India – Page 9 – FCPA Professor

The Dilution Of FCPA Enforcement Has Reached A New Level With The SEC’s Enforcement Action Against Oracle

Yesterday,the SEC announced (here) a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act books and records and internal controls enforcement action against Oracle Corporation.

With the enforcement action, the dilution of FCPA enforcement has reached a new level. The only allegations against Oracle itself is that it failed to audit distributor margins against end user prices and that it failed to audit third party payments made by distributors. It is common for large multi-national companies to have hundreds, if not thousands, of distributors. Because of this, audits Oracle was held liable for not conducting are not practical or cost-effective absent red flags suggesting improper conduct. The SEC did not allege any such red flag issues. In fact, the SEC alleges that Oracle’s Indian subsidiary “concealed” and kept “secret” the conduct from Oracle. Congress did not intend for the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions to be a strict liability statute. The SEC used to recognize this. However, it no longer does as once again demonstrated by the Oracle action.

In reading the Oracle action, I was reminded of a 1981 speech by Harold Williams (Chairman of the SEC) regarding the FCPA books and records and internal control provisions. See here for the prior post. Williams stated that the provisions are not “independent unrestrained mandate[s] to the Commission to establish novel or unprecedented corporate recordkeeping standards.” Williams further stated as follows. “Depending on the circumstances, intentional circumventions of a company’s system of records and of accounting controls by a low-level employee would not always be considered violations of the Act by the issuer. No system of adequate records and controls – no matter how effectively devised or conscientiously applied – could be expected to prevent all mistaken and improper transactions and disposition of assets. Given human nature, regardless of the adequacy of the system, a bookkeeper may still erroneously post entries, an overzealous agent may make unauthorized payments, or an unscrupulous employee may falsify records for his own purposes. The Act recognizes each of these limitations. Neither its text and legislative history nor its purposes suggest that occasional, inadvertent errors were the kind of problem that Congress sought to remedy in passing the Act. No rational federal interest in punishing insignificant mistakes has been articulated. And, the Act’s accounting provisions do not require a company or its senior officials to be the guarantors of all conduct of company employees.”

Back to the SEC’s enforcement action against Oracle.

The SEC complaint (here) states in summary fashion as follows.

“This matter involves violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA by Oracle Corporation. From 2005 to 2007, certain employees of Oracle’s Indian subsidiary Oracle India Private Limited (“Oracle India”) secretly ‘parked’ a portion of the proceeds from certain sales to the Indian government and put the money to unauthorized use, creating the potential for bribery or embezzlement. These Oracle India employes structured more than a dozen transactions so that a total of around $2.2 million was held by the Company’s distributors and kept off Oracle India’s corporate books. The Oracle India employes would then direct its distributor to disburse payments out of the unauthorized side funds to purported local ‘vendors.’ Several of the ‘vendors’ were merely storefronts that did not provide any services. Oracle failed to accurately record these side funds on the Company’s books and records, and failed to implement or maintain a system of effective internal accounting controls to prevent improper side funds in violation of the FCPA, which requires public companies to keep books and records that accurately reflect their operations.”

Specifically, the SEC complaint states as follows.

“On approximately 14 occasions related to 8 different government contracts between 2005 and 2007, certain Oracle India employees created extra margins between the end user and distributor price and directed the distributors to hold the extra margin in side funds. Oracle India’s employees made these margins large enough to ensure a side fund existed to pay third parties. At the direction of the Oracle India employees, the distributor then made payments out of the side funds to third parties, purportedly for marketing and development expenses. Some of the recipients of these payments were not on Oracle’s approved local vendor list; indeed, some of the third parties did not exist and were merely storefronts. Because the Oracle India employees concealed the existence of the side fund, Oracle did not properly account for these side funds. These funds constituted prepaid marketing expenses incurred by Oracle India and should have been recorded as an asset and rolled up to Oracle’s corporate books and records. These marketing expenses should then have been reflected in the income statement once they were used. Instead, the parked funds were not reflected on Oracle India’s books and were not properly recorded as prepaid marketing expenses. This incorrect accounting in turn affected Oracle’s books and records. Between 2005 and 2007, government customers paid Oracle India’s distributors at least $6.7 million on these sales, with Oracle receiving approximately $4.5 million in revenue, resulting in about $2.2 million in funds improperly ‘parked’ with the Company’s distributors.”

The SEC further alleged as follows.

“Oracle lacked the proper controls to prevent its employees at Oracle India from creating and misusing the parked funds. For example, Oracle knew distributor discounts created a margin of cash from which distributors received payments for their services. Before 2009, however, the company failed to audit and compare the distributor’s margin against the end user price to ensure excess margins were not being built into the pricing structure. In addition, although Oracle maintained corporate policies requiring approvals for payment of marketing expenses, Oracle failed to seek transparency in or audit third party payments made by distributors on Oracle India’s behalf. This control would have enabled Oracle to check that payments wer made to appropriate recipients.”

Based on the above conduct, the SEC charged Oracle with FCPA books and records and internal controls violations.

In the SEC’s release, Marc Fagel (Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office) stated as follows. “Through its subsidiary’s use of secret cash cushions, Oracle exposed itself to the risk that these hidden funds would be put to illegal use. It is important for U.S. companies to proactively establish policies and procedures to minimize the potential for payments to foreign officials or other unauthorized uses of company funds.” As noted in the release, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Oracle consented to the entry of a final judgment ordering the company to pay a $2 million penalty and permanently enjoining it from future books and records and internal control violations. The release further states as follows. “The settlement takes into account Oracle’s voluntary disclosure of the conduct in India and its cooperation with the SEC’s investigation, as well as remedial measures taken by the company, including firing the employees involved in the misconduct and making significant enhancements to its FCPA compliance program.”

It is typical for the DOJ and SEC to announce FCPA enforcement actions on the same day. Thus, the absence of a parallel DOJ enforcement action as to the alleged conduct at issue suggests that there will be no DOJ enforcement action, a good result given the SEC’s allegations and for the reasons stated above.

However, it may be premature to conclude that Oracle’s FCPA scrutiny is over. As noted in this prior post, in September 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that the DOJ was investigating “whether Oracle employees or agents acting on the company’s behalf made improper payments in Africa in order to land sales of database and applications software.”

*****

The SEC’s enforcement action against Oracle is not the first time distributor margin payments have served as the basis of an FCPA enforcement action. See here for the 2005 enforcement action against InVison, specifically the Thailand allegations. However, in that action the SEC alleged that the company was aware of the “high probability” that the margin was being used for improper purposes.

Rate This – Nielsen Company Accused Of FCPA Violations In Civil Suit, Plus Olympus Under Scrutiny

Approximately 100 companies are publicly known to be the subject of FCPA scrutiny. This figure is likely a conservative estimate given that little is often known of private company FCPA scrutiny until an enforcement action is announced. For instance, other than those involved, who knew that NORDAM Group or Data Systems & Solutions (two companies that recently resolved enforcement actions – see here and here) were the subject of FCPA scrutiny?

Add two more companies to the list: Nielsen Company and Olympus Corp.

Nielsen

It is not the traditional way companies become the subject of the FCPA scrutiny, but then again it is not unheard of for FCPA scrutiny to begin with a civil complaint.

Last week in a lengthy civil complaint (here) filed by New Delhi Television Limited (“NDTV”) in New York State Court, NDTV (which describes itself as India’s first and most respected private broadcaster of news, current affairs and lifestyle television and a pioneer in India’s news television) accused Nielsen and a host of related entities and individuals of “negligence, gross negligence, false representations, prima facie tort and negligence per se (based on violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Dutch Corporate Governance Code).”

The 37th cause of action against Nielsen is for negligence per se arising from violations of the FCPA and the complaint states in full as follows.

“The anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act … prohibit U.S. companies from giving anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to, inter alia, a foreign politician so as to induce such foreign politician to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such foreign politician; or to secure any improper advantage, or to continue the company’s business. Accordingly, since the formation of TAM [Television Audience Management, an Indian company which is a joint venture between a Nielson entity and others], Nielsen had a duty to comply with the provisions of the FCPA, so as to prevent the rampant corruption that has existed and currently exists within TAM. Nielsen has known or should have known, that politicians directly and indirectly own approximately one-third of the news channels in India; that approximately sixty-percent (60%) of Indian cable operations are owned, directly or indirectly, by politicians or their proxies; and that, at all relevant times, there were high levels of corruption in the Indian television ratings industry and in TAM’s operations. Nonetheless, since the inception of TAM, Nielsen has allowed TAM, using the Nielsen Process and/or Nielsen’s proprietary property and/or Nielsen’s name and logo, to publish corrupt data, which was known to be corrupt, which benefited politicians. Indeed, Nielsen knew or should have known and/or consciously disregarded the fact that the leakage of panel home identities yielded hundreds of millions of dollars for the benefit of several politicians. This has enabled TAM, Nielsen and Kantar [another entity in the joint venture] to maintain its monopoly power in India and/or steady revenues. The failure to stop publication of corrupt data continues to benefit politicians, TAM, Nielsen and Kantar. Since the formation of TAM, Nielsen has had intimate actual knowledge of such violations of the FCPA; knew of several red flags giving rise to an inference of actual knowledge of such violations of the FCPA; was willfully blind to such violations of the FCPA; and consciously avoided such violations of the FCPA. Indeed, Robert Messemer, Chief Global Security Officer for The Nielsen Company, and Paul Donato, Executive Vice President and Chief Research Officer for Nielsen, during the course of their several visits to India commencing January 2012, meetings there as described above, and in the course of investigations during and subsequent to such visits and meetings, had actual knowledge of, and/or consciously disregarded FCPA violations, including, but not limited to, representations made in person to them by the whistleblower whom they personally interviewed on February 28, 2012 …, that, at the very least, one of the parties engaged in obtaining and using highly sensitive identities of panel homes was a television network owned by a well known Indian politician. As a result of Nielsen’s willful disregard of such undeniable corrupt practices, such foreign politicians derived benefits by, inter alia, manipulation and skewing of TAM data in favor of broadcast channels and cable operations owned and/or operated by such local politicians or their proxies, from manipulation of rates based on knowledge of corrupt data and identity of panel homes, and various other means. Nielsen’s complete and utter failure and/or refusal to stop publication of manipulated TAM data has allowed such politicians to continue to benefit from the publication of such data. Thus, benefits were provided to those politicians, and TAM and/or Nielsen continued to enjoy the benefits of, inter alia, continued operations as a monopoly in the Indian market, and steady revenues. Such acts and omissions by Nielsen constitute violations of the FCPA by Nielsen, and, as a result, negligence per se.”

For additional coverage of the complaint, see here from Courthouse News Service, here from the Hollywood Reporter and here from International Business Times.

Olympus

Yesterday, Bloomberg reported (here) that Olympus Corp., the world’s largest maker of endoscopes, uncovered irregularities at a doctor-training program in Brazil that may have violated U.S. law and reported them to the Department of Justice.” According to the article, “at issue in Brazil may be the way the company handled doctors’ expenses for travel, meals or entertainment.” The article quotes company Chairman Yasuyuki Kimoto as saying “we might agree to some sort of violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in Brazil. We understand DOJ is trying to gather lots of information on us.”

How can Tokyo based Olympus become subject to the FCPA? For starters, the company has Level 1 ADRs traded on the so-called “Pink Sheets.” Also, as noted in the Bloomberg article, the company has a U.S. based subsidiary and if it was involved in the conduct at issue, the DOJ may take the position that the subsidiary was acting as an agent of the parent company. Also, as I suggest in the Bloomberg article, under the dd-3 prong of the FCPA added by the 1998 amendments, any company can be subject to the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions to the extent “while in the territory of the U.S.” conduct occurs in furtherance of the scheme. As noted in this prior post, the DOJ has asserted expansive theories under dd-3. Notwithstanding the DOJ’s dd-3 setback in the Africa Sting case (also noted in the prior post) it is likely to continue to assert such expansive theories until challenged.

Olympus’s FCPA scrutiny would appear to be based on the untested (and in the minds of many – see here – dubious) enforcement theory that anyone employed by a state-run health care system is a “foreign official” under the FCPA. Several prior enforcement actions, including against medical device companies, (see here for instance) have been based on this theory.

The FCPA And South Asia

[If FCPA Professor is a valuable part of your day, please consider taking a moment to register your support in the LexisNexis Top 25 Business Law Blog contest. The link to submit comments is here and the comment period ends on October 25th]

Yesterday, I had the pleasure to participate in the South Asia Legal Studies conference at the University of Wisconsin Law School. I participated in a panel moderated by Andy Spalding (here – Visiting Assistant Professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law) titled “Corruption in South Asia: The Role of Law and Legal Institutions.”

The focus of my remarks addressed the following question: are U.S. companies (or other multinational companies subject to the FCPA) doing business in South Asia intent on engaging in bribery or are such companies doing business in South Asia confronted by conditions not of their own making (the later comment inspired by Joseph Covington’s recent observation regarding a potential FCPA compliance defense – see here).

I noted, as evidenced by recent FCPA enforcement activity in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, that the latter seems to be true. South Asia is plagued by harassment bribes. For instance, according to the 2010 Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer – here – 54% of Indian households paid a bribe in a 12 month period to receive basic services. As noted in this previous post, Kaushik Basu (India’s Chief Economic Advisor) recently stated that “harassment bribery is widespread in India and it plays a large role in breeding inefficiency and has a corrosive effect on civil society.” This 2010 National Public Radio piece noted that “getting things done without hassles [in India] requires a bribe.” The piece observed as follows. India is “famous for paperwork, tangled bureaucracy and the courts are slow. So, often it just makes economic sense to shrug and pay the money. Because when you bribe someone, they can become like your own personal Ganesh, the god who is the remover of obstacles.”

FCPA enforcement in South Asia has almost exclusively focused on harassment bribes, payments made by companies, nearly always with the assistance of local agents, consultants, and brokers, simply to get things done and remove obstacles. For instance, the Diageo enforcement action concerned, in part, payments in India in connection with product label registration and securing favorable product placement and promotion. The Wabtec enforcement action concerned payments in India in connection with the scheduling of pre-shipping product inspections, issuance of product delivery certificates and tax audits. The Dow enforcement action concerned payments in India in connection with registering products. The Avery Dennison enforcement action concerned, in part, payments in Pakistan in connection with obtaining bonded zone licenses and to overlook bonded zone regulatory violations. The Baker Hughes enforcement action concerned, in part, payments in India in connection with shipping permits.

Are the above FCPA enforcement actions the best way to address harassment bribes in South Asia and other parts of the world?

“Rapid Multinational Expansion Through Mergers and Acquisitions” Leads to FCPA Enforcement Action Against Diageo

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is of course no laughing matter. Yet if an FCPA joke book is ever written there is surely to be an entry about the Indian and Korean military officials, a Thai lobbyist, and a Korean Customs official, who while on a purely recreational side-trip to Budapest, stopped in a bar, nibbled on some rice cakes, downed a Guinness and talked about product labeling, excise taxes, and transfer pricing.

Yesterday, the SEC announced (here) an FCPA books and records and internal controls enforcement action against Diageo PLC via an administrative cease and desist order. Diageo, headquartered in London, has American Depository Shares registered with the SEC and traded on the New York Stock Exchange and is thus an “issuer” under the FCPA.

In summary fashion, the Order (here) stated as follows.

“This matter concerns multiple violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) by Respondent Diageo, one of the world’s largest producers of premium alcoholic beverages. Over more than six years, Diageo, through its subsidiaries, paid over $2.7 million to various government officials in India, Thailand, and South Korea in separate efforts to obtain lucrative sales and tax benefits.”

“In India, from 2003 through mid-2009 Diageo made over $1.7 million in illicit payments to hundreds of Indian government officials responsible for purchasing or authorizing the sale of its beverages. Increased sales from these payments yielded more than $11 million in ill-gotten gains. In Thailand, from 2004 through mid-2008, Diageo paid approximately $12,000 per month – totaling nearly $600,000 – to retain the consulting services of a Thai government and political party official. This official lobbied extensively on Diageo’s behalf in connection with multi-million dollar pending tax and customs disputes, contributing to Diageo’s receipt of certain favorable dispositions by the Thai government. With respect to South Korea, in 2004, Diageo paid 100 million won (KRW) (over $86,000) to a customs official as a reward for his role in the government’s decision to grant Diageo significant tax rebates. Diageo also paid over $100,000 in travel and entertainment expenses for South Korean customs and other government officials involved in these tax negotiations. Separately, Diageo made hundreds of gift payments totaling over $230,000 to South Korean military officials in order to obtain and retain liquor business.”

“Diageo and its subsidiaries failed to account accurately for these illicit payments in their books and records. Exercising lax oversight, Diageo also failed to devise and maintain internal accounting controls sufficient to detect and prevent the payments.”

As set forth in the SEC’s order, “Diageo’s history of rapid multinational expansion through mergers and acquisitions contributed to defects in its FCPA compliance programs.” Indeed, the conduct at issue focused on Diageo India Pvt. Ltd. (“DI”) (a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary acquired as a result of a merger); Diageo Moet Hennessy Thailand (“DT”) (a joint venture Diageo acquired an indirect majority interest in as a result of a merger) and Diageo Korea Co. Ltd. (“DK”) (a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary acquired during an acquisition). According to the SEC, “at the times of these acquisitions, Diageo recognized that its new subsidiaries had weak compliance policies, procedures, and controls” but “nevertheless, Diageo failed to make sufficient improvements to these programs until mid-2008 in response to the discovery of illicit payments.”

India

As to India, the SEC stated as follows. “From at least 2003 through June 2009, DI paid an estimated $792,310 in improper cash payments through its third-party distributors to 900 or more employees of government liquor stores in and around New Delhi. DI also paid an estimated $186,299 (representing 23% of the payments) in “cash service fees” to the distributors as compensation for advancing the funds. DI made the payments to increase government sales orders of its products, and to secure favorable product placement and promotion within the stores.”

The SEC further stated as follows. “During the same six-year period (2003 – 2009), Diageo, through DI, also reimbursed an estimated $530,955, and made plans to reimburse an additional $79,364, in improper cash payments made by third-party sales promoters to government employees of the Indian military’s Canteen Stores Department (“CSD”). The payments, made with DI’s knowledge and authorization, were designed to: (i) foster the promotion of Diageo products in the CSD’s canteen stores (analogous to the U.S. military’s post exchanges); (ii) obtain initial listings and annual label registrations for Diageo brands, price revision approvals, and favorable factory inspection reports; (iii) secure the release of seized shipments of Diageo products; and (iv) promote good will through the distribution of Diwali and New Year’s holiday gifts to CSD employees.”

The SEC also stated as to India as follows. “Diageo failed to ensure that DI properly accounted for a number of additional, improper payments to government officials who controlled administrative functions vital to DI’s business. From at least 2003 through 2008, Diageo, through DI, reimbursed an estimated $98,310 in cash payments made by its third-party promoters and distributors to government officials in the North Region of India and in the State of Assam for the purpose of securing label registrations for Diageo products.” In addition, the SEC Order stated as follows. “… [F]rom at least 2003 through June 2009, Diageo, through DI, paid an estimated $78,622 in extra commissions to its distributors in the North Region to reimburse them for payments made to Excise officials to secure import permits and other administrative approvals.”

Thailand

As to Thailand, the SEC Order stated as follows. “From April 2004 through July 2008, Diageo, through DT, retained the services of a Thai government and foreign political party official (the “Thai Official”) to lobby other Thai officials to adopt Diageo’s position in several multi-million dollar tax and customs disputes. For this retainer DT paid approximately $12,000 per month for 49 months, for a total of $599,322. DT compensated the Thai Official through 49 direct payments to a political consulting firm (the “Consulting Firm”) for which the Thai Official acted as a principal. Most, if not all, of the $599,322 paid to the Consulting Firm was for the Thai Official’s services and accrued to his benefit. The Thai Official served as a Thai government and/or political party official throughout the relevant period (April 2004 – July 2008) in which he received compensation from DT. At various times the Thai Official served as Deputy Secretary to the Prime Minister, Advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister, and Advisor to the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. The Thai Official also served on a committee of the ruling Thai Rak Thai political party, and as a member and/or advisor to several state-owned or state-controlled industrial and utility boards. DT’s senior management knew that the Thai Official was a government officer during its engagement of the Consulting Firm. The Thai Official was the brother of one of DT’s senior officers at that time. Several members of Diageo’s global and regional management attended meetings with the Thai Official and senior members of the Thai government. The Thai Official provided extensive lobbying services on behalf of Diageo and DT in connection with several important tax and customs disputes that were pending between Diageo and the Thai government. For example, with respect to excise taxes, the Thai Official coordinated and attended numerous meetings between senior Thai government officials and senior Diageo and DT management, including two meetings in April and May 2005 with Thailand’s then Prime Minister. In May 2005, shortly following the meetings arranged by the Thai Official, the Prime Minister made a radio address publicly endorsing Diageo’s position in favor of a “specific” approach (based on quantity) rather than an “ad valorem” approach (based on price) to calculating excise taxes. On Diageo’s behalf, the Thai Official also met repeatedly with senior commerce, finance, and customs authorities in charge of the transfer pricing and import tax disputes, as well as with members of the Thai parliament. The Thai Official’s services contributed to Diageo’s successful resolution of several components of these disputes. For example, during 2004 and 2005 Diageo and DT were actively engaged in a dispute with the Thai government over the appropriate transfer pricing formula applied to One Liter bottles of Johnnie Walker Red Label and Black Label Scotch whiskey. Based in part on the Thai Official’s lobbying efforts, the Thai government accepted important aspects of DT’s transfer pricing method and released over $7 million in bank guarantees that DT had been required to post while the tax dispute was pending.”

South Korea

As to Korea, the SEC Order stated as follows. “Diageo had significant tax and customs issues in South Korea. In April 2003, DK, under Diageo’s direction, requested from South Korea a more advantageous formula for calculating the transfer pricing, for tax purposes, of Windsor Scotch whiskey that DK was importing into South Korea. As part of those negotiations, DK also sought tens of millions of dollars in tax rebates based on a claim that DK had overpaid under the then existing transfer pricing formula. In April 2004, following a year of intense negotiations and lobbying by DK, the South Korean government granted DK a rebate of approximately $50 million. In July 2004, three months after DK received the tax rebates, a DK manager (the “Manager”) paid an apparent reward of 100 million KRW ($86,339) to a Korean Customs Service official (the “Customs Official”) who had played a key role in the transfer pricing negotiations. With the approval of DK’s then chief financial officer, the Manager generated 60 million KRW ($51,802) of the payment by means of a surreptitious cash kickback scheme. The Manager solicited an inflated invoice from DK’s third-party customs brokerage firm (the “Customs Broker”), which had provided DK with consulting services during the transfer pricing negotiations. As orchestrated, DK paid an inflated invoice amount to the Customs Broker, which then gave 60 million KRW ($51,802) in cash back to the Manager. The Manager funded the remaining 40 million KRW ($34,537) of the total reward amount from personal sources. The Manager then provided the Customs Official with 100 million KRW ($86,339) in the form of ten bank checks of approximately 10 million KRW ($8,634) each.”

The SEC Order further stated as follows. “During the course of the transfer pricing negotiations in 2003 and 2004, DK also paid $109,253 in travel and entertainment costs for Korean customs and other government officials. Some of these expenses were unapproved and constituted improper inducements of the South Korean officials. For example, in December 2003, the Customs Official and several official colleagues traveled to Scotland with DK employees. The purported reason for the trip was to inspect Diageo’s Windsor Scotch production facilities as part of the transfer pricing negotiations. During the course of this apparently legitimate trip, DK’s chief financial officer and the Manager took the South Korean officials on a purely recreational side-trip to Prague and Budapest.”

In addition, the SEC Order stated as follows regarding gifts to Korean military officers. “From at least 2002 through at least 2006, Diageo, through DK, routinely made hundreds of small payments to South Korean military officers for the purpose of obtaining or maintaining business and securing a competitive business advantage. The payments assumed two forms: (i) holiday and vacation gifts known as “rice cake” payments; and (ii) business development gifts, called “Mokjuksaupbi” payments. Rice cake payments were customary and traditional presents that Diageo, through DK, provided to scores of military officers – many of whom were responsible for procuring liquor – several times each year during holidays and vacations. From 2002 through 2006, DK made approximately 400 rice cake payments, totaling at least $64,184, in the form of cash or gift certificates ranging in value between $100 and $300 per recipient. In October 2004, a senior officer within Diageo’s global compliance department explicitly approved the practice of making rice cake payments after a DK employee explained that the company would face a competitive disadvantage if it refrained. Over the same four-year period, Diageo, through DK, also spent approximately $165,287 on hundreds of non-traditional, non-seasonal gifts and entertainment for the military. Of these so-called “Mokjuksaupbi” payments (a term that was broadly intended by DK to refer to “payments for relationships with customers”), approximately $106,051 were for the purpose of influencing specific purchasing decisions. For example, in 2003, DK personnel requested approval of approximately $2,600 to entertain army personnel “for their cooperation” in connection with the re-selection of Windsor Scotch.”

Based on the above conduct, the SEC found FCPA violations, but only FCPA books and records and internal control violations. The absence of FCPA anti-bribery violations against Diageo and the referenced entities would seem to be the result of a lack of a U.S. nexus as to the payments. Even though the FCPA was amended in 1998 to provide an alternative nationality jurisdiction test as to U.S. issuers and domestic concerns, the FCPA retains a territorial U.S. nexus jurisdictional test as to non-U.S. issuers such as Diageo that are nevertheless subject to the FCPA.

As to the FCPA violations, the SEC order states as follows. “Diageo’s books and records did not accurately reflect illicit payments that it made, through its subsidiaries, to Indian, Thai, and South Korean government and military officials. Instead, Diageo, through DI, DT, and DK, disguised the improper payments as legitimate vendor expenses or recorded them under misleading rubrics such as “factory expenses,” “telephone expenses,” “shareholder stake,” and “sales support.” In several instances, the illicit payments were not recorded at all.” The SEC Order further states as follows. “As evidenced by the extent and duration of the wrongful payments and their improper recordation, Diageo failed to devise and maintain sufficient internal accounting controls.”

The SEC Order mentions Diageo’s cooperation and “certain remedial measures undertaken by Diageo, including employee termination and significant enhancements to its compliance program.”

As is common in all SEC FCPA enforcement actions, Diageo settled the matter without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings. Per the SEC Order, Diageo shall pay disgorgement of $11,306,081, prejudgment interest of $2,067,739, and a civil monetary penalty of $3,000,000.

In a press release (here) Diageo stated as follows. “Diageo takes the SEC’s findings seriously and regrets this matter. Systems and controls have been enhanced in an effort to prevent the future occurrence of such issues and to reinforce, everywhere the Company operates, a culture of compliance and commitment to the principles embodied in Diageo’s Code of Business Conduct.”

Diageo’s most recent Annual Report (Sept. 2010) stated as follows.

“As previously reported, Diageo Korea and several of its current and former employees have been subject to investigations by Korean authorities regarding various regulatory and control matters. Convictions for improper payments to a Korean customs official have been handed down against two former Diageo Korea employees, and a former and two current Diageo Korea employees have been convicted on various counts of tax evasion. Diageo had previously voluntarily reported the allegations relating to the convictions for improper payments to the US Department of Justice and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC has commenced an investigation into these and other matters, and Diageo is in the process of responding to the regulators’ enquiries regarding activities in Korea, Thailand, India and elsewhere. Diageo’s own internal investigation in Korea, Thailand, India and elsewhere remains ongoing. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and related statutes and regulations provide for potential monetary penalties, criminal sanctions and may result in some cases in debarment from doing business with governmental entities in connection with FCPA violations.”

Friday Roundup

Another FCPA hearing on Capital Hill next week, news regarding Goldmann Sachs, questioning the use of NPAs and DPAs, an informative read regarding India, and something for your “foreign official” file.

Its all here in the Friday roundup.

House Hearing

Next Tuesday, June 14th, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” According to this report by Christopher Matthews of Main Justice the hearing is expected to focus on the following issues: successor liability, a potential compliance defense, “foreign official,” and corporate mens rea issues.

The witness list for the hearing is as follows (see here).

Hon. Michael Mukasey (Former Attorney General, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP – see here); Mr. Greg Andres (Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice); Mr. George Terwilliger (Partner, White & Case LLP – see here); and Ms. Shana-Tara Regon (Director, White Collar Crime Policy, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers – see here).

Predictably, some are blasting the very existence of the hearing. For instance, Political Correction, a project of Media Matters Action Network (a self-described progressive research and information center dedicated to analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media), describes the hearing here as “Rep. Lamar Smith’s Fight to Make Bribery Easier For Big Business.”

The House hearing follows a November 30th Senate hearing titled “Examining Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” See here for a prior post.

This post, prior to the 2010 hearing provided some guiding words, and if those were not enough, how about this statement from William Brock, U.S. Trade Representative, on April 18, 1983 during a hearing before the House Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

“Mr. Chairman, no one minimizes the complexity of the issue before you today. Just because the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act spotlights a sensitive subject, some people wish to turn a ‘blind eye’ to its shortcomings rather than risk being accused of being ‘soft on bribery.’ That is too easy a way out. Retreating from controversy will not cure the law’s deficiencies. Such inaction will no more eliminate the need for FCPA reforms today than it can eliminate the criticism of the Act brought over the past several years. After five and on half years experience with this law, after legitimate problems have been identified and examined, we have a responsibility to respond. Is there any U.S. law that ought to be above such review and clarification – especially one as complex as the FCPA.”

Well said.

Goldman Inquiry

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported – “Eyes on Goldman-Libya Dealings” – that the SEC is “examining whether Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other financial firms might have violated bribery laws in dealings with Libya’s sovereign wealth fund.” The inquiry appears to be focused on a “$50 million fee Goldman initially agreed to pay [but one that was never paid to] the Libyan sovereign-wealth fund as part of a proposal … to help the fund recoup losses.”

A Goldman spokesman is quoted as follows. “We are confident that nothing we did or proposed was or could have been a breach of any rule or regulation. We retained outside counsel, as is our normal practice for any transaction to ensure that we were compliant with all applicable rules.”

Can the FCPA be implicated by payments never made?

Yes. The anti-bribery provisions prohibit “an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of payment …”.

What about payments to foreign governments?

No. The anti-bribery provisions only apply to offers, payments, promises of payment, or authorizations of payments to “foreign officials.”

However, according to the WSJ article the inquiry appears to focus on whether the contemplated payment would have been passed on to an outside adviser firm “run at the time by the son-in-law of the head of Libya’s state-owned oil company.”

For more on the Goldman inquiry, see here from Ashby Jones (WSJ Law Blog) and here from Samuel Rubenfeld (WSJ Corruption Currents).

NPAs / DPAs

Non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements ought to be abolished. I’ve argued here and in other places that these agreements have traded one negative externality of white collar prosecution (the much over-hyped Arthur Anderson effect) for a host of others, including the alarming lack of any meaningful judicial scrutiny to ensure that NPAs and DPAs are truly based on facts and appropriate legal theories to support the charges “alleged.”

Mark Mendelsohn, the former head of the DOJ’s FCPA unit during its era of resurgence, stated in a September 2010 interview with Corporate Crime Reporter, that a “danger” with NPAs and DPAs “is that it is tempting” for the DOJ “to seek to resolve cases through DPAs or NPAs that don‟t actually constitute violations of the law.”

Asked directly – if the DOJ “did not have the choice of deferred or non prosecution agreements, what would happen to the number of FCPA settlements every year,” Mendelsohn stated as follows: “if the Department only had the option of bringing a criminal case or declining to bring a case, you would certainly bring fewer cases.”

Add W. Neil Eggleston, a former DOJ enforcement attorney currently a partner at Debevoise (here), to the growing list of former DOJ enforcement attorneys critical of these alternative resolution vehicles.

In this recent interview with Corporate Crime Reporter, Eggleston stated as follows. “I worry that [NPAs and DPAs] will become a substitute for a prosecutor deciding – this is not an appropriate case to bring – there is no reason to subject this corporation to corporate criminal liability. In the old days, they would have dropped the case. Now, they have the back up of seeking a deferred or non prosecution agreement, when in fact the case should not have been pursued at all. That’s what I’m worried about – an easy out.”

Well said.

India

If India is a country of concern or focus of yours, you will want to check out the most recent quarterly newsletter of the India Committee of the ABA Section of International Law. (See here).

Guest editor James Parkinson of BuckleySandler (here) provides the following articles, among others, in the newsletter: one devoted to the FCPA risks of doing business in India; another devoted to India’s demand-side statute – the Prevention of Corruption Act; another focused on reducing corruption risks in India through compliance programs; and another calling for India to join the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

“Foreign Official”

And finally, because your “foreign official” file would be incomplete without it, here is a transcript of the May 9th oral argument in the Carson “foreign official” challenge. See here and here for previous posts.