Top Menu

OECD Report Misses The Mark

Targets3

Recently, a High-Level Advisory Group on Anti-Corruption and Integrity, “composed of independent experts from a variety of professional backgrounds in the anti-corruption field” drafted a lengthy report to the OECD to “strengthen its work on combating corruption and promoting integrity.”

In the report the Group makes 22 separate recommendations.

Problem is, the report completely misses the mark on the most obvious and effective way to reduce corruption.

Continue Reading

FCPA Enforcement Actions Against Foreign Companies From OECD Convention Peer Countries

Globe

2016 was a record-breaking year for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement, both in terms of the number of core corporate actions resolved as well as overall settlement amounts.

As highlighted in this post, much of the largeness of 2016 FCPA enforcement resulted from corporate enforcement actions against foreign companies. (For purposes of this post, a foreign company means the “residence” of the corporate parent company and not for instance, Analogic’s foreign subsidiary or JPMorgan’s foreign subsidiary being offered up to resolve the DOJ prong of the corporate enforcement action). 

Specifically, of the 27 corporate enforcement actions from 2016, 11 (41%) were against foreign companies (based in many instances on mere listing of securities on U.S. markets and in a few instances on sparse allegations of a U.S. nexus in furtherance of an alleged bribery scheme). Even more dramatic, of the net $2.27 billion settlement amounts from 2016 corporate enforcement actions, approximately $1.44 billion (63%) resulted from enforcement actions against foreign companies.

Given that all of the foreign companies that resolved 2016 FCPA enforcement actions were from peer OECD Convention countries, the question should be asked whether these FCPA enforcement actions represented a proper use of the FCPA – at least from a policy standpoint.

Continue Reading

The U.K.’s DPA With Rolls-Royce Violates OECD Convention Article 5 And Other Observations

observations

Previous posts here and here highlighted the $800 million global resolution of various enforcement actions against Rolls-Royce. As noted in a prior post, the bulk of the $800 million consisted of an approximate $625 million enforcement action by the U.K. Serious Fraud Office that was resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement – only the third DPA executed by the SFO.

This post highlights why the DPA violates Article 5 of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions to which the U.K. is a signatory country. The post also contains additional observations about the U.K. DPA.

Continue Reading

Issues To Consider From The Recent OECD Report

Earlier this week the OECD released a report titled “OECD Foreign Bribery Report – An Analysis of the Crime of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.”

The Report “endeavours to measure, and to describe, transnational corruption based on data from the 427 foreign bribery cases that have been concluded since the entry into force of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in 1999” by the 41 signatory countries to the OECD Convention. From this universe of cases, the Report then attempts to calculate several statistics.

Calculating statistics across 41 countries with different legal regimes, different ways of prosecuting cases, etc. is a monumental task.

It is also a task that yields statistics that are not very reliable or meaningful, particularly given certain of the methodologies and assumptions made in the Report.

For starters, the report itself notes as follows.  “This report is peppered with unknown data, ranging from 2% to 36% depending on the particular data set.  Many of the concluded cases did not contain all the information needed to make a full analysis and were also not publicly available.”

Second, the report “does not examine foreign bribery related offenses such as accounting.”  It is a bit unclear what this means, but if it means that FCPA books and records and internal controls cases only are not included in the dataset, then this is a significant limitation because actual charges in an FCPA enforcement action are often based – not solely on the conduct at issue – but other factors such as voluntary disclosure, cooperation, collateral effects, etc.  In short, several FCPA enforcement which could implicate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions do not as a technical matter.

Third, and as noted in footnote 11 of the report, “in the case of the United States, sanctions imposed by the Securities Exchange Commission (US SEC) and Department of Justice (US DOJ) are counted separately.”  Given that U.S. cases comprised approximately 1/4 of the total cases examined, this creative counting method is hugely significant.

Consider just 2013 FCPA enforcement in which there were 9 core corporate enforcement actions (ADM, Bilfinger, Weatheford, Diebold, Total, Ralph Lauren, Parker Drilling, Stryker and Phillips).  Yet if one counts DOJ and SEC actions separately, as did the OECD, notwithstanding the fact that most DOJ and SEC enforcement actions were based on the same core conduct, the number dramatically jumps to 15 corporate enforcement actions in 2013.  In other words and using just one year, one can clearly see how creative FCPA enforcement action counting methods dramatically changes the denominator for every statistic calculated.

One statistic that has generated much media attention from the OECD Report  (see here and here) is the finding that 53% of foreign bribery cases involved corporate management or CEOs.  However, the OECD Report – as noted in footnote 36 – defines “management” to mean senior level management, executives at the board level, directors and lower level management and states that “case data was insufficient to distinguish between these categories.”

To be sure in the FCPA context, certain enforcement actions have involved senior executive conduct and/or board conduct, but the vast majority of FCPA enforcement actions do not involve senior level management and a frequent allegation in such enforcement actions is that no one at the parent company resolving the enforcement action was aware of or participated in the alleged improper conduct.  To the extent there was a management level employee (and “title inflation” surely seems to be used in many FCPA enforcement actions) involved in the alleged improper conduct, the individual was employed by a legal entity (such as foreign subsidiary) separate from the entity actually resolving the enforcement action.

Because the OECD Report was “prepared with the aim of assisting the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions and the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group in their efforts to combat transnational bribery,” it was imperative that the statistics in the Report be reliable and meaningful.

Based on the above information, you can decide for yourself whether this is the case.

Despite the statistical deficiencies of the OECD Report there are several “preliminary conclusions” in the report worthy of highlighting.

For instance, as to the long timeframes involved in foreign bribery cases, the report states “it is essential that law enforcement authorities undertake efficient and effective investigations to avoid unnecessary delays.”

As to settlements, the predominate vehicle by which foreign bribery cases are resolved, the report states that “settlement procedures should respect the principles of due process, transparency and consistency.”

As to compliance programs, the report states that there is “scope for greater incentivizing preventative anti-bribery compliance programs …”.

*****

DOJ Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell delivered this speech in connection with the release of the OECD Report.

“Countering Small Bribes” – Nice Words, We’ve Heard Them Before, But They Are Wrong

Today’s post is from Professor Bruce Bean (Michigan State University College of Law).  Prior to academia, Bean had a diverse practice career including at various law firms and in-house counsel positions.

*****

As FCPA Professor recently highlighted, Transparency International UK released a new publication, “Countering Small Bribes – Principles and Good Practice Guidance for Dealing with Small Bribes including Facilitation Payments.” (See here.)  For once, TI has it all wrong!

This publication focuses on “grease,” “tea money,”  “facilitation payments.”  These terms describe small payments, and while no one knows how small these may be, such payments are common in the real world.  “Countering Small Bribes” discusses these in 44 pages and prescribes how such “bribes” can be eliminated.

TI begins by repeating a mantra regularly heard by those of us who deal in this area:

“[P]aying small bribes feeds a climate of corruption, which creates an unstable operating environment for companies. It destroys trust in government and public administration, undermines the rule of law, damages human rights and distorts business transactions. Small bribes are not confined to demands made to companies, as there are no boundaries for officials and others who demand bribes.”

Nice words.  We have heard them before.  They are wrong.

Small bribes do not “[create] an unstable operating environment,” “[damage] human rights” or “[distort] business.”  Rather, small bribes are one of the results of being in a jurisdiction where the rule of law has not been established and locals already do not trust government.  Facilitation payments do not create and do not corrode public and business standards; they are the result of an existing culture of corruption.

While the goal of eliminating corruption is a noble one, punishing the alleged “bribe” givers while ignoring the officials, high level and low, who extort such payments has proved to be fruitless.  Small and large bribes are more often extorted from businesses.  After all, no legitimate business hopes to give a bribe.  Such extortion is practiced by experts who have developed techniques very difficult to resist.  Fighting corruption by punishing the victims of such extortion is equivalent to pushing on a rope.  It gets us nowhere.  Given the 37 years of experience we have had with the FCPA, we cannot escape the conclusion that approaching bribery in international business solely from the bribe payers’ perspective has not, does not, and will not work.

Consider the prescription contained in “Countering Small Bribes.”  The TI approach is based upon ten unobjectionable principles.

“Effective countering of small bribes – including facilitation payments – will be based on the following principles.

1: There is a supporting culture of integrity

2: The company commits to eliminating small bribes

3: Risk assessment is the basis for designing the strategy and programme to eliminate small bribes

4: The company implements a programme to counter small bribes

5: Communication and training are provided to employees

6: Attention is given to countering third party risks

7: The internal accounting controls are designed specifically to counter small bribes

8: Appropriate actions are taken if small bribes are detected

9: The company monitors the effectiveness of its programme to counter small bribes

10: The company acts strategically to influence the corruption environment in which it operates.”

These principles already underlie many companies’ in-house anti-bribery compliance programs.  But these Ten Principles, or any principles, cannot be effective in eliminating bribes, large or small, in a corrupt environment.  The corruption problem in my experience (eight years in Moscow) will never be eliminated by focusing solely on the bribe payer, as the FCPA and the U.K. Bribery Act do.

TI-UK’s “Countering Small Bribes” focuses on small bribes.  Fine.  Consider an employee driving home from work in a foreign city, late at night.  This is a common scenario if the client’s home office in the US opens for business at 3:30 PM or later Moscow time.  Leaving the office in Moscow at 10 PM is not unusual.  A local police officer, lying in wait on the street opposite the office parking lot, flags down the employee and suggests that, because of the late hour, he must have been drinking.  This faithful public servant demands a blood test and displays a not-very-sanitary syringe.  Which of the Ten Principles applies?  (After a payment of less than $20, I was no longer deemed inebriated.)

“Countering Small Bribes” also explains why the FCPA exception for “facilitation payments” is wrong.

“The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (‘FCPA’), which was passed in 1977, introduced in 1988 the concept of facilitating (also commonly referred to as ‘facilitation’) payments with an exception from prosecution for such payments. This was to recognise a type of intractable bribery confronting US businesses when operating abroad. Since then, this form of bribery has attracted considerable debate and controversy.

Facilitation payments are illegal in most countries, although a small number including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and the USA provide exceptions, in certain circumstances, for facilitation payments when paid abroad. They remain illegal in their own domestic law.

There is growing international recognition that facilitation payments are not easily separated from other forms of small bribes and more and more companies are following a no-bribes policy throughout their global operations, with no exemptions for facilitation payments.”

The “growing recognition” referred to in the final quoted paragraph doubtless refers to UK’s Bribery Act 2010, which criminalized all bribes, no matter how small.  The Bribery Act was the UK’s long delayed response to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Public Officials in International Business Transactions first signed by the British in 1997.  At that time, the official Commentary addressed facilitation payments as follows:

“Small “facilitation” payments do not constitute payments made “to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage” …  and, accordingly, are also not an offence. Such payments, which, in some countries, are made to induce public officials to perform their functions, such as issuing licenses or permits, are generally illegal in the foreign country concerned. Other countries can and should address this corrosive phenomenon by such means as support for programs of good governance. However, criminalization by other countries does not seem a practical or effective complementary action.”

Note the final sentence: “Criminalization by other countries does not seem a practical or effective complementary action.”  Obviously the U.K. Parliament disagreed when, after much debate, it explicitly criminalized facilitation payments.  Governmental hypocrisy is normal in every U.S. administration and is perhaps a necessary aspect of today’s democracies.  Our British cousins exemplify this with this statement describing facilitation payments which is found in the Guidance to the UK Bribery Act 2010:

“As was the case under the old law, the Bribery Act does not (unlike US foreign bribery law) provide any exemption for such payments.”

This carefully crafted statement is precisely accurate.  It explains that neither the Bribery Act enacted in 2010, nor the superseded earlier anti-bribery laws in England and Wales dating back to 1886, exclude facilitating payments from the definition of crime of bribery.  Absolutely true – the law of England and Wales has never excepted such payments.  On the other hand, in the century plus of British foreign trade under their prior trio of anti-bribery laws, and in the three years since the new Bribery Act became effective, there has also never been a prosecution for foreign facilitating payments.  Not one!  Perhaps this is why Parliament had no problem criminalizing something they believed was not going to be prosecuted.  Whatever one might think about the wisdom of the grease payment exception in the FCPA, as readers of FCPA Professor are aware, the Department of Justice does actively ignores this exception in bringing enforcement actions.

TI-UK’s “Countering Small Bribes,” unfortunately, does nothing to advance the fight against corruption. TI does very valuable work, the results of which we all rely upon.  But “Countering Small Bribes” does not advance this fight.  To combat bribery, national prosecutors must actually bring cases.  To be meaningful, such cases should involve actual bribes, not small facilitation payments.  And if we are sincerely interested in effectively reducing bribery, we must enhance our efforts to punish the extortionate government officials who demand bribes, rather than continue to punish only the victims of extortion.

*****

Note – contrary to TI’s suggestion, facilitating payments were always exempted in the FCPA originally though a carve-out in the “foreign official” definition (i.e. a “foreign official” did not include an individual with ministerial or clerical duties).  In 1988 this exemption became the stand-alone facilitation payments exemption currently found in the FCPA.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes