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 Latch, Inc. (a Missouri based company that develops and manufactures smart access hardware and software products for multi-family residential properties).
18 USC 3292 can play a meaningful role in certain FCPA enforcement actions in terms of the statute of limitations.
The statutory provision states in pertinent part:
(a) (1) Upon application of the United States, filed before return of an indictment, indicating that evidence of an offense is in a foreign country, the district court before which a grand jury is impaneled to investigate the offense shall suspend the running of the statute of limitations for the offense if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that an official request has been made for such evidence and that it reasonably appears, or reasonably appeared at the time the request was made, that such evidence is, or was, in such foreign country.
As highlighted in this prior post, in 2021 Frederick Cushmore Jr. (a former executive of Pennsylvania-based coal mining company Corsa Coal Corp.) was criminally charged and pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions in connection with a bribery scheme in Egypt involving Al Nasr Company for Coke and Chemicals (an alleged Egyptian state-owned and state-controlled entity).
In 2022, in connection with the same core allegations, the DOJ also criminally charged Charles Hunter Hobson (another former executive of Corsa Coal). The charges against Hobson went to trial, at trial Cushmore testified for the DOJ, and Hobson was found guilty in February 2026.
With post-trial mentions pending, Hobson’s counsel recently filed a motion to continue sentencing revealing “new sentencing-related information disclosed by the government.”
This post highlights nine FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Egypt.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Egypt and alleged that from “2016 until early 2020, certain of Corsa’s employees and agents engaged in a scheme to bribe Egyptian government officials in order to obtain and retain lucrative contracts to supply coal to Al Nasr Company for Coke and Chemicals (“Al Nasr”), an Egyptian state-owned and -controlled coke company. To effectuate the scheme, Corsa paid approximately $4.8 million to an Egypt-based third-party intermediary that Corsa’s employees knew would be used, at least in part, to pay bribes to Egyptian government officials, including the Chairman of Al Nasr. In exchange for the bribe payments, Corsa secured approximately $143 million in coal contracts from Al Nasr and earned approximately $32.7 million in profits.” Individual enforcement actions were also based on the same core conduct.
This post highlights seven FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Egypt.
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 Libya, the enforcement action concerned various schemes involving foreign government officials including at a state-owned oil and gas company to obtain and retain business for Unaoil and its client companies. The information refers to Libya Official 1, but states that S. Ahsani and others “understood that Libya Official 1 was not an appointed Libyan government official at the time they promised to pay Libya Official 1” but that “Libya Official 1 could exert influence over senior Libyan government officials, including one official who was a close relative of the then head of the Libyan government, and that this senior Libya official’s support or lack of support could determine whether” a company won an award for a project. Based on the same core conduct, Steven Hunter (a former business development manager at Unaoil) resolved an enforcement action.
This post highlights approximately 20 FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Russia.
The enforcement action concerned conduct in Russia.
The allegations were: “Between May 26, 2015 and May 15, 2020, the Company paid approximately $8.9 million to consultants in Russia in support of the Company’s operations and its efforts to have poker legalized in that country.”
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 and obstruction charges 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.”
As highlighted in this recent post, Javier Aguilar (a former employee of Vitol Inc.) was sentenced to four years in prison after being found guilty at trial for paying bribes to Ecuadorian officials as well as related offenses and after pleading guilty to a bribery scheme in Mexico.
Aguilar was also ordered to approximately $7.13 million in criminal forfeiture and a $100,000 fine.
In sentencing Aguilar, U.S. District Judge Eric Vitaliano (E.D. N.Y) considered the sentencing briefs of Aguilar (who requested a non-custodial sentence) and the DOJ (who requested a 12 year sentence).
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.