If a government enforcement agency makes an allegation in a bribery enforcement action and a risk averse corporation agrees to resolve the enforcement action in the absence of any meaningful judicial scrutiny, does that mean the allegations are true?
Not necessarily.
As highlighted in this prior post, a portion of the U.K. enforcement action against Airbus concerned a sports sponsorship in Malaysia. As alleged by the Serious Fraud Office:
Previous posts here and here looked at the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Airbus.
This previous post looked at the U.K. Bribery Act enforcement action against Airbus.
This post completes the enforcement trilogy, bylooking at the French enforcement action against Airbus.
Like the prior U.S. and U.K. bribery enforcement action, the French enforcement action against Airbus (see here for the Judicial Public Interest Agreement) focused on the use of business partners in connection with sales or attempted sales in various countries.
In late January, law enforcement agencies in France, the United Kingdom and the U.S. announced a major bribery enforcement action against Airbus. (See here, here and here for prior posts). The conduct at issue generally focused on use of third parties by Airbus to corruptly obtain business in numerous countries around the world.
In light of the recent Airbus enforcement actions, today’s post republishes this December 11, 2009 FCPA Professor post which highlighted how U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan) (whose jurisdiction had a large Boeing presence) alleged that Airbus was engaged in bribery around the world.
Prior posts here and here went in-depth into the recent $294 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Airbus as well as the United Kingdom’s prosecution of the company.
This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider.
“Piling On”
As highlighted in this prior post, in 2018 the DOJ announced a non-binding policy discouraging “piling on” by instructing DOJ “components to appropriately coordinate with one another and with other enforcement agencies in imposing multiple penalties on a company in relation to investigations of the same misconduct.”
Odebrecht’s plea agreement and obligations extended, scrutiny alerts, victims, and spot on. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Odebrecht
As highlighted in this prior post, in December 2016 Odebrecht (a Brazilian holding company) and Braskem (a related entity) resolved a high-profile FCPA enforcement action. Odebrecht was criminally charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and resolved the charges through a plea agreement.
