NOT Flying Under The Radar – The Many FCPA Enforcement Actions Against Companies In The Aviation Industry
When compiling a list of the industries that have the highest Foreign Corrupt Practices Act risk, the aviation industry may not come to mind.
However, it should because, as highlighted in this post, there have been over 20 corporate FCPA enforcement actions against companies in the industry (broadly defined) in FCPA enforcement history resulting in approximately $1.2 billion in settlement amounts.
In fact, the aviation industry was front and center in “The Story of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” as Lockheed’s payments to Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka, Prince Berhard (the Inspector General of the Dutch Armed Forces and the husband of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands) and Italian political parties was arguably the most high profile example of foreign corporate payments Congress learned about in the mid-1970’s which motivated it to enact the FCPA.
AAR Resolves $55.6 Million FCPA Enforcement Action
As highlighted in this prior post, in July, Julian Aires (an individual associated with a joint venture partner of AAR Corp. – a U.S. based aviation services company) pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions in connection with business dealings with South Africa Airways (SAA) as well as a contract involving Swissport and SAA.
As highlighted in this prior post, in August, Deepak Sharma (an agent of AAR and the former President of Integrated Solutions at AAR) pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions in connection with a bribery scheme involving Nepal Airlines Corporation.
Yesterday, it was AAR’s turn as the DOJ and SEC announced (here and here) an FCPA enforcement action against the company based on the same core conduct.
The enforcement action involved a DOJ component (net $26.4 million) and an SEC component ($29.2 million).
Individual Pleads Guilty To A Bribery Scheme Involving Nepal Airlines
Last month, Julian Aires (an individual associated with a joint venture partner of AAR Corp. – a U.S. based aviation services company) pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions in connection with business dealings with South Africa Airways (SAA) as well as a contract involving Swissport and SAA. (See here for the prior post).
It was noted that the enforcement action was likely the first of several related enforcement actions to come as AAR’s recent annual report disclosed FCPA scrutiny in South Africa as well as Nepal.
Sure enough.
Recently, Deepak Sharma (pictured) (a United Kingdom citizen and resident) pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions in connection with a bribery scheme involving Nepal Airlines Corporation (“NAC”), an alleged instrumentality of the Nepali government.
NOT Flying Under The Radar – The Many FCPA Enforcement Actions Against Companies In The Aviation Industry
When compiling a list of the industries that have the highest Foreign Corrupt Practices Act risk, the aviation industry is probably not going to be near the top of many lists.
However, it should be because as highlighted in this post there have been approximately 20 corporate FCPA enforcement actions against companies in the industry (broadly defined) in FCPA enforcement history resulting in approximately $860 million in settlement amounts.
In fact, the aviation industry was front and center in “The Story of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” as Lockheed’s payments to Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka, Prince Berhard (the Inspector General of the Dutch Armed Forces and the husband of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands) and Italian political parties was arguably the most high profile example of foreign corporate payments Congress learned about in the mid-1970’s which motivated it to enact the FCPA.
The remainder of this post highlights FCPA enforcement actions against companies in the aviation industry broadly defined.
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.