BIT Mining (500.Com) Resolves FCPA Enforcement Action In Connection With Failed Japan Bribery Scheme
Yesterday the DOJ and SEC announced a net $10 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against BIT Mining Ltd. (formerly known as 500.com) in connection with a failed Japan bribery scheme concerning efforts to obtain a license to operate a casino.
500.com was formerly an online sports lottery service provider incorporated in the Cayman Islands, with headquarters and major business operations in Shenzhen, China with American Depositary Shares (ADS) traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). 500.com is now known as BIT Mining, a crypto assets mining business incorporated in the Cayman Islands and headquartered in Ohio with ADSs traded on the NYSE.
The enforcement action involved a DOJ component (net $6 million – a $54 million criminal penalty, reduced to $10 million based on an inability to pay, and further reduced to $6 million reflecting a credit for the amount paid to the SEC) and an SEC component ($4 million civil penalty).
In addition, the DOJ announced that Zhengming Pan (a Chinese national and the former CEO of 500.com) was criminally indicted in June in connection with the same bribery scheme and charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA, one count of violating the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, and two counts of violating the books and records provisions of the FCPA.
SEC Brings $4 Million Enforcement Action Against An Irish Company (The Successor In Interest To A Canadian Company) For Paying Consultants In Russia In An Effort To Legalize Poker In Russia
This recent post about the Rio Tinto FCPA enforcement action posed the lingering question of whether FCPA enforcement is a convenient cash cow for the U.S. government. After all, when several former FCPA enforcement officials suggest as much, what are the rest of us supposed to think?
After all, in the Rio Tinto matter the U.S. extracted $15 million from a company (with headquarters in Australia and the United Kingdom) after the SEC found that the company hired a French investment banker and close friend of a former senior Guinean government official as a consultant to help the company retain mining rights in Guinea. Even though both Australia and the United Kingdom have laws and law enforcement resources to adequately address the conduct at issue, the SEC nevertheless got involved because the company had American Depository Shares that traded on a U.S. exchange.
Earlier this week (and on the same day as the Rio Tinto matter was announced), the SEC also announced a $4 million FCPA enforcement action against Flutter International (a company headquartered in Ireland) – the successor in interest to The Stars Group (a company that was headquartered in Canada) – based on the finding that the “Company paid approximately $8.9 million to consultants in Russia in support of the Company’s operations and its efforts to have poker legalized in that country.” Even though both Ireland and Canada have laws and law enforcement resources to adequately address the conduct at issue, the SEC nevertheless got involved because The Stars Group at one time had shares traded on a U.S. exchange.
In An Unusual Development, The DOJ Brings A $7 Million FCPA Enforcement Action Against Las Vegas Sands Nine Months After The SEC’s $9 Million Enforcement Action Based On The Same Conduct
Parallel DOJ and SEC Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions against issuers based on the same core conduct are common. However, such actions are coordinated and announced on the same day.
In a highly unusual development, late yesterday the DOJ announced an FCPA action against Las Vegas based on the same core conduct at issue in the SEC’s April 2016 FCPA enforcement action against Las Vegas Sands. (See here and here prior posts).
Quite frankly, I can’t recall another instance of this happening.
But then again some strange things are happening in the final weeks and days of the Obama administration before existing DOJ officials exit. (See this Wall Street Journal article titled “Obama Administration Races To Finish Probes, Wring Payments From Firms” noting that in the past approximate week the U.S. has reached settlements worth approximately $20 billion).
Adding to the intrigue is that Sheldon Adelson (founder, chairman and chief executive officer of Las Vegas Sands) is a major Republican contributor.
Whistled For A Foul: Las Vegas Sands Agrees To Pay $9 Million To Resolve Books And Records And Internal Controls Action
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has always been a law much broader than its name suggests.
In addition to anti-bribery provisions, the FCPA also contains more generic books and records and internal controls provisions. While there are a few sentences in this 15 page administrative order released yesterday against Las Vegas Sands (LVS) that touch upon issues relevant to the anti-bribery provisions, the enforcement action was on balance a pure books and records and internal controls action.
Among other things, the SEC found that LVS lacked supporting documentation or appropriate authorization concerning the company’s involvement with a Chinese basketball team, the purchase of a building, a high-speed ferry service, and other aspects of its casino business in Macau.
The substance of yesterday’s enforcement action has been in the public domain for years. (See this 2012 New York Times article and this 2012 Wall Street Journal article). Indeed, FCPA Professor has been following LVS’s scrutiny since November 2010 upon the “noisy exist” of Steven Jacobs (the former President of Macau Operations) from the company. (See here for the original post).
In summary fashion, the order states:
Friday Roundup
In the classroom, what if, scrutiny alerts and updates, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
In the Classroom
I am pleased to share this release concerning a new Foreign Corrupt Practices Act class I am teaching this semester at Southern Illinois University School of Law. As noted in the release, the course is believed to be one of the first specific FCPA law school classes offered that is exclusively devoted to the FCPA, FCPA enforcement and FCPA compliance.
I am grateful for the media coverage the class has attracted. See here from Corporate Counsel, here from Main Justice, and here from Corporate Crime Reporter.
What If?
As highlighted in this previous post concerning JPMorgan’s scrutiny in China, the conduct at issue in the front-page New York Times article was disclosed (sort of) in the company’s August 7th quarterly filing. That 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.”
In the disclosure context, it has been noted by various courts that once a company “speaks” on an issue, its statements to the market can not be so incomplete as to be misleading. Was JPMorgan’s August 7th disclosure misleading? If not misleading, a bit “too cute?” If JPMorgan’s August 7th disclosure mentioned the reason for the SEC’s request for information and that the request was in connection with an FCPA inquiry, would there even have been a front-page article in the NY Times on August 18th? And if there was no front-page NY Times article would JPMorgan’s FCPA scrutiny have dominated the news this week?
Scrutiny Alerts and Updates
Entertainment Gaming Asia
Entertainment Gaming Asia, Inc., a company with shares listed on NASDAQ, is the focus of this article in the Cambodia Daily which states:
“Venturing into Cambodia’s casino market in May 2011, Macau-backed gambling firm Entertainment Gaming Asia (EGA) promised tens of thousands of dollars to the wife of Pailin’s provincial governor in order to lease land for the construction of a new casino … […] There is no suggestion that the land lease arrangement breaks any laws. But EGA’s registration with the SEC means the company is subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). […] EGA senior vice president Traci Mangini declined to comment on the land-lease arrangement.“We are not available for comment,” Ms. Mangini said in an email. Contacted this week, Mr. Chhean [who has held the powerful local position of governor in Pailin for more than a decade] insisted there was nothing improper about the land being rented from his wife. “It is correct that they hire the land [from my wife], they have hired it for two years already,” he said. He said the casino was fully approved by the government in Phnom Penh, and that he had no role in the licensing decision. Mr. Chhean said there was nothing inappropriate about the wife of a governor having business interests.”
Microsoft
This March 2013 post highlighted Microsoft’s FCPA scrutiny and how the DOJ and SEC “are examining kickback allegations made by a former Microsoft representative in China, as well as the company’s relationship with certain resellers and consultants in Romania and Italy.” Add Pakistan and Russia to the list. As reported in this Wall Street Journal article:
“In Russia, an anonymous tipster told Microsoft that resellers of its software allegedly funneled kickbacks to executives of a state-owned company to win a deal, the people familiar with the matter said. In Pakistan, a tipster alleged that Microsoft authorized a consulting firm to pay for a five day trip to Egypt for a government official and his wife in order to win a tender, the people familiar with the matter said. The two contacted Microsoft directly in the last eight months, the people said.”
Eli Lilly
In December 2012, Eli Lilly agreed to pay $29 million to resolve an SEC FCPA enforcement action concerning alleged conduct in China, Brazil, Poland and Russia (see here for the prior post).
Lilly is again under scrutiny. As referenced here by Reuters:
“U.S. drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co said it was ‘deeply concerned’ about allegations published in a Chinese newspaper that it spent more than 30 million yuan ($4.90 million) to bribe doctors in China to prescribe the firm’s medicines instead of rival products. A former senior manager for the company, identified by the pseudonym Wang Wei, told the 21st Century Business Herald that bribery and illegal payments at Eli Lilly’s China operations were widespread. […] Eli Lilly said in an emailed statement to Reuters that it was looking into the matter. ‘Although we have not been able to verify these allegations, we take them seriously, and we are continuing our investigation,’ the statement said. The U.S. firm said it had been made aware of “similar allegations” of kickbacks in 2012 by a former sales manager. It said the firm had opened an investigation at that time involving staff interviews, e-mail monitoring and expense report audits.”
For the Reading Stack
Informative posts here and here on the FCPAmericas blog on how Brazil’s new bribery law compares to the FCPA. Also on the FCPAmericas blog, informative posts here and here regarding the unknows of the law.
In reference to JPMorgan’s FCPA scrutiny over its alleged hiring of family members of alleged “foreign officials,” this article in the Economist states:
“Connections also count in the West, of course. Following initial reports of the SEC’s investigation in the New York Times, a flood of stories have noted the jobs held in politically sensitive American firms by the sprogs of American politicians. Even when offspring are not involved, the revolving door between the public and private sectors raises questions about why people are hired. JPMorgan Chase did not hire Tony Blair as a senior adviser for his knowledge of risk weights, after all. Mary Schapiro, a former head of the SEC, recently joined Promontory, a consultancy packed with ex-regulators used by banks to cope with regulation (she has said she will not lobby any government body in her new role). If it is unfair to cite these names, it is only because there are so many others. If the regulators genuinely fret about why firms make hiring decisions, they may want to extend their inquiries to Washington, DC, and New York as well.”
In the context of GlaxoSmithKline’s scrutiny in China, this Wall Street Journal article highlights “China’s fast-growing but deeply underfunded medical system” where “doctors are widely seen as underpaid, which makes them prime recipients of honorariums, which are
legal, or illegal cuts of sales from drug companies …”.
*****
A good weekend to all.