Have you ever really paused to think what the term “anti-corruption lawyer” means?
Mark McCaig, Publisher of the Texas Voice (which describes itself as an “honest and trustworthy source of information about Texas politics and government), has and he takes issue with Democrat Texas House candidate Josh Wallenstein calling himself an “Anti-Corruption Lawyer.”
Why?
Well, according to McCaig, Wallenstein’s resume “does not reflect any work as a prosecutor.
Previous posts have focused on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan.
This post highlights other FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in other Central Asia countries.
Turkmenistan
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Nigeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan.
As to Turkmenistan, the allegations were: ““Between in or around 2002 and in or around 2009, Panalpina Turkmenistan paid over $500,000 in cash bribes to: (i) Turkmen government officials responsible for assessing and collecting duties and tariffs on imported goods in order to expedite the release of shipments and undocumented shipments and to circumvent the official Turkmen customs and immigration regulations; (ii) Turkmen government officials responsible for auditing, assessing, and collecting taxes on economic activity in Turkmenistan to minimize the duration of audits and investigations and to reduce proposed fines; and (iii) Turkmen govermnent officials responsible for enforcing Turkmenistan labor, health, and safcty laws, including through the use of audits and inspections, to minimize the duration of audits and investigations and to reduce the proposed fines.”
This post highlights FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in South Korea, North Korea and Japan.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in South Korea and Vietnam.
As to South Korea, the allegations were: “From at least 2009 through 2017, high-level executives of KT maintained slush funds, comprised of both off-the-books accounts and physical stashes of cash, in order to provide items of value to government officials, among others. These included gifts, entertainment and, ultimately, illegal political contributions to members of the Korean National Assembly serving on committees relevant to KT’s business.” “Between 2015 and 2016, KT made payments of over $1.6 million to three organizations at the request of high-level government officials. KT paid $972,616 to Foundation A, described as a foundation for the promotion of Korean culture, and $603,791 to Foundation B, described as a foundation for the promotion of sports. A close associate of a senior Korean government official set up both foundations, and the payments were made at the behest of the Blue House, Korea’s presidential residence and office. The third payment, of $88,420 to another organization, Association C concerning e-Sports, was solicited by a member of Korea’s National Assembly who served on legislative committees important to KT’s business. All of these payments were booked incorrectly, either as charitable donations or as a sponsorship.”
As highlighted here, in September 2020 the DOJ announced that Javier Aguilar (a former employee of Vitol Inc.) was criminally charged for “his alleged participation in a five-year international bribery and money laundering scheme involving corrupt payments to Ecuadorian officials.” (In December 2020, Vitol resolved a net $90 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action for conduct in Brazil, Ecuador and Mexico – see here).
In December 2022, the DOJ filed a superseding indictment adding FCPA and related charges in connection with an alleged Mexican bribery scheme. The DOJ alleged that Aguilar “together with others, engaged in a bribery and money laundering scheme involving the payment of bribes to Mexican officials … in exchange for, among other things, securing improper advantages for Vitol in obtaining and retain business with PEMEX and PEMEX Procurement International.
You are quoted in this article as recently stating that “the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has been dismantled” under the Trump administration.
This is a false statement.
Given that your quote concerns a law and its enforcement, it is particularly egregious since you are a graduate of Harvard Law School and former editor of the Harvard Law Review.
For your benefit, I provide a brief overview of FCPA enforcement during the second Trump administration.
It is true, that on February 10, 2025 President Trump signed an Executive Order Titled “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security.” As highlighted in this post, several of the substantive issues discussed in the Executive Order had been festering in the FCPA space (and openly discussed by politicians in both parties) for approximately 15-20 years prior.
The “pause” lasted a brief 118 days, during which certain aspects of FCPA or related enforcement actually continued (see here, here, here, here, here).
This post highlights FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Uzbekistan.
Three related large (from a settlement amount standpoint) enforcement actions concerning the Uzbekistan telecommunications sector lead the list.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Uzbekistan and the allegations were: “From 2004 to at least 2012, MTS offered and paid bribes in violation of [FCPA] to a government official [Gulnara Karimova “a family member of the former President of Uzbekistan and was herself an Uzbek government official. She had influence over decisions made by UzACI, the regulatory authority governing telecommunications in Uzbekistan] in Uzbekistan in connection with its Uzbek operations.
I must admit, I was yesterday days old when I learned that there is a specific federal statute which prohibits “commercial bribery” in the alcohol beverage industry.
27 U.S.C. § 205 (titled “Unfair Competition and Unlawful Practices”) states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in business as a distiller, brewer, rectifier, blender, or other producer, or as an importer or wholesaler, of distilled spirits, wine, ormalt beverages, or as a bottler, or warehouseman and bottler, of distilled spirits, directly or indirectly or through an affiliate:
(c) Commercial Bribery
To induce through any of the following means, any trade buyer engaged in the sale of distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages, to purchase any such products from such person to the exclusion in whole or in part of distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages sold or offered for sale by other persons in interstate or foreign commerce, if such inducement is made in the course of interstate or foreign commerce, or if such person engages in the practice of using such means, or any of them, to such an extent as substantially to restrain or prevent transactions in interstate or foreign commerce in any such products, or if the direct effect of such inducement is to prevent, deter, hinder, or restrict other persons from selling or offering for sale any such products to such trade buyer in interstate or foreign commerce: (1) By commercial bribery; or (2) by offering or giving any bonus, premium, or compensation to any officer, or employee, or representative of the trade buyer.”
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has always been a law much broader than its name suggests.
Sure, the FCPA contains anti-bribery provisions which concern foreign bribery.
Sure, the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions can be implicated in foreign bribery schemes.
However, the fact remains that most FCPA enforcement actions (that is enforcement actions that charge or find violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions) have nothing to do with foreign bribery. For lack of a better term, these enforcement actions have longed been called non-FCPA, FCPA enforcement actions by this site.
The latest example concerns an SEC enforcement action against Dada Nexus Limited.
This post highlights FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Azerbaijan.
The enforcement action against Cyrus Ahsani and Saman Ahsani (the former CEO and Chief Operations Officer of Monaco-based Unaoil) concerned conduct in Iraq, Kazakhstan, Libya, Algeria, Iran, Azerbaijan, Angola, Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere.
Although the criminal information makes general reference to a corrupt scheme in Azerbaijan, there were no specific substantive allegations in the information concerning Azerbaijan.
This post highlights thirteen FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Kazakhstan.
The enforcement action against Cyrus Ahsani and Saman Ahsani (the former CEO and Chief Operations Officer of Monaco-based Unaoil) concerned conduct in Iraq, Kazakhstan, Libya, Algeria, Iran, Azerbaijan, Angola, Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere.
As to Kazakhstan, the allegations concerned various schemes involving officials at state-owned oil and gas companies to obtain and retain business for Unaoil and its client companies. In one instance, the information alleged that although the promise to pay bribes occurred while Kazakh Official worked for an SOE, Unaoil “did not make payments to Kazakh Official 1 until [the official] stopped working” for the SOE. The information does allege however that C. Ahsani did “arrange for the purchase of an automobile and furniture for Kazakh Official 1 while Kazakh Official 1 was still employed” by SOE. The information further alleged that C. Ahsani and others caused Unaoil “to make payments to a company they knew was beneficially owned and controlled by Kazakh Official 1.”
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement has existed for approximately 50 years.
From time to time, criminal charges that are brought are dismissed.
In some instances, a judge dismisses the charges against the DOJ’s wishes. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
In other instances, criminal charges are dropped at some point during the litigation process (or even after) per the DOJ’s request.
In early December 2025, Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez was found guilty at trial of FCPA and related offenses in connection with an alleged Mexican bribery scheme.
In mid-April 2026, Judge Kenneth Hoyt (S.D. Texas) granted post-trial motions by Rovirosa 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) and twice requested extensions to file its opening brief given that the “Solicitor General has not yet determined whether or on what grounds to allow a government appeal to proceed in this case.”
Recently the DOJ filed its opening brief in the Fifth Circuit.