Top Menu

DOJ “Piles On” Airbus And Other Issues To Consider

piling

Prior posts here and here went in-depth into the recent $294 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Airbus as well as the United Kingdom’s prosecution of the company.

This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider.

“Piling On”

As highlighted in this prior post, in 2018 the DOJ announced a non-binding policy discouraging “piling on” by instructing DOJ “components to appropriately coordinate with one another and with other enforcement agencies in imposing multiple penalties on a company in relation to investigations of the same misconduct.”

Continue Reading

Issues To Consider From The Telefonica Brasil Enforcement Action

Issues

This previous post went in-depth into the recent $4.1 million FCPA enforcement action against Telefonica Brasil and this post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider.

What Is The U.S. Interest?

According to the SEC, Telefonica Brasil (a subsidiary of Spanish multinational Telefonica S.A. and the largest telecom company in Brazil with 34,000 employees and $14 billion in revenue) purchased 1,860 World Cup tickets for a total of approximately $5.1 million “for relationship-building activities with strategic audiences.”

Continue Reading

The Challenges Of Detection And Prevention

challenge

The recent Sutherland Springs church massacre. The recent New York City bike path attack. Before that, the bridge attack in London. Before that, the shooting at the Fort Lauderdale airport. Before that, the shooting at an Orlando nightclub.

These recent instances, and several other similar acts of violence, have little in common with alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act offenses.

Except there is often a common thread in terms of the challenges of detection and prevention.

Continue Reading

The U.S. Government Bears Some Responsibility For Certain Root Causes Of Foreign Bribery And Corruption

Double Standard4

This post is not about the U.S. government’s two-pronged approach to fighting bribery and corruption: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement and the DOJ’s so-called Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative.

Rather, this post highlights this dandy op-ed by Jay Newman recently published in the Wall Street Journal to explore a picture issue previously explored on these pages and that is whether the U.S. government bears some responsibility for certain root causes of foreign bribery and corruption.

Continue Reading

As We Say, Not As We Do

hypocrisy

The internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act require issuers to “devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that” the specific financial objectives of the statute are met.

Besides these vague objectives such as “transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization” or “access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization” the FCPA does not specify what issuers are supposed to do. Nor does any implementing rule or regulation.

Rather, enforcement of the internal controls provisions often amounts to the government – with the perfect of hindsight – adopting a theory of enforcement that represents little more than ipse dixit (an unsupported statement that rests solely on the authority of the individual who makes it). In other words, the failure to do x, y or z is an internal controls violations merely because the government says it is.

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes