Top Menu

OECD Report On Non-Trial Resolutions Contains Mounds Of Data, But Punts On The Pressing Questions

oecd

Recently, the OECD released this report titled “Resolving Foreign Bribery Cases with Non-Trial Resolutions.” As stated in the report “non-trial resolutions refer to a wide range of mechanisms used to resolve criminal matters without a full court proceeding, based on an agreement between an individual or a company and a prosecuting or another authority.” This term is obviously broad and covers a range of alternatives and there is little in common with a plea agreement compared to a non-prosecution agreement.

The 200+ page report and its six chapters contain mounds of comparative information and data that will likely be of interest to anyone interested in how foreign bribery enforcement actions are resolved.

Yet despite this data dump, the report punts on several pressing questions associated with alternative resolution vehicles. This is hardly surprising given that “the country mentors who provided guidance and contributed to the drafting” of the report were largely government officials including DOJ, SEC and U.K. SFO personnel.

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

Roundup

Interesting, from the DOJ’s perspective, pay them more, sanctioned, scrutiny update, exit, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Interesting

As highlighted here, in December 2016 Odebrecht S.A. (a Brazilian holding company) and Braskem S.A. (a Brazil-based petrochemical company in which Odebrecht owns a majority of voting shares) resolved a large FCPA and related enforcement action largely concerning conduct in Brazil including the companies relationships with Petrobras as well as allegations of improper payments in Angola, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Mozambique, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.

Continue Reading

Five Years Later, Bilfinger Emerges From DPA – Transparency Nil

emerge

As highlighted in this previous post, in 2013 Germany-based Bilfinger resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action concerning conduct in Nigeria by agreeing to pay approximately $32 million. The enforcement action was resolved via a three-year deferred prosecution agreement and the company was required to engage a monitor for an 18 month period.

In September 2016, the DPA was extended because, in the words of the DOJ, of “the monitor’s inability to certify compliance with the compliance obligations in the 2013 Agreement after 18 months of monitorship.” In pertinent part the extended DPA stated:

Continue Reading

SNC-Lavalin Continues To Pout

Child Crying

But Mom / Dad, when Johnny gets into trouble his parents do things a little bit differently, why can’t I benefit from that?

That was my reaction in this February 2015 post when SNC-Lavalin was criminally charged by Canadian authorities for alleged improper payments to Libyan officials. Upon being charged, the company issued this release stating:

“It is important to note that companies in other jurisdictions, such as the United States and United Kingdom, benefit from a different approach that has been effectively used in the public interest to resolve similar matters while balancing accountability and securing the employment, economic and other benefits of businesses.”

Continue Reading

Canada Now Has Deferred Prosecution Agreements

Canada2

A guest post today from Toronto-based Borden Ladner Gervais attorneys Milos Barutciski, Graeme Hamilton and Julia Webster.

On September 19, 2018, deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) became available to resolve corporate offences in Canada under the Criminal Code and the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Remediation Agreements will be available to resolve criminal charges against corporations, partnerships and other forms of business organizations without registering a criminal conviction. Remediation Agreements will be negotiated by the prosecution and the accused and are subject to judicial approval. They will typically be accompanied by the payment of penalties, restitution, implementation of compliance measures, and other terms and conditions as negotiated by the parties, including the potential appointment of corporate monitorships.

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes