Top Menu

Navigation

The U.K. Deferred Prosecution Agreement Regime: Aligning Rhetoric And Reality

By on May 5, 2021 in Airbus, Deferred Prosecution Agreements, Guest Posts, Serious Fraud Office, SFO, U.K. Bribery Act, United Kingdom
SFO2

A guest post from David Corker (a Partner at Corker Binning Corker in London).

The cornerstone of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (‘DPA’) regime in our jurisdiction is the centrality of the court. At the start of both his preliminary and final judgments delivered in the first DPA in 2015, Leveson P intended that his affirmation of this principle would become, as indeed it has, axiomatic. Almost every subsequent judgment endorsing a DPA has recited his words about the indispensable judicial role. Opening her 32-page judgment concerning the Airbus DPA in 2020[1], for example, Sharp P (Sir Brian’s successor as head of the Queen’s Bench Division) reproduced (paras 7 and 8) the relevant passages in full.

For this article this extract provides sufficient colour:

Continue Reading

Where Does The Truth Lie?

By on March 30, 2020 in Airbus
Truth

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:

Continue Reading

A Look At The French Enforcement Action Against Airbus

By on February 18, 2020 in Airbus, Charitable Contributions, China, Colombia, Doing Business With “Foreign Officials”, Due Diligence, France, Gaining Access to Confidential Documents, Nepal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Third Parties
airbus

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.

Continue Reading

From The Archives – U.S. Congressman Alleges Bribery at Airbus

By on February 11, 2020 in Airbus
archives

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.

Continue Reading

DOJ “Piles On” Airbus And Other Issues To Consider

By on February 10, 2020 in Airbus, Cash Cow, Double Standard, Jurisdiction, OECD, Travel and Entertainment
piling

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.”

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes