Archive for the ‘Voluntary Disclosure’ Category

Friday Roundup

Friday, June 27th, 2014

Elevate, a surprise verdict? SEC Chair on compliance, self-reporting and cooperation, quotable, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday Roundup.

Elevate Your FCPA Knowledge and Practical Skills

Join lawyers and other in-house counsel and compliance professionals from around the country – indeed the world –  already registered for the inaugural FCPA Institute July 16-17th in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  The FCPA Institute is a unique two-day learning experience ideal for a diverse group of professionals seeking to elevate their FCPA knowledge and practical skills.  FCPA Institute participants will have their knowledge assessed and upon successful completion of a written assessment tool can earn a certificate of completion. In this way, successful completion of the FCPA Institute represents a value-added credential for professional development.

To register see here.

A Surprise Verdict?

As has been widely reported (see here and here for instance) Rebekah Brooks, a former senior News Corporation executive, was found not guilty of various counts (including conspiracy to commit misconduct – in other words bribery) by an English jury earlier this week.

The bribery-related verdict comes as a bit of a surprise given that Brooks – as highlighted in this previous post and as reported by the media:

“[Rebekah Brooks testified that] she authorized payments to public officials in exchange for information on “half a dozen occasions” during her time as a newspaper editor—but did so only in what she said was the public interest. [...]  On the stand, Ms. Brooks, who edited News Corp’s Sun newspaper and its now-closed News of the World sister title, said the payments were made for good reasons, and done so on rare occasions and after careful consideration. “My view at the time was that there had to be an overwhelming public interest to justify payments in the very narrow circumstances of a public official being paid for information directly in line with their jobs,” said Ms. Brooks.”

As to the other defendants – Andy Coulson (a former senior News Corp. editor) and Clive Goodman (a former royal reporter for New Corp.’s defunct News of the World publication) –  the jury failed to reach a verdict on the bribery-related count.

At the beginning of the trials, in this October 2013 post, I observed:

“What happens in these trials concerning the bribery offenses will not determine the outcome of any potential News Corp. FCPA enforcement action.  But you can bet that the DOJ and SEC will be interested in the ultimate outcome.  In short, if there is a judicial finding that Brooks and/or Coulson or other high-level executives in London authorized or otherwise knew of the alleged improper payments, this will likely be a factor in how the DOJ and SEC ultimately resolve any potential enforcement action and how News Corp.’s overall culpability score may be calculated under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines.”

SEC Chair White on Compliance, Self-Reporting and Cooperation

SEC Chair Mary Jo White recently delivered this speech titled “A Few Things Directors Should Know About the SEC.”

Among other topics, White spoke about the importance of compliance, self-reporting and cooperation and relevant portions of the speech are highlighted below.

Compliance

“Ethics and honesty can become core corporate values when directors and senior executives embrace them.  This includes establishing strong corporate compliance programs focused on regular training of employees, effective and accessible codes of conduct, and procedures that ensure complaints are thoroughly and fairly investigated.  And, it must be obvious to all in your organization that the board and senior management highly value and respect the company’s legal and compliance functions.  Creating a robust compliance culture also means rewarding employees who do the right thing and ensuring that no one at the company is considered above the law.  Ignoring the misconduct of a high performer or a key executive will not cut it.  Compliance simply must be an enterprise-wide effort.”

Self-Reporting and Cooperation

“Even in the best run companies with strong boards, the right tone at the top and robust compliance programs, wrongdoing will almost inevitably occur from time-to-time.  What should you do when that happens?  How should you respond?  What does the SEC expect you to do?  When should a company self-report wrongdoing to the SEC or other authorities?  All of these questions require careful consideration and appropriate action. For tonight, I will focus just on the last one about self-reporting.

If your company has uncovered serious wrongdoing, you will need to decide whether, how and when to report the matter to the SEC.  One immediate question you will have to answer is whether what has been discovered constitutes material information that requires public disclosure.  If the answer is yes, that fact will also invariably dictate an obvious affirmative answer to broader self-reporting to the SEC.

In other situations, you will need to decide whether to call us about a serious, but non-material event – perhaps a rogue employee in a small foreign subsidiary has been bribing a foreign official in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).  You intend to take decisive action against the employee and enhance your FCPA compliance program.  Your disclosure lawyer’s view is that the occurrence does not require public disclosure.  That does not, however, end your inquiry or responsibilities.  Your company still needs to decide whether to self-report to the SEC, and consider what that may mean for the company.

As many of you know, the Commission in the 2001 Seaboard statement on cooperation, explained how self-reporting, cooperation, self-policing, and remediation factor into our decisions when considering enforcement actions.  And, I can tell you from experience that of those four factors, self-reporting is especially important to both the SEC and the Department of Justice.

What are the benefits to your company of self-reporting?  You can read about that in the SEC’s press releases on enforcement actions, which routinely highlight how the quality of a company’s cooperation has affected any resulting enforcement action.  Typically, a company realizes the benefits of cooperation through a reduced penalty, or, at times, no penalty or even not proceeding in an exceptional case.

Not that you should need any extra incentive, but keep in mind that there are also downsides in deciding not to self-report.  If the wrongdoing is not self-reported, the opportunity to earn significant credit for cooperation may be lost.  And, with our new whistleblower program … the SEC is more likely than ever to learn of the misconduct through another channel.

Let me just say a few words about how to cooperate with SEC investigations.

As an initial matter, the decision to cooperate should be made early in the investigation.  The tone and substance of the early communications we have with a company are critical in establishing the tenor of our investigations and how the staff and the Commission will view your cooperation in the final stages of an investigation. Holding back information, perhaps out of a desire to keep options open as the investigation develops, can, in fact, foreclose the opportunity for cooperation credit.  We are looking for companies to be forthcoming and candid partners with the SEC investigative team – and the board has a responsibility to ensure that management and the legal team are providing this kind of cooperation.

When choosing the path of self-reporting and cooperation, do so decisively.  Make it clear from the outset that the board’s expectation is that any internal investigation will search for misconduct wherever and however high up it occurred; that the company will act promptly and report real-time to the Enforcement staff on any misconduct uncovered; and that the company will hold its responsible employees to account.

There is, of course, cooperation and then there is cooperation, just as there are compliance programs that look great on paper but are not strongly enforced.  We know the difference.  Cooperation means more than complying with our subpoenas for documents and testimony – the law requires you to do that.  If you want your company to get credit for cooperation – and you should – then sincere and thorough partnering with the Division of Enforcement to uncover all the facts is required.”

As highlighted in this previous post, here is what White had to say about cooperation issues as a lawyer in private practice.

“Today, before making their decisions about charging companies, some prosecutors are exerting considerable – some say, extreme -pressure on corporate behavior under the not so subtle threat that if the company doesn’t do as the government wishes, the company risks, at the end of the day, being indicted.”

[...]

“To ensure that a company does not become that ‘rare’ case resulting in a corporate indictment with all of its attendant negative consequences, a company must not poke the government in the eye by declining any of its requests or suggestion of how a cooperative, good corporate citizen is to behave in the government’s criminal investigation.  This template, in my view, can give prosecutors too much power.”

Quotable

Homer Moyer (Miller & Chevalier) states as follows in the June issue of Global Investigations Review.

“As this area of law has evolved, the challenges for all concerned have changed.  Agencies plainly hold most of the cards here.  They have great leverage in these cases.  [...] [T]hey are rarely subject to judicial review.  That creates a special responsibility for enforcement agencies.

As a practical matter, they are creating the operative jurisprudence.  Companies and practitioners read those settlements and try to tease out of them the principles that have been at play.  So it’s important that the government articulates its legal rationales, and frankly it’s important the government self-policies.  It may invest in a lengthy investigation at the end of which it should take no action.  And that’s sometimes hard for an agency to do.

The agencies have, over the last 25 years, expanded their jurisdictional reach; they’ve expanded their theories of liability; they have expanded the penalties imposed with new kinds of penalties and new kinds of settlements.  So I think there’s a burden on the agencies, given that much sway, to act especially responsibly.

[...]

[T]he great interest in this area has been prompted in part by reports of enormous costs to corporations of investigations.  I think law firms have to address that.  Many of the reported cases are stupefying and, in my opinion, can be avoided.  But that takes a little clear-eyed thinking on the part of both outside law firms and corporations.”

Reading Stack

From Transparency International UK - Countering Small Bribes.  As described in this release:

“[The report] provides practical advice on addressing the challenge of countering small bribes including “grease payments”. It is also designed to be of assistance to regulators, law-makers, prosecuting agencies and professional advisers. Countering small bribes is a complex challenge for companies. Transparency International research shows that, globally, more than 1 in 4 people paid a bribe in a recent 12 month period, highlighting the scale of the problem facing companies. Demands most often occur in overseas markets, where employees may be vulnerable through travelling alone or the company needs to release critical goods from customs. The guidance provides a set of principles, discussion and advice designed to help companies operate to high ethical standards, protect their reputations and fulfill their legal obligations.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

DOJ’s Knox Follows The Same Tired Script

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014

Department of Justice enforcement officials frequently speak about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  However, most of these events are private in which the public has to fork over a couple thousand of dollars to a private company who markets the public officials to drive attendance at the event (see here for the prior post).  The end result is that there is seldom the opportunity to analyze FCPA statements by DOJ officials.

That is what makes video clips (here and here) of Jeffrey Knox (DOJ Fraud Section Chief) at a recent CFO Network event sponsored by the Wall Street Journal valuable.

In the video clips, Knox follows the DOJ’s same tired script when it comes to voluntary disclosure and other issues when it comes to the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement program.

Moreover, as highlighted below, Knox’s statements on voluntary disclosure are contradicted by previous statements by former Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer – as well as numerous statements by former DOJ FCPA enforcement officials.

Most problematic, Knox’s statements on voluntary disclosure and the source of DOJ corporate FCPA enforcement actions are contradicted by the facts.

In the first video clip, Dennis Berman (Business Editor, WSJ) returns to a topic previously explored by Forbes in 2010 (see here for the “Bribery Racket”) as well as the WSJ in 2012 (see here for “FCPA Inc. and the Business of Bribery”) and calls the relationship between FCPA law firms, companies, and the DOJ a “protection racket all around” and that the “three party relationship might bring some good, but in a way it doesn’t feel like justice, it feels like a business arrangement.”

Knox of course disagreed and stated that it is “just not true” that the DOJ outsources its FCPA investigations to law firms.  Knox stated:  ”we don’t outsource, internal investigations are a tool, an important tool in many cases for us that is used throughout law enforcement, there is nothing exceptional about the FCPA, but we are not relying on it [internal investigations].”

Knox’s statement that the DOJ does not rely on law firm investigations in bringing FCPA enforcement action is contradicted by previous statements by former Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.  While at the DOJ, Breuer stated that the DOJ “absolutely need[s] companies through their firms to provide us with their investigations.”  (See here).

Moreover, Knox’s statement is contradicted by the facts.

As highlighted here, in 2013, 57% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the direct result of voluntary disclosures.  As highlighted here, in 2012, 56% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the direct result of voluntary disclosures.  As highlighted here, in 2011, 73% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the direct result of voluntary disclosures.

As to voluntary disclosures, Knox stated that the “earlier that the company engages with us the better position it is going to be in” regarding various aspects of its FCPA scrutiny.

For obvious reasons, the DOJ favors voluntary disclosure as it makes its job easier and is the fuel that feeds its FCPA enforcement program.  However, in contrast to Knox’s statement about voluntary disclosure, several former DOJ enforcement officials have questioned the need for  FCPA voluntary disclosures in many instances.

Indeed, the former Chief of the DOJ’s Fraud Section stated (obviously after he left that position) as follows.

“It often will not be in a company’s best interest to disclose if, for example, the allegations prove not to be credible or if it is unclear whether the conduct even amounts to a violation of law. Under those circumstances, a disclosure could unnecessarily embroil the company in a lengthy and costly government investigation and result in other repercussions such as triggering civil litigation and harm to a company’s reputation that could otherwise be avoided. It’s a challenging calculus. […] However, the fact that a company doesn’t disclose a problem that ultimately comes to DOJ’s attention is not necessarily going to damage the company’s credibility with DOJ. Regulators recognize that not every allegation should be of interest to them – and, frankly, having counsel that knows when they’ll be interested and when they won’t is really important.”

Similarly, as noted by a former SEC enforcement attorney and a former DOJ enforcement attorney:

“Not all potential [FCPA] problems, however, are appropriate for disclosure. After investigation, allegations of misconduct may not result in a determination that illicit activity has occurred. […] Prematurely attracting the government’s attention may, as a practical matter, shift the burden to the company to prove the absence of a corruption problem. Enforcement officials may feel the need as a matter of basic human nature to seek some type of resolution to a case where they have invested significant time and effort. Companies need to weigh the potential benefits of cooperation against the significant costs of initiating a potentially unwarranted government investigation.”

As evident from the above video clips, Alexandra Wrage (President of Trace International) joined Knox in the discussion of FCPA issues.  Wrage rightly shot back at Knox’s voluntary disclosure comments and noted that early voluntary disclosure “is terrifying to companies before they have their arms around the scope of the problem.”  Wrage noted that the “idea that a company is going to go in first without knowing the full extent of the problem, I don’t think any general counsel is going to sign off on this.”

In the second video clip, the WSJ’s Berman asks Knox, using various examples of FCPA scrutiny that have resulted in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses, “is the cure worst than the disease.”

To his credit, Knox rightly noted that “in some instances companies are spending too much money on investigations.”  His statement is similar to the one Chuck Duross (then the DOJ FCPA’s Unit Chief) made at an ABA conference in September 2013.  As highlighted here, Duross suggested that often company lawyers are seeking to over do it through a global search of operations for FCPA issues.  He discussed a case in which a company and its professional advisors came to a meeting with a global search plan and he said “no, no, no, that is not what I want.”  He indicated that the lawyers and other professional advisors in the room “looked unhappy,” but that the general counsel of the company was happy.  (For more on this dynamic, see this prior post).

For her part, Wrage agreed with Knox that there is “lots of scare tactics by law firms” when it comes to the FCPA.

One final comment.

During the discussion, Knox stated that there is ”massive corruption going on around the world.”  Similar to the issues discussed in this recent post, this statement alone ought to cause the enforcement agencies to pause and reflect whether – 37 years after passage of the FCPA – enforcement agency policies and positions (which are frequently modeled by other nations) are most effective in accomplishing the objectives of the FCPA.

Checking In With Richard Alderman

Tuesday, June 24th, 2014

Richard Alderman is the former Director of the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”).  Since leaving the SFO in April 2012, Alderman has remained active in anti-corruption projects.

In this Q&A, Alderman discusses certain of these projects and offers insight on the following issues:  the current international enforcement climate including multi-jurisdictional issues; voluntary disclosure; DPAs; and a compliance defense.

*****

In April 2012, you left the SFO.  What have you been doing since?

I have been working with some international institutions and NGOs dealing with anti-corruption on the front line. This is what I wanted to do because I had met a number of individuals who inspired me. Recent examples are the Convention on Business Integrity in Nigeria and an initiative by the Egyptian Junior Business Association aimed at the vibrant SME sector in Egypt. I have also had the privilege of meeting individuals involved in the radical transformation of the procurement practices of Moscow City Council.

How do you see the current international corruption enforcement scene?

We have moved on from where we were a few years ago when there were only a few states that took action in these cases. Examples of issues now are-

  • How do we deal with the interests of the different states that want to enforce the law?
  • What will be the impact of more enforcement by demand states (including demand states that are also supply states)?
  • When will law enforcement agencies uncover and prosecute corrupt companies that have no intention of complying with global rules?
  • How do we get the proceeds of settlements back to the demand states?
  • Can a system of incentives be devised to reward companies with top quality anti-corruption systems?

In current enforcement era, multiple sovereigns may have jurisdiction over the same alleged conduct.  What issues do you see regarding multi-jurisdictional enforcement?

This is becoming a key issue. I prepared a detailed report for the UNCAC conference in Panama in November 2013 that covered these and other issues.

Companies are undoubtedly at risk here. If we look at violations first, different states can prosecute for the same violation. The company’s only protection is the principle of double jeopardy but this is interpreted in different ways in different states. For example it is not an issue for the US because the US does not recognise foreign convictions and acquittals for this purpose.

This will become a particular issue when one of the enforcing states is the demand state. Why should such a state be prevented from taking action in its own courts because of a resolution elsewhere? We can expect national sovereignty issues.

Companies can also seek to exclude a state with a wide concept of double jeopardy by reaching a settlement with another state and then pleading double jeopardy in the first state. I have seen this.

The issue also arises with asset forfeiture. I do not understand how multiple states can confiscate the same asset or profit. Once the money has been paid to law enforcement somewhere then any further disgorgement is actually a criminal fine.

What about global settlements?

I am very much in favour of these. I know from my own experience that they are very difficult to bring about. The international mechanisms in Article 47 of UNCAC and Article 4(3) of the OECD Convention should be used to discuss how the different enforcing states should work together and how a global settlement should be structured. Neither mechanism has yet been used for this purpose but they are available. Enforcing states will be nervous but these mechanisms will be vital as more and more states start to enforce the law.

Do the recent Libor settlements have any implications for global settlements in corruption cases?

These settlements have been very remarkable. A UK prosecutor cannot however enter into such an agreement if there are criminal pleas in the UK. This is because the senior judge in the Innospec case said that it was wrong for the SFO to discuss the penalty to be paid by the company even if the penalty was subject to the overall approval of the court.

One consequence of the new UK DPA system is that the UK enforcing authority can enter into these discussions if what is being discussed is a DPA rather than a traditional prosecution. It will be up to the judge to decide if this is the right way forward.

The result is that UK prosecuting authorities will not be able to participate in global settlements in the future unless there is a DPA approved by the court. I see this as an issue that will be increasingly important in the UK.

Do you still favour corporate self-reporting of conduct that could implicate bribery and corruption laws?

Yes. I remain a keen supporter of self-reporting. This has however become more difficult for companies. There are two main reasons. These are-

  • No enforcing state has set out its policy on when it will refer the self-report to another state.  A company considering a self-report therefore has to think about the other states that may see the report (and whether employees are at risk). We need a proper understanding of what enforcing states should do. This needs to be publicly available and agreed by the UN and the OECD.
  • Even if the report is not passed to another state, that other state is likely to see media reports of the resolution and the admissions made by the company and decide to start its own action. There is an increasing risk of these follow up cases.

Should companies carry out their own investigations when alerted to alleged instances of improper conduct?

My experience is that major global companies take these allegations very seriously and want to see what happened. There is an issue about whether the company should self-report immediately or whether it should carry out some preliminary work to satisfy itself that there is something in the allegation. The expectations of enforcing authorities can vary here. My view has always been that the company should be satisfied first that there is something that requires detailed investigation.

I am in favour of companies carrying out their own investigations with agreement from the enforcing state about scope, milestones and regular updates. I know that some enforcing states will also want to carry out their own independent investigation. I understand the reasons for this but it means that the authority is spending its scarce resource on a case where the company is willing to cooperate and not on the more difficult cases where the company has no intention of self-reporting and cooperating. As I see it there is too little action by enforcing authorities in finding such companies and dealing with them.

Recently the U.K. adopted DPAs.  How do you feel about DPAs and what are the issues as you see them?  What issues do you see regarding DPAs?

I have always been in favour of DPAs as one tool available to prosecutors. My experience was that the UK was in a poor position in global cases with international resolutions with the traditional criminal justice tools. I saw two main advantages of DPAs. These are-

  • They can form part of a system of incentives to encourage companies to self-report and cooperate and to improve compliance.
  • They enable prosecutors to discuss global resolutions without contravening the Innospec case.

I know that the FCPA Professor has expressed considerable public opposition to DPAs. I agree that they need to be transparent and that the judges have to be fully involved. I also agree that we still need to see the traditional full prosecution with debarment in suitable cases. This could be where the company is systemically corrupt and has no intention of abandoning corruption. I want to see more of these cases being pursued by enforcing states.

The full prosecution should be part of the toolkit of the prosecutor. There should be other tools for other types of case. It is notable that the only states that have made a sustained attack on corporate corruption over the years have either not used traditional prosecution or have used it sparingly and have also used alternatives. This is significant although it seems to me to be insufficiently appreciated.

Should corporate compliance be a defence to a bribery or corruption offense or merely mitigate the potential fine and penalty amount?

I remain in favour of the compliance defence. The Bribery Act offence is an excellent model in this area. I have seen how much impact this had on companies and the scale of the improvement made in their anti-corruption work. There are a number of other states that have compliance as a defence.

