DOJ “Piles On” Airbus And Other Issues To Consider
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.”
Friday Roundup
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.
An In-Depth Look At The U.K. Prosecution Of Airbus
These pages have long asserted that if a country is to have a deferred prosecution regime that the regime in the United Kingdom (which requires meaningful judicial review and approval) is far more preferable than the U.S. regime.
This is apparent when reviewing the Statement of Facts,, Deferred Prosecution Agreement and Approved Judgment relevant to the U.K. Serious Fraud Office prosecution of Airbus. (See here for a collection of the U.K. documents and see here for the prior post regarding the U.S. enforcement action). The U.K. documents provided a substantially more thorough and transparent glimpse into the underlying conduct compared to the U.S. resolution documents.
Even Though The Jurisdictional Basis For The Action Was “Limited,” Airbus Resolves $294 Million FCPA Enforcement Action In Connection With Broader Global Enforcement Action
The DOJ recently announced that Airbus (a France-based global provider of civilian and military aircraft) agreed to pay $3.9 billion to resolve foreign bribery, as well as Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations, enforcement actions in the U.S., France, and the United Kingdom.
As the DOJ acknowledged, Airbus “is neither a U.S. issuer nor a domestic concern, and the territorial jurisdiction over the corrupt conduct is limited.” As the DOJ further acknowledged, both France and the United Kingdom have a “significantly stronger” jurisdictional basis for resolving related matters.
Nevertheless, a portion of the global settlement amount includes a $294 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action. This post summarizes the enforcement action in which the DOJ charged Airbus in this information with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and conspiracy to violate the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
Friday Roundup
Scrutiny alerts and updates, reminder, OECD Article 5, ripple, and for the reading stack.
It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Scrutiny Alerts and Updates
Deutsche Bank
The company has been under scrutiny since 2013 and recently disclosed in its annual report: