This post highlighted the recent decision by Judge Kathleen Williams (S.D. Fla). granting in part Smartmatic’s Motion to Compel Discovery in connection with its previously filed Motion to Dismiss on the basis of “vindictive and selective prosecution.” (See here for additional background on the FCPA enforcement action).
In her order, Judge Williams stated that there is “some evidence tending to support” the motion to dismiss and listed several factors including the DOJ’s dismissal of the FCPA enforcement action against former Cognizant Technology Solutions executives Gordon Coburn and Steven Schwartz as well as “the Government also elected to close FCPA investigations into multiple companies.”
Much like certain recent FCPA commentary (see here for a prior post), Judge Williams’ reference to these two factors was a bit shallow.
In October 2025, Smartmatic was criminally charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering in connection with an alleged bribery scheme involving the former Chairman of the Commission on Elections of the Philippines. (See here for the prior post).
The allegations involved the same core conduct alleged in a 2024 FCPA enforcement action involving two company executives, among others.
The criminal indictment against Smartmatic was notable in that 2010 was the last time a business organization was criminally indicted for FCPA offenses (as opposed to a criminal information / complaint resolved through a plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement; non-prosecution agreement; or declination with disgorgement).
In March 2026, Smartmatic moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis of “vindictive and selective prosecution.”
Fourteen years ago, the DOJ and SEC released the FCPA Guidance. Time sure does fly by.
The guidance generated a substantial amount of buzz, but the festive coverage soon subsided as the guidance grew older.
Yet, on this fourteenth anniversary of the FCPA Guidance, it is useful to take a look back.
As highlighted in this prior post, the 2012 FCPA guidance was a long-time coming to say the least.
Checking in on the back and forth between the DOJ and Judge Nicholas Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.).
In 2024, the DOJ criminally charged various individuals in connection with an alleged Indian bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
In mid-August, Judge Nicholas Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.) – after much back and forth with the DOJ – granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss various non-FCPA fraud charges against certain defendants.
However, Judge Garaufis denied the motion to dismiss FCPA [Count One] and obstruction charges [Count Five] against certain other defendants (see here for the prior post) while noting “the court’s conclusion does not mean that additional evidence to support […] proffered reason to dismiss does not exist. It means only that the factual support that McCotter has provided is not sufficient.”
The back and forth continued (see here) and on September 3rd Judge Garaufis again denied the DOJ’s motion to dismiss FCPA and obstruction charges against certain other defendants. (See here).
In late September, the DOJ filed a petition in the Second Circuit requesting “that the Court swiftly issue a writ of mandamus directing [Judge Garaufis] to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment with prejudice.”
As highlighted in this prior post, in 2012 BizJet resolved an $11.8 million FCPA enforcement action “for bribing government officials in Latin America to secure contracts to perform aircraft services for government agencies.”
Jald Jensen (a Sales Manager at BizJet International Sales and Support Inc. – a Tulsa, Oklahoma based provider of aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul services) was among a group of individuals criminally charged with FCPA offenses in connection with the same core conduct.
Jensen evaded law enforcement for approximately thirteen years, but as highlighted in this recent post was arrested earlier this year in Panama and extradited to the U.S.
Last week, Jensen pleaded guilty in the N.D. of Oklahoma to conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
In October 2022, Charles Finkel was charged in a criminal complaint filed in the S.D. of New York with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in connection with an alleged bribery scheme in Brazil.
Finkel was a former executive at Sicpa (a Swiss technology company which provides governments with banknote security inks and secured identification, traceability and authentication solutions).
The criminal complaint stated:
“This case involves a bribery scheme to pay, among others, a Brazilian official (Official- 1) in exchange for lucrative business and business advantages with the Brazilian government. During portions of the relevant time period, Finkel was an executive vice president of Subsidiary- 1, a subsidiary of Company- 1, and the owner of his own consulting firm, Finkel Company- 1, which received over $292 million in payments from Company- 1 and its subsidiaries and affiliates. During the course of the scheme, Finkel paid bribes of over $14 million to Official- 1 and Official- l ‘ s wife (CC- 1) in order to corruptly obtain and retain contracts worth over $1 billion between Subsidiary- 1 and the Brazilian Mint, referred to as the CMB . The vehicle for paying the bribes to Official- 1 was a purported consulting company (i .e. Consulting Company- 1) set up in the name of Official- l ‘ s wife. Finkel furthered the scheme while present in New York, New York, among other places, and caused wire transfers in furtherance of the scheme to be sent from New York, New York to Brazil.”
Set forth below is the current top ten corporate FCPA settlements of all-time actually secured by U.S. law enforcement (in other words net FCPA settlement amounts).
Unlike certain other lists, the below list is calculated after consistently accounting for certain credits or deductions in several enforcement actions involving foreign companies and/or related foreign law enforcement actions.
1. Goldman Sachs
In certain SEC filings, issuers disclose a wide variety of risk factors which could impact its business.
These risk factors often follow a template like structure and may not be the most entertaining read.
Nevertheless, it is sometime interesting to look at the risk factors including any mention of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to see what issuers are saying.
Bambusa Therapeutics, Inc. is a “clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing next-generation, long-acting precision bispecific antibodies designed to redefine standards of care in immunology and inflammation and fundamentally improve patient quality of life.”
Its recent Registration Statement in advance of an initial public offering disclosed the following risk:
This post highlights fourteen FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Angola.
The enforcement action involved conduct in Angola and the allegations: “Beginning in September 2007, Frank’s tried to increase its business in Angola, but learned through an oil company that Sonangol was blocking its hiring and it could no longer use Frank’s to provide tubular services. Senior Frank’s managers learned that Sonangol directed the customer to use a competitor of Frank’s that purportedly made a superior financial investment in Angola. But a senior Sonangol executive relayed that Sonangol could change its mind if Frank’s established a consulting company and paid five percent of the value of the contract to the consulting company for the benefit of high-ranking Sonangol officials.”
Previous posts have highlighted FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) Greece, Georgia and Ukraine, and Poland.
This post highlights FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in the following countries: Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Czech Republic.
Romania
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Romania and the allegations were: “Between 2007 and 2012, Elbit and Plaza [a majority-owned indirect subsidiary], directly and indirectly, paid millions of dollars to third-party offshore consultants and sales agents purportedly for their services related to a real estate development project in Romania and the sale of a large portfolio of real estate assets in the U.S. However, Elbit and Plaza made these payments even though they had no evidence that the consultants and sales agents had actually provided the contracted for services. Elbit and Plaza failed to properly record those payments in a manner that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflected the nature of the payments in their books and records. Elbit and Plaza also failed to devise and maintain internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that company funds would only be used as authorized for legitimate corporate purposes and that transactions were recorded as necessary to maintain accountability for assets, particularly with regard to the accounts payable process.”
In November 2024, the SEC announced a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Cyril Sebastien Dominique Cabanes (“Cabanes”) – a French citizen and resident of Singapore who was previously a member of the board of directors of Azure Power Global Limited (a Mauritius company with its principal place of business in India).
During the time period relevant to the enforcement action, Azure was a publicly traded company with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
The enforcement action concerns alleged bribes paid to Indian officials to secure multi-billion dollar energy projects for Azure and another company Adani Green Energy Limited.
In recent months, I’ve had several exchanges with various individuals (including journalists) about FCPA enforcement and the false narrative that FCPA enforcement has stopped.
When shown clear evidence that the narrative is indeed false, two common responses have been:
(1) but FCPA enforcement activity during the Trump administration involves matters initiated / begun (use whatever term you want) during a prior administration; and
(2) but the Trump administration has closed / abandoned (use whatever term you want) FCPA inquiries or investigations without bringing an enforcement action.
These common responses ignore the fact that both dynamics have been part of FCPA enforcement for nearly 50 years.