Top Menu

India’s CBI Files Charge Sheet Against Air India, SAP And IBM Executives

IndiaCBI

Today’s post is from Sherbir Panag and Ishita Parashar who are both members of the Law Offices of Panag & Babu – India’s largest white collar crimes law firm.

On 4 February 2024, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – India’s premiere investigation body, filed a charge sheet against the former chairman and managing director of Air India, along with executives from SAP and IBM’s Indian subsidiaries. A charge sheet is the formal conclusion of an investigation, and marks the commencement of a trial. To be clear the charge sheet is reflective of the investigative body’s conclusion on the charges and is not the formal charges that are framed by a court, to which the accused responds.

Continue Reading

A Debate About The Foreign Extortion Prevention Act

debate

A few years ago, Tom Firestone and I had a debate about certain aspects of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (“FEPA”) after he wrote an article proposing the criminalization of demand side bribery. (See here and here).

Now that FEPA has passed, we thought that it would be a good idea to discuss what its passage means and how it is likely to be implemented. Below are some key questions about FEPA and our respective answers.

Was FEPA even needed to fill a “legal gap”?

Continue Reading

Deferred Prosecution Agreements In Australia: To Be Or Not To Be?

Australia

Today’s post is from Elizabeth Macknay, Christopher Hicks, and Stephen Waddington (Perth, Australia based attorneys with Herbert Smith Freehills).

Reforms to Australia’s foreign bribery laws proposed in 2017 and again in 2019 included a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) scheme. When the reforms lapsed and were proposed for a third time in 2023, the DPA scheme was omitted. However, when the reform Bill recently came before the Senate, the opposition proposed amendments to the Bill to reinclude the DPA scheme. We consider whether the introduction of a DPA scheme is appropriate to expand the range of tools for criminal law enforcement in Australia.

Continue Reading

The Charitable Donation That Did Not Occur

StopSign

This post was originally published in March 2018 and is one of the best guest posts ever published on this site.

After the introductory comments in italics, the remainder of this post is from Corporate Counsel at a well-known U.S. based publicly traded company.

Do Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions based on foreign charitable donations (such as Schering-Plough, Nu Skin Enterprises and several others that include such allegations) represent a net positive or net negative?

The FCPA Guidance contains the unobjectionable statement that companies “cannot use the pretense of charitable contributions as a way to funnel bribes to government officials.” However, seldom are the circumstances as black and white as the government portrays and query whether business organizations, because of this guidance and because of actual FCPA enforcement actions involving charitable donations, have become excessively risk averse and have stopped contributing to humanitarian causes or otherwise pulled back from supporting communities or institutions in need. According to the below guest post, the answer is yes and query whether the world is a better place because of this.

Continue Reading

Guidance From Canada’s First Remediation / Deferred Prosecution Agreement for Foreign Corruption

Canada2

A guest post from McCarthy Tetrault LLP attorneys Andrew Matheson, John Boscariol, Robin McKechney, and Adam Dobkin.

The recent Court-approved Remediation Agreement (“RA”), between the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (“PPSC”) and Ultra Electronics Forensic Technology Inc. (“UEFTI”), provides important guidance on procedural and substantive issues for future cases. The agreement (“UEFTI Agreement”) arises from charges against UEFTI for bribing Philippine officials to secure government contracts. This case should be reviewed carefully by any organization considering the potential negotiation of an RA to avoid criminal conviction in any settlement of allegations or charges relating to foreign or domestic corruption, fraud, insider trading, money laundering or other offences within scope of this RA mechanism.[1]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes