April 24, 2018
This prior post highlighted the SEC’s $9.2 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Dun & Bradstreet based on the conduct of two indirect Chinese subsidiaries from 6 to 12 years ago.
In connection with the SEC’s enforcement action, the DOJ quietly released this letter stating that it has “declined prosecution consistent with the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy.”
However, the question is posed: based on information in the public domain what viable criminal charges against D&B did the DOJ actually “decline”? The answer, as discussed in this post, appears to be none.
Dunn & Bradstreet Resolves $9.2 Million Enforcement Action Based On Conduct Of Two Indirect Chinese Subsidiaries From 6-12 Years Ago
April 24, 2018
As highlighted in this prior post, over six years ago Dun & Bradstreet (a leading source of commercial information and insight on businesses) announced that it was under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act scrutiny concerning conduct in China.
Yesterday, the SEC (Snails-Pace Enforcement Commission) announced that D&B agreed to resolve an FCPA enforcement action by paying approximately $9.2 million to “arising from improper payments made by two Chinese subsidiaries.”
This administrative order states, in summary fashion:
April 23, 2018
I didn’t invent fact-checking, but I occasionally apply it to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act context.
The reason I do so is for the same reasons others fact-check: to counter false and misleading information in the public domain and to hopefully motivate a greater sense of responsibility and discipline upon those voluntarily publishing FCPA content.
Call me old-fashioned, but if you are presenting yourself as an expert on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and/or a paid journalist, or merely using the words “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” in voluntarily published material you simply have an obligation to engage in basic research on FCPA topics before hitting the publish button and if you are incapable or unwilling to do this, well don’t hit the publish button.
The post contains several recent examples of FCPA “fake news” and false information.
April 21, 2018
FCPA Professor has been described as “the Wall Street Journal concerning all things FCPA-related,” and “the most authoritative source for those seeking to understand and apply the FCPA.”
Set forth below are the topics discussed this week on FCPA Professor.
As highlighted here, in a recent FCPA enforcement action the DOJ alleged that a company that describes itself as a “private sector business” was nevertheless an “instrumentality” of a foreign government.
April 20, 2018
Motion to dismiss filed, guilty plea, role reversal, adequate procedures, for the reading stack, and viewing suggestion. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Motion to Dismiss Filed
As highlighted in this prior post, in November 2017 the DOJ announced that Chi Ping Patrick Ho (of Hong Kong, China) and Cheikh Gadio (of Senegal) were criminally charged with conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, violating the FCPA, conspiring to commit international money laundering, and committing international money laundering.
Earlier this week, Ho filed this motion to dismiss certain of the FCPA and money laundering charges.