Top Menu

Navigation

Friday Roundup

By on February 21, 2014 in ALSTOM, China, Deferred Prosecution Agreements, Entertainment Industry, FCPA Inc., Financial Services Industry, Fine / Penalty Issues, Investigative Fees, Knut Hammarskjold, Lyondellbasell Industries, Mead Johnson, Non-Prosecution Agreement, PetroTiger, Princelings, SEC, Trade Barriers and Distortions, Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart’s FCPA expenses, scrutiny alerts and updates, quotable, February 21st, further to the conversation, and for the reading stack.   It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Wal-Mart’s FCPA Expenses

For over a year now, I have been tracking Wal-Mart’s pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses and calculating what Wal-Mart is spending per working day on its FCPA scrutiny and exposure.  (See here for the prior post with embedded links to others).  Here is what Wal-Mart executives said yesterday in its earnings conference call for the fourth quarter of FY 2014.

“Core corporate expenses [for the fourth quarter of FY 2014] increased 5.8 percent. FCPA and compliance-related expenses were approximately $58 million, which was below our guidance of $75 to $80 million for the quarter. Approximately $38 million of these expenses represented costs incurred for the ongoing inquiries and investigations, while the remaining $20 million was related to our global compliance program and organizational enhancements.”

[…]

“Corporate & support expenses [for the fiscal year 2014] increased 24.1 percent for the full year, primarily from our investments in leverage services and Global eCommerce. Core corporate expenses, which included $282 million in charges related to FCPA matters, increased 15.6 percent. Approximately $173 million of these expenses represented costs incurred for the ongoing inquiries and investigations, while the remaining $109 million was related to our global compliance program and organizational enhancements.”

[…]

“During the first quarter of this year, we will begin to anniversary the increased costs we’ve incurred for FCPA matters, including compliance program enhancements and the ongoing investigations. These costs will remain in the Corporate and Support area, and we anticipate expenses to be between $200 million and $240 million for the year. [for the fiscal year 2015]

You add it up, and here is what you get.

FY 2013 = $157 million (approximately $$604,000 per working day)

FY 2014 = $282 million (approximately $1.1 million per working day)

FY 2015 = $200 – $240 million (anticipated)

As Wal-Mart’s FCPA scrutiny will once again demonstrate, settlement amounts in an actual FCPA enforcement action are often only a relatively minor component of the overall financial consequences that can result from corporate FCPA scrutiny.

Pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses are typically the largest (in many cases to a degree of 3, 5, 10 or higher than settlement amounts).  For instance, the total of the above pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses and estimates is approximately $659 million.  A $659 million FCPA settlement amount would be second of all-time.

That pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses are typically the most expensive aspect of FCPA scrutiny is a fact.  However it must nevertheless be asked whether FCPA scrutiny has turned into a boondoggle for many involved.  Using just Wal-Mart and Avon’s pre-enforcement professional fees and expenses results in FCPA Inc. being over a billion dollar industry!

Is Wal-Mart’s conduct for which it is under scrutiny in violation of the FCPA?  Does it even matter?  See my article “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement As Seen Through Wal-Mart’s Potential Exposure.”

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates

Knut Hammarskjold

Earlier this week, the DOJ announced that Knut Hammarskjold “pleaded guilty today for his role in a scheme to pay bribes to foreign government officials and to defraud PetroTiger.”  According to the release, Hammarskjold pleading guilty “to an information charging one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud and is scheduled for sentencing on May 16, 2014.”  Despite the DOJ’s announcement, the docket for Hammarskjold’s case does not contain the plea agreement or related documents.  For a comprehensive summary of the DOJ’s charges against Kammarskjold and co-defendants Joseph Sigelman and Gregory Weisman, see this prior post.  As noted in the previous post, Weisman has also pleaded guilty and the charges against Sigelman remain pending.

Mead Johnson

As highlighted in this previous Friday Roundup, last year Mead Johnson Nutritional Company disclosed an internal investigation related to business practices in China.  Thus, contrary to certain reports Mead Johnson’s FCPA scrutiny is not “new,” but earlier this week, the company updated its disclosure as follows.

“Following an SEC request for documents relating to certain business activities of the Company’s local subsidiary in China, the Company is continuing an internal investigation of such business activities. The Company’s investigation is focused on certain expenditures that were made in connection with the promotion of the Company’s products or may have otherwise been made. Certain of such expenditures were made in violation of Company policies and may have been made in violation of applicable U.S. and/or local laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”).  The investigation is being conducted by outside legal counsel and overseen by a committee of independent members of the Company’s board of directors. The status and results of the investigation are being discussed with the SEC and other governmental authorities.  At this time, the Company is unable to predict the scope, timing or outcome of this ongoing matter or any regulatory or legal actions that may be commenced related to this matter.”

Lyondellbasell

As highlighted in this 2010 post, in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding, Lyondellbasell’s disclosed as follows.

“We have identified an agreement related to a project in Kazakhstan under which a payment was made in late 2008 that raises compliance concerns under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”).

Yesterday the company disclosed:

“We previously reported that we had identified, and voluntarily disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice, an agreement related to a former project in Kazakhstan under which a payment was made that raised compliance concerns under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”). In January 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice advised the Company that it had closed its investigation into this matter. No fine or penalty was assessed.”

In the minds of some, this is a declination.  I beg to differ – see here.

Baxter International

The company recently disclosed as follows.

“The company was the recipient of an inquiry from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the SEC that was part of a broader review of industry practices for compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In January 2014, the company was notified by both the DOJ and the SEC that their respective investigations were closed as to Baxter without any further action taken by either agency.”

For a previous post regarding Baxter, see here.

Alstom

Bloomberg reports:

“Alstom SA, the French maker of trains and power equipment, will be charged in the U.K. over bribery allegations after a five-year investigation, according to two people with knowledge of the case.  The Serious Fraud Office may ask the attorney general to approve charges in the coming weeks, a standard requirement for the agency to prosecute some offenses, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the case is private.  […] The SFO said in 2011 it suspected that Alstom gave money to companies that acted as “bogus consultants” to bribe overseas officials for contracts from 2004 to 2010, according to court papers at the time.”

If Alstom does face criminal charges in the U.K., the charges are unlikely to fall under the U.K. Bribery Act as the law went effective in July 2011 and is forward-looking only.  As highlighted in previous posts (see here for instance) in 2013 the DOJ brought charges against four individuals associated with Alstom concerning alleged conduct in Indonesia.

Quotable

In this recent Chicago Tribune article, Tom Pritzker (Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Pritzker Organization, LLC – the principal financial and investment advisor to various Pritzker family business interests) reportedly stated as follows at a recent Chicago Council on Global Affairs event:

“The way that [FCPA] enforcement is working out of Washington strikes all of us in American business as arbitrary.  It’s a revenue-generating mechanism for Washington, and that makes it additionally difficult in terms of how you figure out how to navigate emerging markets.”

February 21st

Today is a notable day in FCPA history (see this prior post).

I am grateful that I – and this website – have played a role in these events.

Further to the Conversation I

As frequently highlighted on these pages (see here for instance), trade barriers and distortions are often the root causes of bribery and a reduction in bribery will not be achieved without a reduction in trade barriers and distortions.

Simply put, trade barriers and distortions create bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy creates points of contact with foreign officials.

Points of contact with foreign officials create discretion.

Discretion creates the opportunity for a foreign official to misuse their position by making demand bribes.

This recent Wall Street Journal article highlights China’s “quota system” for foreign-films.  As the article states:

“[34 is] maximum number of foreign titles the Chinese government allows into its nation’s theaters every year, a quota in place to try to protect China’s own nascent movie business. Hollywood studios have wondered when that number might be boosted—the last time was in February 2012, when Vice President Joe Biden announced a deal increasing the quota to the current 34 titles, from 20.”

Perhaps you’ve heard that various film companies are under FCPA scrutiny concerning business practices in China.  (See here).

Further to the Conversation II

Whether it’s a federal court judge stating that a pending federal criminal case is “not window dressing” nor is the court  “a potted plant” in concluding that a federal court does indeed have supervisory authority over the DPA process (see here for the prior post) or whether it’s a federal court judge criticizing various common aspects of corporate criminal law enforcement, including DPAs, as “both technically and morally suspect” (see here for the prior post) – there is an important conversation taking place concerning how the DOJ resolves alleged instance of corporate criminal liability.

Further to this conversation, the Better Markets, Inc. (a group that advocates for greater transparency, accountability, and oversight in the financial system) recently filed this complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOJ and Attorney General Eric Holder.  While the complaint reads more like a policy paper than a complaint, it nevertheless calls the $13 billion settlement between the DOJ and JPMorgan a “mere contract” and alleges in pertinent part:

“Yet, this contract was the product of negotiations conducted entirely in secret behind closed doors, in significant part by the Attorney General personally, who directly negotiated with the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, the bank’s “chief negotiator.” No one other than those involved in those secret negotiations has any idea what JP Morgan Chase really did or got for its $13 billion because there was no judicial review or proceeding at all regarding this historic and unprecedented settlement. However, it is known that JP Morgan Chase’s $13 billion did result in almost complete nondisclosure by the DOJ regarding JP Morgan Chase’s massive alleged illegal conduct.

Thus, the Executive Branch, through DOJ, acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, sentencer, and collector, without any review or approval of its unilateral and largely secret actions. The DOJ assumed this all-encompassing role even though the settlement amount is the largest with a single entity in the 237 year history of the United States and even though it provides civil immunity for years of illegal conduct by a private entity related to an historic financial crash that has cause economic wreckage affecting virtually every single American. The Executive Branch simply does not have the unilateral power or authority to do so by entering a mere contract with the private entity without any constitutional checks and balances.”

The complaint seeks a declaration that, among other things,

“the DOJ violated the separation of powers doctrine by unilaterally finalizing the $13 billion Agreement without seeking judicial review and approval”

“the DOJ acted in excess of its statutory authority by unilaterally finalizing the $13 billion Agreement without seeking judicial review and approval”

“the DOJ acted arbitrarily and capriciously by unilaterally finalizing the $13 billion Agreement without seeking judicial review and approval.”

I agree with Professor Peter Henning who recently stated in his New York Times Dealbook column:

“The lawsuit faces substantial hurdles that make it unlikely to succeed. As a general matter, private parties do not have standing to challenge a decision by the government to settle a case. The Justice Department has broad discretion in how it chooses to exercise its authority, and courts rarely intervene to scrutinize a decision unless there is evidence involving improper discrimination.

Nevertheless, the frustration expressed by Better Markets about the process for determining what JPMorgan should have paid to resolve multiple investigations is fair.”

Reading Stack

For more on princelings and the hiring practices of certain financial institutions in China, see here from Bloomberg.

A dandy article here from Jon Eisenberg (K&L Gates) titled “Brother Can You Spare $8.9 Billion?  Making Sense of SEC Civil Money Penalties.”  In pertinent part, the article is about:

“Other than negotiations about the wording of settlement documents, agreeing to the amount of the money penalty is often the last barrier to resolution. And it’s one of the most frustrating because the amounts proposed may appear untethered to any principle or precedent.

In an effort to provide more clarity on SEC money penalties, we look at four sources that should inform the negotiations about those penalties: first, the explosive growth in the SEC’s authority to impose civil money penalties; second, the relevant statutory language since the SEC’s authority to impose civil money penalties comes from and is limited by Congress; third, two recent D.C. Circuit decisions making clear that there are meaningful limits on the Commission’s discretion in assessing money penalties; and fourth, the outcome in recent cases before SEC administrative law judges in which the amount of the penalties was contested.”

The article is not FCPA specific, but very much FCPA relevant, particularly given the SEC’s increased interest in resolving corporate FCPA enforcement actions via administrative actions.  In short, Eisenberg’s article is excellent.  Read it.

*****

A good weekend to all.

FCPA Lawyers Would Be Wise To Review Recent Third Circuit Decision – Decision Also Sheds Light On A Pending FCPA Grand Jury Proceeding

By on February 18, 2014 in Attorney Client Issues, Chestnut Consulting, Financial Services Industry

FCPA lawyers would be wise to review the Third Circuit’s February 12th decision in In re Grand Jury Subpoena in which the court upholds an order from the district court (E.D. of Pa) enforcing a grand jury subpoena issued to a corporation’s FCPA lawyer concerning oral advice the lawyer gave to the client regarding the application of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

As stated in the Third Circuit’s decision, the relevant facts are as follows.

“Corporation and Client (together, “Intervenors”) are targets of an ongoing grand jury investigation into alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). The grand jury served a subpoena on Intervenors’ former attorney (“Attorney”) and the Government moved to enforce this subpoena and compel Attorney’s testimony, based upon the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. Intervenors sought to quash the subpoena by asserting the attorney-client privilege and work product protection. After questioning Attorney in camera, the District Court found that the crime-fraud exception applied and compelled Attorney to testify before the grand jury.

Intervenors appeal, challenging the District Court’s decision to conduct an in camera examination, the procedures it fashioned for the examination, and the court’s ultimate finding that the crime-fraud exception applies. We hold that the standard announced in  United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989), applies to determine whether to conduct an in camera examination of a witness. We also find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in applying this standard, in determining procedures for the examination, or in ultimately finding that the crime-fraud exception applies. We therefore affirm the District Court’s order enforcing the grand jury subpoena.

Intervenors are the targets of an ongoing grand jury investigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking to determine whether they made corrupt payments to obtain business in violation of the FCPA. Corporation is a consulting firm headquartered in Pennsylvania and Client is Corporation’s President and Managing Director. The grand jury investigation stems from Intervenors’ business transactions with a financial institution (“the Bank”) headquartered in the United Kingdom and owned by a number of foreign countries. Between 2007 and 2009, Corporation was retained as a financial advisor by five companies to provide assistance in obtaining financing from the Bank for oil and gas projects. Two of the five projects were approved and financed by the Bank, resulting in the payment of nearly $8 million in success fees to Corporation. For all five projects, “Banker,” an official and banker at the Bank, was the operation leader responsible for overseeing the financing process. In 2008 and 2009, Corporation made payments totaling more than $3.5 million to Banker’s sister. The payments occurred within months of the success-fee payments to Corporation. No evidence showed that Banker’s sister worked on or was involved in any of the projects or meaningfully contributed to any of Corporation’s other ventures.

Attorney worked out of Corporation’s office but practiced law independently.  In exchange for permitting Attorney to work out of the office rent-free, Client would periodically consult Attorney on ordinary legal matters. Attorney had several brief interactions with Client regarding one of the successful financing projects. In April 2008, Client approached Attorney to discuss issues he was having with the project. Client explained that he planned on paying Banker in order to ensure that the project progressed swiftly, as Banker was threatening to slow down the approval process. Attorney did some preliminary research, found the FCPA, and asked Client whether the Bank was a government entity and whether Banker was a government official. Although Attorney could not ascertain given his limited research whether the planned action was legal or illegal, he advised Client not to make the payment. Despite this advice, Client insisted that his proposed payment did not violate the FCPA, and informed Attorney that he would go ahead with the payment. Attorney gave Client a copy of the FCPA. After this communication, Attorney and Client ended their relationship.

In February of 2010, the Bank began an internal investigation into the transactions between Intervenors and Banker’s sister. The Overseas Anti-Corruption Unit (“the Unit”) in the United Kingdom was informed of the situation, and the Unit informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). The Unit arrested Banker and Banker’s sister in the United Kingdom; their prosecution is ongoing. The FBI began its investigation into Intervenors in February 2010. Due to the parallel prosecution of Banker and Banker’s sister in the United Kingdom, Intervenors have some knowledge of the nature of the grand jury investigation of which they are subjects.”

The above generic description from the Third Circuit sheds light on a pending FCPA grand jury proceeding and a simple internet search would seem to suggest that the company under FCPA investigation is the same company referenced in this 2013 Bloomberg article.

Back to the Third Circuit decision.

In pertinent part, the court held that the “unmemorialized oral communications” at issue did not prevent application of the crime fraud exception.  The court stated:

“The communication between Attorney and Client was brief, and consisted mainly of informing Client on the applicable law and advising that he not make the payment.  However, we believe that the questions posed by Attorney to Client and the information that Client could gain from those questions are sufficient for us to conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the advice was used in furtherance of a crime or fraud.”

Of further note, the Court stated that “if the attorney merely informs the client of the criminality of a proposed action, the crime-fraud exception does not apply.”

However, in the case, the Court noted that the “situation … is different” and stated:

“In addition to the advice Attorney provided to Client that he should not make a payment, Attorney also provided information about the types of conduct that violate the law. We cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion in determining “that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that [Attorney’s] advice was used by [Intervenors] to fashion conduct in furtherance of [their] crime.” Specifically, Attorney’s questions about whether or not the Bank was a governmental entity and whether Banker was a government official would have informed Client that the governmental connection was key to violating the FCPA. This would lead logically to the idea of routing the payment through Banker’s sister, who was not connected to the Bank, in order to avoid the reaches of the FCPA or detection of the violation. Of course, it is impossible to know what Client thought or how he processed the information gained from Attorney. But the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Client “could easily have used [the advice] to shape the contours of conduct intended to escape the reaches of the law.” For these reason, we affirm the District Court’s finding that the crime-fraud exception applies and its order compelling Attorney to testify before the grand jury.”

Friday Roundup

By on January 3, 2014 in Citigroup, CreditSuisse, Deutsche Bank, Financial Services Industry, Goldman Sachs, H-P, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Related Foreign Investigations, SEC, Siemens Argentina Enforcement Action, UBS, Year in Review 2013

Scrutiny alerts and updates, sunshine, year in review roundups, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates

H-P

The company has been under FCPA scrutiny since at least 2010 and recently disclosed, in pertinent part, as follows.

“The U.S. Department of Justice and the SEC have been conducting an investigation into the Russia GPO deal and potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). These U.S. enforcement agencies, as well as the Polish Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, are also conducting investigations into potential FCPA violations by an employee of Hewlett-Packard Polska Sp. z o.o., an indirect subsidiary of HP, in connection with certain public-sector transactions in Poland. In addition, the same U.S. enforcement agencies are conducting investigations into certain other public-sector transactions in Russia, Poland, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and Mexico, among other countries.  HP is cooperating with these investigating agencies. In addition, HP is in advanced discussions with the U.S. enforcement agencies to resolve their investigations.”

JPMorgan

The New York Times returned – yet again (see here and here for prior NY Times article) – to JPMorgan’s hiring practices in China.  The article states:

“For Wall Street banks enduring slowdowns in the wake of the financial crisis, China was the last great gold rush. As its economy boomed, China’s state-owned enterprises were using banks to raise billions of dollars in stock and debt offerings — yet JPMorgan was falling further behind in capturing that business.  The solution, the executives decided over email, was to embrace the strategy that seemed to work so well for rivals: hire the children of China’s ruling elite.

[…]

In the months and years that followed, emails and other confidential documents show, JPMorgan escalated what it called its “Sons and Daughters” hiring program, adding scores of well-connected employees and tracking how those hires translated into business deals with the Chinese government. The previously unreported emails and documents — copies of which were reviewed by The New York Times — offer a view into JPMorgan’s motivations for ramping up the hiring program, suggesting that competitive pressures drove many of the bank’s decisions that are now under federal investigation.

The references to other banks in the emails also paint for the first time a broad picture of questionable hiring practices by other Wall Street banks doing business in China — some of them hiring the same employees with family connections. Since opening a bribery investigation into JPMorgan this spring, the authorities have expanded the inquiry to include hiring at other big banks. Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have previously been identified as coming under scrutiny. A sixth bank, UBS, is also facing scrutiny, according to interviews with current and former Wall Street employees.

[…]

The investigation has also had a chilling effect on JPMorgan’s deal-making in China, interviews show. The bank, seeking to build good will with federal authorities, has considered forgoing certain deals in China and abandoned one assignment altogether.”

Once again, the latest NY Times article sparked much commentary.  See here, here and here.

Former Siemens Executives

The Buenos Aires Herald reports:

“Seventeen people, including former managers of the Siemens company, were … accused of paying off officials in order to help win a contract to produce the national identity cards …”.  The decision was made by Federal Judge Ariel Lijo, who decided to indict them for having allegedly committed bribery.”

Regarding the defendants, the article states:

“Twelve people working for Siemens were included in the indictment: Uriel Jonathan Sharef, Ulrich Albert Otto Fritz Bock, Eberhard George Reichert, Luis Rodolfo Schirado, Andrés Ricardo Truppel, Ernst Michael Brechtel, Bernd Regendatz, Ralph Matthias Kleinhempel and José Alberto Ares. Sharef, for instance, was a member of Siemens’ managing board. He also was the first former board member of a Fortune Global 50 company to be indicted under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, as happened in 2011.  Judge Lijo also charged Carlos Francisco Soriano, Miguel Ángel Czysch and José Antonio David as “middlemen” between the company and Menem’s administration to arrange the payment for benefitting the company in the bid. The magistrate also accused Antonio Justo Solsona, Guillermo Andrés Romero, Orlando Salvestrini, Luis Guillermo Cudmani and Federico Rossi Beguy, who allegedly worked for the company competing in the bid against Siemens IT Services and who presumably agreed not to challenge the government’s decision.”

Allegations regarding the Argentine identity card project were included in the 2008 FCPA enforcement action against Siemens (see here) and also served as the basis for 2011 criminal and civil charges against several former Siemens executives, including those recently charged in Argentina (see here for the prior post summarizing the action).

As noted in this previous post, the U.S. charges against the former Siemens executives were brought after the DOJ faced scrutiny (including at the Senate’s 2010 FCPA hearing) for not bringing any individual enforcement action in connection with a bribery scheme “unprecedented in scale and geographic reach” in which there existed at Siemens a “corporate culture in which bribery was tolerated and even rewarded at the highest levels of the company.”

The U.S. criminal charges against former Siemens executives sits on the docket and a recent docket search indicates that there has not been any activity in the case in over two years.

Sunshine

Mark Cuban, who recently prevailed against the SEC in a long-running insider trading enforcement action, says in this Wall Street Journal article that he is “now considering a new venture publicizing SEC transcripts.”  Says Cuban, “I’m going to get as many as I can, and I’ll put it out there.” “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

The article further states:

“Mr. Cuban says he isn’t against the SEC as a whole but thinks that the lawyers who work there should be held responsible for their actions. “There’s such a revolving door, and it was run by attorneys with an attorney’s mind-set looking for their next job,” he says. “It’s a résumé builder.” Mr. Cuban says individual lawyers aren’t held accountable because the public is familiar only with the name of the SEC’s chair, Mary Jo White.  “No wonder they say or do whatever they damn well please,” he says. “I’m like, ‘OK, I’m going to start calling them out by name.’  George Canellos, co-director of the SEC’s enforcement division, sent a response to Mr. Cuban’s statements through an SEC spokesperson: “Mr. Cuban’s comments are without merit and uncalled for. Our lawyers acted in the finest traditions of government counsel and entirely appropriately in strongly advocating the position of the government in this matter.”

On a related note, did you know that the FCPA Professor Scribd page contains approximately 250 hard to find FCPA documents, pleadings, briefs, etc.

Year In Review Roundups

From the Wall Street Journal Risk & Compliance Journal page – a “Q&A with Asheesh Goel, Ropes & Gray, on The Year in FCPA”

From Trace Blog – “FCPA Corporate Settlements by the Numbers”

From Michael Volkov (Corruption, Crime & Compliance) – “The FCPA Person of the Year – The Prosecutor” and “FCPA Predictions for the New Year – 2014”

From Thomas Fox (FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog) – “My Favorite Blog Posts from 2013”

Reading Stack

Thomas Fox (FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog) and Jon Rydberg (Orchid Advisor) are out with a new book here titled “Anti-Bribery Leadership: Practical FCPA and U.K Bribery Act Compliance Concepts for the Corporate Board Member, C-Suite Executive and General Counsel.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

JPMorgan’s Hiring Practices In China Under Scrutiny

By on August 19, 2013 in China, Financial Services Industry, Hiring Family Members of Foreign Officials, JPMorgan

Citing a “confidential United States government document,” the New York Times reports that “Federal authorities have opened a bribery investigation into whether JPMorgan Chase hired the children of powerful Chinese officials to help the bank win lucrative business …”.

The Times article states:

“In one instance, the bank hired the son of a former Chinese banking regulator who is now the chairman of the China Everbright Group, a state-controlled financial conglomerate […] After the chairman’s son came on board, JPMorgan secured multiple coveted assignments from the Chinese conglomerate, including advising a subsidiary of the company on a stock offering, records show. The Hong Kong office of JPMorgan also hired the daughter of a Chinese railway official. That official was later detained on accusations of doling out government contracts in exchange for cash bribes, the government document and public records show. The former official’s daughter came to JPMorgan at an opportune time for the New York-based bank: The China Railway Group, a state-controlled construction company that builds railways for the Chinese government, was in the process of selecting JPMorgan to advise on its plans to become a public company, a common move in China for businesses affiliated with the government. With JPMorgan’s help, China Railway raised more than $5 billion when it went public in 2007.”

As the Times article notes, JPMorgan made passing reference to the inquiry in its most recent quarterly filing.  The August 7th filing identified, under the heading “Regulatory Developments” the following.

“A request from the SEC Division of Enforcement seeking information and documents relating to, among other matters, the Firm’s employment of certain former employees in Hong Kong and its business relationships with certain clients.”

The Times article quotes me as follows.

“While the hire of a son or daughter itself is not illegal, red flags would be raised if the person hired was not qualified for the position, or, for example, if a firm never received business before and then lo and behold, the hire brought in business.”

Indeed, there have been Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions where the conduct at issue involved the hiring of children or spouses of alleged “foreign officials.”

For instance, in the Tyson Foods enforcement action, part of the FCPA conspiracy alleged was “to place the wives of the [Mexican government] veterinarians on [a subsidiary company’s] payroll, providing them with a salary and benefits, knowing that the wives did not actually perform any services …”.  According to the DOJ, approximately $260,000 “in improper payments were made to the … veterinarians, both indirectly and directly, including through payments to wives of [the] veterinarians.”

In the Daimler enforcement action, the DOJ alleged that the company and its subsidiary in China “employed agents to assist in securing commercial vehicles and Unimog business from Chinese governent customers.”  Also the allegations supporting the FCPA conspiracy charge were:  (i) the company made “a purported commission payment” to “the wife of a Chinese government official at Sinopec” in connection with the sale of commercial vehicles to Sinopec; and (ii) the company made a payment “to a relative of a Chinese government official” associated with the Bureau of Geophysical Prospecting in connection with the sale of commercial vehicles to the entity.

In the Siemens enforcement action, the DOJ alleged that that Siemens Bangladesh “paid $5,000 to the daughter of a Bangladesh Telegraph Telephone Board (BTTB) official ostensibly to work as an ‘engineer’ on the BTTB project, despite the fact that Siemens Bangladesh did not need such an engineer and did not have the budget for the position.”

In the UTStarcom enforcement action, the SEC’s allegations included that the company “provided foreign government customers or their family members with work visas and purportedly hired them to work for [the company] in the U.S., when in reality they did no work for the company.”

In the Paradigm enforcement action, according to the DOJ, “during the same time frame as [a business deal was being discussed with an alleged Mexican “foreign official”], the same [alleged “foreign official”] requested that Paradigm Mexico hire his brother.”  The DOJ stated:  “Paradigm Mexico acquiesced to that demand and hired the decision maker’s brother as a driver. While employed at Paradigm Mexico, the brother did perform some work as a driver.”

Certain other FCPA enforcement actions have also alleged other things of value given to children or spouses of alleged “foreign officials.”

As to a potential cause and effect relationship between JPMorgan’s alleged hiring of children of alleged foreign officials, the article, in addition to the above, also states:

“Before hiring [the son of the chairman of the China Everbright Group], JPMorgan appeared to do little if any business with China Everbright, based on a review of securities filings and news reports. Since then, though, China Everbright has emerged as one of its prized Asian clients.”

“The Ministry of Railways has never hired JPMorgan directly, securities filings and news reports suggest. But those records indicate that the China Railway Group, the construction company whose largest customer is thought to be the Chinese government, hired JPMorgan to take it public in 2007. [The daugher of the former deputy chief engineer of China’s railway ministry] was hired around this time.  […]  About four years later, when [the daughter] was an associate at the bank, JPMorgan won out again. This time, according to media reports, the operator of a high-speed railway from Beijing to Shanghai picked the bank to steer it through its own public offering. That deal fell apart after a 2011 train collision killed 40 people and injured hundreds.”

For additional reading see here from the Wall Street Journal, here from Reuters, here from Fortune, here from the Washington Post, here from the Financial Times and here from The New Yorker (noting “of all the allegations of bribery lodged in recent years against foreign businesses in China  …  [JPMorgan’s scrutiny] is likely to produce dyspepsia in corporate suites in Beijing and Shanghai, where bright, fresh-faced hires are sometimes known less by their credentials than by their parentage”).

On Monday, the first day of trading after the Times article, JPMorgan’s stock closed down 2.7% to $51.83.

SEC Examination Leads To Criminal FCPA Charges Against Bond Traders

By on May 8, 2013 in 2013 Enforcement Actions, Alejandro Hurtado, Direct Access Partners, DOJ Enforcement Action, FCPA Related Charges, Financial Services Industry, Individual Enforcement Action, Maria Gonzalez, Tomas Clarke, Travel Act, Venezuela

It is one of the more unusual origins of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action.

In November 2010, the SEC conducted a periodic examination of Direct Access Partners LLC (“DAP”), a broker-dealer registered with the SEC.  DAP’s Global Markets Group (“DAP Global”) primarily executed fixed income trades for customers in foreign sovereign debt.  One of its customers was Bandes, an alleged Venezuelan state-owned banking entity that acts as the financial agent of the state to finance economic development projects.

According to the DOJ and SEC, the SEC examination lead to the discovery of a “fraud that was staggering in audacity and scope” (see here for the SEC release).  A component of the alleged fraud included payments by Tomas Clarke (a DAP Executive Vice President who worked out of the company’s Miami office) and Alejandro Hurtado (a back-office employee of DAP in Miami) to Maria Gonzalez (V.P. of Finance / Executive Manager of Finance and Funds Administration at Bandes).  According to this DOJ criminal complaint, Gonzalez oversaw Bande’s trading by DAP.

According to the criminal complaint, Clarke, Hurtado and others “directed kickback payments” to Gonzalez “in exchange for Gonzalez steering Bandes business to [DAP] and authorizing Bandes to execute bond trades with [DAP].  According to the complaint, between 2008 and 2010 “Gonzalez received at least $3.6 million in payments through insiders and affiliates of [DAP].  According to the complaint, during this time period, “with Gonzalez both acting as the authorized trading contact in regard to [DAP] and managing the relationship between Bandes and [DAP], Bandes directed substantial business to [DAP] and carried out bond transactions that resulted in [DAP] generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue.”  The criminal complaint alleges various payments made or authorized by Clarke and Hurtado to an account in Switzerland held in the name of Gonzalez and/or a company owned in part by Gonzalez.

Based on the above core set of conduct, the criminal complaint charges Clarke and Hurtado with the following offenses:  conspiracy to violate the FCPA, substantive FCPA violations, conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, substantive Travel Act violations, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and substantive money laundering violations.

Gonzalez, the alleged “foreign official,” was charged with conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, substantive Travel Act violations, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and substantive money laundering violations.  (For other examples of “foreign officials” being criminally charged with non-FCPA offenses in connection with an FCPA enforcement action, see here and here).

In this DOJ release, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman stated as follows.  “Today’s announcement is a wake-up call to anyone in the financial services industry who thinks bribery is the way to get ahead.  The defendants in this case allegedly paid huge bribes so that foreign business would flow to their firm.  Their return on investment now comes in the form of criminal charges carrying the prospect of prison time.  We will not stand by while brokers or others try rig the system to line their pockets, and will continue to vigorously enforce the FCPA and money laundering statutes across all industries.”

As noted in the DOJ release, “the government [also] filed a civil forfeiture action … seeking the forfeiture of assets held in a number of bank accounts associated with the scheme, including several bank accounts located in Switzerland.  The forfeiture complaint also seeks the forfeiture of several properties in the Miami area related to Hurtado that were purchased with his proceeds from the scheme.”

The above core conduct also resulted in this SEC civil complaint against Clarke and Hurtado (and others) charging a variety of non-FCPA securities law violations.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes