This post highlights twenty-four FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in India.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were: “The Government’s investigation found evidence that, from in or around 2017 until in or around 2022, Liberty Mutual, through its subsidiary in India, Liberty General Insurance (“LGI”), paid bribes totaling approximately $1.47 million to officials at six state-owned banks in India, in order to obtain or retain business with those state-owned banks. Specifically, in exchange for the bribes, the officials caused the state-owned banks to refer bank customers to LGI’s insurance products. Certain LGI employees took steps to conceal the true nature of the payments, including by classifying the payments as marketing expenses and using third-party intermediaries to make the payments to the officials. In total, the bribe scheme resulted in revenue of approximately $9.2 million and profits of approximately $4.7 million.”
Individuals Associated with Adani Group and Azure Power (2024)
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were: “In or about and between 2020 and 2024, senior executives of (i) an Indian renewable-energy company, which was a portfolio company of an Indian conglomerate; (ii) an issuer company that operated in the renewable-energy sector whose securities were traded on a United States exchange; and (iii) that issuer’s largest shareholder, a Canadian institutional investor, participated in a scheme to bribe Indian government officials to ensure the execution of lucrative solar energy supply contracts with Indian government entities.”
The portion of the enforcement action related to the FCPA remains pending.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were: “Between 2020 and 2022, employees of the subsidiary bribed a variety of Indian foreign officials to win business. These same employees also offered bribes to Indian foreign officials in an attempt to cause public tenders in India to favor Moog’s products and exclude competitors. A variety of schemes were used to funnel the improper payments, including through third-party agents and distributors. The improper payments were falsely recorded as legitimate business expenses in Moog’s books and records, and the conduct went undetected as a result of deficient internal accounting controls. As a result, Moog was unjustly enriched by approximately $504,926.”
The conduct concerned the following customers: South Central Railway (described as one of the Indian railway zones, wholly owned by the Indian government. India’s Railway Board oversees and manages the Indian railroad network, including SCR, and approves policies and projects related to the Indian railways. The Railway Board reports to the Ministry of Railways); and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (described as an Indian public sector aerospace and defense company headquartered in Bangalore, India. HAL is fully owned by the Indian government and is part of the Department of Defense Production, Ministry of Defense).
“In addition to the SCR and HAL tender bribe schemes, MMCPL employees engaged in several other attempts to rig the tender bidding process for government contracts by seeking to have Indian officials exclude competitors. As part of these efforts, they at times again used Agent A and Distributor B to facilitate in their efforts.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Vietnam, Indonesia, and India.
As to India, the allegations were: “Albemarle used a third-party intermediary to corruptly retain catalyst business with India’s state-owned oil company, IOCL [Indian Oil Corporation Limited], by avoiding Albemarle being blacklisted.”
“Following engagement of India Intermediary Company, Albemarle was not put on the “holiday list” by IOCL. Albemarle paid approximately $1.14 million in commissions to India Intermediary Company relating to IOCL business and obtained approximately $11.1 million in profits on that business between approximately 2009 and 2011.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and India.
As to India, the allegations were: “In 2019, Oracle India sales employees also used an excessive discount scheme in connection with a transaction with a transportation company, a majority of which was owned by the Indian Ministry of Railways (“Indian SOE”). In January 2019, the sales employees working on the deal, citing intense competition from other original equipment manufacturers, claimed the deal would be lost without a 70% discount on the software component of the deal. Due to the size of the discount, Oracle required an employee based in France to approve the request. The Oracle designee provided approval for the discount without requiring the sales employee to provide further documentary support for the request. In fact, the Indian SOE’s publicly available procurement website indicated that Oracle India faced no competition because it had mandated the use of Oracle products for the project. One of the sales employees involved in the transaction maintained a spreadsheet that indicated $67,000 was the “buffer” available to potentially make payments to a specific Indian SOE official. A total of approximately $330,000 was funneled to an entity with a reputation for paying SOE officials and another $62,000 was paid to an entity controlled by the sales employees responsible for the transaction.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India, China, Brazil and Peru.
As to India, the allegations were: “From 2015 – 2017, approximately half of India Subsidiary’s revenue was attributable to the Indian States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh’s Departments of Information and Public Relations (“DIPR”), which were responsible for retaining media agencies to conduct advertising and public relations campaigns for their respective state governments.”
“From July 7, 2015 through September 2, 2017, WPP received seven anonymous complaints alleging – with increasing specificity – two bribery schemes related to India Subsidiary’s work for DIPR. The first scheme involved the use of a third-party agency (“Vendor A”) that India Subsidiary used to purchase media for DIPR to create an off-the-books fund. The second scheme involved India Subsidiary fabricating an entire advertising campaign in order to create an off-the-books fund at a third-party agency (“Vendor B”) that was used to compensate DIPR officials for awarding campaigns to India Subsidiary and for the personal benefit of CEO A.”
“As a result of the bribery schemes at India subsidiary, WPP was unjustly enriched by $5,669,596.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were: “The alcoholic beverage industry in India was highly regulated by government authorities. Beam India, and third parties acting on its behalf, regularly interacted with government officials in connection with Beam India’s importation of distilled mixes for spirit products; shipments to Beam India’s bottling facility in Behror, Rajasthan; inspections of the Behror plant; shipments from the facility in Behror to distribution warehouses in multiple states in India; label registrations required to distribute each brand of liquor in each state; licensing of warehouses in states prior to retail distribution; and sales to retail stores that were operated by the Indian government. The introduction of new spirit products and distribution warehouses required government approval of new label registrations and licensing of the warehouses in each state. Label registrations and warehouse licenses also required yearly renewal in Rajasthan and in the 26 Indian states where Beam India sold Beam products or had warehouses.”
“From the time Beam acquired the Indian business in 2006 through the end of the third quarter of 2012, Beam India paid bribes and made other improper payments to various Indian government officials, including corrupt payments to obtain or retain business in the Indian market. Most of the corrupt payments were made through third-party sales promoters and distributors, who paid government officials to secure orders of Beam products at government controlled depots and retail stores, obtain prominent placement of Beam products in government retail stores, acquired and renew label registrations and licenses, and enable the distribution of Beam spirit products from Beam India’s Behror bottling facility to warehouses in other states throughout India.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Mexico, Brazil, India and China.
As to India, the allegations were: “In or around late 2005, Walmart began to explore long-term business opportunities in India and quickly learned that, similar to its operations in Mexico, it would face corruption risks in India obtaining licenses and permits. Walmart also learned of specific corruption risks with India JV Partner. The internal accounting controls related to anti-corruption that Walmart implemented in India, however, were insufficient to mitigate the risk of corruption.”
“After Walmart learned of potential corruption concerns related to India JV Partner, in or around late 2006, one Walmart employee was concerned with the willingness of an employee of India JV Partner to follow the FCPA and told a Walmart executive in an email message that the India JV Partner employee had given him a “wink and a nod” when the employee “brought up transparency and clean transactions relative to the FCPA” and the India JV Partner employee admitted that “speed payments” were used in the past by the India JV Partner.”
“Because of Walmart’s failure to implement sufficient internal accounting controls related to anti-corruption, from in or about 2009 through in or about at least 2011, India Wholesale Business and India Retail Business were able to retain TPIs that made improper payments to government officials in order to obtain store operating permits and licenses during that period. These improper payments were then recorded in the joint venture’s books and records with vague descriptions like “misc fees,” “miscellaneous,” “professional fees,” “incidental,” and “government fee.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were: “In 2014 Cognizant authorized a contractor to pay a $2 million bribe to a senior government official for the issuance of a planning permit for a project in Chennai, India. The payment, along with a scheme to conceal a $2.5 million reimbursement to the contractor, was authorized by two senior executives at Cognizant’s U.S. headquarters. In 2013 and 2014, Cognizant’s Indian subsidiary authorized the same third party contractor to pay a bribe of approximately $770,000 to a government official for an environmental clearance for a project in Pune, India. In 2015, the Indian subsidiary retroactively authorized and reimbursed the same third party contractor for approximately $870,000 in bribes that it had paid to government officials for construction-related permits in Siruseri, India. Cognizant received ill-gotten gains of approximately $16,394,351 as a result of the conduct.”
Based on the same core conduct, the DOJ and SEC also brought enforcement actions against two individuals but both of those enforcement actions were dismissed. (See here and here).
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India, China, and Kuwait.
As to India, the allegations were: “From at least 2010 through 2015, Stryker’s wholly-owned subsidiary in India (“Stryker India”) failed to keep and maintain any documentation with respect to 27% of the transactions tested in an internal forensic review that targeted Stryker India’s high-risk and compliance-sensitive accounts and payments during the relevant period. Additionally, the forensic review found missing or inaccurate documentation for numerous other transactions flagged as high-risk, including expenses related to consulting fees, travel, and other benefits to health-care professionals (“HCPs”) in India.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Colombia and India.
As to the India, the allegations were: “In 2011, an India-based subsidiary of Alere, Alere Medical Pvt. Ltd. (“Alere India”), acting through an India-based distributor (“India Distributor”), won a contract to provide malaria testing kits to a local governmental entity for a national disease control program. In early 2012, the India Distributor wrote a letter to Alere India’s then-Vice President of Marketing and Sales about the tender. The India Distributor noted that it had met with officials of the local governmental entity who had informed them that if the local governmental officials were paid a four percent commission, they would increase the orders under the tender from 200,000 to 1,000,000 testing kits. Alere India’s Vice President of Marketing and Sales approved the four percent commission and the India Distributor proceeded to incorporate the increased commission amount into the prices for the test kits. Alere India failed to record the additional commission in its books and records.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were:
“The Department’s investigation found that CDM Smith, through its employees and agents, and those of its wholly owned subsidiary in India (“CDM India”), paid approximately $1.18 million in bribes to government officials in India in exchange for highway construction supervision and design contracts and a water project contract resulting in approximately $4 million in net profits.”
“From approximately 2011 until approximately 2015, employees of CDM Smith’s division responsible for India operations and CDM India illegally paid bribes to officials in the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”), India’s state-owned highway management agency … in order to receive contracts from NHAI. The bribes generally were 2-4% of the contract price and paid through fraudulent subcontractors, who provided no actual services and understood that payments were meant to solely benefit the officials. In addition, CDM Smith’s division responsible for India and CDM India paid $25,000 to local officials in the Indian state of Goa in relation to a water project contract. All senior management at CDM India (who also acted as employees and agents of CDM Smith and signed contracts on behalf of CDM Smith, including CDM India’s country manager) were aware of the bribes for CDM Smith and CDM India contracts, and approved or participated in the misconduct.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were: “In early 2010, Cadbury India Limited (“Cadbury India”), a subsidiary of Cadbury, retained an agent (“Agent No. 1”) [described as a local business person and tile and marble vendor] to interact with Indian government officials to obtain licenses and approvals for a chocolate factory in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, India. Cadbury India’s failure to conduct appropriate due diligence on, and monitor the activities of, Agent No. 1 created the risk that funds paid to Agent No. 1 could be used for improper or unauthorized purposes.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in the Dominican Republic, Saudi Arabia, Mozambique, and India.
As to India, the allegations were: “Embraer executed a contract to provide three highly specialized military aircraft to the Indian Air Force for approximately $208 million, In connection with the deal, Embraer retained the services of Agent D pursuant to a 2005 agency agreement. It later paid $5.76 million to Agent D pursuant to a false agency agreement” “believ[ing] that Agent D could help ensure that any contract would be awarded on a single-source, rather than competitive, basis. Embraer personnel thought the agreement with Agent D was illegal under Indian law and thus took steps to conceal its existence.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were: “From 2009 to 2012, AB InBev held a 49% interest in an Indian joint venture, InBev India International Private Limited (“IIIPL”), which managed the marketing and distribution of Crown beer. During this period, IIIPL used third-party sales promoters to make improper payments to Indian government officials to obtain beer orders and to increase brewery hours for Crown in 2011. IIIPL invoiced Crown for reimbursement for certain of these expenses, and Crown paid or accrued them.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Indonesia, Vietnam, India and Kuwait.
As to India, the allegations were: “Along with several consortium partners, the Company won two water development projects in Goa and Guwhati. The Company paid bribes to win both of those contracts. The bribe money was disguised as payments to vendors for services that had never actually been rendered. The Company through its employees and agents and its consortium partner kept track of the bribe payments by circulating a spreadsheet amongst themselves showing the proportionate share of each bribe that they had paid to the foreign officials overseeing their work on the Goa and Guwhati projects.”
In connection with the same core conduct, two individuals were also criminally charged and pleaded guilty.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and six individuals were criminally charged “with participating in an alleged international racketeering conspiracy involving bribes of state and central government officials in India to allow the mining of titanium minerals.” The allegations were that the individuals “utiliz[ed] United States financial institutions to engage in the international transmission of dollars for the purpose of bribing Indian public officials in connection with obtaining approval of the necessary licenses for [a mining project within Andhra Pradesh], which project was forecast to generate more than $500 million in revenues per year …”. According to the indictment, “licenses were required for the project before mining could begin. These licenses required the approval of both the State Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Central Government prior to their issuance. The approval and issuance of such licenses were discretionary, non-routine governmental actions.”
The enforcement action remains pending and in 2022 the enforcement action was assigned to the fugitive calendar.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in China, India, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Mauritania, Congo, Niger, Madagascar, and Turkey.
As to India, the allegations were: ““[Between 2004 and 2009] Erhard [a subsidiary of Tyco Waterworks Deutschland GmBH (TWW Germany), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] made payments in the amount of approximately $2,371,094 to at least thirteen of its sales agents in [various countries including India] for the purpose of making payments to employees of government customers, and improperly booked the payments as ‘commissions.’
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were: “On approximately 14 occasions related to 8 different government contracts between 2005 and 2007, certain Oracle India employees created extra margins between the end user and distributor price and directed the distributors to hold the extra margin in side funds. Oracle India’s employees made these margins large enough to ensure a side fund existed to pay third parties. At the direction of the Oracle India employees, the distributor then made payments out of the side funds to third parties, purportedly for marketing and development expenses. Some of the recipients of these payments were not on Oracle’s approved local vendor list; indeed, some of the third parties did not exist and were merely storefronts.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Nigeria, Venezuela, India and Mexico.
As to India, the allegations were that $500,000 was paid into bank accounts in Dubai in the names of third party entities with the intent that it would be passed on to an Indian CEGAT [Customs, Excise, and Gold Appellate Tribunal – an Indian administrative judicial tribunal] judge to secure a favorable judicial decision for Pride India relating to a litigation matter pending before the official involving the payment of customs duties and penalties owed for a rig, the Pride Pennsylvania.”
Westinghouse Air Back Technologies (2008)
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were “from at least 2001 through 2005, Pioneer [a fourth tier, wholly-owned subsidiary] employees and agents routinely made unlawful payments to various agents of the Indian government in connection with Pioneer’s business dealings with the IRB [Indian Railway Board]. Pioneer employees made these payments in four different circumstances: (1) to assist Pioneer in obtaining business during the IRB and Zonal Railway contract tender process; (2) to schedule pre-shipping product inspections; (3) to have certificates of product delivery issued; and (4) to curb excise tax audits.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Egypt, Bahrain, Turkey, and India.
As to India, the allegations were: “York International’s Indian subsidiary, York India, retained an agent (“Indian Agent”) to represent York India in connection with orders for after-installation service on equipment sold to the Indian Navy and to provide marketing and service support.. An employee of the Indian Agent (who for a period was simultaneously employed by York India) admitted that while employed by the Indian Agent, he routinely made payments, in the form of cash or gifts, to Indian Navy officials to secure business. Those payments typically were less than $1,000 in value. From 2000 to 2006, these payments totaled approximately $132,500 on 215 orders. The $132,500 was taken out of the approximately $180,000 in commission payments that York India paid to the Indian Agent. The related contracts generated revenues for York India of approximately $2.4 million.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India and the allegations were: “Beginning in 1996, DE-Nocil [a fifth-tier foreign subsidiary] made approximately $39,700 in improper payments to an official in India’s Central Insecticides Board to expedite the registration of three DE-Nocil products. Most of these payments were made through agreements with contractors which added fictitious charges on its bills, or issued false invoices, to DE-Nocil. The contractors then disbursed these extra funds, at DE-Nocil’s direction, to the CIB official.” “In addition to these payments, DE-Nocil also made improper payments to Indian government officials consisting of an estimated $37,600 for gifts, travel, entertainment and other items; $19,000 to government business officials; $11,800 to sales tax officials; $3,700 to excise tax officials; and $1,500 to customs officials.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Indonesia, India, and Brazil.
As to India, the allegations were: “senior managers at Baker Hughes authorized payments to Baker Hughes’ agents in India … without making an adequate inquiry as to whether the agents might give all or part of the payments to foreign government officials in violation of the FCPA.” The payments at issue concerned shipping permits from the Director General of Shipping in Bombay, India.
