Deputy AG Rosenstein On …
Last Thursday was a big speech day for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. In addition to announcing a new non-binding DOJ policy on “coordination of corporate resolution penalties,” (see here and here for prior posts) Rosenstein also appeared at an FCPA conference and delivered this speech (continuing the disgraceful practice of for-profit conference firms using our public officials to drive attendance to their paid events).
Rosenstein’s speech was in part duplicative of his earlier “piling on” speech, but this post highlights Rosenstein’s general statements on the FCPA, foreign law enforcement cooperation, and the DOJ’s recent so-called declination.
Once Again, Rebooting A Long-Standing FCPA Proposal, This Time In The Aftermath Of A Recent Disclosure By Millicom
Including the first time I proposed this concept in 2010, this is the seventh time I have written this general post (see here, here, here, here, here and here for the previous versions) and until things change I will keep writing it which means I will probably keep writing this same general post long into the future.
The proposal is this: when a company voluntarily discloses an FCPA internal investigation to the DOJ and/or SEC and when one or both of the enforcement agencies do not bring an enforcement action, have the enforcement agency publicly state, in a thorough and transparent manner, the facts the company disclosed and why the enforcement agency did not bring an enforcement action based on those facts.
What Viable Criminal Charges Against D&B Did The DOJ Actually “Decline”?
This prior post highlighted the SEC’s $9.2 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Dun & Bradstreet based on the conduct of two indirect Chinese subsidiaries from 6 to 12 years ago.
In connection with the SEC’s enforcement action, the DOJ quietly released this letter stating that it has “declined prosecution consistent with the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy.”
However, the question is posed: based on information in the public domain what viable criminal charges against D&B did the DOJ actually “decline”? The answer, as discussed in this post, appears to be none.
Friday Roundup
Ironic, scrutiny update, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Ironic
As highlighted in this previous post, in February 2016 SAP (a German company with American Depository Shares registered with the SEC) resolved a $3.9 million FCPA enforcement action based on conduct in Panama and was ordered to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls case.
Fresh off its 2016 FCPA enforcement action, SAP again became the subject of FCPA scrutiny. (See here for the prior post). Indeed, yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported:
Once Again, Rebooting A Long-Standing FCPA Proposal, This Time In The Aftermath Of A Recent Disclosure By Teradata
Including the first time I proposed this concept in 2010, this is the sixth time I have written this general post (see here, here, here, here and here for the previous versions) and until things change I will keep writing it which means I will probably keep writing this same general post long into the future.
The proposal is this: when a company voluntarily discloses an FCPA internal investigation to the DOJ and/or SEC and when one or both of the enforcement agencies do not bring an enforcement action, have the enforcement agency publicly state, in a thorough and transparent manner, the facts the company disclosed and why the enforcement agency did not bring an enforcement action based on those facts.