It is one of the FCPA’s most bizarre issues.
If bribery is not a victimless crime, then why do Foreign Corrupt Practices Act fines and penalties simply go directly into the U.S. Treasury? Why are there no efforts to identify the victims of FCPA violations and to compensate those victims?
As detailed in this  prior post, in May Instituto Constarricense de Electricidad (“ICE”) of Costa Rica petitioned “for protection of its rights as a victim” of Alcatel-Lucent’s bribery scheme. (See here  for a prior analysis of the December 2010 enforcement action).
In early June, Judge Marcia Cooke (Southern District of Florida) denied ICE’s petition.
On June 15th, ICE filed this  petition in the 11th Circuit for a writ of mandamus “directing the District Court to recognize ICE is a ‘crime victim’ under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of [Alcatel-Lucent’s] crimes and to afford it all rights the CVRA guarantees to crime victims, including restitution.”
The two issues presented on appeal were: (i) whether the district court erred by denying ICE victim status under the CVRA; and (ii) whether the district court erred in denying ICE restitution.
Last Friday, in a short 3-page decision (here ), the 11th Circuit denied ICE’s petition.
After noting the clearly erroneous standard of review, the 11th Circuit held that “the district court did not clearly err in finding that [ICE] actually functioned as the offenders’ coconspirator” and that the district court did not “err in finding that ICE failed to establish that it was directly and proximately harmed by the offenders’ criminal conduct.”
The petition for victim status was factually difficult from the start and it is not surprising that ICE did not prevail. Yet, the ICE petition did succeed in raising the victim issue and causing those interested in bribery and corruption issues to ponder the valid and legitimate question of victims a bit more closely.