As highlighted in this prior post, in April 2014 the DOJ announced the unsealing of a criminal indictment charging six individuals “with participating in an alleged international racketeering conspiracy involving bribes of state and central government officials in India to allow the mining of titanium minerals.” Among the defendants was high-profile Ukrainian businessman Dmitry Firtash.
The FCPA Flash podcast provides in an audio format the same fresh, candid, and informed commentary about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related topics as readers have come to expect from written posts on FCPA Professor.
This FCPA Flash episode is a conversation with Philip Urofsky (Shearman & Sterling and a former FCPA enforcement official at the DOJ). During the podcast, Urofsky elaborates on various issues such as jurisdiction over foreign actors and parent-subsidiary issues found in the firm’s always informative FCPA Digest. Urofsky also opines on what the FCPA enforcement landscape might look like if business organizations would put the government to its burden of proof in enforcement actions.
I recently had a conversation with a lawyer who speculated that the recent spate of Venezuela-focused Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions was part of a U.S. government effort to facilitate regime change in the country.
The latest is this recently unsealed criminal indictment against Raul Gorrin Belisario, a well-known Venezuelan businessman and described by the DOJ as a citizen and national of Venezuela who at various time periods relevant to the charges was a resident of the U.S. with a residence in Florida.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement often seems more robust than it actually is because, in the relatively rare instances in which there is an individual prosecution in connection with a corporate action, the individual action often (but not always) occurs long before or long after the corporate action. Many FCPA Inc. participants, who have a vested interest in portraying more not less FCPA enforcement, count these occurrences as multiple enforcement actions when in reality they are the same core enforcement action. (This article highlights this dynamic as well as other dubious and haphazard FCPA Inc. counting methods).
Reflective of the above dynamic, as highlighted in prior posts here and here in January 2017 the DOJ and SEC announced a $30.5 million enforcement action against Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile S.A. (SQM), a chemical and mining company based in Chile, in relation to its interactions with Chilean officials. The bulk of the enforcement action involved use of the CEO’s “discretionary fund to direct payments to Chilean politicians, political candidates, and individuals connected to them “many of which violated Chilean tax law and/or campaign finance limits” and falsely recording such payments in SQM’s books and records.
This post continues the coverage by highlighting what others are saying about the rare FCPA appellate court decision.
Excerpted below are approximately 25 law firm client alerts on the topic.