This post highlights the twenty-five FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Indonesia.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in South Africa and Indonesia.
As to Indonesia, the allegations were: “Between approximately 2015 and 2018, SAP, through its agents, including but not limited to SAP Indonesia and its personnel, engaged in a scheme to bribe Indonesian officials, to obtain improper business advantages for SAP in connection with various contracts between and among SAP and Indonesian departments, agencies, and instrumentalities.”
Set forth below are the general details of fifteen FCPA enforcement actions (all since 2008) which have involved (in whole or in part) conduct in Vietnam.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in China, India, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.
As to Vietnam, the allegations stated that: “Albemarle corruptly obtained contracts at two state-owned oil refineries in Vietnam through the use of an intermediary sales agent who requested increased commissions to pay bribes to PetroVietnam and refinery officials and to structure tender requirements to favor Albemarle. […] In 2016, Albemarle also used Vietnam Intermediary Company and its connections to PetroVietnam officials to corruptly obtain business at another state-owned refinery in Vietnam, Nghi Son Refinery and Petrochemicals LLC (“NSRP”). NSRP was owned by a joint venture that included, among others, PetroVietnam and Kuwait Petroleum International, also a state-owned entity.”
This post highlights FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Thailand.
Since 2004, there have been fourteen FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Thailand.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Thailand based on the conduct of a subsidiary in Thailand and largely focused on Thai officials visiting massage parlors and participating in non-business travel funded by the subsidiary.
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.