There is however an issue that is going to be increasingly relevant in those states that have compliance as a defence. The public wants to see the offence produce results in terms of criminal convictions. So far there do not appear to be any in the states with a compliance defence. There will be a question about whether compliance as a defence is right or whether the US approach with compliance as mitigation is to be preferred because of the results achieved. We can expect a lot more on this. It may be one of the issues to be considered in the recently announced UK review of the effectiveness of the enforcing institutions.

You have talked publicly about sanctions and incentives for companies as it relates to bribery and corruption offenses.  Can you elaborate on this issue?

Alternatives to traditional prosecution together with self-reporting and cooperation are important incentives in the area of violations. There is though a wider issue that is not sufficiently recognised and discussed. This is whether there should be more general incentives to companies that have brought about an excellent standard of anti-corruption compliance.

There was a Recommendation by the OECD in 2009 encouraging states to look at public procurement, licenses, aid funding and export credits as a way of recognising companies with the highest standards of anti-corruption. There has been little progress on this although a few states have introduced some initiatives.

I am very much in favour of this. For example the citizens of a state will benefit if a company that meets very high standards is successful in a public procurement exercise and companies with a poor anti-corruption approach are not. If those companies with a poor record decide that they have to reform then that is a benefit to everyone.

I see this as one of the key issues in anti-corruption that will become increasingly prominent in the coming years. It has great potential to make a difference.

Friday Roundup

Friday, May 30th, 2014

Attend the FCPA Institute,  Wal-Mart fires back, up north, the race is on, deserving part 2, quotable, and a revised roundup.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

FCPA Institute

Join lawyers and other in-house counsel and compliance professionals already registered for the inaugural FCPA Institute July 16-17th in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  The FCPA Institute is a unique two-day learning experience ideal for a diverse group of professionals seeking to elevate their FCPA knowledge and practical skills.  FCPA Institute participants will have their knowledge assessed and upon successful completion of a written assessment tool can earn a certificate of completion. In this way, successful completion of the FCPA Institute represents a value-added credential for professional development.

To register see here.

Wal-Mart Fires Back

This recent post highlighted various Wal-Mart shareholder proposals that touched upon FCPA issues.  As noted in the post, Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) criticized Wal-Mart’s board for “fail[ing] to make progress in providing meaningful information to shareholders about any specific findings on the FCPA-related investigations and whether executives will be held accountable for related compliance failures.”

Wal-Mart has fired back in this proxy filing which states, in pertinent part:

The Audit Committee and the Company are following the appropriate protocol for an independent, thorough investigation

As the Company has previously reported, the Audit Committee of the Board is conducting an independent internal investigation into, among other things, alleged violations of the FCPA and alleged misconduct in connection with foreign subsidiaries. Also, as previously reported to shareholders, the Company voluntarily disclosed the Audit Committee’s investigative activity on these matters to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, both of which are conducting their own external investigations of these matters.

We believe that ISS’s recommendation that shareholders vote against the election of Mr. Walton and Mr. Duke because the Board has not disclosed “specific findings” regarding the FCPA-related investigations is at odds with the appropriate conduct of such internal and external investigations. We further believe that ISS’s request for disclosure of “specific findings” with respect to these ongoing investigations is contrary to the best interests of the Company and our shareholders because such a disclosure: (1) could interfere with, or distract from, the ongoing investigations; (2) is impractical, given that no final conclusions or findings have been made; and (3) could adversely impact the Company’s position in any current or future legal proceedings that may relate to these matters.”

As hinted at in the previous post, I agree with Wal-Mart’s position.

Up North

This previous post highlighted Canada’s first individual conviction for a bribery offense under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (“CFPOA”) including the specific facts in the action against Nazir Karigar.  Karigar was recently sentenced to three years in prison.

As noted here from Baker & McKenzie’s Canadian Fraud Law:

“Superior Court Justice Hackland ruled that Karigar “had a leading role in a conspiracy to bribe Air India officials in what was undoubtedly a sophisticated scheme to win a tender for a Canadian based company.” The Court issue[d] the following warning: “Any person who proposes to enter into a sophisticated scheme to bribe foreign public officials to promote the commercial or other interests of a Canadian business abroad must appreciate that they will face a significant sentence of incarceration in a federal penitentiary”.

In his reasons for sentence Justice Hackland stated that “The idea that bribery is simply a cost of doing business in many countries, and should be treated as such by Canadian firms competing for business in those countries, must be disavowed. The need for sentences reflecting principles of general deterrence is clear.”

As noted in this Osler alert:

“The [sentencing] decision noted a number of aggravating factors. First, the bribery conspiracy was sophisticated, carefully planned, and would have involved the payment of millions of dollars in bribes. Second, Mr. Karigar orchestrated a fake bid to create the illusion of competition and used confidential insider information to prepare the bid. Third, Mr. Karigar behaved with “a complete sense of entitlement.” Finally, Mr. Karigar personally conceived and orchestrated the scheme.

Several mitigating factors were also noted. The bribery scheme was unsuccessful. In addition, Mr. Karigar helped to shorten the trial by cooperating in the prosecution. Indeed, it was his exposure of the bribery scheme after a falling out with his co-conspirators, and his inability to secure an immunity agreement, that led to his prosecution. Mr. Karigar’s prior clean record, his 67 years of age and his failing health were also considered mitigating factors.”

For more, see here from Blakes.

The Race is On

This previous post regarding GSK’s scrutiny in China noted that one of the more interesting aspects of the scrutiny will be the enforcement competition between Chinese, U.K., and U.S. authorities.    The U.K. has unique double jeopardy provisions and former U.K.  Serious Fraud Office Director Richard Alderman has stated (see here):

“Our double jeopardy law looks at the facts in issue in the other jurisdiction and not the precise offence. Our law does not allow someone to be prosecuted here in relation to a set of facts if that person has been in jeopardy of a conviction in relation to those facts in another jurisdiction.”

The race is on as GSK recently disclosed:

“GSK has … been informed by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) that it has opened a formal criminal investigation into the Group’s commercial practices. GSK is committed to operating its business to the highest ethical standards and will continue to cooperate fully with the SFO.”

In this release, the SFO states:

“The Director of the SFO has opened a criminal investigation into the commercial practices of GlaxoSmithKline plc and its subsidiaries. Whistleblowers are valuable sources of information to the SFO in its cases. We welcome approaches from anyone with inside information on all our cases including this one …”.

For additional reporting, see here

Deserving Part 2

Earlier this week, the African Development Bank (“AfDB”) announced:

“[T]he conclusion of a Negotiated Resolution Agreement with Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V. following the company’s acceptance of the charge of corrupt practices by affiliated companies in an AfDB-financed project. As part of the Negotiated Resolution Agreement, the Bank’s Integrity and Anti-Corruption Department levied a financial penalty of US $5.7 million against the company.”

The project at issue was once again the Bonny Island, Nigeria project and the recent AfDB action follows a March action (see here for the prior post) in which the AfDB assessed $17 million in financial penalties against other Bonny Island participants – Kellogg Brown & Root, Technip, and JGC Corp.

As highlighted in this previous post, in July 2010 Snamprogetti and related entities resolved a $365 million DOJ/SEC enforcement action involving Bonny Island conduct.

My comment is the same as it was in connection with the March AfDB action against other Bonny Island participants.

Pardon me for interrupting this feel good moment (i.e. a corporation paying money to a development bank), but why is the AfDB deserving of any money from the companies?  As noted here, AfDB’s role in the Bonny Island project was relatively minor as numerous banks provided financing in connection with the project.  Moreover, as noted here, the AfDB “invested in the oil and gas sector through a USD 100 million loan to NLNG [Nigeria LNG Limited] to finance the expansion of a gas liquefaction plant located on Bonny Island.”

Why is the bank that loaned money to NLNG deserving of anything?  Is there any evidence to suggest that the $100 million given to NLNG was not used for its “intended purpose” of building the Bonny Island project?

Quotable

In this recent Wall Street Journal Risk & Compliance Journal Q&A, Kathleen Hamann (a recent departure from the DOJ’s FCPA Unit) states:

“Tell me what companies should take from your time at the Justice Department now that you’re advising them on how to fulfill the requirements of an FCPA compliance program.

The first thing I would say is that companies shouldn’t just be thinking about the FCPA. There’s been such a proliferation of transnational bribery laws and domestic bribery laws that you may not [just] have an FCPA issue. You also have to think about the U.K. Bribery Act, you may have to think about the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act in Canada, [among others.]

A lot of the laws in other countries have complete defenses to liability for having a good compliance program in place. Having a good compliance program ahead of time not only helps prevent misconduct, but it also puts the company in a better position if something does go wrong. There are points all the way where a good compliance program and strong remediation can either stop an investigation, or really mitigate the consequences of the investigation, both in terms of the penalty and in terms of the reputational risk the company will take.

[....]

What do you tell companies about self-reporting allegations to the authorities?

I think it’s a much more complicated question than even five years ago. It used to be that you disclose to the Justice Department and the SEC; you deal with them and it’s over. But now: How many different jurisdictions do you need to disclose to? What if it’s a country with no mechanism for voluntary disclosure, or no mechanism to reward voluntary disclosure?

I also think there’s a perception that your only two choices are to voluntarily disclose, lay down and cooperate, and give the department everything it asks for — or fight from day one. Those aren’t the only two options. There are stages of cooperation where you can get full credit, without accepting everything that is said by the government as gospel.

You want to minimize disruption to your business operations , which can be one of the best incentives for voluntary disclosure.  The U.S. generally doesn’t do things like seize servers, but others do. It’s incredibly disruptive to business operations to have foreign law enforcement take your in-country server. There has to be a very clearheaded assessment of what jurisdictions are involved, how complicated voluntary disclosure will be and what the genuine benefits and risks are of the disclosure are.”

Revised Roundup

Last week’s roundup collected commentary regarding the 11th Circuit’s recent “foreign official” ruling.  The post has been revised to include several additional law firm alerts, etc. and now includes over 25 links.

*****

A good weekend to all.

 

Confusing And Conflicting Policy Statements From The U.K. SFO

Monday, May 12th, 2014

As the United Kingdom settles into the Bribery Act and enters the “facade” era of enforcement (see here for the prior post), it is difficult to reconcile the confusing and conflicting statements from Serious Fraud Office officials.

For instance, in this recent speech by Alun Milford (SFO General Counsel) titled “Corporate Criminal Liability and Deferred Prosecution Agreements” he states:

“Whatever the offence under investigation, there can be no prosecution unless the two stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors is met. First, there must be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is not, then that is the end of the matter.”

This is inconsistent with what the SFO previously said when it rolled out its Code of Practice relevant to DPAs.  In defending adoption of the “lower evidential test” in the Code of Practice and addressing concerns that this standard “was so easily satisfied as to have very little substance,” the SFO’s response was, in pertinent part, as follows.

“One of the principal purposes of DPAs is to bring a resolution to cases of corporate criminality more quickly. [...] If a prosecutor had to be satisfied that the evidence against an organization was sufficient to meet the Full Code Test (“Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge”) without the alternative of the ‘lower’ evidential test before considering whether a DPA was in the public interest, a key purpose of DPAs, as was the express intention of parliament, would become redundant. In order to achieve one of parliament’s key intentions in legislating for the introduction of DPAs a ‘lower’ evidential test is necessary.”

“Satisfaction of the Full Code Test, particularly in view of the well documented difficulties in proving corporate liability, would in most circumstances require a complete an full scale investigation, sometimes spanning many jurisdictions, which inevitably is time consuming and expensive. It is not intended for there to be such an investigation before a DPA is entered into.”

It is also difficult to square the above previous SFO statement – “it is not intended for there to be such a [full scale] investigation before a DPA is entered into” with the following statement from Milford’s recent speech regarding self-reporting:

“It is clear that we cannot accept such [self] reports at face value, especially where the company denies any wrongdoing on its part. [Note:  Query why a company would self-report if it denies any wrongdoing on its part - but that is separate issue]

Even in the case of a self-report, we will need to conduct our own, independent investigation into the extent of the wrongdoing not least because, if on initial review the case seemed right in principle for a DPA disposal, we would need to satisfy ourselves and possibly also a judge that the extent of what was reported was accurate. If, on embarking on our investigation, we find evidence trails disturbed, witnesses tipped off and their first accounts denied us, then we will find it hard to regard the company’s conduct in the preparation of the report as anything other than unhelpful, not least as we will in all probability have identified key individuals within the company as suspects who we might wish to prosecute.”

When law enforcement agencies create alternate realities with different standards and procedures – none of which have historical grounding in rule of law principles – the end result is confusing and conflicting policy statements.

That is exactly what is occurring at the present as the U.K. prepares to enter the “facade” era.