This post highlights seven FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in South Africa.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in South Africa and Nepal.
As to South Africa, the allegations were: “between January 2016 and at least January 2020, AAR, through its agents, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed with others to corruptly offer and pay bribes to, and for the benefit of, government officials in South Africa […] to secure improper advantages in order to assist AAR in obtaining and retaining business from SAAT [South African Airways Technical – a wholly owned subsidiary of South African Airways – that provided technical services for SAA and other airlines], namely the award of a five-year aircraft component support contract (“SAAT Contract”) and disbursement of payments by SAAT pursuant to that contract.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in South Africa and the allegations were that “from at least in or around 2012, up to and including in or around 2016, McKinsey Africa, for and on behalf of McKinsey, agreed with others to bribe foreign officials in South Africa to obtain and retain business for McKinsey with Transnet (a South African state-owned and state-controlled company that operated as the custodian of South Africa’s ports, rails, and pipelines) and Eskom (a South African state-owned and state-controlled company that operated as South Africa’s public power utility).
The enforcement action concerned conduct in South Africa and Indonesia.
As to South Africa, the allegations were: “In or about and between 2013 and 2017, through its agents, including SAP Africa, SAP South Africa, and SAP Employees, SAP engaged in a scheme to bribe South African officials and to falsify SAP’s books, records, and accounts, all with the goal of obtaining improper advantages for SAP in connection with various contracts between and among SAP and South African departments, agencies, and instrumentalities.” The following entities were mentioned: City of Johannesburg, Department of Water and Sanitation, City of Tshwane, and Eskom (a South African state-owned and state-controlled energy company).
The enforcement action concerned conduct in South Africa and a “scheme to obtain and retain business from a South African government entity, the South Africa Revenue Service.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in South Africa and ABB’s relationship with Eskom and “bribes paid to a South African government official in connection with obtaining a contract worth approximately $160 million.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in South Africa. “In 2005, Hitachi created a subsidiary in South Africa for the purpose of establishing a local presence in that country to pursue lucrative public and private contracts, including government contracts to build two new major power stations. Hitachi sold 25% of the stock in the newly created subsidiary to Chancellor House Holdings (Pty) Ltd. (“Chancellor”), a local South African company that was a front for the African National Congress (“ANC”), South Africa’s ruling political party. Hitachi’s arrangement gave Chancellor- and by proxy the ANC- the ability to share in the profits from any power station contracts secured by Hitachi. Hitachi also entered into an undisclosed “success fee” arrangement with Chancellor, wherein Chancellor would be entitled to “success fees” in the event that the contract awards were “substantially as a result” of Chancellor’s efforts. During the bidding process, Hitachi was aware that Chancellor was a funding vehicle for the ANC. Hitachi nevertheless continued to partner with Chancellor and encourage Chancellor’s use of its political influence to help obtain the government contracts. As a result, Hitachi was awarded power station contracts in South Africa worth approximately $5.6 billion. In April and July 2008, Hitachi paid the ANC- through Chancellor- “success fees” totaling approximately $1 million.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Benin, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, Brazil, and Ecuador, Philippines and South Africa.
As to South Africa, the allegations were that payments were made by agents without adequate assurance that the payments were not passed to government officials in order to obtain or retain business.
