Top Menu

Archive | Foreign Nationals

Issues To Consider From The PTC Enforcement Action

IssuesThis post went in-depth regarding this week’s $28 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against PTC Inc. and related entities.

This post continues the analysis by highlighting various issues to consider.

Timeline

As highlighted in this previous post, the company first disclosed its FCPA scrutiny in August 2011. Thus, the timeline was approximately 4.5 years.

Pre and Post – Enforcement Action Professional Fees and Expenses

Unlike some issuers under FCPA scrutiny, PTC does not appear to have disclosed its pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses over the past 4.5 years. If the company’s scrutiny followed a typical path, those pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses likely were equal to or exceeded the $28 million settlement amount.

Given that PTC did not disclose its pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses, it is unlikely that the company will disclose its post-enforcement action professional fees and expenses either. However, there will be plenty because, as a condition of settlement, the company is required to report to the DOJ for a three year term.

Let’s pause to consider whether this is truly necessary or simply another government required transfer of shareholder wealth to FCPA Inc. (see here, here and here for prior posts).

In the words of the DOJ:

“The [PTC Entities] engaged in extensive remedial measures, including a review and enhancement of the Companies’ and PTC Inc.’s compliance program, the establishment of a dedicated compliance team at the corporate level and at PTC China and enhanced policies for business partners, the termination of the business partners involved in the misconduct described in the Statement of Facts …, and the implementation of new customer travel policies and additional controls around expense reimbursement.”

In the words of the SEC:

“As part of its internal review and investigation, PTC undertook significant remedial measures including terminating the senior staff at PTC-China implicated in the FCPA violations. PTC also revised its pre-existing compliance program, updated and enhanced its financial accounting controls and its compliance protocols and policies worldwide, and implemented additional specific enhancements in China. These steps included: (1) reviewing and enhancing its anti-bribery policy, code of ethics, and gifts and entertainment policies to correct previous deficiencies; (2) establishing a dedicated compliance team, including a chief compliance officer and a new compliance director in China; (3) expanding its other compliance resources in China, including hiring a new vice president of finance for Asia and adding additional legal staff in China; (4) hiring a new management team in China, including a new China President; (5) enhancing its FCPA training for employees; (6) severing its relationships with the business partners that were implicated in the FCPA violations and discontinuing the use of COD partners or business referral partners generally; (7) implementing a comprehensive due diligence program for all other business partners that includes a risk-scoring system operated by a third party vendor and that includes FCPA training as part of the onboarding process; (8) obtaining quarterly anti-corruption certifications from sales staff; and (9) undertaking periodic compliance audits.”

Against this backdrop, is it truly necessary for PTC to report to the government for three years regarding its “remediation efforts to date, their proposals reasonably designed to improve the Companies’ internal controls, policies, and procedures for ensuring compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws, and the proposed scope of the subsequent reviews”?

One Core Enforcement Action

Certain FCPA Inc. participants have adopted creative counting methods when it comes to keeping FCPA enforcement statistics.

No doubt, some will count the PTC enforcement action as three separate enforcement actions (the DOJ component, the SEC component as to the company, and the SEC component as to the individual) even though each action was based on the same core conduct. Counting FCPA enforcement actions this way distorts FCPA enforcement statistics because this week’s action was one core action.

First Individual DPA by the SEC

The Yu Kai Yuan DPA, which the SEC termed the first DPA with an individual in an FCPA case, might be the most inconsequential legal document you will ever read.

Based on the same core conduct in the DOJ NPA and the SEC administrative order, the SEC alleged that Yuan (a Chinese citizen who resides in Shanghai and was last a sales executive for PTC entities in China in 2011) caused violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.

The only specific allegation as to Yuan in the DPA is the first paragraph which merely identifies him. There is no other specific allegation regarding him including how he caused violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Yuan agreed to refrain from violating the “federal and state securities law” and to “refrain from violating the applicable rules promulgated by any self-regulatory organization or professional licensing board.”

If what the SEC is seeking is more individual enforcement actions in connection with corporate FCPA actions, the Yuan DPA represents one way to juice the statistics.

Additional Sloppy or Incomplete Pleading

The recipients of the travel and entertainment alleged were employees of alleged Chinese state-owned entities.

That is all the DOJ and SEC state in the resolution documents.

Even though the two-factor control and function test set forth in Esquenazi is flawed (see pgs. 24-43 in this article for a detailed discussion of why), it would seem incumbent on the enforcement agencies to include allegations or findings relevant to this two-factor test as the business community (at least one intended audience of FCPA resolution documents) remains confused regarding the contours of the “foreign official” element.

Assumed Causation

Like many, many other FCPA enforcement actions, the PTC action assumes causation.

In other words, it is assumed that the only reason the Chinese SOEs purchased PTC products and services is because certain of the SOE employees engaged in non-business travel and received other things of value such as iPods, wine and clothing from PTC entities.

Such assumed causation, very much relevant to disgorgement issues, would seem to speculative at best.

Just Plain Silly

Speaking of assumed causation, some have asserted that the Yuan individual DPA by the SEC was “inspired in part by the Yates memo issued over at the Justice Department.”

My own two cents is that suggesting such a connection is just plain silly. The Yuan DPA signatures began in November 2015 and as stated by the SEC the DPA was the “result of significant cooperation [Yuan] provided during the SEC’s investigation” – an investigation which began in 2011.

Application of DD-3

One often overlooked reason for the general increase in FCPA enforcement in the modern era is that in 1998 the statute was expanded through the dd-3 portion of the FCPA which applies to, generally speaking, non-issuer foreign companies and foreign nationals, to the extent the “while in the territory of the U.S.” jurisdictional prong has been satisfied.

The DOJ’s NPA was against PTC China entities, not PTC Inc., and invoked dd-3. While not explicit in the resolution documents, the “while in territory of the U.S.” jurisdictional prong was presumably met given that certain PTC China employees accompanied the alleged Chinese “foreign officials” on their travels to the U.S.

PTC Inc. And Related Entities Pay $28 Million In Yet Another FCPA Enforcement Action Involving Travel And Entertainment Provided To Alleged “Foreign Officials”

World Tour

Approximately 5-10 years ago, foreign subsidiaries of PTC Inc. (a software company formerly known as Parametric Technology Corp.) arranged for alleged Chinese “foreign officials” to travel often to the U.S. to visit PTC’s facilities. The trips morphed to include non-business leisure travel to places such as New York, Las Vegas, Honolulu and included activities such as guided tours, golfing and other leisure activities. In addition, the foreign subsidiaries sometimes provided gifts (such as iPods, gift cards, wine and clothing) ranging from $50 to $600 to the alleged “foreign officials.”

The end result is that approximately $28 million is flowing into the U.S. treasury in the latest corporate FCPA enforcement action involving travel and entertainment of alleged “foreign officials”

The enforcement action, which has been expected for some time, involved:

  • a DOJ non-prosecution agreement against Parametric Technology (Shanghai) Software Co. Ltd. and Parametric Technology (Hong Kong) Limited (collectively the “Companies”), but not PTC Inc., in which the Companies agreed to a criminal penalty of $14,540,000;
  • an SEC administrative order against PTC Inc. which the company agreed to resolve through a payment of approximately $13.7 million ($11.9 million in disgorgement and $1.8 in prejudgment interest); and
  • an SEC DPA against Yu Kai Yuan (A Chinese citizen who resides in Shanghai and a former employee of the PTC China entities) in what the SEC called “its first DPA with an individual in an FCPA case.”

DOJ

The conduct focused on the following entities as described in the NPA.

“Parametric Technology (Shanghai) Software Company Ltd. and Parametric Technology (Hong Kong) Ltd. are wholly owned, separate subsidiaries ofPTC through which PTC’s Chinese operations, including sales to Chinese customers, are managed. While the two entities comprising PTC China are structured separately, during the relevant period they conducted business as a single unit.”

According to the NPA:

“Many of PTC China’s customers were Chinese state-owned entities (“SOEs”) that were controlled by the government of China and performed functions that the Chinese government treated as its own, and thus were instrumentalities of the Chinese government as that term is used in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) […] PTC China employees were aware that many of its customers were Chinese SOEs whose employees were Chinese government officials.”

Under the heading “Improper Payments,” the NPA states:

“PTC China routinely engaged the services of local “business partners,” Chinese companies that helped PTC China find prospective contracts, assisted PTC China in the sales process with Chinese SOEs, and provided additional services to PTC China’s customers that had been outsourced by PTC China, including information technology services. Business Partner 1 [described as a Chinese company that worked with PTC on contracts with Chinese SOEs, providing sales assistance and certain outsourcing services] and Business Partner 2 [described the same way as Business Partner 1] were the primary business partners used by PTC China. PTC China failed to conduct meaningful due diligence of its Chinese business partners, notably with respect to corruption risks or anti-corruption controls of these Chinese business partners.

PTC China’s senior sales staff had wide discretion in setting the fee arrangements with Chinese business partners. Generally, commissions to business partners were set as a percentage of the contract price if PTC China won the contract in question. These commissions were typically referred to as “influence fees” to help PTC China win contracts. If the business partner was to provide subcontracted services such as information technology services, those services might either be included in the total commission or itemized separately using a line item referred to as “COD,” for “completely outsourced deals.”

PTC had a corporate theatre at its headquarters in Massachusetts that is designed for demonstrations of its products, and PTC headquarters is also equipped to provide customer training on its products. According to PTC policy, PTC should not pay for customer travel to its headquarters for such training. However, during contract negotiations, Chinese SOE customers frequently requested that PTC China provide employees with travel to the United States, nominally for training at PTC headquarters in Massachusetts, but primarily for recreational travel to other parts of the United States. PTC China, its business partner, and the SOE would determine a travel budget, which was then added into the contract price. In some cases, the overseas travel costs were specifically itemized in the initial contract documents for approval by senior PTC China sales staff; however, the overseas travel costs line item was removed from the final contract documents that were signed by PTC and the SOEs. Instead, for a time, the money budgeted for overseas travel was disguised using the COD line item to make it appear as though the travel expenses were subcontracting payments to the business partner, or simply included in the business partner’s overall commission.

Following PTC’s discovery that the COD line item was being improperly used in certain instances, travel costs were included in the business partner commissions by PTC China to avoid detection by PTC. The business partners, often Business Partner 1 or Business Partner 2, then paid for the overseas trips using the funds received from PTC China. The business partners provided PTC China with false documents indicating that they had performed subcontracted services even though there were no such services contemplated or performed and even though the funds were in fact used for, in part, improper recreational travel for Chinese SOE employees. For some of the more expensive trips for important Chinese SOE customers, the payments to the business partners were spread among and hidden within several contracts.

Some of the overseas travel expenses paid for by the business partners were tracked by PTC China sales staff on spreadsheets that they maintained separately from PTC China’s electronic accounting records to help PTC China better understand the composition of, and negotiate, fees with the Chinese business partners.

Generally, the trips included one or two days of business activities at PTC headquarters in order to justify the trips, preceded or followed by several days of sightseeing that lacked any business purpose and that was in fact the primary reason for the trip.

For example, in April 2008, two PTC China sales employees accompanied six employees of a Chinese SOE, including its president, on a trip to the United States. In addition to a one-day stop at PTC headquarters in Massachusetts, the group went on sightseeing visits to New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Honolulu. Travel records, e-mails, and photographs confirm that the additional stops on the trip were recreational and included tours of landmarks in New York, including Rockefeller Center, the Statue of Liberty, the United Nations, and the Empire State Building, a tour of the Grand Canyon in Las Vegas, and golfing and a tour of Pearl Harbor in Honolulu. Documents indicate that the trip cost over $50,000, which was paid for by Business Partner 1 at PTC China’s direction, and for which PTC China paid Business Partner 1. Within a year of the trip, PTC booked several contracts with the SOE totaling over $1 million.

In May 2010, a PTC China employee accompanied two employees of a Chinese SOE, including its information technology vice director and information technology project supervisor, on a trip to the United States. The trip included one day at PTC headquarters in Massachusetts, but also included sightseeing stops in New York, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. These additional stops included shopping at an outlet mall and other stores, a Grand Canyon tour in Las Vegas, and a Universal Studios tour in Los Angeles. Subsequently, in July 2010, another PTC China employee accompanied seven employees of the same Chinese SOE on a second visit to the United States. In addition to stopping at PTC’s headquarters in Massachusetts, the trip included sightseeing visits to New York, Washington, DC, Las Vegas, San Diego, and Los Angeles, with recreational trips to various museums, the Empire State Building in New York, and Universal Studios in Los Angeles. Both trips were paid for by Business Partner 2 at PTC China’s direction, and for which PTC China paid Business Partner 2. The SOE entered into over $9 million worth of contracts with PTC.

In September 2010, a PTC China employee accompanied nine employees of three Chinese SOEs on a trip to the United States. The group spent one day at PTC’s headquarters in Massachusetts. The two-week long trip also included sightseeing stops in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Honolulu and included tours of the Empire State Building, Universal Studios, and Pearl Harbor. An internal e-mail from the time one of the Chinese SOE customers entered into a contract with PTC prior to the trip actually taking place stated that “the customer just want sightseeing instead of the overseas training.” The Chinese SOEs whose employees went on the trip collectively entered into more than $3.5 million in contracts with PTC.

Overall, PTC China, through its business partners, paid over $1.1 million to fund, directly or indirectly, 24 trips for over 100 Chinese SOE employees that included a recreational component. In addition to the recreational trips, between in or around 2009 and in or around 2011, PTC China employees also provided over $250,000 in improper gifts and entertainment directly to Chinese SOE employees, in contravention of PTC policies imposing monetary limits and approval requirements for gifts and entertainment for government officials. PTC China’s sales staff’s longstanding practice of providing gifts to Chinese government officials was done at least in part to obtain or retain SOE business for and on behalf of PTC.”

The three-year NPA states:

“The [DOJ] enters into this Non-Prosecution Agreement based on the individual facts and circumstances presented by this case and the Companies. Among the factors considered in deciding what credit the Companies should receive were the following: (a) the Companies did not receive voluntary disclosure credit because, although the Companies, through their parent corporation PTC Inc., reported to the Office in 2011 certain misconduct identified through a then-ongoing internal investigation, they did not voluntarily disclose relevant facts known to PTC Inc. at the time of the initial disclosure until the Office uncovered salient facts regarding the Companies’ responsibility for the improper travel and entertainment expenditures at issue independently and brought them to the Companies’ attention, after which the Companies disclosed information that they had learned as part of an earlier internal investigation; (b) the Companies received partial cooperation credit of 15% off the bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines fine range for their cooperation with the Office’s investigation, including collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information for the Office, but did not receive full cooperation credit for the reasons described in (a) above; (c) by the conclusion of the investigation, the Companies had provided to the Office all relevant facts known to them, including information about individuals involved in the FCP A misconduct; (d) the Companies engaged in extensive remedial measures, including a review and enhancement of the Companies’ and PTC Inc.’s compliance program, the establishment of a dedicated compliance team at the corporate level and at PTC China and enhanced policies for business partners, the termination of the business partners involved in the misconduct described in the Statement of Facts attached hereto as Attachment A, and the implementation of new customer travel policies and additional controls around expense reimbursement; (e) the Companies have committed to continue to enhance their compliance program and internal controls, including ensuring that their compliance program satisfies the minimum elements set forth in Attachment B to this Agreement; (f) based on the Companies’ remediation and the state of their compliance program, and that of their parent company PTC Inc., and the Companies’ agreement to report to the Office as set forth in Attachment C to this Agreement, the Office determined that an independent compliance monitor was unnecessary; (g) the nature and seriousness of the offense; (h) the Companies have no prior criminal history; and (i) the Companies have agreed to continue to cooperate with the Office in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of the Companies and their officers, directors, employees, agents, business partners, and consultants relating to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).”

In the NPA, the Companies admitted, accepted and acknowledged responsibility for the above conduct and, as standard in corporate FCPA enforcement actions, agreed to a so-called “muzzle clause.”

Pursuant to the NPA, the Companies agreed to pay a monetary penalty of approximately $14.5 million. In the NPA, the Companies agreed to report to the DOJ periodically, at no less than 12 month intervals during the three year term of the NPA “regarding regarding remediation and implementation of the compliance program and internal controls, policies and procedures” described in Attachment B of the NPA.

SEC

This administrative order, finding that PTC violated the FCPA’s anti-bribery, books and records and internal control provisions, is based on the same core conduct described in the DOJ NPA.

In summary fashion, the order states:

“This matter concerns violations of the anti-bribery, books and records and internal accounting controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) by PTC. From at least 2006 into 2011, two wholly-owned PTC subsidiaries (collectively, “PTC-China”) provided improper payments totaling nearly $1.5 million to government officials (“Chinese government officials” or “officials”) who were employed by Chinese state owned entities (“SOEs”) that were PTC customers. These payments were made to obtain or retain business from the SOEs. Specifically, PTC-China provided non-business travel, primarily sightseeing and tourist activities, as well as improper gifts and entertainment, to the Chinese government officials. PTC earned approximately $11.85 million in profits from sales contracts with SOEs whose officials received the improper payments.

PTC-China made these improper payments in two primary ways: 1) by providing at least $1,179,912 to third party agents, disguised as commission payments or sub-contracting fees, which were then used to pay for non-business related foreign travel for Chinese government officials; and 2) by allowing its sales staff to provide Chinese government officials with gifts and excessive entertainment of over $274,313. The payments were recorded as legitimate commissions and business expenses in PTC-China’s books and records, when in fact they were improper payments designed to benefit the Chinese government officials. PTC-China’s books and records were consolidated into PTC’s books and records, thereby causing PTC’s books and records to be inaccurate. PTC failed to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls sufficient to prevent and detect these improper payments that occurred over several years.”

In pertinent part, the order states as follows regarding the leisure travel:

“PTC-China employees and the business partners typically arranged the overseas sightseeing trips in conjunction with a visit to a PTC facility. Most often, PTC-China sales staff arranged for Chinese government officials to visit PTC’s corporate headquarters in Massachusetts, for PTC to market and demonstrate the company’s products and services. The trips typically consisted of one day of business activities at PTC’s facility, followed or preceded by additional days of sightseeing visits that lacked any business purpose, all of which were paid for by the business partners using funds from their grossed up success fees and subcontracting payments. Some PTC employees in the United States generally understood that SOE officials were spending additional days in the country, including for tourist activities. And certain PTC employees based in China were aware that PTC-China employees were accompanying Chinese government officials to tourist destinations.

Typical travel destinations in the United States included New York, Las Vegas, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Honolulu, and involved guided tours, golfing, and other leisure activities. PTC-China sales staff usually accompanied the Chinese government officials on these trips. The Chinese government officials who went on the trips in turn were often signatories on the purchase agreements with PTC.

[…]

Overall, from 2006 into 2011, PTC-China, through its business partners, paid at least $1,179,912 to fund at least 10 trips for Chinese government officials that included significant non-business travel. The costs of these trips were improperly recorded in PTC’s books and records as COD or business partner related commissions or subcontracting payments, without any indication that they were primarily for sightseeing and other non-business related activities. PTC improperly profited by at least $11,858,000 from contracts obtained from the SOEs whose government officials participated on these trips.”

In pertinent part, the order states as follows regarding the “gifts and excessive entertainment”:

“From 2009 through 2011, PTC-China sales staff corruptly provided at least $274,313 in improper gifts and entertainment directly to Chinese government officials. The value of the gifts and entertainment generally ranged from $50 to $600, and often included small electronics (e.g., cell phones, iPods, and GPS systems), gift cards, wine, and clothing. PTC-China sales staff’s long standing practice of providing the gifts to Chinese government officials was done at least in part to obtain or retain SOE business.

By providing these gifts, PTC-China violated PTC’s corporate governance and internal controls policies. These policies included: $50 monetary limits on the provision of gifts and business entertainment to government officials; requiring PTC-China sales staff to obtain preapprovals for business expenses over $500; and requiring that PTC-China sales staff document the date, place, attendees, and purpose of business entertainment and the recipient. These gifts were improperly recorded as legitimate business expenses.”

Under the heading “PTC Failed to Devise and Maintain a System of Internal Accounting Controls,” the order states:

“From at least 2006 through 2011, PTC failed to devise and maintain an adequate internal accounting controls system to address the potential FCPA problems posed by its ownership of, and control over, PTC-China. Notably, during 2006, 2008, and 2010, PTC investigated compliance issues at PTC-China, including possible corruption involving its business partners. However, PTC failed to identify and stop the ongoing and systemic illicit payments to Chinese government officials by PTC-China personnel as described above and did not undertake effective remedial actions.

Despite these compliance issues, PTC failed to undertake periodic comprehensive risk assessments for PTC-China and to ensure that its internal accounting controls procedures were suited to PTC-China’s particular circumstances (in particular, its ongoing dealings with Chinese government officials). PTC’s Code of Ethics and Anti-Bribery policies for the provision of business entertainment were vague (i.e., stating that employees should use “good taste” and consider the “customary business standards in the community” when providing business entertainment) and not risk-based to China. And PTC did not have independent compliance staff or an internal audit function that had authority to review and test its internal accounting controls processes or intervene into management decisions and, if appropriate, take remedial actions.

As a result, PTC failed to identify and correct corporate governance and compliance breakdowns at PTC-China. Notably, PTC failed to: properly vet PTC-China’s business partners, which played a significant role for PTC-China as described above; police for corrupt payments by its business partners; monitor and supervise PTC-China’s senior sales staff to ensure that they enforced anti-corruption policies and kept accurate records concerning gifts to Chinese government officials; properly scrutinize travel related expenses to prevent reimbursement for employees’ airfare, lodging, and other expenses that were either personal in nature or gifts for customers; limit the number or total value of gifts PTC-China’s sales staff could provide to any single individual or entity; and provide sufficient FCPA training for its employees.”

Based on the above findings, the order finds that PTC violated the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, books and records provisions and internal control provisions. As to the anti-bribery findings, the order states:

“PTC-China used third party business partners to pay bribes in the form of travel, gifts and entertainment to Chinese government officials to obtain and retain business. PTC exercised substantial control over PTC-China by, among other things, creating functional reporting lines, approving PTC-China’s key decisions, and setting PTC-China’s business and financial goals. PTC entered into contracts directly with the SOEs as a result of the bribes paid through PTCChina’s business partners, and earned significant income from these contracts. Under applicable agency principles, PTC-China and its employees acted as agents of PTC during the relevant time and were acting within the scope of their authority and for the benefit of PTC when participating in the bribery scheme.”

Under the heading “PTC’s Self-Disclosure and Remedial Efforts,” the order states:

“PTC only discovered the improper payments to or for the benefit of Chinese government officials in 2011, while investigating complaints concerning a senior PTC-China salesperson. Upon learning this information, PTC, with the oversight of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, engaged independent counsel and an independent forensic consulting firm to undertake an investigation. PTC voluntarily self-reported the results of its internal investigation to the Commission and responded to information requests from the Commission staff. PTC did not, however, uncover or disclose the full scope and extent of PTC-China’s FCPA issues until 2014.

As part of its internal review and investigation, PTC undertook significant remedial measures including terminating the senior staff at PTC-China implicated in the FCPA violations. PTC also revised its pre-existing compliance program, updated and enhanced its financial accounting controls and its compliance protocols and policies worldwide, and implemented additional specific enhancements in China. These steps included: (1) reviewing and enhancing its anti-bribery policy, code of ethics, and gifts and entertainment policies to correct previous deficiencies; (2) establishing a dedicated compliance team, including a chief compliance officer and a new compliance director in China; (3) expanding its other compliance resources in China, including hiring a new vice president of finance for Asia and adding additional legal staff in China; (4) hiring a new management team in China, including a new China President; (5) enhancing its FCPA training for employees; (6) severing its relationships with the business partners that were implicated in the FCPA violations and discontinuing the use of COD partners or business referral partners generally; (7) implementing a comprehensive due diligence program for all other business partners that includes a risk-scoring system operated by a third party vendor and that includes FCPA training as part of the onboarding process; (8) obtaining quarterly anti-corruption certifications from sales staff; and (9) undertaking periodic compliance audits.”

The order states, under the heading “Non-Imposition of a Civil Penalty” as follows:

“[PTC] acknowledges that the Commission is not imposing a civil penalty based upon its payment of a $14,540,000 criminal fine as part of [PTC’s] subsidiaries’ settlement with the United States Department of Justice.”

As noted in this SEC release, PTC agreed to pay $11.858 million in disgorgement and $1.764 million in prejudgment interest. In the release, (Kara Brockmeyer, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit) stated:

“PTC failed to stop illicit payments despite indications of potential corruption by agents working with its Chinese subsidiaries, and the misconduct continued unabated for several years.”

Yuan DPA

Based on the same core conduct alleged above, the DPA alleges that Yuan caused violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Yuan agreed to refrain from violating the securities laws and agreed to a so-called “muzzle clause.”

Roger Witten (Wilmer Cutler) represented the PTC entities.

Elizabeth Gray (Willkie Farr) represented Yuan.

In this release PTC stated that the enforcement action involved “expenditures by certain former employees and business partners in China between 2006 and 2011.” The company further stated:

“The company is pleased to have resolved this matter. In connection with the agreements, PTC and its China subsidiaries will pay $28.2 million in penalties and interest to these agencies. PTC has implemented extensive remedial measures related to these matters, including the termination of the responsible employees and business partners, the establishment of an entirely new leadership team in China, the establishment of a dedicated compliance function, and other enhancements to compliance programs.”

PTC’s stock closed yesterday up .1%

Current CEO Of LAN Airlines Resolves SEC FCPA Enforcement Action Based On A Payment He Authorized 10 Years Ago In Connection With A Labor Dispute

PlazaLast week was busy for SEC Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement.

First, there was the $3.9 million enforcement action against SAP (see here).

Then, there was the $12.8 million enforcement action against SciClone Pharmaceuticals (see here).

And then, as highlighted in this post, there was an individual action against Ignacio Cueto Plaza, the current CEO of LAN Airlines (pictured at left).

The Cueto enforcement action was noteworthy in at least five respects.

  • First, it was a rare SEC individual FCPA enforcement action (the Cueto action represents only the fourth core individual action since April 2012).
  • Second, it was an FCPA enforcement action against a CEO (rarely do individual FCPA enforcement actions involve an executive officer).
  • Third, it was an FCPA enforcement action against an existing CEO (most individual FCPA enforcement involve former employees because the company, as part of its remedial measures, terminates the employee found to be in violation of the FCPA).
  • Fourth, even though most FCPA enforcement actions are based on “old” conduct, a 2016 enforcement action based on 2006 conduct stretches the credibility of the SEC’s enforcement program to a new level, coupled with the fact that a U.S. law enforcement agency brought an enforcement action against a Chilean citizen based on alleged improper conduct in Argentina.
  • Fifth, most FCPA enforcement actions, even those that “only” charge or find FCPA books and records and internal controls violations, are still based on the alleged “foreign officials.” In this regard, the Cueto enforcement action is vague whether the SEC viewed the Argentine “union officials” to be “foreign officials” under the FCPA. If the SEC did view the “union officials” as such, it stretches the definition of “foreign official” even further. If the SEC did not view the “union officials” as foreign officials, the Cueto action represents a rare enforcement action concerning improper booking and insufficient internal controls concerning an instance of commercial bribery.

In this administrative action, the SEC found as follows.

“In 2006 and 2007, Ignacio Cueto Plaza (“Cueto”), the CEO of LAN Airlines S.A. (“LAN”), authorized $1.15 million in improper payments to a third party consultant in Argentina in connection with LAN’s attempts to settle disputes on wages and other work conditions between LAN Argentina S.A. (“LAN Argentina”), a subsidiary of LAN, and its employees. At the time, Cueto understood that it was possible the consultant would pass some portion of the $1.15 million to union officials in Argentina. The payments were made pursuant to an unsigned consulting agreement that purported to provide services that Cueto understood would not occur. Cueto authorized subordinates to make the payments that were improperly booked in the Company’s books and records, which circumvented LAN’s internal accounting controls.”

Cueto is described as follows.

” [A] Chilean citizen and, since 2012, has been CEO of LAN. From 1995 to 1998, Cueto served as President of LAN Cargo, a LAN subsidiary located in Miami, Florida. He served on the Board of Directors of LAN from 1995 to 1997. From 1999 to 2005, Cueto was CEO of LAN’s passenger airline business. In 2005, Cueto became President and COO of LAN Airlines S.A. He remained in that position until June of 2012, when LAN merged with Brazilian Airline TAM, S.A. (“TAM”) and became LATAM Airlines Group S.A. (“LATAM”). Cueto remains CEO of LAN, which is now part of LATAM.”

The enforcement action focuses the “obstacles that LAN might face in trying to enter the Argentine airline market.” Under the heading “LAN Faces Major Issues Upon Entering the Argentine Market,” the order states:

“Upon entering the Argentine passenger airline market LAN immediately faced several major issues impacting its viability and began losing money. First, it needed to meet demands from labor unions representing the employees acquired from LAFSA and Southern Winds. Second, LAN needed majority ownership of its Argentine subsidiary, and therefore had to persuade the Argentine government to change its existing law on foreign ownership of domestic airlines and to increase caps on airfares. Third, LAN needed regulatory authorization to operate various flight routes, both domestically and internationally, in Argentina. Since the Argentine passenger airline market was heavily regulated by the government, particularly officials within the Department of Transportation who had close ties to the unions, LAN sought help from the government officials with each of these issues.

In early 2006, the consultant again contacted the Vice President of Business Development and offered to assist LAN in Argentina. By this time, the consultant was a government official in the Ministry of Federal Planning, Public Investment and Services, Department of Transportation. On January 31, 2005, the Secretary of Transportation appointed the consultant as a Cabinet Advisor “ad-honorem.”

LAN executives, including Cueto, knew that for LAN Argentina to become profitable it would need an infusion of cash. LAN asked Argentine government officials to liberalize the laws on foreign ownership so that LAN could own a majority share of LAN Argentina and sought government authorization to raise regulated airfares. On or about August 8, 2006, the President of Argentina signed a Decree that enabled LAN to become a majority owner of LAN Argentina and allowed LAN to raise airfares by 20%. LAN Argentina was also awarded critical additional flight routes by the Transportation Secretary.”

Under the heading “LAN Encounters Problems with the Unions in Argentina,” the order states:

“As part of the deal that LAN reached with the Argentine government in March 2005, LAN was required to hire between six and eight hundred employees from the defunct LAFSA and Southern Winds airlines. LAN was bound by the existing bargaining agreements between LAFSA, Southern Winds and the labor unions.

There were five unions representing airline employees in Argentina. They included the grounds crew union, the Asociación del Personal Aeronáutico (APA), the pilots’ union, the Asociación de Pilotos de Lineas Aereas (APLA), the mechanics’ union, Asociacion del Personal Técnico Aeronáutico (APTA), the flight attendants’ union, Asociación de Tripulantes de Cabina de Pasajeros de Empresas Aerocomerciales (ATCPEA), and the supervisors’ union, Unión del Personal Superior y Profesional de Empresas Aerocomerciales (UPSA).

All of the unions were powerful and unafraid to make demands on LAN. They sought wage increases and additional benefits, and used the terms of their respective Collective Bargaining Agreements (“CBAs”) as leverage. These labor agreements contained provisions that LAN believed were unfavorable, such as restrictions on the hours employees could work and their work locations.

The mechanics’ union, the flight attendants’ union and the supervisors’ union each had a single-function rule contained in their CBAs. The single-function rule was a provision that limited workers from performing more than one work function at a time for LAN. The single-function rule was loosely interpreted and for the most part not enforced by the unions. Had it been enforced, the single-function rule would have required LAN to double its work force and would have seriously imperiled LAN’s ability to continue its operations in Argentina.

Around 2006 the unions began campaigning for wage increases. The unions threatened to enforce the single-function rule unless LAN Argentina agreed to a substantial wage increase. LAN’s management, including Cueto, attempted to negotiate on the wage issues but made no progress and things worsened over time. Eventually there were work stoppages and slowdowns on the part of the workforce, including strikes involving the pilots’ and the mechanics’ unions.”

Under the heading “Cueto Approves Improper Payments,” the order states:

“Beginning in the summer of 2006, the consultant supplied LAN executives with information on how to deal with specific union members and the unions in general. Eventually, the consultant offered to negotiate directly with the unions on LAN’s behalf, making it clear that he would expect compensation for such negotiations, and that payments would be made to third parties who had influence over the unions. After his staff informed Cueto that the consultant was well connected with the unions and could effectively negotiate an agreement with union officials, Cueto approved the retention of the consultant.

During the summer of 2006, Cueto approved payments totaling $1,150,000 to the consultant in connection with LAN’s attempts to settle disputes on wages and other work conditions with the unions. At the time, Cueto understood that it was possible the consultant would pass some portion of the $1.15 million to union officials in Argentina. Cueto approved the payments to get the unions to abandon their threats to enforce the single-function rule and to get them to accept a wage increase lower than the amount asked for in negotiations. LAN and the consultant agreed that LAN would make the payment to a company controlled by the consultant in Argentina. In 2006, LAN did not have a policy requiring that due diligence be performed on consultants, and neither Cueto nor LAN conducted any due diligence on the consultant or any of his related entities.

Around August 2006, Cueto’s staff informed him that the consultant had reached an oral agreement to settle the wage dispute with the mechanics’ union on LAN’s behalf. Although the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement with the mechanics’ union would remain unchanged, Cueto understood that the union would orally agree not to seek enforcement of the single-function rule for a period of four years in exchange for a wage increase of approximately 6 15% of salary. The wage increase of approximately 15% was lower than the amount originally sought by the mechanics’ union.

Around August 2006, the flight attendants’ and supervisors’ unions both agreed to accept wage increases of approximately 15% and 10% respectively of salaries. The amounts were lower than the amounts originally sought by each union.”

Under the heading, “Cueto Authorized Improper Payments That Were Not Accurately and Fairly Feflected on LAN’s Books and Records,” the order states:

“Cueto directed subordinates to make the improper payments. The improper payments authorized by Cueto were improperly described in the books and records as “other debtors” costs in a LAN subsidiary that had no role in LAN’s argentine business.”

Under the heading, “Cueto Caused LAN’s Internal Accounting Control Failure,” the order states:

“As President and Chief Operating Officer of LAN, Cueto, along with others, was responsible for devising and maintaining compliance with internal accounting controls at LAN. Cueto did not follow the company’s existing internal accounting controls when he authorized the payment of $1,150,000 to the consultant’s company and failed to prevent the payment of $58,000 to another company owned by consultant’s son and wife. Cueto received and approved the sham contract for the consultant’s company to provide consulting services to LAN, knowing that such services would never be provided. Cueto also authorized payment of invoices from the consultant’s company that contained a description of services listed on the invoices that was false.”

Based on the above findings, the order finds that Cueto caused books and records and internal controls violations by LAN and that Cueto also knowingly circumvented or knowingly failed to implement a system of internal accounting controls or knowingly falsified book, record or account and that Cueto also violated falsified or cause to be falsified, a book, record, or account.

Under the heading “Remedial Actions and Undertakings,” the order states:

“As the CEO of LAN, which is now a division of LATAM, Cueto is subject to LATAM’s enhanced compliance structure and internal accounting controls. Cueto is required to certify compliance with LATAM’s new Code of Conduct that was adopted in 2013, as well as other internal corporate policies, including an Anti-Corruption Guide, a Gifts, Travel, Hospitality and Entertainment Policy, an Escalation Policy, and Procurement and Payment policies.

Cueto has attended the Corporate Governance Training provided by the LATAM Chief Compliance Officer and has provided a certification confirming acknowledgement of the Code of Conduct, the relevant applicable regulations, as well as the Company policies. Cueto has also executed an amendment to his employment agreement whereby Respondent acknowledges having been informed regarding the LATAM Manual for the Prevention of Corruption, among other matters, and his responsibilities to perform his duties with the highest ethical standards, in compliance with all Company Policies and Procedures.

[…]

Cueto also undertakes to attend all anti-corruption training sessions required for senior executives at LAN. These sessions will include, but are not limited to, both live and online anti-corruption trainings to be completed on at least an annual basis and according to LAN’s Compliance Department’s training schedule. These sessions will include, in addition to anticorruption laws and regulations, such as the FCPA, training on anti-trust laws, the Company’s Code of Conduct and all other applicable policies that each LAN employee must follow. After the conclusion of each session Cueto will sign the appropriate documentation that acknowledges his attendance and understanding of the topics presented. Should LAN modify the schedule of such  training sessions for any reason, Cueto will, so long as he is a senior executive of LAN, attend a comparable anti-corruption session on an annual basis and complete appropriate documentation attesting to his attendance and the session’s contents.”

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Cueto agreed to cease and desist from future legal violations and agreed to pay a $75,000 civil penalty.

Cueto was represented by Richard Grime (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher –  a former Assistant Director of Enforcement at the SEC heavily involved in FCPA enforcement). Commenting generally on the SEC’s evolving and expansive FCPA enforcement theories, Grime recently stated:

“It’s not that you couldn’t intellectually [conceive of] the violation. It’s that the government is sort of probing every area where there is an interaction with government officials and then working backwards from there to see if there is a violation, as opposed to starting out with the statute … and what it prohibits.”

Other DOJ Defeats When Asserting Aggressive Enforcement Theories Against Foreign Nationals

You be the Judge

In the minds of some, the many recent DOJ defeats when put to its burden of proof in individual Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions are of little consequence.

Some have written off the DOJ’s struggle in the recent Sigelman action because it was the result of a key witness admitting he gave false testimony during the trial.

Others have written off the DOJ’s ultimate defeat in the enforcement action against Lindsey Manufacturing and two of its executives because it was, most directly, the result of numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct.

To some, the DOJ’s defeat in the O’Shea enforcement action  was no big deal because it was, most directly, the result of a key witness knowing “almost nothing” in the words of the judge even though the judge admonished the DOJ that it “shouldn’t indict people on stuff you can’t prove.”

The DOJ’s defeat in the Africa Sting cases, well, where do you even begin with that one.

However, you add up these defeats of little consequence in the minds of some, and the end result is a big consequence:  the DOJ often loses when put to its burden of proof.

The most recent example occurred in a pre-trial ruling in the DOJ’s FCPA prosecution of Lawrence Hoskins. The DOJ’s defeat was not because the quality of its evidence, not because of the DOJ’s conduct in the investigation, but rather a flawed legal theory.

The same people who are likely to view the above DOJ defeats as having little consequence are also likely to view the DOJ’s pre-trial defeat in Hoskins as an anomaly.

Except that it is not.

As summarized in this post, in three prior instances federal court judges have rebuked DOJ enforcement theories in FCPA enforcement actions involving foreign national defendants.

As highlighted in this prior post, in U.S. v. Castle, both the N.D. of Texas and the 5th Circuit ruled against the DOJ as a matter of law regarding the issue of whether “foreign officials” (in the case Canadian nationals) who are excluded from prosecution under the FCPA itself, could nevertheless be prosecuted under the general conspiracy statute (18 USC 371) for conspiring to violate the FCPA.  The courts held that “foreign officials”  could not be prosecuted for conspiring to violate the FCPA.  The rationale was that Congress, in passing the FCPA, only chose to punish one party to the bribe agreement and the DOJ could not therefore  ”override the Congressional intent not to prosecute foreign officials for their participation in the prohibited acts” through use of the conspiracy statute.  The court decisions were based in part on Gebardi v. United States, 287 U.S. 112, 53 S.Ct. 35, 77 L.Ed. 206 (1932), a case that also featured prominently in the recent Hoskins pre-trial ruling.

In U.S. v. Bodmer, 342 F.Supp.2d 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), Judge Shira Scheindlin addressed the question “whether prior to the 1998 amendments, foreign nationals who acted as agents of domestic concerns, and who were not residents of the United States, could be criminally prosecuted under the FCPA.”  Judge Scheindlin concluded that the FCPA’s language, as it existed prior to the 1998 amendments, was ambiguous and she thus resorted to legislative history.  Judge Scheindlin further commented in dismissing the FCPA charges against Bodmer (as Swiss national) as follows.  “After consideration of the statutory language, legislative history, and judicial interpretations of the FCPA, the jurisdictional scope of the statute’s criminal penalties is still unclear.” Thus, the rule of lenity required dismissal according to Judge Scheindlin.

As highlighted in this prior post, in the Africa Sting enforcement action Judge Leon dismissed a substantive FCPA charge against Pankesh Patel (a U.K. national) based on the DOJ’s enforcement theory that Patel was subject to the FCPA’s jurisdiction because he allegedly sent a DHL packing in furtherance of the bribery scheme from the U.K. to the U.S.  Although Judge Leon did not issue a formal written decision, the trial court transcript is clear that he disagreed with the DOJ’s legal theory.

Granted the DOJ’s enforcement action against Hoskins remains active, but at present the DOJ is believed to be 0-4 when asserting aggressive FCPA enforcement theories against foreign nationals.

To some, this is of little consequence.

The rule of law would disagree.

It is interesting to note that the DOJ of course asserts aggressive FCPA enforcement theories against foreign companies as well.However, no foreign company has challenged the DOJ in these enforcement actions – it is simply easier, more certain and more efficient to roll over, play dead, and agree to resolve the enforcement action.

Yet, if certain foreign companies would have challenged the DOJ, the likely result in several enforcement actions may have been DOJ defeats.

Judge Trims DOJ’s FCPA Enforcement Action Against Lawrence Hoskins

Judicial Decision

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton (D. Conn.) trimmed the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement action against Lawrence Hoskins (a former Alstom executive criminally charged in August 2013 – see here) by granting in part his motion to dismiss and denying a DOJ motion in limine.

In pertinent part, Hoskins (a U.K. citizen) moved to dismiss count one of the DOJ’s Third Superseding Indictment “on the basis that it charges a legally invalid theory that he could be criminally liable for conspiracy to violate the FCPA even if the evidence does not establish that he was subject to criminal liability as a principal, by being an “agent” of a “domestic concern.”

As stated by Judge Arterton:

“Relatedly, the Government moves in limine to preclude Defendant from arguing to the jury that it must prove that he was the agent of a domestic concern because the Government contends that Defendant can also be convicted under theories of accomplice liability. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Third Superseding Indictment will be granted in part to preclude Defendant’s FCPA conspiracy prosecution from being de-linked from proof that he was an agent of a domestic concern and the Government’s Motion in Limine is denied.”

In the words of Judge Arterton:

“[T]hese two motions put before the Court the question of whether a nonresident foreign national could be subject to criminal liability under the FCPA, even where he is not an agent of a domestic concern and does not commit acts while physically present in the territory of the United States, under a theory of conspiracy or aiding and abetting a violation of the FCPA by a person who is within the statute’s reach.2 The Court concludes that the answer is “no” and that accomplice liability cannot extend to this Defendant under such circumstances and thus Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count One is granted in part and the Government’s Motion in Limine is denied.”

Judge Arterton began by discussing the Gebardi Principle that has been used previously by judges in dismissing DOJ FCPA enforcement actions against foreign nationals (Castle and Bodmer referenced below)  Specifically, the Judge noted as follows.

“[T]he Gebardi principle is that where Congress chooses to exclude a class of individuals from liability under a statute, “the Executive [may not] . . . override the Congressional intent not to prosecute” that party by charging it with conspiring to violate a statute that it could not directly violate. United States v. Castle, 925 F.2d 831, 833 (5th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Bodmer, 342 F. Supp. 2d 176, 181 n.6 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“In Gebardi, the Supreme Court held that where Congress passes a substantive criminal statute that excludes a certain class of individuals from liability, the Government cannot evade Congressional intent by charging those individuals with conspiring to violate the same statute.”). The Gebardi principle also applies to aiding and abetting liability.

In determining whether the Gebardi principle applies, the question is “not whether Congress could have” reached a certain class of individuals under the conspiracy or aiding and abetting statutes, “but rather whether Congress intended to do so, or more specifically, whether Congress intended the general conspiracy statute” to apply to these individuals.5 Castle, 925 F.2d at 835 (emphasis in original).

The Government maintains that Gebardi recognized only a “narrow exception to [the] long-established legal principle” that “the conspiracy and accomplice liability statutes apply to classes of persons who lack the capacity to commit a violation of the underlying substantive crime.”  It maintains that this exception only “applies in two limited circumstances: (1) where a class of person is a necessary party to the crime and was specifically excluded from prosecution for the substantive violation by Congress (e.g., the foreign official who receives the bribe payment under the FCPA, or the woman who is transported across state lines under the Mann Act); or (2) where the substantive statute was enacted to protect the class of person to which the individual belongs (e.g., victims).”  Defendant maintains that Gebardi applies whenever “Congress affirmatively chooses to exclude a certain class of individuals from liability under a criminal statute.”

The Court agrees with Defendant that the Government’s interpretation of Gebardi is too narrow and that while the two “[f]actual scenarios . . . posited by the government bring Congress’s intent into view and, thereby, make it easier to glean the existence of an affirmative legislative policy,” Congressional intent can be evident in other circumstances. For example, in Amen, the Second Circuit applied Gebardi and held that a person who was not the head of a criminal enterprise could not be subject to the drug “kingpin” statute’s sentencing enhancement under a theory that he aided and abetted a violation, because “[w]hen Congress assigns guilt to only one type of participant in a transaction, it intends to leave the others unpunished for the offense.” 831 F.2d at 381.

The Second Circuit’s reasoning was not, as the Government maintains, that a violation of the kingpin statute requires “the participation of two classes of persons— those who lead a criminal enterprise, on the one hand, and those who are led, on the other” and that “Congress chose only to provide for an enhanced punishment of one of those necessary parties.”  Rather, the Second Circuit reasoned that while the statute’s “legislative history makes no mention of aiders and abettors, it makes it clear that the purpose . . . was not to catch in the [kingpin] net those who aided and abetted the supervisors’ activities.”

Judge Arterton relied extensively on the FCPA’s legislative history to support her decisions. The application section of the ruling states in its entirety as follows.

“The clearest indication of legislative intent is the text and structure of the FCPA, which carefully delineates the classes of people subject to liability and excludes nonresident foreign nationals where they are not agents of a domestic concern or did not take actions in furtherance of a corrupt payment within the territory of the United States. See Community for Creative Non–Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 739 (1989) (“The starting point for [the] interpretation of a statute is always its language.”).

In United States v. Castle, 925 F.2d 831, 832 (5th Cir. 1991), the Fifth Circuit applied Gebardi to conclude that another class of individuals not subject to liability as principals under the FCPA—the foreign officials who accept bribes—could not be prosecuted for conspiracy to violate the FCPA. The Fifth Circuit found an intent in the FCPA to exclude the foreign bribe recipients because, in enacting the FCPA in 1977 in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, Congress was principally “concerned about the domestic effects of such payments,” such as “the distortion of, and resulting lack of confidence in, the free market system within the United States.” Id. at 834–35.

Congress was aware that it “could, consistently with international law, reach foreign officials in certain circumstances,” but it was also concerned about “the ‘inherent jurisdictional, enforcement, and diplomatic difficulties’ raised by the application of the bill to non-citizens of the United States” and decided not to do so. Id. at 835 (quoting H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 831, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 14, reprinted in 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4121, 4126).7 From the text of the statute and the legislative history expressing concern about reaching non-citizens, the Fifth Circuit found “in the FCPA what the Supreme Court in Gebardi found in the Mann Act: an affirmative legislative policy to leave unpunished a well-defined group of persons who were necessary parties to the acts constituting a violation of the substantive law.” Id. at 836.

Legislative History of 1977

Although the text and structure of the FCPA provide strong indication that Congress did not intend for non-resident foreign nationals to be subject to the FCPA unless they were agents of a domestic concern or acted in the territory of the United States, the Court also considers the legislative history of the Act.

While the extensive legislative history of the enactment of the FCPA in 1977 and its amendments in 1998 identified by the parties contain little discussion of accomplice liability, that which does exist is consistent with what the plain text and structure of the final enactment implies regarding the limits of liability for non-resident foreign nationals. The initial version of the Senate bill introduced by the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on June 2, 1976 made it unlawful for any U.S. “issuer” or “domestic concern” to use any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to authorize or pay a bribe. S. 3664, 94th Cong. (1976). “Domestic concern” was defined to include (1) U.S. citizens and nationals and (2) entities owned or controlled by U.S. citizens and nationals that were either incorporated in or had a principal place of business in the United States. Id. at 7.

An amendment to the Senate bill responded to a request by the administration of President Carter “to clearly cover under the bill individuals making payments” that was not “crystal clear” in the original version. Markup Session on S. 305, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 95th Cong., 8 (Apr. 6, 1977). The definition of domestic concern was left unchanged, but the proposal added that officers, directors, employees and stockholders acting on behalf of U.S. issuers or domestic concerns, irrespective of nationality, would be liable for making bribes on behalf of the company. S. Rep. No. 95-114, at 11; 123 Cong. Rec. 13817 (1977). Although the Carter Administration requested that liability be extended to foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies, Markup Session on S. 305 at 9, the Senate declined to do so, S. Rep. No. 95-114.

A competing House bill introduced on February 22, 1977 provided for broader liability for non-resident foreign nationals than the Senate bill, proposing liability not just for non-U.S. officers, directors, and employees of domestic concerns, but also (1) any “agent” of a U.S. issuer or domestic concern who “carried out” a bribe and (2) officers, directors, and employees of foreign affiliates irrespective of nationality. H.R. 3815 §§ 30A(c)(2), 3(c)(2), 3(f)(2)(A), 95th Cong. (1977).

The FCPA as enacted included elements from both the Senate and House bills, extending liability to agents of domestic concerns as the House proposed, but limiting criminal liability of agents and employees of domestic concerns to a person who was a “United States citizen, national, or resident or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and predicated such person’s criminal liability on a finding that the domestic concern itself had violated the statute. 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(b)(1)(B)(3) (1977).

The final bill excluded foreign affiliates of U.S. companies, as the Senate proposed, which the House Conference Report described as a “recogni[tion] [of] the inherent jurisdictional, enforcement and diplomatic difficulties raised by the inclusion of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies in the direct prohibitions of the bill.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-831, at *14. The Report explained, however, that because U.S. citizens, nationals, and residents were defined as domestic concerns, they could be liable for engaging in bribery “indirectly” through another person and that the “jurisdictional, enforcement and diplomatic difficulties” that applied to extending liability to foreign subsidiaries did not apply to “citizens, nations, or residents of the United States.” Id.

The Government notes that early versions of the Senate and House committee reports discussed accomplice liability: The committee fully recognizes that the proposed law will not reach all corrupt payments overseas. For example, Sections 2 and 3 would not permit prosecution of a foreign national who paid a bribe overseas acting entirely on his own initiative. The committee notes, however, that in the majority of bribery cases investigated by the SEC some responsible official or employee of the U.S. parent company had knowledge of the bribery and either explicitly or implicitly approved the practice. Under the bill as reported, such persons could be prosecuted. The concepts of aiding and abetting and joint participation would apply to a violation under this bill in the same manner in which those concepts have always applied in both SEC civil actions and in implied private actions brought under the securities laws generally. H.R. Rep. No. 95-640, at 8 (1977); S. Rep. No. 94-1031, at 7 (1976).

As discussed above, this legislative history discussing an early version of the bill was later clarified in response to concerns by the Carter Administration that the extent of individual liability (including for U.S. nationals) was not “crystal clear.” Rather than resorting to concepts of accomplice liability, the enacted version specifically delineated the extent of individual liability by “mak[ing] it clear that” the delineated individuals were “covered directly.” Markup Session on S. 305, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 95th Cong., 8, 12 (Apr. 6, 1977). Therefore, the discussion of accomplice liability cited by the Government does not suggest that Congress intended for those who were excluded from direct liability under the Act to be subject to accomplice liability but only shows that Congress considered imposing individual liability based on concepts of accomplice liability but instead chose to do so directly and carefully delineated the class of persons covered to address concerns of overreaching.

Thus, as in Amen and Gebardi, even absent explicit discussion in the legislative history of accomplice liability, the carefully-crafted final enactment evinces a legislative intent to cabin such liability. See Amen, 831 F.2d at 382; Gebardi, 287 U.S. at 123. As the Fifth Circuit explained, when Congress “listed all the persons or entities who could be prosecuted” under the FCPA, it “intended that these persons would be covered by the Act itself, without resort to the conspiracy statute” and, as in Gebardi, that intent cannot be circumvented by resort to conspiracy and aiding and abetting liability. Castle, 925 F.2d at 836.

1998 Amendments

While the Government argues that the original version of the FCPA in 1977 provided for accomplice liability, it maintains that after the 1998 amendments to the FCPA “Congress unequivocally provided that it intended the accomplice liability and conspiracy statutes to apply to foreign nationals not otherwise subject to the FCPA as principals.” The 1998 amendments to the FCPA were “enacted to ensure the United States was in compliance with its treaty obligations,” United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912, 923 (11th Cir. 2014), after the United States ratified the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (“OECD Convention”). Dec. 17, 1997, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105–43, 37 I.L.M.; International Anti– Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998, Pub.L. No. 105–366, 112 Stat. 3302.

The OECD Convention required each signatory country to “take such measures as may be necessary to establish that it is a criminal offence under its law for any person intentionally” to bribe foreign officials. OECD Convention art. 1.1. In response, the 1998 amendments expanded the scope of liability in three ways. First, Congress added 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3(a), which prohibited those individuals or entities that did not already fall under other provisions of the statute from taking action “while in the territory” of the United States in furtherance of corrupt payments. 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3(a). Second, the 1998 amendments eliminated a disparity in penalties between U.S. and foreign nationals acting as agents of domestic concerns whereby previously foreign nationals were subject only to civil penalties. The amendment made clear that foreign nationals acting as agents of domestic concerns could be criminally prosecuted for violating the FCPA if they used some manner or means of interstate commerce. 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2. Third, Congress provided for nationality jurisdiction12, providing that it “shall also be unlawful for any United States person to corruptly do any act outside the United States in furtherance of” a foreign bribe. 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(i)(1); see also S. REP. 105-277, at *2–3 (1998) (describing these three changes to the FCPA as being intended “to conform it to the requirements of and to implement the OECD Convention”).

The Government maintains that because the OECD Convention required each signatory country to make it a “criminal offense under its law for any person” to pay a foreign bribe, OECD Convention, art. 1.1 (emphasis added), the “1998 amendments expanded the jurisdictional reach of the FCPA to cover any person over whom U.S. courts have jurisdiction” and a contrary interpretation “would place the United States in violation of its treaty obligations.” While the Supreme Court has admonished that “courts should be most cautious before interpreting . . . domestic legislation in such manner as to violate international agreements,” Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 539 (1995), this Court does not agree with the Government’s contention that the OECD Convention required or even contemplated the extent of liability sought by the Government here by using the term “any person.”

Rather, the OECD’s reference to “any person” is cabined by Article 4 of the Convention, addressing jurisdiction, which provides that each signatory “shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the bribery of a foreign public official when the offense is [1] committed in whole or in part in its territory” (OECD Convention, art. 4.1) or [2] by its own nationals while abroad (id., art. 4.2). Therefore, there is no indication that the OECD Convention requires the United States to prosecute foreign bribery committed abroad by non-resident foreign nationals who conspire with United States citizens.

Based on the text and structure of the FCPA and the legislative history accompanying its enactment and its amendment, the Court concludes that Congress did not intend to impose accomplice liability on non-resident foreign nationals who were not subject to direct liability. Count One will not be dismissed in its entirety, however, because if the Government proceeds under the theory that Mr. Hoskins is an agent of a domestic concern and thus subject to direct liability under the FCPA, the Gebardi principle would not preclude his criminal liability for conspiring to violate the FCPA. The Government may not argue, however, that Defendant could be liable for conspiracy even if he is not proved to an agent of a domestic concern.”

*****

Hoskins is represented by Christopher Morvillo and David Raskin of Clifford Chance.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes