This post checks in on recent developments in two enforcement actions: (i) the FCPA enforcement action against various individuals associated with Alstom; and (ii) the FCPA-related enforcement action against alleged Haitian “foreign official” Jean Duperval currently on appeal to the 11th Circuit.
Earlier this week, the DOJ announced that Lawrence Hoskins, “a former senior vice president for the Asia region for [Alstom], was charged in the District of Connecticut with conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to launder money, as well as substantive FCPA and money laundering violations.”
The conduct at issue in the Second Superceding Indictment is the same core conduct alleged in original criminal charges filed against Frederic Pierucci and David Rothschild, as well as the conduct alleged in the Superceding Indictment which added William Pomponi to the action. (See here and here for previous posts). That is – alleged payments in connection with the Tarahan coal-fired steam power plant project in Indonesia. In the prior charging documents, Hoskins was generically referred to as Executive A.
As noted in previous posts, Rothschild pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA.
The DOJ further announced in its release earlier this week that Pierucci pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to violate the FCPA and one count of violating the FCPA. (See here for the plea agreement).
This previous post detailed the 11th Circuit appeal of Jean Duperval. Duperval was one of the alleged “foreign officials” charged in connection with the Haiti Teleco enforcement actions (see here for a summary and roundup of the entire Haiti Teleco enforcement actions) with non-FCPA offenses and he was found guilty by a jury of various money laundering charges.
As noted in the previous post, in his appeal Duperval argues, among other things, as follows. “The evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Haiti Teleco was a government instrumentality and that Jean Rene Duperval was a foreign official as required to prove that a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act generated proceeds of a specified unlawful activity – a necessary predicate for the convictions on the money laundering conspiracy and substantive money laundering charges.”
As noted in the previous post, Duperval’s substantive arguments as to “foreign official” largerly mirror the arguments of Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez (also criminally charged and convicted in the Haiti Teleco matter) in their historical “foreign official” appeal to the 11th Circuit (see here for links to the briefing).
Among other things, Duperval’s argument includes discussion and several citations to my “foreign official” declaration (see here).
Briefing is now complete in the Duperval appeal.
Not surprisingly, the DOJ’s arguments in connection with “foreign official” largely mirror the arguments it makes in the Esquenazi and Rodriguez appeal. The DOJ is again seeking to exclude my foreign official declaration from the record and its brief states:
“Duperval relies on a 144-page declaration by a proposed defense expert that was filed on behalf of the defendants in Carson. Although Duperval suggests that this Court may take judicial notice of the declaration because it relates to legislative history, the declaration selectively reviews the legislative history and draws inferences in support of a defense motion to dismiss the indictment. As such, it is not necessarily the statement of a disinterested expert, it was not reviewed as a scholarly article, and it was never subject to impeachment in the case below.”
Last week Duperval filed a reply brief, and not surprisingly, the arguments in connection with “foreign official” largely mirror the arguments made by Esquenazi and Rodriguez in their reply brief. As to my “foreign official” declaration, the brief states:
“The government also condemns Duperval’s reference to Professor Michael J. Koehler’s declaration addressing the legislative history of the FCPA, which was filed in United States v. Carson. Aside from the analysis contained in the Koehler declaration, the substance of the declaration is the legislative history of the FCPA. The Court can surely take notice of legislative history, and evaluate the utility and accuracy of Professor Koehler’s declaration for itself. But the Government’s claim that the declaration of a professor filed in another criminal proceeding and under penalty of perjury is somehow of lower status than a law-review article reviewed by law students strains credulity.”
It will be an interesting “foreign official” Fall in the 11th Circuit.