Worldwide: Top Ten International Anti-Corruption Developments For July 2016

In order to provide an overview for busy in-house counsel and compliance professionals, we summarize below some of the most important international anti-corruption developments from the past month, with links to primary resources. This month we ask: Which companies reached resolutions with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), and a host of Brazilian authorities? What aspect of Mexico's new anti-corruption regime was called a "game changer"? Which Asian country saw the release of a new set of anti-corruption compliance guidelines? The answers to these questions and more are here in our July 2016 Top Ten list:

1. South American Airline Resolves Argentina FCPA Accounting Provision Allegations. In February 2016, SEC announced that Ignacio Cueto Plaza, the CEO of South America-based LAN Airlines, had agreed to settle claims that he violated the FCPA's accounting provisions by authorizing payments to a third-party consultant in 2007 despite knowing that the consultant might pass money onto union officials in Argentina to help resolve a labor dispute. On July 25, 2016, DOJ and SEC announced that they had reached resolutions with the company for a combined penalty of approximately $22.2 million based on the same allegations. There were some notable aspects of the corporate resolutions. Although neither agency alleged that the union officials were "foreign officials" under the FCPA, both agencies characterized the consultant as an "advisor" to Argentina's Ministry of Transportation. This suggests that they might have viewed the consultant as a person "acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of" the Ministry and, therefore, a "foreign official" under the FCPA.Order notes that the consultant held an "ad-honorem" position given to him "pursuant to an unpublished Resolution." This further suggests that the agencies might not have been willing to test this "foreign official" theory, which they were able to avoid by bringing accounting charges instead.1 Read this way, any money that the consultant kept for himself in exchange for intervening in a labor dispute within the scope of his Ministry could arguably be characterized as a bribe under the FCPA. However, the SEC Order notes that the consultant held an "ad-honorem" position given to him "pursuant to an unpublished Resolution." This further suggests that the agencies might not have been willing to test this "foreign official" theory, which they were able to avoid by bringing accounting charges instead.

In explaining its decision to bring a three-year DPA against the airline, to assess a penalty of 25% above the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines range, and to require an independent compliance monitor for a term of 27 months, DOJ noted that the company did not timely self-report the alleged conduct but instead began cooperating only after stories were run in the Argentine press four years later; the delay resulted in potentially relevant evidence being lost or destroyed; and the company failed to remediate adequately, "including significantly by failing to discipline in any way the employees responsible for the criminal conduct . . . including misconduct by at least one high-level Company executive," presumably a reference to Cueto. Read in this light, DOJ's resolution in this case is consistent with its decisions to pursue parallel enforcement actions against PTC Inc., Analogic Corporation/BK Medical ApS, and Vimpelcom Ltd.— all of which could not satisfy at least one of the three factors (self-disclosure, full cooperation, and remediation) required to receive what Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell has described as "full mitigation credit"—while declining to bring parallel actions in nine other SEC-only corporate enforcement actions brought as of July 2016.

2. HVAC Systems Provider Resolves China FCPA Accounting Provision Allegations. On July 11, 2016, SEC announced that Wisconsin-based Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) had agreed to pay more than $13 million to resolve allegations that its wholly owned Chinese subsidiary ("China Marine") used sham vendors to make improper payments of approximately $4.9 million to employees of Chinese government-owned shipyards, ship-owners, and others, to secure business opportunities valued at approximately $11.8 million. JCI acquired China Marine as part of its 2005 acquisition of York International while York was involved in an on-going investigation into FCPA violations in China and elsewhere (resulting in parallel DOJ and SEC resolutions in October 2007). Based on SEC's order, it appears that JCI took several post-acquisition steps to remediate the issues in China Marine: "After acquiring York, JCI devoted additional resources to its compliance program, including hiring compliance personnel, conducting trainings, and implementing risk-based procedures and controls. . . [;] terminated the individuals involved in the [prior] conduct and hired a new managing director of China Marine . . . [;] [and] limited the use of agents in its China Marine business model and required that all sales go through its internal sales team based in China." SEC further alleged that China Marine's new staff "circumvented and manipulated JCI's internal and financial controls" to accomplish the bribery scheme, including by making payments to sham vendors rather than to agents and by keeping the payments small enough to fall below thresholds that would have triggered a higher level of scrutiny within the company. SEC also alleged that JCI self-reported the conduct after the company received two anonymous hotline reports about the sham vendors; "provided thorough, complete, and timely cooperation throughout the investigation;" and undertook remedial efforts. Nevertheless, SEC determined that JCI's books and records and internal accounting controls were faulty and required JCI to disgorge $11.8 million, pay a civil penalty of $1.18 million, and report to SEC on its remediation efforts for a year. JCI fared better with DOJ, which informed the company on June 21, 2016, that, "consistent with the FCPA Pilot Program," it had declined to bring charges. Among other factors supporting its decision, DOJ noted that JCI would be "disgorging to the SEC the full amount of disgorgement as determined by the SEC, as well as paying a civil penalty to the SEC."

3. DOJ Seeks Forfeiture of $1 Billion Related to Malaysian Sovereign Wealth Fund. On July 20, 2016, DOJ announced the filing of several civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture and recovery of more than $1 billion in assets allegedly associated with an international conspiracy to launder funds misappropriated from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a sovereign wealth fund created by the Malaysian government in 2009 to promote economic development in Malaysia through global partnerships and foreign direct investment and to improve the well-being of the Malaysian people. According to DOJ, from 2009 through 2015, 1MDB officials and their relatives and associates allegedly diverted and laundered over $3.5 billion in 1MDB funds through a series of complex transactions and fraudulent shell companies with bank accounts located in Singapore, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and the United States and used the funds to, among other things, acquire an interest in the production of the 2013 film The Wolf of Wall Street. On July 21, 2016, it was reported that Singapore authorities seized $177 million of assets in a related investigation. Several other jurisdictions, including Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Luxembourg, are also reportedly investigating suspected money laundering involving 1MDB. DOJ's forfeiture actions were brought as part of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section's (AFMLS) Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. Sovereign wealth funds have been at the center of U.S. anti-corruption investigations for several years, but this one has a number of new twists and looks to be much bigger.

4. Individual Defendants in Louis Berger Case Sentenced. In July 2015, DOJ announced that two former executives of New Jersey-based engineering, architecture, and construction management company Louis Berger International (LBI) had pleaded guilty to conspiracy and FCPA charges in connection with an alleged twelve-year scheme to funnel approximately $3.9 million in bribe payments to foreign officials in India, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Kuwait to secure government construction management contracts. On July 8, 2016, DOJ announced that the former executives, Richard Hirsch (a Senior Vice President responsible for LBI's operations in Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam) and James McClung (a Senior Vice President responsible for LBI's operations in India and, later, in Vietnam), had been sentenced to two years' probation and one year and one days' imprisonment, respectively. Notably, in June 2016, the Louis Berger Group Inc. sued Hirsch in New Jersey state court for breach of fiduciary duties arising from the bribery scheme.2 In the lawsuit, the company claims that Hirsch's criminal activity has cost the business more than $17 million and caused reputational damage. In addition to the $17.1 million penalty LBI paid pursuant to its July 2015 DPA with DOJ, in early 2015 the World Bank announced that it had debarred Louis Berger Group with a conditional release for one year, and Berger Group Holdings was subjected to a one-year conditional non-debarment. We previously reported on another collateral development when a Court of Federal Claims Judge ruled in March 2016 that the U.S. Navy was required to terminate a contract with a sister company, Louis Berger Aircraft Services (LBAS), because, in its bid submission, LBAS had allegedly failed to disclose, among other things, LBI's July 2015 DPA. In an update, the judge reversed his decision to disqualify the company, and the Navy has moved to re-award the contract to LBAS.3

5. DOJ Dismisses Charges Against Deceased Alstom Defendant. On July 6, 2016, DOJ moved to dismiss charges against former Alstom Power Inc. executive William Pomponi, who died in May 2016 while pending sentencing. The district court granted the motion on July 18, 2016.4 In July 2014, DOJ announced that Pomponi had pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the FCPA in connection with the awarding of the Tarahan power project in Indonesia to a consortium that included Alstom. Pomponi had asked the court to delay his sentencing until after the trial of another former Alstom executive, Lawrence Hoskins, which suggests that the government might have considered calling Pomponi as a witness (which could have resulted in him receiving a reduced sentence). If so, Pomponi's death is another blow to DOJ's prosecution of Hoskins, which has already been derailed by a district court ruling severely narrowing DOJ's ability to prove Hoskins' involvement in the charged FCPA violations (see our August 2015 Top Ten for more discussion of the ruling). DOJ is currently appealing the district court's ruling.

6. UK Announces Second Ever DPA. On July 8, 2016, the SFO announced that its second application for a DPA had been approved. According to the SFO, in 2012, "XYZ Limited," a small- to medium-sized enterprise that the SFO declined to name because of "ongoing, related legal proceedings," discovered, after its U.S. parent company implemented a global compliance program, that its employees and agents had procured 28 contracts through bribery in a number of foreign jurisdictions during an eight-year period. Four of the tainted contracts were procured after the enactment of the UK Bribery Act 2010 (UKBA). According to Lord Justice Leveson's judgment approving the DPA, XYZ concealed the bribe payments by paying "fixed," "special," or "additional" commissions to third-party agents. After it discovered the potential bribery, XYZ promptly self-reported, fully disclosed the results of its internal investigation, and cooperated with the SFO. Under the DPA, the charges against XYZ, which included failure to prevent bribery contrary to section 7 of the UKBA, will be suspended for a period of two-and-a-half to five years, and XYZ will disgorge approximately £6.2 million and pay a financial penalty of £352,000. According to the SFO and Lord Justice Leveson, the financial penalty was substantially reduced out of concern that a higher fine would render XYZ insolvent. Notably, in November 2015, Lord Justice Leveson also approved the SFO's first DPA, which also involved allegations of failure to prevent bribery contrary to section 7 of the UKBA. With these two DPAs, the UK is moving closer to the United States in terms of the methods it uses to resolve foreign bribery cases, although, as demonstrated by a comparison of Lord Justice Leveson's judgment to the D.C. Circuit's April 2016 decision in the Fokker Services BV case, DPAs are subject to far greater judicial scrutiny in the UK than in the United States.

7. UK Charges Logistics and Freight Operations Company with Angola Bribery. Continuing a busy month for the SFO, the agency announced on July 13, 2016, that it had charged F.H. Bertling Ltd, a UK-based subsidiary of Germany's Bertling Group, and seven individuals with one count of making corrupt payments in violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. The SFO alleged that the defendants conspired to bribe an agent of Sonangol, Angola's state-owned oil company, to further the company's business opportunities in that country between January 2005 and December 2006. The case is pending before the Southwark Crown Court and will be one to watch.

8. Mexico Enacts National Anti-Corruption System. On July 18, 2016, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto signed into law the implementing legislation for Mexico's National Anti-Corruption System (SNA). The constitutional amendment that created the SNA as a forum for coordination between all levels of government to fight corruption was published on May 27, 2015, and the Mexican legislature subsequently approved seven secondary legislative packages. Of note, one of the new laws, the General Law on Administrative Responsibilities (GLAR), requires public officials to declare their assets, conflicts of interest, and taxes and provides that companies may be able to mitigate the penalties assessed against them for corruption-related violations by implementing effective compliance programs and by self-reporting and cooperating with authorities. Also of note, the Amendments to the Organic Law of the Attorney General's Office creates the Special Prosecutor's Office for Combating Corruption as an autonomous body for investigating and prosecuting acts of corruption. The OECD's Secretary General, Angel Gurria, who was himself Mexcio's Foreign Minister in the mid-to-late 1990's, welcomed the enactment of the SNA laws, noting that "[t]he promulgation of these laws substantially transforms the anti-corruption architecture of Mexico by putting in place measures that the OECD considers effective[.]" According to Secretary General Gurria "perhaps the most important game changer of the reforms is that they reach beyond the Federal level and include all levels of government. Indeed, the new legislation requires the Mexican States to follow suit with their own local anti-corruption systems, thereby tackling some of the strongest footholds of corruption in Mexico." The Secretary General continued, "this framework puts Mexico in line with OECD best practices, but we must now make it work." (Mexico is an OECD Member Country and a signatory to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.)

9. Dutch Offshore Oil Company Reaches Historic Coordinated Resolution with Brazilian Authorities. On July 15, 2016, Brazilian authorities announced that they had entered into a $340 million leniency agreement with SBM Offshore N.V. to resolve allegations that the company won contracts from Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil company, as a result of bribery. The leniency agreement was joined by four Brazilian entities—the Public Prosecutor's Office; the General Counsel for the Republic; the Ministry of Transparency, Oversight, and Control (which assumed the responsibilities of the former Comptroller General of the Union in May 2016); and Petrobras itself—and is the first such agreement in Brazil resolving both criminal and administrative charges. As we noted in this client alert, although it appears to have taken over a year to negotiate, the agreement is likely to be considered a positive step forward for companies implicated in the Petrobras scandal, as it provides the clearest evidence yet that the several agencies within Brazil that share jurisdiction over corruption-related offenses are able to work together to reach coordinated corporate resolutions. In December 2015, Brazilian authorities reportedly brought charges against a dozen individuals in connection with the SBM investigation.

10. Japan Bar Association Issues New Anti-Corruption Compliance Guidelines. On July 15, 2016, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) issued new guidance for companies on complying with Japanese and other foreign anti-bribery laws (the "Guidance"). The Guidance comes on the heels of and supplements prior guidelines issued by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in July 2015, clarifying certain aspects of Japan's foreign anti-bribery laws, as well as guidance on foreign risk management issued by the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency (geared towards facilitating compliance by Japanese small and medium businesses). While earlier METI Guidelines contained suggestions regarding corporate compliance systems and interpretations of Japan's foreign anti-bribery law (for example, what constitutes a "foreign public official"), the Guidance is distinct in both the practicality and level of detail it provides to assist companies in crafting and implementing anti-corruption compliance policies, responding to potentially corrupt practices, and coping with anti-corruption risks in M&A transactions. As we noted in our June 2016 Top Ten, the OECD Working Group has been critical of Japan's relatively lax anti-corruption enforcement efforts, and the Guidance appears to be designed to address some of those criticisms. For more on the Guidance, please see our client alert.

Footnotes

1 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f)(1)(A).

2 The Louis Berger Group Inc. and Berger Group Holdings Inc. v. Richard J. Hirsch, No. L-1293-16 (N.J. Superior Ct., Morris Cty.).

3 See Algese 2 s.c.a.r.l. v. United States, No. 15-1279C (Fed. Cl.), ECF Nos. 79 (March 29, 2016) and 97 (June 1, 2016).

4 See United States v. Pomponi, No. 12-cr-238-JBA (D. Conn.), ECF Nos. 350 (July 6, 2016) and 351 (July 19, 2016).

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