Top Menu

Once Upon A Time, The DOJ Did Specifically Identify “Foreign Officials” And Rep. Ros-Lehtinen Is Miffed That It Doesn’t Now

Ros

There are several material differences between how the DOJ enforces the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the modern era compared to the past.

For instances, as highlighted in this previous post, in the modern era the vast majority of corporate FCPA enforcement actions do not result in related individual charges against company employees. Between 1977 – 2004, the exact opposite was true – most corporate FCPA enforcement actions did result in related individual charges.

For most of the FCPA’s history, the DOJ either charged a business organization suspected of FCPA violations with an offense or did not charge the organization. In the modern era, the DOJ has created a buffet of options (non-prosecution agreements, deferred prosecution agreements) and added “declinations with disgorgements” to the buffet line in September 2016 (see here for the prior post).

As highlighted in this post, for many years the DOJ specifically identified “foreign officials” implicated in an FCPA enforcement action. However, in the modern era of FCPA enforcement the DOJ does not and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)(pictured) is rightfully miffed.

Continue Reading

Rep. Perlmutter, Once Again, Introduces FCPA Reform Bill, But This Time Goes Political

perlmutter

U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) is persistent.

In 2009, he introduced the “Foreign Business Bribery Prohibition Act” in the House to no avail. (See here and here for prior posts). In 2011, he again introduced the “Foreign Business Bribery Prohibition Act” in the House to no avail. (See here for the prior post). In 2016, he again introduced the “Foreign Business Bribery Prohibition Act” in the House to no avail (See here for the prior post).

Last week, Perlmutter once again introduced the “Foreign Business Bribery Prohibition Act” in the House (H.R. 1549), but this time he attempted to make a political statement.

Even though H.R. 1549 is substantively the same bill as Perlmutter introduced in 2009, 2011 and 2016, the supposed purpose of H.R. 1549, as stated in his press release, is to “help stop corruption and foreign bribery under the Trump Administration.”

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

Roundup

Scrutiny alert, a potential increase FCPA statutory penalty amounts, Second Circuit appeal begins, SEC enforcement chief on whistleblowers, marketing the black hole, of note, and a ripple. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Scrutiny Update

VimpelCom was not the only company involved in the Uzbek telecommunications bribery scheme. As highlighted in this prior post, Swedish telecom company (a company with ADRs registered with the SEC) and Russia-based Mobile TeleSystems PJSC (a company with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange) have also been scrutiny.

Recently, Telia issued this release:

Continue Reading

Rep. Perlmutter, Once Again, Introduces FCPA Reform Bill

perlmutter

If nothing else, U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) is persistent.

In 2009 he introduced the “Foreign Business Bribery Prohibition Act” in the House to no avail. (See here and here for prior posts).

In 2011, he introduced the “Foreign Business Bribery Prohibition Act” in the House to no avail. (See here for the prior post).

Last week, he again introduced the “Foreign Business Bribery Prohibition Act” in the House (H.R. 5438).

What is the “Foreign Business Bribery Prohibition Act?”

Continue Reading

The Numbers Do Not Support Chair White’s Statement Regarding Individual FCPA Enforcement Actions

Support

In this recent testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, SEC Chair Mary Jo White stated: “as in other areas, the Commission is focused on holding individuals accountable in FCPA cases.” (emphasis added).

The numbers do not support White’s statement.

As highlighted in this recent post, since 2008 approximately 85% of SEC corporate FCPA enforcement actions have not (at least yet) resulted in any related SEC action against company employees.

Indeed, prior to the SEC’s November 2014 FCPA enforcement action against Stephen Timms and Yasser Ramahi (individuals who worked in sales at FLIR System Inc.) there was a 2.5 year gap in any SEC individual enforcement actions.  During that 2.5 years, the SEC brought 19 corporate enforcement actions and not one involved any related SEC action against company employees.

As to the accountability portion of White’s statement, the two SEC individual FCPA enforcement during the last three years (the above Timms / Ramahi action and the January 2015 action against former PBSJ International employee Walid Hatoum) involved SEC administrative orders in which the individuals were allowed to settle without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings.

It is debatable what is more concerning.

A political actor making assertions without knowledge of and/or understanding of the underlying facts.

Or a political actor making assertions with knowledge of and/or understanding of the underlying facts, but making the political statement anyway.

Regardless of the cause or reason prompting Chair White’s recent statement, the numbers do not support her assertion that the SEC is “focused on holding individuals accountable in FCPA cases.”

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes