July 21, 2018
FCPA Professor has been described as “the Wall Street Journal concerning all things FCPA-related,” and “the most authoritative source for those seeking to understand and apply the FCPA.”
Set forth below are the topics discussed this week on FCPA Professor, a week in which FCPA Professor turned 9.
After the recent Credit Suisse internship and hiring practices enforcement action, this post asks: do you hiring and employment practices lives up to the DOJ’s new expectations?
July 20, 2018
Motion to dismiss denied, scrutiny alert, guilty plea, reverse, FCPA resolution template, perplexing, funny, and fake news. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Motion to Dismiss Denied
As highlighted in this prior post, in November 2017 the DOJ announced that Chi Ping Patrick Ho (of Hong Kong, China) and Cheikh Gadio (of Senegal) were criminally charged with conspiring to violate the FCPA, violating the FCPA, conspiring to commit international money laundering, and committing international money laundering.
July 19, 2018
How much do you know about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Let’s find out.
To commemorate the FCPA’s 40th year, FCPA Professor is presenting the FCPA Challenge.
Each Thursday during 2018, a question will be posed and the answer will be below the fold.
This week’s question is: this 2002 individual FCPA enforcement action involved a U.S. government aid program and allegations that a United Kingdom official was bribed.
July 19, 2018
The DOJ has long talked about how “greater transparency benefits everyone” (see here).
In this May 2017 speech, a high-ranking DOJ official talked about “the importance of transparency in our anti-corruption prosecutions.”
In this August 2017 speech, a high-ranking DOJ official stated: “We are taking additional steps to enhance our enforcement of the FCPA against both corporate and individual actors, and to promote transparency in doing so.”
In announcing its November 2017 FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy (see here) the DOJ talked about greater “clarity about our decision-making process” and the “advantage of the policy for businesses is to provide transparency about the benefits available if they satisfy the requirements.”
Against this backdrop, if the DOJ is truly committed to transparency and clarity in the FCPA context, why does it continue to play cat and mouse games with the business community about terms and conditions it uses in describing its own enforcement policies?
July 18, 2018
This recent post summarized the dismissal of the SEC’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (and related) charges against against Michael Cohen and Vanja Baros (former Och-Ziff executives) based on the same core conduct as the DOJ and SEC’s September 2016 enforcement action against Och-Ziff. The enforcement action is believed to be only the fourth time in FCPA history in which the SEC was put to its ultimate burden of proof in an FCPA enforcement action.
As highlighted in this post, the SEC also lost in the other three instances and in the FCPA’s 40 year history the SEC has never prevailed when put to its ultimate burden of proof.