Friday Roundup
Looking for talent … got talent, the DOJ is sued, the Corruption Perceptions Index, a pulse on FCPA Inc., and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Looking for Talent … Got Talent
If your firm or organization is looking for either a summer associate or full-time lawyer with a solid Foreign Corrupt Practices Act foundation, please e-mail me at fcpaprofessor@gmail.com. This past semester, twenty Southern Illinois University law students completed a semester long class on the FCPA, FCPA enforcement and FCPA compliance.
Learning objectives for the class included: (i) developing a comprehensive understanding of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and books and records and internal controls provisions; (ii) analyzing legal, ethical and policy issues associated with FCPA enforcement; (iii) understanding the FCPA’s long tentacles and how actual FCPA enforcement actions brought by the DOJ and/or SEC are often just one consequence of FCPA scrutiny; and (iv) gaining practical FCPA compliance skills including the ability to conduct an FCPA risk assessment and develop FCPA compliance policies.
I am confident in saying that few, if any, law students in America have as solid a foundation in the FCPA and FCPA compliance as these students. I encourage you to give them an opportunity.
The DOJ Is Sued
University of Virginia Law Professor Brandon Garrett and Reference Librarian Jon Ashley maintain the excellent Federal Organizational Prosecution Agreements website which contains hundreds of federal organizational prosecution agreements such as non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements … at least those in the public domain.
Recently Ashley filed this lawsuit against the DOJ under the Freedom of Information Act seeking release of a certain non-prosecution agreement. The complaint asserts:
“Plaintiff is statutorily entitled to the disclosure of [the] non-prosecution agreement and [the DOJ] has improperly withheld the requested records in violation of the law and in opposition to the strong public interest in understanding the judicial system and why admitted wrongdoers are not criminally prosecuted.”
While lacking knowledge as to the specifics of the complaint, I applaud the lawsuit for seeking to shine a light on DOJ enforcement practices.
As noted in this prior post, the 2012 FCPA Guidance highlighted secret FCPA enforcement. While I did not file a formal Freedom of Information Act request, I sought on several occasions to seek information from the DOJ regarding its secret FCPA enforcement practices. In each instance, my requests were ignored.
Corruption Perceptions Index
Transparency International (“TI”) recently released its annual Corruption Perceptions Index (“CPI”) (see here).
The CPI ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be and is a composite index drawing on corruption-related data collected by a variety of institutions and reflecting the views of observers from around the world including those living and working in the countries/territories evaluated.
The top four (very clean) countries in the CPI were Denmark, New Zealand, Finland and Sweden. The bottom four (highly corrupt) countries were Somalia, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Sudan.
The United States placed 19th on the list of 177 countries.
The DOJ has spoken in religious terms regarding its FCPA enforcement actions as former Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer stated “we in the United States are in a unique position to spread the gospel of anti-corruption, because there is no country that enforces its anti-bribery laws more vigorously than we do.”
Yet, it remains a bit ironic that as the U.S. aggressively expands its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement practice and theories, the U.S. remains far from the top of the CPI. The latest CPI should again cause us to pause as to our claimed exceptionalism and moral superiority on this topic. For instance, see this prior post “We Really Ought to Pause and Reflect.”
See the “Double Standard” subject matter tag for more.
Pulse of FCPA Inc.
What is one reason Wal-Mart is spending in excess of $1 million per working day on its FCPA issues? Because, in many instances corporate FCPA scrutiny has turned into a full employment act for FCPA Inc.
Reuters recently reported here that Wal-Mart “is paying for lawyers to represent more than 30 of its executives involved in a foreign corruption investigation, according to people familiar with the matter, an unusually high number that shows the depth of the federal probe.” The article states:
“In recent months, the U.S. government has brought in a number of senior Wal-Mart executives for questioning, including officials from corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, the sources said. The move, along with widespread publicity about the probe, appears to have prompted executives to seek their own legal representation. The sources declined to name the executives who have submitted to interviews.”
As noted in this recent Friday roundup, there are few relevant data points associated with the pulse of FCPA Inc. Much information is anecdotal, including the following from Legal Search Consultants Major, Lindsey & Africa in its Asia Legal Market, Semi-Annual Report.
“FCPA practices continue to grow with firms continuing to relocate specialists from their US offices to Asia. This is reflective of an effort to meet the unrelenting demand in investigations work. There seem to be few certainties in Asia, but one is that FCPA business will not be diminishing anytime soon.”
Reading Stack
An informative post recently on the FCPAmericas site titled “Conducting Effective FCPA Training in Latin America.” The eight pointers discussed are true regardless of which region FCPA compliance is focused.
A little dickey bird whispers to thebriberyact.com here regarding U.K. DPAs and Bribery Act prosecutions.
For the resources stack, the OECD, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, and the World Bank recently released here the “Anti-Corruption Ethics and Compliance Handbook for Business.” It states:
“The handbook is not intended to create new standards or represent any form of legally binding requirement for businesses. It has been developed to serve as a useful, practical tool for companies seeking compliance advice in one, easy-to-reference publication. The handbook is divided into three sections. The first section provides an overview of the international anti-corruption framework, within which companies conducting international business must operate. The second section provides a brief introduction to how companies can assess their risk in order to begin developing an effective anti-corruption ethics and compliance programme. The third and most significant section brings together the major business guidance instruments. A comparison of these instruments reveals that they all largely include the same basic anti-corruption ethics and compliance elements. These elements are further illustrated using real-life, anonymised case studies provided by companies. Finally, the handbook includes as an annex a quick-reference table providing a cross-comparison of all the major business guidance instruments referenced in this handbook.”
*****
A good weekend to all.
In Depth On The Weatherford Enforcement Action
Last week, the DOJ and SEC announced (here and here) that Switzerland-based oil and gas services company Weatherford International agreed to resolve a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action based primarily on alleged conduct by its subsidiaries in Angola, the Middle East, and in connection with the Iraq Oil for Food program. The enforcement action has been expected for some time (as noted in this prior post, in November the company disclosed that it had agreed in principle to the settlement announced last week).
The enforcement action involved a DOJ criminal information against Weatherford Services Ltd. resolved via a plea agreement, a criminal information against Weatherford International Ltd. (“Weatherford”) resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement, and a SEC settled civil complaint against Weatherford. [Note, the SEC enforcement action also alleged violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions in regards to commercial transactions with various sanctioned countries in violation of U.S. sanction and export controls laws. The DOJ – or other government entities – also alleged such conduct, but in resolution documents separate and apart from the FCPA resolution documents highlighted below].
Weatherford agreed to pay approximately $153 million to resolve its alleged FCPA scrutiny ($87 million to resolve the DOJ enforcement action and $66 million to resolve the SEC enforcement action). The Weatherford action is the 8th largest FCPA settlement of all-time (see here for the top ten FCPA settlements).
DOJ
Weatherford Services Ltd.
Weatherford Services (“WSL”), incorporated in Bermuda, is identified as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Weatherford International that “managed most of Weatherford’s activities in Angola.”
The conduct at issue involved “two schemes to bribe Sonangol officials to obtain or retain business.”
Sonangol is alleged to be a “government-owned and controlled corporation” of the Angolan government. The information specifically states:
“Sonangol was the sole concessionaire for exploration of oil and gas in Angola, and was solely responsible for the exploration, production, manufacturing, transportation, and marketing of hydrocarbons in Angola. Sonangol was run by a board of directors established by governmental decree in 1999. Each member of the board was also appointed or renewed in their position by governmental decree. Because Sonangol was wholly owned, controlled, and managed by the Angolan government, it was an ‘agency’ and ‘instrumentality’ of a foreign government and its employees were ‘foreign officials'” under the FCPA.
According to the information, the first bribery scheme “centered around a joint venture which WSL and other Weatherford employees established with two local Angolan entities.” The information alleges that “Angolan Officials 1, 2, and 3 (described as “high-level, senior officials of Sonangol” with influence over contracts) controlled and represented one of the entities” and that a “relative of Angolan Official 4 (described as a “high-level, senior official of Angola’s Ministry of Petroleum” with influence over contracts entered into by the Angolan government) controlled and represented the other.”
The information alleges that the “joint venture began because WSL sought a way to increase its share of the well screens market in Angola” and states that “WSL learned that Sonangol was encouraging oil services companies to establish a well screens manufacturing operations in Angola with a local partner.” Thereafter, “a high-level Weatherford executive sent Angolan Official 1 a letter expressing Weatherford’s intent to form a well screens manufacturing operation in Angola with a local partner and requesting Sonangol’s participation in the process.”
The information next alleges that “Angolan Official 1 advised WSL that Sonangol had selected local partners for WSL and that Sonangol would support the joint venture.” According to the information:
“… the parties agreed that two local Angolan entities (“Angolan Company A” and Angolan Company B”) would be WSL’s joint venture partners. Angolan Officials 1, 2 and 3 conducted all business with WSL on behalf of Angolan Company A. Angolan Company B was owned in part by the daughter of Angolan Official 4.”
According to the information, “certain WSL and Weatherford employees knew from the outset of discussions regarding the joint venture that the members of Angolan Company A included a Sonangol employee and Angolan Official 3’s wife, while Angolan Company B’s members included Angolan Official 4’s daughter and son-in-law.”
According to the information, “prior to entering into the joint venture, neither Weatherford nor WSL conducted any meaningful due diligence of either joint venture partner.” The information specifically alleges that Weatherford Legal Counsel A (a citizen of the U.S. and a Senior Corporate Counsel at Weatherford from 2004 to 2008) reached out to a law firm “to discuss whether partnering with the Angolan companies raised issues under the FCPA,” but that Weatherford Legal Counsel A “did not follow the advice” that had been provided to him. In addition, the information alleges that Weatherford Legal Counsel A “falsely told [another] outside counsel that the joint venture had been vetted and approved by another outside counsel, when, in fact, no outside law firm ever conducted such vetting or gave such approval.”
The information alleges that WSL signed the final joint venture agreement with Angolan Company A and Angolan Company B in 2005, but that “neither Angolan Company A nor Angolan Company B provided any personnel or expertise to the joint venture, nor did they make any capital contributions.”
According to the information:
“In 2008, Angolan Company A and Angolan Company B received joint venture dividends for 2005 and 2006, including on revenues received in 2005 [before the joint venture agreement was executed]. […] In total, the joint venture paid Angolan Company A $689,995 and paid Angolan Company B $136,901.”
The information alleges that “prior to the distribution of joint venture dividends, WSL executives knew that Angolan officials were directing the distribution of those dividends.”
According to the information, “WSL benefitted from the joint venture arrangement” in the following ways: “Sonangol began taking well screens business away from WSL’s competitors, even when a competitor was supplying non-governmental companies, and awarding it to WSL” and “WSL received awards of business for which its bids were, by its own admission, not price competitive.”
The second bribery scheme alleged in the information relates to the “Cabinda Region Contract Renewal” in which WSL allegedly “bribed Angolan Official 5 (described as “a Sonangol official with decision-making authority in Angola’s Cabinda region”) so that he would approve the renewal of a contract under which WSL provided oil services to a non-governmental oil company in the Cabinda region of Angola.” The information alleges that even though the contract was between WSL and a non-governmental company, Angolan law required “that it be approved by Sonangol before being finalized” and that “Angolan Official 5 was the Sonangol official responsible for approving or denying the renewal contract.”
The information alleges that Angolan Official 5 solicited the bribe and that “WSL executives agreed to pay the bribe Angolan Official 5 had demanded” even though a prior WSL Manager had refused to pay it. According to the information, WSL made the payments to Angolan Official 5 through the Freight Forwarding Agent (described as a Swiss Company who provided freight forwarding and logistics services in Angola) who had previously paid bribes on behalf of WSL.”
As to the Freight Forwarding Agent, the information alleges that WSL retained the agent via a consultancy agreement in which the agent rejected a specific FCPA clause, but that “WSL and Weatherford acquiesced by removing the FCPA clause and inserting a clause requiring the Freight Forwarding Agent to ‘comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations issued by any governmental entity in the countries of business involved.” According to the information, “WSL generated sham purchase orders for consulting services the Freight Forwarding Agent never performed, and the Freight Forwarding Agent, in turn, generated sham invoices for those non-existent services.” The information alleges that the Freight Forwarding Agent passed money on to Angolan Official 5.
Based on the above, the information charges WSL with one count of violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and specifically invokes the dd-3 prong of the statute applicable to “persons” other than issuers or domestic concerns.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, WSL agreed to pay a criminal fine in the amount of $420,000.
Weatherford International
The Weatherford information largely focuses on the company’s internal accounting controls and alleges as follows.
“Weatherford, which operated in an industry with a substantial corruption risk profile, grew its global footprint in large part by purchasing existing companies, often themselves in countries with high corruption risks. Despite these manifest corruption risks, Weatherford knowingly failed to establish effective corruption-related internal accounting controls designed to detect and prevent corruption-related violations, including FCPA violations, prior to 2008.
Prior to 2008, Weatherford failed to institute effective internal accounting controls, including corruption-related due diligence on appropriate third parties and business transactions, limits of authority, and documentation requirements. This failure was particularly acute when it came to third parties, including channel partners, distributors, consultants, and agents. Weatherford failed to establish effective corruption-related due diligence on third parties with interaction with government officials, such as appropriately understanding a given third party’s ownership and qualifications, evaluating the business justification for the third party’s retention in the first instance, and establishing and implementing adequate screening of third parties for derogatory information. Moreover, Weatherford failed to implement effective controls for the meaningful approval process of third parties. Weatherford also did not require, in practice, adequate documentation supporting retention and in support of payments to third parties, such as appropriate invoices and purchase orders.
Prior to 2008, Weatherford did not have adequate internal accounting controls and processes in place that effectively evaluated business transactions, including acquisitions and joint ventures, for corruption risks and to investigate those risks when detected. Moreover, following the establishment of joint ventures and certain other business transactions, Weatherford did not appropriately implement its policies and procedures to ensure an effective internal accounting control environment through proper integration.
Prior to 2008, Weatherford also did not have an effective internal accounting control system for gifts, travel, and entertainment. In practice, expenses were not typically adequately vetted to ensure that they were reasonable, bona fide, or properly documented.
These issues were exacerbated by the fact that, prior to 2009, a company as large and complex as Weatherford – with its substantial risk profile – did not have a dedicated compliance officer or compliance personnel. Although Weatherford promulgated an anti-corruption policy that it made available on its internal website, it did not translate that policy into any language other than English, and it did not conduct anti-corruption training.
Prior to 2008, Weatherford did not have an effective system for investigating employee reporting of ethics and compliance violations. If an employee’s ethics questionnaire response indicated an awareness of payments or offers of payments to foreign officials or of undisclosed or unallocated funds, Weatherford did not have a protocol in place to perform any further investigation into the alleged corruption. As a matter of practice, in fact, Weatherford did not conduct additional investigation of such allegations. Prior to 2004, Weatherford did not require any employee to complete any kind of ethics questionnaire.
Further, Weatherford lack effective mechanisms to control its many foreign subsidiaries’ activities to ensure that they maintained internal accounting controls adequate to detect, investigate, or deter corrupt payments made to government officials.”
Under the heading “corrupt conduct” the information alleges – in summary form – as follows:
“Due to Weatherford’s failure to implement such internal accounting controls, a permissive and uncontrolled environment existed within Weatherford in which employees of certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries in Africa and the Middle East were able to engage in various corrupt conduct over the course of many years, including both bribery of foreign officials and fraudulent misuse of the United Nations’ Oil for Food Program.”
Thereafter, the information contains nine paragraphs of allegations that track the Angola allegations in the WSL information.
In addition, the information contains allegations about another alleged “scheme, in the Middle East, from 2005 through 2011” in which “employees of another Weatherford subsidiary [Weatherford Oil Tool Middle East Limited (WOTME) – described as a British Virgin Islands corporation headquartered in Dubai that was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Weatherford and responsible for managing most of Weatherford’s activities in North Africa and the Middle East] awarded improper ‘volume discounts’ to a distributor who supplied Weatherford products to a government-owned national oil company, believing those discounts were being used to create a slush fund with which to make bribe payments to decision makers at the national oil company.”
According to the information, “officials at the national oil company had directed WOTME to sell goods to the company through this particular distributor” and the information alleges:
“Prior to entering into the contract with the distributor, neither WOTME nor Weatherford conducted any due diligence on the distributor, despite (a) the fact that the Distributor would be furnishing Weatherford goods directly to an instrumentality of a foreign government; (b) the fact that a foreign official had specifically directed WOTME to contract with that particular distributor, and (c) the fact that executives at WOTME knew that a member of the country’s royal family had an ownership interest in the distributor.”
According to the information, “between 2005 and 2011, WOTME paid approximately $15 million in volume discounts to the distributor” that were “recorded in WOTME’s general ledger under a heading titled “Volume Discount Account.”
The information next contains four paragraphs of allegations relevant to the Iraq Oil for Food program and how Weatherford’s “failure to implement effective internal accounting controls also permitted corrupt conduct relating” to the program.
In a summary allegation, under the heading “Profits from the Corrupt Conduct in Africa and the Middle East” the information states:
“Due to Weatherford’s failure to implement internal accounting controls, an environment existed within Weatherford in which employees of certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries in Africa and the Middle East were able to engage in various corrupt business transactions, which conduct earned profits of $54,486,410, which were included in the consolidated financial statements that Weatherford filed with the SEC.”
Based on the above conduct, the information charges Weatherford with violating the FCPA’s internal controls provisions – specifically – that Weatherford knowingly:
“(a) failed to implement, monitor, and impose internal accounting controls and to maintain their effectiveness; (b) failed adequately to train key personnel to implement internal accounting controls to detect and avoid illegal payments and to identify and deter violations of those controls; (c) failed to monitor and control the financial transactions of its subsidiaries, in a manner that provided reasonable assurances that its subsidiaries’ transactions were executed in accordance with management’s general and specific authorization; (d) failed to monitor and control the financial transactions of its subsidiaries, in a manner that provided reasonable assurances that its subsidiaries’ transactions were recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and any other criteria applicable to such statements; (e) failed to maintain a sufficient system for the selection and approval of, and performance of corruption-related due diligence on, third party business partners and joint venture partners, which, in turn, permitted corrupt conduct to occur at subsidiaries; (f) failed to investigate appropriately and respond to allegations of corrupt payments and discipline employees involved in making corrupt payments; (g) failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the company’s compliance and ethics program was followed, including training employees, and performing monitoring to detect criminal conduct; (h) failed to maintain internal accounting controls sufficient to prevent a subsidiary from entering into a joint venture agreement to funnel improper benefits to, and receive preferential treatment from, foreign government officials; (i) failed to maintain internal accounting controls sufficient to prevent a subsidiary from making payments to a channel partner not authorized by contract knowing there was a substantial likelihood that those payments were used to make corrupt payments; and (j) failed to maintain internal accounting controls sufficient to prevent kickbacks paid to the government of Iraq by a subsidiary.”
The charge against Weatherford was resolved via a DPA in which the company admitted, accepted, and acknowledged that it was responsible for the acts of its officers, directors, employees, and agents as charged in the information.
The DPA has a term of three years and under the heading “relevant considerations” it states:
“The Department enters into this Agreement based on the individual facts and circumstances presented by this case and the Company. Among the facts considered were the following: (a) the Company’s cooperation has been, on the whole, strong, including conducting an extensive worldwide internal investigation, voluntarily making U.S. and foreign employees available for interviews, and collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information for the Department, including the production of more than 3.8 million pages of data; (b) the Company has engaged in extensive remediation, including terminating the employment of officers and employees responsible for the corrupt misconduct of its subsidiaries, establishing a Compliance Officer position that is a member of the Company’s executive board, as well as a compliance office of approximately 38 full-time compliance professionals, including attorneys and accountants, that the Compliance Officer oversees, conducting more than 30 anti-corruption compliance reviews in many of the countries in which it operates, enhancing its anti-corruption due diligence protocol for third-party agents and consultants, and retaining an ethics and compliance professional to conduct an assessment of the Company’s ethics and compliance policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws; (c) the Company has committed to continue to enhancing its compliance program and internal accounting controls …; (d) the Company has already significantly enhanced, and is committed to continue to enhance, its compliance program and internal controls …; and (e) the Company has agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department in any ongoing investigation …”
Pursuant to the DPA, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for the conduct at issue was $87.2 million to $174.4 million. The DPA states that the monetary penalty of $87.2 million “is appropriate given the facts and circumstances of this case, including the nature and extent of the Company’s criminal conduct, the Company’s extensive cooperation, and its extensive remediation in this matter.”
The DPA specifically states that “any criminal penalties that might be imposed by the Court on WSL in connection with WSL’s guilty plea to a one-count Criminal Information charging WSL with violations of the FCPA, and the plea agreement entered into simultaneously, will be deducted from the $87.2 million penalty agreed to under this Agreement.”
Pursuant to the DPA, Weatherford agreed to review its existing internal controls, policies and procedures regarding compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws. The specifics are detailed in Attachment C to the DPA. The DPA also requires Weatherford to engage a corporate compliance monitor for ”a period of not less than 18 months from the date the monitor is selected.” The specifics, including the Monitor’s reporting obligations to the DOJ, are detailed in Attachment D to the DPA.
As is common in FCPA corporate enforcement actions, the DPA contains a “muzzle clause” prohibiting Weatherford or anyone on its behalf from “contradicting the acceptance of responsibility by the company” as set forth in the DPA.
In the DOJ’s release, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman stated:
“Effective internal accounting controls are not only good policy, they are required by law for publicly traded companies – and for good reason. This case demonstrates how loose controls and an anemic compliance environment can foster foreign bribery and fraud by a company’s subsidiaries around the globe. Although Weatherford’s extensive remediation and its efforts to improve its compliance functions are positive signs, the corrupt conduct of Weatherford International’s subsidiaries allowed it to earn millions of dollars in illicit profits, for which it is now paying a significant price.”
Valerie Parlave, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, stated:
“When business executives engage in bribery and pay-offs in order to obtain contracts, an uneven marketplace is created and honest competitor companies are put at a disadvantage. The FBI is committed to investigating corrupt backroom deals that influence contract procurement and threaten our global commerce.”
SEC
The SEC’s complaint (here) is largely based on the same core set of facts alleged in the above DOJ action.
In summary fashion, the complaint alleges:
“Between at least 2002 and July 2011, Weatherford and its subsidiaries authorized bribes and improper travel and entertainment intended for foreign officials in multiple countries to obtain or retain business or for other benefits. Weatherford and its subsidiaries also authorized illicit payments to obtain commercial business in Congo and authorized kickbacks in Iraq to obtain United Nations Oil for Food contracts. Weatherford realized over $59.3 million in profits from business obtained through the use of illicit payments.”
As to the additional Congo allegations, the complaint states:
“In addition to bribery schemes involving Angolan government officials, WSL made over $500,000 in commercial bribe payments through the Swiss Agent to employees of a commercial customer, a wholly-owned subsidiary of an Italian energy company, between March 2002 and December 2008.
[…]
WSL mischaracterized the bribe payments as legitimate expenses on its books and records. Bank account records and a U.S. brokerage account statement show that among the recipients were two employees of the commercial customer who were responsible for awarding contracts to WSL. Weatherford obtained profits of$1,304,912 from commercial business in Congo relating to payments made by Swiss Agent.”
The SEC complaint also contains allegations concerning conduct in Algeria and Albania.
Under the heading “Improper Travel and Entertainment in Algeria,” the complaint alleges:
Weatherford also provided improper travel and entertainment to officials of Sonatrach, an Algerian state-owned company, that were not justified by a legitimate business purpose. The improper travel and entertainment to Sonatrach officials include:
• June 2006 trip by two Sonatrach officials to the FIFA World Cup soccer tournament in Hanover, Germany;
• July 2006 honeymoon trip of the daughter of a Sonatrach official; and
• October 2005 trip by a Sonatrach employee and his family to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for religious reasons that were improperly booked as a donation
In addition, on at least two other occasions, Weatherford provided Sonatrach officials with cash sums while they were visiting Houston. For example, in May 2007, Weatherford paid for four Sonatrach officials, including a tender committee official, to attend a conference in Houston. Prior to the trip, a Weatherford finance executive sent an email to a Weatherford officer requesting $10,000 cash to be advanced to a WOTME employee without providing any explanation tor the cash advance. The request was approved and a portion of the funds was provided to the tender committee official. There is no evidence the cash was used for legitimate business or promotional expenses. In connection with a December 2007 trip by three Sonatrach officials traveling to Houston, a Weatherford finance employee questioned the propriety of a WOTME employee’s request for a $14,000 cash advance in connection with the trip. The finance employee’s concern was disregarded and the request was ultimately approved at high levels within Weatherford and a portion of the funds was provided to the officials. In total, Weatherford spent $35,260 on improper travel, entertainment and gifts for Algerian officials from May 2005 through November 2008 that were recorded in the company’s books and records as legitimate expenses.”
Under the heading “Improper Payments to Albanian Tax Authorites,” the complaint alleges:
“From 2001 to 2006, the general manager and financial manager at a Weatherford Italian subsidiary, WEMESP A, misappropriated over $200,000 of company funds, a portion of which was improperly paid to Albanian tax auditors. WEMESPA’s general manager and financial manager misappropriated the funds by taking advantage of Weatherford’s inadequate system of internal accounting controls. They misreported cash advances, diverted payments on previously paid invoices, misappropriated government rebate checks and received reimbursement of expenses that did not relate to business activities, such as golf equipment and perfume.
[…]
In addition to the cash payments, in 2005, after a regime shift in Albania, the Country Manager provided three laptop computers for the tax director and two members of Albania’s National Petroleum Agency, which the WEMESPA executives approved and misrecorded in the books and records.”
Under the heading “Misconduct During the Investigation and Subsequent Remediation Efforts,” the complaint states:
“Certain conduct by Weatherford and its employees during the course of the Commission staffs investigation compromised the investigation. These activities involved the failure to provide the staff with complete and accurate information, resulting in significant delay. In one instance, the staff sought information concerning the Iraq Country Manager who signed letters agreeing to pay bribes to Iraqi officials during the Oil for Food Program. The staff was informed that the Country Manager was missing or dead when, in fact, he remained employed by Weatherford. In at least two instances, email was deleted by employees prior to the imaging of their computers. On another occasion, Weatherford failed to secure important computers and documents and allowed potentially complicit employees to collect documents subpoenaed by the staff. Subsequent to the misconduct, Weatherford greatly improved its cooperation and engaged in remediation efforts, including disciplining employees responsible for the misconduct, establishing a high level Compliance Officer position, significantly increasing the size of its compliance department, and conducting numerous anti-corruption reviews in many of the countries in which it operates.”
Under the heading “Anti-Bribery Violations,” the complaint states in pertinent part:
“Weatherford’s conduct in the Middle East and Angola violated [the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions]. From 2005 through 2011, Weatherford authorized $11.8 million in payments to national oil company officials through a distributor intended to wrongfully influence national oil company decision makers to obtain and retain business. Weatherford also violated [the anti-bribery provisions] when it retained the Swiss Agent to funnel bribes to a Sonangol official to obtain the Cabinda contract. Weatherford similarly violated [the anti-bribery provisions] by bribing other Sonangol officials via the joint venture in return for contracts and preferential treatment.”
Under the heading “Failure to Maintain Books and Records,” the complaint states in pertinent part:
“Weatherford, directly and through its subsidiaries, also violated [the books and records provisions] when it made numerous payments and engaged in many transactions that were incorrectly described in the companys books and records. In the Middle East, for example, the money given to a distributor to be used as bribes was reflected in Weatherford‘s books and records as legitimate volume discounts. In Angola and Congo, payments to foreign officials and others were described as legitimate consulting fees rather than bribe payments. Payments to Sonangol executives through the joint venture were misrecorded as legitimate dividend payments.”
Under the heading “Failure to Maintain Adequate Internal Controls,” the complaint states in pertinent part:
“Weatherford violated [the internal controls provisions] by failing to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. The violations were widespread and involved conduct at Weatherford’s headquarters as well as at numerous subsidiaries. Executives, managers and employees throughout the organization were aware of the conduct, which lasted a decade. Weatherford paid millions of dollars to consultants, agents and joint venture partners without adequate due diligence. Weatherford approved cash payments to Algerian officials traveling to Houston without any justification for the payments. Employees made payments to agents without regard to grants of authority and, on some occasions, without even receiving an invoice. In Italy, internal accounting controls were ineffective, allowing executives to embezzle and pay bribes for years.
In the Middle East, the company failed on several occasions to perform due diligence on the distributor it used, despite the fact that the agent was imposed upon them by a national oil company official and would be selling to a government entity. The use of large volume discounts was not routinely reviewed. […] Weatherford also failed to provide FCPA … training. While Weatherford did require certain employees to complete a yearly ethics questionnaire seeking instances of alleged misconduct, Weatherford failed to investigate or even review the responses.”
As noted in the SEC’s release, Weatherford agreed to pay approximately $65.6 million to the SEC, including an approximate $1.9 million penalty assessed in part for lack of cooperation early in the investigation.
In the SEC’s release, Andrew Ceresney (Co-Director of the SEC’s enforcement division) stated:
“The nonexistence of internal controls at Weatherford fostered an environment where employees across the globe engaged in bribery and failed to maintain accurate books and records. They used code names like ‘Dubai across the water’ to conceal references to Iran in internal correspondence, placed key transaction documents in mislabeled binders, and created whatever bogus accounting and inventory records were necessary to hide illegal transactions.”
Kara Brockmeyer (Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit) stated:
“Whether the money went to tax auditors in Albania or officials at the state-owned oil company in Angola, bribes and improper payments were an accustomed way for Weatherford to conduct business. While the profits may have seemed bountiful at the time, the costs far outweigh the benefits in the end as coordinated law enforcement efforts have unraveled the widespread schemes and heavily sanctioned the misconduct.”
Joseph Warin (Gibson Dunn) represented Weatherford.
In this statement, Bernard Duroc-Danner (Weatherford’s Chairman, President and CEO) stated:
“This matter is now behind us. We move forward fully committed to a sustainable culture of compliance. With the internal policies and controls currently in place, we maintain a best-in-class compliance program and uphold the highest of ethical standards as we provide the industry’s leading products and services to our customers worldwide.”
On the day of the enforcement action, Weatherford’s shares closed up approximately 1.2%.
Hats Off To Judge Rakoff
My 2010 Senate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act testimony focused on two things.
First, the general lack of individual enforcement actions in connection with most corporate FCPA enforcement actions.
Second, how this dynamic (far from the “but nobody was charged” claim) could best be explained by the quality and legitimacy of the corporate enforcement action in the first place given the prevalent use of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements to resolve corporate FCPA enforcement actions. For more, see my article “The Facade of FCPA Enforcement.”
Recent statistics I calculated (here) provide a relevant data point concerning the quality and legitimacy of many corporate FCPA enforcement actions resolved via NPAs or DPAs. In short, if a corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement action is the result of a criminal indictment or resulted in a guilty plea by the corporate entity to FCPA violations, there is a 83% chance that related criminal charges will be brought against a company employee. However, if a corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement action is resolved solely with an NPA or DPA, there is a 6.5% chance that criminal charges will be brought against a company employee. As noted in the previous post, if these statistics do not cause you to question the quality and legitimacy of many corporate FCPA enforcement actions, no empirical data ever will.
I’ve long argued that use of NPAs and DPAs to resolve alleged corporate criminal liability in the FCPA context presents two distinct, yet equally problematic public policy issues. The first is that such vehicles, because they do not result in any actual charges filed against a company, and thus do not require the company to plead to any charges, allow egregious instances of corporate conduct to be resolved too lightly without adequate sanctions and without achieving maximum deterrence. The second is that such vehicles, because of the “carrots” and “sticks’ relevant to resolving a DOJ enforcement action, often nudge companies to agree to these vehicles for reasons of risk-aversion and efficiency and not necessarily because the conduct at issue actually violates the law. Thus, use of NPAs or DPAs allow “under-prosecution” of egregious instance of corporate conduct while at the same time facilitate the “over-prosecution” of business conduct.
It is for this reason why I have long termed NPAs and DPAs toxic resolution vehicles that ought to be abolished in the FCPA context. The passionate defense former Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer made of NPAs and DPAs in a September 2012 policy speech (see here for the prior post) was – to use the cliché as the basketball season begins – an airball.
The above is all relevant background information for why I tip my hat – once again – to U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.).
In a recent speech to a New York bar audience titled “Why Have No High Level Executives Been Prosecuted in Connection with the Financial Crisis,” Judge Rakoff hit on many of the same issues discussed above. In answering his own question, Judge Rakoff offered that “one possibility … is that no fraud was committed. This possibility should not be discounted.”
Rhetorically asking “so … what’s really going on here,” Judge Rakoff offered various “influences” which “have had the effect of limiting such prosecutions” including the “most important” which he said was the “shift that has occurred over the past 30 years or more from focusing on prosecuting high-level individuals to focusing on prosecuting companies and other institutions.”
Judge Rakoff stated:
“It is true that prosecutors have brought criminal charges against companies for well over a hundred years, but, until recently, such prosecutions were the exception, and prosecutions of companies without simultaneous prosecutions of their managerial agents were even rarer. These reasons were obvious. Companies do not commit crimes; only their agents do […] so why not prosecute the agent who actually committed the crime?
In recent decades, however, prosecutors have been increasingly attracted to prosecuting companies, often even without indicting a single individual. This shift has often been rationalized as part of an attempt to transform ‘corporate cultures,’ so as to prevent future such crimes; and, as a result, it has taken the form of ‘deferred prosecution agreements; or even ‘non-prosecution agreements,’ in which the company, under threat of criminal prosecution, agrees to take various prophylactic measures to prevent future wrongdoing. But in practice, I suggest, it has led to some lax and dubious behavior on the part of prosecutors, with deleterious results.”
In contrast to a situation in which a prosecutor is attempting to discover the individuals responsible for alleged misconduct, Judge Rakoff stated that if a prosecutor’s “priority is prosecuting a company,” the following scenario occurs.
“Early in the investigation, [the prosecutor] invites in counsel to the company and explains to him or why [the prosecutor] suspects fraud. [Counsel] responds by assuring [the prosecutor] that the company wants to cooperate and do the right thing, and to that end the company has hired a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, now a partner at a respected law firm, to do an internal investigation. The company’s counsel asks [the prosecutor] to defer [the prosecutor’s] investigation until the company’s own internal investigation is completed, on the condition that the company will share its results with [the prosecutor]. In order to save time and resources, [the prosecutor] agrees. Six months later the company’s counsel returns, with a detailed report showing that mistakes were made but that the company is now intent on correcting them. [The prosecutor] and the company then agree that the company will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement that couples some immediate fines with the imposition of expensive but internal prophylactic measures. For all practical purposes the case is now over. [The prosecutor] is happy because [he/she] believes that [he/she] has helped prevent future crimes; the company is happy because it has avoided a devastating indictment; and perhaps the happiest of all are the executives, or former executives, who actually committed the underlying misconduct, for they are left untouched.”
“I suggest that this is not the best way to proceed. Although it is supposedly justified in terms of preventing future crimes, I suggest that the future deterrent value of successfully prosecuting individuals far outweighs the prophylactic benefits of imposing internal compliance measures that are often little more than window-dressing. Just going after the company is also both technically and morally suspect. It is technically suspect because, under the law, you should not indict or threaten to indict a company unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that some managerial agent of the company committed the alleged crime; and if you can prove that, why not indict the manager? And from a moral standpoint, punishing a company and its many innocent employees and shareholders for the crimes committed by some unprosecuted individuals seems contrary to elementary notions of moral responsibility.”
The 100th Edition Of The Friday Roundup
Scrutiny alerts and updates, a first, blunt, and quotable. It’s all here in this – the 100th edition – of the Friday roundup.
[I hope the Friday roundup is a value added end to your work week. The Friday roundup alone represents several hours of work by highlighting recent FCPA and related news and developments not otherwise covered Monday – Thursday on FCPA Professor. Ask yourself: do you get your FCPA from FCPA Professor? If the answer is yes, you can help support this free website here]
Scrutiny Alerts and Updates
Wal-Mart
During its third quarter earnings call yesterday, Wal-Mart disclosed $69 million in “FCPA and compliance related expenses” in the quarter. According to the company “approximately $43.0 million of these expenses represented costs incurred for the ongoing inquiries and investigations and approximately $26.0 million is related to our global compliance program and organizational enhancements.”
Doing the math, $69 million in the third quarter is approximately $1.06 million per working day. As noted here, the figure for Q2 was approximately $1.26 million per working day and as noted here the figure for Q1 was approximately $1.16 million per working day. For more on Wal-Mart’s pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses, see this prior post.
For the fourth quarter, Wal-Mart estimated $75 – $80 million in expenses related to FCPA matters.
JPMorgan
The NY Times returns (here) to the JPMorgan story it first reported in August (see here for the prior post). The article states:
“To promote its standing in China, JPMorgan Chase turned to a seemingly obscure consulting firm [Fullmark Consultants] run by a 32-year-old executive named Lily Chang. Ms. Chang’s firm, which received a $75,000-a-month contract from JPMorgan, appeared to have only two employees. And on the surface, Ms. Chang lacked the influence and public name recognition needed to unlock business for the bank. But what was known to JPMorgan executives in Hong Kong, and some executives at other major companies, was that “Lily Chang” was not her real name. It was an alias for Wen Ruchun, the only daughter of Wen Jiabao, who at the time was China’s prime minister, with oversight of the economy and its financial institutions.
[…]
Now, United States authorities are scrutinizing JPMorgan’s ties to Ms. Wen, whose alias was government approved, as part of a wider bribery investigation into whether the bank swapped contracts and jobs for business deals with state-owned Chinese companies, according to the documents and interviews. The bank, which is cooperating with the inquiries and conducting its own internal review, has not been accused of any wrongdoing. The investigation began with an examination of the bank’s decision to hire the daughter of a Chinese railway official and the son of a former banking regulator who is now the chairman of a state-controlled financial conglomerate.
[…]
Executives at JPMorgan’s headquarters in New York did not appear to be involved in retaining Fullmark, a decision that seemed to have fallen to executives in Hong Kong. And the documents reviewed by The Times do not identify a concrete link between the bank’s decision to hire children of Chinese officials and its ability to secure coveted business deals, a connection that authorities would probably need to demonstrate that the bank violated anti-bribery laws.”
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp.
The diversified manufacturing services and products holding company (here) disclosed as follows in a recent quarterly filing:
“In August 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the staff of the SEC in connection with the staff’s investigation of a third party. At that time, the Company also learned that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is conducting a criminal investigation of the third party. In connection with responding to the staff’s subpoena, the Company disclosed to the staff of the SEC that, in November 2007, the third party participated in a payment on behalf of the Company to a foreign tax official that implicates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Board of Directors of the Company has formed a special committee to review the Company’s transactions with the third party and to make any recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect thereto. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC and the DOJ in connection with their investigations of the third party and with the SEC in light of the Company’s disclosure. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or impact of the special committee’s investigation or the length, scope or results of the SEC’s review or the impact, if any, on its results of operations.”
Wynn Resorts
This previous Friday roundup highlighted the company’s disclosure that the SEC has ended its investigation of the company concerning a $135 million donation to the University of Macau. In this recent filing, Wynn states as follows concerning a related DOJ investigation.
“[The DOJ] has been conducting a criminal investigation into Wynn Resorts’ donation to the University of Macau […]. Wynn Resorts has not received any target letter or subpoena in connection with such an investigation. Wynn Resorts intends to cooperate fully with the government in response to any inquiry related to the donation to the University of Macau.”
SEC’s First Individual DPA
When the SEC announced in January 2010 (see here for the prior post) a series of measures, including non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements, “to further strengthen its enforcement program by encouraging greater cooperation from individuals and companies in the agency’s investigations and enforcement actions,” I called the development a blow to those who prefer government law enforcement agencies to enforce a law in an open, transparent matter and in the context of an adversary proceeding. Not that there was much judicial scrutiny of SEC enforcement prior to January 2010 (largely on account of the SEC’s then neither admit nor deny settlement policy), but the new measures, I noted, would lead to even less judicial scrutiny.
Earlier this week, the SEC announced “a [five year] deferred prosecution agreement with a former hedge fund administrator who helped the agency take action against a hedge fund manager who stole investor assets.” According to the SEC, the DPA – outside the context of the FCPA – is the SEC’s “first with an individual” and the SEC’s release further states:
“Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) encourage individuals and companies to provide the SEC with forthcoming information about misconduct and assist with a subsequent investigation. In return, the SEC refrains from prosecuting cooperators for their own violations if they comply with certain undertakings.”
Obviously the above statement is an opinion statement, not a factual statement.
As highlighted in this prior post, the FCPA Guidance indicated that the DOJ has in the past used non-public non-prosecution against individuals in the FCPA context. Despite claims by the DOJ that its FCPA enforcement program is transparent, my attempts to learn more about these secret FCPA NPA’s with individuals was unsuccessful.
Blunt
DOJ FCPA enforcement attorneys have publicly stated that among the many ways they learn of conduct which could implicate the FCPA is by reading the newspaper.
If so, this recent article in the Miami Herald may generate some interest. In the article concerning the satellite telephone business in Cuba, a “Miami Man” states that “he installs each system in Cuba for $3,500 to $4,200 — cash paid in South Florida, with part of the mark up going to bribes on the island. The costs are usually paid by U.S. relatives of the recipients.”
Quotable
From a recent poll regarding corruption in Africa: “corruption is a national sport every day at the direction of customs officials” (see here).
An extensive interview with U.K. Serious Fraud Director David Green (“DG”) in Fraud Magazine (“FM”) in which he discusses: corporate criminal liability, facilitation payments, Bribery Act Inc., voluntary disclosure and DPAs. Relevant excerpts include:
FM: What current changes, if any, to the legal system and or legislation would make the SFO more efficient?
DG: To our effectiveness and our reach, I would very much like the test for corporate criminal liability to be looked at again. As you know, in this country, it is extremely difficult to convict a company of an offence because the prosecution has to show that the controlling minds of the company — somebody at the board level — were complicit in the criminality you are trying to prove. I think that bar is too high, and is a very unrealistic test — not least because I think anyone will agree that if you’re looking into allegations of corporate misconduct spookily the e-mail trail tends to dry up at a fairly junior level. Where it can be shown that the company had really profited from the criminality of its employees then I think there is a sound case for expanding the ambit of section 7 of the U.K. Bribery Act. Section 7 creates the corporate offence of ‘failing to prevent bribery or corruption by an agent or employee’ with a statutory defence that they took all reasonable precautions. Now why can’t that be extended to cover fraud and offences of dishonesty so the offence would be failing to prevent fraud or offenses of dishonesty by members of your staff? It seems to me absolutely right that a corporation should have criminal liability for that when it has profited from it. Why should a company which has, in the way I’ve explained, been complicit in criminality just throw a few people over the side and sail bravely on? Why shouldn’t it have its ears clipped and marked as a company that has had dishonest employees and benefitted from it? Another argument is: Well you’d just be punishing a company for negligence. I would say it would be a pretty high degree of negligence when a company acts in that way and benefits from the dishonesty of its employees.
FM: Doesn’t the Bribery Act prejudice British business in that is a bit too harsh in relation to facilitation payments and hospitality payments?
DG: First of all, I don’t buy this argument that complying with the law is going to hold business back. Secondly, facilitation payments have always been illegal. However, it is a question of the public interest as to whether or not they are prosecuted. What would be a common facilitation payment? A 20-pound note and a bottle of whisky to some [maritime] pilot to take your ship from somewhere to somewhere else in a single payment; the SFO wouldn’t be interested in that. [Maritime pilots will guide ships into ports for hire.] But if it was a course of conduct over a number of years, then, of course, that becomes not just a very small insignificant little bribe but actually a regular payment over time to ensure that you get that business.
FM: What do you say about those medium to small companies who have ignored the preventative measures required by the Bribery Act?
DG: Well, it’s always difficult, isn’t it? On the one hand, I am very conscious that since the enactment of the act there has grown up a Bribery Act industry in London populated by a lot of American and British lawyers, accountants and so-called experts. I even came across a firm the other day that actually offers certificates to companies saying that they are compliant, and I suppose if the company were to land in court they would try to produce this certificate to say, “We can’t be prosecuted because we’ve got a certificate.” The effect of this is that these so-called experts have scared the pants off of medium and small enterprises. It is really a question of getting some sensible, reasonably priced legal advice to discern their risk areas and put in place basic safeguards. But the idea that the Serious Fraud Office is going after a ticket to Wimbledon or a bottle of Champagne is, and always has been, utter nonsense. If, on the other hand, we saw a situation in which the entire board and their spouses of a major corporation were put up in London for a week and then given tickets for the men’s finals at Wimbledon with a couple of banquets before, during and afterwards, then that would be very worrying. Throw in first-class airfare and that would become extremely worrying. But the key to all this in relation to bribery investigations and whether or not we are interested in them has to do with value and importance but also timing, the motive and the effect of it — was it done at a time when some enormously important decision was going down with a view to influencing it? This is fairly common sense; we use a reasonable approach.
FM: Will companies that self-report escape criminal proceedings?
DG: My predecessor had guidance on self-reporting, in which though it did not say it in so many words, was a very clear implication that if you self-reported as a company you would not be prosecuted, and there would be a civil disposal of what you had done. I disagree with that absolutely and fundamentally as a matter of principle because no prosecutor can ever give guarantees in advance. We have no idea what set of facts are going to come in through the door next. So, we have returned to the old guidance, which has always been there; we will apply the Code for the Crown Prosecutors. In other words, in each situation we would see if there’s enough evidence to prosecute. If there is, we consider if it’s in the public interest to prosecute this company. Now if a company were to come in and say, “Look, we have discovered this misconduct. We have conducted a full investigation; here are the results. We are willing for you to investigate it as you wish. We’ve gotten rid of all the people involved in this, we will hand over any illegal profits obtained as a result of this crime.” In such circumstances, one does struggle to think how it would be in the public interest to prosecute such a company. But it is a question of principle here. If you start — and I feel very strongly about this — if you start blurring the boundaries between what people involved in the criminal justice system do then it’s a dangerous path to follow. Prosecutors shouldn’t be doing deals or making offers in advance and defenders shouldn’t be too familiar with prosecutors. We need to stay where we are and within our own divisions. That’s my view.
FM: Could the deferred prosecution arrangement (DPA) be seen as a type of deal?
DG: Well, I think if you looked at the American model of DPAs you might think it could be described as a deal. We’ve adapted it for use in this country to have judicial involvement and scrutiny from the very beginning. The reason for that is to preserve the principle we have in this country, which they don’t have in the States, that sentencing is a matter for the judge. It’s not a matter for some cozy deal between prosecutor and defence. If we believe a case is appropriate for a DPA we would go before a judge and say, “Judge, these are the charges which we would be minded to bring against these people. However, we think for these reasons it’s an appropriate case for a DPA. Do you agree?” Now if the judge says, “No, I don’t I think this is a suitable case for a DPA,” we’ll carry on prosecuting. So, it is a transparent process. Ultimately, if a DPA did go ahead there would be a statement of facts read in court. Nothing would be hushed up. You can’t really go wrong if you’re transparent. Things go wrong in the criminal justice system if anything appears to be opaque. You lose public confidence and you lose the confidence of the people involved.
Professor Ellen Podgor states, in pertinent part, in this New York Times opinion piece:
“If we intend to punish people, shouldn’t we reasonably expect that they knew their actions were crimes? […] The accumulation of laws and rules has made it harder to assure that individuals who are punished understood that they were breaking the law. When the law is clear, and an individual deliberately transgresses the law, punishment serves an important purpose. Attributing criminality to business-related activities is not always so easy. The line between criminal activities and acceptable business judgments can be fuzzy. The conduct may not have a long biblical history of being offensive, and there may be no posted signs. […] In the corporate or financial world, multiple individuals may have a finger in a business decision — and some may be unaware that one has breached the law. Add to this ambiguity in both the law and the corporate world that business-related decisions are often made by individuals who find themselves placed in a forest of regulations and criminal statutes with varying interpretations that even legal scholars can’t agree upon. Overcriminalization presents unique issues in the white collar and business arena. There are thousands of criminal statutes scattered throughout the federal code, and there are thousands of regulations with accompanying criminal penalties. The prosecutor’s toolbox also includes overly broad statutes like RICO, mail fraud, wire fraud and offenses like making false statements. The bottom line is that the government’s power to indict has few restrictions, and overcriminalization provides federal prosecutors with super powers that they can easily abuse. Congress’s continuous and haphazard adding of criminal statutes and regulations is making it more difficult to assure that individuals who are punished truly understand that they are breaking the law.”
*****
A good weekend to all.
The Erosion Of Corporate Criminal Liability
A guest post today from David Uhlmann (University of Michigan Law School) regarding his article “Deferred Prosecution and Non-Prosecution Agreements and the Erosion of Corporate Criminal Liability,” recently published by the Maryland Law Review.
Professor Uhlmann served for 17 years at the DOJ, the last seven as chief of the Environmental Crimes Section, where he was the top environmental crimes prosecutor in the country.
*****
Over the last two years, there has been significant media coverage of Securities and Exchange Commission settlements that contain no admissions of wrongdoing—sometimes referred to as “Neither Admit, Nor Deny” agreements—and the lack of criminal charges for the 2008 financial meltdown. Both are troubling developments given the role that Wall Street played in bringing about the Great Recession.
But there has been far less scrutiny of a disturbing shift in corporate prosecution policy that began in the Bush administration and has accelerated during the Obama administration: the increased use of deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements to address corporate wrongdoing. Under these agreements, corporations can avoid criminal charges if they pay large penalties to the government, improve their compliance programs, and cooperate in the investigation of individuals who engaged in wrongdoing. Yet plea agreements—the preferred approach prior to the last decade—offer the same benefits without making it appear that large corporations can buy their way out of criminal prosecution.
The recent announcement that SAC Capital Advisors will plead guilty to insider trading charges and pay a $1.2 billion criminal fine provides a stark contrast with the larger trend. From 2004 to 2012, the Justice Department entered 242 deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements with corporations, after entering just 26 in the preceding 12 years combined (half of which occurred from 2001 to 2004). The use of such agreements has become routine in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, which now resolves most of its corporate criminal cases using what it calls “non-criminal alternatives” to prosecution. From 2010 to 2012, the Criminal Division entered more than twice as many deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements with corporations (46) as plea agreements (22).
Nor are these small cases involving technical violations of the law. The Justice Department agreed to a deferred prosecution with HSBC even though the bank was involved in nearly a trillion dollars of money laundering, much of it from drug trafficking. The Justice Department entered a non-prosecution agreement in the Upper Big Branch Mining disaster even though 29 miners died, and the Labor Department found that Massey, the company that owned the mine, committed over 300 violations of federal mine safety laws and kept a double-set of books to hide its misconduct from safety inspectors.
The failure to prosecute corporations like HSBC and Massey sends the wrong message about how our society views corporate misconduct and sows doubts about the Justice Department’s commitment to address corporate crime. The Justice Department would never allow individuals who committed such serious crimes to escape prosecution. So why the double-standard for corporate defendants? Why has the Obama administration continued the questionable corporate crime policies of the Bush administration?
The Justice Department has offered shifting rationales for its embrace of deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements, from preventing collateral consequences, such as the demise of Arthur Anderson after the Enron debacle, to rewarding corporations for cooperation, including attorney-client privilege waivers. Those justifications have been debunked. Arthur Anderson was the exceptional case, because it could not survive as an accounting firm after its conviction for accounting fraud. In 2008, after heated protests from the defense bar, the Department beat a hasty retreat from requesting privilege waivers. The Justice Department now argues that it needs a middle ground between criminal prosecution and declination of charges. But the Department already has the middle ground of civil enforcement for the antitrust, environmental, fraud, securities, and tax violations involved in most corporate crime.
With no consistent or compelling justification for the Justice Department’s approach, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Justice Department is ambivalent about the role of corporate criminal prosecution and therefore too willing to offer non-criminal alternatives to corporate defendants that it would never allow to individual defendants. Perhaps the Department believes, as some of my colleagues in academia assert, that corporate prosecution serves no purpose because companies cannot go to jail. Yet those views ignore the role of the criminal law in making clear what conduct is not acceptable in our society, as well as the stigmatizing effect that rightly accompanies a criminal conviction for a company.
In my recent article, Deferred Prosecution and Non-Prosecution Agreements and the Erosion of Corporate Criminal Liability, I argue that the widespread use of deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements erodes corporate criminal liability and undermines the rule of law. I assert that such agreements limit the punitive and deterrent value of the government’s law enforcement efforts and extinguish the societal condemnation that should accompany criminal prosecution. I side with those within the Justice Department who have resisted the trend toward deferred prosecution and non-prosecution of corporate crime and agree with critics who claim that the Department may lack sufficient policies to ensure that abuse of power does not occur in negotiating such agreements.
Prosecutors can and should be expected to make principled decisions about whether a particular violation warrants criminal prosecution. If the law and the facts justify prosecution, charges should be brought; they should not be sacrificed to non-criminal alternatives that lack the punitive, deterrent, and expressive value of criminal charges. On the other hand, if prosecution is not justified, the matter should be declined; companies should not be threatened with prosecution to secure a large, financial settlement.
Deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements, if they occur at all, should be limited to relatively minor cases where civil or administrative enforcement options are not available or the exceptional case where innocent third parties would suffer significant harm as a result of criminal prosecution. Non-criminal alternatives should never be allowed in egregious cases like HSBC or the Upper Big Branch mining disaster—or countless other major cases where criminal charges were dropped.
The Justice Department should amend its corporate prosecution policies to limit the use of deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements. By developing such guidelines, the Justice Department will ensure a principled and consistent approach to the prosecution of corporations, uphold the rule of law, and restore confidence in its efforts to combat the harmful effects of corporate crime.