Top Menu

Either Enforce the FCPA or Don’t Enforce the FCPA

The DOJ and the SEC (the “Enforcement Agencies”) should either enforce the FCPA or not enforce the FCPA.

For instance, Team Inc. violated the FCPA, but in its August 2nd SEC filing (here) the company stated as follows regarding its previously disclosed FCPA issue.  “In a letter to us dated July 12, 2011, the staff of the SEC informed us that it had completed its investigation and did not intend to recommend any enforcement action by the Commission or impose any fines or penalties against the Company. We have not received formal notification from the DOJ, however in July 2011, the staff of the DOJ informed us that it was likely that the staff would not recommend taking any further action or imposing any fines or penalties against the Company.”

How do we know that Team Inc. violated the FCPA?  Because the company said it did.  For instance, in this August 2010 SEC filing the company said as follows in reference to its previously disclosed internal review regarding its branch operation in Trinidad.  “The report of the independent investigator was delivered to the Audit Committee in March 2010 and to the DOJ and SEC in May 2010.  The investigation concluded that improper payments of limited size were made to employees of foreign government owned enterprises in Trinidad, but determined that the improper payments were not made, or authorized by, employees outside the one TMS Trinidad branch. The investigation of our other foreign operations did not result in any findings of significance and management has remediated or is undertaking remedial action on all matters identified in the investigation. Based upon the results of the investigation, we believe that the total of the improper payments to government owned enterprises over the past five years did not exceed $50,000. The total annual revenues from the impacted TMS Trinidad branch represent less than one percent of our annual consolidated revenues for all years presented. ”  (emphasis added).

Accepting the Enforcement Agencies’ position that payments to government-owned enterprises fall under the FCPA, why didn’t the Enforcement Agencies bring an action?  Sure Team Inc. did voluntarily disclose the conduct at issue and the results of its investigation, but that could also be said for nearly all corporate FCPA enforcement actions.  Sure,  Team Inc.’s  “improper payments” appear to have been isolated, were relatively minor in scope, and were not (per the company) “made, or authorized by, employees outside the one TMS Trinidad branch.”  But again, the same could also be said for a significant percentage of all corporate FCPA enforcement actions

Using the Team Inc. standard, did Rockwell Automation deserve an FCPA enforcement action (see here for the prior post).  Did Comverse (see here for the prior post) deserve an FCPA enforcement action? 

If the FCPA contained a compliance defense (along the lines that a company would not be held vicariously liable for a violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions by its employees or agents, who were not an officer or director, if the company established procedures reasonably designed to prevent and detect FCPA violations by employees and agents) the end result in Team Inc. would have likely been the same and rightfully so.

But at least the result would have been grounded in law, not in the ad hoc, opaque, non-reviewable discretionary decisions of the Enforcement Agencies.

Compliance Certificates

In relation to the U.K. Bribery Act’s so-called adequate procedures defense, how does a company know whether it has adopted adequate procedures so that it can avail itself of the defense should its conduct come under scrutiny?  It is a darn good question.

Last week,  thebriberyact.com (see here) had a post regarding an adequate procedures certificate.  The post profiled a recent speech by Richard Alderman (Director of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office) on the issue of a lawyer’s certificate for adequate procedures.  As detailed in the post, Alderman stated as follows.  “We know, for example, that some companies believe that all they need is a certificate from a firm of lawyers that they have adequate procedures. We hear about this. We hear as well that the company is not prepared to pay very much for this and expects a certificate of adequate procedures for its worldwide enterprise under say £25,000. This will not impress us very much. This does not mean that we expect companies to spend millions of pounds on this. What we do expect though is a proportionate approach by companies focussing on the key risks and on what they are doing in order to be able to combat those risks. This is what companies should be doing anyway. Indeed some companies have told us that this is a valuable exercise for them for all sorts of reasons that they should have carried out before.  A company that does this but which finds problems will receive very sympathetic treatment at the SFO. A company that closes its mind to the issues while perhaps having some veneer of paper procedures will receive different treatment.”

One of the FCPA reform proposals under consideration – and a reform proposal I support (see here and here for prior posts) – is creation of a compliance defense. If enacted, the same issue will arise as under the U.K. Bribery Act – how does a company know whether it has adopted sufficient measures so that it can avail itself of the defense should its conduct come under scrutiny?

Is a compliance certificate the answer?

In Chile, the answer is yes.  As detailed in this prior “Compliance Defense Around the World” post, Chile is one of several OECD Anti-Bribery Convention countries to incorporate compliance defense principles into its “FCPA-like” law.

Under Chilean law:  in order for a legal person to be held responsible for a foreign bribery offence, the following “three cumulative requirements” must be satisfied: (1) the offence must be committed by a person acting as a representative, director or manager, a person exercising powers of administration or supervision, or a person under the “direction or supervision” of one of the aforementioned persons; (2) the offence must be committed for the direct and immediate benefit or interest of the legal entity. No offence is committed where the natural person commits the offence exclusively in his/her own interest or in the interest of a third party; and (3) the offence must have been made possible as a consequence of a failure of the legal entity to comply with its duties of management and supervision. An entity will have failed to comply with its duties if it violates the obligation to implement a model for the prevention of offences, or when having implemented the model, it was insufficient.”

As to the final element, the OECD report states as follows. “The final cumulative requirement for responsibility stresses that the offence must have been made possible as a consequence of the failure of the legal person to comply with its duties of administration and supervision. The entity will have failed to comply with its duties if it violated the obligation to implement a model for the prevention of offences, or when having implemented the model, the latter was insufficient. It shall be considered that the functions of direction and supervision have been met if, before the commission of the offense, the legal person had adopted and implemented organization, administration and supervision models, pursuant to the following article, to prevent such offenses as the one committed.”

The minimum features of a prevention system under the law are as follows: identify the different activities or processes of the entity, whether habitual or sporadic, in whose context the risk of commission of the offences emerges or increases; establish protocols, rules and procedures that permit persons involved in above-mentioned activities or processes to program and implement their tasks or functions in a manner that prevents the commission of the indicated offences; identify procedures for the administration and auditing that allow the entity to impede their use in the listed offences; establish internal administrative sanctions, as well as procedures for reporting or pursuing pecuniary responsibility against persons who violate the prevention system; introduce the above-mentioned duties, prohibitions and sanctions into the internal regulations of the legal person, and ensure that they are known by all persons bound to apply it (workers, employees, and service providers).

The OECD report states – as to the minimum requirements as follows. “It also aims to introduce a system of self-regulation by companies. Having a code of conduct on paper will not be sufficient to avoid responsibility. If prosecutors can prove that the code does not meet the minimum requirements of or that it is not implemented, the company can be responsible for the offence.”  Under Chilean law, “the failure to comply with duties of management and supervision is an element of the offence rather than a defence. Therefore the burden of proof lies on prosecutors, i.e. it will be up to prosecutors to prove that the entity failed to comply with its duties of management and supervision.”  The OECD report notes as follows. “This will require prosecutors to prove that the company failed in the design and/or implementation of the offense prevention model including why, in the circumstances, the prevention model was insufficient. This would appear to also require the prosecutor to establish that this failure made perpetration of the offence possible.”

Chilean law sets forth a detailed process by which legal persons are able to undergo a certification process on the existence and relevance of their organizational model.  The OECD report states as follows.  “Certification will confirm that the offence-prevention model complies with the minimum requirements [set forth above], taking into account the characteristics of the legal person. The certification is valid as long as the situation of the company does not change. Certification will be carried out by private institutions which have been authorised by public agencies to undertake this role. Two points should be noted. The first is that certification will not, by itself, avoid responsibility, since it will remain possible to convict a legal person if it can be proved that, notwithstanding the certification, the preventive model did not meet the minimum requirements [set forth above]; and/or that the model was not implemented. The second point to note is that, pursuant to [the Chilean law], private institutions carrying our certification will be carrying out public functions, which means that they will be criminally responsible in the event of a failure to act properly in the execution of those functions. The sole function of public agencies will be to authorise institutions to carry out these functions, and to keep record of certifications.”

What do you think?  Is the Chilean certification process the answer?  What are the pros and cons of such an approach?  If anyone can direct me to Chilean counsel knowledgeable about this certification process or the “private institutions” authorized to issue such certifications, please send me an e-mail so that I can inquire and report back any findings.

If the FCPA were amended to include a compliance defense, would Chile’s certification approach work here in the U.S.?

For starters, it is useful to observe that the DOJ is already handing out compliance certificates in at least two respects – even if  not formally called compliance certificates.

First, the FCPA’s Opinion Release Procedure results in the DOJ issuing – for all practical purposes – a compliance certificate in that the DOJ opines whether a proposed course of conduct, based on the requestor’s disclosed information and various representations, complies with the FCPA.  Pursuant to the governing regulations (see here), “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a requestor’s conduct, which is specified in a request, and for which the Attorney General has issued an opinion that such conduct is in conformity with the Department’s present enforcement policy, is in compliance with those provisions of the FCPA.”

Second, every NPA or DPA contains a clause stating that the DOJ will not bring an enforcement action if the company complies with the undertakings set forth in the agreement – including an appendix which sets forth various compliance obligations.  (See here for the recent Armor Holdings NPA). As with the FCPA Release Procedure, the term compliance certificate is lacking, but in substance that is likewise the end result.

That the DOJ is already issuing “compliance certificates” makes the DOJ’s firm opposition to an FCPA compliance defense (see here for more)  all the more curious – and all the more contradictory.

The Compliance Defense Around The World

As highlighted in this prior post, numerous FCPA reform bills in the 1980’s included a specific defense which stated a company would not be held vicariously liable for a violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions by its employees or agents, who were not an officer or director, if the company established procedures reasonably designed to prevent and detect FCPA violations by employees and agents. An FCPA reform bill containing such a provision did pass the U.S. House, but was not enacted into law.

Amending the FCPA to include a compliance defense is one of the U.S. Chamber’s FCPA reform proposals (see here). In November 2010, Andrew Weissman, on behalf of the Chamber, testified in favor of a compliance defense (and other reform proposals) during the Senate’s FCPA hearing (see here for the prior post) and during the House hearing earlier this month (see here for the prior post), former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, on behalf of the Chamber, also testified in favor of a compliance defense (and other reform proposals).

During the House hearing, there appeared to be bi-partisan support for consideration of an FCPA compliance defense.

Even so, Greg Andres, testifying on behalf of the DOJ, stated that a potential FCPA compliance defense was “novel and risky” and that the “time is not right to consider it.”

Public debate on a potential compliance defense has thus far focused, from a comparative standpoint, on the United Kingdom and Italy.

The purpose of this post is to further inform the public debate on a potential compliance defense by highlighting various compliance-like defenses around the world in other countries that are signatories (like the U.S.) to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

This post is further to my work in progress – Revisiting an FCPA Compliance Defense – and represents hours of research analyzing 38 OECD Country Reports.

The post provides an overview of compliance-like defenses in the following OECD Convention signatory countries: Australia, Chile, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland. [The U.K. Bribery Act, set to go live on July 1st, also contains a compliance-like defense in Section 7].

A first reaction might be – only 12 of the 38 OECD member countries have a compliance-like defense.

However, this number must be viewed against the backdrop of the following dynamics: (i) in many OECD Convention signatory countries, the concept of legal person criminal liability (as opposed to natural person criminal liability) is non-existent; and (ii) in many OECD Convention signatory countries that do have legal person criminal liability, such legal person liability can only result from the actions of high-level executive personnel or other so-called “controlling minds” of the legal person.

Obviously if a foreign country does not provide for legal person liability, there is no need for a compliance defense, and the rationale for a compliance defense is less compelling if legal exposure can result only from the conduct of high-level executive personnel or other “controlling minds.”

When properly viewed against these dynamics, a compliance-like defense (whether specifically part of a foreign country’s “FCPA-like” law or otherwise generally part of a foreign country’s legal principles) is far from a “novel” idea, but rather common among OECD Anti-Bribery Convention signatory countries that – like the U.S. – have legal person criminal liability that can attach based on the conduct of non-executive officers or other “controlling minds.”

[The below information is based strictly on OECD country reports and is subject to the qualification that in many instances the most recent information concerning a particular country may be several years old. If anyone has more recent information concerning any particular country, how the compliance defense in a particular country has worked in practice, or any other relevant information, please leave a comment on this site or contact me at mjkoehle@butler.edu]

*****

Australia

Australian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on December 18, 1999.

Thereafter, a section of the Criminal Code on corporate criminal liability came into full force establishing an organizational model for the liability of legal persons. “Bodies corporate” are liable for offences committed by “an employee, agent or officer of a body corporate acting within the actual or apparent scope of his or her employment, or within his or her actual or apparent authority” where the body corporate “expressly, tacitly, or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence”.

Pursuant to the Criminal Code, authorisation or permission by the body corporate may be established in the following ways: (1) the board of directors intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted it to occur; (2) a high managerial agent intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted it to occur; (3) a corporate culture existed that directed, encouraged, tolerated or led to the offence; or (4) the body corporate failed to create and maintain a corporate culture that required compliance with the relevant provision.

However, under the Criminal Code, “if a high managerial agent is directly or indirectly involved in the conduct, no offence is committed where the body corporate proves that it “exercised due diligence to prevent the conduct, or the authorisation or permission.”

