All About Monitors

If you ever have had a question about monitors in the FCPA enforcement context, chances are it is addressed in "Somebody's Watching Me: FCPA Monitorships and How They Can Work Better." (See here).

Authored by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher attorneys Joseph Warin (here), Michael Diamant (here), and Veronica Root (here), the article was recently published in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business.

Below is an abstract.

"This article explores the rise of the corporate compliance monitor as a condition for settling violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”)—a setting in which federal prosecutors routinely impose monitors. From 2004 to 2010, more than 40 percent of all companies that resolved an FCPA investigation with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) or Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) through a settlement or plea agreement retained an independent compliance monitor as a condition of that agreement."

"If U.S. enforcement authorities maintain their current approach, the reality is that companies facing liability for violating the FCPA are likely to have a monitor imposed on them as part of a settlement agreement. From the U.S. government’s perspective, monitorships make sense for companies that violate anti-bribery laws, making it important for offending corporations to learn how to deal with monitors. Pulling from the authors’ extensive experience with three major FCPA compliance monitorships, as well as their work assisting clients operating under an FCPA monitorship, this article aids in that process. It also hopes to help monitors themselves, as well as the prosecutors who appoint them, in making the monitorship a more constructive feature of an FCPA settlement."

"Part I provides some basic background on the FCPA and discusses the use of compliance monitors as a term in settlement agreements with federal regulators. Part II examines why some companies receive a monitor as a term of an FCPA settlement, while others do not. Part III discusses what FCPA monitorships most commonly entail. Part IV identifies best practices for FCPA compliance monitors: what they should and should not do in their quest to help mold an ethical organization. Finally, Part V advises how companies can utilize their role in the selection, retention, and management of the monitor to help make the process anodyne and the results valuable for the organization."

For more on monitors, see here, here, and here (discussing a November 2009 GAO report) for certain prior posts.

DOJ Enforcement of the FCPA - Year in Review

A few weeks ago I ran a SEC FCPA enforcement year in review (here).

Today I highlight facts and figures from the DOJ's FCPA enforcement program in 2010.

And what it year it had.

As noted in this recent DOJ release, "the Criminal Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement involved imposition of $1 billion in penalties in FY 2010, the largest in the history of FCPA enforcement."

In comparison, in 2000 the DOJ did not bring one FCPA enforcement action. The past decade has thus witnessed a remarkable transformation – not as to the FCPA itself (the statute has not changed since 1998), but as to FCPA enforcement and theories of prosecution both at the DOJ and the SEC.

As the DOJ’s former Assistant Chief for FCPA enforcement candidly stated (here), “the government sees a profitable program, and it’s going to ride that horse until it can’t ride it anymore.”

This post highlights the 16 DOJ corporate FCPA enforcement actions from 2010. Not included are BAE (an enforcement action (see here) in which the DOJ did not even charge FCPA offenses) or Lindsey Manufacturing (see here) given that the company was indicted and thus the enforcement action remains open.

Of the 16 enforcement actions, 6 of the actions were in Panalpina related actions; 2 were the related Bonny Island, Nigeria actions; and 2 were the related Alliance One and Universal actions. Thus, if one looks at unique enforcement actions (the best way to analyze FCPA facts and figures in my opinion), the DOJ broght 9 unique corporate FCPA enforcement actions in 2010.

In the 16 corporate FCPA enforcement actions from 2010, the DOJ brought in $870 million in criminal fines - thrown in the $400 million BAE enforcement action if you insist and the number is $1.27 billion.

Tack on the SEC's recovery (both civil penalties and disgorgement) in 2010 corporate FCPA enforcement actions of approximately $530 million and one finds $1.8 billion in corporate FCPA fines, penalties and disgorgement in 2010.

DOJ FCPA enforcement in 2010 was both large ($240 million in criminal fines against both Technip and Snamprogetti, $93.6 million in criminal fines against Daimler) and small ($32,000 against Mercator Corporation in the bizarre James Giffen related case involving two snowmobiles, and $1.7 million against RAE Systems).

The numbers present some interesting results.

Despite aggressive DOJ rhetoric and despite the DOJ seeking a sentencing guidelines enhancement applicable to FCPA offenses (see here) in 10 of 12 FCPA enforcement actions where an analysis was possible, the DOJ agreed to a criminal fine below the minimum range suggested by the sentencing guidelines.

In these 10 cases, the average was approximately 25% below the minimum guidelines range and the distribution range was 55% below the minimum guidelines range (Pride International) and 5% below the minimum guidelines range (Panalpina).

The only two corporate FCPA enforcement actions from 2010 where the company paid a criminal fine within the guidelines range were Alliance One (the company voluntarily disclosed and receive a non-prosecution agreement) and Alcatel-Lucent.

[Note - why are only 12 of the 16 enforcement actions included in the above analysis? I excluded Innospec because the company's claimed inability to pay (but see here) resulted in an invalid fine to guidelines analysis; I excluded Mercator Corp. because the DOJ and the company could not even agree on what guidelines to use; and I excluded Noble Corp. and RAE Systems (both enforcement actions resolved via an NPA) because the DOJ never set forth a guidelines range in the agreement or related documents].

During the November 2010 Senate FCPA hearing (see here) an issue discussed was the general lack of individual DOJ FCPA prosecutions.

How many corporate FCPA enforcement actions involved related individual prosecutions of company employees (not talking agents here such as in Innospec) by the DOJ (recognizing that such prosecutions may be forthcoming in the future)?

Of the 17 corporate DOJ enforcement actions or indictments (Lindsey Manufacturing is back in the mix here) 12 of the 17 enforcement actions (70%) have not involved (at least thus far) DOJ prosecutions of company employees. Included in the 12 enforcement actions are the top 3 from 2010 from a criminal fine perspective: Technip, Snamprogetti, and Daimler.

What about non-prosecution and deferred prosecutions vs. old fashioned law enforcement (i.e., if a company committed a crime the DOJ charged it and if the company did not commit a crime the DOJ did not charge it)?

2010 saw 15 such resolution vehicles (4 NPAs) and (11 DPAs).

As Gibson Dunn highlighted in this recent report, FCPA enforcement actions comprised approximately 50% of all DOJ NPA or DPA agreements.

Among the criticisms noted in the Gibson Dunn report is that "by continually entering DPAs and NPAs, the DOJ can shield its expansive interpretation of important statutes from judicial review." As to the FCPA the report states, "because FCPA allegations against corporations rarely, if ever, go to trial, and DPAs and NPAs are subject to only minimal judicial scrutiny, the DOJ's sometimes expansive interpretations of the FCPA is never truly tested."

Spot on!

As evident from the material below, a typical way for DOJ to resolve corporate FCPA enforcement actions in 2010 was for the parent company to enter into an NPA or DPA and for a subsidiary (usually a foreign subsidiary) to plea to a criminal charge. Daimler, Alliance One, Universal, ABB, Panalpina, Pride International, Royal Dutch Shell, and Alcatel-Lucent all involved such hybrid resolution vehicles.

In the SEC year in review piece, I noted that 97% of the $529,967,294 collected in SEC FCPA enforcement actions in 2010 appears to be in enforcement actions that were voluntarily or otherwise publicly disclosed and not the result of original investigation by either the SEC or DOJ.

What does this number look like for DOJ FCPA enforcement actions in 2010 - recognizing that by disclosure I am talking about voluntary disclosure in the traditional sense (i.e. the company disclosing the conduct at issue to the enforcement agencies) as well as other forms of public disclosure (such as identification in the U.N. Oil for Food Report, the result of a whistleblower complaint to U.S. authorities, the result of prior foreign law enforcement agency investigations, or based on disclosures by other companies)?

Of the $870 million in criminal fines collected by the DOJ in FCPA enforcement actions, 97% would appear to fit this description as well.

Thus, much like the SEC, the DOJ also appears to be a reactive agency when it comes to corporate FCPA enforcement.

Set forth below are facts and figures from each 2010 DOJ corporate FCPA enforcement action.

Innospec (March 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery and books and records provisions; wire fraud; and FCPA anti-bribery and books and records violations.

Resolution Vehicle: Plea.

Guidelines Range: $101.5 - $203 million.

Penalty: $14.1 million (based on claimed inability to pay).

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: Yes - three years.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

Daimler (March 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Daimler AG (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's books and records provisions and violating the FCPA's books and records provisions); DaimlerChrysler China Ltd. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions); DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia SAO (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions); Daimler Export and Trade Finance GmbH (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions).

Resolution Vehicle: Daimler AG (deferred prosecution agreement); DaimlerChrysler China Ltd. (deferred prosecution agreement); DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia SAO (plea); Daimler Export and Trade Finance GmbH (plea).

Guidelines Range: $116 - $232 million.

Penalty: $93.6 million (20% below the minimum guidelines range).

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: Yes - three years.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

Technip (June 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions.

Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.

Guidelines Range: $318.4 - $636.8 Million

Penalty: $240 million (25% below the minimum guidelines range).

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: Yes - two years.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

Snamprogetti (July 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions and aiding and abetting FCPA anti-bribery violations.

Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.

Guidelines Range: $300 Million - $600 Million

Penalty: $240 million (20% below the minimum guidelines range)

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: No.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

Alliance One (August 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Alliance One International AG (conspiracy to violate the FCPA, violations of the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions, and violations of the FCPA's books and records provisions); Alliance One Tobacco Osh LLC (conspiracy to violate the FCPA, violations of the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions and books and records provisions).

Resolution Vehicle: Alliance One International Inc. (non-prosecution agreement); Alliance One International AG (plea); Alliance One Tobacco Osh LLC (plea).

Guidelines Range: $8.4 - $16.8 million.

Penalty: $9.45 million.

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: Yes - three years.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: Yes.

Universal Corp. (August 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Universal Leaf Tabacos Ltd. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery and books and records provisions and violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions).

Resolution Vehicle: Universal Corporation (non-prosecution agreement); Universal Leaf Tabacos Ltd. (plea).

Guidelines Range: $6.3 - $12.6 million

Penalty: $4.4 million (30% below the minimum guidelines range).

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: Yes - three years.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

Mercator Corp. (August 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: FCPA anti-bribery violations.

Resolution Vehicle: Plea.

Guidelines Range: The parties disagreed as to whether the 2009 or 2008 guidelines applied. If 2009, $650,000 - $1.3 million; If 2008, $30,000 to $60,000.

Penalty: $32,000.

Disclosure: Unclear.

Monitor: No.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: Yes (but Giffen pleaded to a misdemeanor tax violation).

ABB Ltd. (September 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: ABB Inc. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions); ABB Ltd. - Jordan (conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to violate the FCPA's books and records provisions).

Resolution Vehicle: ABB Ltd. (deferred prosecution agreement); ABB Inc. (plea); ABB Ltd. - Jordan (plea).

Guidelines Range: $30.42 - $60.2 million.

Penalty: $19 million (approximately 38% below the minimum guidelines range).

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: Company agreed to follow the recommendations of an independent compliance consultant.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: Yes.

Lindsey Manuf. (October 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions.

Resolution Vehicle: N/A

Guidelines Range: N/A

Penalty: N/A

Disclosure: Unclear.

Monitor: N/A

Individuals Charged by DOJ: Yes.

Panalpina (November 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd. (conspiracy to violate and violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions) ; Panalpina Inc. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's books and records provisions and aiding and abetting certain customers in violating the FCPA books and records provisions).

Resolution Vehicle: Panalpina World (deferred prosecution agreement); Panalpina Inc. (plea).

Guidelines Range: 72.8 million to $145.6 million.

Penalty: 70.6 million (approximately 5% below the minimum guidelines range).

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: No.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

Pride International (November 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Pride International Inc. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery and books and records provisions and violating the FCPA's anti-bribery and books and records provisions); Pride Forasol S.A.S. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery and books and records provisions, violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions, and aiding and abetting violations of the FCPA's books and records provisions).

Resolution Vehicle: Pride International Inc. (deferred prosecution agreement); Pride Forasol (plea).

Guidelines Range: $72.5 - $145 million.

Penalty: $32.6 million (approximately 55% below the minimum guideline range).

Voluntary Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: No.

Individuals Charged: No.

Tidewater (November 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Tidewater Marine International Inc. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery and books and records provisions and violating the FCPA's books and records provisions).

Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.

Guidelines Range: $10.5 - $21 million.

Penalty: $7.4 million (30% below the minimum guidelines range).

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: No.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

Transocean (November 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Transocean Inc. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery and books and records provisions; violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions; and aiding and abetting FCPA books and record violations).

Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.

Guidelines Range: $16.8 - $33.6 million.

Penalty: $13.4 million (20% below the minimum guidelines range).

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: No.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

Noble Corp. (November 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: N/A

Resolution Vehicle: Non-prosecution agreement.

Guidelines Range: Not addressed.

Penalty: $2.6 million.

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: No.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

Royal Dutch Shell (November 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery and books and records provisions; aiding and abetting FCPA books and records violations).

Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.

Guidelines Range: $34.2 - $68.4 million.

Penalty: $30 million (approximately 15% below the minimum guidelines range).

Disclosure: No.

Monitor: No.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

RAE Systems (December 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Although a non-prosecution agreement, the agreements states "knowing violations of the FCPA's books and records and internal controls provisions."

Resolution Vehicle: Non-prosecution agreement.

Guidelines Range: Not addressed.

Penalty: $1.7 million.

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: No.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.

Alcatel-Lucent (December 2010)

See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.

Charges: Alcatel-Lucent S.A. (FCPA books and records and internal control provisions); Alcatel-Lucent France S.A., Alcatel-Lucent Trade International A.G., and Alcatel Centroamerica S.A. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery, books and records, and internal control provisions).

Resolution Vehicle: Alcatel-Lucent S.A. (deferred prosecution agreement); Alcatel-Lucent France S.A., Alcatel-Lucent Trade International A.G., and Alcatel Centroamerica S.A. pleas.

Guidelines Range: $86.58 - $173.16 million.

Penalty: $92 million.

Disclosure: Yes.

Monitor: Yes - three years.

Individuals Charged by DOJ: Yes.

Analyzing Alcatel-Lucent

In 2006, Alcatel-Lucent, S.A. ("Alcatel") was formed when an Alcatel S.A. subsidiary merged with Lucent Technologies, Inc. Prior to the merger, Alcatel was a worldwide provider of a wide variety of telecommunications equipment and services and other technology products. The company operated in more than 130 countries directly and through certain wholly owned and indirect subsidiaries including in Costa Rica, Honduras, Malaysia and Taiwan. From 1998 until late 2006, ADR shares of Alcatel were traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

In 2007, the right side of the hyphen - Lucent Technologies - settled an FCPA enforcement action (see here and here).

In 2010, in what was the last FCPA enforcement action of the year, the left side of the hyphen - Alcatel and certain of its subsidiaries - settled an FCPA enforcement.

This post analyzes the Alcatel-Lucent enforcement action. The enforcement action (all 360 pages) is a FCPA feast. Principally based on the lack of due diligence of third-party agents, the enforcement action serves up the following: lots of alleged state-owned or state-controlled telecommunication entities; consultants hired after contracts were secured; a purported telecommunications consultant with only perfume experience; payments to legislators and political parties; things of value including excessive travel and entertainment expenses and crystal for the secretary; joint ventures; and payments from New York and Miami bank accounts.

The Alcatel-Lucent enforcement action involved both a DOJ and SEC component. Total settlement amount was approximately $137.4 million ($92 million criminal fine via DOJ plea agreements and a deferred prosecution agreement; $45.4 million in disgorgement via a SEC settled complaint).

DOJ

The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information against Alcatel-Lucent, S.A. ("Alcatel") resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement and a criminal information against Alcatel-Lucent France S.A. ("Alcatel CIT"), Alcatel-Lucent Trade International A.G. ("Alcatel Standard"), and Alcatel CentroAmerica, S.A. ("ACR") resolved through plea agreements. See here for the DOJ release.

Alcatel-Lucent S.A. Criminal Information

The information (here) begins with a heading "Background Regarding Alcatel's Business Practices and the State of Its Internal Controls."

It states as follows. "Starting in the 1990s and continuing through at least last 2006, Alcatel pursued many of its business opportunities around the world through the use of third-party agents and consultants. This business model was shown to be prone to corruption, as consultants were repeatedly used as conduits for bribe payments to foreign officials (and business executives of private customers) to obtain or retain business in many countries."

The information also highlights Alcatel's "de-centralized business structure" which permitted different Alcatel employees around the world "to initially vet the the third-party consultants, and then rely on Executive 1 [a French citizen who served as Chief Executive Officer of Alcatel Standard in Basel, Switzerland] at Alcatel to perform due diligence on them." According to the information, "this de-centralized structure and approval process permitted corruption to occur, as the local employees were more interested in obtaining business than ensuring that business was won ethically and legally."

Further, the information alleges that "Executive 1 performed no due diligence of substance and remained, at best, deliberately ignorant of the true purpose behind the retention of and payment to many of the third-party consultants." Specifically, the information alleges that "Executive 1 made no effort, or virtually no effort, to verify the information provided by the consultant in the Consultant Profile [a form the consultant was supposed to complete with information concerning its ownership, business activities, capabilities, banking arrangements, and professional references], apart from using Dun & Bradstreet reports to confirm the consultant's existence and physical address." According to the information, "if the paperwork was completed, regardless of any obvious issues (such as close relationships with foreign officials or a clear lack of skill, experience or telecommunications expertise), Executive 1 authorized hiring and paying the third-party consultant."

As to payments to the consultants, the information alleges that "Alcatel Standard [a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alcatel located and incorporated in Switzerland and an entity "responsible for entering into most agreements with consultants worldwide on behalf of Alcatel and certain other entities] would contract with the third-party consultant and then Alcatel CIT [a wholly owned subsidiary of Alcatel located and incorporated in France] would pay the consultant" including through a bank account at ABN Amro Bank in New York.

The information alleges as follows. "Often senior executives at Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR [a wholly owned subsidiary of Alcatel located and incorporated in Costa Rica], among others, knew bribes were being paid, or were aware of the high probability that many of these third-party consultants were paying bribes, to foreign officials to obtain or retain business. For example, in a significant number of instances, the consultant contracts were executed after Alcatel had already obtained the customer business, the consultant commissions were excessive, and lump sum payments were made to the consultants that did not appear to correspond to any one one contract."

According to the information, "Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, ACR, and certain employees of Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR knew, or purposefully ignored" that much of the consultant documentation "did not accurately reflect the true nature and purpose of the agreements" and that "many of the invoices submitted by various third-party consultants falsely claimed that legitimate work had been completed, while the true purpose of the monies sought by the invoices was to funnel all or some of the money to foreign officials, directly and indirectly."

The information alleges that "these transactions were designed to circumvent Alcatel's internal controls system and were further undertaken knowing that they would not be accurately and fairly reflected in Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR's books and records, which were included in the consolidated financial statements that Alcatel filed with the SEC."

The information then contains ten separate sections: conduct in Costa Rica; conduct in Honduras; conduct in Malaysia; conduct in Taiwan; conduct in Kenya; conduct in Nigeria; conduct in Bangladesh; conduct in Ecuador; conduct in Nicaragua; and other consultancy agreements entered into without proper due diligence.

Costa Rica

The alleged conduct focuses on the actions of Christian Sapsizian and Edgar Valverde Acosta and consultancy agreements on behalf of Alcatel CIT with two Costa Rican consultants which were intended to make improper payments to Costa Rican government officials for telecommunications contracts. According to the indictment, Sapsizian (a French citizen) was a long-term employee of Alcatel and Alcatel CIT responsible for developing business in Latin America. Valverde (a Costa Rica citizen) served as the President of ACR and the Country Senior Officer of Costa Rica. See here for the prior enforcement actions against Sapsizian and Valverde.

According to the information, "both consultants had many personal contacts at ICE [Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad S.A. - a "wholly state-owned telecommunications authority in Costa Rica responsible for awarding and administering public tenders for telecommunications contracts].

According to the information, Sapsizian's supervisor, the President of Area 1 who worked in Miami, approved more than $18 million in payments to the consultants notwithstanding that the President of Area 1, according to Sapsizian, "told him on several occasions that he knew he was 'risking jail time' as a result of his approval of these payments, which he understood would, at least in part, ultimately wind up in the hands of public officials."

The information alleges that various Alcatel entities "conducted insufficient due diligence" on the consultants and that "neither Alcatel nor any of its subsidiaries took sufficient steps to ensure that the consultants were complying with the FCPA or other relevant anti-corruption laws."

According to the information, the above described payments were ultimately used to provide money to various ICE officials, a Costa Rica executive branch official, and a Costa Rica legislator, that ultimately assisted Alcatel CIT obtain a $44 million contract, a $149.5 million contract, a $109.5 million contract.

The information also alleges that Sapsizian "approved the payment of approximately $25,000 in travel, hotel, and other expenses incurred by ICE officials during a primarily pleasure trip to Paris" - a trip that "was partially intended to reward these government officials for providing Alcatel with lucrative contracts ...".

Based on this conduct, the information alleges that "employees of Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR knowingly circumvented Alcatel's internal controls system and made inaccurate and false entries in the books and records of Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR, whose financial results were included in the consolidated financial statements of Alcatel submitted to the SEC. As a result of the contracts won by Alcatel CIT in Costa Rica as a result of bribe payments, Alcatel earned approximately $23,661,000 in profits."

Honduras

The information charges that "employees of ACR, along with Sapsizian, pursued business opportunities on behalf of Alcatel in Honduras with Hondutel [Empresa Hondurena de Telecomunicaciones - an alleged wholly state-owned telecommunications authority in Honduras responsible for providing telecommunications services in Honduras including evaluating and awarding telecommunications contracts on behalf of the government of Honduras] and Conatel [Comision Nacional de Telecouniciaciones - an alleged Honduran government agency that regulated the telecommunications sector in Honduras that issued licenses and concessions for fixed-line and wireless telephony, data transmission and internet services]."

According to the information, Alcatel CIT and Alcatel Mexico made large commission payments to at least one consultant, knowing that all or some of the money paid to that consultant would be paid to a close relative of a Honduran government official, with the high probability that some or all of the money would be passed on to the Honduran government official, in exchange for favorable treatment of Alcatel, Alcatel CIT, and Alcatel Mexico."

According to the information, the consultant was retained at the request of a high-ranking government official in the Honduran executive branch; however, the consultant was an exclusive distributor of "brand name perfumes" and had no contacts in, or prior experience with, the telecommunications industry in Honduras or anywhere else.

The information alleges that in retaining the consultant, "Alcatel Standard knowingly failed to conduct appropriate due dligence" and "did not follow up on numerous, obvious red flags."

The information alleges that by utilizing the services of the consultant, Hondutel awarded Alcatel a $1 million contract and four additional contracts for a combined value of approximately $47 million.

The information also alleges that "Alcatel CIT and ACR employees arranged for several other Honduran government officials to take primarily pleasure trips to France, which were paid by Alcatel CIT or ACR directly." In addition, the information charges that a "high-ranking executive at Hondutel" also "received gifts and improper payments from Alcatel CIT and ACR employees" including $2,000 for an educational trip for the official's daughter and a trip to Paris (along with the official's spouse) that mostly consisted of "touring activities via a chauffeur-driven vehicle." Further, the information alleges that "Alcatel CIT also made payments to a Hondutel attorney who worked" on a contract secured by Alcatel including paying for a trip by the attorney and the attorney's daughter to Paris.

Based on this conduct, the information alleges that "employees of Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR knowingly circumvented Alcatel's internal controls system and caused inaccurate and false entries in the books and records of Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR, whose financial results were included in the consolidated financial statements of Alcatel submitted to the SEC." According to the information, "as a result of the bribe payments, Alcatel earned approximately $870,000 in profits."

Malaysia

The information alleges that "in at least 17 instances in or around 2004 to in or around 2006, Alcatel Malaysia [a joint venture in which Alcatel owned a majority share of and exercised control of] employees, with the consent and approval of Alcatel Malaysia's management, such as Executive 2 [Alcatel Malaysia's Country Senior Officer] and Executive 3 [Alcatel Malaysia's Chief Financial Officer], made improper payments to Telekcom Malaysia [an alleged state-owned and controlled telecommunications provider in Malaysia responsible for awarding telecommunications contracts 43% owned by the Malaysian Ministry of Finance] employees in exchange for nonpublic information relating to ongoing public tenders." According to the information, "the documents purchased generally consisted of internal assessments by Celcom's [Telekom Malaysia's wholly owned subsidiary] tender committee of non-public pricing information." According to the information, "eight of the 17 improper payments to Telekom Malaysia employees were made in connection with a single public tender that Alcatel Malaysia ultimately won ...". The information alleges that the payments were falsely characterized as "document fees" or accurately as "purchase of tender documents."

The information further alleges that Alcatel Standard entered into a consulting agreement for more than $500,000 with a Malaysian consultant even though "Alcatel typically paid its agents and consultants commission rates based on the total value of a contract rather than pay a fixed fee for services." According to the information, "at the time the payments were made to Malaysian Consultant 1, Alcatel Malaysia and Alcatel Standard were aware of a significant risk that Malaysian Consultant 1 would pass on all or a part of these payments to foreign officials."

The information further alleges that Alcatel Standard entered into another consulting agreement with another consultant by which Alcatel Standard agreed to pay the consultant $500,000 for a "strategic intelligence report on Celcom's positioning in the celluar industry in relation to its competitors." According to the information, despite paying the consultant "half a million dollars for this report ... there is no evidence that Malaysian Consultant 2 did any actual work for Alcatel Malaysia or ever produced the report." The information states that "Alcatel Standard and Alcatel Malaysia were aware of a significant risk that Malaysian Consultant 2 was serving merely as a conduit for bribe payments to foreign officials."

The information further alleges, in summary fashion, as follows. "Alcatel Malaysia lacked internal controls, such as formal policies covering expenditure for gifts, travel, and entertainment for customers, leading to Alcatel Malaysia employees giving lavish gifts to Telekom Malaysia officials."

Based on this conduct, the information alleges that "Alcatel Standard and Alcatel Malaysia knowingly circumvented Alcatel's internal controls system and caused inaccurate and false entries in the books and records of Alcatel Standard and Alcatel Malaysia, whose financial results were included in the consolidated financial statements of Alcatel submitted to the SEC." The information states that "although Alcatel won the $85 million Celcom contract, Alcatel did not generate any profits from it."

Taiwan

According to the information, Alcatel pursued business in Taiwan through its indirect subsidiary Alcatel SEL, a company located and incorporated in Germany. The information states that Executive 4 [a German citizen who served on Alcatel SEL's director of international business ans sales] hired two third-party consultants to assist Alcatel SEL and Taisel, a joint venture 60% owned by an Alcatel subsidiary in obtaiing an axle counting contracts from the TRA [the Taiwan Railway Administration - an alleged wholly state-owned authority in Taiwan responsible for managing, maintaining, and running passenger freight services on Taiwan's railroad lines]." According to the information, "both consultants claimed to have close ties to certain legislators in the Taiwanese government who were understood to have influence in awarding the contract due to their particular responsibilities in the legislature."

The information alleges that the "purpose behind Alcatel's hiring of Taiwanese Consultant 1 was so that Alcatel SEL could make improper payments to three Taiwanese legislators who had influence in the award of the TRA axle counting contract." According to the information, after Taisel has been awarded the contract, "Alcatel SEL paid Taiwanese Consultant 1 a commission of approximately $921,413 by wire transfer from Alcatel SEL's ABN Amro bank account in New York" and that Taiwanese Consultant 1, in turn, "made improper payments to two Taiwanese legislators: Legislator 2 and Legislator 3 - both members of the Legislative Yuan, the unicameral legislative assembly of the Republic of China. Among other things, the information alleges: that the the consultant promised approximately $180,000 in campaign funds for Legislator 3's 2004 election campaign and then paid Legislator 3 approximately $90,000 after Alcatel SEL won the bid; that Executive 4 and the consultant "spent approximately $8,000 on trips to Germany" that were "primarly for personal, entertainment purposes, with only nominal business justification;" that Alcatel SEL paid the consultant "approximately $3,000 to reimburse it for a set of crystal given to the secretary of the Taiwan Transportation and Communications Minister."

The information also alleges that Executive 4 also hired another consultant because "Taiwanese Consultant 2's owner was the brother of Legislator 4, who had influence with respect to TRA matters." The information alleges that "to bribe Legislator 4, Alcatel SEL arranged for a bogus consulting agreement between Taisel and Taiwanese Consultant 2."

The information alleges as follows. "Neither Taiwanese Consultant 1 nor Taiwanese Consultant 2 provided legitimate services to Alcatel or Alcatel SEL. Their only function was to pass on improper payments to three Taiwanese legislators on behalf of Alcatel SEL and Taisel. On or about December 30, 2003 Taisel's bid was accepted by the TRA, which granted Taisel a supply contract worth approximately $19.2 million ...".

According to the information, "Alcatel SEL's financial results were included in the consolidated financial statements of Alcatel submitted to the SEC" and "as a result of contracts won by Alcatel in Taiwan as a result of bribe payments, Alcatel earned approximately $4,342,600 in profits."

Kenya

The information describes a Kenyan joint venture ("Kenyan JV") formed by a French telecommunications company ("French Telecom") and a Kenyan company ("Kenyan Company") to apply for a mobile telecommunications license that the Kenyan JV was awarded for approximately $55 million. Several companies, including Alcatel CIT, bid to provide approximately $87 million in infrastructure and services to the Kenyan JV. The information alleges that Alcatel CIT was informed by French Telecom that Alcatel CIT "would win the bid under one condition: an Alcatel entity had to make improper payments to an intermediary in the approximate amount of $20 million."

The information then describes the intermediary and payments made to it and concludes with the following paragraph. "After entering into the various contracts, the intermediary provided monthly reports and economic intelligence on the telecommunications market in Africa, but never provided any information related to the 2nd GSM license or the Kenyan telecommunications market. In light of the huge amounts of the payments, the fact that the intermediary performed little legitimate work in connection with the 2nd GSM license, and the fact that Company Z [another company suggested by the intermediary] was an offshore holding of Kenyan Company, there is a high probability that all or a portion of the approximately $20 million in payments made by Alcatel CIT to the intermediary and the related entities was passed on to Kenyan Company, which in turn passed on the funds to Kenyan government officials who had played a role in awarding the original contract to French Telecom."

Nigeria

The information states that between 1999 and 2007, Alcatel pursued business with various Nigerian customers and alleges as follows.

"Certain Alcatel subsidiaries made improper payments to government officials in Nigeria in the following contexts: (a) payments made to government officials for the purpose of reducing tax or other liabilities; (b) payments made to government officials to obtain security services from the Nigerian police; (c) a payment of approximately $75,000 to a former Nigerian Ambassador to the United Nations for the purpose of arranging meetings between Alcatel representatives and Nigerian Senior Government Official 1, a high-ranking official in the Nigerian executive branch; (d) payments made to government officials for the purpose of securing recovery of a debt totaling approximately $36.5 million owed by the government of Nigeria to ITT Nigeria [an Alcatel entity]; and (e) a payment to a People's Democractic Party official. These payments were not described accurately and fairly on Alcatel's books and records."

The information also alleges as follows. "Alcatel personnel also made improper payments via a consultant to a Senior Executive at Nigerian Telecommunications Company 1" and "Alcatel also made large improper payments to two other consultants which were owned at least in part by a relative of the Senior Executive at Nigerian Telecommunications Company 1." "These payments were not described accurately and fairly on Alcatel's books and records." There is nothing in the information to suggest that Nigerian Telecommunications Company 1 was a state-owned or controlled enterprise and the information refers to payments to the Senior Executive as "commercial bribe payments."

Bangladesh

The information generally alleges that "Alcatel generated a significant portion of its revenue in Bangladesh from Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board, the state-controlled telecommunications services provider" and that Alcatel used an agent in Bangladesh but "Alcatel Standard did not conduct adequate due diligence" on the consultant. In addition, the information alleges that Alcatel Standard retained the agent in connection with a submarine cable project connecting fourteen countries - Alcatel's portion of the contract was approximately $258 million. According to the information, Alcatel CIT paid the consultant approximately $626,492 in compensation for services provided in connection with the project and approximately $2,524,939 in connection with various upgrades to a predecessor of the project "aware of a significant risk that Bangladsh Consultant would pass on all or a part of these payments to foreign officials."

Ecuador

According to the information, "Alcatel conducted business in Ecuador with three major telecommunicatios customers, all of which were state-owned: Andinatel, Pacifictel, and Empresa Municipl de Telecomunicaciones, Aqua Potable, Alcantarillados y Saneamiento. The information alleges that Alcatel retained a consultant in Ecuador ("a wealthy businessman"), but that the consultant and the entities he controlled "did little legitimate work for Alcatel." The information alleges as follows. "Instead, it was anticipated that Ecuadorian Consultant would funnel a portion of the funds Alcatel paid him to officials of the Ecuadorian state-owned telecommunications companies in order to secure business and other benefits for Alcatel. Improper payments were anticipated to be made or offered in connection with at least nine contracts with government-owned telecommunication companies."

According to the information, at least some of Alcatel's payments to the consultant wre made to bank accounts in Miami.

In addition, the information alleges as follows. "Alcatel also paid for trips taken by officials of the three telecommunications companies that were principally for pleasure. For example, both the Vice-President and the Chairman of the Board of Pacifictel received improper all-expenses paid trips to France."

Nicaragua

According to the information, "Alcatel's only customer in Nicaragua was Empresa Nicaraguense de Telecomunicaciones S.A. ("Enitel") which was state-owned during the relevant time period." The Ecuadorian consultant referenced above, also served as Alcatel's consultant in Nicaragua. According to the information, "with the assistance of Ecuadorian Consultant, Alcatel CIT secured two contracts with Enitel" valued at approximately $1.6 million and $370,000. The information alleges that Alcatel CIT made payments totaling approximately $229,3822 to the Miami bank account of the consultant and that the consultant "likely used a portion of these payments to bribe certain key Enitel officials in order to influence Enitel to award the two contracts to Alcatel, to obtain confidential information about competing bids, and to secure favorable financial terms." The information alleges that payments to the consultant were "identified in Alcatel's books and records as consulting fees, and thus the description of those payments did not accurately and fairly reflect those transactions."

The information further alleges that "Alcatel CIT also provided a trip to Paris and Madrid to two Enitel officials in late 2001 in order to encourage the execution of one of the two contracts" and that the "purpose of the trip was largley for pleasure, and it appears that Alcatel CIT covered all travel costs and a large portion of the expenses."

The substantive portion of the information ends with a section titled "Other Consultancy Agreements Entered Into Without Proper Due Diligence." The allegations concern consultants in Angola, the Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Mali. The customers associated with the consultants were either allegedly state-owned or private companies.

Based on all of the above conduct, the information charges Alcatel with violations of the FCPA's internal control provisions. The information alleges that Alcatel "knowingly: (a) failed to implement sufficient anti-bribery compliance policies and procedures; (b) failed to maintain a sufficient system for the selection and approval of consultants, which, in turn, permitted corrupt conduct to occur at certain subsidiaries; (c) entered into purported business consulting agreements with no apparent basis, and without performing any due diligence, sometimes after the cmpany had already won the relevant project; (d) failed to verify information provided by consultants, including failing to follow up in circumstances in which managers knew or were substantially certain illicit activity was taking place; (e) failed to prevent consultants from using multiple shell companies to receive commissions in excess of 10% knowing there was a substantial likelihood those consultants were acting as conduits for corrupt payments; (f) failed to conduct appropriate audits of payments to purported business consultants; (g) failed to prohibit lump sum payments being made to consultants that did not correspond to any contract; (h) failed to prohibit payments to consultants and public officials pursuant to an oral 'gentlemen's agreement'; (i) failed to appropriately investigate and respond to allegations of corrupt payments and discipline employees involved in making corrupt payments; (j) failed to establish a sufficiently empowered and competent Corporate Compliance Officer; (k) failed to exercise due diligence to prevent and detect criminal conduct; (l) failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the company's compliance and ethics program was followed, including monitoring and internal audits to detect criminal conduct; (m) failed to evaluate regularly the effectiveness of the company's compliance and ethics program; and (n) failed to provide appropriate incentives to perform in accordance with the compliance and ethics program."

Based on the above conduct, the information also charges Alcatel with FCPA books and records violations for (a) drafting sham business consulting agreements to justify third party payments; (b) mis-characterizing bribes in the corporate books and records as consulting fees and other seemingly legitimate expenses; (c) justifying payments to purported business consultants based on false invoices; and (d) entering into purported business consulting agreements with no basis, sometimes after Alcatel had won the relevant project.

Alcatel-Lucent DPA

The DOJ's charges against Alcatel were resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement (see here).

Pursuant to the DPA, Alcatel admitted, accepted and acknowledged that it was responsible for the acts of its officers, employees, agents, and those of Alcatel's subsidiaries as described above.

The term of the DPA is three years and it states that the DOJ entered into the agreement "based on the individual facts and circumstances" of the case and Alcatel-Lucent. Among the factors stated are the following.

(a) following press reports concerning bribery by Alcatel, S.A., in Costa Rica, the company investigated and disclosed over the course of several years to the Department and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission the misconduct described above;

(b) Alcatel-Lucent conducted a global internal investigation concerning bribery and related misconduct;

(c) Alcatel-Lucent reported its findings to the Department and the SEC;

(d) after limited and inadequate cooperation for a substantial period of time, Alcatel-Lucent substantially improved its cooperation with the Department's investigation of this matter, as well as the SEC's investigation;

(e) Alcatel-Lucent undertook remedial measures, including the implementation of an enhanced compliance program, and agreed to undertake further remedial measures as contemplated by the DPA;

(f) on its own initiative and at a substantial financial cost, Alcatel-Lucent determined as matter of company policy to no longer use third party sales and marketing agents in conducting its worldwide business; and

(g) Alcatel-Lucent agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of Alcatel-Lucent and its employees, agents, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and subsidiaries relating to violations of the FCPA.

As stated in the DPA, the fine range for the above describe conduct under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was $86.58 - $173.16 million. Pursuant to the DPA, Alcatel-Lucent agreed to pay a monetary penalty of $92 million - a rather rare instance of an FCPA criminal fine actually being within the Guidelines range and not below even the minimum range suggested by the Guidelines. Also relevant is that Alcatel's culpability score was reduced only by -1, reflecting that Alcatel did not receive cooperation credit as many FCPA corporate defendants do receive.

The DPA states that above fine is appropriate given, among other things, "penalties related to the same conduct in Costa Rica [see here], and the extraordinary remedial step of terminating use of third-party sales and marketing agents."

Pursuant to the DPA, Alcatel agreed to a host of compliance undertakings including the retention of an independent compliance monitor "who is a French national" for a three year term. Corporate Monitors used to be common in FCPA enforcement actions (circa 2005-2008), but required use of corporate monitors has become less common over the past few years.

As is standard in FCPA DPAs, Alcatel agreed not to make any public statement "contradicting the acceptance of responsibility by Alcatel-Lucent as set forth" in the DPA and Alcatel-Lucent further agreed to only issue a press release in connection with the DPA if the DOJ does not object to the release.

As to potential debarment issues, the DPA states as follows. "The Department agrees to bring to the attention of governmental and other debarment authorities the facts and circumstances relating to the nature of the conduct underlying this Agreement, including the nature and quality of Alcatel-Lucent's cooperation and remediation. By agreeing to provide this information to debarment authorities, the Department is not agreeing to advocate on behalf of Alcatel-Lucent, but rather is providing facts to be evaluated independently by the debarment authorities."

Alcatel-Lucent France S.A., Alcatel-Lucent Trade International A.G. and Alcatel CentroAmerica, S.A. Criminal Information

The criminal information against the above Alcatel subsidiaries is virtually identical to the above-described criminal information against Alcatel, albeit it is limited to Costa Rica, Honduras, Malaysia, and Taiwan conduct. Based on this conduct, the information charges the entities with conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery and books and records and internal control provisions. According to the information, the purpose of the conspiracy was to "secure the assistance of officials of various governments, including those in Costa Rica, Honduras, Malaysia, and Taiwan, in obtaining and retaining lucrative telecommunications business through the offer, promise, and payment of bribes."

Alcatel-Lucent France S.A., Alcatel-Lucent Trade International A.G. and Alcatel CentroAmerica, S.A. Plea Agreements

The above described charges were resolved via separate plea agreements with Alcatel-Lucent France (here), Alcatel-Lucent Trade International (here) and Alcatel CentroAmercia (here). Each plea agreement states that in light of the overall dispositions with the other Alcatel-Lucent entities and "the interrelationship among the charges and conduct underlying those dispositions" the agreed upon fine is $500,000.

SEC

The SEC's civil complaint (here) alleges in summary fashion as follows.

"From December 2001 through June 2006, Alcatel, S.A., now called Alcatel-Lucent, S.A. ("Alcatel" or the "company"), through its subsidiaries and agents, violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by paying more than $8 million in bribes to foreign government officials. Alcatel made these payments to influence acts and decisions by these foreign government officials to obtain or retain business, with the knowledge and approval of certain management level personnel of the relevant Alcatel subsidiaries. Alcatel lacked sufficient internal controls to prevent or detect such improper payments, and improperly recorded the payments in its books and records."

"During this period, Alcatel's agents and/or subsidiaries paid bribes to foreign government officials in several countries to obtain or retain business:

• From December 2001 to October 2004, Alcatel's agents and/or subsidiaries paid at least $7 million in bribes to government officials of Costa Rica to obtain or retain three contracts to provide telephone services in Costa Rica totaling approximately $303 million.

• From December 2002 to June 2006, Alcatel's agents and/or subsidiaries paid bribes to government officials of Honduras to obtain or retain five telecommunications contracts totaling approximately $48 million.

• From October 2003 to May 2004, Alcatel's agents and/or subsidiaries paid bribes to government officials of Taiwan to obtain or retain a railway axle counting contract valued at approximately $27 million.

• From October 2004 to February 2006, Alcatel's agents and/or subsidiaries paid bribes to government officials of Malaysia to obtain or retain a telecommunications contract valued at approximately $85 million."

"All of these payments were undocumented or improperly recorded as consulting fees in the books of Alcatel's subsidiaries, and then consolidated into Alcatel's financial statements. A lax corporate control environment aided Alcatel's improper conduct. Alcatel failed to detect or investigate numerous red flags suggesting that its business consultants were likely making illicit payments and gifts to government officials in these countries at the direction of certain Alcatel employees. The respective heads of several Alcatel subsidiaries and geographical regions, some of whom reported directly to Alcatel's executive committee, authorized extremely high commission payments under circumstances in which they failed to determine whether such payments were, in part, to be funneled to government officials in violation of the FCPA. These high-level employees therefore knew, or were severely reckless in
not knowing, that Alcatel paid bribes to foreign government officials."

The SEC complaint contains allegations about the same "Costa Rica Bribery Scheme," "The Honduras Bribery Scheme," "The Taiwan Bribery Scheme," and "The Malaysia Bribery Scheme" referenced above. Typically, SEC complaints in FCPA matters are more broad than DOJ resolution documents, yet in this case the SEC complaint is more narrow than the DOJ resolution documents in that the SEC complaint does not contain any allegations as to conduct in Kenya, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Angola, the Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Mali - as does the DOJ information.

Based on the above conduct, the SEC charged Alcatel with FCPA anti-bribery and books and records and internal control violations and knowingly failing to implement a system of internal controls and knowingly falsifying books and records.

As to books and records the complaint alleges as follows.

"Specifically, A1catel failed to keep accurate books and records by (1) entering into consulting agreements retroactively; (2) establishing and using a system of intermediaries to obscure the source and destination of funds; (3) making payments pursuant to business consulting agreements that inaccurately described the services provided; (4) generating false invoices and other false documents to justify payments; (5) disbursing funds in cash with inaccurate documentation authorizing or supporting the withdrawals; (6) recording illicit payments as legitimate consulting fees; and (7) recording bribes as payment for legitimate services."

As to internal controls, the complaint alleges as follows.

"Alcatel failed to implement adequate internal controls to comply with the
company's NYSE listing, including the detection and prevention of violations of the FCPA. First, Alcatel and/or its subsidiaries falsified books and records, entered into agreements retroactively, and obscured the purpose for, and ultimate recipient of, illicit payments. Alcatel used business consultants and intermediaries to funnel bribes in at least four countries. Alcatel created and used false invoices and payment documentation under business consulting agreements that described services that were never intended to be rendered. Illicit payments were falsely recorded as expenses for consulting fees."

"Second, Alcatel also routinely circumvented the internal controls the company had in place. Although the company in theory had a policy of "checks and balances" to authorize the retention of business consultants, which required several signatures to approve the retention of, and payment to, business consultants, Alcatel employees often violated that policy. In numerous instances, Alcatel officials responsible for reviewing due diligence reports on consultants failed to conduct any review of the documents or could not read the language in which the documents were written. Alcatel employees also entered into agreements retroactively and obscured the amounts paid to business consultants by splitting the payments among separate
agreements (to conceal the high commissions Alcatel paid). Finally, Alcatel Standard's due diligence on business consultants was inadequate, and Alcatel CIT often paid business consultants without adequate proof of services rendered. Alcatel CIT failed to establish robust controls over cash disbursements, allowed manual payments without documentation, and Alcatel's FCPA compliance function was understaffed and lacked independence. Alcatel also failed to conduct thorough anti-bribery and corruption training."

Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Alcatel agreed to an injunction prohibiting future FCPA violations and agreed to pay disgorgement of $45.372 million.

In a relese (here), Robert Khuzami (Director of the SEC's enforcement division) stated as follows. "“Alcatel and its subsidiaries failed to detect or investigate numerous red flags suggesting their employees were directing sham consultants to provide gifts and payments to foreign government officials to illegally win business. Alcatel’s bribery scheme was the product of a lax corporate control environment at the company.” Glenn Gordon (Associate Director of Enforcement in the SEC's Miami office) added, "the serious sanctions Alcatel has agreed to, including paying back all net profits made on the contracts Alcatel illegally obtained, should serve as a reminder that we are committed to enforcing the FCPA and a level playing field for companies seeking to obtain or retain business in other countries.”

In a company press release (here), Steve Reynolds, Alcatel-Lucent General Counsel, stated as follow. "We take responsibility for and regret what happened and have implemented policies and procedures to prevent these violations from happening again. The violations largely occurred prior to the merger of Alcatel and Lucent Technologies and involved improper activities in several countries. These settlements resolve the company’s FCPA liability with the DOJ and SEC. We are pleased to have reached these settlements and look forward to putting these matters behind us. Alcatel-Lucent, created as a result of the merger of Alcatel and Lucent Technologies at the end of 2006, is a radically different company today: It has different management, including a new CEO, a new executive committee and a different Board of Directors; It has a zero-tolerance policy regarding bribery and corruption and has a system in place with strong processes and Internet-based and live training designed to prevent these types of situations in all aspects of our business; and as the first in its industry to do so, Alcatel-Lucent announced in 2008 that it would terminate the use of sales agents and consultants -- the primary means by which certain former employees made the improper payments involved in the violations described in the DOJ and SEC settlement papers.”

Martin Weinstein (here) of Willkie Farr & Gallagher represented the Alcatel entities.

Faro's Monitor - Late and Expensive

In June 2008, Faro Technologies, Inc. (here) agreed to settle an FCPA enforcement action relating to conduct in China. The company paid a $1.1 criminal penalty via a DOJ non-prosecution agreement (see here and here). In a related SEC enforcement action, the company agreed to pay $1.85 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest via an administrative order (here).

The June 2008 non-prosecution agreement (appendix c) stated that within 60 calendar days of the execution of the agreement, "Faro Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates agree to engage an independent corporate monitor for a period of two years to monitor the company's compliance with respect to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other relevant anti-corruption laws."

It took nearly two years for Faro and the DOJ to agree on a monitor.

Faro's November 4th 10-Q filing (here), states as follows:

"During the second quarter of 2010, the Company, in conjunction with the SEC and the DOJ, completed the selection of the FCPA monitor. The Company is cooperating with the monitor as the monitor implements a work plan to assess the Company’s compliance with the requirements for the settlement agreements."

How much has the monitor cost Faro thus far?

Approximately $1 million.

During a November 4th earnings conference call, Faro President and CEO Jay Freeland stated as follows:

"During the third quarter, we had the first review by the monitor that was assigned to us in connection with our settlement with the SEC and DOJ over the FCPA matter from 2006. The cost to FARO in the third quarter was approximately $1 million, which obviously had a substantial impact on the bottom line. The monitor and her team visited several of our remote offices as well as our regional and global headquarters, conducting interviews and reviewing, policies, procedures and adherence to them. Overall, we believe the review went well and look forward to reviewing the monitor's report. The monitor will return one more time next year, probably in the third quarter again. We don't expect that review to be as costly as the one we just finished. And, assuming things go well, that will complete the process."

Is BAE's Monitor Independent?

As has been widely reported (see here and here among other places) David Gold has been appointed to be BAE's corporate monitor.

Gold (here) is a partner at Herbert Smith LLP, a leading U.K. based law firm, a firm Gold has been associated with for 37 years and will continue to be associated with until his retirement on April 30, 2011.

BAE is a client of Herbert Smith, as the firm candidly acknowledged in this release announcing Gold's appointment.

In the release, Herbert Smith states:

"This appointment is a mark of some distinction not only for David, reflecting as it does his international standing as one of the City's leading lawyers, but also for Herbert Smith."

Herbert Smith should have plenty of institutional knowledge as to many of the facts prompting the need for BAE's monitor in the first place.

Why?

Because Herbert Smith previously represented Saudi Prince Bandar - the person at the epicenter of BAE's alleged Saudi bribery scheme - the same bribery scheme that makes up the bulk of the DOJ's bribery, yet no bribery allegations against BAE (see here).

A June 8, 2007 article in The Guardian (London) details how "Prince Bandar released a statement through his London solicitors Herbert Smith" the same day an article appeared in the Guardian titled "BAE accused of secretly paying £1 billion to Saudi Prince".

On June 9, 2007, The Guardian detailed how "lawyers for Prince Bandar, the Saudi royal who received £1bn from BAE, accepted last night that he had spent $17m (£8.6m) on refurbishing one of his palaces, using cash from the US accounts concerned." The article states, "[b]ut his lawyers, Herbert Smith, said that as the palace in Riyadh was an official residence, there was nothing illegal or untoward spending money out of a Saudi official defence ministry account held at Riggs Banks in Washington DC."

In a June 13, 2007 article, The Guardian further notes how "the multi-milllionaire prince has hired for his defence the city lawyers Herbert Smith."

So it turns out that BAE's monitor is a lawyer who has been with Herbert Smith for 3 years - and will continue to be with Herbert Smith until his retirement - the same firm that represents BAE and the same firm that represented Saudi Prince Bandar the unnamed, yet widely reported, recipient of certain of BAE's payments as set forth in the DOJ's bribery, yet no bribery criminal information (see here).

Why does this matter?

Because the DOJ-BAE plea agreement (see here - Appendix C) requires an "independent corporate monitor." The plea agreement states that this individual shall have "sufficient independence from [BAE] to ensure effective and impartial performance of the Monitor's duties ..."

Not only did the DOJ approve of David Gold as BAE's monitor, but so too did the U.K. government - at least that is what the plea agreement requires.

So, what do you think? Is BAE's monitor independent?

Friday Roundup

A "foreign official" headed to prison, more on monitors, the language of bribery, more pre-enforcement action news, and perspectives from the field.

It's all here in the Friday roundup.

Haitian "Foreign Official" Headed to U.S. Prison

Numerous prior posts (see here, here, and here) have covered the FCPA and FCPA-related enforcement action involving Telecommunications D'Haiti ("Haiti Teleco").

The action was noteworthy because it involved "foreign officials." Because the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act only applies to bribe givers and not bribe recipients, the charges were not FCPA charges, but rather a money laundering conspiracy charge.

Earlier this week, Robert Antoine (a former Director of International Relations of Haiti Teleco responsible for negotiating contracts with international telecommunications companies on behalf of Haiti Teleco), was sentenced to four years in prison. In addition, Antoine was ordered to serve three years of supervised release following his prison term, ordered to pay $1,852,209 in restitution, and ordered to forfeit $1,580,771. (See here for the DOJ release).

Certain of the indicted defendants, including "foreign official" Jean Rene Duperval, have not pleaded and the DOJ release notes that "trial for these remaining defendants is scheduled to begin July 19, 2010, in U.S. District Court in Miami."

Additional Guidance on the Use of Monitors in Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non-Prosecution Agreements

Most corporate FCPA enforcement actions involve deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreements. Many of these agreements require the appointment of a compliance monitor.

Thus, most FCPA aficionados are familiar with the "Morford Memo" - the March 2008 DOJ guidance "relating to the use of independent corporate monitors in connection with deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements with corporations." The Morford Memo (see here) sets forth nine basic principles for
drafting monitor-related provisions in such agreements.

Recently Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler issued a memo (see here) "to supplement the guidance in the Morford Memorandum by adding a tenth basic principle to guide prosecutors in drafting agreements: namely, that an agreement should explain what role the Department could play in resolving any disputes between the monitor and the corporation, given the facts and circumstances of the case."

The Language of Bribery

The FCPA is a serious topic.

But that doesn't mean an FCPA article can't be informative and entertaining at the same time.

Case in point, "A Bribe By Any Other Name" by James Tillen and Sonia Delman (Miller & Chevalier) (see here).

Don't understand the significance of "moon cakes," "rice cake expenses" or "black mist?"

You probably should.

As the authors note, "[w]hen an expatriate manager does not recognize that a subordinate is seeking reimbursement for a bribe disguised by a code word or when auditors miss a suspect transaction concealed behind a local idiom, the employees themselves and the company as a whole are at serious risk of running afoul of anti-bribery laws."

The article concludes with a "few simple steps" companies can take to incorporate the language of bribery into compliance training and policies.

The Flood of Pre-Enforcement Action News Continues

One of these days, the FCPA dam is going to burst because the surge of pre-enforcement action news continues.

Among others in the "stay-tuned" category are: Alcatel-Lucent, Technip, Panalpina, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson.

Add to the list Universal Corporation, "the world's leading leaf tobacco merchant and processor." (see here).

The company's recent 10-K (see here) notes as follows:

"As a result of a posting to our Ethics Complaint hotline alleging improper activities that involved or related to certain of our tobacco subsidiaries, the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors engaged an outside law firm to conduct an investigation of the alleged activities. That investigation revealed that there have been payments that may have violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The payments approximated $2 million over a seven-year period. In addition, the investigation revealed activities in foreign jurisdictions that may have violated the competition laws of such jurisdictions, but we believe those activities did not violate U.S. antitrust laws. We voluntarily reported these activities to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the SEC in March 2006. On June 6, 2006, the SEC notified us that a formal order of investigation had been issued.

Since voluntarily reporting, we have cooperated with and assisted the DOJ and SEC in their investigations, and for the past year we have engaged in settlement discussions with both authorities to resolve the matter. Those negotiations have resulted in agreements in principle being reached with representatives of the DOJ and the staff of the SEC. The final resolution of this matter remains subject to the completion of definitive agreements and the approval and execution of those agreements by the DOJ and the SEC. In addition, each settlement is subject to the approval of a federal district court with jurisdiction over the matter. We have been given no assurance that the settlements will be approved by the DOJ, SEC, or federal district courts. Based on the agreements in principle that have been reached to date, the resolution of this matter with the DOJ and the SEC is expected to include injunctive relief, disgorgement and prejudgment interest, fines, penalties, and the retention of an independent compliance monitor. Based in part on the progress of the matter and consultation with outside counsel, we have recorded accruals from time to time since the matter arose that are adequate to satisfy the estimated financial settlement we expect with the resolution of the matter. The financial settlement is not expected to have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations."

Incidentally, on the same day, Universal issued a press release announcing record annual earnings (see here).

U.K. Bribery Bill - Perspectives from the Conference Circuit

Michael Osajda (see here) is an attorney and business ethics consultant. He frequently writes and speaks on FCPA issues, including for World-Check (see here).

In the below guest post, Osajda offers perspectives from recent presentations in Singapore and Hong Kong attended by over 120 business professionals and attorneys.

*****

"My presentation compared and contrasted the FCPA and the U.K. Bribery Act. I spoke of the different bases for the two statutes, the FCPA being a product of a unique post Watergate cloture and a significant Cold War foreign policy element and the Bribery Act, a product of legislative efficiency and the need for the UK to comply with the OECD convention. The new offenses of foreign private bribery and failure to prevent bribery were stressed.

Like many commentators, the attendees were nervous about the SFO’s stated use of prosecutorial discretion to address issues such as facilitation payments and the appropriateness of business expenses. Attendees were concerned that SFO statements that it does not intend to shut down business and that it will look reasonably at facilitation payments, especially in circumstances that appear to be coercion that can be given to the field. These issues may be a mine filed until some pattern of prosecution or abstention is established. Another concern of attendees was the new strict liability offense of failure to prevent bribery. The attendees were interested as to the elements of “adequate procedures.” While the Sentencing Guidelines, the Woolf Report and OECD guidance are good starts, we will all wait for the guidance to come from the UK Secretary of State on the components of “adequate procedures”.

All in all this Asia trip underscores the world-wide interest of multinationals, whatever their home jurisdictions, to the issue of corruption. All understand that the landscape is changing and are interested in doing the right thing."

*****

Also, Trace recently conducted a symposium in London "attended by over 60 company representatives and featuring speakers from government, the private bar and in-house legal and compliance departments." For insight into what was on the minds of program participants see here.

What Did the Willbros Monitor Find?

In May 2008, Willbros Group Inc. settled joint DOJ and SEC enforcement actions. See here and here.

The DOJ criminal information (see here) charges "Willbros with one count of conspiring to make bribe payments to Nigerian and Ecuadoran officials, two counts of violating the FCPA in connection with the authorization of specific corrupt payments to officials in those countries and three counts of violating the FCPA by falsifying books and records relating to corrupt payments and a tax fraud scheme." See here for the DOJ release.

As is frequently the case, these criminal charges were not actually prosecuted, but were deferred pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) (see here).

The DPA lasts for approximately three years.

If the company fully complies with all of its obligations during the term of the DPA, the DOJ will dismiss the criminal charges against Willbros.

On the other hand, if the company fails to comply with all of its obligations during the term of the DPA, such as by violating the FCPA again, Willbros will "be subject to prosecution for any federal criminal violation of which the [DOJ] has knowledge."

In addition, the DPA "does not provide any protection against prosecution
for any corrupt payments or false accounting, if any, made in the future" by Willbros "or any of their directors, officers, employees, agents or consultants, irrespective of whether disclosed by [Willsbros] pursuant to the terms" of the DPA. Nor does the DPA "provide any protection against prosecution for any corrupt payments made in the past which are not described in the [deferred charges] or were not disclosed to the [DOJ] prior to the date on which [the DPA] was signed."

Enter the Willbros compliance monitor - a condition often imposed on a company pursuant to an FCPA DPA (or NPA).

In the FCPA context, a monitor does many things.

Most of these things are forward-looking - such as ensuring that the company "gets it" - that it is adhering to the terms of the DPA, and making the changes it said it was going to make so that it will never again be subject to FCPA scrutiny.

Like most monitors, the Willbros monitor was authorized to disclose to the DOJ should the monitor "discover credible evidence that questionable or corrupt" may have been offered, promised, paid, or authorized by Willsbros.

Fast forward to May 20th.

Willbros Group filed an 8-K (see here).

The filing includes an update on the company's DPA obligations and the work of the monitor. Much of the discussion is fairly routine.

Except this paragraph.

"The [monitor's report recently delivered to the DOJ] also sets out for the DOJ’s review the monitor’s findings relating to incidents that came to the monitor’s attention during the course of his review which he found to be significant, as well as recommendations to address these incidents. We and the monitor have met separately with the DOJ concerning certain of these incidents. The monitor, in his report, did not conclude whether any of these incidents or any other matters constituted a violation of the FCPA. We do not believe that any of these incidents or matters constituted a violation of the FCPA based on our own investigations of the incidents and matters raised in the report. Notwithstanding our assessment, the DOJ could perform further investigation at its discretion of any incident or matter raised by the report."

It is unusual, so soon after an FCPA enforcement action, for a monitor to find additional facts that require investigation.

Why?

Because during settlement of an FCPA enforcement action, it is common for the enforcement agencies to ask the "where else" question. Thus, if the Willbros enforcement action followed the usual course, once DOJ/SEC got comfortable with the Nigeria and Ecuador facts, it is likely the enforcement agencies said something to the effect "well, if you did it in Nigeria and Ecuador, convince us you didn't do it as well in countries x,y, and z." To answer that question, the company is then often forced to conduct a general, high-level world-wide review of its entire operations. If problematic facts are found, it is in the company's best interest (and the best interest of the enforcement agencies as well) to wrap-up these "tag-a-long" facts into the same enforcement action.

Against this backdrop, it is a bit surprising that problematic facts have arisen so soon after the Willbros FCPA enforcement action.

Was the assumed high-level world-wide review insufficient? Did Willbros perhaps commit another FCPA violation post-enforcement action, yet while still subject to the DPA.?

As indicated by Willbros' filing, the company states its opinion that none of this new conduct constitutes a violation of the FCPA.

However, it is unusual to have a monitor find additional problematic facts, and for the DOJ to investigate those facts, so soon after an FCPA enforcement action.

If the "new" facts do indeed give rise to an independent FCPA violation, Willbros could be subject to prosecution on the "new" facts and the current criminal charges deferred against Willbros could again become active.

DOJ Speaks

There is a "same speech, different day" aspect of late when the DOJ talks about the FCPA. One can reasonably predict what will be said (i.e. DOJ values voluntary disclosure and cooperation), even before it is said, and this has the tendency of diminishing the message.

This week it was Compliance Week 2010 (see here). The speaker's - Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler and Assistant Attorney General (Criminal Division) Lanny Breuer.

*****

On Tuesday, Grindler spoke (see here for his remarks).

Grindler began his remarks as follows:

"Having spent a good portion of my career in private practice representing corporate clients and advising them on compliance matters, I am no stranger to what I suspect many of you in the audience are thinking: What is the Department of Justice focused on and how can I make sure my clients stay as far away from it as possible? I’d like to spend my time with you this evening hopefully answering the first question by giving you a sense of some of the policy and enforcement priorities that we are focused on at the Department and sharing some of my thoughts how you can best position your clients when interacting with the Department."

Grindler's remarks covered three general topics: DOJ's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, DOJ's efforts to combat health care fraud, and the DOJ's new Intellectual Property Enforcement Task Force.

While speaking on health care fraud, Grindler noted:

"You can be assured that we will also use every tool at our disposal to investigate and prosecute corrupt practices in the pharmaceutical industry. In the months ahead, for example, you can expect to see the Department increasingly use the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to prosecute kickbacks and bribes paid to foreign government officials by pharmaceutical companies. As the drug companies do more and more of their business overseas where so much of the health care business is government run, we see the opportunities for FCPA violations unfortunately proliferating. Indeed, in some foreign countries nearly every aspect of the approval, manufacture, import, export, pricing, sale and marketing of a drug product may involve a “foreign official” within the meaning of the FCPA. The extent of government involvement in foreign health systems, combined with fierce industry competition and the closed nature of many public formularies, creates, in our view, a significant risk that corrupt payments will infect the process. The Department will not hesitate to charge pharmaceutical companies and their senior executives under the FCPA if warranted to root out foreign bribery in the industry."

For the same speech, different day version, see here and here.

The final part of Grindler's speech is titlted - "What You Can Do." Excerpted portions are below.

"Now, how can you best advise your clients in light of the Department’s enforcement priorities and given the climate we are in where there is so much distrust of corporate America."

"First, you can make sure that your clients have robust, effective compliance programs and internal controls. A company’s compliance program continues to be one of the most important factors that we consider under the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations. You are on the front lines of this issue and can make a real difference in your respective institutions by sending the message about the need for an effective compliance program. Compliance programs must not exist only on paper."

"In this context, I want to point out that the United States Sentencing Commission recently amended the Sentencing Guidelines on the issue of compliance programs. Specifically, the Commission clarified the importance of assessing and modifying compliance programs after you discover criminal conduct at your company. The current Guidelines provide that, following the discovery of criminal conduct, a company should, among other things, make “any necessary modifications to the organization's compliance and ethics program.” The new amendment -- assuming it goes into effect in November -- provides a new commentary to that provision specifying that this post-violation process includes “assessing the compliance and ethics program and making modifications necessary to ensure the program is effective … and may include the use of an outside professional advisor to ensure adequate assessment and implementation of any modifications.”

"In addition, the latest Guideline amendments clarify the circumstances under which an effective compliance and ethics program can entitle an organization to a 3-level reduction in its culpability score. Specifically, the amendment allows an organization to receive the decrease if the organization meets four criteria: (1) the individual or individuals with operational responsibility for the compliance and ethics program have direct reporting obligations to the organization’s governing authority or appropriate subgroup thereof; (2) the compliance and ethics program detected the offense before discovery outside the organization or before such discovery was reasonably likely; (3) the organization promptly reported the offense to the appropriate governmental authorities; and (4) no individual with operational responsibility for the compliance and ethics program participated in, condoned, or was willfully ignorant of the offense. These amendments reinforce the point that having a robust compliance program is critical not only to preventing misconduct in the first place, but also how your organization will be treated in the event criminal conduct does take place."

"The second thing you can do to best position your client, is you can partner with us. As I hope has been clear in my discussion of our enforcement efforts, there is a consistent theme of the importance of sharing information and partnering with the private sector in its anti-fraud efforts. Through examples like the National Heath Care Fraud Summit and the regional mortgage fraud summits, we have been reaching out to private sector anti-fraud professionals to share information about fraud schemes and improvements in data analysis. While we have limitations in what we can share, we are interested in exploring ways to work together within those constraints. If the private sector sees new fraud schemes or ways in which we can prevent fraud, that is something you should share with us."

"Third, you can advise your clients to make early, voluntary disclosure of misconduct. As you know, it is usually in your client’s best interest to cooperate with the government’s investigation through the disclosure of relevant facts, the production of documents and other evidence, and making witnesses available who have relevant information."

"Fourth, you can guide your client’s decision to take meaningful remedial measures in response to criminal wrongdoing, including the payment of restitution and the disciplining or termination of culpable employees, officers, or directors."

"In the end, all of these steps – robust compliance programs, information sharing between public and private sector anti-fraud efforts, voluntary disclosure, and meaningful remedial measures -- will inure to the benefit of your clients in several significant ways. They will deter criminal conduct from occurring in the first place. They will ensure that if and when misconduct does occur, it is detected early on and can be rooted out before too much damage is done. Your client will receive credit for such actions during the prosecutorial decision-making process. Finally, such steps will make your clients stronger corporate citizens, and will empower your clients’ officers, directors, and employees to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to shareholders and their duties of honest dealing to the investing public and the taxpayers."

For more on Grindler's speech, including topics raised during the Q&A, see this piece from Christopher Matthews at Main Justice.

*****

On Wednesday, Breuer spoke (see here for a copy of his remarks). Below are various excerpts from the speech.

Given the DOJ's recent "bribery, yet no bribery" cases against BAE and Daimler, I must admit to getting a bit frazzled after only paragraph two of the speech in which Breuer talks about the "the Justice Department’s determination to prosecute – and prosecute aggressively – financial fraud and corruption in all its forms. The American public demands no less, and we will deliver no less."

Speaking generally, Breuer described "a new era of heightened white-collar crime enforcement – an era marked by increased resources, increased information-sharing, increased cooperation and coordination, and tough penalties for corporations and individuals alike."

Breuer next discussed that "additional resources are also being committed in the Criminal Division, where we are in the process of adding a number of attorneys to the Fraud Section – lawyers who will be deployed immediately to prosecute crimes like securities fraud, health care fraud, and foreign bribery under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act." He cited the Africa Sting case as an example of using "more aggressive law enforcement techniques" and further stated that "it is fair to say that [DOJ] will continue to look for opportunities to innovate in how we identify financial fraud and corruption."

Speaking of innovation at the SEC, Breuer stated:

"The SEC will now make use of cooperation agreements, as well as deferred and non-prosecution agreements – all of which have been staples of the Justice Department’s approach in white collar criminal cases for many years now. These innovations will likely lead to even earlier and closer coordination between the SEC and the Justice Department."

Breuer next talked specifically about foreign bribery "which obviously is at the center of this heightened enforcement climate and which presents unique compliance challenges."

Below are his remarks.

"As I have said in the past, foreign bribery is a law enforcement challenge of truly global dimensions. It is, as the Attorney General has said, a 'scourge on civil society.' We in the Criminal Division combat foreign bribery each and every day. And as we go about our business, we are looking carefully at lapses in corporate compliance. Why? Because of what I said a few minutes ago. Our preference, like yours, is for these crimes to be prevented in the first instance. And the only way that can happen in your organizations is through a robust, state-of-the-art compliance program and a true culture of compliance."

"I know that you all do not lack for incentives; the statistics in FCPA enforcement are well known. But it is worth pausing on them for a moment."

"Since 2004, the Fraud Section has achieved 37 corporate FCPA and foreign bribery related resolutions, with fines totaling over $1.5 billion. In this time period, we have charged 81 individuals with FCPA violations and related offenses. Forty-six have been charged since the start of 2009 – more than the total number of individuals charged in the previous seven years combined."

"The individuals charged have included CEOs, CFOs, other senior-level corporate officials and, where jurisdiction existed here, several foreign officials. Charging individuals is part of a deliberate enforcement strategy to deter and prevent corrupt corporate conduct before it happens. And rest assured that we will seek equally tough sentences, including significant jail time if appropriate, to reinforce this message of deterrence."

"Aggressive enforcement by the Criminal Division provides one set of incentives for corporations. Others are sprouting up each and every day, and they are coming from all corners as anti-fraud and corruption enforcement catches up with the globalization of business."

"Here in the United States, the United States Sentencing Commission recently approved amendments to its Sentencing Guidelines, one of which reaffirmed the importance of compliance and ethics programs within organizations. The amendment stressed the critical need to embed these programs at the very highest level of the organization. In an interesting twist, the Commission expanded eligibility for effective compliance and ethics program credit at sentencing even if one or more members of 'high level personnel' has some role in the offense."

"But there’s a catch. In order to be eligible for credit where there is such 'high level' involvement, the corporation must have in place a direct reporting relationship between the individual with operational responsibility for the compliance program and the corporation’s governing body. And more than that, the corporation must have discovered the offense and reported it to enforcement officials before it otherwise became known. The amendment has not been uncontroversial. But whatever your opinion, it can at least be said that the amendment reflects the Commission’s view that compliance should be embedded at the very highest levels of an organization."

"On the international front, the United Kingdom has passed a new, comprehensive Bribery Act that criminalizes, among other things, the failure by a corporate entity to prevent bribery. Pretty serious, right? Well, the Act does provide a defense to such a charge if the corporate entity can show that it has 'adequate procedures' in place to deter and detect such conduct. What does 'adequate procedures' mean? It’s not entirely clear. And I’m, of course, not your lawyer. But, at a minimum, it would seem prudent to have in place a strong, state-of-the-art compliance program."

Breuer then offers a few thoughts on compliance and offers up the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations (see here) and the OECD’s Good Practice Guidance on Internal Controls, Ethics, and Compliance (see here - Annex II) as benchmarks.

Breuer then acknowledges that "even the best compliance program may not stop fraud or corruption from occurring. So, what should a corporation do when a problem has been discovered?"

Because the answer has been stated numerous, numerous times, you probably already known the answer - voluntarily disclose and cooperate.

Below are Breuer's comments on these issues:

"Whether to voluntarily disclose potential criminality is admittedly a difficult question for business entities."

"But I can offer you this: If you come forward and if you fully cooperate with our investigation, you will receive meaningful credit for having done so. In talking about 'meaningful' credit, we are not promising amnesty for doing the right thing. But, self-reporting and cooperation carry significant incentives – by working with the Department, no charges may be brought at all, or we may agree to a deferred prosecution agreement or non-prosecution agreement, sentencing credit, or a below-Guidelines fine. Ultimately, every case is fact-specific and requires an assessment of the facts and circumstances, as well as the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct and the quality of the corporation’s pre-existing compliance program. But, in every case of self-disclosure, full cooperation, and remediation, the Department is committed to giving meaningful credit where it’s deserved to obtain a fair and just resolution."

"The Siemens matter is a case in point. While the conduct in that case is arguably the most egregious example of systemic foreign corruption ever prosecuted by the Department, [Note - Siemens was not charged with violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions] it also illustrates the tremendous benefits that flow from truly extraordinary cooperation. By Siemens opening itself up to authorities, [Note - Siemens did this after its offices were raided by German authorities] the Department completed its investigation and resolved the case – with domestic and international dimensions – in two years’ time. In the end, the benefits Siemens received through its cooperation, even in the absence of a voluntary disclosure, were plain – the $450 million fine that was paid to the Justice Department, although quite substantial, was a far cry from the advisory range of $1.35 billion to $2.7 billion called for in the Sentencing Guidelines. Put another way, Siemens received a penalty that was 67 to 84 percent less than what it otherwise could have faced had it not provided extraordinary cooperation and carried out such extensive remediation."

"Another example, on a more modest scale, was the resolution of the Helmerich & Payne matter, a company that self-disclosed improper or questionable payments. [Note - is Breuer acknowledging that the payments at issue in this case - payments to various officials and representatives of the Argentine and Venezuelan customs services in connection with importation and exportation of goods and equipment - may not have violated the FCPA? See here for more] The case was resolved through a non-prosecution agreement with a term of two years, a penalty of $1 million (which was approximately 30 percent below the bottom of the Guidelines range), and compliance self-reporting by the company for a period of two years in lieu of an independent compliance monitor. Because of the forward-leaning, proactive, and highly cooperative approach taken by Helmerich & Payne, that company received a host of benefits that likely would not otherwise have been obtained from the Department."

"In short, these two cases, and others like them, reflect the Department’s willingness to step up to the plate when a corporation does the right thing by making a voluntary disclosure and cooperating fully."

"Let me offer one additional piece of guidance on this topic. When a problem has been discovered, the corporation should seriously consider seeking the government’s input on the front end of its internal investigation. [Note - at the front end of an FCPA internal investigation, it is generally not even known if a violation has occurred - why should a company seek the DOJ's input when it is not yet known if a violation of law has occurred?] We encourage a company to come in and describe its work plan for conducting the investigation. Often we have questions, or helpful suggestions, or we may ask that the corporation expand the scope of the investigation. Regardless, the dialogue can be very helpful in ensuring at the outset that the corporation has an effective, cost-effective plan in place to investigate and deal with the problem."

Breuer then offered a few words about compliance monitors.

Below are his comments.

"In resolving criminal conduct, the Department’s goal is to vindicate the law and ensure adherence to it in both letter and spirit. In that regard, the structure and terms of a corporate resolution are properly determined by the particular facts of the case and the circumstances surrounding the specific business entity and the public interest. Thus, a compliance monitor may be particularly useful where the agreement requires the corporation to design, or substantially re-design, and implement a broad compliance and ethics program and internal controls. As an independent observer, the monitor can enable the government to verify whether a business is fulfilling the obligations to which it agreed. In other cases, however, a compliance monitor may not be needed for a variety of reasons, such as where the business organization has ceased operations in the area where the criminal conduct occurred, or where the business has re-designed and effectively implemented appropriate compliance measures and internal controls before entering into an agreement with the United States."

"However the calculus plays out, we are always mindful of, and we do weigh, the potential benefits of employing a monitor with the cost of a compliance monitor and its impact on the operations of the business organization. Of that much you can be sure."

For more on Breuer's speech, including topics raised during the Q&A, see this piece from Christopher Matthews at Main Justice.

*****

A good holiday weekend to all - please check back on Tuesday for a post about a current FCPA compliance monitor.