Imagine I give a test to the 37 students in my class. However, because of reasons uniquely relevant to many of the students, not all students are equally capable of passing the test.
I hope all would view this test to be a bit empty.
This post summarizes the OECD Working Group on Bribery Annual Report and Transparency International's Annual Progress Report of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
For reasons discussed below, these two report cards suffer from the same dynamic described in the above hypothetical.
In many OECD member countries there is no such thing as corporate criminal liability - or even if there is - such corporate liability can only be based on the actions of high-ranking executives or officers. This of course is materially different than in the U.S. where, under respondeat superior principles, a business organization can face legal liability (civil and criminal) based on the actions of any employee to the extent the employee was acting within the scope of his or her duties and to the extent the conduct was intended to benefit, at least in part, the organization.
In most OECD member countries prosecuting authorities have two choices - to prosecute or not to prosecute - there is no such thing as non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements (NPAs/DPAs). Not so in the U.S. where the majority of these alternative resolution vehicles are used to resolve FCPA enforcement actions. As the OECD itself stated in its Phase 3 Report of U.S. enforcement of the FCPA - "it seems quite clear that the use of these agreements is one of the reasons for the impressive FCPA enforcement record in the U.S." (See here for the prior post). Former DOJ FCPA enforcement chief Mark Mendelsohn was asked directly – if the DOJ “did not have the choice of deferred or non prosecution agreements, what would happen to the number of FCPA settlements every year,” and he stated as follows: “if the Department only had the option of bringing a criminal case or declining to bring a case, you would certainly bring fewer cases.”
In certain other OECD member countries, there is a compliance defense relevant to the prosecution of bribery and corruption offenses. (See here for the prior post).
Given these differing dynamics (among others), it is fairly obvious why OECD member countries have varying degrees of enforcement of bribery and corruption offenses.
With that in mind, on to the report cards.
Transparency International Progress Report 2011 - Enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention
On May 24th, Transparency International (TI) released (here) its seventh annual Progress Report on Enforcement of the OECD Convention.
The report "shows no improvement in the enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in the past year and warns that this could signal a dangerous loss of momentum in the fight against corruption."
The report covers 37 countries and "shows that there are still only seven countries with active enforcement, nine with moderate enforcement, and 21 with little or no enforcement." Huguette Labelle, Chair of TI, stated that "the collective commitment to stamp out foreign bribery made by all OECD parties is undermined when a large number of countries have inadequate enforcement."
The introduction of the report includes the following statement.
"Continued lack of enforcement in 21 countries a decade after the Convention entered into force, notwithstanding repeated OECD reviews, clearly indicates lack of political commitment by their governments. And in some of those with moderate enforcement, the level of commitment is also uncertain. This is a danger signal because the OECD Convention depends on the collective commitment of all parties to ending foreign bribery."
The reports "major conclusions" include the following: "risk of loss of momentum" and "lack of political commitment."
As to the former, the report states as follows. "The Convention has not yet reached the point at which the prohibition of foreign bribery is consistently enforced. With little or no enforcement by half of the signatory governments, backsliding by enforcing governments is a serious threat. This concern is aggravated in a troubled global economy in which companies are scrambling for business. Business organisations have increasingly criticised anti-bribery enforcement as a competitive obstacle. The present position of the Convention is unstable, and unless forward momentum is recovered, the progress made in the past decade could unravel."
As to the "lack of political commitment", the report states as follows. "Reviews conducted by TI experts indicate that the principal cause of lagging enforcement is lack of political commitment by government leaders. In countries where there is committed political leadership, the OECD’s rigorous monitoring programme has helped improve laws and enforcement programmes. However, in the absence of political will, even repeated OECD reviews have little effect."
Once again, Canada received a public lashing from TI.
Under the heading "lack of progress in Canada," the report states as follows. "Canada is the only G7 country in the little or no enforcement category, and has been in this category since the first edition of this report in 2005. It is also the only OECD member that does not provide nationality jurisdiction, which presents a serious obstacle to enforcement. [...] TI welcomes that the government of Canada has publicly reported the number of investigations for the first time. It is promising that 23 foreign bribery investigations are under way. If these investigations lead to prosecutions, Canada may finally move out of the little or no enforcement category." (A future post will summarize the recent Canadian enforcement action against Niko Resources).
TI's 2010 report (see here for the prior post) included reference to many big picture enforcement issues such as the use of negotiated settlements (NPAs and DPAs), judicial scrutiny of enforcement actions, and the proper amount of fines and penalties. However, TI's 2011 report was silent as to many big picture issues.
OECD Working Group on Bribery Annual Report
On April 20th, the OECD Working Group on Bribery released its annual report (here). The release (here) states as follows. "Most governments are not meeting their international commitments to clamp down on bribery and corruption in international business, with only five signatories to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention having sanctioned individuals or companies in the past year."
Showing posts with label OECD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OECD. Show all posts
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Compliance Defense Around The World
As highlighted in this prior post, numerous FCPA reform bills in the 1980's included a specific defense which stated a company would not be held vicariously liable for a violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions by its employees or agents, who were not an officer or director, if the company established procedures reasonably designed to prevent and detect FCPA violations by employees and agents. An FCPA reform bill containing such a provision did pass the U.S. House, but was not enacted into law.
Amending the FCPA to include a compliance defense is one of the U.S. Chamber's FCPA reform proposals (see here). In November 2010, Andrew Weissman, on behalf of the Chamber, testified in favor of a compliance defense (and other reform proposals) during the Senate's FCPA hearing (see here for the prior post) and during the House hearing earlier this month (see here for the prior post), former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, on behalf of the Chamber, also testified in favor of a compliance defense (and other reform proposals).
During the House hearing, there appeared to be bi-partisan support for consideration of an FCPA compliance defense.
Even so, Greg Andres, testifying on behalf of the DOJ, stated that a potential FCPA compliance defense was "novel and risky" and that the "time is not right to consider it."
Public debate on a potential compliance defense has thus far focused, from a comparative standpoint, on the United Kingdom and Italy.
The purpose of this post is to further inform the public debate on a potential compliance defense by highlighting various compliance-like defenses around the world in other countries that are signatories (like the U.S.) to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
This post is further to my work in progress - Revisiting an FCPA Compliance Defense - and represents hours of research analyzing 38 OECD Country Reports.
The post provides an overview of compliance-like defenses in the following OECD Convention signatory countries: Australia, Chile, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland. [The U.K. Bribery Act, set to go live on July 1st, also contains a compliance-like defense in Section 7].
A first reaction might be - only 12 of the 38 OECD member countries have a compliance-like defense.
However, this number must be viewed against the backdrop of the following dynamics: (i) in many OECD Convention signatory countries, the concept of legal person criminal liability (as opposed to natural person criminal liability) is non-existent; and (ii) in many OECD Convention signatory countries that do have legal person criminal liability, such legal person liability can only result from the actions of high-level executive personnel or other so-called "controlling minds" of the legal person.
Obviously if a foreign country does not provide for legal person liability, there is no need for a compliance defense, and the rationale for a compliance defense is less compelling if legal exposure can result only from the conduct of high-level executive personnel or other "controlling minds."
When properly viewed against these dynamics, a compliance-like defense (whether specifically part of a foreign country's "FCPA-like" law or otherwise generally part of a foreign country's legal principles) is far from a "novel" idea, but rather common among OECD Anti-Bribery Convention signatory countries that - like the U.S. - have legal person criminal liability that can attach based on the conduct of non-executive officers or other "controlling minds."
[The below information is based strictly on OECD country reports and is subject to the qualification that in many instances the most recent information concerning a particular country may be several years old. If anyone has more recent information concerning any particular country, how the compliance defense in a particular country has worked in practice, or any other relevant information, please leave a comment on this site or contact me at mjkoehle@butler.edu]
*****
Australia
Australian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on December 18, 1999.
Thereafter, a section of the Criminal Code on corporate criminal liability came into full force establishing an organizational model for the liability of legal persons. “Bodies corporate” are liable for offences committed by “an employee, agent or officer of a body corporate acting within the actual or apparent scope of his or her employment, or within his or her actual or apparent authority” where the body corporate “expressly, tacitly, or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence”.
Pursuant to the Criminal Code, authorisation or permission by the body corporate may be established in the following ways: (1) the board of directors intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted it to occur; (2) a high managerial agent intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted it to occur; (3) a corporate culture existed that directed, encouraged, tolerated or led to the offence; or (4) the body corporate failed to create and maintain a corporate culture that required compliance with the relevant provision.
However, under the Criminal Code, “if a high managerial agent is directly or indirectly involved in the conduct, no offence is committed where the body corporate proves that it “exercised due diligence to prevent the conduct, or the authorisation or permission."
Chile
Chilean law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on October 8, 2002.
In December 2009, a separate Chilean law entered into force establishing criminal responsibility of legal persons for a limited list of offences including bribery of foreign public officials.
In order for a legal person to be held responsible for a foreign bribery offence, the following “three cumulative requirements” must be satisfied: (1) the offence must be committed by a person acting as a representative, director or manager, a person exercising powers of administration or supervision, or a person under the “direction or supervision” of one of the aforementioned persons; (2) the offence must be committed for the direct and immediate benefit or interest of the legal entity. No offence is committed where the natural person commits the offence exclusively in his/her own interest or in the interest of a third party; and (3) the offence must have been made possible as a consequence of a failure of the legal entity to comply with its duties of management and supervision. An entity will have failed to comply with its duties if it violates the obligation to implement a model for the prevention of offences, or when having implemented the model, it was insufficient."
As to the final element, the OECD report states as follows. “The final cumulative requirement for responsibility stresses that the offence must have been made possible as a consequence of the failure of the legal person to comply with its duties of administration and supervision. The entity will have failed to comply with its duties if it violated the obligation to implement a model for the prevention of offences, or when having implemented the model, the latter was insufficient. It shall be considered that the functions of direction and supervision have been met if, before the commission of the offense, the legal person had adopted and implemented organization, administration and supervision models, pursuant to the following article, to prevent such offenses as the one committed.”
The minimum features of a prevention system under the law are as follows: identify the different activities or processes of the entity, whether habitual or sporadic, in whose context the risk of commission of the offences emerges or increases; establish protocols, rules and procedures that permit persons involved in above-mentioned activities or processes to program and implement their tasks or functions in a manner that prevents the commission of the indicated offences; identify procedures for the administration and auditing that allow the entity to impede their use in the listed offences; establish internal administrative sanctions, as well as procedures for reporting or pursuing pecuniary responsibility against persons who violate the prevention system; introduce the above-mentioned duties, prohibitions and sanctions into the internal regulations of the legal person, and ensure that they are known by all persons bound to apply it (workers, employees, and service providers).
The OECD report states - as to the minimum requirements as follows. “It also aims to introduce a system of self-regulation by companies. Having a code of conduct on paper will not be sufficient to avoid responsibility. If prosecutors can prove that the code does not meet the minimum requirements of or that it is not implemented, the company can be responsible for the offence.”
Under Chilean law, “the failure to comply with duties of management and supervision is an element of the offence rather than a defence. Therefore the burden of proof lies on prosecutors, i.e. it will be up to prosecutors to prove that the entity failed to comply with its duties of management and supervision.”
The OECD report notes as follows. “This will require prosecutors to prove that the company failed in the design and/or implementation of the offense prevention model including why, in the circumstances, the prevention model was insufficient. This would appear to also require the prosecutor to establish that this failure made perpetration of the offence possible.”
As noted in the OECD report, the Chilean “standard of liability is inspired from the Italian system of liability of legal persons" (discussed below).
Germany
German law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999.
German law establishes the liability of legal persons, including liability for the foreign bribery offence, under an administrative (i.e. non-criminal form) act.
Pursuant to the administrative act, “the liability of legal persons is triggered where any “responsible person” (which includes a broad range of senior managerial stakeholders and not only an authorised representative or manager), acting for the management of the entity commits i) a criminal offence including bribery; or ii) an administrative offence including a violation of supervisory duties which either violates duties of the legal entity, or by which the legal entity gained or was supposed to gain a “profit”.”
As noted in the OECD report, “in other words, Germany enables corporations to be imputed with offences i) by senior managers, and, somewhat indirectly, ii) with offences by lower level personnel which result from a failure by a senior corporate figure to faithfully discharge his/her duties of supervision.”
The OECD report states that the “standards for a violation of supervisory duties include consideration of factors such as whether the company has in place a monitoring system or in-house regulations for employees.”
Hungary
Hungarian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on March 1, 1999.
In 2004, a separate law was enacted specifying the individuals whose actions can trigger the liability of the legal person.
The OECD report states as follows. “The specific persons and additional conditions for liability are defined as follows: (i) the bribery is committed by one of the members or officers [of the legal entity] entitled to manage or represent it, or a supervisory board member and/or their representatives acting within the legal scope of activity of the legal person ; (ii) the bribery is committed by one of the members of the legal entity or an employee acting within the legal scope of activity of the legal person provided the bribery could have been prevented by the chief executive fulfilling his supervisory or control obligations; and (iii) the bribery is committed by a third party individual, provided that the legal entity’s member or officer entitled to manage or represent the it had knowledge of the facts.”
According to the OECD report, the relevant law does not provide any guidance as to the necessary degree of supervision to avoid liability for bribery.
Italy
Italian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on October 26, 2000.
Under Italian law, “criminal liability cannot be attributed to legal persons” however, “administrative liability may be attributed to legal persons for certain criminal offences (including foreign bribery) committed by a natural person.
The relevant administrative decree provides a “defence of organisational models” to a body which makes reasonable efforts to prevent the commission of an offence.
The OECD report states as follows. “… [A] body is not liable for offences committed by persons in senior positions if it proves the following. First, before the offence was committed, the body’s management had adopted and effectively implemented an appropriate organisational and management model to prevent offences of the kind that has occurred. Second, the body had set up an autonomous organ to supervise, enforce and update the model. Third, this autonomous organ had sufficiently supervised the operation of the model. Fourth, the perpetrator committed the offence by fraudulently evading the operation of the model.” The defence of organisation models operates as a full defence which completely exculpates a legal person.
The relevant administrative decree stipulates the essential elements of an acceptable organisational model described in the OECD report as follows. “First, the model must identify activities which may give rise to offences. Second, the model must define procedures through which the body makes and implements decisions relating to the offences to be prevented. It must also prescribe procedures for managing financial resources to prevent offences from being committed. Third, the model must oblige the internal organ responsible for supervision and enforcement to provide information to the body. Finally, the model must include a disciplinary system for non-compliance.”
Japan
Japanese law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999 .
“Under Japanese law, criminal responsibility of a legal person is based on the principle that the company did not exercise due care in the supervision, selection, etc. of an officer or employee to prevent the culpable act.
The burden rests on the legal person to prove that due care was exercised. Where a legal person raises the defence, a person must be identified as having exercised due care, etc., and the court must determine whether it was exercised properly having regard to the nature of the legal person and the circumstances of the case.”
Korea
Korean law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999.
Korean law establishes the criminal responsibility of legal persons for the bribery of a foreign public official, however, a legal person is exempt from liability where it has paid “due attention” or exercised “proper supervision” to prevent the offence.
The statute itself does not provide information about what constitutes “due attention” or “proper supervision.” A representative of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the OECD that “the exemption is triggered when a director or ‘superior person’ exercises due attention.” The Explanatory Manual published by the Ministry of Justice states that “it is difficult to standardize the extent of attention or supervision in deciding whether a legal person can be exempted from criminal punishment.” The Explanatory Manual further states that whether the exemption applies depends upon “general circumstances such as the motive and background that led to the bribery, intervention of exclusive members of the legal person, whether it was informed earlier, and how much effort was usually made by the corporation to prevent bribery, etc.” and that companies involved in international business must prevent violations of the law by all employees and executives of the company “through sufficient necessary management”.
Poland
Polish law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 4, 2001.
Polish law provides “a noncriminal form of responsibility for collective entities.” Among the requirements for liability is the offence was committed “in the effect of at least absence of due diligence in electing the natural person [committing the act] or of at least the absence of due supervision over this person by an authority or a representative of the collective entity.”
According to the relevant Polish legislative history, “the perpetration of a prohibited act by a natural person will trigger liability of the
collective entity where the act occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the authority or representative of the collective entity.”
Portugal
Portuguese law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on June 9, 2001.
Under Portuguese law relevant to corruption in international business transactions, legal persons can be liable for conduct committed “on their behalf and in the collective interest by natural persons occupying a leadership position within the legal person structure” or by “whoever acts under the authority” of such natural persons.
However, “[t]he liability of legal persons and equivalent entities is excluded when the actor has acted against the orders or express instructions of the person responsible.”
Sweden
Swedish law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on July 1, 1999.
Under Swedish Law, only natural persons can commit crimes. However, pursuant to the Swedish Penal Code, a “kind of quasi-criminal liability is applied to an ‘entrepreneur’ (a general term meaning “any natural or legal person that professionally runs a business of an economic nature) for a ‘crime committed in the exercise of business activities.’”
However, one requirement under the Penal Code is that “the entrepreneur has not done what could reasonable be required of him for prevention of the crime.”
Switzerland
Swiss law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on May 1, 2000.
Article 100quater of the Swiss Criminal Code requires “defective organisation as a condition for corporate criminal liability.”
In order to incur criminal liability, “the enterprise must not have taken all reasonable and necessary organisational measures to prevent the individual from committing the offence.”
Under Swiss law, the burden is on the prosecutor to furnish proof of defective organization and according to Swiss authorities contacted by the OECD “steps should be taken to assess whether employees have been sufficiently informed, supervised and controlled” and “the fact that an enterprise is organised in compliance with international management standards will not be sufficient to rule out all liability on its part; it will be one element to take into consideration among others …”. In the view of Swiss authorities, “ shifting the burden of proof in criminal cases would contravene Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Amending the FCPA to include a compliance defense is one of the U.S. Chamber's FCPA reform proposals (see here). In November 2010, Andrew Weissman, on behalf of the Chamber, testified in favor of a compliance defense (and other reform proposals) during the Senate's FCPA hearing (see here for the prior post) and during the House hearing earlier this month (see here for the prior post), former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, on behalf of the Chamber, also testified in favor of a compliance defense (and other reform proposals).
During the House hearing, there appeared to be bi-partisan support for consideration of an FCPA compliance defense.
Even so, Greg Andres, testifying on behalf of the DOJ, stated that a potential FCPA compliance defense was "novel and risky" and that the "time is not right to consider it."
Public debate on a potential compliance defense has thus far focused, from a comparative standpoint, on the United Kingdom and Italy.
The purpose of this post is to further inform the public debate on a potential compliance defense by highlighting various compliance-like defenses around the world in other countries that are signatories (like the U.S.) to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
This post is further to my work in progress - Revisiting an FCPA Compliance Defense - and represents hours of research analyzing 38 OECD Country Reports.
The post provides an overview of compliance-like defenses in the following OECD Convention signatory countries: Australia, Chile, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland. [The U.K. Bribery Act, set to go live on July 1st, also contains a compliance-like defense in Section 7].
A first reaction might be - only 12 of the 38 OECD member countries have a compliance-like defense.
However, this number must be viewed against the backdrop of the following dynamics: (i) in many OECD Convention signatory countries, the concept of legal person criminal liability (as opposed to natural person criminal liability) is non-existent; and (ii) in many OECD Convention signatory countries that do have legal person criminal liability, such legal person liability can only result from the actions of high-level executive personnel or other so-called "controlling minds" of the legal person.
Obviously if a foreign country does not provide for legal person liability, there is no need for a compliance defense, and the rationale for a compliance defense is less compelling if legal exposure can result only from the conduct of high-level executive personnel or other "controlling minds."
When properly viewed against these dynamics, a compliance-like defense (whether specifically part of a foreign country's "FCPA-like" law or otherwise generally part of a foreign country's legal principles) is far from a "novel" idea, but rather common among OECD Anti-Bribery Convention signatory countries that - like the U.S. - have legal person criminal liability that can attach based on the conduct of non-executive officers or other "controlling minds."
[The below information is based strictly on OECD country reports and is subject to the qualification that in many instances the most recent information concerning a particular country may be several years old. If anyone has more recent information concerning any particular country, how the compliance defense in a particular country has worked in practice, or any other relevant information, please leave a comment on this site or contact me at mjkoehle@butler.edu]
*****
Australia
Australian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on December 18, 1999.
Thereafter, a section of the Criminal Code on corporate criminal liability came into full force establishing an organizational model for the liability of legal persons. “Bodies corporate” are liable for offences committed by “an employee, agent or officer of a body corporate acting within the actual or apparent scope of his or her employment, or within his or her actual or apparent authority” where the body corporate “expressly, tacitly, or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence”.
Pursuant to the Criminal Code, authorisation or permission by the body corporate may be established in the following ways: (1) the board of directors intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted it to occur; (2) a high managerial agent intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted it to occur; (3) a corporate culture existed that directed, encouraged, tolerated or led to the offence; or (4) the body corporate failed to create and maintain a corporate culture that required compliance with the relevant provision.
However, under the Criminal Code, “if a high managerial agent is directly or indirectly involved in the conduct, no offence is committed where the body corporate proves that it “exercised due diligence to prevent the conduct, or the authorisation or permission."
Chile
Chilean law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on October 8, 2002.
In December 2009, a separate Chilean law entered into force establishing criminal responsibility of legal persons for a limited list of offences including bribery of foreign public officials.
In order for a legal person to be held responsible for a foreign bribery offence, the following “three cumulative requirements” must be satisfied: (1) the offence must be committed by a person acting as a representative, director or manager, a person exercising powers of administration or supervision, or a person under the “direction or supervision” of one of the aforementioned persons; (2) the offence must be committed for the direct and immediate benefit or interest of the legal entity. No offence is committed where the natural person commits the offence exclusively in his/her own interest or in the interest of a third party; and (3) the offence must have been made possible as a consequence of a failure of the legal entity to comply with its duties of management and supervision. An entity will have failed to comply with its duties if it violates the obligation to implement a model for the prevention of offences, or when having implemented the model, it was insufficient."
As to the final element, the OECD report states as follows. “The final cumulative requirement for responsibility stresses that the offence must have been made possible as a consequence of the failure of the legal person to comply with its duties of administration and supervision. The entity will have failed to comply with its duties if it violated the obligation to implement a model for the prevention of offences, or when having implemented the model, the latter was insufficient. It shall be considered that the functions of direction and supervision have been met if, before the commission of the offense, the legal person had adopted and implemented organization, administration and supervision models, pursuant to the following article, to prevent such offenses as the one committed.”
The minimum features of a prevention system under the law are as follows: identify the different activities or processes of the entity, whether habitual or sporadic, in whose context the risk of commission of the offences emerges or increases; establish protocols, rules and procedures that permit persons involved in above-mentioned activities or processes to program and implement their tasks or functions in a manner that prevents the commission of the indicated offences; identify procedures for the administration and auditing that allow the entity to impede their use in the listed offences; establish internal administrative sanctions, as well as procedures for reporting or pursuing pecuniary responsibility against persons who violate the prevention system; introduce the above-mentioned duties, prohibitions and sanctions into the internal regulations of the legal person, and ensure that they are known by all persons bound to apply it (workers, employees, and service providers).
The OECD report states - as to the minimum requirements as follows. “It also aims to introduce a system of self-regulation by companies. Having a code of conduct on paper will not be sufficient to avoid responsibility. If prosecutors can prove that the code does not meet the minimum requirements of or that it is not implemented, the company can be responsible for the offence.”
Under Chilean law, “the failure to comply with duties of management and supervision is an element of the offence rather than a defence. Therefore the burden of proof lies on prosecutors, i.e. it will be up to prosecutors to prove that the entity failed to comply with its duties of management and supervision.”
The OECD report notes as follows. “This will require prosecutors to prove that the company failed in the design and/or implementation of the offense prevention model including why, in the circumstances, the prevention model was insufficient. This would appear to also require the prosecutor to establish that this failure made perpetration of the offence possible.”
As noted in the OECD report, the Chilean “standard of liability is inspired from the Italian system of liability of legal persons" (discussed below).
Germany
German law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999.
German law establishes the liability of legal persons, including liability for the foreign bribery offence, under an administrative (i.e. non-criminal form) act.
Pursuant to the administrative act, “the liability of legal persons is triggered where any “responsible person” (which includes a broad range of senior managerial stakeholders and not only an authorised representative or manager), acting for the management of the entity commits i) a criminal offence including bribery; or ii) an administrative offence including a violation of supervisory duties which either violates duties of the legal entity, or by which the legal entity gained or was supposed to gain a “profit”.”
As noted in the OECD report, “in other words, Germany enables corporations to be imputed with offences i) by senior managers, and, somewhat indirectly, ii) with offences by lower level personnel which result from a failure by a senior corporate figure to faithfully discharge his/her duties of supervision.”
The OECD report states that the “standards for a violation of supervisory duties include consideration of factors such as whether the company has in place a monitoring system or in-house regulations for employees.”
Hungary
Hungarian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on March 1, 1999.
In 2004, a separate law was enacted specifying the individuals whose actions can trigger the liability of the legal person.
The OECD report states as follows. “The specific persons and additional conditions for liability are defined as follows: (i) the bribery is committed by one of the members or officers [of the legal entity] entitled to manage or represent it, or a supervisory board member and/or their representatives acting within the legal scope of activity of the legal person ; (ii) the bribery is committed by one of the members of the legal entity or an employee acting within the legal scope of activity of the legal person provided the bribery could have been prevented by the chief executive fulfilling his supervisory or control obligations; and (iii) the bribery is committed by a third party individual, provided that the legal entity’s member or officer entitled to manage or represent the it had knowledge of the facts.”
According to the OECD report, the relevant law does not provide any guidance as to the necessary degree of supervision to avoid liability for bribery.
Italy
Italian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on October 26, 2000.
Under Italian law, “criminal liability cannot be attributed to legal persons” however, “administrative liability may be attributed to legal persons for certain criminal offences (including foreign bribery) committed by a natural person.
The relevant administrative decree provides a “defence of organisational models” to a body which makes reasonable efforts to prevent the commission of an offence.
The OECD report states as follows. “… [A] body is not liable for offences committed by persons in senior positions if it proves the following. First, before the offence was committed, the body’s management had adopted and effectively implemented an appropriate organisational and management model to prevent offences of the kind that has occurred. Second, the body had set up an autonomous organ to supervise, enforce and update the model. Third, this autonomous organ had sufficiently supervised the operation of the model. Fourth, the perpetrator committed the offence by fraudulently evading the operation of the model.” The defence of organisation models operates as a full defence which completely exculpates a legal person.
The relevant administrative decree stipulates the essential elements of an acceptable organisational model described in the OECD report as follows. “First, the model must identify activities which may give rise to offences. Second, the model must define procedures through which the body makes and implements decisions relating to the offences to be prevented. It must also prescribe procedures for managing financial resources to prevent offences from being committed. Third, the model must oblige the internal organ responsible for supervision and enforcement to provide information to the body. Finally, the model must include a disciplinary system for non-compliance.”
Japan
Japanese law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999 .
“Under Japanese law, criminal responsibility of a legal person is based on the principle that the company did not exercise due care in the supervision, selection, etc. of an officer or employee to prevent the culpable act.
The burden rests on the legal person to prove that due care was exercised. Where a legal person raises the defence, a person must be identified as having exercised due care, etc., and the court must determine whether it was exercised properly having regard to the nature of the legal person and the circumstances of the case.”
Korea
Korean law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999.
Korean law establishes the criminal responsibility of legal persons for the bribery of a foreign public official, however, a legal person is exempt from liability where it has paid “due attention” or exercised “proper supervision” to prevent the offence.
The statute itself does not provide information about what constitutes “due attention” or “proper supervision.” A representative of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the OECD that “the exemption is triggered when a director or ‘superior person’ exercises due attention.” The Explanatory Manual published by the Ministry of Justice states that “it is difficult to standardize the extent of attention or supervision in deciding whether a legal person can be exempted from criminal punishment.” The Explanatory Manual further states that whether the exemption applies depends upon “general circumstances such as the motive and background that led to the bribery, intervention of exclusive members of the legal person, whether it was informed earlier, and how much effort was usually made by the corporation to prevent bribery, etc.” and that companies involved in international business must prevent violations of the law by all employees and executives of the company “through sufficient necessary management”.
Poland
Polish law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 4, 2001.
Polish law provides “a noncriminal form of responsibility for collective entities.” Among the requirements for liability is the offence was committed “in the effect of at least absence of due diligence in electing the natural person [committing the act] or of at least the absence of due supervision over this person by an authority or a representative of the collective entity.”
According to the relevant Polish legislative history, “the perpetration of a prohibited act by a natural person will trigger liability of the
collective entity where the act occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the authority or representative of the collective entity.”
Portugal
Portuguese law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on June 9, 2001.
Under Portuguese law relevant to corruption in international business transactions, legal persons can be liable for conduct committed “on their behalf and in the collective interest by natural persons occupying a leadership position within the legal person structure” or by “whoever acts under the authority” of such natural persons.
However, “[t]he liability of legal persons and equivalent entities is excluded when the actor has acted against the orders or express instructions of the person responsible.”
Sweden
Swedish law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on July 1, 1999.
Under Swedish Law, only natural persons can commit crimes. However, pursuant to the Swedish Penal Code, a “kind of quasi-criminal liability is applied to an ‘entrepreneur’ (a general term meaning “any natural or legal person that professionally runs a business of an economic nature) for a ‘crime committed in the exercise of business activities.’”
However, one requirement under the Penal Code is that “the entrepreneur has not done what could reasonable be required of him for prevention of the crime.”
Switzerland
Swiss law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on May 1, 2000.
Article 100quater of the Swiss Criminal Code requires “defective organisation as a condition for corporate criminal liability.”
In order to incur criminal liability, “the enterprise must not have taken all reasonable and necessary organisational measures to prevent the individual from committing the offence.”
Under Swiss law, the burden is on the prosecutor to furnish proof of defective organization and according to Swiss authorities contacted by the OECD “steps should be taken to assess whether employees have been sufficiently informed, supervised and controlled” and “the fact that an enterprise is organised in compliance with international management standards will not be sufficient to rule out all liability on its part; it will be one element to take into consideration among others …”. In the view of Swiss authorities, “ shifting the burden of proof in criminal cases would contravene Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Friday, June 17, 2011
Russian FCPA: The Law Has Been Signed, Will The Culture Change Result?
Last month, Russian President Dimitri Medvedev signed legislation that criminalizes foreign bribery, with monetary sanctions for companies and individuals who bribe foreign public officials. Soon thereafter, the OECD formally invited Russia to join the OECD's Working Group on Bribery and to accede to the OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention (see here for the OECD release).
Max Chester (Senior Counsel at Foley & Lardner - see here) takes the stage today with this guest post. Chester, a native speaker of Russian with significant experience representing U.S. clients in commercial transactions in Russia, provides an overview and analysis of the new Russian "FCPA-like" law.
*****
Russian FCPA: The Law Has Been Signed, Will The Culture Change As A Result?
On May 4, 2011, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev signed into law a measure that significantly increases fines for bribery in Russia and now specifically applies to bribery of foreign government officials. The new federal law (here) is entitled “Federal Law dated May 4, 2011 No. 97-FZ On inclusion of changes to the Criminal Code of Russian Federation and to the Code of Administrative Offences in Connection with the Improvement of Government Administration in the Area of Fighting Corruption.” While the Russian title of the new law is not easy to understand even for a native Russian speaker, its objective is clear: it is intended to fight corruption in Russia, one of President Medvedev’s highest stated priorities, and to support Russia’s bid to accede to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Because the new law specifically prohibits offering or acceptance of a bribe by a foreign government official, we’ll refer to the new law as the “Russian FCPA.” Because the Russian FCPA prohibits commercial bribery and both receiving and offering corrupt payments to foreign government officials, the new law appears to resemble the UK Bribery Act and can be said to have even further reach than the US FCPA.
With respect to commercial bribery, the new law changes art. 46 of the Criminal Code and imposes the maximum fine for bribery in the amount of 100 times the amount of the bribe not to exceed 500 million rubles) (approximately $17.8 million). Prior to the amendment, the maximum monetary fine for acceptance of a bribe was 1 million rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for the previous 5 year period and the maximum monetary fine for offering a bribe was 500,000 rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for the previous 3 year period. The monetary fines for commercial grease payments (подкуп “podkup” in Russian) were even lower: the offeror could face a maximum fine of only 300,000 rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for the previous 2 year period, and the acceptor could face a maximum fine of only 1 million rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for a 5 year period.
While incarceration up to 12 years for bribery/grease payments was possible prior to the amendment, according Larisa Brycheva, the chair of the Office of Legal Affairs to the President of Russian Federation, only 26% of those convicted for bribery-related offenses were incarcerated. Furthermore, most of those convicted were offering/accepting small bribes (from 500 rubles to 10,000 rubles), making it difficult for Russian judges to impose sentences of up to 12 years in prison resulting from bribes equaling the cost of an average dinner for two at a Moscow restaurant.
Given this unimpressive to-date enforcement regime, the Russian lawmakers have decided that a significantly higher monetary fine would be more effective than a possibility of a lengthy prison sentence. While the anti-corruption professionals should welcome this change in the Russian law, a big question still remains exactly how aggressively Russian authorities will enforce the new law. It may not be palatable to impose a 500 million ruble fine on a Russian bureaucrat whose official government salary is 40,000 rubles and whose only official assets are his apartment (where his family lives and thus is not subject to forfeiture) and his dacha, the title to which is likely held by his relatives. The same can not be said of foreign businesses, however, on whom it would be much easier for Russian authorities to impose and collect fines equaling 100 times the bribe. There is no indication in the Russian FCPA that it would not apply to US companies doing business in Russia. In other words, if a US company or its constituents engage in commercial or foreign government official bribery in Russia, the offenders would be subject to fines and potential incarceration in Russia.
The Specific Provisions of the New Law
Acceptance of a Bribe
The Russian FCPA now specifically prohibits bribery involving foreign government officials. Thus, art. 290 of the Criminal Code (which prohibits acceptance of bribes directly or through intermediaries) as amended applies to government officials, foreign government officials or officials of public international organizations. The new law breaks down the fines into several categories depending on the conduct at issue and the amount of the bribe. In every case, however, in addition to the monetary penalty or a prison sentence with a monetary penalty, the offender may be restricted from occupying certain positions in government or commercial entities. For example, part 1 of art. 290 of the Criminal Code now imposes a penalty between 25-50 times the bribe amount or incarceration up to 3 years with a fine equaling 20 times the bribe amount if the bribe is under 25,000 rubles and was used to have an official perform an act (or refrain from performing an act) which falls within the official’s duties and responsibilities. Part 2 of article 290 states further that if the bribe amount is between 25,000 and 150,000 rubles, then the maximum penalty for a violation is a fine between 30-60 times the bribe amount or incarceration up to 6 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe.
If the actions (inactions) of government officials, foreign government officials or officials of public international organizations for which they accept a bribe are considered illegal, Part 3 of art. 290 of the Criminal Code now imposes a penalty equaling 40-70 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of 3-7 years with a fine equaling 40 times the bribe amount.
Even stiffer penalties (60-80 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of 5-10 years with a fine equaling 50 times the bribe amount) apply if the bribe is accepted by a federal Russian government official or an official of an equivalent body of local government administration. Art. 290, Part 4.
If the actions prohibited by parts 1-3 above involve a conspiracy, or a threat or the amount at issue is over 150,000 rubles, the penalty is 70-90 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of 7-12 years. Art. 290, Part 5
If the actions prohibited by parts 1-4 involve an amount greater than 1 million rubles, then the penalty is 80-100 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of 8-15 years with a penalty equaling 70 times the bribe amount.
Giving of a Bribe
The Russian FCPA similarly amends art. 291 of the Criminal Code, which now prohibits giving of a bribe (directly or through an intermediary) to a government official, foreign government official or an official of a public international organization. The giving of a bribe in the amount less than 25,000 rubles is punishable by a fine equaling 15-30 times the bribe amount or incarceration of up to 2 years with a fine equaling 10 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part 1.
The giving of a bribe in the amount between 25,000 rubles and 150,000 rubles is punishable by a fine equaling 20-40 times the bribe amount or incarceration of up to 3 years with a fine equaling 15 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part. 2.
If the actions prohibited by parts 1-3 above involve a conspiracy or the amount at issue is over 150,000 rubles, the penalty is 60-80 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of 5-8 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part 4.
The giving of a bribe in the amount exceeding 1 million rubles is punishable by a fine equaling 70-90 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period between 7 and 12 years with a fine equaling 70 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part. 2.
Giving of a bribe to a government official, foreign government official or an official of a public international organization to secure an action/inaction which is itself deemed illegal is punishable by a fine equaling 30-60 times the bribe amount or incarceration of up to 8 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part 3.
Aiding and Abetting Bribery
The Russian FCPA also introduces new article 2911 to the Criminal Code, which prohibits aiding and abetting bribery if the amount of the bribe exceeds 25,000 rubles. In such circumstances, the Russian FCPA imposes a fine equaling 20-40 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of up to 5 years with a fine equaling 20 times the bribe amount.
If an aider assists with a bribery for an official’s act that itself is considered illegal or if an aider uses his official position in aiding the bribery, the penalty is 30-60 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of time between 3-7 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe amount.
If the aiding is committed by an organized group or pursuant to a conspiracy, or the amount of the bribe exceeds 150,000 rubles, the penalty is 60-80 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of time between 7-12 years with a fine equaling 60 times the bribe amount.
The penalty for aiding bribery in the amount exceeding 1 million rubles is 70-90 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of time between 7-12 years with a fine equaling 70 times the bribe amount.
A promise or an offer to aid in the bribery is also punishable by a penalty equaling 15-70 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of up to 7 years with a fine equaling 10-60 times the bribe amount.
Definition of Foreign Government Official
The Russian FCPA defines a “foreign government official” as any appointed or elected official who has a position in any legislative, executive, administrative, or judicial branch of a foreign country or an individual who serves any public function for a foreign country or a public agency or a public enterprise. This definition seems to suggest that Russian lawmakers embrace the position taken by the DOJ that employees of government owned enterprises are “foreign government officials” for purposes of the FCPA. It would be interesting to see if Russian authorities deem employees of General Motors, AIG or other large US companies where the US government has a substantial equity position, “foreign government officials” for purposes of the Russian FCPA.
Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences of Russian Federation
The Russian FCPA also amends several provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of Russian Federation. Among those is amendment to article 19.28, which imposes penalties on legal entities for commercial bribery or bribery of foreign government officials if a payment of a bribe or an offer of a bribe was made on a legal entity’s behalf. In such circumstances, the penalty is 3 times the amount of the bribe but not less than 1 million rubles. If the amount of the bribe at issue is greater than 1 million rubles, then the penalty is up to 30 times the bribe amount but not less than 20 million rubles. If the amount of the bribe at issue is over 20 million rubles, then the penalty is up to 100 times the bribe amount but not less than 100 million rubles.
In addition, the Russian FCPA introduces several new protocols for Russian authorities to seek information from their foreign counterparts in connection with the investigation by Russian authorities of violations set forth above as well as protocols for Russian authorities to respond to inquiries from foreign law enforcement agencies in connection with foreign law enforcement agencies’ investigation of crimes. These provisions will undoubtedly strengthen the level of cooperation between Russian and foreign law enforcement agencies in implementing anti-corruption measures. Such efforts are already underway, as evidenced by the recent meetings between Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom in London, with Richard Alderman, Director of the Serious Fraud Office.
Conclusion
No law by itself can change overnight or even within a short period of time the “threatening” level of corruption that exists in Russia, as acknowledged by the Russian President himself. The current state of affairs in Russia is a product of 70+ years of socialist dictatorship and the resulting mindset of many government officials. This state of affairs will change, undoubtedly, and the passing of the Russian FCPA is the step in the right direction for Russia. It is up to the Russian authorities to follow through on the provisions of the new law.
Max Chester (Senior Counsel at Foley & Lardner - see here) takes the stage today with this guest post. Chester, a native speaker of Russian with significant experience representing U.S. clients in commercial transactions in Russia, provides an overview and analysis of the new Russian "FCPA-like" law.
*****
Russian FCPA: The Law Has Been Signed, Will The Culture Change As A Result?
On May 4, 2011, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev signed into law a measure that significantly increases fines for bribery in Russia and now specifically applies to bribery of foreign government officials. The new federal law (here) is entitled “Federal Law dated May 4, 2011 No. 97-FZ On inclusion of changes to the Criminal Code of Russian Federation and to the Code of Administrative Offences in Connection with the Improvement of Government Administration in the Area of Fighting Corruption.” While the Russian title of the new law is not easy to understand even for a native Russian speaker, its objective is clear: it is intended to fight corruption in Russia, one of President Medvedev’s highest stated priorities, and to support Russia’s bid to accede to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Because the new law specifically prohibits offering or acceptance of a bribe by a foreign government official, we’ll refer to the new law as the “Russian FCPA.” Because the Russian FCPA prohibits commercial bribery and both receiving and offering corrupt payments to foreign government officials, the new law appears to resemble the UK Bribery Act and can be said to have even further reach than the US FCPA.
With respect to commercial bribery, the new law changes art. 46 of the Criminal Code and imposes the maximum fine for bribery in the amount of 100 times the amount of the bribe not to exceed 500 million rubles) (approximately $17.8 million). Prior to the amendment, the maximum monetary fine for acceptance of a bribe was 1 million rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for the previous 5 year period and the maximum monetary fine for offering a bribe was 500,000 rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for the previous 3 year period. The monetary fines for commercial grease payments (подкуп “podkup” in Russian) were even lower: the offeror could face a maximum fine of only 300,000 rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for the previous 2 year period, and the acceptor could face a maximum fine of only 1 million rubles or an amount equaling salary/other income for a 5 year period.
While incarceration up to 12 years for bribery/grease payments was possible prior to the amendment, according Larisa Brycheva, the chair of the Office of Legal Affairs to the President of Russian Federation, only 26% of those convicted for bribery-related offenses were incarcerated. Furthermore, most of those convicted were offering/accepting small bribes (from 500 rubles to 10,000 rubles), making it difficult for Russian judges to impose sentences of up to 12 years in prison resulting from bribes equaling the cost of an average dinner for two at a Moscow restaurant.
Given this unimpressive to-date enforcement regime, the Russian lawmakers have decided that a significantly higher monetary fine would be more effective than a possibility of a lengthy prison sentence. While the anti-corruption professionals should welcome this change in the Russian law, a big question still remains exactly how aggressively Russian authorities will enforce the new law. It may not be palatable to impose a 500 million ruble fine on a Russian bureaucrat whose official government salary is 40,000 rubles and whose only official assets are his apartment (where his family lives and thus is not subject to forfeiture) and his dacha, the title to which is likely held by his relatives. The same can not be said of foreign businesses, however, on whom it would be much easier for Russian authorities to impose and collect fines equaling 100 times the bribe. There is no indication in the Russian FCPA that it would not apply to US companies doing business in Russia. In other words, if a US company or its constituents engage in commercial or foreign government official bribery in Russia, the offenders would be subject to fines and potential incarceration in Russia.
The Specific Provisions of the New Law
Acceptance of a Bribe
The Russian FCPA now specifically prohibits bribery involving foreign government officials. Thus, art. 290 of the Criminal Code (which prohibits acceptance of bribes directly or through intermediaries) as amended applies to government officials, foreign government officials or officials of public international organizations. The new law breaks down the fines into several categories depending on the conduct at issue and the amount of the bribe. In every case, however, in addition to the monetary penalty or a prison sentence with a monetary penalty, the offender may be restricted from occupying certain positions in government or commercial entities. For example, part 1 of art. 290 of the Criminal Code now imposes a penalty between 25-50 times the bribe amount or incarceration up to 3 years with a fine equaling 20 times the bribe amount if the bribe is under 25,000 rubles and was used to have an official perform an act (or refrain from performing an act) which falls within the official’s duties and responsibilities. Part 2 of article 290 states further that if the bribe amount is between 25,000 and 150,000 rubles, then the maximum penalty for a violation is a fine between 30-60 times the bribe amount or incarceration up to 6 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe.
If the actions (inactions) of government officials, foreign government officials or officials of public international organizations for which they accept a bribe are considered illegal, Part 3 of art. 290 of the Criminal Code now imposes a penalty equaling 40-70 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of 3-7 years with a fine equaling 40 times the bribe amount.
Even stiffer penalties (60-80 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of 5-10 years with a fine equaling 50 times the bribe amount) apply if the bribe is accepted by a federal Russian government official or an official of an equivalent body of local government administration. Art. 290, Part 4.
If the actions prohibited by parts 1-3 above involve a conspiracy, or a threat or the amount at issue is over 150,000 rubles, the penalty is 70-90 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of 7-12 years. Art. 290, Part 5
If the actions prohibited by parts 1-4 involve an amount greater than 1 million rubles, then the penalty is 80-100 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of 8-15 years with a penalty equaling 70 times the bribe amount.
Giving of a Bribe
The Russian FCPA similarly amends art. 291 of the Criminal Code, which now prohibits giving of a bribe (directly or through an intermediary) to a government official, foreign government official or an official of a public international organization. The giving of a bribe in the amount less than 25,000 rubles is punishable by a fine equaling 15-30 times the bribe amount or incarceration of up to 2 years with a fine equaling 10 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part 1.
The giving of a bribe in the amount between 25,000 rubles and 150,000 rubles is punishable by a fine equaling 20-40 times the bribe amount or incarceration of up to 3 years with a fine equaling 15 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part. 2.
If the actions prohibited by parts 1-3 above involve a conspiracy or the amount at issue is over 150,000 rubles, the penalty is 60-80 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of 5-8 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part 4.
The giving of a bribe in the amount exceeding 1 million rubles is punishable by a fine equaling 70-90 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period between 7 and 12 years with a fine equaling 70 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part. 2.
Giving of a bribe to a government official, foreign government official or an official of a public international organization to secure an action/inaction which is itself deemed illegal is punishable by a fine equaling 30-60 times the bribe amount or incarceration of up to 8 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe amount. Art. 291, Part 3.
Aiding and Abetting Bribery
The Russian FCPA also introduces new article 2911 to the Criminal Code, which prohibits aiding and abetting bribery if the amount of the bribe exceeds 25,000 rubles. In such circumstances, the Russian FCPA imposes a fine equaling 20-40 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of up to 5 years with a fine equaling 20 times the bribe amount.
If an aider assists with a bribery for an official’s act that itself is considered illegal or if an aider uses his official position in aiding the bribery, the penalty is 30-60 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of time between 3-7 years with a fine equaling 30 times the bribe amount.
If the aiding is committed by an organized group or pursuant to a conspiracy, or the amount of the bribe exceeds 150,000 rubles, the penalty is 60-80 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of time between 7-12 years with a fine equaling 60 times the bribe amount.
The penalty for aiding bribery in the amount exceeding 1 million rubles is 70-90 times the bribe amount or incarceration for a period of time between 7-12 years with a fine equaling 70 times the bribe amount.
A promise or an offer to aid in the bribery is also punishable by a penalty equaling 15-70 times the bribe or incarceration for a period of up to 7 years with a fine equaling 10-60 times the bribe amount.
Definition of Foreign Government Official
The Russian FCPA defines a “foreign government official” as any appointed or elected official who has a position in any legislative, executive, administrative, or judicial branch of a foreign country or an individual who serves any public function for a foreign country or a public agency or a public enterprise. This definition seems to suggest that Russian lawmakers embrace the position taken by the DOJ that employees of government owned enterprises are “foreign government officials” for purposes of the FCPA. It would be interesting to see if Russian authorities deem employees of General Motors, AIG or other large US companies where the US government has a substantial equity position, “foreign government officials” for purposes of the Russian FCPA.
Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences of Russian Federation
The Russian FCPA also amends several provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of Russian Federation. Among those is amendment to article 19.28, which imposes penalties on legal entities for commercial bribery or bribery of foreign government officials if a payment of a bribe or an offer of a bribe was made on a legal entity’s behalf. In such circumstances, the penalty is 3 times the amount of the bribe but not less than 1 million rubles. If the amount of the bribe at issue is greater than 1 million rubles, then the penalty is up to 30 times the bribe amount but not less than 20 million rubles. If the amount of the bribe at issue is over 20 million rubles, then the penalty is up to 100 times the bribe amount but not less than 100 million rubles.
In addition, the Russian FCPA introduces several new protocols for Russian authorities to seek information from their foreign counterparts in connection with the investigation by Russian authorities of violations set forth above as well as protocols for Russian authorities to respond to inquiries from foreign law enforcement agencies in connection with foreign law enforcement agencies’ investigation of crimes. These provisions will undoubtedly strengthen the level of cooperation between Russian and foreign law enforcement agencies in implementing anti-corruption measures. Such efforts are already underway, as evidenced by the recent meetings between Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom in London, with Richard Alderman, Director of the Serious Fraud Office.
Conclusion
No law by itself can change overnight or even within a short period of time the “threatening” level of corruption that exists in Russia, as acknowledged by the Russian President himself. The current state of affairs in Russia is a product of 70+ years of socialist dictatorship and the resulting mindset of many government officials. This state of affairs will change, undoubtedly, and the passing of the Russian FCPA is the step in the right direction for Russia. It is up to the Russian authorities to follow through on the provisions of the new law.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
A Q&A With Homer Moyer
In running a site called "FCPA Professor" it is only appropriate to touch base with a "Dean" on occasion.
I do so in this post with Homer Moyer, a "dean" of the FCPA bar. Moyer, a partner with Miller & Chevalier (see here) addresses a variety of topics in this Q&A - from evolution of the FCPA and FCPA enforcement to voluntary disclosure and investigative fees. Moyer closes out the Q&A with a few FCPA reform proposals of his own.
*****
Your government experience prior to law practice was with the Commerce Department, not the DOJ or SEC as is typical of many FCPA enforcement lawyers. How has your Commerce Department experience informed your FCPA practice?
I was at the Commerce Department when the FCPA was enacted, and I chaired an inter-agency group on FCPA issues. Of greater value to my later FCPA practice, however, was having served as general counsel of the Department that deals most directly with corporate issues and that both promotes and regulates American businesses. Also of great value were the experiences of having litigated cases as both a prosecutor and defense counsel. Perhaps most important, however, is having now seen hundreds of different FCPA issues for dozens of different clients.
Working on FCPA cases at the SEC or DOJ provides prosecutors with unique experience, but not the opportunity to counsel and represent corporate clients, manage complex legal issues for them, or help them devise and implement innovative compliance programs.
Describe your first FCPA matter or case? What were the issues? What were your client's concerns?
One of my early cases, some 20 years ago, presented a host of issues that had not yet become commonplace. The case I have in mind involved potential vicarious liability for the acts of a third party, a third party who claimed that the work it did for a U.S. company created a “constructive partnership” that entitled it to share the company’s profits, questions of whether to consult voluntarily with DOJ, an industry with which DOJ was not yet well-acquainted, innovative compliance enhancements, related civil litigation, and forged evidence presented to a court.
That matter ended well, but it presented issues of first impression and foreshadowed how complicated FCPA cases could be.
The FCPA has evolved much since your first case. From your perspective, has this evolution been positive? Any negative aspects of this evolution? How has this evolution affected your practice and your clients?
The evolution of FCPA enforcement has unquestionably brought more and more attention to the issue of official corruption and has had an indisputable impact on corporate behavior, or the “supply side” of the bribery equation. In addition, it has done something that unilateral U.S. laws rarely do, namely, led to a far-reaching change and consensus in the international legal landscape, as now reflected in international anti-corruption conventions to which more than 150 countries have become signatories.
Despite two sets of amendments, the FCPA itself has changed relatively little since it was adopted in 1977. Its “evolution” has primarily been through a steady escalation in enforcement -- the number and variety of enforcement actions, expansive interpretations of key provisions, the size and variety of penalties, the frequency of voluntary disclosures, and a steady rise in the levels of sophistication the government looks for in independent investigations, due diligence processes, and compliance programs.
Has this evolution been positive or negative? Few people would now dispute that corruption and bribery of foreign officials imposes staggering economic and social costs, frequently on countries that can afford it least. The question then becomes whether FCPA enforcement has made a positive difference in reducing or eliminating corruption. It probably has, but more relevant today is the continuing pervasiveness of official corruption and the daunting challenges to controlling it on a global basis.
With respect to the FCPA itself, complaints that it has created an “uneven playing field” have been somewhat undercut by aggressive FCPA enforcement against non-U.S. companies, by new international anti-corruption conventions, and by the beginnings of genuine enforcement in some other countries. And the lament that few FCPA cases are adjudicated in court does not distinguish FCPA enforcement from the enforcement patterns of many other regulatory laws. The infrequency of judicial review may occasionally embolden the government to overreach, but it has rarely resulted in abusive prosecutions.
In terms of our own practice, the increase in enforcement has plainly caused clients to be far more focused on anti-corruption issues than was once the case. This has certainly caused Miller & Chevalier’s long-standing FCPA practice to grow dramatically. It also appears to have created something of a traffic jam of newly minted “FCPA lawyers.”
Your point “that few FCPA cases are adjudicated in court does not distinguish FCPA enforcement from the enforcement patterns of many other regulatory laws” is a very valid point. However, isn’t a key difference though that other laws have benefited from several dozen circuit court opinions and perhaps a few Supreme Court decisions, such that the parameters of the law are at least set by someone other than the enforcement agencies? [Granted, 2011 will likely see several trial court decisions as to certain FCPA elements, but the FCPA is still a law that is lacking much meaningful precedential case law.]
One has to take the view -- and I certainly do -- that independent judicial review is a good thing -- a critical part of our legal system and important to preserving the rule of law. Judicial review, or the prospect of judicial review, can help prevent regulatory or enforcement excesses. In some regulatory programs -- environmental statutes come to mind -- the level of judicial review is robust. And we are beginning to see more judicial review in FCPA cases involving individual defendants.
At the same time, some regulatory areas have been subject to as little, or even less, judicial scrutiny than the FCPA. Statutory restrictions on judicial review and judicial deference to agency interpretations of regulations having “national security” ramifications effectively reduce judicial oversight. One can look long and hard for good case law on the regulations enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Controls (“OFAC”) or on export controls rules under the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), each of which has seen regulatory overreaching and little accountability. One recent Federal Circuit Court opinion referred to the discretion reserved by the Executive Branch combined with the lack of clarity in the ITAR as something that would be expected of a totalitarian regime, not the United States Government.
In the end, however, the amount of judicial review is determined by the private sector. Clients are, of course, free to challenge FCPA enforcement actions, although historically corporate clients have tended to favor settlement as a preferable route. Moreover, recent FCPA court decisions reflect that courts will not necessarily interpret laws differently from enforcement agencies. Nonetheless, both corporate and individual defendants are free to challenge agency interpretations of the laws they enforce, and I and many other counsel would undoubtedly be available to help.
When President Obama, high-ranking DOJ officials and others in government talk about corruption and bribery, they talk about the bridge that crumbles because the contractor was selected based on a bribe payment or other similar scenarios. However, very few FCPA enforcement actions fit this scenario, rather the alleged violator is generally viewed as an industry leader that sells the best products for the best prices. Do you agree that a divide exists between such government or civil society statements and typical FCPA enforcement action scenarios? If so, how do we bridge this divide?
Bribery of foreign officials is, in the first instance, typically designed to overcome market forces and to distort competition, not to ensure the purchase of the best products at the best price. Whether or not a bridge is the best metaphor, FCPA violations reflect illicit payments that are made to enrich corrupt officials and that shift that cost to consumers and taxpayers. The consistent scenario in FCPA enforcement actions is that an alleged violator, or someone acting on its behalf, did, in fact, pay bribes, often egregious ones.
The most significant “divide” today is the uneven enforcement among signatories to anti-corruption conventions. Whereas the 1980s saw an industry push to repeal or relax the FCPA on the grounds that it was creating a competitive disadvantage for American companies, the more common complaint today is that other countries must consistently and meaningfully enforce their own anti-corruption laws to assure that the proverbial playing field is level.
Many calls to roll back the FCPA are now anomalous, as they would put the United States out of compliance with international conventions that the FCPA inspired and that the United States fought hard to achieve. They also run counter to the anti-corruption momentum of the last 20 years and would effectively legalize some practices that are coming to be universally condemned, if not yet universally punished.
I find that most U.S. multinational corporations would be delighted to compete on the merits. Indeed, some companies are affirmatively using integrity in the marketplace to gain a competitive advantage. Many have voluntarily prohibited “facilitating payments,” even though they are permissible under the FCPA. It is also interesting to note that Siemens, after paying record-shattering FCPA fines and taking aggressive steps to transform its entire corporate culture, has been posting record profits.
What is your reaction to this statement from a recent high-ranking DOJ official - "“the government sees a profitable program, and it’s going to ride that horse until it can’t ride it anymore.” Do you believe that FCPA enforcement has become a government cash cow? FCPA enforcement fines and penalties simply go into the U.S. Treasury. Are there better places for this money accepting the notion that bribery results in victims?
FCPA fines probably don’t rise to the level of a governmental “cash cow.” In fiscal terms, they are of no real moment. The government unfortunately needs some much bigger revenue cows.
I do believe, however, that law enforcement penalties should be a consequence of, not a reason for, enforcing criminal laws. And although penalties have risen, I do not have the sense that revenue production has been a driver of FCPA enforcement.
Your interesting question about whether penalties might be used to compensate the “victims” of corruption is a favorite in developing countries. It highlights the difficulties of tracing, seizing, and repatriating funds that corrupt officials have stolen from their countries. Even where recovery of funds is possible, assuring that they are then used to benefit the citizens who were cheated by official corruption is a challenge. That is, however, the right use of repatriated funds.
Because countries that have been cheated by their own rulers have rarely been able to recover the stolen funds, some have asked whether they should be compensated with funds collected as penalties in anti-corruption enforcement actions. This would be a break from past law enforcement patterns, and the idea appears not to have gained significant traction. The strongest case for making that break probably relates to funds collected as disgorgement of profits rather than pure fines. Indeed, one could argue that it would be more just for the bounties that whistleblowers can now earn under the Dodd-Frank law to go not to whistleblowers, but rather to the countries affected for the benefit of the victims of corruption.
Your response speaks of corrupt “officials,” “official corruption” and “rulers.” Yet, the vast majority of FCPA enforcement actions involve no such individual – rather the alleged recipient of the bribe is an employee of an alleged state-owned or state-controlled enterprise. In these cases, would not the most direct victim be the competitor who lost the contract or did not have the opportunity to bid. Are you in favor of an FCPA private right of action?
In most FCPA violations, there is more than one victim. Competitors can certainly be victims. So can government agencies or instrumentalities that are procuring goods or services. Even where there is an admitted bribe, however, determining which competitors may have been “victims” would undoubtedly be a messy and imperfect process. And allegations of improper payments are far more common than proof of improper payments, as any practitioner knows, and the complications of trying to identify victims and allocate compensation among everyone claiming status as a victim might make us long for the days when the principal issues were simply the ones you have asked about here.
What percentage of internal investigations you have worked on in the past 3-5 years that ended with a conclusion that the company violated the FCPA resulted in a voluntary disclosure? Same question for investigations you worked on during the time period 1995-2005? Why the difference?
Although we have clients who, after weighing all the relevant factors, have elected not to disclose, the percentage of matters that result in voluntary disclosures has plainly been rising. The reasons include changes in the sentencing guidelines, the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, greater Audit Committee oversight of investigations, the campaign by enforcement agencies to assure companies that voluntary disclosure and cooperation will result in “tangible benefits,” and the gradually spreading view that this is true, if not numerically predictable.
With Avon's recent disclosure that it has spent over $100 million in professional fees and expenses in connection with an FCPA inquiry and other similar disclosures (albeit perhaps not as dramatic) have professional fees and expenses (law firm, accounting firm, etc.) associated with FCPA internal investigations gotten out of control?
I have to confess to being stunned at some of the reported costs of investigations. To be sure, the costs of investigations have risen with increased emphasis on electronic documents and the insistence that investigations must be independent, thorough, and knowledgeable.
Accepting those requirements, the cost-effectiveness of an investigation can be significantly improved by developing a careful work plan, utilizing a firm with experienced FCPA lawyers at all levels of seniority, tailoring the type of investigation to the type of issue, and making informed and reasonable judgments about when to stop an investigation and focus on remediation. In my experience, it is often possible to have a reasoned and productive dialogue with enforcement agencies about the scope and extent of investigations.
FCPA reform proposals are floating around and are reportedly being considered by certain members of Congress. In your view what reform proposals have merit and what issues are at the top of Homer Moyer's FCPA reform list?
I find some of the calls for statutory reform less than compelling. Proposals to change the statute in ways that would be inconsistent with international conventions to which the U.S. is committed are unlikely to be successful, in my view, and could well open the door to other “reforms” that advocates for change might dislike, such as eliminating the exception for facilitating payments.
To be sure, in enforcing the FCPA, the government tries to overreach from time to time -- exercising anti-bribery jurisdiction over foreign subsidiaries and aggressive applications of dd-3 jurisdictional on the grounds that some step in the process took place “in the territory of the United States” come to mind as occasional examples. When enforcement agencies overreach, they should be challenged.
My dream list of “reforms” might read something like the following:
• Internal DOJ guidance that voluntarily disclosed matters must normally be resolved by the Department within 90 days after completion of an internal investigation; that agencies should make public their calculations of credit for voluntary disclosure and coordination; and that the Department will publish sanitized summaries of its declinations.
• An amendment to tweak the whistle-blower provision of Dodd-Frank to relieve the SEC of the conundrum of implementing the statute consistent with its terms but in a manner that does not undercut effective corporate compliance programs;
• An agreement among prosecutors that in the case of parallel investigations by more than one country, private parties may request state-to-state consultations (as called for by the OECD convention), and the consulting states should assure that investigations are coordinated and penalties made complementary so that companies do not face redundant penalties or unnecessarily overlapping investigations.
• Insistence by the OECD that OECD membership for China, Russia, and India must include accession to the Anti-Corruption Convention, accelerated peer review, and possible reconsideration of OECD membership if implementation and enforcement of anti-corruption laws prove to be insufficient.
• Multilateral reform measures designed to minimize current legal impediments to identifying and seizing funds stolen by corrupt officials and to facilitate repatriation of such funds.
I do so in this post with Homer Moyer, a "dean" of the FCPA bar. Moyer, a partner with Miller & Chevalier (see here) addresses a variety of topics in this Q&A - from evolution of the FCPA and FCPA enforcement to voluntary disclosure and investigative fees. Moyer closes out the Q&A with a few FCPA reform proposals of his own.
*****
Your government experience prior to law practice was with the Commerce Department, not the DOJ or SEC as is typical of many FCPA enforcement lawyers. How has your Commerce Department experience informed your FCPA practice?
I was at the Commerce Department when the FCPA was enacted, and I chaired an inter-agency group on FCPA issues. Of greater value to my later FCPA practice, however, was having served as general counsel of the Department that deals most directly with corporate issues and that both promotes and regulates American businesses. Also of great value were the experiences of having litigated cases as both a prosecutor and defense counsel. Perhaps most important, however, is having now seen hundreds of different FCPA issues for dozens of different clients.
Working on FCPA cases at the SEC or DOJ provides prosecutors with unique experience, but not the opportunity to counsel and represent corporate clients, manage complex legal issues for them, or help them devise and implement innovative compliance programs.
Describe your first FCPA matter or case? What were the issues? What were your client's concerns?
One of my early cases, some 20 years ago, presented a host of issues that had not yet become commonplace. The case I have in mind involved potential vicarious liability for the acts of a third party, a third party who claimed that the work it did for a U.S. company created a “constructive partnership” that entitled it to share the company’s profits, questions of whether to consult voluntarily with DOJ, an industry with which DOJ was not yet well-acquainted, innovative compliance enhancements, related civil litigation, and forged evidence presented to a court.
That matter ended well, but it presented issues of first impression and foreshadowed how complicated FCPA cases could be.
The FCPA has evolved much since your first case. From your perspective, has this evolution been positive? Any negative aspects of this evolution? How has this evolution affected your practice and your clients?
The evolution of FCPA enforcement has unquestionably brought more and more attention to the issue of official corruption and has had an indisputable impact on corporate behavior, or the “supply side” of the bribery equation. In addition, it has done something that unilateral U.S. laws rarely do, namely, led to a far-reaching change and consensus in the international legal landscape, as now reflected in international anti-corruption conventions to which more than 150 countries have become signatories.
Despite two sets of amendments, the FCPA itself has changed relatively little since it was adopted in 1977. Its “evolution” has primarily been through a steady escalation in enforcement -- the number and variety of enforcement actions, expansive interpretations of key provisions, the size and variety of penalties, the frequency of voluntary disclosures, and a steady rise in the levels of sophistication the government looks for in independent investigations, due diligence processes, and compliance programs.
Has this evolution been positive or negative? Few people would now dispute that corruption and bribery of foreign officials imposes staggering economic and social costs, frequently on countries that can afford it least. The question then becomes whether FCPA enforcement has made a positive difference in reducing or eliminating corruption. It probably has, but more relevant today is the continuing pervasiveness of official corruption and the daunting challenges to controlling it on a global basis.
With respect to the FCPA itself, complaints that it has created an “uneven playing field” have been somewhat undercut by aggressive FCPA enforcement against non-U.S. companies, by new international anti-corruption conventions, and by the beginnings of genuine enforcement in some other countries. And the lament that few FCPA cases are adjudicated in court does not distinguish FCPA enforcement from the enforcement patterns of many other regulatory laws. The infrequency of judicial review may occasionally embolden the government to overreach, but it has rarely resulted in abusive prosecutions.
In terms of our own practice, the increase in enforcement has plainly caused clients to be far more focused on anti-corruption issues than was once the case. This has certainly caused Miller & Chevalier’s long-standing FCPA practice to grow dramatically. It also appears to have created something of a traffic jam of newly minted “FCPA lawyers.”
Your point “that few FCPA cases are adjudicated in court does not distinguish FCPA enforcement from the enforcement patterns of many other regulatory laws” is a very valid point. However, isn’t a key difference though that other laws have benefited from several dozen circuit court opinions and perhaps a few Supreme Court decisions, such that the parameters of the law are at least set by someone other than the enforcement agencies? [Granted, 2011 will likely see several trial court decisions as to certain FCPA elements, but the FCPA is still a law that is lacking much meaningful precedential case law.]
One has to take the view -- and I certainly do -- that independent judicial review is a good thing -- a critical part of our legal system and important to preserving the rule of law. Judicial review, or the prospect of judicial review, can help prevent regulatory or enforcement excesses. In some regulatory programs -- environmental statutes come to mind -- the level of judicial review is robust. And we are beginning to see more judicial review in FCPA cases involving individual defendants.
At the same time, some regulatory areas have been subject to as little, or even less, judicial scrutiny than the FCPA. Statutory restrictions on judicial review and judicial deference to agency interpretations of regulations having “national security” ramifications effectively reduce judicial oversight. One can look long and hard for good case law on the regulations enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Controls (“OFAC”) or on export controls rules under the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), each of which has seen regulatory overreaching and little accountability. One recent Federal Circuit Court opinion referred to the discretion reserved by the Executive Branch combined with the lack of clarity in the ITAR as something that would be expected of a totalitarian regime, not the United States Government.
In the end, however, the amount of judicial review is determined by the private sector. Clients are, of course, free to challenge FCPA enforcement actions, although historically corporate clients have tended to favor settlement as a preferable route. Moreover, recent FCPA court decisions reflect that courts will not necessarily interpret laws differently from enforcement agencies. Nonetheless, both corporate and individual defendants are free to challenge agency interpretations of the laws they enforce, and I and many other counsel would undoubtedly be available to help.
When President Obama, high-ranking DOJ officials and others in government talk about corruption and bribery, they talk about the bridge that crumbles because the contractor was selected based on a bribe payment or other similar scenarios. However, very few FCPA enforcement actions fit this scenario, rather the alleged violator is generally viewed as an industry leader that sells the best products for the best prices. Do you agree that a divide exists between such government or civil society statements and typical FCPA enforcement action scenarios? If so, how do we bridge this divide?
Bribery of foreign officials is, in the first instance, typically designed to overcome market forces and to distort competition, not to ensure the purchase of the best products at the best price. Whether or not a bridge is the best metaphor, FCPA violations reflect illicit payments that are made to enrich corrupt officials and that shift that cost to consumers and taxpayers. The consistent scenario in FCPA enforcement actions is that an alleged violator, or someone acting on its behalf, did, in fact, pay bribes, often egregious ones.
The most significant “divide” today is the uneven enforcement among signatories to anti-corruption conventions. Whereas the 1980s saw an industry push to repeal or relax the FCPA on the grounds that it was creating a competitive disadvantage for American companies, the more common complaint today is that other countries must consistently and meaningfully enforce their own anti-corruption laws to assure that the proverbial playing field is level.
Many calls to roll back the FCPA are now anomalous, as they would put the United States out of compliance with international conventions that the FCPA inspired and that the United States fought hard to achieve. They also run counter to the anti-corruption momentum of the last 20 years and would effectively legalize some practices that are coming to be universally condemned, if not yet universally punished.
I find that most U.S. multinational corporations would be delighted to compete on the merits. Indeed, some companies are affirmatively using integrity in the marketplace to gain a competitive advantage. Many have voluntarily prohibited “facilitating payments,” even though they are permissible under the FCPA. It is also interesting to note that Siemens, after paying record-shattering FCPA fines and taking aggressive steps to transform its entire corporate culture, has been posting record profits.
What is your reaction to this statement from a recent high-ranking DOJ official - "“the government sees a profitable program, and it’s going to ride that horse until it can’t ride it anymore.” Do you believe that FCPA enforcement has become a government cash cow? FCPA enforcement fines and penalties simply go into the U.S. Treasury. Are there better places for this money accepting the notion that bribery results in victims?
FCPA fines probably don’t rise to the level of a governmental “cash cow.” In fiscal terms, they are of no real moment. The government unfortunately needs some much bigger revenue cows.
I do believe, however, that law enforcement penalties should be a consequence of, not a reason for, enforcing criminal laws. And although penalties have risen, I do not have the sense that revenue production has been a driver of FCPA enforcement.
Your interesting question about whether penalties might be used to compensate the “victims” of corruption is a favorite in developing countries. It highlights the difficulties of tracing, seizing, and repatriating funds that corrupt officials have stolen from their countries. Even where recovery of funds is possible, assuring that they are then used to benefit the citizens who were cheated by official corruption is a challenge. That is, however, the right use of repatriated funds.
Because countries that have been cheated by their own rulers have rarely been able to recover the stolen funds, some have asked whether they should be compensated with funds collected as penalties in anti-corruption enforcement actions. This would be a break from past law enforcement patterns, and the idea appears not to have gained significant traction. The strongest case for making that break probably relates to funds collected as disgorgement of profits rather than pure fines. Indeed, one could argue that it would be more just for the bounties that whistleblowers can now earn under the Dodd-Frank law to go not to whistleblowers, but rather to the countries affected for the benefit of the victims of corruption.
Your response speaks of corrupt “officials,” “official corruption” and “rulers.” Yet, the vast majority of FCPA enforcement actions involve no such individual – rather the alleged recipient of the bribe is an employee of an alleged state-owned or state-controlled enterprise. In these cases, would not the most direct victim be the competitor who lost the contract or did not have the opportunity to bid. Are you in favor of an FCPA private right of action?
In most FCPA violations, there is more than one victim. Competitors can certainly be victims. So can government agencies or instrumentalities that are procuring goods or services. Even where there is an admitted bribe, however, determining which competitors may have been “victims” would undoubtedly be a messy and imperfect process. And allegations of improper payments are far more common than proof of improper payments, as any practitioner knows, and the complications of trying to identify victims and allocate compensation among everyone claiming status as a victim might make us long for the days when the principal issues were simply the ones you have asked about here.
What percentage of internal investigations you have worked on in the past 3-5 years that ended with a conclusion that the company violated the FCPA resulted in a voluntary disclosure? Same question for investigations you worked on during the time period 1995-2005? Why the difference?
Although we have clients who, after weighing all the relevant factors, have elected not to disclose, the percentage of matters that result in voluntary disclosures has plainly been rising. The reasons include changes in the sentencing guidelines, the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, greater Audit Committee oversight of investigations, the campaign by enforcement agencies to assure companies that voluntary disclosure and cooperation will result in “tangible benefits,” and the gradually spreading view that this is true, if not numerically predictable.
With Avon's recent disclosure that it has spent over $100 million in professional fees and expenses in connection with an FCPA inquiry and other similar disclosures (albeit perhaps not as dramatic) have professional fees and expenses (law firm, accounting firm, etc.) associated with FCPA internal investigations gotten out of control?
I have to confess to being stunned at some of the reported costs of investigations. To be sure, the costs of investigations have risen with increased emphasis on electronic documents and the insistence that investigations must be independent, thorough, and knowledgeable.
Accepting those requirements, the cost-effectiveness of an investigation can be significantly improved by developing a careful work plan, utilizing a firm with experienced FCPA lawyers at all levels of seniority, tailoring the type of investigation to the type of issue, and making informed and reasonable judgments about when to stop an investigation and focus on remediation. In my experience, it is often possible to have a reasoned and productive dialogue with enforcement agencies about the scope and extent of investigations.
FCPA reform proposals are floating around and are reportedly being considered by certain members of Congress. In your view what reform proposals have merit and what issues are at the top of Homer Moyer's FCPA reform list?
I find some of the calls for statutory reform less than compelling. Proposals to change the statute in ways that would be inconsistent with international conventions to which the U.S. is committed are unlikely to be successful, in my view, and could well open the door to other “reforms” that advocates for change might dislike, such as eliminating the exception for facilitating payments.
To be sure, in enforcing the FCPA, the government tries to overreach from time to time -- exercising anti-bribery jurisdiction over foreign subsidiaries and aggressive applications of dd-3 jurisdictional on the grounds that some step in the process took place “in the territory of the United States” come to mind as occasional examples. When enforcement agencies overreach, they should be challenged.
My dream list of “reforms” might read something like the following:
• Internal DOJ guidance that voluntarily disclosed matters must normally be resolved by the Department within 90 days after completion of an internal investigation; that agencies should make public their calculations of credit for voluntary disclosure and coordination; and that the Department will publish sanitized summaries of its declinations.
• An amendment to tweak the whistle-blower provision of Dodd-Frank to relieve the SEC of the conundrum of implementing the statute consistent with its terms but in a manner that does not undercut effective corporate compliance programs;
• An agreement among prosecutors that in the case of parallel investigations by more than one country, private parties may request state-to-state consultations (as called for by the OECD convention), and the consulting states should assure that investigations are coordinated and penalties made complementary so that companies do not face redundant penalties or unnecessarily overlapping investigations.
• Insistence by the OECD that OECD membership for China, Russia, and India must include accession to the Anti-Corruption Convention, accelerated peer review, and possible reconsideration of OECD membership if implementation and enforcement of anti-corruption laws prove to be insufficient.
• Multilateral reform measures designed to minimize current legal impediments to identifying and seizing funds stolen by corrupt officials and to facilitate repatriation of such funds.
Monday, March 21, 2011
State Department Declaration in Lindsey "Foreign Official" Challenge
In its opposition brief (here) in the Lindsey "foreign official" challenge, the DOJ states at footnote 5:
"If this Court were to interpret the FCPA in such a way that officials of state-owned and state-controlled enterprises could not be foreign officials, the United States would be out of compliance with its treaty obligations under the OECD Convention. The government has requested a declaration from the State Department confirming this assessment and explaining its implications for U.S. foreign policy. Given the short response period, the declaration could not be finalized, but the government will endeavor to secure the declaration before argument on this motion and will file it if and when it is received."
Last Friday, the DOJ filed a declaration by Clifton Johnson, Assistant Legal Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence in the Legal Adviser's Office of the United States Department of State - see here.
*****
Readers may also be interested in reviewing the OECD Convention (here) including commentary 15; a previous post (here) on the OECD Convention and U.S. positions; and a previous post (here) on how another OECD signatory country views the term "foreign public official."
"If this Court were to interpret the FCPA in such a way that officials of state-owned and state-controlled enterprises could not be foreign officials, the United States would be out of compliance with its treaty obligations under the OECD Convention. The government has requested a declaration from the State Department confirming this assessment and explaining its implications for U.S. foreign policy. Given the short response period, the declaration could not be finalized, but the government will endeavor to secure the declaration before argument on this motion and will file it if and when it is received."
Last Friday, the DOJ filed a declaration by Clifton Johnson, Assistant Legal Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence in the Legal Adviser's Office of the United States Department of State - see here.
*****
Readers may also be interested in reviewing the OECD Convention (here) including commentary 15; a previous post (here) on the OECD Convention and U.S. positions; and a previous post (here) on how another OECD signatory country views the term "foreign public official."
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
A Conversation with Richard Alderman Regarding BAE
In October 2010, I published (here) a detailed Q&A with Richard Alderman (Director of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office).
Given that the BAE matter was still pending in the U.K. courts, Mr. Alderman declined to answer BAE related questions.
In February, I re-submitted my BAE questions (along with a few additional questions relating to the December 2010 U.K. resolution of the BAE matter - see here for the prior post) to Mr. Alderman.
Our Q&A can be found here.
Publication of Mr. Alderman's BAE-specific responses are timely given recent developments regarding BAE.
WikiLeaks recently published (here) a cable detailing certain information regarding termination of the U.K. inquiry regarding BAE and its relationship with certain Saudi officials, including in connection with the al-Yamamah contract.
Even though the cable adds little to what is already in the public domain regarding this matter (see here for the April 2009 PBS Frontline documentary Black Money - including interviews with several of the individuals referenced in the cable), the WikiLeaks cable has generated significant interest and has prompted a senior MP, Sir Menzies Campbell, to call for a Commons investigation.
The U.K. Telegraph (here) quotes Campbell as follows:
“This leak tells us how strong a case was available. If the information in this document had been before Parliament and the British public, there is no way that the Labour government could have influenced the termination of the investigation. The particular issue which will cause a great deal of annoyance is the fact there was prima facie evidence that a government department had been subjected to fraud. If prosecution is no longer possible, it is open to the Commons’ business innovation and skills committee to conduct a full investigation.”
For additional coverage, see here from Sue Reisinger (Corporate Counsel) and here from Samuel Rubenfeld (Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents).
Returning to my Q&A with Mr. Alderman, the following topics, among others, are explored:
(i) how the U.K. law on double jeopardy significantly affected the SFO's investigation of BAE and how the "current system [in the U.K.] for dealing with parallel criminal investigations conducted in a number of different countries does not work effectively and needs change;"
(ii) whether the U.K. government was faithful to its OECD obligations in its handling of the BAE matter;
(iii) criticism of the SFO-BAE plea agreement by the U.K. sentencing judge; and
(iv) "shortcomings" in the U.K. system and how Mr. Alderman would like a system that "is far more transparent [...] that commands public confidence, together with a much stronger role for the judiciary."
Given that the BAE matter was still pending in the U.K. courts, Mr. Alderman declined to answer BAE related questions.
In February, I re-submitted my BAE questions (along with a few additional questions relating to the December 2010 U.K. resolution of the BAE matter - see here for the prior post) to Mr. Alderman.
Our Q&A can be found here.
Publication of Mr. Alderman's BAE-specific responses are timely given recent developments regarding BAE.
WikiLeaks recently published (here) a cable detailing certain information regarding termination of the U.K. inquiry regarding BAE and its relationship with certain Saudi officials, including in connection with the al-Yamamah contract.
Even though the cable adds little to what is already in the public domain regarding this matter (see here for the April 2009 PBS Frontline documentary Black Money - including interviews with several of the individuals referenced in the cable), the WikiLeaks cable has generated significant interest and has prompted a senior MP, Sir Menzies Campbell, to call for a Commons investigation.
The U.K. Telegraph (here) quotes Campbell as follows:
“This leak tells us how strong a case was available. If the information in this document had been before Parliament and the British public, there is no way that the Labour government could have influenced the termination of the investigation. The particular issue which will cause a great deal of annoyance is the fact there was prima facie evidence that a government department had been subjected to fraud. If prosecution is no longer possible, it is open to the Commons’ business innovation and skills committee to conduct a full investigation.”
For additional coverage, see here from Sue Reisinger (Corporate Counsel) and here from Samuel Rubenfeld (Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents).
Returning to my Q&A with Mr. Alderman, the following topics, among others, are explored:
(i) how the U.K. law on double jeopardy significantly affected the SFO's investigation of BAE and how the "current system [in the U.K.] for dealing with parallel criminal investigations conducted in a number of different countries does not work effectively and needs change;"
(ii) whether the U.K. government was faithful to its OECD obligations in its handling of the BAE matter;
(iii) criticism of the SFO-BAE plea agreement by the U.K. sentencing judge; and
(iv) "shortcomings" in the U.K. system and how Mr. Alderman would like a system that "is far more transparent [...] that commands public confidence, together with a much stronger role for the judiciary."
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Picking and Choosing?
The sentencing memos in the Ousama Naaman matter are interesting reads. Naaman's memo (here), submitted by Abbe Lowell of McDermott Will & Emery (here), provides a glimpse into cooperation by an individual FCPA defendant.
The DOJ's memo (here), while requesting a downward departure, details how Naaman's cooperation was not great at all and how Naaman is seemingly contesting various facts and issues he agreed to in pleading guilty.
The DOJ seeks a recommended sentence of 90 months (7.5 years) which would result in 79 months of additional incarceration given that Naaman has already 11 months of time served.
As previously reported (here), Naaman's sentencing has been delayed until April 18th.
One aspect of the DOJ's sentencing memo I found interesting is where the DOJ warns the judge that a "minimal sentence could not only possible be construed as a violation of U.S. treaty obligations [...] but could do much to undermine the efforts by the United States Departments of Commerce and State to educate U.S. businesses about the harm caused by and risk of engaging in transnational bribery." (See pgs. 34-36).
The treaty reference is to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (see here) and the DOJ specifically cites Art. 3 Sec. 1 - "The bribery of a foreign public official shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. The range of penalties shall be comparable to that applicable to the bribery of the Party's own public officials."
Is the DOJ picking and choosing which articles of the OECD Convention it wants to abide by?
Article 5 of the same OECD Convention, under the heading "Enforcement," states that investigation and prosecution of bribery offenses "shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved."
Are we to believe that the Giffen prosecution (see here for prior posts) was not influenced by considerations on the "potential effect upon relations with another state."?
Are we to believe that the BAE prosecution and the lack of FCPA charges (see here for the prior post) was not influenced by "considerations of national economic interest" or the "identity of the natural or legal persons involved."
It would seem that every time the DOJ specifically states in a sentencing memo (i.e. Siemens, BAE, Daimler, etc.) that, in deciding how to resolve a case, it considered the collateral consequences - including the risk of debarment and exclusion from government contracts - that prosecution of the offense is being "influenced by considerations of national economic interest" or the "identity of the natural or legal persons involved."
In an effort to avoid yet another rejection of its FCPA sentencing recommendation, the DOJ is now warning a judge that a "minimal sentence" could be "construed as a violation of U.S. treaty obligations."
In doing so, is the DOJ picking and choosing which articles of the OECD Convention it will abide by?
The DOJ's memo (here), while requesting a downward departure, details how Naaman's cooperation was not great at all and how Naaman is seemingly contesting various facts and issues he agreed to in pleading guilty.
The DOJ seeks a recommended sentence of 90 months (7.5 years) which would result in 79 months of additional incarceration given that Naaman has already 11 months of time served.
As previously reported (here), Naaman's sentencing has been delayed until April 18th.
One aspect of the DOJ's sentencing memo I found interesting is where the DOJ warns the judge that a "minimal sentence could not only possible be construed as a violation of U.S. treaty obligations [...] but could do much to undermine the efforts by the United States Departments of Commerce and State to educate U.S. businesses about the harm caused by and risk of engaging in transnational bribery." (See pgs. 34-36).
The treaty reference is to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (see here) and the DOJ specifically cites Art. 3 Sec. 1 - "The bribery of a foreign public official shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. The range of penalties shall be comparable to that applicable to the bribery of the Party's own public officials."
Is the DOJ picking and choosing which articles of the OECD Convention it wants to abide by?
Article 5 of the same OECD Convention, under the heading "Enforcement," states that investigation and prosecution of bribery offenses "shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved."
Are we to believe that the Giffen prosecution (see here for prior posts) was not influenced by considerations on the "potential effect upon relations with another state."?
Are we to believe that the BAE prosecution and the lack of FCPA charges (see here for the prior post) was not influenced by "considerations of national economic interest" or the "identity of the natural or legal persons involved."
It would seem that every time the DOJ specifically states in a sentencing memo (i.e. Siemens, BAE, Daimler, etc.) that, in deciding how to resolve a case, it considered the collateral consequences - including the risk of debarment and exclusion from government contracts - that prosecution of the offense is being "influenced by considerations of national economic interest" or the "identity of the natural or legal persons involved."
In an effort to avoid yet another rejection of its FCPA sentencing recommendation, the DOJ is now warning a judge that a "minimal sentence" could be "construed as a violation of U.S. treaty obligations."
In doing so, is the DOJ picking and choosing which articles of the OECD Convention it will abide by?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The OECD Report - Initial Observations
Yesterday, the OECD released its much anticipated "Phase 3" report (here) on the U.S. implementation and enforcement of the "Convention of Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions." In other words, the OECD Report ("Report") comments on U.S. enforcement of the FCPA, a statute which (at least in theory) is supposed to model the OECD Convention.
As noted in this OECD release:
"The Working Group commended the United States for its engagement with the private sector, substantial enforcement, and commitment from the highest levels of the U.S. Government. In addition to the recommendation on facilitation payments, it also made recommendations that include the following on ways to improve U.S. enforcement:
- Consolidating publicly available information on the application of the FCPA, including the affirmative defence for reasonable and bona fide expenses;
- To increase transparency, making public, where appropriate, more information on the use of Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) in specific cases; and
- Ensure that the overall limitation period applicable to the foreign bribery offence is sufficient to allow adequate investigation and prosecution.
The Working Group also highlighted good practices developed within the U.S. legal and policy framework that helped it achieve such a high level of enforcement, including the creation of specialised enforcement units dedicated to foreign bribery, and the use of plea agreements, DPAs and NPAs and the appointment of corporate monitors. These efforts have also encouraged the establishment of robust compliance programmes and measures among companies subject to U.S. anti-bribery law. The Working Group also welcomed the United States’ efforts to encourage close co-operation between the United States and foreign authorities."
The Report is perhaps the single largest collection of FCPA related information and statistics ever in one document. This post will be the first of several posts in the coming days on the information and views contained in the Report.
This post highlights the "Executive Summary," "Introduction" and "Recent Trends in Investigation and Prosecuting FCPA Violations" sections of Report. In addition, this post discusses specific sections of the Report dealing with the FCPA's "obtain or retain business" and "foreign official" elements as well as the use of NPAs or DPAs to resolve FCPA matters.
Before turning to the Report's Executive Summary, let me provide one of my own. [For ease of reading, my observations in this post are in italics].
There is no question that the U.S. is a world leader in enforcing its domestic foreign bribery statute (the FCPA) and the Report rightfully commends the U.S. for this. However, quantity does not always mean quality and U.S. enforcement of the FCPA is not without criticism and questions, including in the Report. One would hardly realize this if all one did was read this joint statement of the Departments of Justice, Commerce and State, and the Securities and Exchange Commission issued yesterday in connection with the Report's release.
But the criticisms and questions are in the Report and the Report contains this contradiction: while loudly praising the U.S. for its "high level" of enforcement, the Report quitely criticizes and questions many of the policies and enforcement theories which yield the "high level" of enforcement. For instance, the Report notes that the FCPA's language "does not specifically convey" that cases concerning "an operating license or permit to operate a business, or a reduction in tax or import duty" are in violation of the statute. Yet, many FCPA enforcement actions are based on this theory. Further, the Report notes that "due to an absence of explicit language in the definition of foreign official" it is an open question whether employees of so-called state-owned or state controlled enterprises are "foreign officials" under the FCPA. Yet, numerous FCPA enforcement actions are based on this theory. The Report notes that the increase in NPAs and DPAs "are one of the reasons for the impressive FCPA enforcement record in the U.S." yet also notes that these agreements are subject to little or no judicial scrutiny.
Perhaps the message for other OECD member nations reading the Report is this - enforce your domestic bribery law in questionable ways, seemingly inconsistent with the intent of the legislature in passing the law, and figure out a way to resolve the enforcement actions without judicial scrutiny. If so, perhaps your nation will one day be praised in an OECD Report for its "high level" of enforcement activity.
The "Executive Summary" of the Report states, among things:
That, since Phase 2 (see here and here) "U.S. enforcement has increased steadily and resulted in increasingly significant prison sentences, monetary penalties and disgorgement. Increased enforcement was enabled by the good practices developed within the U.S. legal and policy framework, including the dedication of resources to specialised units in the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)."
[...]
"The U.S. has investigated and prosecuted cases involving various business sectors and various modes of bribing foreign public officials. In addition, it has been conducting proactive investigations, using information from a variety of sources and innovative methods like plea agreements (PAs), Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs), and the appointment of corporate monitors. Vigorous enforcement and record penalties, alongside increased private sector engagement, has encouraged the establishment of robust compliance programmes and measures, particularly in large companies, which are verified by the accounting and auditing profession and monitored by senior management. Less is known of the effect increased FCPA enforcement has had on small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which is an issue shared by all Parties to the Convention."
"Ways in which implementation of the Convention could be made more effective have also been identified. For instance, the Working Group recommends that the U.S., in its periodic review of its policies and approach on facilitation payments, consider the views of the private sector and civil society... The evaluation also recommended the consolidation and summarisation of publicly available information on the application of the FCPA, including information regarding the affirmative defence for reasonable and bona fide expenses. This could be especially useful for SMEs. Similarly, given that the U.S. authorities are increasingly enforcing the FCPA by using DPAs and NPAs, the Working Group believes that transparency and public awareness of these measures could be enhanced if the U.S. made public, where appropriate, more detailed reasons on issues such as why a particular type of agreement is used, the choice of an agreement‘s terms and duration, and how a company has met the agreement‘s terms. The Working Group also recommends that the U.S. ensure that the overall limitation period applicable to the foreign bribery offence is sufficient to allow adequate investigation and prosecution."
The Introduction to the Report, under the heading "Cases involving the bribery of foreign public officials," states:
"The United States has investigated and prosecuted the most foreign bribery cases among the Parties to the Anti-Bribery Convention. From 1998 to 16 September 2010, 50 individuals and 28 companies have been criminally convicted of foreign bribery, while 69 individuals and companies have been held civilly liable for foreign bribery. In addition, 26 companies have been sanctioned (without being convicted) for foreign bribery under non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) and deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs). Sanctions have also been imposed for accounting misconduct and money laundering related to foreign bribery."
"These cases have resulted in increasingly significant penalties. From 1998 to 2003, the maximum monetary sanctions levelled against a company in an FCPA case were USD 2.5 million. Since then, 23 companies have received monetary sanctions in excess of USD 10 million. In one case, monetary sanctions totalling USD 800 million were ordered against a single company. In 2010, an 87-month sentence was imposed against an individual in an FCPA case. Since 2004, over USD 1 billion in foreign bribery proceeds have been recovered through disgorgement actions. The SEC also obtains civil penalties in addition to DOJ criminal fines. In the first 9 months of 2010 alone, the SEC obtained over USD 404 million in disgorgement, interest and civil penalties from thirteen companies and eight individuals. Representatives of the private sector told the evaluators that these increasingly heavy sanctions combined with the increased number of prosecutions against companies and individuals have significantly raised the FCPA‘s profile. They are also felt to be the main reason why many companies have taken steps to improve their anti-bribery measures, internal controls, books and records, and compliance systems."
[Note - the above referenced 87-month sentence of Charles Jumet is misleading. Elsewhere in the Report it states: "In a recent case, a defendant was sentenced to 87 months in prison for FCPA violations." Fact check - Jumet pleaded guilty to two counts - conspiracy to violate the FCPA and making false statements to federal agents. The false statements portion of his sentence was 20 months. Thus, Jumet's "FCPA" sentence was 60 months - not 87 months]
"These cases come to the authorities‘ attention through a myriad of means. A significant number (but not the majority) of investigations result from voluntary self-reporting by companies. Other sources include corporate securities filings; suspicious activity reports from financial institutions; the media, including keyword searches of the Internet; whistleblowers, employees, customers, competitors, and agents; qui tam and civil complaints; referral from other U.S. government agencies, including overseas embassies; international financial institutions such as the World Bank; reports through a "hotline" email address and website; and information from foreign states, including requests for mutual legal assistance (MLA). A recent case resulted from an undercover sting operation. Investigations also originate from research and traditional law enforcement operations to determine where corruption may exist. The U.S. utilizes statistics that it compiles and information obtained in prior and current FCPA cases to identify trends and patterns of behaviour that warrant investigation. The U.S. also conducts industry sweeps, which are targeted investigations focusing on a particular industry or market. The U.S. believes that the use of such proactive tools keeps its regulators ahead of trends and allows them to combat corruption in a timely fashion. The U.S. did not provide statistics on the sources of investigations, due to the need to protect investigative sources and methods, but confirms that no one source accounted for a majority."
"These FCPA enforcement figures are expected to increase in the near future. Presently, the United States has more than 150 criminal and 80 civil ongoing FCPA investigations. [a footnote states "many are parallel criminal and civil investigations of the same alleged conduct"] The U.S. authorities recently announced new initiatives including investigations of specific industries ("targeted sweeps" or "industry-wide sweeps") and an increased emphasis of prosecuting natural persons in addition to companies. These efforts will likely lead to more prosecutions and convictions."
Under the heading "Recent trends in investigating and prosecuting FCPA violations," the Report states, among other things, as follows:
"Allegations of FCPA violations come from a variety of sources. This part of the report canvasses a few of the most important sources. According to the DOJ, voluntary disclosures are the source of a significant proportion of investigations, although not the majority."
[...]
"... companies consider it in their interest to be co-operative, and seem willing to settle more often than not when they have voluntarily disclosed. While some companies self-report violations of the FCPA, some companies do not. Representatives of companies in the extractive industry explained that it is very common for a company to uncover one discrete violation of the FCPA and voluntarily disclose it, following which the DOJ or SEC asks the company to look further to see if the conduct is pervasive and occurring in other places. In some cases, the conduct is pervasive and is fully investigated by the DOJ and SEC. In other cases, the conduct is limited in scope and no additional violations are uncovered. Some companies may find this very cumbersome and expensive, and try to settle the case without a full investigation. However, the DOJ and SEC advise that they require companies to complete their investigations before finalising settlement discussions."
[...]
"Proactive investigative steps by the DOJ and SEC, such as industry-wide sweeps, can also produce information that leads to enforcement actions. In November 2009, an industry-wide investigation into the pharmaceutical industry was announced by Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer. An investigation into the medical device industry has also been discussed publicly. The Oil-for-Food cases involved a sweep of companies that paid kickbacks to the Iraqi Government during the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. The sweep was very effective and more than fifteen companies have been charged to date."
"Such investigations may be commenced by sending "sweep letters" requesting co-operation from industry members on a voluntary basis. If a company chooses to not respond to such a letter, the DOJ and SEC consider whether a subpoena should be issued to compel the production of relevant documents and the testimony of individuals. Recently, the SEC announced that it will be conducting more industry-wide sweeps. Investigations of this kind enable the DOJ and SEC to develop specialised expertise identifying illegal conduct and conducting prosecutions involving various industries. In addition, due to the cross-connections between various members of the same industry, an investigation into one company can produce leads about other companies, including those in the supply-chain."
"More traditional sources of allegations also continue to be useful, such as anonymous whistleblower reports. Such reports are often received from current and former employees, competitors, and others, and are analysed by the FBI to ensure their veracity. The DOJ provides a "hotline" to report anonymously directly to the FCPA Unit. The SEC also has a hotline and a detailed process for analysing tips, complaints and reports of FCPA violations."
[...]
"[Mutual Legal Assistance] requests from foreign jurisdictions also provide a basis for allegations, although to a lesser extent than other sources."
"United States embassy staff are also important sources of information about FCPA violations. The DOJ cited examples of full-blown investigations that were launched due to information provided by an embassy and referrals from State Department and Commercial Services branches. In one of these investigations, the embassy stayed involved throughout."
As to Dodd-Frank's whistleblower provisions, the Report states:
"The U.S. authorities believe that in light of this new legislation, reporting violations of the FCPA is likely to increase."
FCPA Elements
Among other elements, the Report discusses the "obtain or retain business" and "foreign official" elements of the FCPA.
"Obtain or Retain Business"
The Report states:
"One important aspect of the foreign bribery offence in the FCPA is different from the description of the offence in Article 1 of the Convention. Under the FCPA, the bribery of a foreign public official must be committed in order to assist the briber "in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person‘ (known as the "business nexus test‘). In Article 1 of the Convention, the corresponding formulation is: "in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business."
"Thus, unlike Article 1 of the Convention, the FCPA language does not specifically convey that the case is covered where the purpose of the bribe is to obtain or retain other improper advantage in the conduct of international business, such as obtaining an operating license or permit to operate a business, or a reduction in tax or import duty. In other words, the FCPA language might be read to only address bribes for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business per se. Reference is made to "improper advantage" elsewhere in the FCPA, but in a different context – i.e., the offences in the FCPA inter alia cover the case where the purpose of a bribe to a foreign public official is to secure "any improper advantage…in order to assist such [person/issuer/domestic concern] in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person‘."
"However, it has been the position of the United States Government throughout that the FCPA formulation is very broadly interpreted and covers in practice the kinds of advantages required to be covered by the Convention. The evaluation team notes that this position has been largely confirmed by jurisprudence, in the 2007 decision of the United States Court of Appeals in United States v. Kay."
"In U.S. v. Kay, the Court of Appeals held that a payment to customs officials to reduce import duties on rice falls within the parameters of the "business nexus" test because when Congress enacted the FCPA it was concerned about: (1.) Bribery that leads to discrete business contract arrangements; and (2.) Payments that even indirectly assist in obtaining business or maintaining existing business operations in a foreign country. The Court of Appeals also stated that:
…bribes paid to foreign officials in consideration for unlawful evasion of customs duties and sales taxes could fall within the purview of the FCPA‘s proscription. We hasten to add, however, that this conduct does not automatically constitute a violation of the FCPA: It must be shown that the bribery was intended to produce an effect – here through tax savings – that would "assist in obtaining or retaining business"."
"The decision of the Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Kay is therefore helpful, in that it clarifies that payments to, for instance, reduce import duty "could" satisfy the "business nexus test". The United States has also successfully enforced the FCPA in cases involving similar advantages, such as payments to customs officials to import goods and materials (Helmerich & Payne; and Natures Sunshine), and payments to tax officials to reduce tax obligations, and to judicial officials for favourable treatment in pending litigation (Willbros Group). On the other hand, the clarification by the Court of Appeals leaves open the possibility that there might be cases where a bribe to a foreign public official to facilitate international business does not violate the FCPA, although it does meet the test of "other improper advantage in the conduct of international business" in Article 1 of the Convention."
For more on U.S. v. Kay (see here and here).
The Report's discussion of the "obtain or retain business" is noteworthy.
Why?
Because on the one hand, the Report praises the U.S.'s high level of FCPA enforcement, yet on the other hand, the Report candidly acknowledges that "the FCPA language might be read to only address bribes for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business per se." Connecting the dots, the Report seems to suggest that the numerous FCPA enforcement actions premised on improper payments to secure foreign licenses, permits, etc. may not even be FCPA violations.
In my forthcoming article "The Facade of FCPA Enforcement" to be published soon in the Georgetown Journal of International Law, I highlight the increase in FCPA enforcement actions where the improper payments are alleged not to obtain or retain any particular business, but rather, involve customs duties and tax payments, or payments alleged to have assisted the payer in securing foreign government licenses, permits, and certifications.
I must also take issue with the sentence in the Report that suggests when the DOJ enters into a NPA (such as in Helmerich & Payne) or DPA that this is evidence of the U.S. "successfully enforcing the FCPA." This is one of the many reasons why the "facade of FCPA enforcement" matters - because it fosters the absurd notion that privately negotiated settlements, subject to little or no judicial scrutiny, entered into in the context of the enforcement agencies possessing substantial “carrots” and “sticks" should serve as de facto case law or otherwise represent "successful" enforcement of the FCPA.
"Foreign Official"
As to the definition of "foreign official," the Report states:
"Due to an absence of explicit language in the definition of "foreign official" in the FCPA, two questions arise concerning the scope of the definition: (1.) Whether, in compliance with the Convention, it covers a person holding a judicial office of a foreign country‘; and (2.) Whether it covers a person exercising a public function for a foreign country, including for a…public enterprise‘ (i.e. a state-owned or controlled enterprise)."
Readers know that this second question is a frequent topic on these pages and deservingly so. It is no small matter. As I highlight in this recent article in the Indiana Law Review (here), this dubious interpretation of the "foreign official" element was at the core of 66% of 2009 FCPA enforcement actions against business entities as well as numerous individuals. And that was just in 2009. Several pre-2009 enforcement actions as well were based on the theory that employees of state-owned or state-controlled enterprises are "foreign officials" under the FCPA.
So again, on the one hand the Report praises the U.S.'s high level of FCPA enforcement, yet on the other hand, the Report openly questions the definition of "foreign official" that was used in a significant percentage of recent FCPA enforcement actions.
The Report then contains a discussion of the Nexus Technologies case and advances the DOJ's curious assertion that resolution of this matter (see here) validates its interpretation that employees of so-called state-owned or state-controlled enterprises are "foreign officials" under the FCPA.
The Report states:
"Since Phase 2, there have been positive legal developments regarding the second question on the bribery of employees of state-owned or controlled enterprises, in U.S. v. Nam Quoc Nguyen, et al. (E.D. Pa., September 4, 2008), in which the District Court recently held in favour of the United States Government in a case involving allegations that the defendants bribed employees of a foreign state-owned company. The defendants argued that the definition of "foreign official" in the FCPA does not include employees of state-owned enterprises, because in order for an organisation to be considered an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign government, it must serve a "purely public purpose". The United States Government, citing the legislative history of the FCPA, responded by arguing that "public purpose" is only one of the many factors in determining that an organisation is an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign government, and that Congress expressly intended to include employees of state-owned enterprises in the definition of "foreign official"."
As I highlighted in this prior post, in its briefing in the Nexus case the DOJ specifically urged the judge, on a number of occassions, not to consider the defendant's substantive "foreign official" argument because they were premature. The following are snippets from the DOJ's brief: (i) "the Court need not address any of these faulty arguments at this time:" (ii) "although styled as a motion to dismiss, Defendants’ submission is instead a premature request for a ruling on the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence before any of that evidence has been presented. These arguments, which are premature at best, will be moot after presentation of the Government’s case." (iii) "because Defendants’ arguments turn entirely on issues of fact, they are premature."
Continuing on this issue, the Report states:
"Although the Court ruled in favour of the United States, it did not issue a written opinion, and the defendants did not file an appeal. In addition, District Court opinions are not binding on higher courts or courts of other U.S. jurisdictions. The DOJ informed the evaluators that this means the Government interpretation could be disputed again. However, the DOJ believes the argument would fail again given the FCPA‘s legislative history, and because numerous cases have been brought by the DOJ and SEC in which the definition of "foreign official" has been broadly interpreted." This last sentence has a footnote which states: "For instance Willbros Group involved the bribery of foreign judicial officials, Siemens AG involved payments to various persons from state-owned companies, and Diagnostic Products, involved payments to doctors of state-owned hospitals. The United States explains that in each of these cases, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, a court had to determine whether all the elements of the offence have been proven including that the receiving individual was a foreign public official."
On this issue, the Report concludes with this "commentary"
"The evaluators welcome positive legal developments concerning the application of the definition of ‘foreign official’ in the FCPA to members of the judiciary and employees of state-owned or controlled enterprises."
In the "Recommendations" section, the Report notes that the "Working Group will follow up the issues below, as the case-law continues to develop, to examine: [...] whether amendments are required to the FCPA to supplement or clarify the existing language defining the elements of the offense of foreign bribery with regard to [...] (ii) the scope of the definition of a 'foreign public official,' in particular with respect to [...] the directors, officers, and employees of state-controlled enterprises or instrumentalties."
NPAs / DPAs
The Report states:
"Due to their increasing importance in law enforcement actions by the DOJ, the evaluators sought information about the deterrent effect of DPAs and NPAs. The evaluators were also conscious that the SEC intends to also begin using DPAs and NPAs to encourage companies and individuals to co-operate with SEC investigators."
"It seems quite clear that the use of these agreements is one of the reasons for the impressive FCPA enforcement record in the U.S. However, their actual deterrent effect has not been quantified; although the DOJ hears anecdotally from companies that their use has made FCPA compliance high priority."
The Report states:
"DPAs are technically subject to judicial review and approval, but most judges do not appear to scrutinise DPAs. Unlike a DPA, an NPA does not involve the court."
"Although DPAs and NPAs have existed since 1993, their use has grown dramatically in recent years. Since 2004, the annual average number of DPAs and NPAs entered into by the DOJ has grown from less than 5 to over 20 and a high of 38 in 2007. In FCPA cases, DPAs and NPAs were not used until 2004. Since then, they have been used in 30 out of 39 concluded criminal enforcement actions against companies."
"Explanations for this phenomenon vary. The dramatic increase occurred shortly after the prosecution and collapse of the accounting firm Arthur Andersen which led to thousands of jobs lost. Avoiding such collateral consequences of prosecution is generally cited as why DPAs and NPAs are used. In FCPA cases, factors such as the protection of employees and shareholders also play a role, according to U.S authorities. The U.S. authorities also believe that companies often prefer to resolve matters through DPAs and NPAs in lieu of going to court and undergoing a potentially lengthy process and resulting press scrutiny. As well, the DPAs and NPAs in FCPA cases generally cite factors such as the defendants‘ co-operation and self-reporting of the crime as the reasons for the agreement. These agreements are thus used as an incentive for voluntary disclosure and co-operation. The U.S. authorities also use DPAs and NPAs to resolve cases quickly. Finally, FCPA cases usually involve obtaining evidence from foreign countries, which can be time-consuming and unsuccessful. DPAs and NPAs can be used to secure a company‘s co-operation and obtain overseas evidence where the MLA process is cumbersome or unavailable."
"In January 2010, the SEC announced that it would begin using co-operation agreements, DPAs and NPAs in FCPA cases. A co-operation agreement is similar to a plea agreement in criminal proceedings. An individual or company must provide substantial assistance to an SEC investigation and co-operate fully and truthfully. In return, the SEC Enforcement Division agrees to make certain recommendations to the Commission, such as the individual or company should receive credit for co-operating. DPAs and NPAs require the company or individual to co-operate fully and truthfully, and to agree to comply with prohibitions and/or undertakings. DPAs also require the company or individual to admit to or not contest certain alleged facts. NPAs are available only in "limited and appropriate circumstances". All three types of agreements require the company or individual to agree to toll the statute of limitations. The SEC has not yet used one of these agreements, given that the policy to use them was adopted only recently."
In the "commentary section" the Report states:
"The evaluators note that PAs, DPAs, NPAs and the appointment of corporate monitors are an innovative method for resolving cases, and has evolved into an important feature of the U.S. criminal justice system, which has helped to enable a high level of enforcement activity. These measures have been used extensively in FCPA cases, especially in recent years. Guidance exists on the use of these agreements. Some private sector representatives would like more guidance but the U.S authorities disagree."
"A useful compromise may be for the DOJ and the SEC, where appropriate, to make public in each case in which a DPA or NPA is used, more detailed reasons on the choice of a particular type of agreement, and the choice of the agreement’s terms and duration; and the basis for imposing monitors. The DOJ already does so for PAs through sentencing memoranda. Greater transparency on these issues would add accountability and enhance public confidence in the DOJ’s and SEC’s enforcement of the FCPA. Making public this information would also raise awareness of how these agreements enhance foreign bribery enforcement efforts."
As to "recommendations" the Report states:
"Regarding the use of NPAs and DPAs, the Working Group recommends that the United States:
a. Make public any information about the impact of NPAs and DPAs on deterring the bribery of foreign public officials [..]; and
b. Where appropriate, make public in each case in which a DPA or NPA is used, more detailed reasons on the choice of a particular type of agreement; the choice of the agreement‘s terms and duration; and the basis for imposing monitors [...]".
As noted in the OECD release:
"The United States will make an oral follow-up report on its actions to implement certain key recommendations of the Working Group after one year. The United States will further submit a written report to the Working Group within two years, which will be the basis of a publicly available evaluation by the Working Group of the United States’ implementation of the recommendations."
Stay tuned for more.
As noted in this OECD release:
"The Working Group commended the United States for its engagement with the private sector, substantial enforcement, and commitment from the highest levels of the U.S. Government. In addition to the recommendation on facilitation payments, it also made recommendations that include the following on ways to improve U.S. enforcement:
- Consolidating publicly available information on the application of the FCPA, including the affirmative defence for reasonable and bona fide expenses;
- To increase transparency, making public, where appropriate, more information on the use of Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) in specific cases; and
- Ensure that the overall limitation period applicable to the foreign bribery offence is sufficient to allow adequate investigation and prosecution.
The Working Group also highlighted good practices developed within the U.S. legal and policy framework that helped it achieve such a high level of enforcement, including the creation of specialised enforcement units dedicated to foreign bribery, and the use of plea agreements, DPAs and NPAs and the appointment of corporate monitors. These efforts have also encouraged the establishment of robust compliance programmes and measures among companies subject to U.S. anti-bribery law. The Working Group also welcomed the United States’ efforts to encourage close co-operation between the United States and foreign authorities."
The Report is perhaps the single largest collection of FCPA related information and statistics ever in one document. This post will be the first of several posts in the coming days on the information and views contained in the Report.
This post highlights the "Executive Summary," "Introduction" and "Recent Trends in Investigation and Prosecuting FCPA Violations" sections of Report. In addition, this post discusses specific sections of the Report dealing with the FCPA's "obtain or retain business" and "foreign official" elements as well as the use of NPAs or DPAs to resolve FCPA matters.
Before turning to the Report's Executive Summary, let me provide one of my own. [For ease of reading, my observations in this post are in italics].
There is no question that the U.S. is a world leader in enforcing its domestic foreign bribery statute (the FCPA) and the Report rightfully commends the U.S. for this. However, quantity does not always mean quality and U.S. enforcement of the FCPA is not without criticism and questions, including in the Report. One would hardly realize this if all one did was read this joint statement of the Departments of Justice, Commerce and State, and the Securities and Exchange Commission issued yesterday in connection with the Report's release.
But the criticisms and questions are in the Report and the Report contains this contradiction: while loudly praising the U.S. for its "high level" of enforcement, the Report quitely criticizes and questions many of the policies and enforcement theories which yield the "high level" of enforcement. For instance, the Report notes that the FCPA's language "does not specifically convey" that cases concerning "an operating license or permit to operate a business, or a reduction in tax or import duty" are in violation of the statute. Yet, many FCPA enforcement actions are based on this theory. Further, the Report notes that "due to an absence of explicit language in the definition of foreign official" it is an open question whether employees of so-called state-owned or state controlled enterprises are "foreign officials" under the FCPA. Yet, numerous FCPA enforcement actions are based on this theory. The Report notes that the increase in NPAs and DPAs "are one of the reasons for the impressive FCPA enforcement record in the U.S." yet also notes that these agreements are subject to little or no judicial scrutiny.
Perhaps the message for other OECD member nations reading the Report is this - enforce your domestic bribery law in questionable ways, seemingly inconsistent with the intent of the legislature in passing the law, and figure out a way to resolve the enforcement actions without judicial scrutiny. If so, perhaps your nation will one day be praised in an OECD Report for its "high level" of enforcement activity.
The "Executive Summary" of the Report states, among things:
That, since Phase 2 (see here and here) "U.S. enforcement has increased steadily and resulted in increasingly significant prison sentences, monetary penalties and disgorgement. Increased enforcement was enabled by the good practices developed within the U.S. legal and policy framework, including the dedication of resources to specialised units in the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)."
[...]
"The U.S. has investigated and prosecuted cases involving various business sectors and various modes of bribing foreign public officials. In addition, it has been conducting proactive investigations, using information from a variety of sources and innovative methods like plea agreements (PAs), Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs), and the appointment of corporate monitors. Vigorous enforcement and record penalties, alongside increased private sector engagement, has encouraged the establishment of robust compliance programmes and measures, particularly in large companies, which are verified by the accounting and auditing profession and monitored by senior management. Less is known of the effect increased FCPA enforcement has had on small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which is an issue shared by all Parties to the Convention."
"Ways in which implementation of the Convention could be made more effective have also been identified. For instance, the Working Group recommends that the U.S., in its periodic review of its policies and approach on facilitation payments, consider the views of the private sector and civil society... The evaluation also recommended the consolidation and summarisation of publicly available information on the application of the FCPA, including information regarding the affirmative defence for reasonable and bona fide expenses. This could be especially useful for SMEs. Similarly, given that the U.S. authorities are increasingly enforcing the FCPA by using DPAs and NPAs, the Working Group believes that transparency and public awareness of these measures could be enhanced if the U.S. made public, where appropriate, more detailed reasons on issues such as why a particular type of agreement is used, the choice of an agreement‘s terms and duration, and how a company has met the agreement‘s terms. The Working Group also recommends that the U.S. ensure that the overall limitation period applicable to the foreign bribery offence is sufficient to allow adequate investigation and prosecution."
The Introduction to the Report, under the heading "Cases involving the bribery of foreign public officials," states:
"The United States has investigated and prosecuted the most foreign bribery cases among the Parties to the Anti-Bribery Convention. From 1998 to 16 September 2010, 50 individuals and 28 companies have been criminally convicted of foreign bribery, while 69 individuals and companies have been held civilly liable for foreign bribery. In addition, 26 companies have been sanctioned (without being convicted) for foreign bribery under non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) and deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs). Sanctions have also been imposed for accounting misconduct and money laundering related to foreign bribery."
"These cases have resulted in increasingly significant penalties. From 1998 to 2003, the maximum monetary sanctions levelled against a company in an FCPA case were USD 2.5 million. Since then, 23 companies have received monetary sanctions in excess of USD 10 million. In one case, monetary sanctions totalling USD 800 million were ordered against a single company. In 2010, an 87-month sentence was imposed against an individual in an FCPA case. Since 2004, over USD 1 billion in foreign bribery proceeds have been recovered through disgorgement actions. The SEC also obtains civil penalties in addition to DOJ criminal fines. In the first 9 months of 2010 alone, the SEC obtained over USD 404 million in disgorgement, interest and civil penalties from thirteen companies and eight individuals. Representatives of the private sector told the evaluators that these increasingly heavy sanctions combined with the increased number of prosecutions against companies and individuals have significantly raised the FCPA‘s profile. They are also felt to be the main reason why many companies have taken steps to improve their anti-bribery measures, internal controls, books and records, and compliance systems."
[Note - the above referenced 87-month sentence of Charles Jumet is misleading. Elsewhere in the Report it states: "In a recent case, a defendant was sentenced to 87 months in prison for FCPA violations." Fact check - Jumet pleaded guilty to two counts - conspiracy to violate the FCPA and making false statements to federal agents. The false statements portion of his sentence was 20 months. Thus, Jumet's "FCPA" sentence was 60 months - not 87 months]
"These cases come to the authorities‘ attention through a myriad of means. A significant number (but not the majority) of investigations result from voluntary self-reporting by companies. Other sources include corporate securities filings; suspicious activity reports from financial institutions; the media, including keyword searches of the Internet; whistleblowers, employees, customers, competitors, and agents; qui tam and civil complaints; referral from other U.S. government agencies, including overseas embassies; international financial institutions such as the World Bank; reports through a "hotline" email address and website; and information from foreign states, including requests for mutual legal assistance (MLA). A recent case resulted from an undercover sting operation. Investigations also originate from research and traditional law enforcement operations to determine where corruption may exist. The U.S. utilizes statistics that it compiles and information obtained in prior and current FCPA cases to identify trends and patterns of behaviour that warrant investigation. The U.S. also conducts industry sweeps, which are targeted investigations focusing on a particular industry or market. The U.S. believes that the use of such proactive tools keeps its regulators ahead of trends and allows them to combat corruption in a timely fashion. The U.S. did not provide statistics on the sources of investigations, due to the need to protect investigative sources and methods, but confirms that no one source accounted for a majority."
"These FCPA enforcement figures are expected to increase in the near future. Presently, the United States has more than 150 criminal and 80 civil ongoing FCPA investigations. [a footnote states "many are parallel criminal and civil investigations of the same alleged conduct"] The U.S. authorities recently announced new initiatives including investigations of specific industries ("targeted sweeps" or "industry-wide sweeps") and an increased emphasis of prosecuting natural persons in addition to companies. These efforts will likely lead to more prosecutions and convictions."
Under the heading "Recent trends in investigating and prosecuting FCPA violations," the Report states, among other things, as follows:
"Allegations of FCPA violations come from a variety of sources. This part of the report canvasses a few of the most important sources. According to the DOJ, voluntary disclosures are the source of a significant proportion of investigations, although not the majority."
[...]
"... companies consider it in their interest to be co-operative, and seem willing to settle more often than not when they have voluntarily disclosed. While some companies self-report violations of the FCPA, some companies do not. Representatives of companies in the extractive industry explained that it is very common for a company to uncover one discrete violation of the FCPA and voluntarily disclose it, following which the DOJ or SEC asks the company to look further to see if the conduct is pervasive and occurring in other places. In some cases, the conduct is pervasive and is fully investigated by the DOJ and SEC. In other cases, the conduct is limited in scope and no additional violations are uncovered. Some companies may find this very cumbersome and expensive, and try to settle the case without a full investigation. However, the DOJ and SEC advise that they require companies to complete their investigations before finalising settlement discussions."
[...]
"Proactive investigative steps by the DOJ and SEC, such as industry-wide sweeps, can also produce information that leads to enforcement actions. In November 2009, an industry-wide investigation into the pharmaceutical industry was announced by Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer. An investigation into the medical device industry has also been discussed publicly. The Oil-for-Food cases involved a sweep of companies that paid kickbacks to the Iraqi Government during the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. The sweep was very effective and more than fifteen companies have been charged to date."
"Such investigations may be commenced by sending "sweep letters" requesting co-operation from industry members on a voluntary basis. If a company chooses to not respond to such a letter, the DOJ and SEC consider whether a subpoena should be issued to compel the production of relevant documents and the testimony of individuals. Recently, the SEC announced that it will be conducting more industry-wide sweeps. Investigations of this kind enable the DOJ and SEC to develop specialised expertise identifying illegal conduct and conducting prosecutions involving various industries. In addition, due to the cross-connections between various members of the same industry, an investigation into one company can produce leads about other companies, including those in the supply-chain."
"More traditional sources of allegations also continue to be useful, such as anonymous whistleblower reports. Such reports are often received from current and former employees, competitors, and others, and are analysed by the FBI to ensure their veracity. The DOJ provides a "hotline" to report anonymously directly to the FCPA Unit. The SEC also has a hotline and a detailed process for analysing tips, complaints and reports of FCPA violations."
[...]
"[Mutual Legal Assistance] requests from foreign jurisdictions also provide a basis for allegations, although to a lesser extent than other sources."
"United States embassy staff are also important sources of information about FCPA violations. The DOJ cited examples of full-blown investigations that were launched due to information provided by an embassy and referrals from State Department and Commercial Services branches. In one of these investigations, the embassy stayed involved throughout."
As to Dodd-Frank's whistleblower provisions, the Report states:
"The U.S. authorities believe that in light of this new legislation, reporting violations of the FCPA is likely to increase."
FCPA Elements
Among other elements, the Report discusses the "obtain or retain business" and "foreign official" elements of the FCPA.
"Obtain or Retain Business"
The Report states:
"One important aspect of the foreign bribery offence in the FCPA is different from the description of the offence in Article 1 of the Convention. Under the FCPA, the bribery of a foreign public official must be committed in order to assist the briber "in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person‘ (known as the "business nexus test‘). In Article 1 of the Convention, the corresponding formulation is: "in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business."
"Thus, unlike Article 1 of the Convention, the FCPA language does not specifically convey that the case is covered where the purpose of the bribe is to obtain or retain other improper advantage in the conduct of international business, such as obtaining an operating license or permit to operate a business, or a reduction in tax or import duty. In other words, the FCPA language might be read to only address bribes for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business per se. Reference is made to "improper advantage" elsewhere in the FCPA, but in a different context – i.e., the offences in the FCPA inter alia cover the case where the purpose of a bribe to a foreign public official is to secure "any improper advantage…in order to assist such [person/issuer/domestic concern] in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person‘."
"However, it has been the position of the United States Government throughout that the FCPA formulation is very broadly interpreted and covers in practice the kinds of advantages required to be covered by the Convention. The evaluation team notes that this position has been largely confirmed by jurisprudence, in the 2007 decision of the United States Court of Appeals in United States v. Kay."
"In U.S. v. Kay, the Court of Appeals held that a payment to customs officials to reduce import duties on rice falls within the parameters of the "business nexus" test because when Congress enacted the FCPA it was concerned about: (1.) Bribery that leads to discrete business contract arrangements; and (2.) Payments that even indirectly assist in obtaining business or maintaining existing business operations in a foreign country. The Court of Appeals also stated that:
…bribes paid to foreign officials in consideration for unlawful evasion of customs duties and sales taxes could fall within the purview of the FCPA‘s proscription. We hasten to add, however, that this conduct does not automatically constitute a violation of the FCPA: It must be shown that the bribery was intended to produce an effect – here through tax savings – that would "assist in obtaining or retaining business"."
"The decision of the Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Kay is therefore helpful, in that it clarifies that payments to, for instance, reduce import duty "could" satisfy the "business nexus test". The United States has also successfully enforced the FCPA in cases involving similar advantages, such as payments to customs officials to import goods and materials (Helmerich & Payne; and Natures Sunshine), and payments to tax officials to reduce tax obligations, and to judicial officials for favourable treatment in pending litigation (Willbros Group). On the other hand, the clarification by the Court of Appeals leaves open the possibility that there might be cases where a bribe to a foreign public official to facilitate international business does not violate the FCPA, although it does meet the test of "other improper advantage in the conduct of international business" in Article 1 of the Convention."
For more on U.S. v. Kay (see here and here).
The Report's discussion of the "obtain or retain business" is noteworthy.
Why?
Because on the one hand, the Report praises the U.S.'s high level of FCPA enforcement, yet on the other hand, the Report candidly acknowledges that "the FCPA language might be read to only address bribes for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business per se." Connecting the dots, the Report seems to suggest that the numerous FCPA enforcement actions premised on improper payments to secure foreign licenses, permits, etc. may not even be FCPA violations.
In my forthcoming article "The Facade of FCPA Enforcement" to be published soon in the Georgetown Journal of International Law, I highlight the increase in FCPA enforcement actions where the improper payments are alleged not to obtain or retain any particular business, but rather, involve customs duties and tax payments, or payments alleged to have assisted the payer in securing foreign government licenses, permits, and certifications.
I must also take issue with the sentence in the Report that suggests when the DOJ enters into a NPA (such as in Helmerich & Payne) or DPA that this is evidence of the U.S. "successfully enforcing the FCPA." This is one of the many reasons why the "facade of FCPA enforcement" matters - because it fosters the absurd notion that privately negotiated settlements, subject to little or no judicial scrutiny, entered into in the context of the enforcement agencies possessing substantial “carrots” and “sticks" should serve as de facto case law or otherwise represent "successful" enforcement of the FCPA.
"Foreign Official"
As to the definition of "foreign official," the Report states:
"Due to an absence of explicit language in the definition of "foreign official" in the FCPA, two questions arise concerning the scope of the definition: (1.) Whether, in compliance with the Convention, it covers a person holding a judicial office of a foreign country‘; and (2.) Whether it covers a person exercising a public function for a foreign country, including for a…public enterprise‘ (i.e. a state-owned or controlled enterprise)."
Readers know that this second question is a frequent topic on these pages and deservingly so. It is no small matter. As I highlight in this recent article in the Indiana Law Review (here), this dubious interpretation of the "foreign official" element was at the core of 66% of 2009 FCPA enforcement actions against business entities as well as numerous individuals. And that was just in 2009. Several pre-2009 enforcement actions as well were based on the theory that employees of state-owned or state-controlled enterprises are "foreign officials" under the FCPA.
So again, on the one hand the Report praises the U.S.'s high level of FCPA enforcement, yet on the other hand, the Report openly questions the definition of "foreign official" that was used in a significant percentage of recent FCPA enforcement actions.
The Report then contains a discussion of the Nexus Technologies case and advances the DOJ's curious assertion that resolution of this matter (see here) validates its interpretation that employees of so-called state-owned or state-controlled enterprises are "foreign officials" under the FCPA.
The Report states:
"Since Phase 2, there have been positive legal developments regarding the second question on the bribery of employees of state-owned or controlled enterprises, in U.S. v. Nam Quoc Nguyen, et al. (E.D. Pa., September 4, 2008), in which the District Court recently held in favour of the United States Government in a case involving allegations that the defendants bribed employees of a foreign state-owned company. The defendants argued that the definition of "foreign official" in the FCPA does not include employees of state-owned enterprises, because in order for an organisation to be considered an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign government, it must serve a "purely public purpose". The United States Government, citing the legislative history of the FCPA, responded by arguing that "public purpose" is only one of the many factors in determining that an organisation is an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign government, and that Congress expressly intended to include employees of state-owned enterprises in the definition of "foreign official"."
As I highlighted in this prior post, in its briefing in the Nexus case the DOJ specifically urged the judge, on a number of occassions, not to consider the defendant's substantive "foreign official" argument because they were premature. The following are snippets from the DOJ's brief: (i) "the Court need not address any of these faulty arguments at this time:" (ii) "although styled as a motion to dismiss, Defendants’ submission is instead a premature request for a ruling on the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence before any of that evidence has been presented. These arguments, which are premature at best, will be moot after presentation of the Government’s case." (iii) "because Defendants’ arguments turn entirely on issues of fact, they are premature."
Continuing on this issue, the Report states:
"Although the Court ruled in favour of the United States, it did not issue a written opinion, and the defendants did not file an appeal. In addition, District Court opinions are not binding on higher courts or courts of other U.S. jurisdictions. The DOJ informed the evaluators that this means the Government interpretation could be disputed again. However, the DOJ believes the argument would fail again given the FCPA‘s legislative history, and because numerous cases have been brought by the DOJ and SEC in which the definition of "foreign official" has been broadly interpreted." This last sentence has a footnote which states: "For instance Willbros Group involved the bribery of foreign judicial officials, Siemens AG involved payments to various persons from state-owned companies, and Diagnostic Products, involved payments to doctors of state-owned hospitals. The United States explains that in each of these cases, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, a court had to determine whether all the elements of the offence have been proven including that the receiving individual was a foreign public official."
On this issue, the Report concludes with this "commentary"
"The evaluators welcome positive legal developments concerning the application of the definition of ‘foreign official’ in the FCPA to members of the judiciary and employees of state-owned or controlled enterprises."
In the "Recommendations" section, the Report notes that the "Working Group will follow up the issues below, as the case-law continues to develop, to examine: [...] whether amendments are required to the FCPA to supplement or clarify the existing language defining the elements of the offense of foreign bribery with regard to [...] (ii) the scope of the definition of a 'foreign public official,' in particular with respect to [...] the directors, officers, and employees of state-controlled enterprises or instrumentalties."
NPAs / DPAs
The Report states:
"Due to their increasing importance in law enforcement actions by the DOJ, the evaluators sought information about the deterrent effect of DPAs and NPAs. The evaluators were also conscious that the SEC intends to also begin using DPAs and NPAs to encourage companies and individuals to co-operate with SEC investigators."
"It seems quite clear that the use of these agreements is one of the reasons for the impressive FCPA enforcement record in the U.S. However, their actual deterrent effect has not been quantified; although the DOJ hears anecdotally from companies that their use has made FCPA compliance high priority."
The Report states:
"DPAs are technically subject to judicial review and approval, but most judges do not appear to scrutinise DPAs. Unlike a DPA, an NPA does not involve the court."
"Although DPAs and NPAs have existed since 1993, their use has grown dramatically in recent years. Since 2004, the annual average number of DPAs and NPAs entered into by the DOJ has grown from less than 5 to over 20 and a high of 38 in 2007. In FCPA cases, DPAs and NPAs were not used until 2004. Since then, they have been used in 30 out of 39 concluded criminal enforcement actions against companies."
"Explanations for this phenomenon vary. The dramatic increase occurred shortly after the prosecution and collapse of the accounting firm Arthur Andersen which led to thousands of jobs lost. Avoiding such collateral consequences of prosecution is generally cited as why DPAs and NPAs are used. In FCPA cases, factors such as the protection of employees and shareholders also play a role, according to U.S authorities. The U.S. authorities also believe that companies often prefer to resolve matters through DPAs and NPAs in lieu of going to court and undergoing a potentially lengthy process and resulting press scrutiny. As well, the DPAs and NPAs in FCPA cases generally cite factors such as the defendants‘ co-operation and self-reporting of the crime as the reasons for the agreement. These agreements are thus used as an incentive for voluntary disclosure and co-operation. The U.S. authorities also use DPAs and NPAs to resolve cases quickly. Finally, FCPA cases usually involve obtaining evidence from foreign countries, which can be time-consuming and unsuccessful. DPAs and NPAs can be used to secure a company‘s co-operation and obtain overseas evidence where the MLA process is cumbersome or unavailable."
"In January 2010, the SEC announced that it would begin using co-operation agreements, DPAs and NPAs in FCPA cases. A co-operation agreement is similar to a plea agreement in criminal proceedings. An individual or company must provide substantial assistance to an SEC investigation and co-operate fully and truthfully. In return, the SEC Enforcement Division agrees to make certain recommendations to the Commission, such as the individual or company should receive credit for co-operating. DPAs and NPAs require the company or individual to co-operate fully and truthfully, and to agree to comply with prohibitions and/or undertakings. DPAs also require the company or individual to admit to or not contest certain alleged facts. NPAs are available only in "limited and appropriate circumstances". All three types of agreements require the company or individual to agree to toll the statute of limitations. The SEC has not yet used one of these agreements, given that the policy to use them was adopted only recently."
In the "commentary section" the Report states:
"The evaluators note that PAs, DPAs, NPAs and the appointment of corporate monitors are an innovative method for resolving cases, and has evolved into an important feature of the U.S. criminal justice system, which has helped to enable a high level of enforcement activity. These measures have been used extensively in FCPA cases, especially in recent years. Guidance exists on the use of these agreements. Some private sector representatives would like more guidance but the U.S authorities disagree."
"A useful compromise may be for the DOJ and the SEC, where appropriate, to make public in each case in which a DPA or NPA is used, more detailed reasons on the choice of a particular type of agreement, and the choice of the agreement’s terms and duration; and the basis for imposing monitors. The DOJ already does so for PAs through sentencing memoranda. Greater transparency on these issues would add accountability and enhance public confidence in the DOJ’s and SEC’s enforcement of the FCPA. Making public this information would also raise awareness of how these agreements enhance foreign bribery enforcement efforts."
As to "recommendations" the Report states:
"Regarding the use of NPAs and DPAs, the Working Group recommends that the United States:
a. Make public any information about the impact of NPAs and DPAs on deterring the bribery of foreign public officials [..]; and
b. Where appropriate, make public in each case in which a DPA or NPA is used, more detailed reasons on the choice of a particular type of agreement; the choice of the agreement‘s terms and duration; and the basis for imposing monitors [...]".
As noted in the OECD release:
"The United States will make an oral follow-up report on its actions to implement certain key recommendations of the Working Group after one year. The United States will further submit a written report to the Working Group within two years, which will be the basis of a publicly available evaluation by the Working Group of the United States’ implementation of the recommendations."
Stay tuned for more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
