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.
The DOJ has long wanted companies to voluntarily disclose conduct that implicates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Why then does the DOJ continually make decisions that should result in any board member, audit committee member, or general counsel informed of current event not making the decision to voluntarily disclose? As highlighted in this post, in the recent Societe Generale enforcement action, the DOJ once again shot itself in the foot.
When thinking of foreign companies that have resolved FCPA enforcement actions, most people likely think of German and French companies and to be sure there have been several enforcement actions against companies from those countries. Yet, as highlighted in this post, the top domiciliary of foreign companies to resolve FCPA enforcement actions is actually Japan.
There are many things that are FCPA relevant, but not all things are FCPA relevant. As to the later, this post is titled “Cryptocurrencies and the FCPA: So What?”
This post highlights how the government bears some responsibility in certain FCPA enforcement actions.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The FCPA version of this is: if a company announces an FCPA enforcement action, yet the DOJ/SEC are silent about it, and no document relevant to the enforcement action is in the public domain, has there been an enforcement action? More specifically, as highlighted in this post, what’s up with the Credit Suisse “enforcement action”?
As highlighted here, a federal court judge recently ruled – in the long-standing Siemens monitor matter – that the DOJ’s withholding of certain relevant documents is overbroad and that other claimed Freedom of Information Act exemptions are inapplicable.