In three recent cases, defendants prosecuted under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") challenged their indictments using a similar argument – employees of state-owned entities do not fall within the definition of "foreign official" under the FCPA. United States v. O'Shea, No. 4:09-cr-00629 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2011); United States v. Noriega, No. 2:10-cr-01031-AHM (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2011) (hereinafter "Lindsey Manufacturing"); United States v. Carson, No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2011). To violate the FCPA, a corrupt payment must be directed to a "foreign official." The FCPA defines "foreign official" as:
any officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or of a public international organization, or any person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of any such government or department, agency, or instrumentality, or for or on behalf of any such public international organization.
15 U.S.C. §78dd-2(h)(2) (emphasis added). Although the FCPA
does not define "instrumentality," in a variety of
settlements and charging documents, the Government has broadly
interpreted the word to include state-owned entities and thus has
applied the FCPA to cover bribery of employees of state-owned
corporations.
On April 20, 2011, Judge Howard Matz of the Central District of
California entered a written order – further explaining
his April 1, 2011 oral ruling from the bench – and denied
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Lindsey
Manufacturing. This was the first court opinion to directly
address whether the definition of "foreign official"
under the FCPA includes employees of state-owned
entities.1
Background: In February 2011, Defendants in
Lindsey Manufacturing moved to dismiss their indictment in
full. The indictment charged Lindsey Manufacturing Company, the
President, and the CFO for conspiracy with a third-party sales
representative to violate the FCPA as well as certain substantive
FCPA violations related to sales of products to the Mexican
Comision Federal de Electricidad ("CFE"). During the
relevant time period, CFE was responsible for supplying electricity
to all of Mexico other than Mexico City. In their Motion to
Dismiss, Defendants focused on three core arguments.2
First, Defendants argued that the FCPA's text3 and
legislative history4 demonstrated that employees of
state-owned entities are not "foreign official[s]"
because no corporation could qualify as an
"instrumentality" under the statute. Second, Defendants
argued that, to the extent the Court found the term
"instrumentality" even the slightest bit ambiguous, the
Court should dismiss the case in favor of Defendants'
interpretation due to the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity
requires the Court to interpret a criminal statute in favor of the
Defendant if the statute is sufficiently ambiguous or
vague.5 Third, Defendants argued that, even if the Court
found that state-owned entities fall within the scope of the FCPA,
the indictment should still be dismissed because the statute was
unconstitutionally vague and indecipherable when applied to
Defendants.6
In opposing the motion, the Government first focused on the
facts surrounding CFE and argued that the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss was premature because it was premised upon a factual
question regarding the nature of CFE as a state-owned entity.
Further, the Government argued that the FCPA's text7
and legislative history,8 as well as prior FCPA-related
judicial rulings,9 instead supported their
interpretation that employees of state-owned entities constitute
"foreign officials." The Government also countered
Defendants' rule of lenity and void-for-vagueness
arguments.10
Court Ruling: In his April 20, 2011 written order,
Judge Matz held that "a state-owned corporation having the
attributes of CFE may be an 'instrumentality' of a foreign
government within the meaning of the FCPA, and officers of such a
state-owned corporation . . . may therefore be 'foreign
officials' within the meaning of the FCPA."11
The ruling focused on the undisputed facts specific to CFE and the
definition of "instrumentality." The undisputed facts
relating to CFE included: 1) the Mexican Constitution designated
the supply of electricity as solely a governmental function; 2)
Mexican statutory law, specifically Mexico's Public Service Act
of Electricity of 1975, defined CFE as a public entity and mandated
that CFE's governing board be composed of public officials; and
3) CFE's own website defined it as an agency of the Federal
Government.12 Judge Matz also based his ruling on the
definition of "instrumentality." Adopting the
Defendants' definition, the Court "look[ed] for defining
similarities between agencies and departments and consider[ed] only
entities that share these qualities to fall within the definition
of 'instrumentality.'"13 The Court provided
a "non-exclusive list" of government agency and
department characteristics that meet this description,
including:
- The entity provides a service to the citizens –
indeed, in many cases to all the inhabitants – of the
jurisdiction.
- The key officers and directors of the entity are, or are
appointed by, government officials.
- The entity is financed, at least in large measure, through
governmental appropriations or through revenues obtained as a
result of government-mandated taxes, licenses, fees or royalties,
such as entrance fees to a national park.
- The entity is vested with and exercises exclusive or
controlling power to administer its designated functions.
- The entity is widely perceived and understood to be performing official (i.e., governmental) functions.14
The Court noted that "CFE ha[d] all of these
characteristics."15
Because the ruling relied on the undisputed facts specific to CFE
and the definition of "instrumentality," the Court
explained it was unnecessary to discuss the FCPA's
"structure" and legislative history. However, the Court
still opined on both issues, finding the Government's use of
the Charming Betsy canon of construction particularly
persuasive16 and the legislative history of the FCPA
inconclusive.17 The emphasis on the Charming Betsy
canon, which requires courts to interpret statutes to comport with
United States treaty obligations, suggests that the Court adopted
the proposition that the FCPA be construed in a manner that
harmonizes it with the OECD Convention.
Notably, the Court's ruling is a very narrow one. First, the
Court clearly rejected the Defendants' argument that
no corporation could qualify as an
"instrumentality." Second, the Court left open the
question of whether all corporations that perform some
public function qualify as "instrumentalit[ies]."
Finally, the Court's ruling about CFE was based on unusual
facts which were unique to the entity. These key aspects of the
Court's ruling appear to leave the door open to future
challenges.
The resolution of the challenges in O'Shea and
Carson are still pending. The O'Shea matter
has been fully briefed as of April 18, 2011.18 The facts
from Carson may present a more complex and robust
challenge than Lindsey Manufacturing. In Carson,
the alleged state-owned entities consist of multi-national
companies from multiple countries, including some which are
publicly traded on the NYSE.19 It thus may be less clear
that such entities perform government functions or meet other
aspects of the test that Judge Matz found persuasive in Lindsey
Manufacturing. The Government filed its opposition brief in
Carson on April 18, 2011, and the hearing is scheduled for
May 9, 2011.20 We will update you with any further
developments from O'Shea and Carson as they
become available.
Endnotes
1 Although two other courts denied motions to dismiss on
similar grounds in the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, United
States v. Nguyen, 08-CR-522 (E.D. Pa. 2009), and Order Denying
Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Esquenazi, 09-CR-21010
(S.D. Fla. 2010), neither court substantively opined on the
issue.
2 The substantive arguments in the Lindsey Manufacturing
Motion to Dismiss are very similar to the arguments made in
Carson and O'Shea.
3 Defendants used a number of common canons of statutory
construction to demonstrate the meaning of the word
"instrumentality," including its: 1) ordinary meaning; 2)
context within the definition of "foreign official"
(i.e., preceded by "department" and
"agency"); 3) use within other provisions of the FCPA;
and 4) use in other statutes, such as the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act and the Economic Espionage Act, etc. Defendants'
Notice of Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dismiss the First
Superseding Indictment at 6-13, United States v. Noriega,
2:10-cr-01031-AHM (C.D. Cal. Feb 28, 2011).
4 Michael J. Koehler wrote a Declaration in support of the
Carson Motion to Dismiss. The Koehler Declaration provided
a very detailed analysis of all legislative history related to the
FCPA, specifically surrounding: 1) the enactment of the FCPA in
1977; 2) the 1988 amendments to the FCPA; 3) the 1998 amendments to
the FCPA; and 4) the post-1998 amendments to the FCPA. Defendants
in Lindsey Manufacturing cited this declaration to support
their arguments regarding legislative history. Mr. Koehler is an
Associate Professor of Business Law at Butler University as well as
the Administrator of an FCPA-related legal blog called the
"FCPA Professor" (available at
http://fcpaprofessor.blogspot.com). Declaration of Professor
Michael J. Koehler in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Counts One Through Ten of the Indictment, United States v.
Carson, 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2011).
5 Defendants' Notice of Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Dismiss the First Superseding Indictment at 21-22, United
States v. Noriega, 2:10-cr-01031-AHM (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28,
2011).
6 Id. at 22-23.
7 The Government also looked at a number of canons of
construction, including: 1) the ordinary meaning of the term
"instrumentality"; 2) that courts interpret statutes to
give meaning to every word and not in a manner where
portions of the statute would have no effect; 3) the Charming Betsy
canon – that courts interpret statutes to comport with
United States Treaty Obligations (i.e., here, the FCPA
must be interpreted to comport with the OECD Convention and
therefore, must criminalize bribes to officials of state-owned
entities); and 4) courts interpret statutes such that the same term
in similar statutes is given consistent meaning, etc. Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Superseding Indictment
at 11-25, United States v. Noriega, 2:10-cr-01031-AHM
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2011).
8 The Government noted that 1) when Congress enacted the FCPA,
Congress was clear that it intended the statute to have very broad
reach; and 2) review of the multiple drafts of the FCPA for the
definition of "foreign official" in fact demonstrates
Congress' choice to institute a general definition instead of a
specific list of terms within the final enacted version.
Id. at 29-32.
9 The Government provided that 1) other courts had denied two
similar motions to dismiss in Esquenazi and
Nguyen; 2) other courts had previously accepted 35 guilty
pleas by individuals who admitted to violating the FCPA by bribing
officials of state-owned entities; and 3) courts provided jury
instructions in two instances that explicitly included state-owned
entities within their definition of government
"instrumentality" under the FCPA. Id. at
26-29.
10 First, the Government contended that the rule of lenity 1) did
not apply if there was merely "any" ambiguity
but instead only applied to grievous ambiguity; and 2)
"applied sparingly only after other interpretive rules have
been unsuccessfully exhausted." Second, the Government
contended that the void-for-vagueness argument was without merit
because 1) any constitutional vagueness challenges not involving
the First Amendment must include an examination of the facts of the
case at hand, which Defendants had not done; and 2) regardless, the
FCPA was not vague. Id. at 37-40.
11 Minutes in Chamber Order at 2, United States v.
Noriega, 2:10-cr-01031-AHM (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).
12 Id. at 5.
13 Id. at 9.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 10-11.
17 Id. at 14.
18 O'Shea may have a similar outcome to Lindsey
Manufacturing because CFE is also the state-owned entity at
issue.
19 The multiple corporations and countries include Jiangsu Nuclear
Power Corporation (China), Guohua Electric Power (China), China
Petroleum Materials and Equipment Corporation (China), PetroChina
(China), Dongfang Electric Corporation (China), China National
Offshore Oil Corporation (China), Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power
(Korea), Petronas (Malaysia), and National Petroleum Construction
Company (United Arab Emirates). Defendants' Notice of Motion
and Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Ten of the Indictment at
5, n. 1, United States v. Carson, 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D.
Cal. Feb. 21, 2011). To support its opposition brief, the
Government filed the Declaration of FBI Special Agent Brian Smith,
which provides facts about the alleged state-owned entities.
Declaration of Special Agent Brian Smith in Support of
Government's Opposition to Defendants' Amended Motion to
Dismiss Counts One Through Ten of the Indictment, United States
v. Carson, 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011).
20 Stipulation to Continue from March 21, 2011 to May 9, 2011 at
3:00 pm regarding Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Ten of the
Indictment, United States v. Carson, 8:09-cr-00077-JVS
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.