Top Menu

The Giffen Gaffe

Perhaps one day the true story will be told about the DOJ’s prosecution of James Giffen.

I don’t pretend to know what happened behind the scene other than to know that something significant occurred behind the scene.

That conclusion is compelled when an original indictment (see here) charging “Giffen with making more than $78 million in unlawful payments to two senior officials of the Republic of Kazakhstan in connection with six separate oil transactions, in which the American oil companies Mobil Oil, Amoco, Texaco and Phillips Petroleum acquired valuable oil and gas rights in Kazakhstan” is resolved via a one-paragraph superseding information (see here) charging a misdemeanor tax violation.

Sure, DOJ can say that it prosecuted a functionally defunct entity, The Mercator Corporation – in which Giffen was the principal shareholder, board chairman, and chief executive officer – with violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. Yet that criminal information (see here) merely alleges that “Mercator caused the purchase of two snowmobiles that were shipped to Kazakhstan for delivery to KO-2” (a senior official of the Kazakh Government).

You read that correctly.

From an FCPA perspective this entire, nearly decade-long prosecution, was reduced to allegations about two snowmobiles for a Kazakh official.

So what was that something significant that occurred behind the scene?

I don’t know.

But I do know this.

Part of Giffen’s defense was that his actions were taken with the knowledge and support of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council, the Department of State and the White House. The DOJ did not dispute the fact that Giffen had frequent contacts with senior U.S. intelligence officials or that he used his ties within the Kazakh government to assist the United States. With the court’s approval, Giffen sought discovery from the government to support such a public authority defense and much of the delay in the case was due to the government’s resistance to such discovery and who was entitled to see such discovery.

Perhaps it was that public airing of the information in these documents would be embarrassing to the U.S. government or impact U.S. foreign relations with a key oil and gas producing country.

If so, it is troubling to think that our government condones bribery, when done with the approval or the wink and nod of government officials, while aggressively prosecuting commercial actors – often times based on untested and dubious legal theories.

For the record, Giffen pleaded guilty (see here) last Friday to a one-count criminal information charging him with willfully failing to supply information on tax returns regarding foreign bank accounts in violation of 26 USC 7203. The information charges, and Giffen pleaded guilty to, filing a U.S. individual income tax return which failed to report that he maintained an interest in, and signature and other authority over, a bank account in Switzerland in the name of Condor Capital Management, a British Virgin Islands corporation he controlled. In pleading guilty, Giffen also relinquished right, title and interest he may have had, directly or indirectly, in several named Swiss bank accounts.

Pursuant to the plea agreement, Giffen’s sentencing range will be 0 to 6 months and the applicable fine range will be $250 to $5,000.

For the record, Mercator also pleaded guilty (see here) last Friday to a one-count criminal information charging it with violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. According to the information, Mercator “advised Kazakhstan in connection with various transactions related to the sale by Kazakhstan of portions of its oil and gas wealth.” The information alleges that between 1995 and 2000 Mercator was paid approximately $67 million in success fees for its work in assisting the Kazakh Ministry of Oil and Gas Industries develop a strategy for foreign investment in the oil and gas sector and coordinating the negotiation of numerous oil and gas transactions. The information charges that certain senior officials of the Kazakh government (including KO-2) had the authority to hire and pay Mercator and that Mercator was therefore “dependant upon the goodwill” of the officials. The one-paragraph statutory allegation merely states that Mercator “caused the purchase of two snowmobiles that were shipped to Kazakhstan for delivery to KO-2.”

As indicated in the plea agreement, the DOJ and Mercator could not agree on whether the 1998 Sentencing Guidelines or the 2009 Sentencing Guidelines apply – an issue that will be left for the court to decide. If the 2009 guidelines apply, the plea agreement sets forth a fine range of $650,000 to $1.3 million. If the 1998 guidelines apply, the plea agreement sets forth a fine range of $30,000 to $60,000.

Whether Mercator’s and/or Giffen’s actions were indeed taken with the knowledge and support of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council, the Department of State and the White House, the following paragraph from the Mercator plea agreement would seem relevant:

“Because the offense involved an elected official or a public official in a high-level decision-making or sensitive position, the offense level is increased 4 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2C1.1(b)(3).”

That provision (see here) defines “public official” to include, among other categories, an individual “in a position of public trust with official responsibility for carrying out a government program or policy; acts under color of law or official right; or participates so substantially in government operations as to possess de facto authority to make governmental decisions.”

DOJ releases in FCPA enforcement actions are typically peppered with get-tough, this sends a message type of language. The release (see here) in the Giffen / Mercator enforcement action does not contain any quotes from DOJ officials.

William Schwartz of Cooley Godward Kronish LLP (here), a former Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York where he was Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, represented both Giffen and Mercator.

So, what to make of the Giffen Gaffe.

It seems that Giffen prevailed not because of the facts or the law, but because he possessed significant leverage over the government in that he asserted his actions were taken with the knowledge and support of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council, the State Department and the White House.

Few FCPA defendants can make a similar claim. Thus, resolution of the Giffen case would seem to have little or no effect on the nuts and bolts of future FCPA enforcement actions.

Yet, resolution of the Giffen case does raise some troubling issues as to the DOJ’s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

For starters, the Giffen case and the Frederick Bourke case (see here for prior posts) generally marked the beginning of the FCPA’s resurgence. Regardless of the outcome of Bourke’s Second Circuit appeal, the trial phase ended with the sentencing judge saying:

“After years of supervising this case, it’s still not entirely clear to me whether Mr. Bourke is a victim or a crook or a little bit of both.”

In both the Giffen and Bourke cases, the DOJ made spectacular allegations only to see these enforcement actions end with a whimper.

The Giffen resolution would also seem embarrassing for the Justice Department which actively preaches the transparency and anti-corruption gospel message around the world while calling on other countries to increase enforcement of their own bribery laws.

However, what does it say about transparency in our country when a case that begins with criminal allegations of more than $78 million in unlawful payments to senior Kazakh officials ends with a misdemeanor tax violation and a largely meaningless FCPA enforcement action against a functionally defunct entity focused merely on two snowmobiles?

The Giffen resolution should further enrage segments of the business community that justifiably see a double standard in that certain business practices seem tolerated when done in connection with government business or policy, yet aggressively prosecuted, often times based on untested and dubious legal theories, when done in connection with a purely commercial transaction.

The Giffen Gaffe is troubling enough in isolation.

Coupled with another bribery blunder from approximately six months ago, it is an open question whether the government’s enforcement of the FCPA, to borrow a parliamentary phrase, would survive a no-confidence vote.

In February, the DOJ alleged (see here) that BAE, the largest defense contractor in Europe and the fifth largest in the U.S. as measured by sales, “provided substantial benefits” “through various payment mechanisms both in the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and elsewhere” to a Saudi official “in a position of influence” to award fighter jet deals. The DOJ stated that BAE “provided support services to the [Saudi official] while in the territory of the U.S.” and that these benefits “included the purchase of travel and accommodations, security services, real estate, automobiles and personal items.” The DOJ alleged that over $5 million in invoices for benefits provided to the Saudi official were submitted by just one BAE employee during a one year period. Yet resolution of the BAE enforcement action contained no FCPA charges.

Sure the U.S. may prosecute the most bribery cases in terms of shear numbers compared to other countries.

Yet, as is becoming increasingly obvious, many of those cases are settled via privately negotiated resolution vehicles that are not subjected to any meaningful judicial scrutiny and are based on dubious and untested legal theories.

On the flip side, when allegations of egregious or widespread bribery are alleged, the charges are not even FCPA anti-bribery violations.

Before another U.S. government official goes abroad to spread the anti-corruption gospel, preach transparency, and question other countries commitment to prosecuting bribery, it would seem that our government and Justice Department first need to examine its own enforcement of the FCPA.

Bourke’s Appeal

As previously noted (here), the Frederic Bourke case is arguably the most complex and convoluted case in the history of the FCPA.

The trial court portion of the case ended in November 2009 when Judge Scheindin sentenced Bourke to 366 days for, among other things, conspiracy to violate the FCPA. At sentencing Judge Scheindin stated – “After years of supervising this case, it’s still not entirely clear to me whether Mr. Bourke is a victim or a crook or a little bit of both.”

Bourke has appealed his conviction to the Second Circuit.

An FCPA trial like Bourke’s is rare. An FCPA appeal is even more rare. An FCPA appeal to the influential Second Circuit is even more rare.

Thus, with good reason, this case is of great interest to those who follow the FCPA in that it is hoped to shed some light on the FCPA’s knowledge element, and perhaps other issues as well.

First step in the appeal is Bourke’s brief (see here) filed April 1st. The brief principally focuses on the FCPA’s knowledge element, including the trial court’s conscious avoidance jury instruction (a portion of the brief is redacted and a portion deals with Bourke’s false statement conviction).

This post summarizes the FCPA related issues in Bourke’s brief.

*****

According to the brief, the “trial focused on two related issues: whether Bourke knew that Kozeny was bribing the Azeris, and whether he willfully and corruptly joined the bribery conspiracy.”

The brief argues that the district court “committed a series of errors that crippled Bourke’s mens rea defense.”

The brief then discusses three such errors.

First, the court instructed on conscious avoidance, despite the absence of evidence that Bourke deliberately avoided knowledge of Kozeny’s bribes.” According to the brief, this instruction was error “because there was no evidence that Bourke deliberately avoided learning about Kozeny’s bribery.” The brief states that the conscious avoidance instruction “was particularly damaging because the government presented evidence and argued that Bourke failed to exercise adequate due diligence, thus exacerbating the risk inherent in the conscious avoidance instruction that the jury would convict for negligence or recklessness.” The brief cites Second Circuit case law which emphasizes that “essential to the concept of conscious avoidance is the requirement that the defendant be shown to have decided not to learn the key fact, not merely to have failed to learn it through negligence” and argues that “the trial record contains no evidence that Bourke decided not to learn about Kozeny’s bribery.”

Bourke also argues that the court erred in admitting testimony about the due diligence performed by Texas Pacific Group (“TPG”), an investment fund that did not make the same investment as Bourke, because its lawyers advised of the FCPA risk. The brief states, “[b]ecause Bourke knew nothing about their work, their testimony was irrelevant to his state of mind” particularly since the results were never shared or communicated with Bourke. According to the brief, “the government offered the testimony […] solely as a contrast with the comparatively skimpy inquiry that Bourke and his lawyers performed.” “That testimony” according to the brief, “increased the risk, created by the conscious avoidance instruction and heightened by the government’s closing, that the jury would convict Bourke based on his negligence or recklessness — what he should have known, rather than what he actually knew.” The brief argues that the “government’s tactic had its intended effect on the jury” and it cites the foreman of the of jury telling the press, “It was Kozeny, it was Azerbaijan, it was a foreign country …. We thought he knew and definitely could have known. He’s an investor. It’s his job to know.”

The brief further argues that, having admitted the above testimony relating to TPG, “the district court should at least have permitted Bourke to present the contrasting testimony” of the head of investments for Columbia University that would have established that “Columbia invested $15 million with Kozeny in Azeri privatization after due diligence comparable to Bourke’s.” According to the brief, this excluded testimony “would have rebutted the government’s claim that Bourke’s lack of due diligence compared to TPG established his culpability.” The brief argues that “once the district court permitted the government to present TPG’s due diligence as a benchmark for measuring Bourke’s inquiry, fairness demanded that Bourke be allowed to present the contrasting picture of Columbia’s due diligence, which resembled his own.”

Second, the brief states – “the court refused to instruct that conviction for conspiracy requires the same mens rea as the underlying FCPA offense — meaning (among other things) a bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.” According to the brief, “the district court compounded its error in giving the conscious avoidance instruction by rejecting Bourke’s requested instruction [as to the conspiracy charge] that the government had to prove that he acted corruptly and willfully.” The brief argues that “when the district court turned to the mens rea required for the conspiracy offense, rather than for a substantive FCPA offense, it omitted the requirement that the defendant act corruptly” and that this “watering-down of the mens rea requirement for the conspiracy charged […] undermined Bourke’s defense, which rested on his state of mind.”

Third, the court rejected Bourke’s proposed good faith instructions, even though Bourke produced ample evidence to warrant the instructions and no other instruction covered the point.” The brief argues that Bourke’s proposed instruction “accurately reflected the principle that a defendant’s good faith belief that he acted lawfully negates the mens rea for specific intent offenses.” While the brief concedes that Bourke’s efforts to investigate the investment “were not as extensive” as others, his efforts “suffice for a good faith instruction.” Because the case turned on Bourke’s state of mind, the brief states “there is no doubt that the good faith defense, if accepted by the jury, would have produced an acquittal.”

The brief argues that “any one of the errors concerning Bourke’s knowledge of Kozeny’s bribes and his specific criminal intent, standing alone, warrants reversal” and if any one error is harmless in isolation, then their “cumulative effect profoundly damaged Bourke’s defense.”

Next up … the DOJ which has until July 29th to file its response brief.

Quiz Time Answer

In a prior post (here), I noted that in 2009 there were three FCPA trials – Frederic Bourke, William Jefferson, and Gerald and Patricia Green.

I then posted the question – what is the common thread in these three FCPA enforcement actions – a fact which speaks to the great difficulty individual FCPA defendants generally have in mounting a legal defense?

Before the answer, the background.

Individual FCPA defendants tend to work for companies. Under respondeat superior theories of liability, the company is going to have a very difficult time “distancing” itself from its employees conduct.

Thus, all corporate FCPA enforcement actions tend to be resolved through a non-prosecution agreement, a deferred prosecution agreement, or a plea. Entering into one of these resolution vehicles is often easier, more cost efficient, and more certain than actually mounting a legal defense based on the FCPA’s statutory elements. Further, because these resolution vehicles are subject to little or no judicial scrutiny and are entered into the context of the DOJ possessing certain “carrots” and “sticks” they do not necessarily reflect the triumph of one party’s legal position over the other.

While these resolution vehicles may indeed avert “another Arthur Anderson” here is the problem.

A key feature of each resolution vehicle is a statement along the following lines:

“[company] admits, accepts, and acknowledges responsibility for the conduct set forth in [the statement of facts] and agrees not to make any public statement contradicting [the statement of facts]” (see UTStarcom NPA here);

“[company] admits, accepts and acknowledges that it is responsible for the acts of its officers, employees and agents as set forth in the Statement of Facts […] and that the facts described […] are true and accurate […] and that should the DOJ initiate prosecution that is deferred by this agreement [company] agrees that it will neither contest the admissibility of, nor contradict, in any such proceeding, the Statement of Facts” (see AGA Medical DPA here); or

“Defendant admits,agrees and stipulates that the factual allegations set forth in the Statement of Facts […] are true and correct, that it is responsible for the acts of its former officers and employees described in the Statement of Facts, and that the Statement of Facts accurately reflects CCI’s criminal conduct” (see Control Components Inc. Plea Agreement here).

So what can you do if you are the targeted employee of such a company?

More likely than not, your employee has already terminated you (even before all the facts may be known) to demonstrate to the DOJ that it is implementing “prompt remedial actions” – a factor DOJ will consider when making its charging decision (see here).

Then, because of the resolution vehicle your employer entered into to make the DOJ go away, you are stuck with your employer admitting and accepting responsibility for your misconduct, even though there has been no finding that your conduct was even misconduct.

Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that nearly all FCPA individual defendants plead. What choice do they really have?

So that brings us back to the quiz answer.

Perhaps it was pure coincidence, perhaps not, but the three individual FCPA trials all occurred in the context of there being no parallel NPA, DPA or plea with a corporate entity.

Potpourri

A Friday roundup of recent FCPA events.

An FCPA Sentencing Trend?

As noted in yesterday’s DOJ release (here), two former executives of Willbros International Inc. (a subsidiary of Houston-based Willbros Group Inc.) were sentenced for their roles in a conspiracy to make improper payments to “foreign officials” in Nigeria and Ecuador.

Jason Edward Steph was sentenced to 15 months in prison and Jim Bob Brown was sentenced to 366 days in prison.

For more on the Willbros matter, see here and here.

The DOJ’s sentencing recommendations appear to be sealed, but one can assume, given the “light” sentences, that perhaps the DOJ likely sought sentences greater than those issued by District Court Judge Simeon Lake.

If so, this would appear to continue a trend of judges sentencing FCPA defendants to prison sentences less than those recommended by DOJ.

For instance, in Frederic Bourke case, a case which involved a “massive bribery scheme” according to DOJ, Judge Shira Scheindin rejected the 10-year prison sentence proposed by DOJ and sentenced Bourke to 366 days in prison. (see here). In sentencing Bourke, Judge Scheindin is reported to have said “after years of supervising this case, it’s still not entirely clear to me whether Mr. Bourke is a victim or a crok or a little bit of both.”

With several FCPA sentencing dates on the horizon, this apparent trend will be an issue to watch.

See here for local media coverage regarding the sentences.

Kozeny’s Tan Not in Jeopardy

While Bourke (see here) prepares his appeal, Viktor Kozeny, the alleged master-mind of the scheme to bribe officials in Azerbaijan in connection with privatization of the state-owned oil company, will be staying put in The Bahamas as an appellate court again rejected DOJ’s extradition attempts.

As noted in the recent Bahamian Court of Appeals decision (here), Kozeny, a Czech national, has been living in The Bahamas since 1995 and has not departed the country since 1999.

The opinion notes that there is no dispute “that there was a conspiracy to corrupt the Azeri officials and that such officials were paid money, given gifts and provided shares in certain companies under the control of [Kozeny] without payment; and had certain medical procedures paid for them by [Kozeny].

Even so, the court concluded that while The Bahamas did indeed have a bribery/corruption statute, it applied only to bribes within The Bahamas or given to a Bahamian public officer. Thus, because Kozeny’s conduct would not violate Bahamian law, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s denial of the extradition request.

For additional coverage (see here and here and here).

According to these reports, the decision may be appealed to London’s Privy Council pursuant to Bahamian legal procedure. Kozeny’s U.S. lawyer is quoted as saying “enough is enough” and U.S. prosecutors should finally accept the fact that Kozney, a non-U.S. citizen, could not violate the FCPA as it existed in 1998 – the year in which the bribe scheme perhaps ended – although, as noted in the opinion, the U.S. alleges that the bribe scheme continued into 1999.

Why is this relevant?

Because the FCPA was amended in 1998 to include, among other provisions, 78dd-3 which applies the antibribery provisions to “any person” (i.e. foreigners) “while in the territory of the U.S.” from making use of the mails or any other means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in furtherance of an improper payment.

The SFO Continues to “Step-It-Up”

Today, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (the functional equivalent of the DOJ) issued a release (here) indicating that a former BAE agent has been charged with “conspiracy to corrupt” for “conspiring with others to give or agree to give corrupt payments […] to unknown officials and other agents of certain Eastern and Central European governments, including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Austria as inducements to secure, or as rewards for having secured, contracts from those governments for the supply of goods to them, namely SAAB/Gripen fighter jets, by BAE Systems Plc.”

For local media coverage of the charges (see here).

With a new Bribery Bill expected in the U.K. by years end, the SFO continues to “step-it-up” (see here for more on the SFO).

Disclosing FCPA Compliance

Public companies dislose FCPA issues all the time. Rarely though do the disclosures concern issues other than internal investigations and potential enforcement actions.

Accordingly, two recent SEC filings caught my eye.

China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (a Delaware company) recently disclosed (here) that it:

“[e]ntered into a securities purchase agreement with Starr Investments Cayman II, Inc. Under this agreement, Starr will, subject to various terms and conditions, purchase from the Company 1,000,000 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock and warrants to purchase 1,545,455 shares of the Common Stock of the Company for an aggregate purchase price of US$30,000,000.”

One of the conditions was that the company “shall have adopted a program with respect to compliance with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” and a post-closing covenant obligates the company to “implement a program regarding compliance with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act not later than April 30, 2010.”

Cardtronics Inc. (an operator of ATM networks around the world) (here) recently disclosed (here) that:

“On January 25, 2010, the Board of Directors by unanimous vote approved three management proposed modifications to the Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. The modifications as approved by the Board include: (i) adding a section that addressed compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998.”

Costa Rica Joins the Club

Last, but certainly not least, Costa Rica recently announced a first … the first time a foreign corporation has paid the government damages for corruption.

As noted here, telecom company Alcatel-Lucent recently disclosed a $10 million payment to settle a corruption case in Costa Rica in which it was accused of paying kicbacks to former Costa Rican President Miguel Angel Rodriguez (and others government officials) in return for a 2001 contract worth $149 million.

There has been FCPA/corruption issues on both sides “of the hyphen” as noted here in this recent Main Justice article.

And with that, have a nice weekend.

366 Days

After a nearly decade long investigation which spanned the globe, dismissal of FCPA substantive charges on statute of limitations grounds, reinstatement of the FCPA substantive charges, a superseding indictment which then dropped the FCPA substantive charges in exchange for “only” conspiracy to violate the FCPA, and a six week jury trial this past summer, the DOJ finally extracted its “pound of flesh” from Frederic Bourke.

As has been widely reported, this afternoon Judge Shira Scheindin (S.D.N.Y.) sentenced Bourke to a year and a day in federal prison (followed by three years probation) and ordered him to pay $1 million fine. The DOJ sought a 10 year prison sentence. The DOJ release announcing the sentence is presumably forthcoming.

Bourke who? What’s this about?

To those of you wading into the details of this case for the first time or only recently, you will be well served by reading Andrew Longstreth’s superb piece which recently appeared in the American Lawyer (see here).

Bourke was convicted in July by a jury for conspiring to pay bribes to Azerbaijan officials. The DOJ news release announcing the conviction (see here) called it a “massive [bribery] scheme.”

What was Bourke guilty of? According to the DOJ release:

“Evidence presented at trial established that Bourke was a knowing participant in a scheme to bribe senior government officials in Azerbaijan with several hundred million dollars in shares of stock, cash, and other gifts. According to evidence presented at court, the bribes were meant to ensure that those officials would privatize the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) in a rigged auction that only Bourke, fugitive Czech investor Viktor Kozeny and members of their investment consortium could win, to their massive profit.”

Bourke lawyers (and many other observers) feel that Bourke was simply guilty of being negligent and not asking enough questions before making a foreign investment, an investment that was also made by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and Columbia University (among others). An investment that resulted in Bourke reportedly losing $8 million.

The Bourke case is arguably the most complex and convoluted case in the history of the FCPA.

Yet it is not over as Bourke’s lawyers have promised an appeal.

Under our legal system, if a grand jury indicts you, a jury convicts you, and a judge sentences you … well, that is just sometimes “how the cookie crumbles.”

However, the Bourke case and his sentence does not exactly leave one with “warm, fuzzy feelings.”

In fact, Judge Scheindin (i.e. the sentencing judge and the judge who denied Bourke’s post-verdict motions) is being widely reported as saying this at today’s sentencing hearing:

“After years of supervising this case, it’s still not entirely clear to me whether Mr. Bourke is a victim or a crook or a little bit of both.”

That seems an appropriate end to this chapter of the Bourke saga.

******

I haven’t read every pleading in this case, every motion filed, nor obviously heard every word of evidence the convicting jury did. There is certainly enough in this case for a law school to one day offer an LLM in the Bourke case!

Nonetheless, it is a seriously open question in my mind as to whether this case was an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion and whether justice has indeed been served with Bourke’s sentence.

So what do you think? What are your thoughts on the Bourke case and his sentence?

I would like to do a post on reader commentary in the coming days, so please do contact me if you are so inclined.

For starters, Brian Whisler of Baker & McKenzie contacted me. He is what Brian (a former federal prosecutor) had to say:

“In federal parlance, 12 months and one day translates into 10 months due to some quirky Bureau of Prisons calculus. This sentence is also less than the 2 years that the US Probation Office represented as the appropriate guideline sentence. I expected that the district judge would impose a sentence less than the two years because (1) Bourke lost $8 million in a bribery scheme that did not meet its objective; (2) Bourke has no criminal history and does not represent a future danger, economic or otherwise. This bribery case, while certainly important to DOJ in its dedicated effort to eradicate corruption globally, stands in sharp contrast to the likes of Madoff and others whose harm to others is readily apparent.”

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes