One of the interesting things about writing about the FCPA and related issues on a daily basis for over 15 years is the frequency in which I come across content of former DOJ/SEC enforcement officials saying things in conflict with positions they articulated while at the government. (See here for a prior post).
Hui Chen was “the first-ever Compliance Counsel Expert at the United States Department of Justice, Hui was the exclusive consultant to the federal prosecutors in the Fraud Section, evaluating corporate ethics and compliance programs in areas such as anti-fraud, anti-bribery/kickback, healthcare, quality control, manipulation of financial markets, process safety, and environmental protection. She is the author of the Fraud Section’s well known “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance,” which has been widely praised by compliance practitioners and recognized by government regulators and standard setters around the world.” (See here).
During Chen’s time at the DOJ, the message from the DOJ (as it has long been before and after her tenure) was always disclose and cooperate.
In March 2026, the DOJ criminally charged David Ferrera and Marc Tilman with FCPA and related offenses in connection with an alleged bribery scheme involving an employee of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims (CHU Reims) in France. (See here for the prior post).
According to the DOJ: “CHU Reims was wholly owned and controlled by the government of France and performed a function that France treated as its own. CHU Reims was an “instrumentality” of a foreign government, and CHU Reims’s officers and employees were “foreign officials,” as those terms are used in the FCPA …”.
The prior post noted that the DOJ enforcement theory that employees (such as physicians, nurses, mid-wives, lab personnel, etc.) of certain foreign health care systems can “foreign officials” under the FCPA – and thus occupy a status akin to a President or Prime Minister – was dubious.
Silly?
Warranted?
Somewhere in between?
Who knows.
But the back and forth between the DOJ and Judge Nicholas Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.) in connection with the DOJ’s consent motion to dismiss in US v. Adani et al continues.
Earlier this week, Judge Garaufis granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss fraud charges against certain defendants (even though he disagreed with the vast majority of the DOJ’s positions), while at the same time rejecting the DOJ’s motion to dismiss FCPA and obstruction charges against certain other defendants. (See here for the prior post).
In 2024, the DOJ criminally charged various individuals in connection with an alleged Indian bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
This recent post highlighted how Judge Nicholas Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.) granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss various non-FCPA fraud charges against certain defendants.
However, Judge Garaufis denied – for the moment – the motion to dismiss FCPA and obstruction charges against certain other defendants.
Regarding the “FCPA Charges against Non-Appearing Defendants,” Judge Garaufis wrote:
In 2024, the DOJ criminally charged various individuals in connection with an alleged Indian bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
Gautam Adani (a citizen of India and founder of the Adani Group which includes numerous portfolio companies including Adani Green Energy – and Indian energy company) was charged with securities fraud conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud conspiracy.
Sagar Adani (a citizen of India and Gautam Adani’s nephew and Executive Director of Adani Green’s Board of Directors) was charged with securities fraud conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud conspiracy.