Top Menu

Friday Roundup

Roundup2

Vote, motion for reconsideration, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Vote

FCPA Professor has been selected as one of the best legal blogs by the Expert Institute.  If FCPA Professor adds value to your practice or business or otherwise enlightens your day, you can vote for FCPA Professor as the best niche/specialty blog here. It only takes a minute and your vote is most appreciated.

Motion for Reconsideration

Unhappy with U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton’s (D. Conn.) recent interpretation in U.S. v. Hoskins (see here) of the FCPA that Congress actually enacted, the DOJ recently filed this motion for a reconsideration. The motion is based almost entirely on the DOJ’s views on the FCPA’s legislative history, demonstrating once again the importance of the FCPA’s legislative history (see here).

Reading Stack

Speaking of the recent decision in U.S. v. Hoskins, this King & Spalding alert states:

“[T]he Government argued for an accomplice theory, consistent with the Resource Guide to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That guidance, first released in 2012, posed just such a hypothetical scenario:

Moreover, even if [defendant] had never taken any actions in the territory of the United States, they can still be subject to jurisdiction under a traditional application of conspiracy law and may be subject to substantive FCPA charges under Pinkerton liability, namely, being liable for the reasonably foreseeable substantive FCPA crimes committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The District Court rejected that theory, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gebardi v. United States, which established that whenever Congress has intentionally excluded certain individuals from liability for a specific law, this congressional intent must not be circumvented by prosecuting such individuals based on accomplice liability.

While the District Court rejected accomplice liability as an additional basis for FCPA jurisdiction, it remains to be seen how other courts will address this question, and whether the DOJ and the SEC will revisit their guidance on the matter. Given the rarity of written judicial opinions interpreting the FCPA, this ruling is likely to have an outsized impact on future FCPA enforcement actions.”

For additional reading on how the FCPA Guidance is an advocacy piece and not a well-balanced portrayal of the FCPA as it is replete with selective information, half-truths, and, worse information that is demonstratively false, see here.

*****

An informative read here from the FCPAmericas blog titled “Localizing Compliance Programs in Latin America.”

“The compliance programs for Latin American subsidiaries of foreign companies often consist of translated versions of the program used at headquarters, without any (or just minor) adaptations. Oftentimes, this practice has the potential to negatively impact the ability of the program to operate at optimum levels and can lead to problems. Here are five practical steps that companies can take to maximize the efficiency of their compliance programs in Latin America.”

*****

An interesting read here from Robert Appleton titled “Despite Prosecutions, Corruption Levels Stay the Course.”

“In light of this [increased corruption enforcement] activity [around the world], one might expect that corruption levels would decrease. But they have not. Why hasn’t it happened? The focus of this piece is to propose some possible explanations for this anomaly.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

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.

Friday Roundup

Roundup2

From the dockets, cleared, when the dust settles, outreach, and quotable.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

From the Dockets

Sigelman

This recent post highlighted the motion to dismiss filed by Joseph Sigelman.  Among other things, Sigelman challenged the DOJ’s interpretation and application of the “foreign official” element in regards to Ecopetrol, the alleged “the state-owned and state-controlled petroleum company in Colombia.”

On December 30th, U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas denied the motion (as well as addressed other motions) in a 1 page order.

Hoskins

This recent post highlighted the motion to dismiss filed by Lawrence Hoskins. Among other things, the motion argued that the indictment “charges stale and time-barred conduct that occurred more than a decade ago; it asserts violations of U.S. law by a British citizen who never stepped foot on U.S. soil during the relevant time period; and, it distorts the definition of the time-worn legal concept of agency beyond recognition.”

In this December 29th ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Arterton (D. Conn.) denied the motion to dismiss concluding that factual issues remain as to the disputed issues.

Cleared

Remember Kazuo Okada and Universal Entertainment Corp.  They were at the center of a boardroom battle royal with Wynn Resorts in which a Wynn sanctioned report stated:

“Mr. Okada, his associates and companies appear to have engaged in a longstanding practice of making payments and gifts to his two (2) chief gaming regulators at the Philippines Amusement and Gaming Corporation (“PAGCOR”), who directly oversee and regulate Mr. Okada’s Provisional Licensing Agreement to operate in that country.  Since 2008, Mr. Okada and his associates have made multiple payments to and on behalf of these chief regulators, former PAGCOR Chairman Efraim Genuino and Chairman Cristino Naguiat (his current chief regulator), their families and PAGCOR associates, in an amount exceeding $110,000.”  The report categorizes this conduct as “prima facie violations” of the FCPA.

Universal recently issued this release which states:

“The Prosecutor General of the Philippines has proposed to the Secretary of Justice to terminate the investigation into the groundless suspicion that our group may have offered bribes to officials of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation …”.

When The Dust Settles

It is always interesting to see what happens when the dust settles from an FCPA enforcement action (see here for the prior post).

A portion of the recent Alstom enforcement action alleged improper payments in connection with power projects with the Bahamas Electricity Corporation (“BEC”), the state-owned and state-controlled power company.

According to the Nassau Guardian “Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson said The Bahamas has requested information from the US regarding the allegations, including the identity of the alleged bribe taker.”

This follow-up report states:

“Former Bahamas Electricity Corporation (BEC) board member Philip Beneby said on Tuesday he would find it hard to believe that any member of the board accepted bribes from a French power company to swing BEC contracts its way. […] “The allegation is stating that a member of the board received some kickback, but it’s kind of strange to me that a member of the board would receive a kickback if the board unanimously agreed that the contract be awarded to Hanjung out of Korea, then only to find out later that the Cabinet overturned the board’s decision. So that decision to not award Hanjung from Korea the contract came from the Cabinet, not from the board.” According to Beneby and former minister with responsibility for BEC, Bradley Roberts, in 2000 the board of BEC unanimously voted to award a generator contract to Hanjung Co. out of South Korea, but that decision was overturned by the then Ingraham Cabinet, which decided to award the contract to Alstom (then ABB). […] Former deputy prime minister Frank Watson was the minister at the time responsible for BEC. He said the decision to award the contract to Alstom was a Cabinet decision that involved no bribery. Watson insisted he was unaware of any claims that a bribe had been paid with respect to the award of that particular contract. Beneby, who is the proprietor of Courtesy Supermarket, said he remembers the event quite well as it was the first time a board decision was overturned.”

As explored in this prior post, many FCPA enforcement actions assume an actual casual link between alleged payments and obtaining or retaining business.  However, the reality is that such a casual link is not always present.

Outeach

This event notice from the New England Chapter of the National Defense Industrial Association caught my eye.

“FBI Seminar on FCPA and International Corruption: Outreach to Industry Education Session

Join us for an engaging morning seminar to learn how to be compliant with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The FBI’s International Corruption Unit (ICU) is conducting private sector outreach and education to support a new initiative.  The FBI recognizes the importance of forging new partnerships and strengthening existing relationships to help level the playing field for US businesses competing internationally.  By fostering better understanding of FCPA requirements, the FBI and private sector can join forces more efficiently to fight international corruption and ensure fair global markets and a strong US economy.

The FBI is excited to showcase five pillars of FCPA compliance in their program: Private Sector Outreach, Training and Education, Dedicated Personnel, Domestic and International Partnerships and Proactive Enterprise Theory Investigations.  Utilizing the five pillars approach, the FBI is gaining new momentum and expertise.

Additionally, the FBI will discuss new analysis outlining bribery hotspots and trends.  Using charts and graphs the FBI will examine the latest bribe payment techniques, who is paying bribes and who is accepting bribes.  Specific regions of the world will be discussed along with the various risks associated with doing business in these areas.

Lastly, the FBI will present a guest speaker who violated the FCPA, cooperated with the FBI and eventually was incarcerated for his crimes.  This segment will provide a unique and impactful insight into the rationalization of an employee who paid bribes, despite knowledge and training on FCPA.The FBI is looking forward to the opportunity to discuss best practices and enhance FCPA compliance with industry partners”

Quotable

This recent Forbes article ask “isn’t it strange that the U.S. gets to fine Alstom, a French company, for bribery not in the U.S.?” The article concludes:

“It’s most certainly not good economics that one court jurisdiction gets to fine companies from all over the world on fairly tenuous grounds. Who would really like it if Russia’s legal system extended all the way around the world? Or North Korea’s? And I’m pretty sure that the non-reciprocity isn’t good public policy either. Eventually it’s going to start getting up peoples’ noses and they’ll be looking for ways to punish American companies in their own jurisdictions under their own laws. And there won’t be all that much that the U.S. can honestly do to complain about it, given their previous actions.”

That is pretty much what Senator Christopher Coons said during the November 2010 Senate FCPA hearing. “”Today we the only nation that is extending extraterritorial reach and going after the citizens of other countries, we may someday find ourselves on the receiving end of such transnational actions.”

In a recent speech, Stuart Alford QC (Joint Head of Fraud at the Serious Fraud Office) addressed the following question:  “why have there been no Bribery Act prosecutions; is this Act really being taken seriously?”  In response to his own question, Alford stated, in pertinent part:

“The Bribery Act is not retrospective. Therefore, for conduct to be criminal under the Act it has to have been undertaken after 1 July 2011. Often conduct of this type takes some time to surface; and, once it does, it takes time to investigate. SFO cases must, by definition, be serious or complex and they very often include international parties and conduct. While the SFO is always striving to investigate criminal conduct in as timely a way as possible, these types of cases will take some time to move through the process of investigation and on to prosecution.

The Bribery Act represented a very significant shift in setting the standards for the more ethical corporate culture I referred to a moment ago. When one looks at legislation of this kind, both here and abroad, one can see that a flow of prosecutions can take time to develop. We only have to look at the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the USA, to see that it took many years for that work to build up a head of steam, and not really until the turn of the century did we start to see the level of prosecutions that we do now.”

Spot-on and consistent with my own observations on July 1, 2011 when the Bribery Act went live.

Top Book Review

International Policy Digest recently compiled its top book reviews of 2014.  On the list is the following.

Review of Mike Koehler’s ‘The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the New Era’

By John Giraudo

If you care about the rule of law, ‘The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the New Era’ by Mike Koehler, is one of the most important books you can read—to learn how it is being eroded. Professor Koehler’s book may not make it to the top of any summer reading list, but it is a must read for people who care about law reform.

For more information on the book, see here.

*****

A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Knox to FCPA Inc., DOJ response brief filed, SFO speeches, and asset recovery.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Knox to FCPA Inc.

As highlighted in this prior post, over the summer Jeffrey Knox (DOJ Fraud Section Chief) followed the same tired script on a number of FCPA issues.  It will be interesting to hear / read of Knox’s positions in the future as – following a well-traveled career path for DOJ FCPA enforcement attorneys – he is leaving government service for the private sector to provide FCPA investigative and compliance services to business organizations subject to the current era of FCPA enforcement.  (See here from the Washington Post, here from the Wall Street Journal, and here from the New York Times).

Knox is headed to Simpson Thatcher (also home to former SEC FCPA Unit Chief Cheryl Scarboro – see here for the prior post). This Simpson Thatcher release states in pertinent part:

“Mr. Knox will be a partner based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C. office and a member of the Firm’s Government and Internal Investigations Practice. During his tenure at the DOJ, Mr. Knox served as the Chief and, before then, the second-ranking official of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, which has responsibility for some of the nation’s most significant fraud cases, including … Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) criminal investigations and prosecutions in the United States.”

[…]

“We are pleased to welcome Jeff back to the Firm,” said Bill Dougherty, Chairman of Simpson Thacher’s Executive Committee. “His deep experience in overseeing high-stakes government investigations and enforcement actions will be a significant asset to our clients as they navigate an increasingly complex enforcement landscape.” “We are very excited that Jeff is joining our Government and Internal Investigations team here at Simpson Thacher. As Chief of the Fraud Section, Jeff has presided over many of the most significant financial fraud, healthcare fraud, and FCPA investigations in recent years, and we know that he is greatly respected within both the DOJ and the white collar bar. His experience and insight will provide substantial value to our clients,” added Mark J. Stein, Head of the Firm’s Government and Internal Investigations Practice.”

The release further states: “[Knox] was a contributor to the DOJ and SEC’s A Resource Guide to the FCPA, published in 2012.”

As I have done in all previous instances of high-ranking DOJ or SEC FCPA enforcement attorneys leaving government services for lucrative FCPA related jobs in the private sector (see here for instance), I will restate my position.

As to DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement attorneys who have supervisory and discretionary positions and articulate government FCPA policies, it is in the public interest that such individuals be prohibited, upon leaving government service, from providing FCPA defense or compliance services in the private sector for a five-year period.

DOJ Response Brief Filed

This previous post highlighted the motion to dismiss filed by former Alstom executive Lawrence Hoskins in the criminal FCPA action against him.  In short, the motion to dismiss stated that the DOJ’s indictment “charges stale and time-barred conduct that occurred more than a decade ago; it asserts violations of U.S. law by a British citizen who never stepped foot on U.S. soil during the relevant time period; and, it distorts the definition of the time-worn legal concept of agency beyond recognition.”  As noted in the prior post, much of Hoskins’s brief focuses on the issue of whether he withdrew from the alleged criminal conspiracy involving alleged improper payments at the Tarahan power plant project in Indonesia.

Earlier this week, the DOJ filed this response brief.  In pertinent part, the DOJ’s brief states:

“The defendant seeks to have the Court take the extraordinary step of dismissing the Indictment against him at this pretrial phase based on his interpretation of the legal import of  certain allegations contained in the Indictment, supplemented by his own selective version of events contained in an affidavit attached to his motion. The Indictment, however, sets forth more than sufficient facts to support the charged crimes. Moreover, at trial the Government expects to present substantial additional evidence supporting the charges, including facts that bear directly on the arguments raised by the defendant in his motion. The defendant’s motion thus represents a novel effort to – in effect – invent and obtain summary judgment in the criminal process based on the claim that he has established the factual basis for his defenses. For good reason, the law provides that only after the Government has presented its case should a judge and jury grapple with the legal and factual sufficiency of that evidence. Thus, the defendant’s motion should be denied. Even addressing the merits of his arguments at this premature stage, however, the defendant’s motion should fail.

In particular, the defendant’s motion fails because: (1) the issue of withdrawal is necessarily a factual one to be decided by a jury and, nonetheless, the defendant did not withdraw from the charged conspiracies; (2) the Indictment has adequately alleged, and the Government will prove at trial, that the defendant was an “agent” of a domestic concern under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), the charged conduct is domestic (not extraterritorial), and Congress has not specially excepted the defendant from prosecution under the FCPA and, thus, he can be liable for causing, aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit an FCPA violation even if he is not guilty as a principal; and (3) the Indictment alleges continuing transactions (the bribe payments) that were initiated from Connecticut and alleges that the defendant aided and abetted the transactions through acts in Connecticut, and thus the money laundering charges are properly venued in the District of Connecticut.”

SFO Speeches

David Green’s (Director of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office) recent speech regarding a “cross-section of SFO cases” included the following in the foreign bribery space:

  • Barclays/Qatar: is an investigation, begun in 2012, into the circumstances surrounding Barclays’ £8bn recapitalisation in 2008.
  • Rolls Royce: concerns allegations of bribery carried out by local agents in return for orders in various markets, touching several divisions of Rolls Royce business activity.
  • GlaxoSmithKline: this is an investigation into allegations that bribes were paid in order to increase business in several jurisdictions.
  • GPT: this investigation concerns a subsidiary’s business relationship with the Saudi National Guard.
  • Alstom: this is an ongoing investigation into the use of British subsidiaries of a major French multinational to dispense bribes in several jurisdictions in order to secure large infrastructure contracts. Charges have already been laid against a subsidiary.
  • The Sweett Group: this investigation concerns allegations of bribes paid in return for building contracts in North Africa.

For another recent speech by Alun Milford (General Counsel of the SFO) on cooperation and disclosure, see here.

Asset Recovery

In news related to the DOJ’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative (under which prosecutors in the DOJ Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section work in partnership with federal law enforcement agencies to forfeit the proceeds of foreign official corruption – see this 2009 post highlighting Attorney General Holder’s announcement of the program), the DOJ announced:

“The Department of Justice has seized approximately $500,000 in assets traceable to corruption proceeds accumulated by Chun Doo Hwan, the former president of the Republic of Korea.   This seizure brings the total value of seized corruption proceeds of President Chun to more than $1.2 million.  […] Chun Doo Hwan orchestrated a vast campaign of corruption while serving as Korea’s president,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell.   “President Chun amassed more than $200 million in bribes while in office, and he and his relatives systematically laundered these funds through a complex web of transactions in the United States and Korea.   Today’s seizure underscores how the Criminal Division’s Kleptocracy Initiative – working in close collaboration with our law enforcement partners across the globe – will use every available means to deny corrupt foreign officials and their relatives safe haven for their assets in the United States.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

 

Former Alstom Executive Lawrence Hoskins Files Motion To Dismiss

Lawrence Hoskins is a United Kingdom citizen who lived and worked his entire life in the U.K. with the exception of a 35 month period between 2001 and 2004 during which he worked for Alstom in France.  In 2004, he resigned from his job at Alstom to resume his career in the U.K. and retired in 2010.  In April 2014 Hoskins and his wife disembarked from a ferry in the U.S. Virgin Islands en route to Dallas, Texas when he was arrested by U.S. authorities for an alleged bribery scheme dating back to his time at Alstom.

So began the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act journey of Lawrence Hoskins.

As highlighted in this previous post, Hoskins was criminally charged in connection with the same Indonesian power plant project that also resulted in criminal charges against other individuals associated with Alstom – Frederic Pierucci, David Rothschild, and William Pomponi.

Pierucci, Rothschild and Pomponi have all pleaded guilty.  However Hoskins is fighting the criminal charges filed against him and last week he filed a motion to dismiss.

The Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss states, in pertinent part, as follows.

“Resting as it does, upon an infirm foundation of aged allegations, overly expansive applications of law, and novel theories of criminal liability, the Indictment in this case suffers from numerous and fatal defects of law and logic. Among other things, it charges stale and time-barred conduct that occurred more than a decade ago; it asserts violations of U.S. law by a British citizen who never stepped foot on U.S. soil during the relevant time period; and, it distorts the definition of the time-worn legal concept of agency beyond recognition. In other words, the Indictment marks an excessive and improper exercise of executive authority. This is an Indictment that never should have been brought.

The Indictment seeks to hold Lawrence Hoskins, a retired 63-year-old British citizen, responsible for his alleged conduct that occurred—outside the United States more than ten years ago—while he was working in Paris at Alstom Holdings, SA (―Alstom‖), the parent company of the French conglomerate. The Indictment asserts that Mr. Hoskins, in his capacity as a Senior Vice-President of the Alstom parent company, approved and authorized the retention and compensation of two consultants, knowing that they would bribe Indonesian officials to help a consortium (including Alstom and one of its U.S. subsidiaries) obtain a contract to construct a power plant in Indonesia. According to the Indictment, Mr. Hoskins‘s limited, dated, and purely extraterritorial conduct subjects him to liability for two conspiracies and a total of ten substantive violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (―FCPA‖) and United States‘ money-laundering statutes. These charges all fail.

First, the Indictment is time-barred. Mr. Hoskins resigned from Alstom ten years ago, in August 2004, after 35 months of employment with the parent company and, when he did so, he withdrew from any alleged conspiracy operating therein. Second Circuit precedent makes clear that resignation from a business constitutes withdrawal from any criminal conduct operating within that entity if, following resignation, there is no promotion of or benefit received from the alleged illegal activity. Mr. Hoskins passes the Second Circuit‘s test with ease. After he resigned from Alstom, he immediately moved from Paris back to his home in England and started a new job, at a new company, in a new industry. He had no contact with, and received nothing from, any of his alleged co-conspirators. He also had no involvement with criminal conduct of any kind. To the point, the last act attributable to Mr. Hoskins in the Indictment occurred in March 2004, and the wire transfers that constitute the FCPA and money-laundering offenses all occurred long thereafter, between November 2005 and October 2009. Thus, Mr. Hoskins successfully withdrew from any alleged criminal conduct upon his resignation from Alstom. As such, all of the charges in the Indictment are time-barred and should be dismissed.

Second, the FCPA charges are facially defective. The Indictment alleges that Mr. Hoskins was an ―agent of a domestic concern,‖ to wit, an agent of Alstom‘s U.S. subsidiary. While it is black letter law that the fundamental characteristic of agency is control, the supporting factual allegations in the Indictment make plain that Mr. Hoskins was in no way under the control of the U.S. subsidiary. Indeed, much to the contrary, the Indictment demonstrates that Mr. Hoskins was ―approving‖ and ―authorizing‖ certain requests from employees of subsidiary companies ―in his capacity‖ as an executive of the Alstom parent company. Thus, because the allegations in the Indictment describe conduct bearing no semblance to an agency relationship, the FCPA-related charges are facially defective and should be dismissed.

Third, the Indictment‘s use of the term ―agent‖ is so counter-intuitive to the common understanding of that phrase that its application to Mr. Hoskins‘s relationship with the U.S. subsidiary renders the FCPA unconstitutionally vague as applied. Such a construction of the term ―agent‖ could not have provided Mr. Hoskins with fair warning that his alleged conduct—authorizing and approving matters at the request of employees of subsidiaries in his oversight capacity at the parent company—could expose him to criminal liability. As such, the FCPA charges are also constitutionally flawed and should be dismissed.

Fourth, the FCPA charges do not apply to Mr. Hoskins‘s purely extraterritorial conduct. Though Congress directed certain provisions of the FCPA to have extraterritorial effect, the subsection of the FCPA charged in the Indictment was not included in any such direction. Accordingly, the presumption against extraterritoriality applies. Thus, because all of Mr. Hoskins‘s alleged conduct occurred outside of the United States in the territory of a foreign sovereign, the substantive FCPA charges fail and should be dismissed.

Fifth, given the pronounced defects with the Indictment‘s FCPA charges, any theory of liability premised upon conspiracy and/or aiding and abetting also necessarily fail. Applicable Supreme Court precedent holds that when Congress affirmatively chooses to exclude a certain class of individuals from liability under a criminal statute, the government cannot circumvent that intent by alleging conspiracy. Moreover, federal courts have repeatedly held that ancillary offenses, including aiding and abetting and conspiracy, are only deemed to confer extraterritorial jurisdiction to the extent of the offenses underlying them. For these reasons, the conspiracy and aiding and abetting theories advanced in the Indictment cannot stand once the underlying FCPA charges fail.

Finally, the money-laundering charges are improperly venued in the District of Connecticut. The venue provision of the money-laundering statute establishes that venue lies only where the predicate money laundering transaction was ―conducted. The Indictment makes clear that the allegedly offending transfers were initiated from Maryland. As such, the District of Maryland is the only proper venue for the money-laundering charges, and they should be dismissed.

For the reasons described above and explained below, all of the charges should be dismissed. Mr. Hoskins never should have been charged on such old, infirm, and overextended allegations and legal theories. He should be freed to resume his life in England.”

*****

Hoskins is represented by Christopher Morvillo (Clifford Chance) and Brian Spears (Brian Spears LLC).  Both were previously AUSAs at the DOJ.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes