and Daimler at the direction of Chinese government officials made improper payments totaling at least €188,840 into U.S. bank accounts belonging to third parties to obtain contracts valued at €5,533,381 for the sale of vehicles to Chinese government customers “even though no part of the transaction involved the U.S., nor were the entities that nominally controlled the bank accounts parties to any of these transactions;” that “DCCL and Daimler did not perform any due diligence to discern who the recipients were” and the “corporate entities that received the payments from Daimler for the benefit of the Chinese government officials performed no legitimate services for DCCL or Daimler and did nothing to earn those payments;”

“between 1998 and 2005, DCCL and Daimler also provided at least €268,568 worth of delegation trips to employees of its government customers in China for the purpose of assisting in securing business from those customers;” according to the information “agents working as intermediaries between DCCL and Daimler, on the one hand, and its Chinese government customers, on the other hand, typically requested the delegation trips up front during the contract negotiation process on behalf of the customer involved” that “DCCL and Daimler then estimated the cost of the trip and increased the purchase price of vehicles accordingly” and that “some contracts characterized these trips as ‘factory inspection trips’ even though the trips were primarily visits to tourist locations.”

In furtherance of this conspiracy, the information identifies several agents used to make the improper payments including: M.F. Mechanical & Electrical; Shores International (a Texas corporation); Lily Energy Services, Inc. (a Texas corporation); King Jack, Inc. (a California corporation); and Chinese Agent A.

Additional payments charged in the information include: “€155,905 for the purpose of entertaining executives at” BGP and Sinopec; “payments totaling approximately €56,400 into accounts at multiple banks to an individual associated with an official at BGP in charge of operations in another country;” “a payment of approximately €14,800 to a relative of a Chinese government official associated with BGP in connection with the sale of commercial vehicles to BGP; “payments totaling approximately €30,000 in commissions for ‘market research’ to the Stuttgart bank account of the son of an official of BGP;” and “a payment of approximately €57,000 to the wife of a Chinese government official employed at Sinopec” disguised as a payment pursuant to a “phony consulting agreement with the wife of the Chinese government official.”

The information further charges a laundry list of “things of value” provided “to the son of a Chinese government official who made purchasing decisions for BGP in order to assist in securing business from BGP” including: interships at Daimler for his girlfriend; “letters from a former Daimler employee to German immigration officials to assist him and his girlfriend with their efforts to obtain student visas;” “€2,224 in expenses to attend a truck race;” “use of a Mercedes passenger car for a period of time;” and “employment at Daimler” for a five month period “with a monthly salary of €600.”

Count two of the information charges an FCPA antibribery violation. Because DCCL is a foreign entity, the applicable section of the statute is 78dd-3 which requires a U.S. nexus. As relevant to this issue, the information charges that “DCCL caused wire transfers to be sent from Daimler accounts in Germany to financial institutions in the United States.”

DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia SAO and Russian Sales

DOJ also filed a two count criminal information against DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia SAO (“DCAR”), a “Moscow-based, wholly-owned subsidiary of Daimler” that “sold Daimler spare parts, assisted with the sale of vehicles from various Daimler divisions in Germany, including in particular its overseas sales division (“DCOS”), to government customers in [Russia], and also imported Daimler passenger and commercial vehicles into Russia for sale to customers and distributors.”

The charged conduct focuses on Daimler’s, DCAR’s and DCOS’s relationships with: “the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs (“MVD”) a department and agency of the Russian government principally responsible for police, militia, immigration and other functions” including supervising the “Russian traffic police; “the Special Purpose Garage (“SPG”) an ‘instrumenality’ of the Russian government” whose employees were “foreign officials” under the FCPA; “Machinoimport a Russian government-owned and controlled purchasing agent for the City of Moscow,” an “instrumentality of the Russian government” whose employees were “foreign officials” under the FCPA; and “Dorinvest a Russian government-owned and controlled purchasing agent for the City of Moscow,” an “instrumentality of the Russian government” whose employees were “foreign officials” under the FCPA.

According to the information, “Daimler’s business in Russia was substantial.” The information states that “Daimler sold passenger cars and commercial vehicles directly from its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, to its Russian government clients with the assistance of DCAR and Daimler’s representative office in Moscow” and that “Daimler carried out such sales from DCOS and DCAR acting as an agent to assist with such direct sales.”

The information charges that “Daimler, through DCAR, made improper payments at the request of Russian government officials or their designess in order to secure business from Russian government customers.” According to the information, payments were “made with the knowledge and involvement of the former senior management of DCAR and DCOS.”

The information states that “DCAR and Daimler sometimes made improper payments to government officials in Russia to secure business by over-invoicing the customer and paying the excess amount back to the government officials, or to other designated third parties that provided no legitimate services to Daimler or DCAR, with the understanding that such payments would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Russian government officials.” The information further states that “when requested, Daimler employees wired and authorized the wiring of payments from Daimler’s bank accounts in Germany to, among other destinations, U.S. and Latvian bank accounts beneficially owned by shell companies with the understanding that the money, in whole or in part, was for the benefit of Russian government officials.”

Count one of the information charges conspiracy and that DCAR, and others, were engaged in a conspiracy to “make improper payments to Russian government officials to induce them to cause Russian government agencies and instrumentalties to purchase Daimler vehicles.”

Among other things, the information charges that:

“between 2000 and 2005″ Daimler’s sale of vehicles to Russian government customers was approximately “€64,660,000″ and that “in connection with these vehicle sales, DCAR and Daimler made over €3 million in improper payments to Russian government officials employed at their Russian governmental customers, their designess, or to third-party shell companies that provided no legitimate services to Daimler or DCAR with the understanding that the funds would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Russian government officials.”

According to the information, the payments were routed all over the world including: “to the Deutsche Bank acount in Stuttgart, Germany, of a Russian government official at the SPG;” to “Berwick Commercial LLC, a corporation registered in Delaware, with the understanding that the payment would be passed on, in whole or in part, to the SPG official;” “to Kongress Food Ltd., a corporation with an address in Dublin, Ireland, with the understanding that the payments would be passed on, in whole or in part, to the SPG official;” “to Delight Commercial Ltd., a corporation with an address in the Seychelles, with the understanding that the payments would be passed on, in whole or in part, to the SPG official;” “to Pyrmont Alliance Corp., a corporation with an address in the Bahamas, with the understanding that the payments would be passed on, in whole or in part, to the SPG official;” “to Loretti LLP, a corporation with an address in the United Kingdom, with the understanding that the payment would be passed on, in whole or in part, to the SPG official;” “to a Bank of America account in San Diego, California, for Sittard Investments, a California corporation, to secure passenger car sales to the Moscow tarffic police;” “to a bank account in Latvia for Novitta Ltd., a Delaware corporation, in connection with passenger car sales to the MVD;” “to a bank account in Latvia for Tower Block Ventures, a U.K. corporation, for the benefit of a consultant to the MVD in connection with passenger car sales to the MVD;” “to a bank account in Latvia for Silvarado Ltd., a corporation that provided no legitimate services for Daimler or DCAR, in connection with passenger car sales to the MVD;” “to a bank account in Latvia for Capital Alliance Corp., a Florida corporation, in connection with passenger car sales to the MVD and to the Russian military;” “to Technoforex, a Delaware corporation, to secure the sale of one commercial vehicle to the SPG;” “to Contrex, a Cyprus corporation established for the benefit of the wife” of an official;” “to the Latvian bank account of Fidelity Finance Corporation, a Delaware corporation, in connection with the sale [of vehicles] to Gormost, a department within the city of Moscow responsible for bridges and tunnels, with the understanding that such payments would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Russian government officials in order to secure this sale;” “to Fidelity Finance Corporation’s Latvian bank account with the understanding that such payment would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Russian government officials;” “to the Latvian bank account of Forfun Co., a Delaware corporation, in connection with the sale [of vehicles] with the understanding that such payment would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Russian military officials;” “to the Swiss bank account of Northcote Holdings, a Costa Rican corporation, with the understanding that such payment would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Russian military officials;” and “to the bank account of Crofton Allianz, a Delaware corporation” “with the understanding that such payment would be passed on, in whole or in part, to a Russian government official.”

Count two of the information charges an FCPA antibribery violation. Because DCAR is a foreign entity, the applicable section of the statute is 78dd-3 which requires a U.S. nexus. As relevant to this issue, the information charges that “DCAR caused wire transfers to be sent from Daimler accounts in Germany to financial institutions in the United States and elsewhere, via international and interstate wires, in furtherance of corrupt payments to Russian government officials” and that “DCAR made payments to third party agents, including shell companies established in the United States, knowing that such payments would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Russian government officials on behalf of DCAR and Daimler.”

DOJ’s Sentencing Memorandum

In the sentencing memo (here) DOJ “respectfully requests that the Court” approve the disposition of the matter against Daimler and all of the above referenced entities and “accept the guilty pleas of DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia SAO and Daimler Export and Trade Finance GmbH.” The memo notes, in a footnote, that “the court will not actually be sentencing Daimler AG and DaimlerChrysler China Ltd., as those entities have entered into deferred prosecution agreements.”

The DOJ provides this summary of the overall disposition of the matter:

“The Department and Daimler agree that the appropriate resolution of this matter consists of (1) a DPA with Daimler AG, the parent company; (2) a DPA with DCCL, the Chinese subsidiary; (3) guilty pleas pursuant to plea agreements with DCAR, the Russian subsidiary, and ETF, the Daimler Finance subsidiary; (4) overall payment of a $93.6 million criminal penalty, which is apportioned, based on a Guidelines analysis, among the subsidiaries and the parent company; (5) continued obligations to provide full, complete, and truthful cooperation to the Department and any other law enforcement agency, domestic or foreign; (6) implementation of rigorous compliance enhancements, including periodic testing of same, with a recognition that the Company has already implemented substantial changes due to the investigation; and (7) the imposition of a corporate compliance monitor who will, over a three-year term, conduct a review of the compliance code, the Company’s internal controls and related issues, and will prepare periodic reports on his reviews.”

DOJ specifically notes that its “analysis of collateral consequences included the consideration of the risk of debarment and exclusion from government contracts, and in particular European Union Directive 2004/18/EC, which provides that companies convicted of corruption offenses shall be mandatorily excluded from government contracts in all EU countries.”

As the Daimler, the BAE and Siemens enforcement actions all make clear, the simple way to avoid application of the European Union Directive is not to charge the company with a corruption offense, notwithstanding the existence of facts to support such a conviction.

This “let’s not call a spade a spade” silliness occurs notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. is a member of the OECD. As relevant, OECD guidance specifically states that “Member countries should be vigilant in ensuring that investigations and prosecutions of the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions are not influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved, in compliance with Article 5 of the OECD Anti Bribery Convention.”

The DOJ’s sentencing guidelines calculations contains a bit of irony in that Daimler received a sentencing credit (a credit which reduces the overall fine amount) because the “organization fully cooperated in the investigation and clearly demonstated recognition and affirmative acceptance of responsiblity for its criminal conduct” despite the fact that elsewhere in the sentencing memo the DOJ notes that the entire investigation started in March 2004 when a “former Daimler employee filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration … allege[ing] that he was terminated for voicing concerns about Daimler’s practice of maintaining secret accounts, including accounts in its own books and records, for the purpose of bribing foreign government officials.”

In other words, even if an investigation is hatched by an internal whistleblower, a company may still be able to receive a sentencing credit for cooperating in the eventual investigation.

The sentencing range set forth in the DOJ memo is $116 – $232 million. Thus, the $93.6 million penalty is 20% below the bottom fine range of $116 million.

DOJ seeks to justify this reduction by stating that such a “reduction is appropriate given the nature and extent of Daimler’s cooperation in this matter, including sharing information with the Department regarding evidence obtained as a result of Daimler’s extensive investigation of corrupt payments around the world.”

The DOJ further states, “indeed, because Daimler did not voluntarily disclose its conduct prior to the filing of the whistleblower lawsuit, it only receives a two-point reduction in its culpability.” However, in a rather odd statement, DOJ then said that it “respectfully submits that such reduction is incongruent with the level of cooperation and assistance provided by the company in the Department’s investigation.” In other words, the DOJ seems to be saying something like “who cares what the guidelines say, we will do what we feel like.”

In conclusion, the DOJ notes that the disposition “promotes respect for the law, provides just punishment, and affords adequate deterrence to criminal conduct for Daimler and the marketplace generally.”

This would seem to be the biggest April Fools joke of all. How does another bribery, yet no bribery enforcement action “promote respect for the law?”

Finally, the DOJ states that Daimler’s cooperation in the investigation has been “excellent.” The DOJ notes that Daimler “conducted a worldwide internal investigation;” “regularly presented it findings” to the DOJ; “made certain witnesses available to the Department;” “voluntarily complied with requests for the production of documents from overseas;” and took disciplinary actions against over “60 company employees, with approximately 45 employees being terminated or separated under termination agreements.” “Finally, and perhaps most significantly,” in the words of the DOJ, “Daimler began to reform its anti-bribery compliance program while the investigation was still ongoing, without waiting until the finalization of a disposition with the Department.” The sentencing memo then sets forth a list of changes Daimler made to its compliance program. Such measures, no doubt, will now come to be viewed as “best practices.”

« Older Entries