This recent post highlighted the FCPA enforcement action against Charles Finkel (a former executive of Sicpa (a Swiss technology company which provides governments with banknote security inks and secured identification, traceability and authentication solutions).
In October 2022, Charles Finkel was charged in a criminal complaint filed in the S.D. of New York with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in connection with an alleged bribery scheme in Brazil.
In October 2022, Finkel was arrested and appeared before a judge and released on bail. The judge issued an order directing that filings and docket entries be filed under seal and the case had remained under seal for over four years with numerous continuances filed.
This post highlighted the recent decision by Judge Kathleen Williams (S.D. Fla). granting in part Smartmatic’s Motion to Compel Discovery in connection with its previously filed Motion to Dismiss on the basis of “vindictive and selective prosecution.” (See here for additional background on the FCPA enforcement action).
In her order, Judge Williams stated that there is “some evidence tending to support” the motion to dismiss and listed several factors including the DOJ’s dismissal of the FCPA enforcement action against former Cognizant Technology Solutions executives Gordon Coburn and Steven Schwartz as well as “the Government also elected to close FCPA investigations into multiple companies.”
Much like certain recent FCPA commentary (see here for a prior post), Judge Williams’ reference to these two factors was a bit shallow.
In October 2025, Smartmatic was criminally charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering in connection with an alleged bribery scheme involving the former Chairman of the Commission on Elections of the Philippines. (See here for the prior post).
The allegations involved the same core conduct alleged in a 2024 FCPA enforcement action involving two company executives, among others.
The criminal indictment against Smartmatic was notable in that 2010 was the last time a business organization was criminally indicted for FCPA offenses (as opposed to a criminal information / complaint resolved through a plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement; non-prosecution agreement; or declination with disgorgement).
In March 2026, Smartmatic moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis of “vindictive and selective prosecution.”
Fourteen years ago, the DOJ and SEC released the FCPA Guidance. Time sure does fly by.
The guidance generated a substantial amount of buzz, but the festive coverage soon subsided as the guidance grew older.
Yet, on this fourteenth anniversary of the FCPA Guidance, it is useful to take a look back.
As highlighted in this prior post, the 2012 FCPA guidance was a long-time coming to say the least.
Checking in on the back and forth between the DOJ and Judge Nicholas Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.).
In 2024, the DOJ criminally charged various individuals in connection with an alleged Indian bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
In mid-August, Judge Nicholas Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.) – after much back and forth with the DOJ – granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss various non-FCPA fraud charges against certain defendants.
However, Judge Garaufis denied the motion to dismiss FCPA [Count One] and obstruction charges [Count Five] against certain other defendants (see here for the prior post) while noting “the court’s conclusion does not mean that additional evidence to support […] proffered reason to dismiss does not exist. It means only that the factual support that McCotter has provided is not sufficient.”
The back and forth continued (see here) and on September 3rd Judge Garaufis again denied the DOJ’s motion to dismiss FCPA and obstruction charges against certain other defendants. (See here).
In late September, the DOJ filed a petition in the Second Circuit requesting “that the Court swiftly issue a writ of mandamus directing [Judge Garaufis] to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment with prejudice.”