Senator Welch: What Does “Vigorous” FCPA Enforcement Mean?
Earlier this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings for various nominees including Andrew Duva to be Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ’s Criminal Division.
During the hearing (at approximately 1:45), Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) stated: “I am very concerned, to be candid, that the Trump administration seems to be taking the position that we shouldn’t enforce [the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act].”
Senator Welch then referenced the August FCPA enforcement action against Liberty Mutual saying that the DOJ “declined to prosecute” the company and he asked Duva about his position on “VIGOROUS” enforcement of the FCPA (word emphasized).
Democrats Seek Information From DOJ On FCPA Issues
Recently, various Democrats in the House (Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary; Rep. Gerald Connolly, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Rep. Lucy McBath, Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance; and Rep. Summer Lee, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement) sent this letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The accompanying press release states that the purpose of the letter is to “request[] information on the Trump Administration’s rapid fire efforts to give free rein to corruption by endorsing bribery, quid-pro-quos, and related crimes and undermining the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) commitment to good government and the rule of law.”
Questions About The Foreign Extortion Prevention Act
As highlighted here, once again the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act was introduced in Congress in an attempt to address the so-called “demand side” of bribery.
Similar to prior versions, the bill does not seek to amend the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, but rather 18 USC 201 (the domestic bribery statute).
The Foreign Extortion Prevention Act is odd in several respects.
Bribery of a “foreign official” involves two parties (the supply side and the demand side).
From a U.S. law enforcement perspective, is a specific demand side prohibition even needed?
Once Again, The Foreign Extortion Prevention Act Is Introduced In Congress
Since at least 2019 (see here for the prior post), there have been efforts to address the so-called “demand side” of bribery through a bill titled the “Foreign Extortion Prevention Act.”
Recently, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), together with Representatives Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Joe Wilson (R-SC) once again introduced the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act.” (See here).
Similar to prior versions, the bill does not seek to amend the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, but rather 18 USC 201 (the domestic bribery statute).
Set forth below is the existing text of 18 USC 201 in italics with language from the proposed “Foreign Extortion Prevention Act” included in bold.
The “Foreign Extortion Prevention Act” Is Still Flawed
Earlier this month, the Counter-Kleptocracy Act was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC).
As explained in this release, “the legislation consolidates seven bipartisan counter-kleptocracy bills led by members of the Helsinki Commission and the Caucus against Foreign Corruption and Kleptocracy during the 117th Congress.”
As further explained in the release, The Counter-Kleptocracy Act includes the following counter-kleptocracy bills: