This recent post focused on the numerous Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Vietnam.
This post turns the compass a bit west to focus on FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Thailand.
As highlighted below, since 2004 there have been thirteen FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Thailand.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Turkey.
As to Thailand, the allegations stated: “Between January 2013 and April 2015, a MS Thailand employee along with an employee of a MS Thailand LSP provided more than $100,000 in gifts and travel to employees of non-government banking customers while MS Thailand was engaged in business with the end customers. Specifically, an employee of a MS Thailand LSP established an account funded through discounts provided by Microsoft on transactions, ostensibly to pay for training MS Thailand end customers on Microsoft’s software. However, instead of using the money for training, the MS Thailand employee and the MS Thailand LSP employee used the proceeds to purchase technology equipment and pay for travel for employees of MS Thailand’s nongovernment end customers. As part of this scheme, the MS Thailand employee would direct the MS Thailand LSP employee to submit a false purchase order for “training” to one of MS Thailand’s training vendors. The vendors would submit an invoice in connection with the purchase order that would then be paid from the training account held at the LSP. As with Saudi Arabia, the vendors received a “commission” payment “fee” for providing the false purchase order.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Russia, Azerbaijan, China, Kuwait, South Korea, Pakistan, Thailand, and Indonesia.
As to Thailand, the allegations stated: “[F]rom 2009 through 2015, UTC through Pratt & Whitney and Otis Elevator Company improperly provided trips and gifts to various foreign officials in … Thailand … in connection with its business.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Thailand, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Angola and Iraq.
As to Thailand, the allegations stated: “Rolls-Royce, RRESI [and indirect subsidiary], Executive, Employee 1, Employee 2, Employee 3 and others … engaged an intermediary, knowing that the intermediary’s commission payments would be used to bribe foreign officials at PTT Public Company Ltd. [a Thai state-owned and state-controlled oil and gas company, which owned extensive submarine gas pipelines in the Gulf of Thailand, and was controlled by the Thai government and performed government functions that the Thai government treated as its own] and its subsidiary PTT Exploration and Production Public Company (PTTEP) in return for contract awards for equipment and aftermarket products and services. From in or around 2003 through in or around 2013, RRESI made over $11 million in corrupt commission payments, and Rolls-Royce and RRESI understood that the payments would assist with contract awards, which RRESI ultimately won …”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Angola, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, China, and Egypt.
As to Thailand, the allegations stated: “[F]rom 2012 to 2013, PDTL [an indirect subsidiary] provided more than $1.5 million in rebates to a distributor in Thailand with the understanding that the distributor would use the money, in part, for corrupt purposes in association with PDTL’s sales to state-owned customers in Thailand, including sales to: (i) the Provincial Electricity Authority, a state-owned electricity supplier in Thailand; (ii) the Metropolitan Electricity Authority, a state-owned electricity supplier in Thailand; and (iii) TOT Public Company Limited, a state-owned telecommunications company.” “From January 2008 to January 2013, GCC’s subsidiary, PDTL, paid more than $5.4 million in improper payments to a Thailand company, resulting in profits of $13 million on PDTL’s sales to SOEs of the Thai government …”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Russia, Thailand and Vietnam.
As to Thailand, the allegations stated: “Bio-Rad acquired a 49% interest in Diamed Thailand as part of its acquisition of Diamed AG (Switzerland) in October 2007. Bio-Rad performed very little due diligence on Diamed Thailand prior to the acquisition. Diamed Thailand’s local majority owners managed the subsidiary. Bio-Rad’s Asia Pacific GM was responsible for working and communicating with Diamed Thailand’s majority owners and distributors. Prior to the October 2007 acquisition, Diamed Thailand had an established bribery scheme, whereby Diamed Thailand used a Thai agent to sell diagnostic products to government customers. The agent received an inflated 13% commission, of which it retained 4%, and paid 9% to Thai government officials in exchange for profitable business contracts. The scheme continued even after Bio-Rad acquired Diamed Thailand.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in China, India, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, Bosnia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Mauritania, Congo, Niger, Madagascar, and Turkey.
As to Thailand, the allegations stated: “[Between 2004 and 2005] ET Thailand [Earth Tech (Thailand) Ltd. – a Thai corporation that was approximately 49% indirectly owned by Tyco] made payments in the amount of approximately $292,286 to a consultant and recorded those amounts as fictitious disbursements related to the NBIA project [New Bangkok International Airport]. In connection with these improper payments, ET Thailand earned approximately $879,258 in gross profit.” “[Between 2000 to 2006] ADT Thailand [ADT Sensormatic Thailand an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco] recorded payments in the amount of approximately $78,000 to one of its subcontractors as payments for site surveys for a government traffic project in Laos, but the payments instead were channeled to other recipients in connection with ADT Thailand’s business in Laos. During the same time period, ADT Thailand made payments to one of its consultants related to a contract for the installation of a CCTV system in the Thai Parliament House, and ADT Thailand and the consultant created invoices that stated that the payments were for ‘renovation work’ when no renovation work was actually performed. During that same time period, ADT Thailand made three payments in connection with a design and traffic survey that ADT Thailand provided from the city of Pattaya, in Southern Thailand, but the payments were issued pursuant to falsified invoices without any evidence that work was ever performed. In connection with these improper transactions, ADT Thailand earned approximately $473,262 in gross profit.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in India, Thailand, and South Korea.
As to Thailand, the allegations stated: “From April 2004 through July 2008, Diageo, through DT [Diageo Moet Hennessy Thailand], retained the services of a Thai government and foreign political party official (the “Thai Official”) to lobby other Thai officials to adopt Diageo’s position in several multi-million dollar tax and customs disputes. For this retainer DT paid approximately $12,000 per month for 49 months, for a total of $599,322. DT compensated the Thai Official through 49 direct payments to a political consulting firm (the “Consulting Firm”) for which the Thai Official acted as a principal. Most, if not all, of the $599,322 paid to the Consulting Firm was for the Thai Official’s services and accrued to his benefit. The Thai Official served as a Thai government and/or political party official throughout the relevant period (April 2004 – July 2008) in which he received compensation from DT. At various times the Thai Official served as Deputy Secretary to the Prime Minister, Advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister, and Advisor to the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. The Thai Official also served on a committee of the ruling Thai Rak Thai political party, and as a member and/or advisor to several state-owned or state-controlled industrial and utility boards. DT’s senior management knew that the Thai Official was a government officer during its engagement of the Consulting Firm. The Thai Official was the brother of one of DT’s senior officers at that time. Several members of Diageo’s global and regional management attended meetings with the Thai Official and senior members of the Thai government. The Thai Official provided extensive lobbying services on behalf of Diageo and DT in connection with several important tax and customs disputes that were pending between Diageo and the Thai government.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in at least 22 countries – including China, Croatia, Egypt, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Latvia, Nigeria, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam.
As to Thailand, the resolution documents do not provide any specific allegations.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, China, Greece, and Indonesia.
As to Thailand, the allegations concerned “corrupt payments made to foreign officials in Thailand in the form of
kickbacks paid to officials of the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly, which payments were made for the purpose of obtaining and retaining business with Thailand government entities.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Thailand, specifically “the making of improper payments, by employees and agents of Universal and/or its subsidiaries to officials of the Government of Thailand in connection with Universal Brazil’s efforts to secure business, namely, to secure the improper sale of leaf tobacco to the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly, from 2000 to 2004, and the accounting and record-keeping associated with these improper payments.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in China, Mongolia, and Thailand.
As to Thailand, the allegations stated: “In 2004, as part of its effort to expand its business outside China, UTSI submitted a bid for a sales contract to a government-controlled telecommunications company in Thailand. While UTSI’s bid was under consideration, UTSI’s general manager in Thailand spent nearly $10,000 on French wine as a gift to agents of the government customer, including rare bottles that cost more than $600 each. The manager also spent $13,000 for entertainment expenses for the same customer in an attempt to secure the contract.”
The enforcement action concerned “corrupt payments to a Thai government official in order to obtain lucrative contracts to run an international film festival in Bangkok.”
The enforcement action concerned conduct in China, Thailand, and the Philippines.
As to Thailand, the allegations stated: “InVision, through the conduct of certain employees, was aware of a high probability that its agents or distributors in Thailand … had paid or offered to pay money to foreign officials or political parties in connection with transactions or proposed transactions for the sale by InVision of its airport security screening machines.”