Chile

Chilean law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on October 8, 2002.

In December 2009, a separate Chilean law entered into force establishing criminal responsibility of legal persons for a limited list of offences including bribery of foreign public officials.

In order for a legal person to be held responsible for a foreign bribery offence, the following “three cumulative requirements” must be satisfied: (1) the offence must be committed by a person acting as a representative, director or manager, a person exercising powers of administration or supervision, or a person under the “direction or supervision” of one of the aforementioned persons; (2) the offence must be committed for the direct and immediate benefit or interest of the legal entity. No offence is committed where the natural person commits the offence exclusively in his/her own interest or in the interest of a third party; and (3) the offence must have been made possible as a consequence of a failure of the legal entity to comply with its duties of management and supervision. An entity will have failed to comply with its duties if it violates the obligation to implement a model for the prevention of offences, or when having implemented the model, it was insufficient.”

As to the final element, the OECD report states as follows. “The final cumulative requirement for responsibility stresses that the offence must have been made possible as a consequence of the failure of the legal person to comply with its duties of administration and supervision. The entity will have failed to comply with its duties if it violated the obligation to implement a model for the prevention of offences, or when having implemented the model, the latter was insufficient. It shall be considered that the functions of direction and supervision have been met if, before the commission of the offense, the legal person had adopted and implemented organization, administration and supervision models, pursuant to the following article, to prevent such offenses as the one committed.”

The minimum features of a prevention system under the law are as follows: identify the different activities or processes of the entity, whether habitual or sporadic, in whose context the risk of commission of the offences emerges or increases; establish protocols, rules and procedures that permit persons involved in above-mentioned activities or processes to program and implement their tasks or functions in a manner that prevents the commission of the indicated offences; identify procedures for the administration and auditing that allow the entity to impede their use in the listed offences; establish internal administrative sanctions, as well as procedures for reporting or pursuing pecuniary responsibility against persons who violate the prevention system; introduce the above-mentioned duties, prohibitions and sanctions into the internal regulations of the legal person, and ensure that they are known by all persons bound to apply it (workers, employees, and service providers).

The OECD report states – as to the minimum requirements as follows. “It also aims to introduce a system of self-regulation by companies. Having a code of conduct on paper will not be sufficient to avoid responsibility. If prosecutors can prove that the code does not meet the minimum requirements of or that it is not implemented, the company can be responsible for the offence.”

Under Chilean law, “the failure to comply with duties of management and supervision is an element of the offence rather than a defence. Therefore the burden of proof lies on prosecutors, i.e. it will be up to prosecutors to prove that the entity failed to comply with its duties of management and supervision.”

The OECD report notes as follows. “This will require prosecutors to prove that the company failed in the design and/or implementation of the offense prevention model including why, in the circumstances, the prevention model was insufficient. This would appear to also require the prosecutor to establish that this failure made perpetration of the offence possible.”

As noted in the OECD report, the Chilean “standard of liability is inspired from the Italian system of liability of legal persons” (discussed below).

Germany

German law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999.

German law establishes the liability of legal persons, including liability for the foreign bribery offence, under an administrative (i.e. non-criminal form) act.

Pursuant to the administrative act, “the liability of legal persons is triggered where any “responsible person” (which includes a broad range of senior managerial stakeholders and not only an authorised representative or manager), acting for the management of the entity commits i) a criminal offence including bribery; or ii) an administrative offence including a violation of supervisory duties which either violates duties of the legal entity, or by which the legal entity gained or was supposed to gain a “profit”.”

As noted in the OECD report, “in other words, Germany enables corporations to be imputed with offences i) by senior managers, and, somewhat indirectly, ii) with offences by lower level personnel which result from a failure by a senior corporate figure to faithfully discharge his/her duties of supervision.”

The OECD report states that the “standards for a violation of supervisory duties include consideration of factors such as whether the company has in place a monitoring system or in-house regulations for employees.”

Hungary

Hungarian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on March 1, 1999.

In 2004, a separate law was enacted specifying the individuals whose actions can trigger the liability of the legal person.

The OECD report states as follows. “The specific persons and additional conditions for liability are defined as follows: (i) the bribery is committed by one of the members or officers [of the legal entity] entitled to manage or represent it, or a supervisory board member and/or their representatives acting within the legal scope of activity of the legal person ; (ii) the bribery is committed by one of the members of the legal entity or an employee acting within the legal scope of activity of the legal person provided the bribery could have been prevented by the chief executive fulfilling his supervisory or control obligations; and (iii) the bribery is committed by a third party individual, provided that the legal entity’s member or officer entitled to manage or represent the it had knowledge of the facts.”

According to the OECD report, the relevant law does not provide any guidance as to the necessary degree of supervision to avoid liability for bribery.

Italy

Italian law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on October 26, 2000.

Under Italian law, “criminal liability cannot be attributed to legal persons” however, “administrative liability may be attributed to legal persons for certain criminal offences (including foreign bribery) committed by a natural person.

The relevant administrative decree provides a “defence of organisational models” to a body which makes reasonable efforts to prevent the commission of an offence.

The OECD report states as follows. “… [A] body is not liable for offences committed by persons in senior positions if it proves the following. First, before the offence was committed, the body’s management had adopted and effectively implemented an appropriate organisational and management model to prevent offences of the kind that has occurred. Second, the body had set up an autonomous organ to supervise, enforce and update the model. Third, this autonomous organ had sufficiently supervised the operation of the model. Fourth, the perpetrator committed the offence by fraudulently evading the operation of the model.” The defence of organisation models operates as a full defence which completely exculpates a legal person.

The relevant administrative decree stipulates the essential elements of an acceptable organisational model described in the OECD report as follows. “First, the model must identify activities which may give rise to offences. Second, the model must define procedures through which the body makes and implements decisions relating to the offences to be prevented. It must also prescribe procedures for managing financial resources to prevent offences from being committed. Third, the model must oblige the internal organ responsible for supervision and enforcement to provide information to the body. Finally, the model must include a disciplinary system for non-compliance.”

Japan

Japanese law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999 .

“Under Japanese law, criminal responsibility of a legal person is based on the principle that the company did not exercise due care in the supervision, selection, etc. of an officer or employee to prevent the culpable act.

The burden rests on the legal person to prove that due care was exercised. Where a legal person raises the defence, a person must be identified as having exercised due care, etc., and the court must determine whether it was exercised properly having regard to the nature of the legal person and the circumstances of the case.”

Korea

Korean law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 15, 1999.

Korean law establishes the criminal responsibility of legal persons for the bribery of a foreign public official, however, a legal person is exempt from liability where it has paid “due attention” or exercised “proper supervision” to prevent the offence.

The statute itself does not provide information about what constitutes “due attention” or “proper supervision.” A representative of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the OECD that “the exemption is triggered when a director or ‘superior person’ exercises due attention.” The Explanatory Manual published by the Ministry of Justice states that “it is difficult to standardize the extent of attention or supervision in deciding whether a legal person can be exempted from criminal punishment.” The Explanatory Manual further states that whether the exemption applies depends upon “general circumstances such as the motive and background that led to the bribery, intervention of exclusive members of the legal person, whether it was informed earlier, and how much effort was usually made by the corporation to prevent bribery, etc.” and that companies involved in international business must prevent violations of the law by all employees and executives of the company “through sufficient necessary management”.

Poland

Polish law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on February 4, 2001.

Polish law provides “a noncriminal form of responsibility for collective entities.” Among the requirements for liability is the offence was committed “in the effect of at least absence of due diligence in electing the natural person [committing the act] or of at least the absence of due supervision over this person by an authority or a representative of the collective entity.”

According to the relevant Polish legislative history, “the perpetration of a prohibited act by a natural person will trigger liability of the
collective entity where the act occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the authority or representative of the collective entity.”

Portugal

Portuguese law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on June 9, 2001.

Under Portuguese law relevant to corruption in international business transactions, legal persons can be liable for conduct committed “on their behalf and in the collective interest by natural persons occupying a leadership position within the legal person structure” or by “whoever acts under the authority” of such natural persons.

However, “[t]he liability of legal persons and equivalent entities is excluded when the actor has acted against the orders or express instructions of the person responsible.”

Sweden

Swedish law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on July 1, 1999.

Under Swedish Law, only natural persons can commit crimes. However, pursuant to the Swedish Penal Code, a “kind of quasi-criminal liability is applied to an ‘entrepreneur’ (a general term meaning “any natural or legal person that professionally runs a business of an economic nature) for a ‘crime committed in the exercise of business activities.’”

However, one requirement under the Penal Code is that “the entrepreneur has not done what could reasonable be required of him for prevention of the crime.”

Switzerland

Swiss law implementing the OECD Convention entered into force on May 1, 2000.

Article 100quater of the Swiss Criminal Code requires “defective organisation as a condition for corporate criminal liability.”

In order to incur criminal liability, “the enterprise must not have taken all reasonable and necessary organisational measures to prevent the individual from committing the offence.”

Under Swiss law, the burden is on the prosecutor to furnish proof of defective organization and according to Swiss authorities contacted by the OECD “steps should be taken to assess whether employees have been sufficiently informed, supervised and controlled” and “the fact that an enterprise is organised in compliance with international management standards will not be sufficient to rule out all liability on its part; it will be one element to take into consideration among others …”. In the view of Swiss authorities, “ shifting the burden of proof in criminal cases would contravene Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Global Financial Integrity Responds

The goal of FCPA Professor (see here) is to foster a forum for critical analysis and discussion of the FCPA (and related topics) among FCPA practitioners, business and compliance professionals, scholars and students, and other interested persons.

With that goal in mind, I asked Heather A. Lowe, Esq. (Legal Counsel & Director of Government Affairs, Global Financial Integrity (“GFI”)) to consider a guest post to respond to my criticism last week of certain of GFI’s statements in connection with the House FCPA hearing (see here for the prior post).

I am glad she accepted and below is Ms. Lowe’s guest post.

If other readers want to make their voice heard on the topic of FCPA reform as well, please consider FCPA Professor as a suitable forum.

*****

I appreciate the invitation from Prof. Koehler to provide some comments on this forum as a guest blogger.

On June 14, 2011, Prof. Koehler commented (here) on documents provided by Global Financial Integrity and other civil society organizations and GFI’s press release (here) circulated on Monday, prior to the House of Representatives’ hearing on the FCPA. Additional arguments are included in GFI’s formal submission (here) for the record at the hearing. Karen Lissakers, Director of the Revenue Watch Institute, and Corinna Gilfillan, Head of U.S. Office at Global Witness, each provided statements (see here and here) for the hearing record as well. I am sure readers will find our full submissions to be of interest.

One of the primary reasons that GFI wanted to provide a submission for the hearing was to ensure that Members of Congress were aware that (a) businesses and the Department of Justice were not the only stakeholders with views to be considered in this discussion, (b) proposed changes to the FCPA must be considered within an international context, and any changes will have international implications, and (c) there are strong economic arguments for carefully considering changes to the FCPA that might lead to a reduction in enforcement.

Anti-bribery laws are not enacted in this world without years of blood, sweat and tears from anti-corruption campaigners around the world, and I don’t expect that they will be willing to lose ground on this flagship anti-bribery legislation without making their voices heard. When I say “blood, sweat and tears” I literally mean blood, sweat and tears. There are activists around the world who have been threatened with violence, jailed and even killed over the years to achieve the progress that has been made. It would be inaccurate, therefore, to believe that corporations are the only ones with “skin” in this game.

GFI would not presume to speak on behalf of these organizations without their permission, but we did not want to miss the opportunity to provide at least one civil society submission as a place-holder for a critical group of stakeholders.

We appreciated Prof. Koehler’s comments on the documents he posted. We are trying to begin a meaningful dialogue on these issues that more civil society organizations with direct experience in the field, around the world, can join. His comments demonstrate that we have been successful in starting that conversation.

Prof. Koehler did not invite me to blog for my motivational comments, however. He would like me to respond to his post of June 14, 2011.

Apart from quoting the opinion of a former SEC Commissioner in a statement made 20 years ago

• during a hearing on bills proposing changes that the Professor considers to be similar to changes being proposed today,
• which were ultimately never adopted by Congress, and
• during a time preceding the international proliferation of anti-bribery conventions and national laws that we have to support our FCPA enforcement efforts today,

Prof. Koehler seems to be focusing on two main subjects: the proposed amendment to further define “foreign official” and the proposal to include a compliance defense in the FCPA.

The Professor refers to the UK Bribery Act Guidance to shore up his position in support of creating a compliance defense for companies. The U.S. Chamber refers to the UK Bribery Act (the “UK Act”) itself to support its position that a compliance defense is a reasonable amendment to request. The compliance defense in the UK Act should not be taken out of context, however. It must be viewed in light of the other provisions of the UK Act. The UK Bribery Act criminalizes ALL forms of commercial bribery. The FCPA criminalizes only payments made to foreign officials. The UK Act does not permit facilitation payments. The FCPA permits facilitation payments and has an express provision creating an affirmative defense for reasonable travel and lodging and other types of expenses one might incur as a “host” of a trading partner. The UK Act’s extraterritoriality provisions have been described as more far-reaching than the FCPA’s.

The U.S. Chamber’s proposals to amend the FCPA are entitled “Restoring Balance.” The UK Act’s compliance defense could conceivably be seen as an attempt to balance provisions that go well beyond those of the FCPA. A compliance defense in the FCPA would, in fact, be out of balance when viewed in full context. However, if there is a genuine move to bring the FCPA in line with the UK Bribery Act then let’s talk!

I also found it interesting that the Professor referenced the UK Bribery Act Guidance in his support of the compliance defense. The Guidance he refers to is the Guidance from the UK Ministry of Justice. At the very beginning of that document, in paragraph 4, the Ministry states, “The question of whether an organisation had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery in the context of a particular prosecution is a matter that can only be resolved by the courts taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The onus will remain on the organisation, in any case where it seeks to rely on the defence, to prove that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery. However, departures from the suggested procedures contained within the guidance will not of itself give rise to a presumption that an organisation does not have adequate procedures.”

So, what does a compliance defense actually accomplish in the UK? A company still has to prove that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent the criminal activity (which means all of the investigation into what actually took place must still be undertaken) and the matter still has to be adjudicated by the courts. Compliance in the UK is not an absolute defense that can be relied upon to avoid the cost of investigation and litigation at all, as seems to be the idea behind the U.S. Chambers’ proposal! The burden on a UK company is, in practical terms, the same as that of a company defending an FCPA violation under the current form of the statute.

Prof. Koehler characterized some of my statements as “unsophisticated” and “naïve,” so I was surprised by his argument that the real reason that companies want a clearer definition of “foreign official” is so that they can more easily determine who they can take out for a round of golf and a few drinks at the 19th without thinking too hard about it. While I do not doubt that this is something companies do have to think about, I stand by my statement that a clearer definition of foreign official can just as easily be used to determine who a company can bribe and who it can’t bribe and I am not naïve enough to think that this isn’t a frequent question. Let’s get on board with the UK on this one and just not bribe anyone.

I will say, however, that I think I have a fairly accurate view of what motivates corporations. Corporations are motivated by their bottom line and their cost/benefit analysis. There are externalities that also factor into decisions, like reputational risk, but in the end the externalities are quantified and factored in. This is not a bad thing – corporations exist to make money and are vital to support a strong economy.

For the reasons set forth in GFI’s submission, I don’t think that most companies set out to engage in bribery, unless they do not have the attributes to be truly competitive in the market they are entering in the first place (which should not be overlooked as a possible motivating factor). When faced with a bribe, however, the choice on the spot may be perceived to be one of paying a bribe or losing business worth many times the value of the bribe. A strongly enforced FCPA makes that bribe much more expensive in any cost/benefit analysis.

The perception that the choice a company is making is whether to pay a bribe or lose the business is where we should be focusing our energy, however. Many companies have created strategies, policies and outreach to governments in the countries in which they operate in order to ensure that it is understood by those with whom they do business that they are subject to the FCPA and cannot pay bribes. We are pretty sure that the whole notion of the FCPA isn’t a surprise to their business counterparts when the subject is raised.

As I stated in GFI’s submission for the hearing, “Some companies, like Newmont Mining, view the FCPA in a positive light. Newmont Mining, based in Colorado, is the second largest gold mining company in the world. Newmont’s Director Corporate & External Affairs for Africa, Chris Andersen, stated during a panel discussion at the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Global Conference in March of this year that,

“…Newmont’s experience, particularly in Africa, has been that FCPA has been an enormously valuable protective device for us…when you have a government person saying…‘we’ll give you that license if you buy us a car or something’…it’s not about look ‘I’m a mean guy and I don’t value our relationship, and therefore I’m not going to give it to you,’ you say ‘look, there’s a law out there that means I’m going to go to jail if I do that, I’m not going to go to jail for you or anybody else.’”

There are many more arguments to be made on all sides of this debate, I have no doubt. Let’s make sure that all relevant voices are being heard moving forward.

House Hearing – Overview and Observations

Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) today chaired a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security titled “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” (See here for the video).

This post provides a chronological overview of the hearing as well as observations.

Compared to the Senate’s FCPA hearing in November 2010 (see here for the prior post) today’s hearing (approximately two hours) was much more contentious. For instance, during the hearing Chairman Sensenbrenner noted that FCPA enforcement has become a “considerable windfall for the federal government” and he concluded the hearing by telling Greg Andres (DOJ) that it “would behoove the DOJ to realize that the statute needs updating” and that those on the Committee will be drafting a reform bill.

The hearing focused on a wide range of issues and in many ways was similar to FCPA reform hearings in the 1980’s in that a common theme explored during the hearing was whether the current state of FCPA enforcement harms U.S. business.

There is clearly a push to introduce FCPA reform legislation and members of both parties appeared receptive (to at least certain) FCPA reform proposals most notably clarifying the FCPA’s definition of “foreign official” / “instrumentality” and exploring an FCPA compliance defense. In fact, John Conyers (D-MI), who appeared most supportive of the current state of FCPA enforcement, stated he would support such reform proposals. The DOJ supports neither of these proposals.

Other issues explored in the hearing included prosecutorial discretion and DOJ declination decisions – including a request that the DOJ provide further information as to its declination decisions.

What happens next is a good question.

It seems like an FCPA reform bill will soon be introduced and hearings as to the specifics of such a bill may occur. Whether such a bill can get out of committee for full consideration by the House, and whether similar bills will be introduced in the Senate, is the open question. Politically, any FCPA reform efforts are likely, because of the topic at issue, to attract substantial opposition – including opposition that is less than informed as to the actual issues.

It bears noting that the last time Congress enacted significant FCPA amendments, the process took eight years and the statute was amended, not through a stand-alone bill, but through Title V, Subtitle A, Part I of the Omnibus Trade and Competiveness Act of 1988.

Opening Statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner

Sensenbrenner began by noting that when Congress passed the FCPA in 1977 the “world was a different place.” In response to slush funds and secret payments to foreign governments that adversely affected U.S. foreign policy, Congress passed the FCPA and the law “sent a strong signal.” (For an overview of the facts and circumstances motivating Congress to pass the FCPA – see here).

Sensenebrenner next observed that thirty-four years later, the world has turned upside down, China is a power, the nature of overseas business has changed, and many countries have some state-control over business.

Sensenbrenner noted that there has been a dramatic increase in FCPA prosecution and that last year approximately 1/2 of all DOJ criminal penalties were in FCPA cases (see here for the DOJ release) – a dynamic he called a “considerable windfall for the federal government.”

In touching upon themes similar to when Congress held substantive FCPA hearings in the mid-1980’s, Sensenbrenner placed the increase in FCPA enforcement in the context of the current economic downturn. Indeed a theme throughout the hearing was that the current state of FCPA enforcement may be harming U.S. business interests.

Sensenbrenner stated that “FCPA prosecutions should be effective and fair,” but also “predictable” so that the “rules of the road are clear” so that “business can start moving again.”

In closing his opening statement, Sensenbrenner stated that the Committee was well-suited to examine the impact of the FCPA and to ask hard questions – such as whether the FCPA was succeeding in its mission or hurting job creation.

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Scott

Robert Scott (D-VA) next made an opening statement. Scott summarized the reform proposals including providing greater clarity to the “foreign official” definition. As a potential compliance affirmative defense, Scott observed that companies are spending substantial sums – millions of dollars in some cases – on FCPA compliance – a result he indicated may often result in “overcompliance” because companies would rather be “safe than sorry.” Scott stated that “punishing those companies and individuals who are operating in good faith runs counter to the basic tenets of fairness and justice.” He also indicated that successor liability “runs counter” to a system of justice that should only punish the guilty party.

In closing, Scott said that effective enforcement of the FCPA is “crucial” and he applauded aggressive enforcement of the law. At the same time, Scott noted the necessity of periodically reviewing laws to make sure “they remain fair and just.”

Opening Statement of John Conyers

John Conyers (D-MI) also made an opening statement. After a few sentences about unemployment figures and the Obama administration, Conyers asked the following question: will somebody explain to me how 140 cases in 10 years is “overly aggressive prosecution.”

Conyers did indicate in his opening statement that he does support certain FCPA reform proposals. As to clarification of “foreign official,” Conyers said he can “support this one” because it can create a problem when those subject to the FCPA do not have a clear understanding of who a “foreign official” is. Conyers also said that he can support the addition of a compliance defenses so that companies can fight imposition of criminal liability if individual employees and agents circumvent compliance measures. Conyers did not support other FCPA reform proposals – such as limiting successor liability, limiting parent company liability for acts of foreign subsidiaries, and adding a wilful mens rea requirement for corporations.

Statement by Greg Andres

Greg Andres (Deputy Assistant Attorney General) next delivered an opening statement. His prepared statement can be found here.

Among other things, Andres noted that DOJ’s FCPA prosecutions involve “systemic long-standing bribery schemes” not the payment of single bribe payments of nominal sums.

Andres specifically cited the Daimler AG and Siemens FCPA prosecutions to support this point. However, the irony is that neither of these FCPA enforcement actions involved FCPA anti-bribery charges against the parent company or any related individual prosecutions.

As to a potential FCPA compliance defense, Andres stated that the DOJ already considers a company’s pre-existing compliance policies and procedures pursuant to the Federal Principles of Prosecution of Business Organizations (see here).

As to providing guidance, Andres noted that the DOJ’s goal “is not simply to prosecute FCPA cases” and that senior DOJ officials often speak publicly on the FCPA and highlight relevant considerations and practices companies should adopt. Andres also discussed the DOJ’s FCPA Opinion Procedure program (see here for more).

In closing, Andres stated that DOJ is proud of its enforcement record and that it looks forward to working with Congress.

Statement by Michael Mukasey

Former Attorney General and current Debevoise & Plimpton partner Michael Mukasey next delivered an opening statement on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. See here for his prepared statement.

Mukasey began by noting that no one favors bribery and that while the FCPA indeed does have merit, “more than 30 years of experience” with the law demonstrates that it can be improved.

His testimony focused on two of the Chamber’s FCPA reform proposals: clarifying the definition of “foreign official” and “instrumentality” and amending the FCPA to include a compliance defense.

As to the later, Mukasey observed that statutory guidance can be found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which provides for something akin to a compliance defense. Mukasey stated that “dozens, if not hundreds of cases are resolved under this compliance defense” and that the defense reduces discrimination by encouraging employers to have robust compliance systems.

As to “foreign official,” Mukasey referenced the recent judicial opinions on this issue (see here and here for the prior posts), yet noted that the judges did very little to clarify the limits of the “foreign official” issue other than say that whether an employee of an alleged state-owned or state-controlled enterprise could constitute a “foreign official” varied depending on the circumstances. Mukasey stated that leaving this issue in the hands of a jury in a criminal trial makes it “impossible” for companies to determine in advance who is a “foreign official” thereby increasing uncertainty and barriers to U.S. business. According to Mukasey, “majority ownership is the most plausible threshold” for whether a state-owned or state-controlled enterprise constitutes a foreign government “instrumentality.”

Statement by George Terwilliger

George Terwilliger (White & Case) next delivered an opening statement. See here for his prepared statement.

Terwilliger opened by stating that he favors “fair enforcement of sensible corruption statutes” and that “leveling the playing field” is essential. He noted that the DOJ and SEC are “realizing their enforcement goal of driving companies into far greater compliance,” but also noted the less desirable effects of stepped-up enforcement. He spoke of the “hidden effect” of foregone business opportunities because of FCPA enforcement concerns and noted that the current state of enforcement may hurt job creation.

According to Terwilliger, the “hidden costs” of FCPA enforcement are the result of uncertainty and that companies sometimes forego deals, take a pass on certain projects and withdraw from other projects – not because such companies are necessarily risk averse – but because of the risk-reward ratio in this current FCPA enforcement environment.

Terwilliger proposed a further FCPA reform proposal related to successor liability and that is a statutory safe harbor provision during which an acquiring company could be shielded from FCPA liability for a defined time period post-closing. During this post-closing period, the acquiring company would undertake a thorough review of the target’s business operations and have the opportunity to self-disclose any FCPA issues to the enforcement authorities.

Statement by Shana-Tara Regon

Shana-Tara Regon (Director, White Collar Crime Policy, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) next testified. See here for her prepared statement.

She observed that given the general lack of judicial scrutiny over FCPA enforcement, the FCPA says whatever essentially the DOJ says it means and that the FCPA has, in many instances, become a strict liability statute “in ways that those who created the FCPA could never have envisoned.”

Regon stated that NACDL does not advocate bribery and similarly stated that advocating for reform is not akin to advocating for bribery. Her testimony was focused on two reform proposals – clarifying the definition of “foreign official” and strengthening the mens rea requirement for corporate offenses. She stated that the FCPA is “emblematic of the general problem of overcriminalization” and that FCPA enforcement has several “unintended consequences” including over-compliance.

During the hearing, Global Financial Integrity (see here for yesterday’s post) tweeted as follos: ” This group of witnesses is such a sham. All three non-DOJ witnesses spewing disingenuous pro-#bribery #AmChamb talking points #FCPAHearing.” (See here).

Chairman Sensenbrenner reserved his questions for the end and next called on various Representatives present.

Q&A Session

Tom Marino (R-PA) asked Andres (DOJ) about the DOJ’s top enforcement obstacle.

Andres stated that because FCPA violations focus on conduct abroad, the DOJ often needs to rely on MLAT requests which can take longer. He noted that the DOJ is in favor of extending the FCPA’s statute of limitations given that it generally takes a long time to investigate FCPA cases. Andres further stated that while there is much discussion as to the increase in FCPA enforcement, this discussion often “fails to recognize the size and magnitude of the problem.”

Robert Scott (D-VA) next asked Mukasey whether the compliance defense proposed was a total defense or an affirmative defense. Mukasey stated that the proposal was for an affirmative defense and that where there is a proved violation of the FCPA, the question should then become whether the company had a compliance mechanism in place reasonable designed to detect and prevent the conduct. Mukasey noted that this issue may be an “uphill climb” for a company, but that the FCPA ought to at least allow a company to pursue such a defense.

Scott next asked Mukasey about the mens rea reform proposal for corporate liability. Mukasey seemed to be advocating a corporate liability standard similar to the (soon to be old) U.K. standard and the current Canada law standard when he stated that a company should only be held liable if someone in a “policy making position” was involved in or condoned the improper activity.

Scott next asked Andres (DOJ) the general question of whether any de minimis cases have ever been brought by the DOJ. Andres stated “no,” the DOJ has never prosecuted “cup of coffee, lunch, taxi-ride type of cases” and he further stated that because of the FCPA’s corrupt intent element and the affirmative defense for reasonable and bona fide business expenditures, it is an open question as to whether such facts even violate the statute.

Even so, Andres stated that the DOJ is opposed to creating a de minimis exception to the FCPA because small, recurring payments can amount to significant bribery. He stated that the amount of the bribe is not the relevant consideration, rather the intent of the bribe is and that all bribery is inappropriate. Andres said that all the talk of taxi-ride payments and meals being in violation of the FCPA “is not reflected in our enforcement actions.”

Taxi-cabs were a recurring issue throughout the hearing. Mukasey stated, in response to a question, that the taxi-cab example is real and that when “nervous counsel” found out that a company may have paid a “foreign official’s” taxi-cab fare, the company disclosed the conduct to the DOJ and the DOJ requested that the company investigate its entire relationship with the “foreign official.” Mukasey stated that this investigation cost the company approximately $200,000, no violation was found, and that the company could have used this money for something more beneficial than conducting in investigation as to these facts.

Louie Gohmert (R-TX) next stated that those subject to the FCPA “ought to have a clear enough line” so that people don’t have to think “is it or isn’t it a bribe” to make this payment. Gohmert said that Congress can define bribery so that companies “can have a clear line” so that a company does not have to spend $200,000 to figure out whehther paying for a cab is an FCPA violation. Gohmert then made an interesting observing that the FCPA allows a “young prosecutor” or an “FBI agent seeking to make a name for himself” the opportunity to pursue all sorts of enforcement actions and that enforcement then ends up being more aggressive than it should be.

Gohmert next asked Andres (DOJ) as follows: why should a company be prosecuted if a company has a compliance program set up according to the standards set forth in Chapter 8 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (see here). Gohmert stated that if a company has done everything it can do, it seems like a strict liability standard if the company is prosecuted because of the act of an employee acting contrary to the company’s policy. Andres stated that the DOJ “does not prosecute companies based on the acts of a single, rogue employee.”

Rather, Andres stated that the DOJ looks at how pervasive was the conduct or whether the conduct involved a high-ranking employee. Andres specifically stated that the DOJ opposes consideration of an FCPA compliance defense. He stated that DOJ already seriously considers compliance programs in its charging decisions, along with other factors such as cooperation and voluntary disclosure.

Andres called a potential compliance defense “novel” and one that is not “well-defined.” He said that such a defense could lead to “paper compliance.” He also referenced the U.K. Bribery Act (which does contain such a compliance defense) yet stated that this defense is not yet in effect and thus there is no precedent to analyze to see whether such a defense is effective.

Given that the DOJ frequently takes FCPA enforcement position that are “novel,” are not “well-defined,” and are not supported by precedent, Andres response on this issue was less than convincing.

In closing, Andres stated that an FCPA compliance defense could “create a loophole” and allow for some bribery to occur. He called such a potential defense “novel and risky” and said that the “time is not right to consider it.”

The floor next returned to John Conyers (D-MI). He stated that ignorance of the law is no excuse and wondered why in the case of bribery does there need to be a de minimis rule. He stated that “corporations have more lawyers than anybody else” and “why do they need to know” how low the bribery threshold should be. He said that “they don’t deserve to know that.”

Conyers also conducted the most contentious Q&A exchange of the hearing with Regon. Conyers asked – “give me some examples of overcriminalization of the FCPA.” He repeatedly interrupted Regon and asked “just give me some examples” “give me an instance of where one case was ever brought by the DOJ that would constitute overcriminalization.” Conyers stated, “only 140 cases have been brought in 10 years -that averages 14 cases a year – is that overcriminalization to you?” Regon stated that overcriminlization occurs when a statute provides no reasonable limits and that she is concerned more about prosecutions that may occur in the future more so than prosecutions that have already occured.

Ted Poe (R-TX) next launched into a criticism of China. He said that “China, through its government, follows a systematic philosophy of corruption” and that China will “do anything in the world to get their way” including stealing from the U.S. and paying bribes. He suggested that “any means necessary” is the Chinese way to get business. “We on the other hand,” Poe stated, “believe in the rule of law.” Poe stated that the “Chinese are effective in their philosophy” and he observed that he just returned from Iraq where he learned that Chinese companies are going to rebuild Iraqi’s oil system and that he suspected money changed hands in order to get this business.

Poe, a former prosecutor, next said that it “disturbs” him when we give DOJ prosecutors too much discretion. Poe said that he was not advocating loosening the standards, but he did prefer “absolute certainty” about what is a violation of the FCPA as “opposed to too much discretion” by the DOJ on what something means and whether it is a bribe.

Judy Chu (D-CA) next asked Andres a series of questions allowing him to further articulate how the DOJ takes into consideration a company’s compliance program and how compliance expectations are stated in public documents such as Chapter 8 of the Sentencing Guidlines and the OECD Guidelines. (See here). Andres further stated that there are situations where the DOJ does not pursue an enforcement action because of a variety of factors, including a company’s pre-existing compliance program, even if these instances are not made public because the DOJ does not issue a press release. Asked by Chu for reasons why FCPA enforcement has expanded, Andres stated that the “problem is as big as it has ever been” and that “at least one reason” for the increase in enforcement is the result of SOX whereby companies have an obligation to test its internal controls – tests that often uncover FCPA issues that are then often disclosed to the DOJ.

Hank Johnson (D-GA) next asked Regon about prosecutorial discretion and whether it is fair to say that the “looser the law the more prosecutorial discretion and the narrower the law the less prosecutorial discretion.” Regon stated that if the DOJ means what it says (i.e. that it targets only explicit instances of bribery and that it does not prosecute based on the actions of rogue employees), then the DOJ should not mind less prosecutorial discretion. Johnson next launched into an unusual statement about illegal crime (blue-collar crime) and legal crime (white collar crime in the sense that prosecutions of white collar crime tend to be less vigorous). Johnson said he was bothered by the fact there has not been much prosecutorial activity as to white collar crime, he said this “seems kind of fishy” and that some “folks are getting off the hook for legal crime.”

Sandra Adams (R-FL) next asked Andres whether the DOJ has a definition of “foreign official” or “instrumentality.” Andres said, in addition to the statute, there are now several decisions by district courts that further “amplified” the definition of foreign official. Andres stated that DOJ does not support a change to the definition of “foreign official” or “instrumentality.”

Adams next Andres several pointed questions about DOJ declination decisions and whether such decisions are published or transparent. Andres stated that this is a difficult area for the government because the DOJ does not want to “penalize a company or individual investigated by not prosecuted.”

I’ve argued before (see here for the prior post) that the DOJ should publish its declination decisions in a manner similar to its FCPA Opinion Procedure decisions. Given that most declination decisions would seem to follow disclosure by a company of FCPA scrutiny (in its SEC filings), Andres’s rationale for not making declination decisions public is less than convincing.

Adams asked – in the last year, how many instances of FCPA conduct have been disclosed to the DOJ where no enforcement action resulted. Andres did not offer any specific number, but retreated to the FCPA Opinion Procedure and noted that if a company ever has a question about the FCPA, it has the ability to ask the DOJ and the DOJ is obligated to give an opinion.

Adams next asked Andres whether the DOJ is defining what the law means. Andres said that “everyone of these cases is negotiated with experienced defense counsel” and that counsel has “ample opportunity” to address any issues concerning the DOJ’s enforcement.

Mukasey then answered that while resolved FCPA enforcement actions make for interesting case studies, such resolutions are not binding in other cases.

Before her time expired, Adams requested that the DOJ provide the Committee with more detail as to its declination decisions, including the DOJ’s reasons and rationale for why enforcement actions did not result. Chairman Sensenbrenner then followed up and said DOJ’s responses will be made part of hearing record.

Shelia Jackson Lee (D-TX) next asked Andres how many attorneys and staff are assigned to FCPA enforcement. He stated that the DOJ’s FCPA unit, includes a core unit in D.C. of 15 to 20 enforcement attorneys and that assistance in trials is given by local prosecutors. Jackson Lee asked “is this an excessive amount” and Andres said “certaintly not in light of the size and magnitude of the bribery problem … it is significant.” Jackson Lee next received a tutorial from Andres as to the FCPA’s jurisdiction over foreign companies.

Ben Quayle (R-AZ) next asked a question very much based on current events and that is the scrutiny of the Macau gaming industry. [Las Vegas Sands recently disclosed that it received subpoenas concerning its conduct in Macau]. Andres stated that it was not appropriate for him to comment on any ongoing investigations.

Quayle next asked Andres whethr General Motors would be considered a U.S. government “instrumentality.” Andres said that in addressing this issue, the DOJ considers government ownership or investment as only one factor. Other factors include characterization of the entity under foreign law, the purpose of the entity, and that under these factors General Motors would likely not qualify as a U.S. government “instrumentality.” Quayle next asked whether it is relevant if the government has communications with the company’s board and the government has the ability to control or influence the entity (a presumed reference to GM’s relationship with the U.S. government). Andres again stated that control and ownership is but one factor and he specifically referenced the recent Lindsey prosecution where the Mexican entity at issue was specifically addressed in the country’s constitution.

Quayle next asked Terwilliger whether he has any knowledge of companies conceding markets to foreign competitors because of the FCPA. Terwilliger stated that “conceding markets” may be a bit strong, but that American companies have become much more circumspect in dealing with foreign business opportunities because of FCPA enforcement. In particular, Terwilliger said that companies may bypass “smaller opportunities” (that might become bigger opportunities) because of the FCPA in that the cost-benefit analysis and FCPA compliance are too much to worry about.

Chairman Sensenbrenner was the last person to ask questions and he began his time by stating as follows. There is “no question in my mind that we have to bring this law up to date.” “No one is in favor of bribery, but there has to be more certainty.” Sensenbrenner said he was “a bit befuddled” by Conyer’s statement that corporations don’t deserve to know what bribery is and he stated that “everyone has a right to know what is illegal.”

Sensenbrenner’s only question (a long one at that as he basically summarized the Chamber’s FCPA reform proposals) was directed to Regon and Andres. Regon focused mostly on the corporate mens rea issue and stated that her organization is supportive of “anything Congress does” to clarify the FCPA. Tara Regon failed to see the rationale for not providing greater clarity as to the FCPA and noted that “we have many bribery statutes on the books, and some of those are written tightly and work well.”

Sensenbrenner then asked Andres – which of Regon’s suggestions do you agree with and Andres said “I don’t agree with any of them.” For instance, Andres said with the definition of “foreign official” that “one thing you need to take into consideration is that the statute covers the whole world” and that what might constitute a “foreign official” in China may be different than what constitutes a “foreign official” in Brazil or France.

Sensenbrenner grasped onto this issue and noted that this part of the uncertainty that people are complaining about.

Andres followed with two points. First, that if there is concern, companies subject to the FCPA can ask for a DOJ opinion. This only seemed to enrange Sensenbrenner further as he stated “come on, China is a communist country – they are not going to tell you what the government involvement is” in a company “they don’t have the type of disclosure we have.”

Andres second point was that the FCPA makes illegal paying a bribe and that if companies aren’t paying bribes they have nothing to fear.

Sensenbrenner then seemed to pose a question at the end of the hearing as to whether the DOJ would support an FCPA amendment that simply makee bribery (all bribery) illegal (perhaps akin to the UK Bribery Act). Sensenbrenner did not pause for Andres to respond and he (Sensenbrenner) concluded the hearing by saying “it would behoove the DOJ to realize that the statute needs updating.” Andres said that the DOJ is “more than willing to work with Congress” to which Sensenbrenner said “see you later we will be drafting a bill.”

Sensenbrenner then commented that if Andres were the general counsel of a corporation advising the CEO and everyone else, he would likely be advising the company in the “most narrow way” and “exercising the greatest amount of caution.” “As a result,” Sensenbrenner stated, legitimate business activity is not pursued and U.S. companies are put in a significant disadvantage compared to foreign companies.

Sensenbrenner then told Andres – “get the message sir and tell that to the AG.”

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes