As has been highlighted more than once on this website, the FCPA Blog is a frequent source of FCPA misinformation and rubbish.
In this post, the FCPA Blog makes four false statements in one post.
The FCPA Blog asserts:
“From 2016 through 2020, 83 companies paid about $16.8 billion to resolve FCPA enforcement actions.”
This is false.
More false information, scrutiny alert, points of contact, and ineffective communication. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
More False Information
More false information from the FCPA Blog in this post which asserts that “anyone relying on the [FCPA’s facilitation] exception should be prepared to defend it — that is, the burden of proof is on the one asserting the exception as a defense to an FCPA violation.”
This is a false statement.
Recent posts here and here have highlighted briefing in Ng Lap Seng’s appeal as well as Dmitry Firtash’s motion to dismiss.
As highlighted below, reading these briefs caused a few um, excuse me but type moments.
For instance, I have long been concerned about the seeming lack of FCPA depth of FCPA enforcement attorneys.
I didn’t invent fact-checking, but I occasionally apply it to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act context.
The reason I do so is for the same reasons others fact-check: to counter false and misleading information in the public domain and to hopefully motivate a greater sense of responsibility and discipline upon those voluntarily publishing FCPA content.
Call me old-fashioned, but if you are presenting yourself as an expert on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and/or a paid journalist, or merely using the words “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” in voluntarily published material you simply have an obligation to engage in basic research on FCPA topics before hitting the publish button and if you are incapable or unwilling to do this, well don’t hit the publish button.
The post contains several recent examples of FCPA “fake news” and false information.
