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 and obstruction charges 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.”
As highlighted in this recent post, Javier Aguilar (a former employee of Vitol Inc.) was sentenced to four years in prison after being found guilty at trial for paying bribes to Ecuadorian officials as well as related offenses and after pleading guilty to a bribery scheme in Mexico.
Aguilar was also ordered to approximately $7.13 million in criminal forfeiture and a $100,000 fine.
In sentencing Aguilar, U.S. District Judge Eric Vitaliano (E.D. N.Y) considered the sentencing briefs of Aguilar (who requested a non-custodial sentence) and the DOJ (who requested a 12 year sentence).
Have you ever really paused to think what the term “anti-corruption lawyer” means?
Mark McCaig, Publisher of the Texas Voice (which describes itself as an “honest and trustworthy source of information about Texas politics and government), has and he takes issue with Democrat Texas House candidate Josh Wallenstein calling himself an “Anti-Corruption Lawyer.”
Why?
Well, according to McCaig, Wallenstein’s resume “does not reflect any work as a prosecutor.
Previous posts have focused on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan.
This post highlights other FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in other Central Asia countries.
Turkmenistan
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Nigeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan.
As to Turkmenistan, the allegations were: ““Between in or around 2002 and in or around 2009, Panalpina Turkmenistan paid over $500,000 in cash bribes to: (i) Turkmen government officials responsible for assessing and collecting duties and tariffs on imported goods in order to expedite the release of shipments and undocumented shipments and to circumvent the official Turkmen customs and immigration regulations; (ii) Turkmen government officials responsible for auditing, assessing, and collecting taxes on economic activity in Turkmenistan to minimize the duration of audits and investigations and to reduce proposed fines; and (iii) Turkmen govermnent officials responsible for enforcing Turkmenistan labor, health, and safcty laws, including through the use of audits and inspections, to minimize the duration of audits and investigations and to reduce the proposed fines.”
This post highlights FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in South Korea, North Korea and Japan.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in South Korea and Vietnam.
As to South Korea, the allegations were: “From at least 2009 through 2017, high-level executives of KT maintained slush funds, comprised of both off-the-books accounts and physical stashes of cash, in order to provide items of value to government officials, among others. These included gifts, entertainment and, ultimately, illegal political contributions to members of the Korean National Assembly serving on committees relevant to KT’s business.” “Between 2015 and 2016, KT made payments of over $1.6 million to three organizations at the request of high-level government officials. KT paid $972,616 to Foundation A, described as a foundation for the promotion of Korean culture, and $603,791 to Foundation B, described as a foundation for the promotion of sports. A close associate of a senior Korean government official set up both foundations, and the payments were made at the behest of the Blue House, Korea’s presidential residence and office. The third payment, of $88,420 to another organization, Association C concerning e-Sports, was solicited by a member of Korea’s National Assembly who served on legislative committees important to KT’s business. All of these payments were booked incorrectly, either as charitable donations or as a sponsorship.”