Category: India

Navigating The ‘Gift, Entertainment And Hospitality’ Landscape In India

(MZM Legal Advocates & Legal Consultants in Mumbai, India). Panag is the India Expert for FCPA Professor.

*****

FCPA enforcement actions in 2014 have seen companies such as HP Poland, Bruker and Avon (in part) face heat as a result of alleged bribes being paid under the alleged guise of gifts and corporate hospitality.

The risk for multinational companies operating in countries with engrained ‘gift giving’ and ‘hospitality extending / accepting’ cultures is thus a real compliance concern. India happens to be one such country where its cultural and ethnic diversity, multitude of festivals and high levels of public corruption, make the already complex compliance task all the more challenging.

In the ‘Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act’ the DOJ and SEC recognize that a small gift is often an appropriate way for business people to display respect for each other. It further goes on to lay down some hallmarks of appropriate gift giving as “when the gift is given openly and transparently, properly recorded in the giver’s books and records, provided only to reflect esteem or gratitude, and permitted under local law.”

The focus of this post will be to help facilitate a better understanding of what gifts, entertainment and hospitality to public servants is permitted under Indian law.

Background:

India’s principal anti corruption legislation – the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) recognizes that bribes paid to public servants are not limited to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in monetary terms. This is further emboldened by the use of the term ‘any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration’ in the substantive text of the bribery provisions. The gratification would be deemed to be illegal or a bribe if it is paid/given with the intention to:

• motivate, influence or reward the public servant to perform or forbear performance of an official act;
• show favour or disfavour to any persons;
• render or attempting to render any service or disservice to a public servant.

Therefore, gifts given or hospitality extended to public servants beyond the threshold limits or in improper circumstances that are likely to influence the public servant, would be deemed as a bribe under Indian law.

Who is a Public Servant?

Section 2(c) of the PCA provides the definition of who would be deemed to be a public servant. The definition is extremely broad and includes among others government officials, local authorities, judicial officers, any holder of office to perform a public duty and employees of government owned or government controlled entities. Broadly speaking state control and financing is a reasonable test to determine whether an individual would be a public servant or not.

 What Gifts Can be Given and Hospitality Extended to a Public Servant?

Every public servant is governed by the conduct rules / code of conduct of his or her service or organisation. For example, the ‘All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968’ would cover services such as the Indian Administrative Services and the Indian Police Service, the state owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) has the ‘ONGC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1994 (Amended 2011)’, Ministers of both the Union and States are governed by the ‘Code of Conduct for Minsters’ so on and so forth. These Conduct Rules establish the threshold limits on the value of gifts and hospitality that can be accepted by the concerned class of public servant and the circumstances thereof.

While the threshold value varies among the different services and organisation based on the class and seniority of the public servant, few standard aspects are prevalent:[1]

• Public servants shall not accept nor have any member of his / her family or person acting on his/her behalf accept any gift for him / her.
• Gifts shall include free transport, boarding, lodging or other service or any other pecuniary advantage when provided by any person other than a near relative or personal friend having no official dealings with the Government servant.
• Gifts of the specified value may be accepted by public servants from his / her near relatives or personal friends having no official dealing with him/her when the same is in conformity with prevailing religious and social practices.
• Public servants shall not accept any gifts from any foreign firm which is either contracting with the Government of India or is one with which the public servant had, has or is likely to have official dealings.
• Generally a casual meal, lift or other social hospitality shall not be deemed to be a gift.
• Public servants are to avoid accepting lavish hospitality or frequent hospitality from any individual or commercial organisation that have official dealings with him /her.
• It is imperative to read the conduct rules / code of conduct alongside the applicable provisions and objectives of the PCA.

Best Practices That Corporations Should Bear in Mind While Framing Their ‘Gift, Entertainment and Hospitality’ Policies in India:

As noted above specific threshold limits as specified in the public servants code of conduct / conduct rules are applicable to them. Therefore, a ‘Gift, Entertainment and Hospitality’ policy must cater to these specificities and variations by keeping the following best practices in mind:

• Companies should maintain a database of up to date and official conduct rules / code of conducts of the public servants it regularly interacts with.
• Employees of the company should be adequately briefed on the legal need to carefully evaluate the specific gift, entertainment and hospitality provisions and corresponding threshold value of each class of public servant before giving a gift or extending hospitality to them.
• Threshold values in the company policy must ideally be mentioned in Indian Rupees in order to ensure clarity and prevent any misunderstanding / misconduct that may inadvertently occur due to fluctuating foreign exchange rates.
• Business courtesies should be accurately documented and reported in the company’s books and records.

Friday Leftovers

Scrutiny update, a double standard, ripples, that’s interesting, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in a leftovers edition of the Friday roundup.

Scrutiny Update

One of the longest-lasting instances of FCPA scrutiny concerns PBSJ Corporation (a global engineering and architectural firm) that first disclosed FCPA scrutiny in December 2009.  PBSJ was subsequently acquired by WS Atkins (a U.K. company) and WS Atkins disclosed in a recently regulatory filing as follows.

“There are ongoing discussions regarding the longstanding and previously reported Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission enquiries relating to potential Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations by the PBSJ Corporation prior to its acquisition by the Group. We anticipate resolution of this matter before the end of the current financial year.”

Double Standard?

Several FCPA enforcement actions or instances of FCPA scrutiny have been based on providing things of value such as meals, entertainment and consulting fees to foreign physicians.

Against this backdrop, the Wall Street Journal reports:

“As it fights to buy Botox maker Allergan Inc.,  Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. is investing cash and time wooing the doctors it would need on its side after a takeover. A centerpiece of the effort: Valeant said it met with a total of 45 influential cosmetic surgeons and dermatologists in September at events in Aspen, Colo., and Palm Beach, Fla. Valeant paid for the physicians’ airfares, two-night stays at luxury hotels and meals. The company also agreed to provide consulting fees that could amount to as much as $30,000, according to doctors who attended the meetings. Valeant, a smaller player than Allergan in cosmetic medicine, must win over doctors if it wrests control of the Botox maker, since it will rely on the physicians for business. Valeant said the pursuit seems to be paying off. Several doctors who attended the sessions, of what Valeant called its special advisory committee, said they were won over by the company’s plans for Allergan—including attracting patients to physicians’ offices and introducing new products.”

Ripples

My recent article “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Ripples” highlights that settlement amounts in an actual FCPA enforcement action are often only a relatively minor component of the overall financial consequences that can result from FCPA scrutiny or enforcement in this new era.

One such ripple is offensive use of the FCPA to further advance a litigating position and that is just what Instituto Mexicano Del Seguro Social (“IMSS”) has done in this recent civil complaint against Orthofix International.

You may recall that in July 2012 Orthofix resolved a $7.4 million FCPA enforcement action based on allegations that its Mexican subsidiary paid bribes totaling approximately $317,000 to Mexican officials in order to obtain and retain sales contracts from IMSS. (See here for the prior post).

In the recent civil complaint, IMSS uses the core conduct at issue in the FCPA enforcement action and alleges various RICO claims, fraud claims, and other claims under Mexican law.

That’s Interesting

As has been widely reported (see here for instance), “President Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission … to declare broadband Internet service a public utility, saying that it was essential to the economy …”.

That’s interesting because – as informed readers know – in the 11th Circuit’s “foreign official” decision the court concluded that an otherwise commercial enterprise can be a “instrumentality” of a government if the “entity controlled by the government … performs a function the controlling government treats as its own.”  Among the factors the court articulated for whether an entity performs a “function the controlling government treats as its own” was “whether the public and the government of that foreign country generally perceive the entity to be performing a governmental function.”

Reading Stack

Several law firm client alerts regarding the DOJ’s recent FCPA Opinion Procedure release concerning successor liability (see here, here, here).  In this alert, former DOJ FCPA Unit Chief Charles Duross leads with the headline “Is DOJ Evolving Away from the Halliburton Opinion Standard?” (a reference to this 2008 Opinion Procedure release).

From Foley & Larder and MZM Legal (India) – “Anti-Bribery and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Guide for U.S. Companies Doing Business in India.”

Recent interviews (here and here) with Richard Bistrong, a real-world FCPA violator and undercover cooperator.  See here for my previous Q&A with Bistrong.  As noted here, Bistrong recently spoke to my FCPA class at Southern Illinois University School of Law. Having the ability to hear from an individual who violated the law my students were studying, and being able to hear first-hand of real-world business conditions, was of tremendous value to the students and added an important dimension to the class.

Should the government reconsider its use of deferred prosecution agreements?  That is the question posed in this New York Times roundtable (in the context of recent bank prosecutions).

Finally for your viewing pleasure, an FCPA-related interview here of SciClone’s CEO (a company that has been under FCPA scrutiny since approximately August, 2010).

*****

A good weekend to all.

Misconceptions About India’s Anti-Corruption Framework

This post is from Sherbir Panag (MZM Legal Advocates & Legal Consultants in Mumbai, India).

*****

In April 2014, the Department of Justice indicted six defendants’ in an alleged conspiracy to bribe government officials in India to mine titanium minerals. A sitting member of the Indian Parliament, Mr. K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao, was one of the six defendants charged with one count of racketeering conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy, and two counts of interstate travel in aid of racketeering.  While Mr. Rao is currently battling the FBI’s request to provisionally arrest him before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the recent events highlight just one of several instances of bribery allegations in India that see foreign companies at the forefront.

In some cases, if not all, a lack of understanding of the Indian anti corruption framework clearly exists.  This post highlights various misconceptions of Indian anti corruption legislation and discusses the direction of several proposed bills pending in Parliament.[1]

India’s anti corruption law does not target the bribe giver

It is often misconstrued that India’s principal anti-corruption legislation – the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA)-  does not create an offence of bribery on the part of the bribe giver but merely attacks the demand side i.e., the bribe taker.

This is an incorrect position as under the PCA (Chapter III: Offences and Penalties) the offence of bribe giving is created as one of abetment of bribe taking by the public servant. Therefore, while the substantive text establishes the offence for a “Public servant accepting illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for an official act” or “Public servant obtaining valuable thing, without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant” – the bribe giver comes under the ambit of the law by way of abetting this offence (Section 12 – Punishment for abetment of offences defined in section 7 or 11). Thus, the punishment for bribe giving is attune to that which a public servant convicted of accepting bribes would receive, which is imprisonment for a minimum term of 6 months extending to five years and would also be liable to pay a fine.

However, a direct offence is created for bribe giving in instances where individuals accept payments / gratification from others in order to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or to exercise personal influence over a public servant (Section 8 and 9). Hence, third party agents who accept bribes from commercial organisations to be passed on to public servants or consultants who offer to exercise personal influence over public servants to win contracts – would fall within the ambit of these offences.

The above position of law will undergo a major change with the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013. The Bill which has been introduced in the Indian Parliament in August 2013, seeks to establish a substantive offence for bribe giving which is to includes not just constructively paying a bribe but the mere offer or promise to bribe a public servant as well. The punishment has been enhanced as well taking the minimum imprisonment to 3 years extendable up to 7 years along with a fine. The Bill further establishes a substantive offence for bribery by commercial organisation, which also provides that when a commercial organisation is found guilty of the offence of bribery, all such persons who at the time at which the offence was committed were responsible or in charge of conducting the business of the organisation will also be guilty of the offence – and liable to a minimum imprisonment of three years – extendable to seven years, as well as a fine. Similarly, where the offence has been committed due to the consent or connivance or neglect of any director, manager, secretary or officer of the company, such person will also be held guilty of the offence.

India does not recognise corporate criminal liability

It is amply clear from the proposed amendment in the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 that India is on its way to expressly recognising corporate criminal liability in the substantive law.

It is to be noted that this is already an admitted position in Indian law.  The Supreme Court of India in the ‘Standard Chartered vs. Directorate of Enforcement’ and the ‘Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs. Motorola Inc’  has taken the view that companies can be prosecuted for criminal acts and the criminal liability of a corporation arises when an offence is committed in relation to the business of the corporation by a person or body of persons in control of its affairs.

Gifts are a cultural requirement hence acceptable

Gifts are again a commonly misconstrued area, wherein threshold values of gifts that public servants are entitled to receive are rarely adhered to. This is a complex problem as even gifts at levels that corporate compliance programs envisage of USD. 50-100 may at times not correspond to the laid down threshold values.

In this regard, it would be imperative to understand that the PCA’s ambit for bribes is extremely wide and includes any gratification that a public servant receives other than legal remuneration. The PCA further prevents public servants from obtaining anything of value without consideration from persons such public servant is likely to engage in business with.

Broadly speaking with regards to gifts two classes of public servants emerge:

• Public servants governed by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
• Public servants (Ministers) governed by the ‘Code of Conduct for Ministers’ by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules apply to four classes of officials and the individual threshold value of the gifts each class of officials can accept is clearly laid down. Rule 13 of the same does not allow any Government servant to accept, or permit any member of his family or any other person acting on his behalf to accept, any gift. The expression “gift” shall include free transport, boarding, lodging or other service or any other pecuniary advantage when provided by any person other than a near relative or personal friend having no official dealings with the Government servant.  With regards to foreign firms the scrutiny is higher and the Rules provide that a Government servant shall not accept any gifts from any foreign firm which is either contracting with the Government of India or is one with which the Government servant had, has or is likely to have official dealings.

The Code of Conduct for Ministers lays down that Ministers of both the Union and the State should not accept valuable gifts except from close relatives, and that members of their families should not accept any gifts at all from any person with whom such Minister may have official dealings. When Indian Ministers are travelling abroad they are entitled to receive symbolic gifts and gifts beyond Rs. 5000 (USD. 85) may not be retained by the Minister.

Facilitation payments are acceptable

The PCA does not recognise facilitation payments or any exception to the gratification other than legal remuneration concept. The gratification which if not legal remuneration is deemed illegal whether given for a lawful or unlawful purpose. Hence any speed, grease or facilitation payments would be considered to be bribes under the PCA.

Private Sector Bribery is not punishable in India

There exists no offence for private sector bribery as the PCA is focussed on the bribery of public servants. The Ministry of Home Affairs is at this juncture working on amending the Indian Penal Code to introduce two sections that deal with private sector bribery.

The lack of legislation however would not stop a company whose employee has accepted a bribe in the course of business, from bringing an action of cheating or breach of trust along with other penal provisions against the said employee. This would essentially be a criminal proceeding as both cheating and breach of trust are penal provisions. A similar action of cheating could be also be instituted by the aggrieved company against the individual / company that bribed its employee – as a dishonest intention clearly appears.

India does not criminalise bribery of foreign public officials

At present the bribery of foreign public official or officials of public international organisations is not an offence. A Bill titled the ‘The Prevention of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and Officials of Public International Organizations Bill, 2011’ has been introduced in the Indian Parliament. The Bill penalises the offer or promise to bribe foreign public officials and will also allow the Government of India to enter into agreements with other countries for enforcing this law and for exchange of investigative information.  Further, extradition treaties that India has with other countries who have signed and ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption will be deemed to stand amended to include the offences envisaged under this Bill when it is passed by Parliament. The punishment under this Bill is imprisonment for a minimum term of 6 months extendable to 7 years and a fine.

On the flip side India has entered into Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties in Criminal Matters with 34 countries, is a member of the Interpol, has Extradition Treaties with 37 countries and Extradition Arrangements with 8 countries. Hence with growing cooperation between investigative and prosecution authorities, it is to be noted that the legal framework in India is provisionally competent to offer assistance if the need so arises.

Administrative action will not be taken in case of bribery

The FCPA Professor’s post in January 2014 highlighted pre-contract integrity pacts that have become a mandatory requirement for public sector contracts and the ensuing action that could be taken against a company for the failure to comply with the pact or engage in bribery. Administrative action in the form of contract termination, forfeiture of bid amounts, encashing bank guarantees, and blacklisting have proven to be swifter attacking the commercial viability of bribery by putting the stipulated business on hold. Examples of administrative action which has impacted commercial organisations can be seen with the  Ministry of Defence unilaterally terminating  a Euro 556 Million contract with the Anglo-Italian helicopter manufacturing company AgustaWestland on the 1st of January 2014 for breach of the pre-contract integrity pact and earlier in 2012 blacklisting six companies from doing business in India for ten years.

A Bill titled the ‘Public Procurement Bill, 2012’ has also been introduced in the Indian Parliament that further seeks to regulate public sector procurement and provides for a debarment from all public procurements for a period of three years if a bidder has been convicted for an offence under the Indian Penal Code or the IPC. The Bill also creates an offence for interfering or influencing with the debarment process in an unlawful manner.

Conclusion

The last 5 years have seen various efforts being made to reform the Indian anti corruption legal framework and various examples of these proposed legislations that have been introduced in the Indian Parliament have been touched upon above. The Indian legal framework most definitely has various gaps just like every other legal system does, but where India takes a beating is on the execution of its legislative intent and enforcement actions.

The inherently weak enforcement mechanism coupled with compromised political will – is reluctantly faced with reform in the face of a strong public sentiment against corruption and proactive media houses. The business of bribery has been hit as media reporting and public awareness has mandated that demonstrable action is taken, which has resulted in more matters being investigated and finally prosecuted. This notwithstanding, bribery is unfortunately treated as an opportunity cost in India and the number of corruption scandals and global watchdog reports would only go on to re-affirm this point.

The Indian legal system is provisionally sound enough to deal with corruption when the will to implement the same exists. The risk for companies therefore lies in when the system works and thus the only question that companies doing business in India have to ask themselves is whether in the cross winds of whistleblowers, enhanced public scrutiny and media trials they would like to be the rare or growing subjects of this system working.

Friday Roundup

U.S. reportedly did not cooperate, Avon’s reaches a settlement “understanding” and other scrutiny alerts, the “financial SWAT team,” at the SEC, FCPA Inc. news, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

U.S. Reportedly Did Not Cooperate

The DOJ talks a lot about cooperation with foreign law enforcement partners with its comes to its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement program.  For instance, and as noted in this prior post, in June 2013 the DOJ’s Acting Assistant Attorney General stated:

“Through our increased work on prosecutions with our foreign counterparts and our participation in various multi-lateral fora like the OECD and United Nations, it is safe to say that we are cooperating with foreign law enforcement on foreign bribery cases more closely today than at any time in history.  This type of collaboration is absolutely critical if we are going to have a meaningful impact on corruption internationally.  As our economies become more interdependent, corruption itself is increasingly transnational.  What may be a domestic corruption concern for one country may very well be a foreign bribery concern for another.”

In 2012 and 2013 (see here and here) the DOJ brought related FCPA enforcement actions against BizJet and various former executives regarding, in part, conduct involving officials from Panama’s Aviation Authority.

Panama also investigated the conduct at issue, but according to this report in Panama-Guide.com (a website that provides English translations of original source news articles):

“Panama’s Superior Prosecutor for Organized Crime requested the judges responsible for the case to provisionally close a case involving allegations of the payments of bribes to officials of the Civil Aviation Authority by the US company BizJet, that received the contract to maintain the presidential aircraft between 2004 and 2009. The prosecutor sent his request in early March 2014, because law enforcement authorities in the United States failed to respond to a second request for judicial assistance in order to clarify key pieces of data (evidence) contained in the Panamanian investigation. The prosecutor sent their first request for assistance to the United States in May 2012 asking for collaboration, but the answer they sent in response to the Panamanian investigators was not enough (insufficient) for them to continue the investigation. They sent a second request for assistance in 2013, asking for the evidence that linked the Panamanians to the alleged bribes.  According to judicial sources, these elements would be important to the process. The director of the AAC, Rafael Barcenas, confirmed that the officials mentioned in investigation in the United States are still working for the entity, and while there is no legal decision his office will not take any action against them.”

Scrutiny Alerts

Avon

Yesterday, Avon disclosed as follows regarding the FCPA scrutiny it has been under since 2008.

“We have now reached an understanding with respect to terms of settlement with each of the DOJ and the staff of the SEC. Based on these understandings, the Company would, among other things: pay aggregate fines, disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $135 [million] with respect to alleged violations of the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA, with $68 [million] payable to the DOJ and $67 [million] payable to the SEC; enter into a deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ under which the DOJ would defer criminal prosecution of the Company for a period of three years in connection with alleged violations of the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA; agree to have a compliance monitor which, with the approval of the government, can be replaced after 18 months by the Company’s agreement to undertake self monitoring and reporting obligations for an additional 18 months. If the Company remains in compliance with the DPA during its term, the charges against the Company would be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, as part of any settlement with the DOJ, a subsidiary of Avon operating in China would enter a guilty plea in connection with alleged violations of the books and records provision of the FCPA. The expected terms of settlement do not require any change to our historical financial statements. Final resolution of these matters is subject to preparation and negotiation of documentation satisfactory to all the parties, including approval by our board of directors and, in the case of the SEC, authorization by the Commission; court approval of the SEC settlement; and court approval of the DPA and acceptance of the expected guilty plea by an Avon subsidiary operating in China. We can provide no assurances that satisfactory final agreements will be reached, that authorization by the Commission or the court approvals will be obtained or that the court will accept the guilty plea or with respect to the timing or terms of any such agreements, authorization, and approvals and acceptance.”

A $135 million settlement will be the 11th largest in terms of fine / penalty amounts.

Some media outlets were quick to link disclosure of the future FCPA settlement to the approximate 10% slide in Avon’s stock price yesterday.  For instance, USA Today stated:

“Avon Products stock swooned more than 12% in mid-day trading after the company agreed to pay $135 million for long-standing federal changes that it paid bribes in China and other countries.”

However, Avon’s FCPA disclosure was in the same SEC filing in which the company disclosed, among other things, a 6% drop in total units sold during Q1, beauty sales were off 12%, and sales in North America fell 22%.

Johnson Controls

In its most recent quarterly filing, Johnson Controls first disclosed the following:

“In June 2013, the Company self-reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations related to its Building Efficiency marine business in China dating back to 2007. These allegations were isolated to the Company’s marine business in China which had annual sales ranging from $20 million to $50 million during this period. The Company, under the oversight of its Audit Committee and Board of Directors, proactively initiated an investigation into this matter with the assistance of external legal counsel and external forensic accountants. In connection with this investigation, the Company has made and continues to evaluate certain enhancements to its FCPA compliance program. The Company continues to fully cooperate with the SEC and the DOJ; however, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate resolution of this matter with these agencies.”

In 2007, Johnson Controls was a signatory to the York International FCPA enforcement action (see here and here) principally involving alleged conduct in connection with the Iraq Oil for Food Program.  According to the DOJ, “nearly all of the conduct described in the [York International Criminal] Information took place prior to York’s acquisition by Johnson Controls, Inc. on December 9, 2005.”

JPMorgan

In its most recent quarterly filing, JPMorgan disclosed as follows regarding its pending FCPA scrutiny:

“Referral Hiring Practices Investigations. Various regulators are investigating, among other things, the Firm’s compliance with the  Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other laws with respect to the  Firm’s hiring practices related to candidates referred by clients, potential clients and government officials, and its engagement of consultants in the Asia Pacific region. The Firm is cooperating with these investigations.”

Teva Pharamaceuticals

In August 2012, the company first disclosed its FCPA scrutiny and in its most recent SEC filing disclosed as follows.

“Beginning in 2012, Teva received subpoenas and informal document requests from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to produce documents with respect to compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”) in certain countries. Teva has provided and will continue to provide documents and other information to the SEC and the DOJ, and is cooperating with the government in their investigations of these matters. Teva is also conducting a voluntary worldwide investigation into certain business practices that may have FCPA implications and has engaged independent counsel to assist in its investigation. In the course of its investigation, which is continuing, Teva has identified issues in Russia, certain Eastern European countries, certain Latin American countries and other countries where it conducts business that could rise to the level of FCPA violations and/or violations of local law. In connection with its investigation of these issues, Teva has become aware that Teva affiliates in certain countries under investigation provided to local authorities inaccurate or altered information relating to marketing or promotional practices. Teva continues to bring these issues to the attention of the SEC and the DOJ. No conclusion can be drawn at this time as to any likely outcomes in these matters.”

Och-Ziff

Och-Ziff Capital Management disclosed as follows in its recent quarterly filing:

“Beginning in 2011, and from time to time thereafter, the Company has received subpoenas from the Securities and Exchange Commission and requests for information from the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with an investigation involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related laws. The investigation concerns an investment by a foreign sovereign wealth fund in some of the Och-Ziff funds in 2007 and investments by some of the funds, both directly and indirectly, in a number of companies in Africa. At this time, the Company is unable to determine how the investigation will be resolved and what impact, if any, it will have. An adverse outcome could have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. “

“Financial SWAT Team”

It receives scant attention compared to FCPA enforcement, but another prong of the DOJ’s efforts to combat bribery and corruption is its Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative under which prosecutors in the DOJ Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section work in partnership with federal law enforcement agencies to forfeit the proceeds of foreign official corruption. (See this 2009 post highlighting Attorney General Holder’s announcement of the program).

Earlier this week, speaking at Ukraine Forum on Asset Recovery Attorney General Holder announced “the creation of a dedicated Kleptocracy squad within the FBI.”  He stated:

“This specialized unit will partner with our Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section to aggressively investigate and prosecute corruption cases – not only in Ukraine, but around the world. The squad of about a dozen personnel will consist of case agents and forensic analysts who are capable of unraveling the intricate money laundering transactions commonly employed by kleptocrats. Their sophisticated work will be supported by deputy marshals from the United States Marshals Service and analysts from FinCEN, which is our financial intelligence unit. And this new initiative will provide the United States with increased capacity to respond rapidly to political crises as they arise – so we can help prevent stolen assets from being dissipated or secreted away by deposed regimes.”

At the SEC

Further to the notion that SEC enforcement seems at times to be a numbers game, SEC Chair Mary Jo White testified as follows before the House Financial Services Committee.

“The Commission continues to pursue companies that bribe foreign officials to obtain or retain business, and over the last two-and-a-half years, we have obtained over $679 million in monetary relief from FCPA actions. For example, the SEC has brought FCPA actions charging a company with a bribe scheme involving business with Aluminum Bahrain; another company with various bribes and improper payments in the Middle East and Africa and violations of U.S. sanctions and export control laws involving Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan; and a third company with bribe schemes involving business with the National Iranian Oil Company. The Commission is also focused on holding individuals accountable, with ongoing FCPA-related litigation against former executives of a number of corporations.”

Fact check.

Since 2008,  approximately 82% of corporate SEC FCPA enforcement actions have not (at least yet) resulted in any SEC charges against company employees and the SEC has not brought an individual FCPA enforcement action since 2012.

Although White’s FCPA testimony focused on the numbers, elsewhere she was quick to point out that:

“Quantitative metrics alone, however, are not the proper yardstick of the measure of Enforcement’s effectiveness. Enforcement considers the quality, breadth, and effect of the actions pursued.”

Staying with the SEC, its tough to beat the following for lack of transparency.  Recently in an insider trading enforcement action, the SEC entered into a non-prosecution agreement with an “individual.”

FCPA Inc. News

Few FCPA Inc. participants are publicy-traded companies.  Thus, it is often difficult to take the pulse of FCPA Inc. other than anecdotal information.  However, one FCPA Inc. participant that is publicly traded is FTI Consulting.  In a recent earnings release, the company stated:

“The major driver of quarterly results was Forensic and Litigation Consulting with a record quarter, fueled by a number of front-page newspaper assignments from across the globe relating to high-stakes client events ranging from FCPA investigations to mortgage-backed security litigations. Similarly, our Technology business continued to perform very well, driven by ongoing FCPA and financial services investigations as well as increased cross-border M&A related ‘second request’ activity.”

As previously highlighted, as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Mythili Raman often carried forward much of the same rhetoric former Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer frequently articulated concerning the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement program.  Raman will now be joining Breuer at Covington & Burling.  The firm announced that “Mythili Raman … is joining Covington & Burling as a partner. Ms. Raman will practice in the firm’s litigation and white collar groups and be resident in the Washington office.”

As noted in this Covington biography:

“As Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division from 2013-2014, and before then, as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division from 2009-2013, Ms. Raman oversaw the work of more than 600 prosecutors and led the Justice Department’s national and international criminal law enforcement initiatives, including investigations of [among other things] violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”

For additional coverage see here from the New York Times and here from the Wall Street Journal.

For the Reading Stack

ProPublica takes a look at various aspects of white-collar law enforcement, including the “Breu Crew” (a reference to former Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer”) in “The Rise of Corporate Impunity.”  See here for my article “Lanny Breuer and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement.”

Three cheers for Northwestern Professors Juliet Sorensen and Karen Alter for resisting the “feel good” notion that the International Criminal Court ought to be prosecuting corruption.  Writing in “Let Nations, Not the World, Prosecute Corruption,” the authors state:

“It is easy to understand the attraction of adding the crime of corruption to the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. Like violent atrocities, embezzlement and blackmail may be perpetrated on innocents. Corruption can be an international crime, featuring offshore accounts, money laundering and bribery of foreign officials. Moreover, when political leaders are involved in mass corruption, their crimes can become too dangerous for local judges and prosecutors to tackle. […] But to add this crime to the court’s jurisdiction would be a mistake. It is limited for good reason to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and in the future, the crime of aggression.  […]  Before we give the court a new and even harder crime to prosecute, we must make sure that it can succeed in its core mandate. What international criminal law does best is prosecute those most responsible, at the apex of the pyramid, when individual nations are unwilling or unable to do so.  Finally, we must recognize that already the International Criminal Court faces a crisis of political support. […]  The status quo is surely not a perfect one. But international intervention is not a panacea. The International Criminal Court needs to stay focused on the important task of prosecuting those most responsible for mass atrocities. Rather than put more resources into international criminal prosecution, the resources and energy of the international community should go towards bolstering national resources to investigate, prosecute, and deter public corruption.”

See here for “Anti-Corruption Compliance:  Meeting the Global Standard” recently published in Bloomberg BNA’s Corporate Law and Accountability Report by Arnold & Porter attorneys Keith Korenchuk, Samuel Witten and Daniel Bernstein:

“Designing an effective anti-corruption compliance program that meets the requirements of many different jurisdictions seems like a daunting task. Executives at global companies are likely to ask themselves: Do we need dozens of different compliance programs? Will we be subject to conflicting standards in the various countries where we do business? How can we ensure proper oversight of activity that occurs all over the globe? In addressing these questions, multinational companies should take note of the broad global consensus that has developed around what governments and international organizations expect of corporate anti corruption compliance programs. While there is no one-size-fits-all program—and a company must bear in mind applicable local laws—this global standard is welcome news. Here we review the commonly accepted best practices for an anti-corruption compliance program.”

From various Jones Day attorneys (here), “India’s New Corporate Social Responsibility Requirements – Beware of the Pitfalls”:

“In August 2013, the Indian parliament passed the Indian Companies Act, 2013 (the “New Act”), which has replaced the Companies Act of 1956. The New Act has made far-reaching changes affecting company formation, administration and governance, and it has increased shareholder control over board decisions. […]  One of the New Act’s most startling changes—which came into effect on April 1, 2014—has been to impose compulsory corporate social responsibility  obligations (“CSR”) upon Indian companies and foreign companies operating in India. These obligations mainly come in the form of mandatory amounts companies must contribute to remediating social problems. This is a wholly new requirement; although companies were permitted, within certain limits, to make charitable contributions in the past, the New Act is essentially a self-administered tax.  […] If the Indian company undertaking CSR is a subsidiary of a United States entity, or if its business activities “touch” the U.K., then the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) or the U.K. Bribery Act (“UKBA”), respectively, as well as other regulatory laws of these jurisdictions, may apply to the Indian company’s CSR payments. This may raise serious issues of compliance and liability.”

See here for “China Introduces New Health Care Sector Anti-Corruption Regulations” by Richard Grams and Allan Golder:

“As part of a concerted effort to tackle systemic commercial bribery in the country’s health care sector, China’s National Health and Family Planning Commission recently introduced separate new regulations aimed at hospitals and physicians, as well as the medical product companies that supply them.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

DOJ Alleges Wide-Ranging Conspiracy To Bribe Indian Officials To Secure Mining Licenses

Yesterday the DOJ announced the unsealing of a criminal indictment charging six individuals “with participating in an alleged international racketeering conspiracy involving bribes of state and central government officials in India to allow the mining of titanium minerals.”

According to the indictment, Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian businessman who was arrested in March in Austria (see here for the DOJ’s prior release), was the leader of a criminal enterprise, through his group of companies Group DF, that included:

• Andras Knopp (a Hungarian businessman)
• Suren Gevorgyan (of Ukraine)
• Gajendra Lal (an Indian national and permanent resident of the U.S.)
• Periyasamy Sunderalingam (of Sri Lanka)
• K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao (a Member of the Parliament in India who was an official of the state government of Andra Pradesh and a close advisor to the now-deceased chief minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy)

According to the indictment, the illegal activities of the enterprise included, but were not limited to: “utilizing United States financial institutions to engage in the international transmission of dollars for the purpose of bribing Indian public officials in connection with obtaining approval of the necessary licenses for [a mining project within Andhra Pradesh], which project was forecast to generate more than $500 million in revenues per year …”

According to the indictment:

“Licenses were required for the project before mining could begin.  These licenses required the approval of both the State Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Central Government prior to their issuance.  The approval and issuance of such licenses were discretionary, non-routine governmental actions.”

The indictment charges all defendants with racketeering conspiracy; money laundering conspiracy; and two counts of interstate travel in aid of racketeering.

In addition, all defendants except Rao (the alleged Indian “foreign official”) were charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.

The absence of Rao from this charge is, no doubt, a result of U.S. v. Castle, 925 F.2d 831 (5^th Cir. 1991). In that case involving Canadian “foreign officials,” the DOJ acknowledged that it could not charge the officials with direct FCPA violations since the FCPA did not criminalize the receipt of bribes by a foreign official.  However, the DOJ charged the Canadian officials with conspiring to violate the FCPA.  The court dismissed this charge and rejected the DOJ’s position that a “foreign official” could be charged with conspiring to violate the FCPA.  Based on the language and legislative history of the FCPA, the court found a “legislative policy to leave unpunished a well-defined group of persons [i.e., “foreign officials] who were necessary parties to the acts constituting a violation of the substantive law.”

As to the FCPA conspiracy charge, Lal is charged as a domestic concern and the other defendants are charged as “persons” under the 78dd-3 prong of the statute which contains the following jurisdictional element – “while in the territory of the U.S., corruptly … make[s] use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or to do any act in furtherance” of an improper payment. The indictment contains various allegations relevant to this jurisdictional prong including use of U.S. bank accounts, travel in the U.S., use of e-mail accounts hosted on computer servers located within the U.S., and use of cell phones operating on interstate networks.

Among other things, the indictment seeks forfeiture of approximately $10.6 million from the defendants.

In the DOJ’s release, Acting Assistant Attorney General David O’Neil states:

“Fighting global corruption is part of the fabric of the Department of Justice.  The charges against six foreign nationals announced today send the unmistakable message that we will root out and attack foreign bribery and bring to justice those who improperly influence foreign officials, wherever we find them.”

U.S. Attorney for the N.D. of Illinois Zachary Fardon states:

“Criminal conspiracies that extend beyond our borders are not beyond our reach.  We will use all of the tools and resources available to us to ensure the integrity of global business transactions that involve U.S. commerce.”

Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Chicago Office Robert Holley states:

“This case is another example of the FBI’s willingness to aggressively investigate corrupt conduct around the globe.  With the assistance of our law enforcement partners, both foreign and domestic, we will continue to pursue those who allegedly bribe foreign officials in return for lucrative business contracts.”

As noted in the release, other than Firtash, all other defendants remain at large.  When Firtash was arrested in March, he released this statement through Group DF.  As highlighted here, Firtash paid approximately $172 million to be released on bail.

For more on the enforcement action, see here from the Chicago Tribune, here from Reuters and here from Bloomberg.

As noted in this article, while several FCPA enforcement actions have been brought in connection with foreign license and permitting issues, the government has an overall losing record when put to its burden of proof in FCPA enforcement actions outside the context of foreign government procurement.