Top Menu

Archive | FCPA Investigative Costs

Friday Roundup

By on May 27, 2016 in Bermuda, Compliance Defense, Deferred Prosecution Agreements, DOJ FCPA “Pilot Program”, FCPA Investigative Costs, Investigative Fees, MAXpower Group, Non-Prosecution Agreement, Standard Chartered, Wal-Mart
Roundup

A public service announcement, Wal-Mart’s pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses, scrutiny alert, happenings in Bermuda, a fee dispute, quotable, a useful timeline, for the reading stack, and good for a few chuckles. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

A Public Service Announcement

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act requires the disclosure of a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser when the relationship isn’t otherwise apparent to consumers. As the FTC has made clear, the law applies to bloggers.

Certain members of the FCPA’s blogosphere (who frequently write about compliance best practices, transparency, conflicts of interest and related topics) may want to take notice and act accordingly.

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

By on February 20, 2015 in Canada, Christopher Smith, Eli Lilly, FCPA Investigative Costs, Flowserve Corp., Libya, Monitor, Nicholas Smith, Rolls-Royce, Smith & Ouzman Ltd, Smith and Ouzman Ltd, SNC Lavalin, Wal-Mart
Roundup2

Wal-Mart related, north of the border, scrutiny alerts and updates, and an issue to watch.

It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Wal-Mart Related

Here is what Wal-Mart said in its recent 4Q FY2015 earnings call.

“FCPA-and compliance-related costs were $36 million in the fourth quarter, comprised of $26 million for the ongoing inquiries and investigations, and $10 million for our global compliance program and organizational enhancements. For the full year, FCPA-and compliance related costs were $173 million, comprised of $121 million for the ongoing inquiries and investigations, and $52 million for our global compliance program and organizational enhancements. Last year, total FCPA-and compliance-related costs were $282 million.”

“In fiscal 2016, we expect our FCPA-related expenses to range between $160 and $180 million.”

Doing the math, Wal-Mart’s 4Q FCPA and compliance-related costs is approximately $563,000 in FCPA-related expenses per working day.

Over the past approximate three years, I have tracked Wal-Mart’s quarterly disclosed pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses. While some pundits have ridiculed me for doing so, such figures are notable because, as has been noted in prior posts and in my article “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Ripples,” settlement amounts in an actual FCPA enforcement action are often only a relatively minor component of the overall financial consequences that can result from corporate FCPA scrutiny.  Pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses are typically the largest (in many cases to a degree of 3, 5, 10 or higher than settlement amounts) financial hit to a company under FCPA scrutiny.

While $563,000 per working day remains eye-popping, Wal-Mart’s recent figure suggests that the company’s pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses have crested as the figures for the past five quarters have been approximately $640,000, $662,000, $855,000, $1.1 million and $1.3 million per working day.

In the aggregate, Wal-Mart’s disclosed pre-enforcement professional fees and expenses are as follows.

FY 2013 = $157 million.

FY 2014 = $282 million.

FY 2015  = $173 million.

FY 2016 = $160 – $180 million (projected)

North of the Border

Yesterday, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) announced charges against the SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., its division SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. and its subsidiary SNC-Lavalin International Inc.”  As stated in the release:

“The three entities have been charged with one count of corruption under paragraph 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and one count of fraud under paragraph 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.The alleged criminal acts surfaced as part of the ongoing criminal investigation into the company’s business dealings in Lybia.

The charges laid are the following:

In Montreal, Judicial District of Montreal, elsewhere in Canada and abroad

  1. Between on or about August 16, 2001 and on or about September 20, 2011, the SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., its division SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. and its subsidiary SNC-Lavalin International Inc., did, in order to obtain or retain an advantage in the course of business, directly or indirectly give, offer or agree to give or offer a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind of a value of CAN$47,689,868 or more, to one or several public officials of the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” or to any person for the benefit of a public official of the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”, to induce these officials to use their positions to influence any acts or decisions of the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” for which they perform their duties or functions, thereby committing an indictable offence contrary to paragraph 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.
  2. Between on or about August 16, 2001 and on or about September 20, 2011, the SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., its division SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. and its subsidiary SNC-Lavalin International Inc. did, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretense within the meaning of theCriminal Code, defraud the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”, the “Management and Implementation Authority of the Great Man Made River Project” of Libya, the “General People’s Committee for Transport Civil Aviation Authority” of Libya, Lican Drilling Co Ltd, and the “Organization for Development of Administrative Centers” of Benghazi in Libya of property, money or valuable security or service of a value of approximately CAN$129,832,830, thereby committing an indictable offence contrary to paragraph 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.”

In the release, Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud, Commanding Officer of the RCMP’s National Division, stated: “Corruption of foreign officials undermines good governance and sustainable economic development. The charges laid today demonstrate how the RCMP continues to support Canada’s international commitments and safeguard its integrity and reputation.”

Upon being charged, SNC-Lavalin issued this release which states in full as follows.

“SNC-Lavalin was informed that federal charges have been laid by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., SNC-Lavalin International Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. Each entity has been charged with one count of fraud under section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada and one count of corruption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. SNC-Lavalin firmly considers that the charges are without merit and will vigorously defend itself and plead not guilty in the interest of its current employees, families, partners, clients, investors and other stakeholders.

“The charges stem from the same alleged activities of former employees from over three years ago in Libya, which are publicly known, and that the company has cooperated on with authorities since then,” stated Robert G. Card, President and CEO, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. “Even though SNC-Lavalin has already incurred significant financial damage and losses as a result of actions taken prior to March 2012, we have always been and remain willing to reach a reasonable and fair solution that promotes accountability, while permitting us to continue to do business and protect the livelihood of our over 40,000 employees, our clients, our investors and our other stakeholders.”

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.

These charges relate to alleged reprehensible deeds by former employees who left the company long ago. If charges are appropriate, we believe that they would be correctly applied against the individuals in question and not the company. The company has and will continue to fully cooperate with authorities to ensure that any individuals who are believed to have committed illegal acts are brought to justice. The company will also consider claims against these individuals to recover any damages the company has suffered as a result.

While the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the RCMP have selected this as the next formal step in this 3-year old investigation, there is no change to the company’s right and ability to bid or work on any public or private projects.

Becoming a benchmark in ethics and compliance

Over the past three years, we have made significant changes to the company and remained focused on continuous improvements in ethics and compliance. The tone from the top is clear and unequivocal; there is zero tolerance for ethics violations. The individuals alleged to have been involved in past ethical issues are no longer with the company, and a new CEO has changed the face of the executive team. Under the leadership of the Board of Directors, the company has reinforced its Ethics and Compliance program with huge investments in time and money to rapidly make significant and concrete enhancements, including:

  • Creating the position of Chief Compliance Officer, who reports to the board, and hiring world-renowned leaders in compliance
  • Appointing an Independent Monitor recommended by and who reports solely to, the World Bank Group
  • Appointing compliance officers in all of the company’s business units and regional offices worldwide
  • Creating a dedicated Ethics and Compliance team
  • Further reinforcing internal controls and procedures
  • Further reinforcing its Code of Ethics and Ethics and Compliance Hotline
  • Producing a dedicated  Anti-Corruption Manual
  • Offering annual compliance training to all employees, with a special focus on those working in strategic roles
  • Developing and distributing a world-class Business Partners Policy to employees
  • Using an independent third party to screen candidates for senior management positions
Working hard to build a global leader in the engineering and construction industry

Over the past 3 years and while managing issues created by events prior to 2012, we have worked hard to develop and implement a strategy to become a global Tier-1 player and take our place in a consolidating industry. We have taken concrete steps towards a 5-year goal of doubling our size, and we continue to deliver on our strategy. A clear example is the acquisition of Kentz that added 15,000 employees to our oil and gas business, making us a Tier-1 player in this area.

Since 1911, SNC-Lavalin employees have been working with our clients to create world-class projects that improve people’s quality of life and provide value to our clients. We are the only Canadian player among the top engineering and construction firms in the world, ranking as the number one firm in both Canada and Quebec.

“I would like to thank our more than 40,000 employees, clients, shareholders, partners and other stakeholders for their trust and continuing support,” concluded Mr. Card.”

The portion of SNC-Lavalin’s statement highlighted above in bold and underlined is most interesting.

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates

Flowserve

In 2008, Flowserve Corporation and a related entity agreed to pay approximately $10.5 million to resolve DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct in connection with the U.N. Oil for Food Program in Iraq.  As part of the SEC resolution, Flowserve agreed to final judgment permanently enjoining it from future violations of FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.

Earlier this week, Flowserve disclosed as follows.

“The Company has uncovered actions involving an employee based in an overseas subsidiary that violated our Code of Business Conduct and may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company has terminated the employee, is in the process of completing an internal investigation, and has self-reported the potential violation to the United States Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. While the Company does not currently believe that this matter will have a material adverse impact on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, there can be no assurance that the Company will not be subjected to monetary penalties and additional costs.”

Eli Lilly

In December 2012, Eli Lilly agreed to pay $29 million to resolve an SEC FCPA enforcement action based on subsidiary conduct in China, Brazil, Poland, and Russia.  At the time, there was no parallel DOJ action which sent a signal to knowledgeable observers that there would likely not be a parallel DOJ action.

Earlier this week, Eli Lilly made this official when it disclosed:

“In August 2003, we received notice that the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was conducting an investigation into the compliance by Lilly’s Polish subsidiary with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA). Subsequently, we were notified that the SEC had expanded its investigation to other countries and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was conducting a parallel investigation. In December 2012, we announced that we had reached an agreement with the SEC to settle its investigation. The settlement relates to certain activities of Lilly subsidiaries in Brazil, China, Poland, and Russia from 1994 through 2009. Without admitting or denying the allegations, we consented to pay a civil settlement amount of $29.4 million and agreed to have an independent compliance consultant conduct a 60-day review of our internal controls and compliance program related to the FCPA. In January 2015, the DOJ advised us that they have closed their investigation into this matter.”

Rolls-Royce

As highlighted here, allegations have surfaced that Rolls-Royce “paid bribes for a contract with Brazilian oil firm Petrobras.” According to the report, “one of the Petrobras informants in the case, received at least $200,000 in bribes from Rolls-Royce, which makes gas turbines for Petrobras oil platforms.”

As noted in the report, “Britain’s Serious Fraud Office is separately investigating Rolls-Royce because of concerns over possible bribery in Indonesia and China.”

As highlighted here and here Rolls-Royce is also under investigation in the U.S. by the DOJ and in 2012 Data Systems & Solutions, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of  Rolls-Royce Holdings, resolved an FCPA enforcement action.

U.K. Sentences

The U.K. Serious Fraud Office recently announced that “two employees of Smith and Ouzman Ltd, a printing company based in Eastbourne, were sentenced … following an SFO investigation into corrupt payments made in return for the award of contracts to the company.” As noted in the release:

Smith and Ouzman Ltd specialises in security documents such as ballot papers and education certificates.  Its chairman, Christopher John Smith, aged 72 from East Sussex, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, for two counts of corruptly agreeing to make payments, contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, to run concurrently. He was also ordered to carry out 250 hours of unpaid work and has been given a three month curfew.

Nicholas Charles Smith, the sales and marketing director of the company, aged 43 from East Sussex, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for three counts of corruptly agreeing to make payments, to run concurrently. The company itself was also convicted of the same three offences and will be sentenced at a later date.

Both men were disqualified from acting as company directors for six years.

Director of the SFO, David Green CB QC commented:

“This case marks the first convictions secured against a corporate for foreign bribery, following a contested trial. The convictions recognise the corrosive impact of such conduct on growth and the integrity of business contracts in the Developing World.”

In passing sentence HHJ Higgins commented:

“Your behaviour was cynical, deplorable and deeply antisocial, suggesting moral turpitude.”

The briberyact.com published in full the Judge’s sentencing remarks.

Issue to Watch

This Wall Street Journal editorial was about Apple’s battle with its corporate monitor in an antitrust action.  While outside the FCPA context, the editorial nevertheless notes:

“Apple might have settled long ago as most corporations do, and that option might even have been cheaper than a protracted appeal. But the company is doing a public service by attempting to vindicate a legal principle and brake the growing abuse of court-appointed monitors and a crank theory of antitrust that will harm many more innovators if it is allowed to stand. If Apple prevails in the Second Circuit, it ought to sue Mr. Bromwich and attempt to disgorge the $2.65 million he has soaked from shareholders.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

By on January 17, 2014 in Alcoa, Australia, Deferred Prosecution Agreements, FCPA Investigative Costs, Fine / Penalty Issues, Frederic Cilins, JPMorgan, Microsoft, Non-Prosecution Agreement, Nordion, Olympics

Did you notice?, scrutiny updates, quotable, too narrow, save the date and for the reading and viewing stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Did You Notice?

This previous post – “Double Dipping” – spotlighted a common trend in issuer FCPA enforcement actions.  That is, the company pays twice for the improper conduct.  First, to the DOJ because alleged improper gain is a key factor in the advisory U.S. sentencing guidelines which guide criminal fine amounts, and again to the SEC because alleged improper gain often equates to a disgorgement amount.

Did you notice the following in the recent Alcoa enforcement action?  In the DOJ’s plea agreement with Alcoa World Alumina LLC the DOJ set forth various factors justifying a reduced criminal fine amount including:  “the significant remedy being imposed on the Defendant’s majority shareholder, Alcoa, by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for Alcoa’s conduct in this matter.”

FCPA practitioners would be wise to file this someplace important and the DOJ’s recognition of such “double-dipping” is a welcome development.  Time will tell whether it was case specific.

Scrutiny Updates

Companies have different disclosure practices.  Some companies disclose specific FCPA internal investigation costs, others do not.  When a company falls into the former category, it is a relevant datapoint.  Nordion (see this prior post for its initial disclosure) recently disclosed that its “full year expenses associated with [its] investigation was $11.8 million.”

Microsoft, which first became the subject of FCPA scrutiny in March 2013 (see here) – thereby exposing the fallacy of the “good companies, don’t bribe period” position (see here) –  “is now requiring its partners to educate their employees on the legal
consequences of bribery and other illegal activity.”  So says this recent article in CRN which further states:   “A new Microsoft partner program requirement that went into effect this month calls for partners to “provide anti-corruption training to all employees who resell, distribute, or market Microsoft products or services,” Microsoft said in a document sent recently to partners, which was viewed by CRN.”

Quotable

Homer Moyer (Miller & Chevalier and a dean of the FCPA) steps up to the plate and hits another one out of the park.  In this recent article he states:

“One reality is the [FCPA] enforcement agencies’ views on issues and enforcement policies, positions on which they are rarely challenged in court.  The other is what knowledgeable counsel believe the government could sustain in court, should their interpretations or positions be challenged.  The two may not be the same.  The operative rules of the game are the agencies’ views unless a company is prepared to go to court or to mount a serious challenge within the agencies.”

Spot-on.

While the decision of one risk-averse business organization to settle an FCPA enforcement action may seem case specific, the long-term effects of such a decision affect not only the settling company, but other business organizations subject to increasingly aggressive FCPA enforcement theories.  (See here for a previous guest post titled “Prosecutorial Common Law”).

As former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rightly noted:

“In an ironic twist, the more that American companies elect to settle and not force the DOJ to defend its aggressive interpretation of the [FCPA], the more aggressive DOJ has become in its interpretation of the law and its prosecution decisions.”

Too Narrow

See here, and here for the Truth in Settlements Act recently introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK).  As stated here:

“Federal agencies are charged with holding companies and individuals accountable when they break the law, and their investigations regularly end in settlement agreements rather than public trials. All too often, the critical details of these agreements are hidden from the public.”

The bill is too narrow.  The rule of law would be better advanced and transparency achieved by abolishing non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements.

Save the Date

On January 29th, Fordham Law School in New York City and the Chinese Business Lawyers Association will jointly host a panel titled “China and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act:  Challenges for the 21st Century.” The event will be held from 6:00–7:30 p.m. in the Law School’s McNally Amphitheatre.  Speaker include:

Ohio State University Professor Daniel Chow, author of China Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; Nathaniel Edmonds, Partner at Paul Hastings and Former Assistant Chief of the FCPA Unit of the Department of Justice; and Thomas O. Gorman, Partner at Dorsey & Whitney and Former Senior Counsel, Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission.

To learn more and to register see here.

For the Reading and Viewing Stack

It would not be a major sporting event without FCPA Inc. marketing material.  But then again, certain FCPA enforcement actions in recent years have included such allegations.

For the latest on JPMorgan’s hiring scrutiny in China, see here from Bloomberg which reports that a former “regional chief who expanded the bank’s business in Asia … was met by FBI agents while traveling through a New York-area airport late last year and then interviewed.”

For the latest on the FCPA related case against Frederic Cilins, see here from Bloomberg.  As noted in the article, Cilins “won approval from [the judge] to run forensic tests on contracts that were sought by a grand jury probing claims of bribes paid to win mining rights in Guinea.”

Multimedia content here from down under questioning the lack of Australia bribery related enforcement actions.  (An interesting view, even if the program begins with a false statement).

*****

A good weekend to all.

Costs of FCPA Investigations – A Board Issue?

By on December 9, 2013 in Apple Award, FCPA Investigative Costs, Guest Posts

Numerous prior posts (see here for instance) have highlighted the excessive pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses companies often incur when under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act scrutiny.

This month’s FCPA Professor Apple Award (which recognizes informed, candid, and fresh thought-leadership on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or related topics) goes to Homer Moyer (Miller & Chevalier).

Moyer provides guidance – in a new article titled “Costs of Investigations – a Board Issue?” – on factors that can contribute to the “soaring costs” of FCPA investigations.

Moyer’s article may not be well-received in some circles, but that is all the more reason to read it.  Plus, when a dean of the FCPA bar writes on a pressing topic, you should read.

Moyer’s article was originally published at www.boardmember.com and is republished below with permission.

*****

Costs of FCPA Investigations–A Board Issue?

Homer Moyer

Even major corporations consider a $10 million FCPA investigation to be a large expenditure. But investigations costing that much or more are no longer aberrational, as public reports and SEC filings in 2013 have made clear.

Companies that are not transnational behemoths – Nordion, Diebold, and Dun & Bradstreet – reported spending $19.5, $22.3, and $18.8 million, respectively, on FCPA investigations. Costs of other investigations, some still ongoing, have been reported to be $75 million (Stryker), $106 million (News Corp), and $130 million (Weatherford). From 2010 through 2012, Avon spent $90-100 million a year; its total costs thus far exceed $345 million.

Walmart, in an investigation begun relatively recently, reportedly has already rung up more than $300 million in costs, with quarterly costs ranging from $44-82 million. So even without reference to the $1 billion total for Siemens’s massive investigation and global remediation, reported costs of FCPA investigations are at levels widely regarded as breathtaking.

Since other large investigations have been expertly and successfully handled at a fraction of those costs, such reports raise the question whether the cost of FCPA investigations should become an issue for companies’ boards of directors. If so, what can board members do to help manage costs while assuring a thorough and rigorous investigation?

One step is to recognize factors, such as the following, that can contribute to soaring costs.

Retaining an Efficient Law Firm.  Although management, not the board, typically hires law firms, board oversight can help avoid common mistakes that lead to excessive costs. With the sharp rise in interest in the FCPA area, it is prudent for companies to press law firms on the extent of their prior FCPA work, the depth of their expertise, the costs of past engagements, and familiarity with the unwritten views of enforcement officials. A firm with limited experience may innocently over-staff, over-investigate, and charge for steep learning curves.

A cost-conscious board member may also appreciate that utilizing multiple regional offices because they are convenient to investigation sites will likely inflate, not reduce, costs. Using lawyers in several locations multiplies the number of lawyers involved. Since a primary driver of costs is the number of timekeepers, a single traveling team will almost always be less costly that multiple teams, most of which have uneven expertise and require additional time for coordination and synthesizing disparate investigation results.

Whether To Retain Forensic Accountants.  Skilled forensic accountants are often indispensable, and failing to retain them can be a grievous error. Where investigating entails “following the money,” experienced, inquisitive forensic accountants can be invaluable.

At the same time, forensic accountants, who often come in teams, are sometimes unnecessary. For example, some payment schemes, once exposed, can readily be understood and remediated without a separate forensics team, or with a small one.

Defining the Scope of the Investigation.  At the outset, the ultimate scope of an investigation may not be known, and successive government requests may expand the scope. Nonetheless, a clear meeting of the minds on staffing and scope, even if for just the first segment of an investigation, can help prevent runaway costs.

Knowing When to Stop.  Closely related is knowing when to stop.  To be credible with government agencies, investigations must be thorough and objective and must test whether abuses are isolated or systemic. Credibility may not require turning over every proverbial rock, however. If an investigation finds consistent patterns of misconduct, it may make more sense to remediate aggressively than to investigate further.

Government enforcement agencies will rarely tell a company to stop or to narrow its investigation. Independent investigations are cost-free benefits for government agencies. Similarly, counsel may sometimes recommend expanding an investigation in the name of satisfying government expectations. A company, however, should want knowledgeable counsel who sees when additional investigation will add little, will so advise their client, and is prepared to make that case to enforcement agencies.

FCPA and due diligence investigations are generally managed by management, not the board of directors. With the reported cost of many FCPA investigations, however, investigation costs may become a board-level issue. When they do, savvy board members who understand potential cost escalators can provide great value to their companies by helping them avoid runaway costs.

The 100th Edition Of The Friday Roundup

By on November 15, 2013 in Deferred Prosecution Agreements, FCPA Inc., FCPA Investigative Costs, JPMorgan, Permits / Licenses / Customs / Tax, SEC, Serious Fraud Office, U.K. Bribery Act, United Kingdom, Wal-Mart, Wynn Resorts

Scrutiny alerts and updates, a first, blunt, and quotable.   It’s all here in this – the 100th edition – of the Friday roundup.

[I hope the Friday roundup is a value added end to your work week.  The Friday roundup alone represents several hours of work by highlighting recent FCPA and related news and developments not otherwise covered Monday – Thursday on FCPA Professor.  Ask yourself:  do you get your FCPA from FCPA Professor? If the answer is yes, you can help support this free website here]

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates

Wal-Mart

During its third quarter earnings call yesterday, Wal-Mart disclosed $69 million in “FCPA and compliance related expenses” in the quarter.  According to the company “approximately $43.0 million of these expenses represented costs incurred for the ongoing inquiries and investigations and approximately $26.0 million is related to our global compliance program and organizational enhancements.”

Doing the math, $69 million in the third quarter is approximately $1.06 million per working day.  As noted here, the figure for Q2 was approximately $1.26 million per working day and as noted here the figure for Q1 was approximately $1.16 million per working day.  For more on Wal-Mart’s pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses, see this prior post.

For the fourth quarter, Wal-Mart estimated $75 – $80 million in expenses related to FCPA matters.

JPMorgan

The NY Times returns (here) to the JPMorgan story it first reported in August (see here for the prior post).  The article states:

“To promote its standing in China, JPMorgan Chase turned to a seemingly obscure consulting firm [Fullmark Consultants] run by a 32-year-old executive named Lily Chang.  Ms. Chang’s firm, which received a $75,000-a-month contract from JPMorgan, appeared to have only two employees. And on the surface, Ms. Chang lacked the influence and public name recognition needed to unlock business for the bank. But what was known to JPMorgan executives in Hong Kong, and some executives at other major companies, was that “Lily Chang” was not her real name. It was an alias for Wen Ruchun, the only daughter of Wen Jiabao, who at the time was China’s prime minister, with oversight of the economy and its financial institutions.

[…]

Now, United States authorities are scrutinizing JPMorgan’s ties to Ms. Wen, whose alias was government approved, as part of a wider bribery investigation into whether the bank swapped contracts and jobs for business deals with state-owned Chinese companies, according to the documents and interviews. The bank, which is cooperating with the inquiries and conducting its own internal review, has not been accused of any wrongdoing.  The investigation began with an examination of the bank’s decision to hire the daughter of a Chinese railway official and the son of a former banking regulator who is now the chairman of a state-controlled financial conglomerate.

[…]

Executives at JPMorgan’s headquarters in New York did not appear to be involved in retaining Fullmark, a decision that seemed to have fallen to executives in Hong Kong. And the documents reviewed by The Times do not identify a concrete link between the bank’s decision to hire children of Chinese officials and its ability to secure coveted business deals, a connection that authorities would probably need to demonstrate that the bank violated anti-bribery laws.”

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp.

The diversified manufacturing services and products holding company (here) disclosed as follows in a recent quarterly filing:

“In August 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the staff of the SEC in connection with the staff’s investigation of a third party. At that time, the Company also learned that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is conducting a criminal investigation of the third party. In connection with responding to the staff’s subpoena, the Company disclosed to the staff of the SEC that, in November 2007, the third party participated in a payment on behalf of the Company to a foreign tax official that implicates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Board of Directors of the Company has formed a special committee to review the Company’s transactions with the third party and to make any recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect thereto. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC and the DOJ in connection with their investigations of the third party and with the SEC in light of the Company’s disclosure. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or impact of the special committee’s investigation or the length, scope or results of the SEC’s review or the impact, if any, on its results of operations.”

Wynn Resorts

This previous Friday roundup highlighted the company’s disclosure that the SEC has ended its investigation of the company concerning a $135 million donation to the University of Macau.  In this recent filing, Wynn states as follows concerning a related DOJ investigation.

“[The DOJ] has been conducting a criminal investigation into Wynn Resorts’ donation to the University of Macau […]. Wynn Resorts has not received any target letter or subpoena in connection with such an investigation.  Wynn Resorts intends to cooperate fully with the government in response to any inquiry related to the donation to the University of Macau.”

SEC’s First Individual DPA

When the SEC announced in January 2010 (see here for the prior post) a series of measures, including non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements, “to further strengthen its enforcement program by encouraging greater cooperation from individuals and companies in the agency’s investigations and enforcement actions,” I called the development a blow to those who prefer government law enforcement agencies to enforce a law in an open, transparent matter and in the context of an adversary proceeding.  Not that there was much judicial scrutiny of SEC enforcement prior to January 2010 (largely on account of the SEC’s then neither admit nor deny settlement policy), but the new measures, I noted, would lead to even less judicial scrutiny.

Earlier this week, the SEC announced “a [five year] deferred prosecution agreement with a former hedge fund administrator who helped the agency take action against a hedge fund manager who stole investor assets.”  According to the SEC, the DPA – outside the context of the FCPA – is the SEC’s “first with an individual” and the SEC’s release further states:

“Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) encourage individuals and companies to provide the SEC with forthcoming information about misconduct and assist with a subsequent investigation.  In return, the SEC refrains from prosecuting cooperators for their own violations if they comply with certain undertakings.”

Obviously the above statement is an opinion statement, not a factual statement.

As highlighted in this prior post, the FCPA Guidance indicated that the DOJ has in the past used non-public non-prosecution against individuals in the FCPA context.  Despite claims by the DOJ that its FCPA enforcement program is transparent, my attempts to learn more about these secret FCPA NPA’s with individuals was unsuccessful.

Blunt

DOJ FCPA enforcement attorneys have publicly stated that among the many ways they learn of conduct which could implicate the FCPA is by reading the newspaper.

If so, this recent article in the Miami Herald may generate some interest.  In the article concerning the satellite telephone business in Cuba, a “Miami Man” states that “he installs each system in Cuba for $3,500 to $4,200 — cash paid in South Florida, with part of the mark up going to bribes on the island. The costs are usually paid by U.S. relatives of the recipients.”

Quotable

From a recent poll regarding corruption in Africa: “corruption is a national sport every day at the direction of customs officials” (see here).

An extensive interview with U.K. Serious Fraud Director David Green (“DG”) in Fraud Magazine (“FM”) in which he discusses:  corporate criminal liability, facilitation payments, Bribery Act Inc., voluntary disclosure and DPAs.  Relevant excerpts include:

FM: What current changes, if any, to the legal system and or legislation would make the SFO more efficient?

DG: To our effectiveness and our reach, I would very much like the test for corporate criminal liability to be looked at again. As you know, in this country, it is extremely difficult to convict a company of an offence because the prosecution has to show that the controlling minds of the company — somebody at the board level — were complicit in the criminality you are trying to prove.  I think that bar is too high, and is a very unrealistic test — not least because I think anyone will agree that if you’re looking into allegations of corporate misconduct spookily the e-mail trail tends to dry up at a fairly junior level.  Where it can be shown that the company had really profited from the criminality of its employees then I think there is a sound case for expanding the ambit of section 7 of the U.K. Bribery Act. Section 7 creates the corporate offence of ‘failing to prevent bribery or corruption by an agent or employee’ with a statutory defence that they took all reasonable precautions.  Now why can’t that be extended to cover fraud and offences of dishonesty so the offence would be failing to prevent fraud or offenses of dishonesty by members of your staff? It seems to me absolutely right that a corporation should have criminal liability for that when it has profited from it. Why should a company which has, in the way I’ve explained, been complicit in criminality just throw a few people over the side and sail bravely on? Why shouldn’t it have its ears clipped and marked as a company that has had dishonest employees and benefitted from it?  Another argument is: Well you’d just be punishing a company for negligence. I would say it would be a pretty high degree of negligence when a company acts in that way and benefits from the dishonesty of its employees.

FM: Doesn’t the Bribery Act prejudice British business in that is a bit too harsh in relation to facilitation payments and hospitality payments?

DG: First of all, I don’t buy this argument that complying with the law is going to hold business back. Secondly, facilitation payments have always been illegal. However, it is a question of the public interest as to whether or not they are prosecuted.  What would be a common facilitation payment? A 20-pound note and a bottle of whisky to some [maritime] pilot to take your ship from somewhere to somewhere else in a single payment; the SFO wouldn’t be interested in that. [Maritime pilots will guide ships into ports for hire.] But if it was a course of conduct over a number of years, then, of course, that becomes not just a very small insignificant little bribe but actually a regular payment over time to ensure that you get that business.

FM: What do you say about those medium to small companies who have ignored the preventative measures required by the Bribery Act?

DG: Well, it’s always difficult, isn’t it? On the one hand, I am very conscious that since the enactment of the act there has grown up a Bribery Act industry in London populated by a lot of American and British lawyers, accountants and so-called experts. I even came across a firm the other day that actually offers certificates to companies saying that they are compliant, and I suppose if the company were to land in court they would try to produce this certificate to say, “We can’t be prosecuted because we’ve got a certificate.”  The effect of this is that these so-called experts have scared the pants off of medium and small enterprises. It is really a question of getting some sensible, reasonably priced legal advice to discern their risk areas and put in place basic safeguards. But the idea that the Serious Fraud Office is going after a ticket to Wimbledon or a bottle of Champagne is, and always has been, utter nonsense.  If, on the other hand, we saw a situation in which the entire board and their spouses of a major corporation were put up in London for a week and then given tickets for the men’s finals at Wimbledon with a couple of banquets before, during and afterwards, then that would be very worrying. Throw in first-class airfare and that would become extremely worrying.  But the key to all this in relation to bribery investigations and whether or not we are interested in them has to do with value and importance but also timing, the motive and the effect of it — was it done at a time when some enormously important decision was going down with a view to influencing it? This is fairly common sense; we use a reasonable approach.

FM: Will companies that self-report escape criminal proceedings?

DG: My predecessor had guidance on self-reporting, in which though it did not say it in so many words, was a very clear implication that if you self-reported as a company you would not be prosecuted, and there would be a civil disposal of what you had done. I disagree with that absolutely and fundamentally as a matter of principle because no prosecutor can ever give guarantees in advance. We have no idea what set of facts are going to come in through the door next. So, we have returned to the old guidance, which has always been there; we will apply the Code for the Crown Prosecutors. In other words, in each situation we would see if there’s enough evidence to prosecute. If there is, we consider if it’s in the public interest to prosecute this company. Now if a company were to come in and say, “Look, we have discovered this misconduct. We have conducted a full investigation; here are the results. We are willing for you to investigate it as you wish. We’ve gotten rid of all the people involved in this, we will hand over any illegal profits obtained as a result of this crime.” In such circumstances, one does struggle to think how it would be in the public interest to prosecute such a company. But it is a question of principle here. If you start — and I feel very strongly about this — if you start blurring the boundaries between what people involved in the criminal justice system do then it’s a dangerous path to follow. Prosecutors shouldn’t be doing deals or making offers in advance and defenders shouldn’t be too familiar with prosecutors. We need to stay where we are and within our own divisions. That’s my view.

FM: Could the deferred prosecution arrangement (DPA) be seen as a type of deal?

DG: Well, I think if you looked at the American model of DPAs you might think it could be described as a deal. We’ve adapted it for use in this country to have judicial involvement and scrutiny from the very beginning. The reason for that is to preserve the principle we have in this country, which they don’t have in the States, that sentencing is a matter for the judge. It’s not a matter for some cozy deal between prosecutor and defence.  If we believe a case is appropriate for a DPA we would go before a judge and say, “Judge, these are the charges which we would be minded to bring against these people. However, we think for these reasons it’s an appropriate case for a DPA. Do you agree?”  Now if the judge says, “No, I don’t I think this is a suitable case for a DPA,” we’ll carry on prosecuting. So, it is a transparent process. Ultimately, if a DPA did go ahead there would be a statement of facts read in court. Nothing would be hushed up.  You can’t really go wrong if you’re transparent. Things go wrong in the criminal justice system if anything appears to be opaque. You lose public confidence and you lose the confidence of the people involved.

Professor Ellen Podgor states, in pertinent part, in this New York Times opinion piece:

“If we intend to punish people, shouldn’t we reasonably expect that they knew their actions were crimes?  […]  The accumulation of laws and rules has made it harder to assure that individuals who are punished understood that they were breaking the law.  When the law is clear, and an individual deliberately transgresses the law, punishment serves an important purpose.  Attributing criminality to business-related activities is not always so easy. The line between criminal activities and acceptable business judgments can be fuzzy. The conduct may not have a long biblical history of being offensive, and there may be no posted signs. […]  In the corporate or financial world, multiple individuals may have a finger in a business decision — and some may be unaware that one has breached the law.  Add to this ambiguity in both the law and the corporate world that business-related decisions are often made by individuals who find themselves placed in a forest of regulations and criminal statutes with varying interpretations that even legal scholars can’t agree upon.  Overcriminalization presents unique issues in the white collar and business arena.  There are thousands of criminal statutes scattered throughout the federal code, and there are thousands of regulations with accompanying criminal penalties. The prosecutor’s toolbox also includes overly broad statutes like RICO, mail fraud, wire fraud and offenses like making false statements.   The bottom line is that the government’s power to indict has few restrictions, and overcriminalization provides federal prosecutors with super powers that they can easily abuse.  Congress’s continuous and haphazard adding of criminal statutes and regulations is making it more difficult to assure that individuals who are punished truly understand that they are breaking the law.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes