Top Menu

Navigation

Swiss National, A Former Maxwell Technologies Exec, Criminally Charged

By on October 17, 2013 in 2013 Enforcement Actions, Alain Riedo, China, DOJ Enforcement Action, Executive Enforcement Action, Individual Enforcement Action, Maxwell Technologies, SOX Certification Issues

When highlighting the frequent lack of individual Foreign Corrupt Practices Act charges in connection with most corporate FCPA enforcement action, the qualifier “at least yet” has always been used.  This qualifier if warranted because in certain instances individual charges follow years after a corporate FCPA enforcement action.

For instance, in January 2011 Maxwell Technologies (a California-based manufacturer of energy storage and power delivery products) resolved parallel DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement actions concerning alleged business conduct in China by agreeing to pay approximately $14 million.

Alleging the same core conduct at issue in the 2011 corporate enforcement action, earlier this week the DOJ criminally charged Alain Riedo, a Swiss citizen, with conspiracy and substantive violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, books and records and internal controls provisions.  According to the indictment, Riedo was, at various relevant times, a Vice President and General Manager of Maxwell Technologies S.A. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maxwell Technologies incorporated and located in Switzerland)  as well as a Senior Vice President and officer of Maxwell.  As noted in this SEC filing, in July 2009 the employment contract between Riedo and Maxwell was terminated.

According to this Wall Street Journal Risk and Compliance post, Riedo is currently “the director of the Fribourg chapter of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Switzerland” and the DOJ considers Riedo a fugitive.

As indicated above, the allegations in the Riedo indictment mirror the conduct at issue in the 2011 Maxwell corporate enforcement action.

In pertinent part, the DOJ alleges that Riedo and others made “corrupt payments to Chinese government officials, including officials at Pinggao Group, Xi-an XD and Shenyang HV, and to others” and falsely “record[ed] such payments on Maxwell’s books, records, and accounts, in order to obtain and retain business, prestige, and increased compensation for Riedo, Maxwell, Maxwell S.A. and others.”

As in the prior corporate enforcement action, Pinggao is alleged to be a “state-owned and state-controlled manufacturer of electric-utility infrastructure in Henan Provice, China,” Xi-an XD is alleged to be a “state-owned and state-controlled manufacturer of electric-utility infrastructure in Shaanxi Province, China,” and Shenyang HV is alleged to be “either state-owned or substantially controlled by the Chinese government.”

Like the prior corporate enforcement, Agent 1 (a Chinese national who served as Maxwell S.A.’s third party agent from 2002 to 2009 and was “responsible for the sale of Maxwell capacitors to customers” in China) is prominently mentioned in the Riedo indictment.  According to the indictment, Agent 1 “would and did pay bribes to Chinese government officials” and “would and did ensure that the quotes [obtained from Maxwell S.A.] contained a secret mark-up of approximately 20 percent, resulting in a higher total price to the Chinese customers for Maxwell S.A.’s equipment.”  According to the indictment, Riedo and another individual caused Maxwell S.A.’s books and records to “falsely record the ‘extra amount’ bribe payments as commissions, sales expenses, or consulting fees.”

The indictment further alleges that Riedo and another individual “would and did hamper efforts by other Maxwell executives to learn the truth about operations and finances at Maxwell S.A’s operations in Switzerland” and that “after Maxwell terminated its sales-representative arrangement with Agent 1, Riedo would and did attempt to re-hire Agent 1 as the company’s sales agent in China under the name of another company and against the instructions of Maxwell’s CEO.”

The DOJ generally alleges the following U.S. acts by Riedo.

  • Riedo electronically transmitted or caused to be transmitted to Maxwell’s headquarters in California Maxwell S.A’s false books and records and also caused the false entries to be included “in Maxwell’s books, records, and accounts, including Maxwell’s publicly filed financial statements and SEC filings.”
  • Riedo signed a “sub-certification” as part of Maxwell’s Sarbanes-Oxley process and falsely certified information that Riedo knew was incorrect and that Riedo caused the false “sub-certification” and other financial data to be sent to corporate headquarters in California.
  • Riedo sent an e-mail from Switzerland to California “asking Maxwell’s CFO to release funds to Agent 1 to retain business in China”
  • Riedo sent an e-mail from Switzerland to California attaching an “FCPA” certificate and asking Maxwell’s CFO to proceed in approving payment of an extra amount.

The DOJ further alleges that Riedo completed an internal Maxwell questionnaire and answered “no” to various FCPA issues “when in fact Riedo knew that Agent 1 was, directly and indirectly, receiving extra-amount payments and passing those payments along to employees of Chinese state-owned entities and other companies in order to obtain or retain business.”

Based on the above allegations, the indictment charges conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records and internal controls provisions, two substantive violations of the anti-bribery provisions, five substantive violations of the FCPA’s books and records provisions, and one substantive violation of the FCPA’s internal controls provisions.

This will be an interesting case to follow should Riedo choose to contest the DOJ’s charges.

Aside from the enforcement theory that employees of alleged China SOEs are “foreign officials” under the FCPA (the same general issue is currently on appeal before the 11th Circuit – see here), are potential jurisdiction issues.  In certain respects, this action may implicate the same general issues as in SEC v. Elek Strab et. al (see here for the pre-trial motion to dismiss decision) and SEC v. Herbet Steffen (see here for the pre-trial motion to dismiss decision).

Checking In

By on August 1, 2013 in 2013 Enforcement Actions, ALSTOM, DOJ Enforcement Action, Executive Enforcement Action, FCPA Appeals, Foreign Official, Frederic Pierucci, Haiti Teleco Enforcement Actions, Individual Enforcement Action, Indonesia, Jean Rene Duperval, Lawrence Hoskins

This post checks in on recent developments in two enforcement actions:  (i) the FCPA enforcement action against various individuals associated with Alstom; and (ii) the FCPA-related enforcement action against alleged Haitian “foreign official” Jean Duperval currently on appeal to the 11th Circuit.

Alstom-Related Action

Earlier this week, the DOJ announced that Lawrence Hoskins, “a former senior vice president for the Asia region for [Alstom], was charged in the District of Connecticut with conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to launder money, as well as substantive FCPA and money laundering violations.”

The conduct at issue in the Second Superceding Indictment is the same core conduct alleged in original criminal charges filed against Frederic Pierucci and David Rothschild, as well as the conduct alleged in the Superceding Indictment which added William Pomponi to the action.  (See here and here for previous posts).    That is –  alleged payments in connection with the Tarahan coal-fired steam power plant project in Indonesia.  In the prior charging documents, Hoskins was generically referred to as Executive A.

As noted in previous posts, Rothschild pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA.

The DOJ further announced in its release earlier this week that Pierucci pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to violate the FCPA and one count of violating the FCPA.  (See here for the plea agreement).

Duperval Action

This previous post detailed the 11th Circuit appeal of Jean Duperval.  Duperval was one of the alleged “foreign officials” charged in connection with the Haiti Teleco enforcement actions (see here for a summary and roundup of the entire Haiti Teleco enforcement actions) with non-FCPA offenses and he was found guilty by a jury of various money laundering charges.

As noted in the previous post, in his appeal Duperval argues, among other things, as follows.  “The evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Haiti Teleco was a government instrumentality and that Jean Rene Duperval was a foreign official as required to prove that a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act generated proceeds of a specified unlawful activity – a necessary predicate for the convictions on the money laundering conspiracy and substantive money laundering charges.”

As noted in the previous post, Duperval’s substantive arguments as to “foreign official” largerly mirror the arguments of Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez (also criminally charged and convicted in the Haiti Teleco matter) in their historical “foreign official” appeal to the 11th Circuit (see here for links to the briefing).

Among other things, Duperval’s argument includes discussion and several citations to my “foreign official” declaration  (see here).

Briefing is now complete in the Duperval appeal.

Not surprisingly, the DOJ’s arguments in connection with “foreign official” largely mirror the arguments it makes in the Esquenazi and Rodriguez appeal.  The DOJ is again seeking to exclude my foreign official declaration from the record and its brief states:

“Duperval relies on a 144-page declaration by a proposed defense expert that was filed on behalf of the defendants in Carson.  Although Duperval suggests that this Court may take judicial notice of the declaration because it relates to legislative history, the declaration selectively reviews the legislative history and draws inferences in support of a defense motion to dismiss the indictment. As such, it is not necessarily the statement of a disinterested expert, it was not reviewed as a scholarly article, and it was never subject to impeachment in the case below.”

Last week Duperval filed a reply brief, and not surprisingly, the arguments in connection with “foreign official” largely mirror the arguments made by Esquenazi and Rodriguez in their reply brief.  As to my “foreign official” declaration, the brief states:

“The government also condemns Duperval’s reference to Professor Michael J. Koehler’s declaration addressing the legislative history of the FCPA, which was filed in United States v. Carson. Aside from the analysis contained in the Koehler declaration, the substance of the declaration is the legislative history of the FCPA. The Court can surely take notice of legislative history, and evaluate the utility and accuracy of Professor Koehler’s declaration for itself. But the Government’s claim that the declaration of a professor filed in another criminal proceeding and under penalty of perjury is somehow of lower status than a law-review article reviewed by law students strains credulity.”

It will be an interesting “foreign official” Fall in the 11th Circuit.

Friday Roundup

By on June 14, 2013 in 2013 Enforcement Actions, China, Direct Access Partners, DOJ Enforcement Action, Ernesto Lujana, FCPA Investigative Costs, GlaxcoSmithKline, Individual Enforcement Action, Permits / Licenses / Customs / Tax, Wal-Mart

Another individual defendant added to the broker-dealer enforcement action, scrutiny alert, want to open a building in China open to the public?, and additional boondoggle specifics.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Additional Individual Defendant Added to the Broker-Dealer Enforcement Action

This previous post highlighted the SEC examination that led to DOJ and SEC charges (including FCPA charges) against Tomas Clarke (a Direct Access Partners (“DAP”) Executive Vice President who worked out of the company’s Miami office) and Alejandro Hurtado (a back-office employee of DAP in Miami).  The enforcement action is based on alleged improper payments to Maria Gonzalez (V.P. of Finance / Executive Manager of Finance and Funds Administration at Bandes, an alleged Venezuelan state-owned banking entity that acts as the financial agent of the state to finance economic development projects).

Earlier this week, the DOJ announced here that Ernesto Lujana (a managing partner at DAP and a branch manager of its Miami offices) was arrested and charged (see here for the criminal complaint) in connection with the same alleged bribery scheme.   As noted in the DOJ’s release “Lujan was charged with one count each of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), violation of the FCPA, conspiracy to violate the Travel Act and violation of the Travel Act [as well as] conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering.

Like in the previous enforcement action, the SEC also brought an enforcement action (see here for the complaint) against Lujana.  In this SEC release, Andrew Calamari (Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office) stated as follows.  “For a scheme this bold to succeed, it required the sneaky collaboration of several individuals including the head of the Miami office.  Lujan and the others may have believed they were covering their tracks, but the SEC’s exam and enforcement teams unraveled their fraud.”

Scrutiny Alert

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday in this article that GlaxcoSmithKline “is investigating allegations from an anonymous tipster that it sales staff in China was involved in widespread bribery of doctors to prescribe drugs, in some cases for unauthorized uses, between 2004 and 2010.”

The article reported as follows.  “According to e-mails and other documents reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, the tipster has alleged that Glaxo’s China sales staff provided doctors with speaking fees, cash payments, lavish dinners and all-expenses-paid trips in return for prescribing the drug firm’s products.”  As reported in the WSJ article, a Glaxo spokesman confirmed that the company is investigating the allegations, but that after thoroughly investigating “each and every claim” from the anonymous source, the company “has found no evidence of corruption or bribery in or China business.”

The WSJ article further noted that “in 2010 Glaxo disclosed it had been contacted by the Justice Department and the SEC about its overseas operations as part of a wider FCPA investigation into pharmaceutical industry practices abroad.”

As noted in this prior year in review post,  in 2012 50% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions involved, in whole or in part, foreign health care providers (such as physicians, nurses, mid-wives, lab personnel, etc.).  See here for a prior post on the origins and prominence of this enforcement theory.

Want to Open a Building in China Open to the Public?

This recent article in the South China Morning Post reminded me of the many business barriers (including arcane and complex licensing, certification and inspection requirements) which often funnel companies seeking to do business in a foreign country into an arbitrary world of low-paying civil servants who frequently supplement their meager salaries through payments condoned in the host country.

The article states, in pertinent part, as follows.

“To obtain a fire-safety certificate from a local fire department, a business owner must pass five ‘checkpoints’ in a complicated and lengthy administrative process.  Each checkpoint is guarded by officials in charge of site inspections and reviewing construction blueprints, equipment and contingency plans. Bribes considerably expedite the process that officials might otherwise draw out for weeks, months or years. Bribes range from a few thousand yuan to hundreds of thousands, per official, depending on their rank and the size of the project. But money isn’t everything – some officials must be wined and dined or given luxury cigarettes. Others request the services of prostitutes. […] Salaries of firefighters are quite low – about 3,400 yuan (HK$4,300) a month in Shanghai – and many come from poor or rural families, as the job hazards dissuade many people from joining. […] However, competition for administrative posts within fire departments was fierce, and only those with strong connections or family influence would stand a chance of winning non-frontline jobs where the real money was made.”

Additional Boondoggle Specifics

This recent Friday roundup detailed boondoggle specifics concerning Wal-Mart’s FCPA scrutiny and related investigation.  As noted here, Jeff Gearheart, the executive officer overseeing global compliance for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., told analysts last week that “300 legal and accounting professionals have logged more than 100,000 hours toward FCPA issues.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

Total Agrees To Pay $398 Million To Resolve Its FCPA Scrutiny

By on May 30, 2013 in 2013 Enforcement Actions, Deferred Prosecution Agreements, DOJ Enforcement Action, Foreign Issuers, Iran, Monitor, Oil and Gas Industry, SEC Enforcement Action, Total S.A.

Yesterday, the DOJ and SEC announced (here) and (here) a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Total S.A., a French oil and gas company that has American Depositary Shares registered with the SEC and traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

The enforcement action involved a DOJ criminal information resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement and a SEC administrative cease and desist order.  Total agreed to pay approximately $398 million to resolve its alleged FCPA scrutiny ($245.2 million to resolve the DOJ enforcement action and $153 million to resolve the SEC enforcement action).  The $398 million enforcement action is the third largest in FCPA history in terms of fine / penalty amount.

DOJ

The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information (here) resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement (here).

Information

In the criminal information, the DOJ charged Total with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.  The conduct at issue centered on Total’s negotiation of a contract with the National Iranian Oil Company (“NIOC”) in 1995 and 1997 for the development of the certain oil and gas fields.  NIOC is described in the information as a “government-owned corporation operating under the direction and control of the Ministry of Petroleum of Iran.”

The information alleges as conspiracy “to obtain and retain lucrative contracts related to [the oil and gas fields] through the promise and payment of tens of millions of dollars in unlawful payments to the Iranian Official and others.  The Iranian Official is described in the information as “the Chairman of an Iranian engineering company that was more than 90% owned by the Government of Iran and substantially controlled by the Government of Iran.”  The information further states that “from at least early 2001, the Iranian Official was the head of an Iranian organization concerned with fuel consumption, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of NIOC, and was a government advisor to a high-ranking Iranian official.”

The information alleges that Total caused Total International Ltd. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Total registered in Bermuda) to execute purported consulting agreements with Intermediary One (described as an employee of a Swiss private bank who acted at the direction of the Iranian Official) and Intermediary Two (described as a British Virgin Islands company that acted at the direction of the Iranian Official) as a “mechanism for Total to pay at the direction of the Iranian Official millions of dollars in unlawful payments.”

According to the information, Total paid approximately $60 million to accounts designated by Intermediary One and Two.  The information allegations that “Total mischaracterized the payments under the various consulting agreements as ‘business development expenses,’ when they were, in fact, unlawful payments for the purpose of inducing the Iranian Official to use his influence in connection with the granting of development rights” in the oil and gas projects.

The information then alleges 20 overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.  19 of the overt acts (95%) are alleged to have taken place between 10 to 18 years ago.  The most recent alleged overt act is a November 2004 wire transfer.  The only alleged overt act with a U.S. nexus is a 1995 wire transfer of $500,000 (.8% of the overall bribe payments) from Total International’s account at Banker’s Trust in New York to an account in Switzerland.

As to the FCPA books and records charge, the information states as follows.

“… Total knowingly falsified and caused to be falsified books, records, and accounts, required to, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of Total, to wit:  Total (a) mischaracterized the unlawful payments under the various consulting agreements as ‘business development expenses’ and (b) improperly characterized the unlawful consulting agreements as legitimate consulting agreements.”

As to the FCPA internal controls charge, the information states as follows.

“… Total knowingly circumvented and knowingly failed to implement a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that transactions and dispositions of Total’s assets complied with applicable law, including the FCPA, to wit:  Total:  (a) failed to implement adequate anti-bribery compliance policies and procedures; (b) failed to maintain an adequate system for the selection and approval of consultants; (c) failed to conduct adequate audits of payments to purported consultants; (d) failed to establish a sufficiently empowered and competent corporate compliance office; (e) failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the company’s compliance and ethics program was followed; (f) failed to evaluate regularly the effectiveness of the company’s compliance and ethics program; (g) failed to provide appropriate incentives to perform in accordance with the compliance and ethics program; (h) concealed the consulting agreements’ true nature and true participants; (i) performed no due diligence concerning the named or unnamed parties to these agreements; and (j) lacked controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that the consulting agreements complied with applicable laws.”

DPA

The above charges against Total were resolved via a DPA in which Total admitted, accepted, and acknowledged that it was responsible for the acts of its officers, employees, agents, and subsidiaries as charged in the information.

The DPA has a term of three years and under the heading “relevant considerations” it states as follows.

“The Department enters into this Agreement based on the individual facts and circumstances presented by this case and Total.  Among the facts considered were the following:  (a) the related investigation by French criminal enforcement authorities of the same conduct that forms the basis of this resolution and to which the Department has been providing assistance; (b) the evidentiary challenges presented to both parties by this matter, in which most of the underlying conduct occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s; and (c) Total’s production of relevant documents from abroad and disclosure of the results of its internal investigation into the misconduct described in the Information.”

Pursuant to the DPA, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for the conduct at issue was $235.2 to $470.4 million.  The $245.2 million that Total agreed to pay pursuant to the DPA is a rare instance of an FCPA corporate penalty being within the Guidelines range.  Most corporate FCPA criminal fines are approximately 25% below the minimum amount suggested by the Guidelines range.

Pursuant to the DPA, Total agreed to review its existing internal controls, policies and procedures regarding compliance with the FCPA, the anti-corruption provisions of French law, and other applicable anti-corruption laws.  The specifics are detailed in Attachment C to the DPA.  The DPA also requires Total to engage a corporate compliance monitor who is a French national for a three year term.  The specifics, including the Monitor’s reporting obligations to the DOJ, are detailed in Attachment D to the DPA.

In the DOJ’s release (here) Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman stated as follows.

“Today we announce the first coordinated action by French and U.S. law enforcement in a major foreign bribery case.  Our two countries are working more closely today than ever before to combat corporate corruption, and Total, which bought business through bribes, now faces the criminal consequences across two continents.”

The DOJ release further states as follows.

“In addition, French enforcement authorities announced earlier today that they had requested that Total, Total’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and two additional individuals be referred to the Criminal Court for violations of French law, including France’s foreign bribery law.”

In this Wall Street Journal article,  “Total said the company and [its CEO] acted in accordance with all applicable French laws. The decision to send [Total] and its CEO to trial now rests with the magistrate in charge of the investigation.”  Total’s CFO is quoted as follows concerning he U.S. settlement.  “These settlements, the outcome of which are customary in the U.S., allow us to put an end to this investigation.”

SEC

The SEC’s administrative cease and desist order (here) is based on the same core set of facts alleged in the above DOJ action.

The Order states, in summary fashion, as follows.

“During the relevant time period, Total and others violated the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by making payments at the direction of the Iranian Official in connection with obtaining contracts.  In addition, Total lacked sufficient internal controls and, by mischaracterizing the payments as legitimate consulting fees, Total violated the books and records [and internal controls] provisions of the federal securities laws.”

Under the heading “Total’s Steps to Conceal the Payments” the Order states as follows.

“From the inception of Total’s relationship with the Iranian Official Total mischaracterized the expenses under the Consulting Agreements as ‘business development expenses’ when they were, in fact, unlawful payments for the purpose of inducing the Iranian Official to use his influence in connection with granting rights to Total for the development of the [oil and gas] fields. Total improperly characterized the unlawful consulting agreements as legitimate consulting agreements.  Total ceased making payments to the Iranian Official’s designated intermediary in approximately November 2004.”

As noted in this SEC release, the Order requires Total to pay disgorgement of $153 million in illicit profits and to cease and desist from committing future FCPA violations.  In the release, Andrew Calamari (Director of he SEC’s New York Regional Office) stated as follows.  “Total used illicit payments to win business in Iran, and reaped substantial financial benefits as a result.  Total must now pay back all of its profits from the company’s corrupt conduct and additionally pay criminal penalties on top of that.”

Robert Luskin (Patton Boggs) represented Total.

*****

Total’s most recent SEC filing states, in pertinent part, as follows.

“In 2003, the SEC followed by the DOJ issued a formal order directing an investigation in connection with the pursuit of business in Iran by certain oil companies, including among others, Total.”

“Since 2010, the Company has been in discussions with U.S. authorities (DOJ and SEC)” to resolve the case.

*****

The Total enforcement action is not the first FCPA enforcement action against a foreign oil and gas company focused on conduct in Iran’s oil and gas fields.  In 2006, the DOJ and SEC brought a coordinated FCPA enforcement action against Norway-based Staoil by which the company agreed to pay $21 million in combined fines and penalties.  Like the Total enforcement action, the Statoil enforcement action was also based on a slim US jurisdictional nexus – that the company received an invoice from a U.K. consulting company instructing that money “be routed through a United States bank in New York, New York to a bank account in Switzerland” which the company paid.

SEC Examination Leads To Criminal FCPA Charges Against Bond Traders

By on May 8, 2013 in 2013 Enforcement Actions, Alejandro Hurtado, Direct Access Partners, DOJ Enforcement Action, FCPA Related Charges, Financial Services Industry, Individual Enforcement Action, Maria Gonzalez, Tomas Clarke, Travel Act, Venezuela

It is one of the more unusual origins of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action.

In November 2010, the SEC conducted a periodic examination of Direct Access Partners LLC (“DAP”), a broker-dealer registered with the SEC.  DAP’s Global Markets Group (“DAP Global”) primarily executed fixed income trades for customers in foreign sovereign debt.  One of its customers was Bandes, an alleged Venezuelan state-owned banking entity that acts as the financial agent of the state to finance economic development projects.

According to the DOJ and SEC, the SEC examination lead to the discovery of a “fraud that was staggering in audacity and scope” (see here for the SEC release).  A component of the alleged fraud included payments by Tomas Clarke (a DAP Executive Vice President who worked out of the company’s Miami office) and Alejandro Hurtado (a back-office employee of DAP in Miami) to Maria Gonzalez (V.P. of Finance / Executive Manager of Finance and Funds Administration at Bandes).  According to this DOJ criminal complaint, Gonzalez oversaw Bande’s trading by DAP.

According to the criminal complaint, Clarke, Hurtado and others “directed kickback payments” to Gonzalez “in exchange for Gonzalez steering Bandes business to [DAP] and authorizing Bandes to execute bond trades with [DAP].  According to the complaint, between 2008 and 2010 “Gonzalez received at least $3.6 million in payments through insiders and affiliates of [DAP].  According to the complaint, during this time period, “with Gonzalez both acting as the authorized trading contact in regard to [DAP] and managing the relationship between Bandes and [DAP], Bandes directed substantial business to [DAP] and carried out bond transactions that resulted in [DAP] generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue.”  The criminal complaint alleges various payments made or authorized by Clarke and Hurtado to an account in Switzerland held in the name of Gonzalez and/or a company owned in part by Gonzalez.

Based on the above core set of conduct, the criminal complaint charges Clarke and Hurtado with the following offenses:  conspiracy to violate the FCPA, substantive FCPA violations, conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, substantive Travel Act violations, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and substantive money laundering violations.

Gonzalez, the alleged “foreign official,” was charged with conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, substantive Travel Act violations, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and substantive money laundering violations.  (For other examples of “foreign officials” being criminally charged with non-FCPA offenses in connection with an FCPA enforcement action, see here and here).

In this DOJ release, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman stated as follows.  “Today’s announcement is a wake-up call to anyone in the financial services industry who thinks bribery is the way to get ahead.  The defendants in this case allegedly paid huge bribes so that foreign business would flow to their firm.  Their return on investment now comes in the form of criminal charges carrying the prospect of prison time.  We will not stand by while brokers or others try rig the system to line their pockets, and will continue to vigorously enforce the FCPA and money laundering statutes across all industries.”

As noted in the DOJ release, “the government [also] filed a civil forfeiture action … seeking the forfeiture of assets held in a number of bank accounts associated with the scheme, including several bank accounts located in Switzerland.  The forfeiture complaint also seeks the forfeiture of several properties in the Miami area related to Hurtado that were purchased with his proceeds from the scheme.”

The above core conduct also resulted in this SEC civil complaint against Clarke and Hurtado (and others) charging a variety of non-FCPA securities law violations.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes