Top Menu

Principal Deputy Assistant AG Cronan Delivers Yet Another FCPA Speech

Cronan

On October 18th, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Cronan delivered a speech in Brazil at an event hosted by a for-profit business that generally charges people to attend (see here for the prior post). On October 25th, Cronan delivered another speech in Washington, D.C. at another event hosted by the same for-profit business.

Why DOJ (and SEC) officials allows themselves to be used in such a way by profit-seeking businesses to drive attendance to their events is beyond me. (See prior posts here and here, among many others, for why the selling of FCPA enforcement attorneys needs to stop).

Ethics aside, in his speech Cronan talked about the DOJ’s priorities with respect to corporate enforcement, what the DOJ expects “from companies who choose to voluntarily self-disclose misconduct and seek to cooperate with law enforcement,” and the DOJ’s “commitment to reaching fair and equitable resolutions, including through the principles reflected in the Criminal Division’s policy with respect to monitors.”

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

Roundup

Scrutiny alerts and updates, overstating, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates

Fresenius

As highlighted in this previous post, German healthcare firm Fresenius Medical Care AG (a company with shares traded on the NYSE) has been under FCPA scrutiny since 2012 (no that is not a typo). As highlighted in this previous post, earlier this year the company disclosed:

Continue Reading

More On The DOJ’s New Monitor Policy

Monitoring

As highlighted in this prior post, DOJ Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski recently announced a new DOJ monitor policy via this written memo titled “Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters.”

The memo is not Foreign Corrupt Practices Act specific, but FCPA relevant as it establishes “standards, policy, and procedures for the selection of monitors in matters being handled by Criminal Division attorneys” and “shall apply to all Criminal Division determinations regarding whether a monitor is appropriate in specific cases and to any deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”), non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”), or plea agreement between the Criminal Division and a business organization which requires the retention of a monitor.”

Before diving into the specifics of the memo, it is important to note the following.

Continue Reading

Assistant AG Benczkowski Announces That The DOJ Has Ditched The “Shortsighted” Compliance Counsel Position And Announces A New Corporate Monitor Policy

benczkowski

In 2015 when the DOJ announced that it had retained a “compliance expert” to “provide expert guidance to Fraud Section prosecutors,” I called the move little more than a public relations move (see here for the prior post).

In mid-2017, the DOJ’s compliance counsel left her position and in doing so attempted to draw much attention to herself and her politics. (See here and here for prior posts).

This March 2018 post checked in with the DOJ regarding its compliance counsel vacancy and mum was the word from the DOJ. The prior post suggested that if the position was that important it would have been filed after nine months, but then again it never was that important but rather a public relations move.

Continue Reading

Checking In On The Siemens Monitor Case – Court Rules That The DOJ’s Withholding Of Certain Relevant Documents Is Overbroad And That Other Claimed FOIA Exemptions Are Inapplicable

Judicial Decision

Previous posts herehere, here, and here have highlighted the DOJ’s efforts (along with Siemens and its monitor) to block public release of the Monitor reports provided to the DOJ in connection with resolution of the still record-setting 2008 Siemens FCPA enforcement action.

From the beginning, I’ve had my own suspicion as to why the DOJ (and other parties) are actively seeking to block release of the Monitor reports and it has nothing to do with the issues discussed in the DOJ’s (and other parties) briefs.

In any event, in this recent 60 page opinion, Judge Rudolph Contreras (D.D.C.) ruled that the DOJ’s withholding of certain relevant documents is overbroad and that other claimed Freedom of Information Act exemptions are inapplicable.

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes