United States: Top Ten International Anti-Corruption Developments For February 2015

This installment of MoFo's Top Ten International Anti-Corruption Developments highlights a number of significant domestic and global anti-corruption enforcement developments for busy in-house counsel and compliance professionals. Here is our February 2015 Top Ten list:

1. DOJ Closes Long-Running FCPA Investigations and Issues Declination Letters:

  • News Corp. and 21st Century Fox. On February 2, 2015, 21st Century Fox and News Corp. jointly announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was declining to prosecute either company for conduct related to the interception of voicemails and bribery of public officials in London. According to the filings of 21st Century Fox and News Corp. with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), DOJ notified the companies on January 28, 2015, that it had concluded its investigation and would not be filing charges. DOJ launched the investigation in 2011, following widely publicized accounts that reporters and editors at the News Corp.-owned U.K. newspaper The News of the World had engaged in phone-hacking and bribed public officials. The revelations prompted the UK Prime Minister to initiate an ongoing public inquiry and also led to civil lawsuits as well as criminal investigations and prosecutions.
  • Eli Lilly. In a February 19, 2015, filing with SEC, Eli Lilly and Company reported that DOJ was closing its FCPA investigation of improper payments made by foreign subsidiaries of the Indianapolis-based pharmaceutical company. DOJ's declination came more than two years after the company's settlement with the SEC for related conduct. In December 2012, following a multi-year investigation that had been ongoing since at least 2003, Eli Lilly agreed to pay $29.4 million to settle SEC charges. In its civil complaint, SEC alleged that from 1994 to 2009, subsidiaries of the company in Russia, China, Brazil, and Poland had paid bribes to government officials to obtain millions of dollars in business.

2. Eleventh Circuit Affirms Money Laundering Conviction of Haiti Government Official

In United States v. Duperval, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the conviction and nine-year sentence of Jean Rene Duperval, the first foreign official to be convicted at trial for money laundering based on an underlying FCPA bribery scheme. From June 2003 to April 2004, Duperval served as the Assistant Director General and Director of International Affairs of Telecommunications D'Haiti, S.A.M. ("Haiti Teleco"), a state-owned telecommunications company. While in that role, he participated in two separate schemes to launder a total of approximately $500,000 in bribes paid to him by two Miami-based telecommunications companies, in exchange for various business favors. Following a March 2012 trial, Duperval was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering and nineteen counts of money laundering, based on financial transactions involving theproceeds of wire fraud and violations of the FCPA and Haitian bribery laws. In its February 9, 2015, opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected Duperval's challenge to his conviction on the basis that he was not a "foreign official" under the FCPA, because Haiti Teleco was not an "instrumentality" of Haiti. The court relied on its decision in a related case, United States v. Esquenazi, which set forth a non-exhaustive, multi-factor test for when an entity will be deemed an "instrumentality" for purposes of the FCPA. The court also addressed the "routine governmental action" exception (also known as the "grease payments" or "facilitating payments" exception) under the FCPA, rejecting Duperval's argument that the payments he received fell within its scope. Its discussion of the issue confirms the limited scope of the exception. Given the successful use of money laundering charges to convict Duperval at trial, based on an underlying FCPA bribery scheme, the DOJ will almost certainly continue to use these charges to prosecute foreign officials as bribe recipients. For more on this opinion, please see our client alert on the Duperval decision.

3. SEC Fines Goodyear $16 Million Over FCPA Violations

On February 24, 2015, SEC announced a resolution with Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Goodyear agreed to pay $16.2 million to settle SEC charges that between 2007 and 2011, its subsidiaries paid more than $3.2 million in bribes to win sales in Kenya and Angola. SEC alleged that by failing to prevent or detect the bribes, Goodyear violated the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. Scott Friestad, Associate Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division, stated: "Public companies must keep accurate accounting records, and Goodyear's lax compliance controls enabled a routine of corrupt payments by African subsidiaries that were hidden in their books." Notably, it was not alleged that Goodyear knew or played any role in the accounting violations. The enforcement action underscores the seemingly strict liability exposure that parent companies may face from SEC under the FCPA's accounting provisions for the actions of their subsidiaries — even when they have no knowledge of or involvement in the subsidiaries' conduct. Under the cease-and-desist order, the company agreed to pay disgorgement of $14.1 million and prejudgment interest of $2.1 million, and to self-report the status of its remediation and compliance measures over a three-year period. Because DOJ did not simultaneously announce an enforcement action, it is highly likely that it declined to prosecute Goodyear, although such decisions are not made public by DOJ. For more on this resolution, please see our client alert on the Goodyear settlement.

4. DOJ Concludes Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Alcatel-Lucent S.A.

On February 9, 2015, DOJ's deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with Paris-based telecommunications company Alcatel-Lucent, S.A., officially terminated following a motion to dismiss by DOJ. In December 2010, Alcatel and three of its subsidiaries paid $137 million to resolve criminal charges with the DOJ and in disgorgement to the SEC, for using consultants to bribe foreign officials in Costa Rica, Honduras, Malaysia, and Taiwan. Under the terms of a three-year DPA, which was extended in June 2014, Alcatel-Lucent agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor and also made what DOJ characterized as an "unprecedented pledge" to cease using third-party agents in conducting its worldwide business. In its motion to dismiss the charges, filed onJanuary 30, 2015, DOJ stated that Alcatel-Lucent had fully met its obligations under the DPA by paying the monetary penalty, fully cooperating with the government, implementing an enhanced compliance program and procedures, and successfully completing the monitorship. On February 9, the district court ordered the dismissal of the pending criminal information.1

5. Deferred Prosecution Agreements Scrutinized:

  • Judge rejects Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with Fokker Services B.V. A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a DPA between DOJ and Fokker Services B.V. to resolve allegations that the Dutch aerospace services provider violated U.S. sanctions laws applicable to Iran, Sudan, and Burma. The rejection of the DPA reflects continued judicial scrutiny2 of some settlement agreements between the government and defendants, and thus has implications for the use of DPAs to resolve allegations of FCPA violations. In June 2014, Fokker Services had agreed to forfeit $10.5 million and enter into an 18-month DPA as part of a settlement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia; the company also paid an additional $10.5 million as part of a parallel settlement with the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. In a February 5, 2015, memorandum opinion, Judge Richard J. Leon called the prosecution "anemic[]" and the DPA "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Fokker Services' conduct in a post-9/11 world." The judge noted that egregious conduct had been committed over a five-year period, and that the defendant was not being required to pay more than the revenue it collected from its illegal transactions. He also commented on the DPA's failure to require an independent monitor or any periodic reporting over the "very brief" 18-month duration of the agreement. Concluding that the DPA did "not constitute an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion," he declined to approve it in its current form.

    This is not the first time that Judge Leon has criticized a negotiated settlement with the government. He previously expressed concerns about two proposed SEC settlements to resolve FCPA allegations, with IBM Corp. and with Tyco International Ltd., respectively. In both cases, he required the companies to make annual reports to him before approving the settlement agreements.3 In an interesting twist, Fokker Services filed a notice of appeal on February 18, 2015, and it remains to be seen whether the DPA will ultimately be approved in its current form. While Judge Leon incorporated the logic and reasoning of Judge Gleeson's seminal opinion in the HSBC matter, setting forth the legal basis for a district court's approval of DPAs, it appears that the D.C. Circuit will be the first appellate court to grapple with both a district court's authority to approve DPAs, as well as the standard by which such DPAs should be judged. Regardless of the outcome, the decision will have an impact on this much-used, some may say over-used, resolution vehicle employed by DOJ.

  • Criminal Division AAG calls DPAs "overused" and says to expect more declinations. In remarks made to members of San Francisco's defense bar in late January, Leslie Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General of DOJ's Criminal Division, which oversees the Fraud Section's FCPA Unit, emphasized that the Division would aim to bring more and bigger cases under the FCPA and seek to cut down on its use of DPAs. Calling DPAs the "default" means to resolve corporate cases, she stated that they "were a bit overused." Caldwell also indicated that the government would be providing more declinations to communicate to individual and corporate targets, as well as the public, when an investigation was being terminated without filing charges.

6. Petrobas Corruption Probe Widens

New developments in the far-reaching Petrobas corruption investigation continue to rock Brazil:

  • On February 24, 2015, Brazilian prosecutors filed racketeering, bribery, and money laundering charges against a former Petrobas Director. The former Director, who was arrested in January, is accused of accepting bribes in exchange for helping engineering and construction firms obtain contracts with the majority state-owned oil company. The former Director and other executives allegedly conspired to inflate the value of billions of dollars in contracts, with the excess kicked back to Petrobas executives or given as campaign contributions to the current President's political party.
  • Petrobas' CEO and five senior executives have stepped down.
  • According to an internal audit led by the former Minister of the Federal Supreme Court, some two thousand Petrobas employees are now under investigation in connection with the alleged kickback scheme involving hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes. The computers and mobile phones of more than two thousand employees were seized in connection with the investigation.

7. Employees of UK Printing Company Sentenced for Their Roles in Bribery Scheme

On February 12, 2015, two executives of a UK printing company, Smith and Ouzman Ltd., were sentenced for their roles in a foreign bribery scheme, following their December 2014 trial and conviction for making £395,074 in corrupt payments to officials in Kenya and Mauritania in order to win business contracts. The company's chairman, Christopher John Smith, received a two-year suspended sentence of 18 months' imprisonment and a three-month curfew, and was ordered to carry out 250 hours of unpaid work. Nicholas Charles Smith, sales and marketing director, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Both employees were disqualified from acting as company directors for six years. The printing company, which was also convicted at trial, will be sentenced at a later date. A hearing to address confiscation proceedings against the company and individual defendants is set for October 19, 2015. In a statement released by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Director David Green CB QC commented that "[t]his case marks the first convictions secured against a corporate for foreign bribery, following a contested trial. The convictions recognize the corrosive impact of such conduct on growth and the integrity of business contracts in the Developing World."

8. Loretta Lynch Addresses Criticisms of FCPA Enforcement

In written responses submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary in connection with her confirmation proceedings, Loretta Lynch, nominee to be the next attorney general and current United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, discussed a number of issues related to FCPA enforcement in response to questions by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Lynch's responses made clear that aggressive FCPA enforcement — without any reform — is likely to continue under her watch.

On February 26, 2015, the Committee voted to approve the nomination, which now moves to the Senate floor for a final confirmation vote.

9. Bribery Charges Prompt Lawsuit by Former Chadian Ambassador to Canada

The former ambassador to Canada from the Republic of Chad, Mahamoud Bechir, and his wife have filed a $150 million lawsuit alleging harm to their reputations based on a bribery case involving Canadian oil-and-gas company Griffiths Energy International Inc. In 2013, Griffiths Energy pleaded guilty in Canadian court to paying Bechir and his wife bribes to secure oil rights in Chad, in violation of the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. Griffiths Energy agreed to pay a fine of CAD$10.35 million. In November 2014, DOJ filed a civil forfeiture complaint against Bechir, who served as the Chadian ambassador to Canada and the United States from 2004 to 2012, seeking recovery of approximately $100,000 traceable to a bribe payment made by Griffiths Energy. Bechir is suing in the Canadian court counsel for Griffiths Energy in the 2013 corruption case and Glencore PLC, which acquired Griffiths Energy's successor company, Caracal Energy Inc., in 2014.

10. Continued Foreign Enforcement of Anti-Corruption Laws:

  • Canada charges SNC-Lavalin for Libya bribes. On February 19, 2015, Canada announced charges against SNC-Lavalin Inc. and two of its business units. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police National Division charged the three entities with one count of fraud and one count of violating the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act in connection with alleged bribe payments to one or more public officials of the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya," the regime of former Libyan leader Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi. Riadh Ben Aissa, a former executive at the Canadian engineering firm, pleaded guilty last year to charges brought by Swiss authorities, including corruption of a foreign public official and money laundering.
  • Australia charges construction company directors for Iraq bribes. Federal police in Australia have charged two directors of a Sydney-based construction company with foreign bribery offenses. The investigation appears to be only the second ever foreign bribery prosecution brought in Australia. Mamdouh and Ibrahim Elomar, of Lifese Pty Ltd, are accused of attempting to bribe Iraqi government officials in order to win contracts in Iraq. At least one other individual associated with Lifese has also been charged as part of the investigation.

Footnotes

1 United States’ Motion to Dismiss Criminal Information, United States v. Alcatel-Lucent, S.A., No.10-cr-20907 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2015), ECFNo. 82; see also id., Order, Feb. 9, 2015, ECF No. 83 (dismissing criminal information).

2 See also United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 12-cr-763, 2013 WL 3306161, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2013) (finding that the court had “authority to approve or reject” a DPA “pursuant to its supervisory power”).

3 See Final Judgment, Securities & Exchange Commission v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., at 3-4, No. 11-cv-563 (D.D.C.July 25, 2013), ECF No. 12; Final Judgment, Securities & Exchange Commission v. Tyco Int’l Inc., at 5-6, No. 12-cv-1583 (D.D.C. June 17, 2013), ECF No. 6.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions