September 27, 2016
This September 15th post regarding the SEC’s enforcement action against Jun Ping Zhang (the former Chairman and CEO of CareFx China, a dissolved Chinese subsidiary of Harris Corp) noted that the SEC, in the Ping Order, found that as a result of Ping’s conduct “Harris violated the FCPA’s books and records provisions.”
Elsewhere, the Order stated that as a result of the alleged improper conduct CareFx was awarded over $9.6 million in contracts.
Accordingly, the prior post wondered whether a future Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Harris Corp. would be forthcoming. Indeed, there have been several examples of the SEC first bringing an FCPA enforcement action against an individual and then following up with an FCPA enforcement action against the company. (For instance, in August 2015 the SEC brought an FCPA enforcement action against Vicente Garcia (a former head of Latin American sales for SAP) followed by SAP enforcement action in February 2016- see here).
It turns out that the answer to the question: will there be an FCPA enforcement action against Harris Corp. is no because in this SEC release issued on September 12th (a day before the September 13th Ping Order) the SEC states:
September 26, 2016
This previous post highlighted the SEC’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Nu Skin Enterprises.
This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider from last week’s enforcement action.
Similar, Yet Different
Before the Nu Skin action, there have been several FCPA enforcement actions that have included, in whole or in part, charitable donations as highlighted in this recent post.
All of the prior enforcement actions though appear to have been involved pre-existing, presumably bona fide charitable organizations that a “foreign official” nevertheless was involved in or was valued by the “foreign official.”
September 23, 2016
Earlier this week SEC Chair Mary Jo White delivered this speech.
Her speech focused on “a few priority areas that illustrate the dimensions of the SEC’s international role” and a substantial portion of the speech focused on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act including how “vigorous enforcement of the FCPA is a high priority for both the SEC and DOJ.”
On individual actions, Chair White stated: “we prioritize charging individuals involved in bribery schemes where we have the necessary evidence and jurisdiction over the offender [and that] holding individuals accountable for their misconduct remains one of the most powerful deterrents in any enforcement area.”
Keep in mind however the following facts. In 2016 thus far, 70% of corporate SEC FCPA enforcement actions have not involved any related individual charges and since 2008 approximately 80% of corporate SEC FCPA enforcement actions have not involved any related individual charges.
The remainder of this post excerpts the FCPA portion of Chair White’s speech.
September 22, 2016
Fact # 8 in “Ten Seldom Discussed FCPA Facts That You Need to Know” concerns how it is an apples to oranges comparison to compare Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement to enforcement of similar foreign laws in the 41 other countries that are party to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (“OECD Convention).
There are a couple reasons for this.
First, the U.S. is rare among OECD Convention countries in resolving alleged FCPA violations via non-prosecution agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, or administrative actions. The common thread in all three resolution vehicles is the absence or practical absence of any judicial scrutiny of FCPA enforcement theories. In contrast, in nearly every other OECD Convention country, law enforcement agencies must do something that may be considered old-fashioned by current U.S. standards and that is prove actual legal violations to someone other than itself. In doing so, these foreign law enforcement agencies have two choices (charge or do not charge) vs. the three choices in the U.S. (charge, do not charge, or use an alternative resolution vehicle).
Another reason, and the topic of this post, is the wide differences among OECD Convention countries when it comes to legal person liability for alleged bribery offenses. As demonstrated in this post, the U.S. appears to be unique among all other 41 OECD Convention countries when it comes to legal person criminal liability for alleged bribery offenses.
A Blemish – Nu Skin Enterprises Resolves SEC FCPA Enforcement Action Based On Its Chinese Subsidiary’s “Charitable Donation”
September 21, 2016
A common theme in 2016 SEC Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions has been foreign subsidiaries (often in China) engaging in conduct without the knowledge of the parent company, the subsidiary taking steps to conceal the conduct from the parent company, yet in what amounts to strict liability, the SEC holding the parent company liable for books and records and internal control violations.
The SEC returned to this theme yesterday in this administrative action against Nu Skin Enterprises Inc., a Utah based company in the business of manufacturing and marketing cosmetic and nutritional products primarily through direct selling, or multi-level marketing, channels.