Last week Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Galeotti gave this speech stating that “white-collar enforcement remains a priority for the Criminal Division.”
Galeotti identified “a few key priority areas for the Division” including foreign corruption.
He stated:
“Following the President’s Executive Order in February, the Deputy Attorney General issued FCPA enforcement guidelines in June, which set forth non-exhaustive priority areas for the Department’s prosecutors. As the DAG announced, he led a process reviewing all such matters, and the Division will firmly — but fairly — prosecute foreign bribery cases consistent with the Guidelines.
Galeotti continued:
“For example, last month, we charged two Mexican businessmen who resided in Texas with FCPA violations relating to conduct involving PEMEX, the Mexican state-owned oil company.
Last month we also resolved our investigation into Liberty Mutual, the U.S.-based insurance company, for violations of the FCPA relating to conduct by personnel of its subsidiary in India. In that resolution, in light of the Company’s voluntary self-disclosure, we concluded our investigation under Part I of the Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) in under 18 months. The resolution required Liberty Mutual to disgorge $4.7 million in profits.
[Recently], we secured the conviction at trial of a U.S. businessman for his role in a nearly five-year scheme to bribe Honduran government officials in order to secure business for a Georgia-based manufacturer of law enforcement uniforms and to launder money.
And I expect there will be more activity this year — both with respect to individual and corporate enforcement.
The hallmarks of our enforcement approach are pragmatism, even handed justice, and putting the right incentive structures in place. This approach is reflected in our revisions to the CEP.
Our revisions to the CEP set forth: (1) a clear path towards resolving corporate investigations without ongoing obligations, (2) the available fine reductions for cooperation and remediation, and (3) the factors that determine the form of a final corporate resolution. Put simply, the CEP crystallizes the benefits to companies that voluntarily self-report, cooperate, and remediate — they will receive a declination, not just a “presumption.”
While we have maintained some discretion in cases where there are aggravating circumstances, this is not a game of “gotcha.”
Some companies have already seen the CEP’s benefits in action. These efficient resolutions have equally benefitted the American people by taking the profit out of crime and remediating harm caused by bad actors.
In addition to the Liberty Mutual case I mentioned, we expect in the coming weeks, and even in the coming days, several resolutions under Part I of the revised CEP.
Let’s be clear about these Part I resolutions. They are resolutions in which the Division follows through on its promise that, where a company voluntarily self-discloses, fully cooperates with our investigation, and timely and appropriately remediates, we will not bring charges against the company if it disgorges any illicit profits and makes any victim compensation payments. We are focused on incentivizing and rewarding good corporate citizenship and holding others accountable.
The message you can take from these actions is clear: timely, voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation, and taking responsibility for misconduct can help you avoid prolonged investigations and secure the benefits the Criminal Division offers to promote good corporate citizenship.”
