DOJ Still Unsure Of Appeal In Rovirosa Matter
In mid-April, Judge Kenneth Hoyt (S.D. Texas) granted post-trial motions by Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez and ordered that he be released from prison. (See here).
Shortly thereafter, on May 8th, the DOJ filed a notice of appeal in the Fifth Circuit. (See here).
Earlier this summer, the DOJ requested a 30-day extension of time in which to file its opening brief stating that the “the Office of the Solicitor General has not yet determined whether or on what grounds to allow a government appeal to proceed in this case.”
The DOJ is still unsure of an actual appeal.
Berko Convicted Of FCPA And Related Offenses
In the latest example of the Trump administration’s retreat from FCPA enforcement (or some still maintain), earlier today Asante Berko (a former Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International) was convicted by a jury of FCPA and related offenses in connection with a Ghana bribery scheme after a trial in the E.D. of New York.
As reported here: “after deliberating for approximately three hours, a jury of four women and eight men found Berko, 52, guilty of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, conspiracy to do the same, and money laundering conspiracy.”
The trial was believed to be just the 27th FCPA jury trial in the FCPA’s nearly 50 years and the 4th FCPA trial since September 2025.
Checking In On The Adani Matter
Several posts in late June and July (see here, here, here, here) checked in on the U.S. v. Adani et al matter and the pending DOJ consent motion requesting that U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.) dismiss the action.
Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and another defendant are not charged with FCPA offenses in connection with an alleged Indian bribery scheme (but rather securities fraud conspiracy and wire fraud conspiracy).
Five other defendants in the matter though are charged with FCPA violations (as well as other charges).
2004 Was An Important Year In Terms Of “Modern FCPA Enforcement”
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is approaching the big 5-0 as the law was enacted in 1977.
2004 – hard to believe – was 22 years ago and that year saw three developments relevant to the “modern era” of FCPA enforcement.
U.S. v. Kay
Prior to the 5th Circuit’s February 2004 decision in U.S. v. Kay (359 F.3d 738), the government was 0-3 when put to its burden of proof in FCPA enforcement actions outside the context of foreign government procurement. (See here for a summary of those three actions).
There Have Been 30 FCPA Enforcement Actions Regarding Alleged Improper Travel And Entertainment Of Chinese “Foreign Officials”
Approximately 20 years ago, while in private practice, I was involved in an internal investigation involving the Chinese subsidiary of a U.S. issuer providing travel and entrainment to individuals who the DOJ/SEC considered Chinese “foreign officials.”
It culminated in the 2007 FCPA enforcement action against Lucent Technologies in which the SEC alleged that the company violated the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions based on its Chinese subsidiary arranging for non-business travel for “employees of Chinese state-owned or state-controlled telecommunications enterprises, to travel to the United States and elsewhere.”
According to the SEC, “the majority of the trips were ostensibly designed to allow the Chinese foreign officials to inspect Lucent’s factories and to train the officials in using Lucent equipment” however “during many of these trips, the officials spent little or no time in the United States visiting Lucent’s facilities” but rather visited various tourist destinations.
At the time, it was one of the first “pure” FCPA travel and entertainment type of enforcement actions.