Top Menu

Archive | Internal Controls

Company Under FCPA Scrutiny, Resolves Separate FCPA Enforcement Action


The above headline may be a bit confusing, but it is instructive as to the basic point that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has always been a law much broader than its name suggests because of its books and records and internal controls provisions.

These provisions, applicable to issuers, are among the most generic substantive legal provisions one can find and the fact is most FCPA enforcement actions (using that term in the most technical sense) do not even involve foreign bribery.

Case in point is yesterday’s  SEC enforcement action finding that FMC Technologies violated the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions when it overstated profits in one of its business segments.

The name of this company might ring a bell because earlier this year FMC Technologies disclosed FCPA scrutiny of the more traditional type.

Continue Reading

FCPA Flash – A Conversation With Mark Srere About FCPA Reform And The Best Positive Incentives

FCPA Flash

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 expect from the written posts on FCPA Professor.

This FCPA Flash episode is a conversation with Mark Srere (Bryan Cave). In the episode, Srere articulates why the current FCPA enforcement environment does not offer business organizations the best positive incentives and he offers an FCPA reform proposal that he believes would. In addition, Srere critiques the hindsight driven nature of certain FCPA enforcement actions as it relates to the internal controls provisions.

Continue Reading

Issues To Consider From The Och-Ziff Enforcement Action


Previous posts here and here went in-depth into the recent Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Och-Ziff, Daniel Och and Joel Frank.

This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider. As highlighted below, embedded in the approximately 175 pages of resolution documents were several notable issues.

Time Line

According to Och-Ziff’s prior disclosures “beginning in 2011, and from time to time thereafter, we have received subpoenas from the SEC and requests for information from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) in connection with an investigation involving the FCPA and related laws.”

Continue Reading

Issues To Consider From The AB InBev Enforcement Action


This previous post went in-depth into the SEC’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against AB InBev.

This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider from the enforcement action.


Per the SEC’s order, the SEC began its inquiry in October 2011.

Thus from start to finish, AB InBev’s FCPA scrutiny lasted just shy of five years.

It is absolutely inexcusable on any level for FCPA scrutiny to last five years. If the SEC wants the public to view its FCPA enforcement program as legitimate, credible, and effective, it must resolve instances of FCPA scrutiny much faster.

Continue Reading

In Depth Into The Och-Ziff FCPA Enforcement Action

och ziff

Last week, the DOJ and SEC announced (here and here) a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Och-Ziff Capital Management Group (and a related entity) for improper business practices in various African countries. The aggregate settlement amount was $412 million (a $213 million DOJ criminal penalty and a $199 million SEC resolution consisting of disgorgement and prejudgment interest), the 4th largest FCPA settlement amount of all-time.

As highlighted in this previous post, the SEC also found Daniel Och (CEO) and Joel Frank (CFO) culpable for certain of the improper conduct. As indicated in the post, this represents what is believed to be the first time in FCPA history that the SEC also found the current CEO and CFO of the issuer company liable, to some extent, for company FCPA violations. Moreover, the $2.2 million Och agreed to pay, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, is the largest settlement amount in FCPA history by an individual in an SEC action.

Whether the Och-Ziff enforcement action is the “first time a hedge fund has been held to account for violating the FCPA” (as the DOJ stated in its release) is a debatable point. (See here for the 2007 FCPA enforcement action on the DOJ’s FCPA website against hedge fund Omega Advisors).

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes