Top Menu

The Selling Of Enforcement Officials Needs To Stop – For Profit Conference Firm Now Offering Virtual Access To DOJ And SEC Enforcement Officials


This is certainly not the first time these pages have addressed this topic and of all the topics periodically discussed on these pages, this topic has received some of the most positive feedback.

For profit companies that host FCPA conferences are entitled to run their business as they see fit. However, when for profit companies use enforcement officials at the DOJ and SEC like commodities that are then marketed and sold to the public, this is where the line needs to be drawn.

It’s a disgraceful practice and it needs to stop. Moreover public officials need to stop allowing themselves to be used as pawns by for profit companies.

A common marketing device the conference companies use in hopes of driving attendance to their paid events is by touting the public officials who will speak at the event. With the current COVID-19 environment, large in-person events are not possible. Yet as highlighted below, a for profit conference firm is now marketing “virtual” access to our public officials to drive virtual attendance to their paid event.

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup


Fear based marketing, not a victim, dismissed, and for the reading stack.

It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Fear Based Marketing

Another example of lawyers trying to market the COVID-19 situation by asserting that “the novel and exigent circumstances brought on by the pandemic significantly increase companies’ risk exposure under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and global anti-bribery laws.”

The piece even uses the personal protective equipment hypothetical that not even top DOJ officials seemed to be concerned about. (See here).

Continue Reading

Coalition For Integrity Calls For Post-Employment Restrictions On FCPA Enforcement Attorneys And Greater Transparency In FCPA Enforcement


For nearly a decade, these pages have called for restrictions when DOJ / SEC FCPA enforcement attorneys with supervisory and discretionary authority leave the government for private practice careers devoted to the FCPA. (See here, here, here and here among other posts).

I was thus happy to see that the Coalition for Integrity (“C4I” – a non-profited devoted to combating corruption and promoting integrity in the public and private sectors) recently called for post-employment restrictions on DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement attorneys who leave for private practices in this policy paper submitted to the OECD in connection with its Phase 4 Evaluation of the U.S. Implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

It is a bit ironic though as C4I has several individuals on its Board of Directors who left the DOJ / SEC for lucrative positions in FCPA Inc. including an individual who still describes himself as “the architect and key enforcement official of DOJ’s modern Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement program.”

Continue Reading

An FCPA Related Feeding Frenzy

Feeding Frenzy

When making a decision whether to voluntarily disclose Foreign Corrupt Practices Act issues, corporate leaders need to understand the full range of ripple effects that will likely occur upon disclosure. (See here for the article “FCPA Ripples”).

One should not just look at the supposed reduction in an FCPA settlement amount and narrowly conclude that the company benefited from the voluntary disclosure. Such a narrow view fails to take into account the many other ripple effects resulting from the disclosure.

These pages have long highlighted that one ripple effect of FCPA scrutiny and enforcement is FCPA-related shareholder litigation and this post discusses what happened to Landec Corporation after it disclosed an FCPA investigation on January 2, 2020.

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes