Category: Foreign Non-Issuer Company

Is The DOJ Picking on Non-U.S. Companies and Individuals?

Today’s post is from David Simon (Foley & Lardner).

*****

The debate over whether the United States should impose its values on the rest of the world through enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) is over.

Almost everyone now rejects the cultural relativist argument—that there are different business cultures in different parts of the world, and that the United States should respect those differences and refrain from imposing our standards of doing business on U.S. companies operating abroad.  Rather, the rise of anti-corruption legislation, the proliferation of OECD standards, and increased enforcement—not only by the United States, but by many countries enforcing their own anticorruption laws—all show an emerging consensus that corruption of this nature is objectively bad.  The United States should be commended for leading the way on this.

Yet the recent enforcement activity of the Department of Justice[i] (“DOJ”) raises questions as to whether it is enforcing the FCPA in a manner consistent with the statute’s purpose (and the overarching purpose of domestic criminal law).  According to Deputy Assistant Attorney General James Cole, whose remarks are available here, that purpose is U.S.-centric:

“In enacting the FCPA … Congress recognized that foreign bribery had tarnished the image of U.S. businesses, impaired public confidence in the financial integrity of U.S. companies, and had hampered the functioning of markets, resulting in market inefficiencies, market instability, sub-standard products and services, and an unfair playing field.”

True enough, but it is hard to dispute that the focus of FCPA enforcement has to some extent shifted away from U.S. businesses and citizens.  As noted on FCPA Professor, eight of the top ten corporate FCPA settlements have involved non-U.S. businesses.

Likewise, the number of individual FCPA prosecutions against non-U.S. citizens has been increasing.  In recent years, individual criminal prosecutions have been brought against citizens of the Ukraine, Hungary, Slovakia, Switzerland, Venezuela, and Sri Lanka—and some involve very tenuous connections to the United States.

For example, as previously highlighted on this blog, in December 2011 the DOJ charged, among others, former Siemens executive and German national Stephan Signer under the FCPA based on conduct concerning the Argentine prong of the 2008 Siemens enforcement action.  The jurisdictional allegation against Signer was that he caused Siemens to transfer two wires to bank accounts in the United States in furtherance of a scheme to bribe Argentine government officials.[ii]

I do not argue that the FCPA does not permit the DOJ to charge non-U.S. citizens or companies.  Indeed, the 1998 amendments make it clear that Congress intended to give the DOJ that power, providing it with jurisdiction over several categories of non-U.S. entities and individuals.  It should be noted, however, that the DOJ has adopted a markedly broad interpretation of the FCPA’s territorial jurisdiction provisions, resulting in increasingly attenuated connections between the United States and individual defendants like Mr. Signer.  These connections may include merely “placing a telephone call or sending an e-mail, text message, or fax from, to, or through the United States.”[iii]  The legal significance of these increasingly tenuous jurisdictional justifications, previously referred to on FCPA Professor as “de facto extraterritorial jurisdiction,” remains a contentious, and related, issue.

The question I raise here is not whether the DOJ’s policy of enforcement is legal, but whether such a focus (or, at least, the perception of such a focus) on non-U.S. persons and companies is prudent and appropriate.  In describing the principles underlying the jurisdiction to prescribe, the American Law Institute (“ALI”) notes that the United States has “generally refrained from exercising jurisdiction where it would be unreasonable to do so.”[iv]  But “[a]ttempts by some states—notably the United States, to apply their law on the basis of very broad conceptions of territoriality or nationality [has bred] resentment and brought forth conflicting assertions of the rules of international law.”[v]  Indeed.

The concerns I have about this are not confined to FCPA enforcement.  The same trend is apparent in other areas of the law, such as economic sanctions and export controls.  The pattern of enforcement being concentrated against non-U.S. companies is shown just as sharply under those laws, with the recent economic sanctions against such firms as ING Bank ($619 million against Netherlands financial institution), Royal Bank of Scotland ($100 million against UK financial institution), and Credit Suisse ($536 million against Swiss financial institution).  With the U.S. Government reportedly considering the first $10 billion penalty for violations of U.S. economic sanctions laws against BNP Paribas (a French financial institution), French President Francois Hollande reportedly has personally lobbied against what is perceived as an unfair singling out of an EU financial institution for payment of such a large fine.  To the French Government, at least, the inequity of the U.S. Government assessing a fine that surpasses the entire yearly profits of one of the largest French financial institutions is plain.

The pattern of enforcement described above, should it be allowed to continue, sends a message to the rest of the world that the DOJ is mostly interested in big dollar settlements and soft foreign targets.  Is this the message we wish to send to our foreign allies in the fight against corruption?

Although the DOJ’s application of the FCPA (and other laws governing international business conduct)  to prosecute increasing numbers of foreign persons may be legal, and technically “reasonable” at international law, that does not necessarily make it appropriate or advisable.  Rather, these attempts to apply a broad conception of territoriality in pursuit of greater numbers of prosecutions and larger settlements may be more damaging than DOJ perceives.  This has the potential to undermine the U.S. position that anti-corruption is a global issue, and counteracts the progress the U.S. has made in altering its image from that of an overreaching imperialist power to a competent and moderate leader in the creation and enforcement of global anti-corruption norms.

*****

This article in today’s New York Times DealBook discusses many of the same issues highlighted in the above post.

HP Enforcement Action – Where To Begin?

Where to begin?

That is the question when analyzing last week’s $108 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against HP and related entities.  (See here).

Should the title of this post have been “The FCPA’s Free-For-All Continues”?

Should the title have been “HP = Hocus Pocus” (as in look what the enforcement agencies pulled out their hats this time)?

Should the title have been “Warning In-House and Compliance Professionals:  This Post Will Induce Mental Anguish”?

Unable to arrive at the best specific title for this post, I simply picked the generic “Where to Begin?”

In short, if the HP enforcement action does not leave you troubled as to various aspects of FCPA enforcement you: (i) may not be well-versed in actual FCPA legal authority; (ii) don’t care about the rule of law; or (iii) somehow derive satisfaction from government required transfers of shareholder money to the U.S. treasury regardless of theory.

Least there be any misunderstanding, let me begin this post by stating that the enforcement actions against HP Poland, HP Russia and HP Mexico allege bad conduct by certain individuals –  a “small fraction of HP’s global workforce” to use the exact words of the DOJ. As to that “small fraction,” those individuals should be held accountable for their actions by relevant law enforcement authorities.

However, as to the actual defendants charged in the enforcement actions – HP Russia, HP Poland and HP Mexico in the DOJ actions – and HP in the SEC administrative proceeding – there are actual legal elements that must be met and there is also prior enforcement agency guidance that ought to be followed.  The entire credibility and legitimacy of the DOJ and SEC’s FCPA enforcement programs depend on these two basics points.

For instance, in what is believed to be an FCPA first, the DOJ charged two non-issuers (HP-Russia and HP-Poland) with substantive violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions – provisions which only apply to issuers.   This is concerning in and of itself.

Yet the resulting landscape from the HP enforcement action is of more concern and it should induce mental anguish for many for the following reasons.

Issuers have an obligation under the FCPA to “devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that,” among other things, transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization.  Failure to adopt such internal controls is a violation of law.

Conversely, and here is where the “hocus pocus” part comes in, if an issuer does adopt such internal controls and a “small fraction” of employees at certain foreign subsidiaries engage in covert means to willfully circumvent those internal controls, well, that is a violation of law as well in the eyes of the enforcement agencies.

The DOJ’s and SEC’s own allegations paint a picture of HP establishing, particularly given the time periods relevant to the enforcement actions, a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances as to the conduct at issue. yet being a victim of the willful and deceptive conduct of a “small fraction” of employees who designed covert means to circumvent HP’s internal controls.

For instance, as to HP Poland, the criminal information alleges, in pertinent part as to the relevant time period (2006 to 2010):

“At all times relevant to this Information, HP policies prohibited corruption, self-dealing, and other misconduct.  HP’s Standards of Business Conduct (“SBC”) in effect during the relevant time period specified company rules and regulations governing legal and ethical practices, preparation of accurate books and records, contracting, and approvals and engagements of third parties.  The SBC applied to all HP Co. business divisions and subsidiaries, including HP Poland.  HP Poland employees, including HP Poland Executive, received mandatory SBC training annually, among other training.”

“The SBC manuals specifically referenced the FCPA, and prohibited, among other items, bribes, corrupt practices, ‘side letter,’ ‘off-the-books’ arrangements,’ and ‘other express or implied agreements outside standard HP contracting processes.’  The SBC manuals in effect during this period further instructed employees of HP that they were not to ‘commit [the relevant HP business] to undertake any performance, payment or other obligation unless [the employee was] authorized under the appropriate HP [business] delegation of authority policies,’ and further required accurate accounting records and proper finance practices.”

Notwithstanding these controls, the information alleges that an HP Poland Executive caused falsification of HP’s books and records and circumvented HP existing internal controls.  Among other things, the information alleges that the gifts to the Polish Official “violated HP internal controls relating to gift-giving, and were not properly reflected in HP’s books and records.”  The information alleges that the HP Poland Executive “willfully circumvented HP’s internal controls, and falsified corporate books and records relied on by HP’s officers and external auditors to authorize transactions and prepare HP’s consolidated financial statements.”  The information alleges that HP Poland Executive devised covert means – such as communicating through anonymous e-mail accounts and prepaid mobile telephones – in connection with his bribery scheme.  The information even alleges that the HP Poland Executive and the Polish Official drove around in vehicles in “remote locations” and “would type messages in a text file, passing the computer between themselves.” According to the information, “communications were made in this fashion to avoid possible audio recording of the discussions by hidden devices, and to circumvent HP’s internal controls.”

Nevertheless, the DOJ alleges:

“Although HP had certain anti-corruption policies and controls in place during the relevant time period, those policies and controls were not adequate to prevent the conduct described herein and were insufficiently implemented at HP Poland.”

As discussed in this prior post, what is the source for this dramatic conclusory allegation?  Nothing more than ipse dixit and subjective say-so.

The same holds true for the DOJ’s allegations concerning HP Mexico.  The non-prosecution agreement contains the same two substantive allegations concerning HP’s internal controls set forth above relevant to HP Poland, plus the following as to the relevant time period (2006 to 2009):

“HP’s policies permitted legitimate commission payments to channel partners.  These policies required that the recipient of commissions enter into a written channel partner contract with an addendum permitting the payment of commissions be pre-approved, subjected to due diligence, and registered in HP’s partner system.  HP Mexico’s policy also required channel partner commissions to follow an approval matrix, with commissions exceeding a particular percentage of the transaction’s total volume regarding additional approvals.”

Notwithstanding these controls, the information alleges that certain HP Mexico sales managers on one deal deceived HP.  The NPA states:

“[The Consultant at issue] was not an approved HP Mexico channel partner and had not entered into a written channel partner agreement as required by HP’s internal controls and policies.  In circumvention of these internal controls and policies, HP Mexico executives pursuing the BTO Deal arranged for another entity (“Intermediary”), which was already an approved HP Mexico channel partner, to join in the transaction.  HP Mexico’s sales managers arranged for the Intermediary to receive commissions from HP Mexico and then pass those monies along to Consultant, after deducting a portion as a fee. Although Intermediary played no role in negotiating the BTO Deal, HP Mexico executives recorded Intermediary as the deal partner in its internal tracking system.”

“By arranging payments to be made through the Intermediary to Consultant, HP Mexico was able to circumvent HP’s policies requiring pre-approval of channel partners and written agreement for third-party payments.  HP Mexico further circumvented HP’s controls by failing to identify the role of Intermediary in the BTO Deal …  In addition, HP Mexico’s books and records falsely reflected that the Intermediary was the deal partner and principal recipient of the commission on the BTO Deal, which ultimately caused certain HP books and records to be falsified.”

Nevertheless, the DOJ alleges:

“Although HP had certain anti-corruption policies and controls in place during the relevant period, those policies and controls were not adequate to prevent the conduct described herein and were insufficiently implemented at HP Mexico.  This allowed HP Mexico to circumvent HP’s internal accounting controls and falsify its books and records as described herein.”

What is the source for this dramatic conclusory allegation?  Nothing more than ipse dixit and subjective say-so.

The same holds true for the DOJ’s allegations concerning HP Russia.  The information contains the same two substantive allegations concerning HP’s internal controls set forth above relevant to HP Poland and HP Mexico, plus the following as to the relevant time period (2000 to 2007).

“HP’s policies placed restrictions and due diligence requirements on contracts with third parties, including ‘HP customers, channel partners, suppliers, other business partners or outside parties.’  They required credit checks and approvals for certain third parties, and required the preparation of ‘Subcontractor Qualification Worksheets’ and ‘Pre-Bid Risk Identification & Assessment Questionnaires’ that related to qualifications and financial capabilities of certain third parties.  Among other due diligence requirements, the policies required telephonic interview of certain third parties regarding experience, references, checks to determine whether the third party had the capacity and geographic coverage for the project, and an overall evaluation of doubts, reservations, and ‘risks/weaknesses’ of the third party.”

“HP’s Solution Opportunity Approval and Review (‘SOAR’) process applies to all service-related projects valued at greater than $500,000 anywhere in the world, including Russia.  Among other things, the SOAR process was designed to provide HP’s senior company management visibility into pricing, discounts, and profit margins for transactions.  It required review of relationships with third parties, including scope of work, contract terms, qualifications, and necessity of services.  Business, legal, finance, credit, tax, and other units participated in the SOAR review.  No services-related transaction greater than $500,000 could proceed without SOAR approval.”

“Pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, HP management was required to certify the accuracy of HP’s financial statements and the adequacy of its related internal controls to develop those statements.  In supporting these certifications, HP executive management required senior and regional management of HP’s business units to sign sub-certifications certifying that HP’s financial statements were accurate and that their internal controls provided assurances that transactions were properly authorized and recorded, and assets were safeguarded from improper use.”

Notwithstanding these controls, the information alleges that five HP Russia employees deceived HP.  For instance, the information specifically alleges that the individuals created a secret slush fund and to “execute and hide the scheme … willfully circumvented existing internal controls, and falsified corporate books and records relied upon by HP officers and external auditors to authorize the transaction and prepare HP’s consolidated financial statements.”

According to the information, the slush fund “was concealed in the project’s financials” and “HP Russia maintained two sets of project pricing records:  off-the-books versions, known only to the conspirators, which identified slush fund recipients, and sanitized versions of the same documents which were provided to HP credit, finance, and legal officers outside of HP Russia.”

According to the information, “one example of an off-the-books document was an encrypted, password-protected spreadsheet” which contained different information than the “on-the-books version.”  According to the information, a Pricing Worksheet “provided to management outside of HP Russia omit[ed] all references to the slush fund payments, instead inflating hardware prices to create margin for the payments.”

In addition, the information alleges “concealment of [the] slush fund during SOAR Review.”  According to the information, “in early August 2003, HP management in Europe pressed HP Russia to begin the SOAR process for the GPO contract so that it could be executed.  In circumvention of company policy, however, HP Russia Executive 1 had already [signed the relevant contract and executed it] with no authorization and no power of attorney.”

According to the information, “the HP credit officer assigned to the SOAR review initially denied credit approval to proceed with the contract …”.  The information then alleges that the HP Russia Manager provided false information to the HP Credit Officer. The information further alleges that when the HP Credit Officer asked other questions regarding the relevant transaction, the HP Russia Manager provided other false information.

Regarding an actual SOAR meeting in 2003, the information alleges that the day before this meeting, the HP Russia Manager emailed relevant management with false information and thereafter provided additional false information to the HP Credit Officer in connection with relevant transaction.

According to the information, when it came time for the HP Russia Executive to certify the accuracy of the company’s financial statements and adequacy of internal controls pursuant to SOX, the HP Russia Executive falsely certified the requested information and that such certification was relied upon by other HP managers.

According to the information, members of the Russian conspiracy “structured bribe payments to individuals associated with [the Russian government] through a “off-the-books contract” and specifically alleges as follows:

“In circumvention of HP internal controls, including third party due diligence requirements and prohibitions against ‘side letters,’ ‘off-the-books’ arrangements, or other express or implied agreements outside standard HP contracting process,’ HP Russia never disclosed the existence of the [off-the-books contract] to internal or external auditors or management outside of HP Russia, and conduct no due diligence of [the relevant entity]”

The information alleges that the purpose of the conspiracy was to “conceal[] and disguise[] the payments by falsifying HP Russia’s and HP’s books and records; and evading and failing to implement internal controls meant to detect and deter such payments.”  Specifically, the information alleges:

“HP Russia, through its executives and employees, together with others, knowingly and deliberately failed to implement internal accounting controls and circumvented existing internal accounting controls designed to detect and prevent such improper conduct.  HP Russia entered into off-the-books contracts, maintained two sets of accounting records, failed to conduct appropriate due diligence of third parties, concealed the existence of third-party relationship from HP management, executed contracts without authorization, and made misrepresentations to HP audit, compliance, credit and legal officers.”

Among other things, the information alleges that HP Russia employees  “avoided controls over third-party vendors and off-the-books contracts,” “created and used certain mechanisms for making and concealing payments to third parties,” and “secretly executed certain contracts without proper authority.”

Nevertheless, the DOJ alleges:

“While the SBC prohibited corrupt payments, required due diligence of third-parties, and included other control requirements to maintain accountability for assets, the policies were not adequate to detect and prevent the misconduct described herein, and in practice certain HP business divisions and subsidiaries failed to implement and enforce the policies consistently, and on occasion circumvented or disregard the policies entirely.”

What is the source for this dramatic conclusory allegation?  Nothing more than ipse dixit and subjective say-so.

Unlike the DOJ enforcement actions (in which HP was not an actual defendant but merely guaranteed payment of fine and penalty amounts and had compliance obligations imposed upon it), in the SEC’s enforcement action HP is the sole defendant (technically a respondent since the enforcement action was an administrative proceeding not subjected to one ounce of judicial scrutiny).  The SEC’s action is based on the same HP Poland, HP Russia, and HP Mexico conduct alleged in the DOJ enforcement actions.

Prior to the stating the SEC’s conclusory statement as it relates to HP itself, it is useful to review the DOJ’s allegations HP-specific allegations because there is little logical consistency between those allegations and the SEC’s conclusory statement.

Again, the DOJ alleged that HP:

• Had existing FCPA and related policies and procedures in place and that all relevant employees received training on the policies;
• Had existing policies and procedures in place related to commission payments to channel partners, due diligence of channel partners, and other tracking policies regarding channel partners;
• Had an existing approval process in place that applied to all service-related projects valued at greater than $500,000 anywhere in the world and as part of that process HP managers questioned relevant subsidiary employees at questionable information;
• Had an existing SOX certification and sub-certification process in place as relevant to the referenced subsidiaries.

Yet, and here comes the “hocus pocus” moment, the SEC states against the backdrop of the same covert means, concealment, and misrepresentations and deception alleged in the DOJ actions that:

“[A]lthough HP had certain anti-corruption policies and controls in place during the relevant time period, those policies and controls were insufficiently implemented on the regional or country level.  Further, HP failed to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that (i) access to assets was permitted only in accordance with management’s authorization; (2) transactions were recorded as necessary to maintain accountability of assets; and (3) transactions were executed in accordance with management’s authorization.”

It is difficult to reconcile the SEC’s HP allegations against actual legal authority in that the internal-controls provisions are specifically qualified through concepts of reasonableness and good faith.  The only judicial decision to directly address the substance of the internal-controls provisions states, in pertinent part, as follows:

“It does not appear that either the SEC or Congress, which adopted the SEC’s recommendations, intended that the statute should require that each affected issuer install a fail-safe accounting control system at all costs.”

In addition, various courts have held—in the context of civil derivative actions in which shareholders seek to hold company directors liable for breach of fiduciary duties due to the company’s alleged FCPA violations— that just because improper conduct allegedly occurred somewhere within a corporate hierarchy does not mean that internal controls must have been deficient.

The SEC’s allegations against HP are further difficult to reconcile with SEC guidance concerning the internal controls provisions. This guidance states, among other things:

“Inherent in this concept [of reasonableness] is a toleration of deviations from the absolute.”

“The test of a company’s internal control system is not whether occasional failings can occur. Those will happen in the most ideally managed company.”

The critical point in assessing an issuer’s internal controls is at the time of the alleged conduct and whether – at that time – the issuer had internal controls sufficient to provide various reasonable assurances.   In other words, the critical point is not 5 or 10 years later and the issue is not – with the benefit of perfect hindsight – whether the issuer could have done more.

Further problematic in the SEC’s enforcement action against HP is that it is yet another example of “non-charged bribery disgorgment” and among the most vocal critics of this SEC theory is a former high-ranking SEC enforcement attorney (see here).

Whether the proper title should have been “The FCPA’s Free-For-All Continues,” “HP = Hocus Pocus” or how the HP enforcement action, with reason, should induce mental anguish among many, there is much to analyze and critique in the DOJ’s and SEC’s enforcement actions against HP and related entities.

The same applies to much recent FCPA enforcement activity.

To recap, since December 2013 the FCPA enforcement agencies have extracted approximately $546 million against risk averse corporations:

• (i) based on enforcement agency allegations that the parent company issuer was a victim of deceptive conduct and actions by a “small fraction” of its global workforce;
• (ii) based on enforcement agency allegations that the corporate entities were victims of a corrupt Ukraine government that refused to pay VAT refunds that the companies were legitimately owed (see here); and
• (iii) in a case concerning alleged conduct (approximately 10 to 15 years ago) by a consultant who was criminally charged by another law enforcement agency, put the law enforcement agency to its burden of proof at trial, and the law enforcement agency dismissed the case because there was no ”realistic prospect of conviction” (see here).

Marubeni Enforcement Action Specifics

A post last week mentioned the $88 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action (the 12th largest of all-time in terms of settlement amount) against Marubeni (a Japanese company).  In 2012, Marubeni resolved a $55 million FCPA enforcement action (see here for the prior post) involving Bonny Island, Nigeria conduct.

This post highlights specifics from the enforcement action in the original source documents – the criminal information and plea agreement.  [Previously, the DOJ released original source documents relevant to an FCPA enforcement action at the same time as announcing the enforcement action.  However, according to a knowledgeable source, the DOJ has a new policy of releasing original source documents only when those documents have been filed-stamped by the relevant court.  While an understandable policy, the end result will likely be that the majority of reporting of FCPA enforcement actions will be reporting exclusively from DOJ press releases, not original source documents.  Not on this website] 

The Marubeni enforcement action is a virtual carbon copy of the April 2013 FCPA enforcement action against various current and former employees of Alstom concerning the Tarahan power project in Indonesia.  Indeed, as highlighted in the previous post, Marubeni is the “Consortium Partner” in the prior enforcement action and those associated with Alstom previously charged (Lawrence Hoskins, Frederic Pierucci, William Pomponi and David Rothschild) are mentioned prominently in the Marubeni enforcement action.

Information

The information alleges that Marubeni and its subsidiaries, including Marubeni Power Systems Corporation (“MPSC”), partnered with Alstom (simply referred to in the Information as Power Company) and its subsidiaries in bidding and carrying out of the Tarahan Project in Indonesia, a $118 project to provide power-related services to the citizens of Indonesia that was bid and contracted through Indonesia’s state-owned and state-controlled electricity company, Perusahaan Listrik Negara (“PLN”). According to the information, Marubeni managed all work on the project, including auxiliary equipment and civil building and installation work.

According to the information, Marubeni and Alstom retained two consultants (the same consultants as in the prior 2013 enforcement action) and the “consultant’s primary purpose was not to provide legitimate consulting services to Marubeni and Alstom but was instead to pay bribes to Indonesian officials who had the ability to influence the award of the Tarahan Project contract.”  The Indonesian officials are the same as the officials in the prior enforcement action.

“Official 1 … a member of Parliament in Indonesia [who] had influence over the award of contracts by PLN, including on the Tarahan Project”

“Official 2 … a high-ranking official at PLN [who] had broad decision-making authority and influence over the award of contracts by PLN, including on the Tarahan Project”

“Official 3 … an official at PLN [who] was a high-ranking member of the evaluation committee for the Tarahan Project. Official 3 had broad decision-making authority and influence over the award of the Tarahan contract.”

According to the information, Marubeni, through its employees and agents made payments to a consultant’s bank account in Maryland, knowing that a portion of the payments to the consultant was intended for Indonesian officials in exchange for their influence and assistance in awarding the Tarahan Project to Marubeni and Alstom.  In addition, the information alleges that Marubeni, through its employees and agents, attended meetings in Connecticut in connection with the Tarahan Project.

There are no specifics in the information concerning the Marbueni employees such as rank, title or position of the employees (as noted in the information, Marubeni has approximately 24,000 employees in over 70 countries).

Based on the above allegations, the information charges Marubeni with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. As to jurisdiction, the information alleges that Marubeni, through its employees, together with others, while in Connecticut discussed in person, via telephone and via e-mail the need to obtain the Tarahan Project and making bribe payments to various alleged foreign officials in order to obtain the contract, and offered to pay, promised to pay, and authorized the payment of bribes to obtain the contract.  The information alleges approximately 60 separate overt acts in furtherance in the conspiracy and the vast majority of these allegations concerning the alleged co-conspirators associated with Alstom.  There are relatively few specific overt acts allegations concerning Marubeni employees other than the following.

In 2002 and 2004 employees of Marubeni traveled to Connecticut “to attend meetings … in connection with the Tarahan Project”

Between 2002 – 2004, e-mails were sent to Marubeni employees from co-conspirators or from Marubeni employees to co-conspirators in connection with the project and bribery scheme

Twice in 2005 and once in 2008 “Marubeni caused” wire transfers from a bank account in New York to a consultant’s bank account in Maryland in furtherance of the bribery scheme

The “most recent” allegation supporting Marubeni’s conspiracy charge allegedly occurred in November 2008.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, the information also alleges 7 substantive FCPA anti-bribery violations under the 78dd-3 prong of the statute.  The jurisdictional element of 78dd-3 is “while in the territory of the United States, corruptly to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or to do any other act in furtherance …” of a bribery scheme.

Two of the 7 FCPA anti-bribery charges are Marubeni specific (the above mentioned 2005 and 2008 wire transfers).  The other 5 FCPA anti-bribery charges are based on the conduct of Alstom employees.

Plea Agreement

In the plea agreement, Marubeni admitted to the factual allegations in the information and agreed that it was responsible for the acts of its present and former employees described in the information.

As set forth in the plea agreement, the advisory sentencing guidelines range for the conduct at issue was $63.7 million to $127.4 million.  Pursuant to the plea agreement, Marubeni agreed to pay $88 million.  This is a relatively rare situation of an FCPA corporate defendant paying a criminal fine amount within the guidelines range.

The plea agreement states that the DOJ believes that the fine amount was the appropriate disposition based on:  “(1) the nature and seriousness of the offense; (2) the Defendant’s failure to voluntarily disclose the conduct; (3) the Defendants refusal to cooperate with the Department’s investigation when given the opportunity to do so; (4) the lack of an effective compliance and ethics program at the time of the offense; (5) the Defendant’s failure to properly remediate: and (6) the Defendant’s history of prior criminal misconduct.”

As is typical in corporate FCPA resolutions, Marubeni agreed to a host of compliance requirements and the plea agreement also contains a muzzle clause.

DOJ Release

In this release, Acting Assistant Attorney General Raman stated:

“Marubeni pleaded guilty to engaging in a seven-year scheme to pay – and conceal – bribes to a high-ranking member of Parliament and other foreign officials in Indonesia.  The company refused to play by the rules, then refused to cooperate with the government’s investigation.  Now Marubeni faces the consequences for its crooked business practices in Indonesia .”

Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Gustafson (D. Conn.) stated:

“For several years, the Marubeni Corporation worked in concert with a Connecticut company, among others, to bribe Indonesian officials in order to secure a contract to provide power-related services in Indonesia.  Today’s guilty plea by Marubeni Corporation is an important reminder to the business community of the significant consequences of participating in schemes to bribe government officials, whether at home or abroad.”

FBI Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office Valerie Parlave stated:

“Companies that wish to do business in the United States or with U.S. companies must adhere to U.S. law, and that means bribery is unacceptable.  The FBI continues to work with our international law enforcement partners as demonstrated in this case to ensure that companies are held accountable for their criminal conduct.  I want to thank the agents, analysts and prosecutors who brought this case to today’s conclusion.”

Marubeni’s Release

In this release, Marubeni stated:

“[The enforcement action follows the successful completion by Marubeni of its obligations under a January 2012 Deferred Prosecution Agreement entered with the DOJ relating to the liquid natural gas project in Nigeria. That Agreement required Marubeni to retain a corporate compliance consultant for two years to review and enhance its anticorruption compliance program to ensure that it satisfies standards specified by the DOJ, and to report to the DOJ regarding the results of this review. This was completed in January 2014, and at the request of the DOJ the related proceeding was dismissed on February 26, 2014.

The Tarahan conduct pre-dates the execution of Marubeni’s 2012 Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the DOJ. Marubeni has undertaken extensive efforts to enhance its anti-corruption compliance program, and believes that its current program is robust and effective. Although the agreement reached with DOJ today does not require Marubeni to further engage a compliance consultant, Marubeni is taking this matter seriously and commits to continue to thoroughly implement and enhance its anti-corruption compliance program.”

Marc Weinstein (Hughes Hubbard & Reed) represented Marubeni.  Weinstein also represented Marubeni in connection with the 2012 FCPA enforcement action.

In Depth On The ADM Enforcement Action

On December 20th, the DOJ and SEC announced (here and here) that Archer Daniels Midland Company (“ADM”) agreed to resolve a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act based on the conduct of an indirect subsidiary in Ukraine and a joint venture partner in Venezuela.  The enforcement action had 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).

[Although announced on December 20th, original source documents relevant to the enforcement action did not become publicly available until December 24th and the documents are still not on the DOJ’s FCPA website].

The enforcement action involved a DOJ criminal information against Alfred C. Toepfer International Ukraine Ltd. resolved via a plea agreement, a non-prosecution agreement involving ADM, and a SEC settled civil complaint against ADM.

ADM entities agreed to pay approximately $54 million to resolve alleged FCPA scrutiny ($17.7 million in criminal fines to resolve the DOJ enforcement action and $36.5 million to resolve the SEC enforcement action).

This post summarizes both the DOJ and SEC enforcement actions.

DOJ

Alfred C. Toepfer International Ukraine Ltd. (ACTI Ukraine)

The criminal information begins as follows.

“At certain times between in or around 2002 and in or around 2008, the Ukrainian government did not have the money to pay value-added tax (“VAT”) refunds that it owed to companies that sold Ukrainian goods outside of Ukraine.” (emphasis added).

Thereafter, the information alleges, in pertinent part, as follows.

“In order to obtain VAT refunds from the Ukrainian government, ACTI-Ukraine [an indirect 80%-owned subsidiary of ADM], with the help of its affiliate, Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH (ACTI Hamburg) [an indirect 80%-owned subsidiary of ADM], paid third-party vendors to pass on nearly all of that money as bribes to government officials.”

“In order to disguise the bribes, ACTI Ukraine and ACTI Hamburg devised several schemes involving the use of Vendor 1 [a U.K. export company that used both truck and rail services for the export of goods from Ukraine] and Vendor 2 [a Ukrainian insurance company that provided insurance policies for commodities].  In some instances, ACTI Ukraine and ACTI Hamburg paid Vendor 1, a vendor that provided export-related services for ACTI Ukraine, to pass on nearly all the money they paid it as bribes to Ukrainian government officials in exchange for those officials’ assistance in obtaining VAT refunds for and on behalf of ACTI Ukraine.  In addition, ACTI Ukraine purchased unnecessary insurance policies from Vendor 2 so that Vendor 2 could use nearly all of that money to pay bribes to Ukranian government officials in exchange for those officials’ assistance in obtaining VAT refunds for and on behalf of ACTI Ukraine.”

“In total, ACTI Ukraine, ACTI Hamburg, and their executives, employees, and agents paid roughly $22 million to Vendor 1 and Vendor 2 to pass on nearly all of that money to Ukrainian government officials to obtain over $100 million in VAT refunds.  These VAT refunds gave ACTI Ukraine a business advantage resulting in a benefit to ACTI Ukraine and ACTI Hamburg of roughly $41 million.”

“In furtherance of the bribery scheme, employees from ACTI Ukraine and its co-conspirators, while in the territory of the United States, and specifically in the Central District of Illinois, communicated in-person, via telephone, and via electronic mail with employees of ACTI Ukraine’s and ACTI Hamburg’s parent company, Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM), which owned an 80% share of the ACTI entities, about the accounting treatment of VAT refunds in Ukraine.  During those communications, the ACTI employees mischaracterized the bribe payments as “charitable donations” and “depreciation.”

Based on the above allegations, the DOJ charged ACTI Ukraine with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions under 78dd-3.  This prong of the FCPA has the following jurisdictional element.

“while in the territory of the United States, corruptly to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or to do any other act in furtherance” of a bribery scheme.

There is no allegation in the criminal information that anyone associated with ACTI Ukraine “while in the territory of the U.S.” made use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce.”

Rather, the information alleges, as to overt acts, as follows.

“[In July 2002 – 11 years prior to the enforcement action] executives from ACTI Hamburg [not the defendant ACTI Ukraine] traveled to ADM’s headquarters in Decatur, Illinois for business meetings.  In one of those meetings, these ACTI executives met with executives from ADM’s tax department and discussed ACTI Ukraine’s ability to recover VAT refunds and the way in which ACTI Ukraine was accounting for the write-down of those refunds.  During this discussion, the ACTI Hamburg executives stated that the way in which ACTI Ukraine was recovering its VAT refunds was by making charitable donations.  ACTI Ukraine was not making such donations in conjunction with VAT recovery.  In fact, ACTI Ukraine was writing down its VAT receivable based upon anticipated payments to Vendor 1.”

The other overt acts alleged in the information all concern e-mail traffic, none of which fits the jurisdictional element of “while in the territory of the U.S.”

The above charge against ACTI Ukraine was resolved via a plea agreement in which the company admitted, agreed, and stipulated that the factual allegations in the information are true and correct and accurately reflects the company’s “criminal conduct.”

As set forth in the plea agreement, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines calculation for the conduct at issue was between $27.3 million and $54.6 million and ACTI Ukraine agreed to a $17,711,613 criminal fine.  The plea agreement states as follows.

“The parties have agreed that a fine of $17,771,613 reflects an approximately thirty-percent reduction off the bottom of the fine range as well as a deduction of $1,338,387 commensurate with the fine imposed by German authorities on ACTI Hamburg.”

The plea agreement further states that this fine amount is the “appropriate disposition based on the following factors”:

“(a) Defendant’s timely, voluntary, and thorough disclosure of the conduct; (b) the Defendant’s extensive cooperation with the Department; and (c) the Defendant’s early, extensive, and unsolicited remedial efforts already undertaken and those still to be undertaken.”

As is common in corporate FCPA enforcement actions, the plea agreement contains a “muzzle clause” prohibiting ACTI Ukraine or anyone on its behalf from making public statements “contradicting the acceptance of responsiblity” of ACTI Ukraine

ADM

The NPA between the DOJ and ADM concerns the above Ukraine conduct as well as alleged conduct in Venezuela.  Only the Venezuela conduct is highlighted below.

The Statement of Facts attached to the NPA states as follows regarding “conduct relating to Venezuela.”

“From at least in or around 2004 to in or around 2009, when customers in Venezuela purchased commodities through ADM Venezuela [a joint venture between ADM Latin America (ADM Latin – a wholly owned subsidiary of ADM) and several individuals in Venezuela], the customers paid for the commodities via payment to ADM Latin.  During this time period, a number of customers overpaid ADM Latin for the commodities by including a brokerage commission in the cost of the commodities.  At the instruction of ADM Venezuela, including Executive A [a high-level executive at ADM Venezuela] and ADM’s Latin’s customers, rather than repaying these excess amounts to the customer directly, ADM Latin made payments to third-party bank account outside of Venezuela, which, in many instances, were used to funnel payments to accounts owned by employees or principles of the customer.  In addition, ADM Venezuela personnel prepared invoices to ADM Latin’s customers that violated Venezuelan laws and regulations regarding foreign currency exchanges.”

The NPA states that in approximately 1998, “ADM identified the customer “commission” practice as a business risk and recognized that customers may attempt to engage in such transactions with ADM Latin through the prospective joint venture, and instituted a policy that prohibited the repayment of excess funds to any account other than that originally used by the customer to make the payment.  However, although this policy was made known to Executive A and some ADM Venezuela employees, it was initially not formalized and from in or around 1999 until in or around 2004 the same practices continued.  The customers submitted excess payments to ADM Latin, claiming that the overpayment was attributable to deferred credit expenses (“DCE”).”

The NPA further states as follows.

“In or around 2004, ADM conducted an audit of ADM Venezuela due to an issue pertaining to Executive A and uncovered the payments to third-party bank accounts being made through DCE.  Although ADM took some remedial measures, including terminating the employment of the credit employee who had signed off on the refunds, conducting limited training on compliance for its joint venture partners, and instituting a written policy prohibiting refund payments of DCE to bank account different than the accounts from which the money came, the policy was narrowly drawn only to cover DCE payments.  ADM did not train ADM Latin employees and did not take adequate steps to monitor ADM Latin and ADM Venezuela to prevent such payments in forms other than DCE.  From in or around 2004 to in or around 2009, various customers, with the help of ADM Venezuela, including Executive A, began classifying these additional expenses as “commissions” or “commissions K,” rather than DCE, which were processed by the accounting department at ADM Latin, rather than the credit department.  Therefore, when the customers instructed that the excess “commissions” be paid to third-party entities at third-party bank accounts, ADM Latin authorized and made the payments.”

The NPA further states that “in or around 2008, Executive A, and others at ADM Venezuela negotiated the sale of soybean oil from ADM Latin to Industrias Diana [an oil company headquartered in Venezuela that was wholly owned by Petroleos de Venezuela, Venezuela’s state-owned and controlled national oil company].”  According to the NPA, in connection with this sale, “Broker 1 [a third-party agent that purportedly performed brokerage services for customers of ADM Latin, including Industrias Diana, in connection with the purchase of commodities] submitted an invoice to ADM Latin for the $1,735,157 commission amount, which ADM Latin paid to Broker 1’s bank account.  Broker 1 then transferred this amount, in large part, to an account in the name of an employee of Industrias Diana.”

The NPA states as follows.

“On a number of other occasions, ADM Latin made payments to Broker 1’s bank account in connection with the purchase of commodities by other customers.  Broker 1 then transferred those amounts, in large part, to bank accounts outside of Venezuela in the name of the principals of those customers.  In total, ADM Latin transferred roughly $5 million to Broker 1.”

According to the NPA, certain of Broker 1’s transfers were to “accounts owned and controlled by Executive A, as well as numerous transfers to a company in which Executive A had ownership interests.”

The NPA states that the DOJ will “not criminally prosecute ADM … for any crimes … related to violations of the internal controls provisions of the FCPA arising from or related to improper payments by the Company’s subsidiaries, affiliates or joint ventures in Ukraine and Venezuela … and any other conduct relating to internal controls, books and records, or improper payments disclosed by the Company to the Department prior to the date on which this Agreement is signed.”

The NPA has a term of three years and ADM “agreed to pay a monetary penalty of $9,450,000 provided, however, that any criminal penalties that might be imposed by the Court on ACTI Ukraine in connection with its guilty plea and plea agreement … will be deducted from the $9,450,000 penalty agreed to under this Agreement.”

Pursuant to the NPA, ADM agreed to “report to the Department periodically regarding remediation and implementation of the compliance program and internal controls, policies, and procedures, as described in Attachment C” to the NPA.

In the DOJ release, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman stated:

“As today’s guilty plea shows, paying bribes to reap business benefits corrupts markets and undermines the rule of law.  ADM’s subsidiaries sought to gain a tax benefit by bribing government officials, and then attempted to deliberately conceal their conduct by funneling payments through local vendors.  ADM, in turn, failed to implement sufficient policies and procedures to prevent the bribe payments, although ultimately ADM disclosed the conduct, cooperated with the government, and instituted extensive remedial efforts.  Today’s corporate guilty plea demonstrates that combating bribery is and will remain a mainstay of the Criminal Division’s mission.  We are committed to working closely with our foreign and domestic law enforcement partners to fight global corruption.”

The release further states:

“The agreements acknowledge ADM’s timely, voluntary and thorough disclosure of the conduct; ADM’s extensive cooperation with the department, including conducting a world-wide risk assessment and corresponding global internal investigation, making numerous presentations to the department on the status and findings of the internal investigation, voluntarily making current and former employees available for interviews, and compiling relevant documents by category for the department; and ADM’s early and extensive remedial efforts.”

SEC

The SEC’s complaint (here) is based on the same Ukraine allegations set forth in the above DOJ action.

In summary fashion, the complaint alleges:

“This matter involves violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) by ADM. At certain times between 2002 and 2008, Alfred C. Toepfer, International G.m.b.H. (“ACTI Hamburg”) and its affiliate, Alfred C. Toepfer, International (Ukraine) Ltd. (“ACTI Ukraine”) paid approximately $22 million to two third-party vendors so that they could pass on nearly all of that money as bribes to Ukrainian government officials to obtain over $100 million in accumulated value added tax (“VAT”) refunds. These payments were recorded by ACTI Hamburg and ACTI Ukraine in their books and records as insurance premiums and other business expenses. ADM indirectly owns a majority of ACTI Hamburg and ACTI Ukraine through its 80% interest in Alfred C. Toepfer International B.V. (“ACTI”), and in 2002, ADM began consolidating ACTI’s financial results into its financial statements.

In order to disguise the purpose of these improper payments, ACTI Hamburg and ACTI Ukraine made certain payments for export-related services and insurance premiums to third parties, but, in fact, nearly all of these payments were intended to be passed on through these third parties as bribes to Ukrainian government officials in exchange for obtaining VAT refunds for and on behalf of ACTI Ukraine.

ACTI’s conduct went unchecked by ADM, and ACTI continued to make these improper payments for several years. ADM’s anti-bribery compliance controls in existence at the time were insufficient in that they did not deter and detect these payments. ACTI Hamburg and ACTI Ukraine created inaccurately described reserves in their books and records, manipulated commodities contracts that were kept open for an extended period of time, structured payments to avoid detection, and created fictitious insurance contracts to hide from ADM and others the payments to third-parties to secure VAT refunds in Ukraine.

Due to the consolidation of ACTI’s financial results, which included these inaccurately characterized payments, into ADM’s books and records, ADM violated [the FCPA’s books and records provisions]. ADM violated [the FCPA’s internal controls provisions] by failing to maintain an adequate system of internal controls to detect and prevent the illicit payments.”

Under the heading “ADM’s Violations,” the complaint states:

“ACTI Hamburg and ACTI Ukraine characterized their improper payments to the Shipping Company and the Insurance Company as insurance premiums and other business expenses even though nearly all of those payments were intended to be used for payment to Ukrainian government officials. Due to the consolidation of ACTI’s financial results into ADM’s, ADM’s financial records also failed to reflect the true nature of the payments.

Between 2002 and 2008, ADM’s anti-corruption policies and procedures relating to ACTI were decentralized and did not prevent improper payments by ACTI to third-party vendors in the Ukraine or ensure that these transactions were properly recorded by ACTI. In this respect, ADM failed to implement sufficient anti-bribery compliance policies and procedures, including oversight of third-party vendor transactions, to prevent these payments at ACTI Hamburg and ACTI Ukraine.

Through its various schemes, ACTI Ukraine and ACTI Hamburg paid roughly $22 million in improper payments to obtain more than $100 million in VAT refunds earlier than they otherwise would have. Getting these VAT refunds earlier—before the Ukraine endured a brief period of hyperinflation—gave ACTI Ukraine a business advantage resulting in a benefit to ADM of roughly $33 million.”

Under the heading “ADM’s Discovery and Subsequent Remedial Measures,” the complaint states:

“In mid-2008, after becoming aware of these insurance expenses, ADM controllers questioned ACTI executives regarding these expenses, particularly the basis for the accounting treatment of these expenses. An ACTI Ukraine employee disclosed to its outside auditors that the insurance payments were, in fact, made to secure VAT refunds. After ADM controllers received this information, ADM’s legal and compliance departments took action, which led to an immediate investigation in which ADM ultimately uncovered ACTI’s various schemes to secure VAT refunds.

Following discovery of these payments, ADM immediately retained outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation. As a result of the investigation, using its authority as majority shareholder through the ACTI supervisory board, ADM terminated certain ACTI executives. ADM then voluntarily conducted a world-wide risk assessment and corresponding global internal investigation, made numerous presentations to the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, made current and former employees available for interviews, produced documents without subpoena, and implemented early and extensive remedial measures.”

As noted in the SEC’s release, ADM agreed to pay approximately $36.5 million to resolve the action (disgorgement of $33,342,012 plus prejudgment interest of $3,125,354), consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining it from future violations of the FCPA books and records and internal control provisions, and to report on its FCPA compliance efforts for a three year period.  The release states:

“The SEC took into account ADM’s cooperation and significant remedial measures, including self-reporting the matter, implementing a comprehensive new compliance program throughout its operations, and terminating employees involved in the misconduct.”

In the release, Gerald Hodgkins (Associated Director in the SEC’s enforcement division) stated:

“ADM’s lackluster anti-bribery controls enabled its subsidiaries to get preferential refund treatment by paying off foreign government officials.  Companies with worldwide operations must ensure their compliance is vigilant across the globe and their transactions are recorded truthfully.”

William Bachman and Jon Fetterolf (Williams Connolly) represented ADM.

Robin Bergen (Clearly Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton) represented ATCI Ukraine.

In this press release, ADM’s Chairman and CEO stated:

“In 2008, soon after we became aware of some questionable transactions by a non-U.S. subsidiary, we engaged an outside law firm and an accounting firm to undertake a comprehensive internal investigation.  In early 2009, we voluntarily disclosed the matter to appropriate U.S. and foreign government agencies and undertook a comprehensive anti-corruption global risk analysis and compliance assessment. We have also implemented internal-control enhancements, and taken disciplinary action, including termination, with a number of employees. The conduct that led to this settlement was regrettable, but I believe we handled our response in the right way, and that the steps we took, including self-reporting, underscore our commitment to conducting business ethically and responsibly.”

German Company Resolves FCPA Enforcement Action Based On Conduct From “The Distant Past”

Approximately 8 years ago, a German company owned 80% of a German entity doing business in Nigeria.  The German entity doing business in Nigeria entered into a joint venture consortium agreement with subsidiaries of a Panamanian company.  The Panamanian company had principal places of business in the U.S. and had shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange.  The joint venture consortium allegedly made bribe payments to Nigerian officials.

The end result?

Why of course, $32 million dollars to the U.S. Treasury.

Yesterday, the DOJ announced (here) that “Bilfinger SE, an international engineering and services company based in Mannheim, Germany, has agreed to pay a $32 million penalty to resolve charges that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by bribing [Nigerian] government … to obtain and retain contracts related to the Eastern Gas Gathering System (EGGS) project, which was valued at approximately $387 million.”

As noted in the DOJ’s release, the EGGS has been the focus, in whole or in part, in several prior enforcement actions against Willbros Group, Jim Brown, Jason Steph, James Tillery and Paul Novak.

The enforcement action involved a DOJ criminal information resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement.

Information

The information alleges that Bilfinger conspired with others “to obtain and retain contracts related to the EGGS project through the promise and payment of over $6 million in bribes to officials of [the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation – NNPC], [National Petroleum Investment Management Services – a subsidiary of NNPC], the [dominant political party in Nigeria], an official in the executive branch of the Government of Nigeria, and others (collectively – the Nigerian Officials).”

According to the information, in 2003 Bilfinger “agreed to create a joint venture with [Willbros West Africa, Inc. (WWA) and Willbros Nigeria Ltd. (WNL) – both subsidiaries of Willbros International Inc., a Panamanian corporation with principal places of business in the U.S. and with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange] to bid on the EGGS contract and its optional scopes of work.”  In late 2003, [Bilfinger Berger Gas and Oil Services Nigeria Ltd. “BBGOS” – a German company based in Nigeria that was owned 80% by Bilfinger] and WWA/WNL executed a “Consortium Agreement” which formalized Bilfinger’s agreement to create a joint venture in connection with the EGGS project.”

According to the information, “Bilfinger and its coconspirators agreed that the EGGS Consortium would inflate the price of its bids for the EGGS project by 3% so it could cover the cost of paying bribes to Nigerian officials for their assistance in obtaining and retaining the EGGS project and its optional scopes of work.

The information alleges, among other things, that when other conspirators “encountered difficulty obtaining money to make [their] share of the promised bribe payments to Nigerian officials,” Bilfinger agreed to those loan the other conspirators $1 million “with the understanding that the $1 million would be used to pay some of the promised bribe payments to Nigerian officials …”.

The information contains the following relevant jurisdictional allegations.

• “[In 2004] WWA opened a bank account in the U.S. on behalf of the EGGS Consortium, in which payments for work conducted by the EGGS Consortium would be deposited and out of which payments would be made to BBGOS or WWA when authorized by both BBGOS and WWA.”
• “[In 2005], Bilfinger Employee 1 [a German citizen] telephoned Bilfinger Employee 3 [a German citizen], who was in the United States, and asked Bilfinger Employee 3 to meet with Tillery in Boston, MA, to find out what payments had been promised to officials and whether [a relevant contract] was at risk because those payments had not yet been made.”
• [In 2005], Bilfinger Employee 3 flew from Houston, TX, to Boston, MA, to meet with Tillery and inquire about the outstanding corrupt payments and the [relevant contract].”

Based on the above allegations, the information charges conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and two substantive FCPA anti-bribery charges.  The two substantive charges are based on (1) a 2005 “flight from Houston, TX to Boston, MA to discuss promised bribe payments,” and (2) a 2005 “wire transfer of $2,804,496 from Houston, TX to Frankfurt, Germany in connection with the EGGS contract.”

DPA

The charges against Bilfinger were 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 with the Department, albeit at a late date, including interviewing relevant employees and disclosing the facts learned during those interviews to the Department, facilitating the Department’s interviews of foreign employees; (b) the Company’s remediation efforts, including terminating the employment of certain employees responsible for the corrupt payments and disciplining others, and enhancing its compliance program and internal accounting controls; (c) the Company’s committment to continue to enhance its compliance program and internal accounting controls …; and (d) the Company’s agreement to continue to cooperate with the Department in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of the Company and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and consultants relating to violations of the FCPA …”.

Pursuant to the DPA, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for the conduct at issue was $28 million to $56 million.  The DPA states that the monetary penalty of $32 million “is appropriate given the facts and circumstances of this case, including the Company’s cooperation and remediation in this matter.”

Pursuant to the DPA, Bilfinger 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 Bilfinger 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 Bilfinger or anyone on its behalf from “contradicting the acceptance of responsibility by the company” as set forth in the DPA.

Sidley Austin attorneys Thomas Green and Jeffrey Green represented Bilfinger.

In this press release (which the company had to consult with the DOJ before releasing) Bilfinger CEO stated:

“We are pleased that we have now been able to put these events from the distant past behind us. In recent years, Bilfinger has consistently expanded its compliance instruments and today has a modern and efficient system.”