United States: Top Ten International Anti-Corruption Developments For August 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 resolved FCPA cases in August? What is the latest in the ongoing saga of a Ukrainian billionaire that the United States is seeking to extradite from Austria for FCPA violations? How does one avoid upsetting the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about whistleblower restrictions in severance agreements? The answers to these questions and more are here in our August 2016 Top Ten list:

1. Texas-Based Well Servicing Company Resolves Mexico FCPA Accounting Allegations.

On August 11, 2016, SEC announcedit had resolved allegations that Houston-based Key Energy Services, Inc. improperly recorded as legitimate consulting expenses payments made to a contract employee at the Mexican state-owned oil company, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), in exchange for inside information used to negotiate contracts with Pemex. According to the SEC Order, the company did not perform due diligence on the consulting firm that received the payments and did not enter into a written agreement or contract with the firm for several years. The country manager who arranged and approved the hiring of the consulting firm "knew that the Consulting Firm had ties to the Pemex employee and that payments to the Consulting Firm were used to funnel Key Mexico funds to the Pemex employee in exchange for his assistance with obtaining Pemex business, [but] . . . never disclosed the nature of this relationship to Key Energy." The Order further alleges that there was no evidence that the consulting firm performed any legitimate services for the company. In explaining its decision to seek $5 million in disgorgement and to forego a civil penalty, SEC cited the company's "current financial condition and its ability to maintain necessary cash reserves to fund its operations and meet its liabilities," as well as its cooperation with the investigation and its remedial actions. In April 2016, the company disclosed in a securities filing that DOJ had declined to prosecute the company.

2. British Pharmaceutical Company Resolves China, Russia FCPA Accounting Allegations.

On August 30, 2016, SEC announcedthat it had resolved allegations that U.K.-based pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca PLC (AZN) had violated the FCPA's books and records and internal controls provisions when its wholly owned subsidiaries gave gifts, cash, and other items to health care providers (HCPs) at state-owned and -controlled entities in China and Russia. According to the SEC Order, AZ China employees used various means to generate cash for the improper payments, including submitting fake fapiao(tax receipts), hiring a "collusive travel vendor" to submit fake or inflated invoices, and paying speakers fees for fabricated events. SEC alleged that AZ Russia employees provided "improper incentives" to government-employed HCPs in Russia, but the Order does not describe the means by which the incentives were provided. SEC also alleged that AZ China employees made cash payments to local Chinese government officials in 2008 in exchange for "reductions or dismissals of proposed financial sanctions against the subsidiary." The company agreed to pay more than $5 million--consisting of $4.325 million in disgorgement, $822,000 in prejudgment interest, and a $375,000 civil penalty--without admitting or denying the SEC's findings. According to SEC, the company did not self-report the FCPA violations but did provide significant cooperation and take remedial measures. DOJ appears to have declined to prosecute the company. AZN is the ninth company to resolve China-related FCPA allegations with SEC during this calendar year and the fourth pharmaceutical company to settle China-related FCPA allegations with SEC in less than a year (see our October 2015, February 2016, and March 2016 Top Tensfor the others).

3. Belgian Brewing Company Discloses DOJ Declination of India Allegations.

In 2013, Belgium-based Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV disclosed in its securities filingsthat SEC and DOJ were investigating potential FCPA violations involving the company's Indian operations. In an August 29, 2016 securities filing, the company disclosed that it had been notified in June 2016 that DOJ had closed its investigation into the matter. The company also noted that it is continuing to cooperate with the ongoing SEC investigation and "is in discussions with the SEC to resolve this matter."

4. Former Head of Non-Profit Sentenced to Twenty Months' Imprisonment for Bribing U.N. Official.

On August 4, 2016, the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Southern District of New York announcedthat U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick had sentenced Shiwei ("Sheri") Yan to 20 months' imprisonment for paying more than $800,000 in bribes to John Ashe, the former President of the United Nations General Assembly and former Permanent Representative of Antigua and Barbuda to the U.N. Judge Broderick also ordered Yan to forfeit $300,000. Yan, a naturalized U.S. citizen and the former CEO of the Global Sustainability Foundation, pleaded guilty in January 2016to one count of bribing an official of an organization receiving federal funds (rather than to violating the FCPA, even though Ashe was a "foreign official"). According to the USAO, the bribes began in 2012 and were intended to further the interests of certain Chinese business people in Antigua. Ashe was also charged with bribery-related offenses in October 2015, but the charges were dismissed after he died in June 2016.

5. Austrian Court Refuses to Hear Challenge to U.S.-Austria Extradition Agreement in FCPA Case.

In April 2015, an Austrian court denied a request to extradite Ukrainian billionaire Dmitri Firtash to the United States to face accusations that he conspired to pay at least $18.5 million in bribes to government officials in India to allow the mining of titanium minerals, in violation of the FCPA and other statutes. The Austrian prosecutor's office handling the U.S. extradition request appealed the denial, but the appeal was delayed when Firtash asked Austria's Constitutional Court to rule that the U.S.-Austria extradition agreement was unconstitutional. On August 19, 2016, the Constitutional Court reportedlyconfirmed to a German media outlet that it had refused Firtash's request, opening the way for the prosecution's appeal. This is an important case to watch, as the ability to extradite foreign residents is a critical component of DOJ's efforts to prosecute individuals for FCPA violations.

6. Consultant to Company Tied to U.S. Hedge Fund Charged with Alleged African FCPA Conspiracy.

On August 16, 2016, Samuel Mebiame, a Gabon national, was arrested and charged in the Eastern District of New York with conspiracy to violate the FCPA by bribing officials in three African nations in order to obtain mining rights for a joint venture, which included an anonymized U.S. hedge fund, and one of its portfolio companies.1 According to the complaint, Mebiame "worked as a 'fixer' to obtain rights to mineral concessions in Africa by routinely paying bribes to foreign government officials." The bribes allegedly included money, cars, travel, and shopping trips, among other things. Mebiame was charged with conspiring to violate the FCPA's territorial jurisdiction provision (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3) and allegedly "took numerous steps while in the United States in furtherance of the [bribery] scheme."

7. SEC Fines Two Companies for Severance Agreements Restricting Whistleblowing.

As noted in its 2015 Annual Report (which was released in November 2015) and reflected in the April 2015resolution with KBR, SEC's Office of the Whistleblower is focused on preventing companies from using confidentiality, severance, and other kinds of agreements to restrict an individual's ability to report potential wrongdoing to the agency. In August 2016, SEC issued two additional orders that reflect that this remains a focus for the agency. On August 10, 2016, SEC announcedthat it had resolved allegations that Atlanta-based building products distributor BlueLinx Holdings Inc. had violated federal securities laws by using severance agreements that required outgoing employees to waive their rights to monetary recovery should they file a charge or complaint with the SEC or another federal agency or else risk losing their severance payments and other post-employment benefits. On August 16, 2016, SEC announcedthat it had resolved allegations that California-based health insurance provider Health Net, Inc. had violated federal securities laws for including similar language in its severance agreements. The companies agreed to pay penalties of $265,000 and $340,000, respectively, and to provide former employees who signed such agreements with the SEC's order and a statement that the company does not prohibit former employees from seeking or accepting whistleblower awards and, in the case of BlueLinx, from communicating with SEC.

8. Important Developments in SEC Practice.

As reflected in several previous Top Tens, we have been closely following the cases challenging SEC's abilities to obtain disgorgement and to institute administrative enforcement actions because of their potential impact on how SEC brings and resolves FCPA cases. In August 2016, there were significant developments on both fronts.

  • Appellate Court Upholds Appointment of SEC Administrative Law Judges.

    On August 9, 2016, the D.C. Circuit upheld the constitutionality of SEC's use of its own Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The central issue in Lucia v. SECwas whether SEC ALJs are "inferior officers" covered by the Constitution's Appointments Clause (Art. II, § 2, cl. 2) or "employees" that are not. Because the SEC ALJ was undisputedly not appointed as the Clause requires, the defendants argued that the administrative proceeding was an unconstitutional procedure. In an earlier challenge, the D.C. Circuit had held that defendants in SEC administrative proceedings cannot go directly to federal district court to challenge the constitutionally of such proceedings. (See our June 2016Top Ten for a discussion of this and similar decisions.) In Lucia, the constitutional challenge was ripe for review because the defendants went through the SEC administrative process before petitioning the D.C. Circuit for review: they were found liable by the ALJ of one count of violating the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 in connection with their "Buckets of Money" investment strategy, and that decision was affirmed on appeal by the Commission, which considered and rejected the constitutional challenge. The D.C. Circuit held that SEC ALJs have not been delegated the authority to "issue final decisions of the Commission" because their initial orders become final only when the Commission issues a "finality order," thereby ensuring that "politically accountable Commissioners" affirmatively determine that an ALJ's decision is "to be the final action of the Commission." Accordingly, the court held, the ALJs were employees who did not have to be appointed in conformance with the Appointments Clause. The court then affirmed the Commission's decision of liability on the merits. As the first appellate decision addressing this issue, Luciamay have an important impact on similar upcoming cases in other circuits, for example in Bandimere v. SEC, No. 15-9586 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 22, 2015).
  • Circuit Split on Limitations Period for SEC Disgorgement.

    In May 2016, in SEC v. Graham, the Eleventh Circuit held that SEC claims for disgorgement are governed by the five-year statute of limitations period set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 for suits brought by the government to enforce "any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture." On August 23, 2016, the Tenth Circuit reached a contrary result, agreeing with SEC that disgorgement is an equitable remedy not subject to § 2462's five-year limitations period. In SEC v. Kokesh, SEC brought an enforcement action against Charles Kokesh more than five years after he allegedly misappropriated funds from four SEC-registered business development companies. After a New Mexico jury returned a verdict in favor of SEC, the district court entered a final judgment ordering Kokesh to, among other things, disgorge $34.9 million. Kokesh appealed, arguing that the disgorgement order was precluded by § 2462's five-year limitations period. In rejecting Kokesh's position, the Tenth Circuit expressly disagreed with the holding in Grahamthat disgorgement is a "forfeiture" under § 2462. In so holding, the Tenth Circuit joined the First, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, further deepening a circuit split with potential ramifications for SEC FCPA enforcement actions, which typically contain a disgorgement component.

9. Petrobras Class Action Stayed in U.S. While Political Turmoil Continues in Brazil.

In February 2016, Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff certified two classes of plaintiffs alleging that Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), the Brazilian state-owned oil company and a U.S. issuer, violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements regarding a multi-year, multi-billion dollar bribery and kickback scheme. Petrobras appealed the ruling and moved for a stay of the underlying litigation. On August 2, 2016, the Second Circuit granted the motion to stay.2Meanwhile, the tumultuous political situation in Brazil continued. On August 31, 2016, Brazil's Senate voted 61 to 20 to removePresident Dilma Rousseff from office for allegedly manipulating the budget to obscure the country's ballooning deficit. Former Vice-President Michael Temer, who was made interim President upon Rousseff's suspension in May 2016, was sworn in as President later that day and will serve the remainder of Rousseff's term through 2018. Temer, however, may face legal troubles of his own, as construction magnate Marcelo Odebrecht, who was convicted in connection with the Petrobras corruption investigation in Brazil (known as Operation Car Wash), reportedlytold Brazilian prosecutors that he contributed illegal funds to Temer's 2014 re-election campaign. Brazilian federal investigators also reportedlyannounced on August 26, 2016, that they will seek corruption charges against Rouseff's predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula). The charges relate to allegations that a construction and engineering firm paid for improvements on a beachfront property owned by Lula.

10. Chief Commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Resigns.

On August 1, 2016, Abu Kassim Mohamed, who led the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for six years, resigned, along with deputy commissioner for operations, Mohd Shukri Abdull, and deputy commissioner for prevention, Mustafar Ali. Abu Kassim had led an investigation of state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), which (as discussed in our July 2016 Top Ten) is the target of a U.S. civil forfeiture complaint seeking forfeiture of more than $1 billion in assets allegedly connected with corruption and an international money laundering scheme. In a press conference announcingthe forfeiture action, the chief of the FBI's International Corruption Unit praised the MACC for its involvement in the investigation of 1MBD, saying the MACC showed "tremendous courage." Abu Kassim also headed the investigation of a $647 million transfer to the bank account of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. Najib was cleared of any criminal offences by Malaysia's Attorney General earlier this year. While local media has reported that Najib pressured Abu Kassim to step down, Abu Kassim deniedsuch reports, saying he requested to end his contract early. He will continue to serve as an anticorruption officer until his mandatory retirement in 2020.


1 United States v. Mebiame, No. 16-mj-752, Compl. (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2016).

2 Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited, et al., v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras, et al., No. 14-cv-9662, ECF 761 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 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.

James M. Koukios
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.