June 24th, 2015

Attend FCPA “Summer School” (Aug. 13-14, Washington, D.C.)

FCPA InstituteSummer.

A time for reflection, a time to think, and a time for professionals to elevate their FCPA knowledge and practical skills by attending the FCPA Institute – DC on August 13-14th.

Since its launch in July 2014, the FCPA Institute has elevated the FCPA knowledge and skills of lawyers, auditing and finance professionals, compliance personnel and business executives from around the world.

The FCPA Institute is next coming to Washington, D.C. on August 13-14th. (Click here for further details and to register).

The FCPA Institute is different from other FCPA conferences as information is presented in an integrated and cohesive manner by an expert instructor with FCPA practice and teaching experience.  Moreover, the FCPA Institute promotes active learning by participants through issue-spotting video exercises, skills exercises, small-group discussions, and the sharing of real-world practices and experiences.

To best facilitate the unique learning experience that the FCPA Institute represents, attendance at each FCPA Institute is capped at 30 participants.

At the end of the FCPA Institute, participants can elect to have their knowledge assessed and can earn a certificate of completion upon passing a written assessment tool.  In this way, successful completion of the FCPA Institute represents a value-added credential for professional development. In addition, attorneys who complete the FCPA Institute may be eligible to receive Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) credits.

Set forth below is a sampling of what FCPA Institute “graduates” have said about their experience.

  • “Unlike other FCPA conferences where one leaves with a spinning head and unanswered questions, I left the FCPA Institute with a firm understanding of the nuts and bolts of the FCPA, the ability to spot issues, and knowledge of where resources can be found that offer guidance in resolving an issue.  The limited class size of the FCPA Institute ensured that all questions were answered and the interactive discussion among other compliance professionals was fantastic.” (Rob Foster, In-House Counsel, Oil and Gas Company)
  • “The FCPA Institute is very different than other FCPA conferences I have attended.  It was interactive, engaging, thought-provoking and at the completion of the Institute I left feeling like I had really learned something new and useful for my job.  The FCPA Institute is a must-attend for all compliance folks (in-house or external).” (Robert Wieck, CPA, CIA, CFE – Forensic Audit Senior Manager, Oracle Corporation)
  • The FCPA Institute is a top-flight conference that offers an insightful, comprehensive review of the FCPA enforcement landscape.  Professor Koehler’s focus on developing practical skills in an intimate setting really sets it apart from other FCPA conferences.  One of the best features of the FCPA Institute is its diversity of participants and the ability to learn alongside in-house counsel, company executives and finance professionals. (Blair Albom, Associate, Debevoise & Plimpton)
  • “The FCPA Institute was a professionally enriching experience and substantially increased my understanding of the FCPA and its enforcement. Professor Koehler’s extensive insight and practical experience lends a unique view to analyzing enforcement actions and learning compliance best practices. I highly recommend the FCPA Institute to practitioners from all career stages.” (Sherbir Panag, MZM Legal, Mumbia, India)
  • “The FCPA Institute provided an in-depth look into the various forces that have shaped, and that are shaping, FCPA enforcement.  The diverse group of participants provided unique insight into how, at a practical level, various professionals evaluate risk and deal with FCPA issues on a day-to-day basis.  The small group setting, the interactive nature of the event, and the skills assessment test all set the FCPA Institute apart from other FCPA conferences or panel-based events.” (John Turlais, Senior Counsel, Foley & Lardner)
Posted by Mike Koehler at 12:03 am. Post Categories: Uncategorized




June 23rd, 2015

The Lack Of Criminal Charges Against PetroTiger Was Not Unique

FactsThe FCPA-related media has a troubling tendency to take things that are not unique and try to make them unique.

For instance, this recent Compliance Week article stated:

“Typically, when the Justice Department brings charges of FCPA violations against company executives, charges against the company itself aren’t far behind. [...] The decision not to pursue charges of any kind [against PetroTiger] is a marked departure from most FCPA cases, in which the Justice Department will give companies credit for strong compliance programs, often entering into non-prosecution agreements or deferred prosecution agreements, which almost always come with strings attached.  It’s rare that companies get complete exoneration.”

Contrary to the above assertion, the lack of criminal charges against PetroTiger – even though there was an enforcement action against individuals associated with the company – was not unique.

This post highlights the 18 instances since 2000 of the DOJ bringing an enforcement action against an individual or individuals, but not an enforcement action against the business organization associated with the individual(s). (Note: excluded from the list is the manufactured Africa Sting enforcement action against 22 individuals employed by over a dozen companies).

Interesting fact, 16 of the 18 instances (89%) involved individuals associated with privately-held companies like PetroTiger.  The only two instances to involve individuals associated with publicly-traded companies are highlighted below with ***.

  • Dmitrij Harder (2015 – ongoing criminal prosecution of individual associated with  Chestnut Consulting Group Inc., no enforcement action against Chestnut Group).
  • Dmitry Firtash, Andras Knopp, Suren Gevorgyan, Gajendra Lal, Periyasamy Sunderalingam (2014 – ongoing criminal prosecutions of individuals associated with DF Group, no enforcement action against DF Group).
  • Ernesto Lujana, Tomas Clark, Alejandro Hurtado,Benito Chinea, Joseph DeMeneses  (2013-2014 – criminal prosecutions of individuals associated with Direct Access Partners, no enforcement action against Direct Access Partners).
  • Washington Cruz, Amadeus Richers and Cecilia Zurita (2011 – criminal prosecutions of individuals associated with Cinergy Telecommunications Inc., enforcement action against Cinergy Telecommunications was dropped).
  • Jean Fourcand (2010 – criminal prosecution of individual associated with Fourcand Enterprises, Inc., no enforcement action against Fourcand Enterprises).
  • Juan Diaz (2009 – criminal prosecution of individual associated with JD Locator Services Inc., no enforcement action against JD Locator Services).
  • Antonio Perez, Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez (2009 – criminal prosecutions of individuals associated with Terra Telecommunications Corp., no enforcement action against Terra Telecommunications).
  • Marguerite Grandison (2009 – criminal prosecution of individual associated with Telecom Consulting Services Corp., no enforcement action against Telecom Consulting Services).
  • Charles Jumet, John Warwick (2009 – criminal prosecutions of individuals associated with Ports Engineering Consulting and Overman Associates- no enforcement action against Ports Engineering Consulting Corp or Overman Associates).
  • Shu Quan-Sheng (2008 – criminal prosecution of individual associated with AMAC International Inc. – no enforcement action against AMAC International Inc.)
  • Leo Smith and Martin Self (2007-2008 – criminal prosecutions of individuals associated with Pacific Consolidated Industries – no enforcement action against Pacific Consolidated Industries).
  • Gerald and Patricia Green (2008 – criminal prosecutions of individuals associated with Film Festival Management – no enforcement action against Film Festival Management).
  • *** Yaw Osei Amoako, Steven Ott, Roger Young (2006-2007  - criminal prosecutions of individuals associated with ITXC Corporation – no enforcement action against against ITXC Corp.)
  • Richard Novak (2006 – criminal prosecution of individual associated with ”several internet businesses” – no enforcement action against the businesses).
  • *** David Kay, Douglas Murphy (2002 – criminal prosecutions of individuals associated with American Rice, Inc. – no enforcement action against American Rice).
  • Richard Pitchford (2002 – criminal prosecution of individual associated with the Central Asia American Enterprise Fund – no enforcement action against the Central Asia American Enterprise Fund).
  • Daniel Rothrock (2001 – criminal prosecution of individual associated with Allied Products Corp. – no enforcement action against Allied Products Corp.) ***
  • Richard Halford, Albert Reitz, Robert King, Pablo Hernandez (2001 – criminal prosecutions of individuals associated with Owl Securities and Investments, Limited – no enforcement action against Owl Securities).
Posted by Mike Koehler at 12:04 am. Post Categories: FCPA StatisticsIndividual Enforcement ActionPetroTiger




June 22nd, 2015

U.S. v. Sigelman – Just The Latest DOJ FCPA Trial Debacle

DebacleIn the words of the DOJ “our recent string of successful prosecutions of corporate executives [in FCPA cases] is worth highlighting.”

In the minds of others, “FCPA prosecutorial overreach by the Department of Justice (DOJ) is a myth.”

And now for some cold-hard facts.

Since September 2011, the DOJ has been put to its burden of proof at trial four times in FCPA enforcement actions.  As highlighted in this post, each instance was a trial court debacle for the DOJ.

The most recent debacle of course was U.S. v. Sigelman (the facts and circumstances of which most readers are presumed to know given recent events, but if not see herehere and here for prior posts.)

Sigelman was no aberration and the remainder of this post highlights the other three most recent instances of the DOJ being put to its burden of proof in an FCPA trial.

Africa Sting (2011-2012)

In January 2010, the DOJ announced criminal charges against 22 executives and employees of companies in the military and law enforcement products industry for engaging in a scheme to pay bribes to the minister of defense of an African country.  However, there was no actual involvement from any minister of defense, rather it was a manufactured sting operation.  Given the number of defendants, four separate trials were scheduled.

The first Africa Sting trial started in May 2011 and involved four defendants.  At the close of the DOJ’s case, Judge Richard Leon dismissed a substantive FCPA charge against one defendant (Pankesh Patel), dismissed another substantive FCPA charge against another defendant (Lee Tolleson) and dismissed the money laundering count against all defendants (Patel, Tolleson, Andrew Bigelow, and John Weir).  In July 2011, Judge Leon declared a mistrial as to all remaining counts against all defendants.

The second Africa Sting trial began in September 2011.  At the close of the DOJ’s case, Judge Leon dismissed the conspiracy charge against all defendants (John Mushriqui, Jeana Mushriqui, Patrick Caldwell, Stephen Giordanella, John Godsey, and Mark Morales).  Because Giordanella faced only that conspiracy charge, he was exonerated.  The trial proceeded, the charges went to the jury, the jury deliberated, and in January 2012, the jury found two defendants (Caldwell and Godsey) not guilty.  The jury hung as to the remaining defendants, and once again Judge Leon declared a mistrial as to all remaining counts against the remaining defendants.

Shortly after conclusion of the second trial, the jury foreman published this guest post on FCPA Professor and shortly thereafter the DOJ moved to dismiss with prejudice the criminal charges against all of the remaining defendants including those initially charged but not yet tried (Helmie Ashiblie, Yochanan Cohen, Amaro Goncalves, Saul Mishkin, David Painter, Lee Wares, Ofer Paz, Israel Weisler and Michael Sacks).  The next day, Judge Leon granted the motion to dismiss and stated (see here) “this appears to be the end of a long and sad chapter in the annals of white collar criminal enforcement.”

Lindsey Manufacturing et al (2011)

In 2010, the DOJ charged Lindsey Manufacturing Co. and two of its executives (company CEO Keith Lindsey and company CFO Steve Lee) with FCPA offenses for their alleged roles in a conspiracy to pay bribes to alleged Mexican “foreign officials.”  In May 2011, Lindsey Manufacturing, Lindsey, and Lee were found guilty of various FCPA charges after a five-week jury trial.  (See here).

However, after months of post-trial legal wrangling, in December 2011 Judge Howard Matz (C.D. Cal.) vacated the convictions and dismissed the indictment after finding numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct.  In the words of Judge Matz, the instances of misconduct were so varied and occurred over such a long time “that they add up to an unusual and extreme picture of a prosecution gone badly awry.”  (See here).

John O’Shea (2012)

In November 2009, John O’Shea was charged with FCPA and related offenses for allegedly making improper payments to alleged Mexican “foreign officials.”  O’Shea mounted a defense and proceeded to trial.  In January 2012, following the DOJ’s case, Judge Lynn Hughes (S.D. Tex.) dismissed the FCPA charges against O’Shea.  In doing so, Judge Hughes stated:  ”The problem here is that the principal witness against Mr. O’Shea … knows almost nothing.”  (See here).  During the trial, Judge Hughes also admonished other aspects of the DOJ’s case stating:   “I don’t know what was presented to the Grand Jury, but … the Government should have been prepared before they brought the charges to the Grand Jury. It’s something you have to prove. And you shouldn’t indict people on stuff you can’t prove.”  (See here).

To read more about the Africa Sting, O’Shea and Lindsey Manufacturing cases see the article “What Percentage of DOJ FCPA Losses Is Acceptable?

There are numerous civil society organizations devoted to bribery and corruption topics that are vocal about current trends.

Where is the civil society concern about the string of DOJ FCPA trial court debacles? After all, these debacles are effecting real people, with real families, with real reputations.

Does anyone care?

Posted by Mike Koehler at 12:03 am. Post Categories: FCPA Trials




June 19th, 2015

Friday Roundup

Roundup2Scrutiny alerts and updates, quotable, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday Roundup.

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates

Net1

As highlighted here, in 2012 Net1 UEPS (a South African telecommunications company with shares traded on a U.S. exchange) disclosed that it had received information requests from the DOJ and SEC following South African media reports concerning civil litigation in that country by an unsuccessful bidder of a telecommunications contract.

As highlighted here, in 2013 Net1 announced: “[A] full bench of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal (“Appeal Court”) unanimously ruled that the tender process followed by the South African Social Security Agency (“SASSA”) in awarding a contract to Net1’s wholly owned subsidiary Cash Paymaster Services (Proprietary) Limited (“CPS”) was valid and legal.”

Recently, the company disclosed as follows.

“[We have] received a letter from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act unit of the Division of Enforcement of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), advising the Company as follows:

“We have concluded the investigation as to Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. Based on the information we have as of this date, we do not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the Commission against Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. We are providing this notice under the guidelines set out in the final paragraph of Securities Act Release No. 5310, which states in part that the notice “must in no way be construed that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff’s investigation” [...]

“The investigation commenced in December 2012 following the award of the SASSA national contract to us in January 2012,” said Dr. Serge Belamant, Chairman and CEO of Net1. “It commenced largely as a result of one of the losing bidders for the contract, Barclays Africa’s subsidiary AllPay, referring unsubstantiated South African press articles alleging irregularities in the tender process to the U.S. Department of Justice. We believe that AllPay was responsible for instigating those media allegations. This resulted in the DOJ and SEC initiating investigations into alleged FCPA and disclosures violations. This letter from the SEC is an important step in the Company clearing its name and is in line with the total absence of any findings of irregularities against Net1 by any South African Court or Regulator resulting from actions pursued by AllPay over the past three years,” he concluded.

The separate investigation into these matters initiated by Net1 itself with the South African Police’s Commercial Crimes unit is expected to be concluded shortly.

It is the Company’s understanding that the DOJ investigation remains open at this time.”

Electrobras

As noted here:

“Brazil’s state-run power company Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA has hired U.S. law firm Hogan Lovells to assess possible cases of corruption in some of the projects the company is involved in. Eletrobras, as the company is known, said in a filing to the Brazilian market regulator that the law firm will check whether there were practices which violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The projects to be scrutinized will be selected based on their financial relevance to the company and on their relationships with construction companies already being investigated by Brazilian authorities in the so-called Operation Car Wash, focused on state-run oil company Petrobras. Eletrobras also said that internal units assigned to investigate possible wrongdoings are progressing with evaluations and that it will inform investors of their findings as soon as they are available.”

SOCO International

The British oil and gas company with ADRs traded on a U.S. exchange was recently the subject of this New York Times article:

“[A]ccording to documents obtained by Global Witness, an advocacy group, SOCO appears to have paid tens of thousands of dollars to a Congolese Army officer who has been accused of leading a brutal campaign against those objecting to the company’s oil exploration in the nature reserve, Virunga National Park. Over the course of two weeks during the spring of 2014, according to the documents, the officer, Maj. Burimba Feruzi, received at least $42,250 in payments from a local bank account associated with SOCO. That is the equivalent of 30 years of salary for the army officer, according to Global Witness.”

Quotable

Earlier this week Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell spoke at the Annual Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Global Fraud Conference.  In pertinent part, she stated:

“The threats posed by international corruption cannot be overlooked.  Corruption renders countries less safe and less stable.  Corruption thwarts economic development, traps entire populations in poverty and undercuts credible justice systems.

International corruption also inhibits the ability of American companies—and others—to compete overseas on a level playing field.  Once bribery and corruption take hold, fair and competitive business practices are eliminated.

A timely example of how corruption can infect international business practices is the FIFA case recently charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of New York.  In that case, nine FIFA officials and five corporate executives have been charged with various offenses, including racketeering conspiracy, in connection with a 24-year scheme to enrich themselves through the corruption of international soccer.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs has worked closely with the lead FIFA prosecutors to obtain evidence from numerous countries across the globe.  Swiss authorities have opened a separate, parallel probe into FIFA, relating to the selection of World Cup hosts.  We are sharing evidence and collaborating closely with governments around the world in connection with the ongoing investigation.  This worldwide effort is a profound illustration of the success that can be achieved through a truly global coalition.

In many ways, the FIFA case is very much like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases the Criminal Division is regularly investigating and prosecuting to attack illegal conduct in the global marketplace.  These cases protect markets from corruption and the artificial influences of bribery, and ensure that American companies—indeed, all companies—can compete fairly and freely across international boundaries.

But make no mistake: fighting corruption is not some service we provide to the global community; this is a fight in which we have critical international allies.  Far from acting as the world’s corruption police, the United States is part of a formidable and growing coalition of international enforcement partners who together combat corruption around the world—at home as well as abroad—that threatens each of our nations.

It is not just the United States that is recognizing the importance of foreign bribery laws.  There is a growing chorus of countries voicing support for the fight against this type of corruption.  More and more countries are joining international bodies—like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—that provide uniform standards for the criminalization of bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions.  This type of collaboration is critical if we are going to have a meaningful impact on international corruption.

[...]

At the same time that we work to combat corruption overseas, we are also increasing our efforts to ensure that American borders do not protect criminals or their assets.  In this regard, the Justice Department launched the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative in 2010.  The initiative relies on the use of U.S. civil forfeiture actions to recover the proceeds of foreign official corruption that pass through the United States.

More simply, it takes the monies and assets stolen by foreign despots and kleptocrats and returns them to the people harmed.  This initiative protects the integrity of the U.S. financial system from use by corrupt officials and denies those officials the ability to enjoy luxuries purchased in the United States at the expense of the populations they purport to serve.

In many ways, the Criminal Division’s FCPA enforcement program and our Kleptocracy Initiative are really two sides of the same anti-corruption coin.  We bring those who pay bribes to justice, no matter how rich and powerful they are.  But by itself, that is not enough.  We also attack corruption at its source, by prosecuting and seizing the assets of the corrupt officials who betray the trust of their people.”

[...]

The United States is not going to overcome the threat posed by global corruption and international organized crime by going it alone.  The Department of Justice is never going to serve as the world’s global police force.  But we can—and I believe we should—lead by example: by vigorously investigating and prosecuting international corruption and organized crime when it violates U.S. laws, and by sustaining and increasing our commitment to international collaboration in our nations’ shared struggle to safeguard our markets, our networks and our citizens.

Under my leadership, the Criminal Division will remain steadfastly committed to forging and growing our international partnerships as we fight the scourge of international corruption and organized crime.”

*****

This recent Global Investigations Review article highlights comments made by Matthew Queler ( assistant chief of the DoJ’s FCPA unit) concerning the hiring of so-called princelings (a hiring practice that has resulted in FCPA scrutiny of a variety of companies in the financial services sector).  Queler’s comments reminded me of reading an article from the Onion in that he basically said its OK to hire princelings so long as it is legal and we at the DOJ determine what legal is.

For the Reading Stack

From Morrison & Foerster’s most recent Anti-Corruption Developments alert.

“DOJ Revokes Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). As we previously reported, Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell publicly stated last month that DOJ would “not hesitate to tear up a DPA or NPA and file criminal charges” if a company breaches its agreement. AAG Caldwell’s statement was likely intended to foreshadow DOJ’s May 20, 2015 announcement that it had revoked an NPA with a corporate defendant, the first action of this kind since the revocation of a DPA with Aibel Group Limited in November 2008. In 2012, DOJ entered into an NPA with UBS AG in which DOJ declined to prosecute the bank for any crimes related to its submission of interest rates for LIBOR and other rate benchmarks. In return, the company was required to abide by several conditions during the pendency of the NPA, including the requirement that it “commit no United States crime whatsoever.” DOJ revoked the NPA after (according to the factual statement attached to the guilty plea) the company “engaged in deceptive FX trading and sales practices.” Although not an FCPA case, the revocation of the NPA in this case is relevant to FCPA enforcement because DOJ’s Fraud Section, which has exclusive authority to bring criminal FCPA cases, was involved in the decision. There are a number of reasons to find this action unfair to companies where, as here, the company implemented an enhanced compliance program, and once it found issues, it brought them forward voluntarily to the Antitrust Division (indeed, qualifying for immunity under the Leniency Program). In other words, the company undertook an enhanced compliance program as it promised to do and then it brought the matter forward, as DOJ has repeatedly encouraged companies to do, only to be punished for it. DOJ’s action, thus, presents a potential disincentive to well-meaning companies to report problems discovered as a product of the enhanced compliance program implemented in the wake of a DOJ resolution.”





June 18th, 2015

DOJ Brings First Corporate FCPA Enforcement Action Of 2015

IAPNo doubt it was a coincidence, but it was hard to ignore the timing.

Hours after the formal conclusion of the DOJ’s latest FCPA trial court debacle in U.S. v. Sigelman (see here, here and here for prior posts), the DOJ announced its first corporate FCPA enforcement action of 2015.

The enforcement action was against IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. (a small Florida-based company that provides facilities management, contingency operations, and professional and technical services in contracting capacities to the U.S. military and other governmental agencies world-wide).

According to its website, approximately 30% of IAP’s workers are veterans and the company was recently recognized by U.S. Veterans Magazine’s as one of the Top Veteran-Friendly Companies in 2014.  IAP has several contracts with the U.S. Government including the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force.

Per the DOJ’s allegations, the improper conduct occurred 7-10 years ago and was engaged in by one individual at IAP who left the company approximately 7 years ago.

The allegations focus on James Rama who was IAP’s Vice President of Special Project and Programs between 2005 and 2007. Prior to arriving at IAP, Rama, while employed in Kuwait by a large American defense contractor not affiliated with IAP, was introduced to a Kuwaiti Consultant and learned that the Kuwaiti Ministry of the Interior (MOI) was planning to build a large-scale homeland security systems called the KSP.

When Rama joined IAP he began pursuing Phase I of the KSP contract on behalf of IAP as well as the more lucrative Phase II of the KSP project.  According to the DOJ, Rama and others formed Ramaco International Consulting LLC “to hide IAP’s involvement in the KSP bidding and contracting process.”

According to the DOJ:

“In or about November 2005, IAP (through Rama) received non-public indications that the MOI would select it for the Phase I contract, although the formal bidding process had not yet begun. In February 2006, at the direction of the MOI and Kuwaiti Consultant, Rama and others agreed to and did set up Ramaco as a shell company to “bid” on the Phase I contract. One purpose of setting up Ramaco was to allow IAP to hide its involvement in Phase I and participate in the later Phase II without any apparent conflict of interest. Ramaco began acting as the agent for IAP on the KSP.

IAP agreed with the MOI that it would perform the KSP Phase I contract for approximately $4 million. Of that amount, IAP agreed that half, or approximately $2 million, would not be for actual work executing the KSP Phase I contract, but instead would be diverted to Kuwaiti Consultant.

In or about 2006, IAP, Ramaco, Rama, and others structured an illicit payment scheme to funnel approximately 50% of the payments received on the Phase I contract to Kuwaiti Consultant so that he could pay bribes to Kuwaiti government officials and took numerous steps to hide these payments and prevent the detection of their scheme. IAP, Ramaco, and Rama understood that to pay Kuwaiti Consultant, Kuwaiti Company would first inflate its invoices to IAP by charging IAP for the total amount of both the legitimate services that Kuwaiti Company was providing and the payments that Kuwaiti Company was funneling to Kuwaiti Consultant without listing or otherwise disclosing the payments that were funneled to Kuwaiti Consultant. After the MOI paid Ramaco for work on the KSP Phase I contract, Ramaco would transfer funds to a bank account of IAP, and IAP would then transfer funds to Kuwaiti Company. IAP, Ramaco, and Rama knew that Kuwaiti Company was then paying Kuwaiti Consultant approximately 50% of the KSP Phase I contract amount. IAP, Ramaco, and Rama knew that these payments to Kuwaiti Consultant were often further disguised.

In or about April 2006, Ramaco opened a bank account in Kuwait for Ramaco that would be used, in part, to pay Kuwaiti Consultant a portion of the money that IAP and Ramaco received from the KSP Phase I contract.

On or about May 10, 2006, Rama signed the KSP Phase I contract between Ramaco and the Government of Kuwait, which included a markup of approximately $2 million that would be kicked back, in whole or in part, to Kuwaiti government officials through Kuwaiti Consultant.

On or about September 19, 2006, IAP wired KD 120,000 (approximately $420,000) from its bank account to Kuwaiti Company’s bank account, and, on or about that same day, Kuwaiti Company paid that amount to Kuwaiti Consultant.

In or about October 2006, employees of IAP and G3 met with Rama and others at IAP’s office in Arlington, Virginia, which is in the Eastern District of Virginia, in an effort to persuade IAP to continue making payments to Kuwaiti Consultant.

On or about October 18, 2006, IAP wired KD 63,000 (approximately $220,500) from its bank account to Kuwaiti Company’s bank account, and, on or about that same day, Kuwaiti Company paid that amount to Kuwaiti Consultant.

On or about June 5, 2007, IAP wired KD 29,962.27 (approximately $105,000) from its bank account in the United States to Kuwaiti Company’s bank account in Kuwait so that Kuwaiti Company could pay Kuwaiti Consultant, and, on or about June 13, 2007, IAP wired that amount from its bank account in the United States to Kuwaiti Company’s bank account.

On or about December 6, 2007, Ramaco paid Kuwaiti Consultant KD 52,250 (approximately $183,000). 22. On or about March 10, 2008, Ramaco paid Kuwaiti Consultant KD 44,250 (approximately $155,000).

Between September 2006 and March 2008, IAP and its co-conspirators paid Kuwaiti Consultant at least KD 509,625 (approximately $1,783,688) on the understanding that some or all of that money would be provided as bribes to Kuwaiti government officials to assist IAP in obtaining and retaining the KSP Phase I contract and to obtain the KSP Phase II contract.”

The above allegations were resolved via a non-prosecution agreement in which IAP agreed to pay”a monetary penalty in the present value amount of $7.1 million”.  Pursuant to the NPA, the penalty is to be paid in four yearly installments of $1.775 million. The NPA, which has a three year term, states as follows:

“Among the facts considered were the following: (a) the Company has cooperated with the Offices, including conducting an extensive internal investigation, voluntarily making U.S. and foreign employees available for interviews, and collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information for the Offices; (b) the Company has engaged in remediation, including disciplining the officers and employees responsible for the corrupt payments or terminating their employment, enhancing its due diligence protocol for third-party agents and consultants, and instituting heightened review of proposals and other transactional documents for relevant Company contracts; (c) the Company has committed to continue to enhance its compliance program and internal controls, including ensuring that its compliance program satisfies the minimum elements set forth in Attachment C to this Agreement; and (d) the Company has agreed to continue to cooperate with the Offices in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of the Company and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and consultants relating to possible violations under investigation by the Offices.”

As noted in the DOJ’s release:

“[The] non-prosecution agreement requires IAP to conduct a review of its existing internal controls, policies and procedures, and make any necessary modifications to ensure that the company maintains accurate record keeping and a rigorous anti-corruption compliance program.  The non-prosecution agreement further requires IAP to report periodically to the Criminal Division and to the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia regarding remediation and implementation of the aforementioned compliance program and internal controls, policies and procedures.”

Typical of most corporate FCPA enforcement actions, the NPA contains a “muzzle clause” in which IAP agreed that it shall not directly or indirectly make any public statement contradicting the information set forth in the NPA.

Based on the same core conduct alleged in the NPA, the DOJ announced a plea agreement with James Rama to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.  See here for the plea agreement, here for the Statement of Facts, and here for the criminal information.

For additional coverage of the enforcement action see here from Reuters.