Category: Industry Sweeps

Next Up – Biomet

First it was Johnson & Johnson (see here – $70 million in combined fines and penalties in April 2011).  Then it was Smith & Nephew (see here – $22 million in combined fines and penalties in February 2012).  Next up in the sweep of the medical device industry – based on the enforcement theory that certain foreign health care providers are “foreign officials” –  is Biomet.  Biomet (here) is an Indiana-based company that designs, manufactures and markets products used primarily by musculoskeletal medical specialists in both surgical and non‐surgical therapy.

Total fines and penalties in the Biomet enforcement action were approximately $22.8 million ($17.3 million via a DOJ deferred prosecution agreement, and $5.5 million via a settled SEC civil complaint).

DOJ

The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information (here) against Biomet resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement (here).

Criminal Information

In substance, the information begins as follows.  “Argentina has a public healthcare system wherein approximately half of hospitals are publicly owned and operated.  Health care providers (“HCPs”) who work in the public sector are government employees, providing health care services in their official capacities.  Therefore, such HCPs in Argentina are ‘foreign officials’ as that term is defined in the FCPA.”  “Brazil has a socialized public healthcare system that provides universal health care to all Brazilian citizens, and the majority of hospitals are publicly-controlled.  HCPs who work in the public sector are government employees, providing health care services in their official capacities.  Therefore, such HCPs in Brazil are ‘foreign officials’ as that term is defined in the FCPA.”  “China has a national healthcare system wherein most Chinese hospitals are publicly owned and operated.  HCPs who work at publicly-owned hospitals are government employees, providing health care services in their official capacities.”

The information charges one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, three substantive FCPA anti-bribery charges (one charge focused on conduct in Argentina, one charge focused on conduct in Brazil, and one charge focused on conduct in China) and one charge of violating the FCPA’s books and records provisions.

As to the conspiracy charge, the information alleges that between 2000 to 2009, Biomet and others conspired to “secure lucrative business with hospitals in the Argentine, Brazilian, and Chinese public health care systems by making and promising to make corrupt payments of money and things of value to publicly-employed HCPs.”

According to the information, it was part of the conspiracy that “Biomet, certain of its executives, employees, and subsidiaries” – (1) “agreed to pay publicly employed Argentine HCPs 15-20 percent commissions in exchange for the purchase of Biomet products” (2) “agreed to pay Brazilian HCPs 10-20 percent commissions through Brazilian Distributor [a Brazilian company that had exclusive distribution rights for Biomet reconstructive products in Brazil] in exchange for the purchase of Biomet products” and (3) “agreed to pay Chinese HCPs commissions through Chinese Distributor [a Chinese company that acted as a distributor of Biomet products in China], and paid for travel for Chinese HCPs, in exchange for the purchase of Biomet products.”

The information also alleges that it was further part of the conspiracy that at the end of Biomet’s fiscal year from 2000 to 2009 “Biomet, its executives, employees, and subsidiaries falsely recorded the payments on its books and records as ‘commissions,’ ‘royalties,’ ‘consulting fees,’ ‘other sales and marketing,’ and ‘scientific incentives,’ in order to conceal the true nature of the payments in the consolidated books and records of Biomet Argentina [a wholly-owned Argentine subsidiary of Biomet through which Biomet conducted business in Argentina], Biomet International [a wholly-owned Delaware subsidiary of Biomet through which Biomet sold products into Brazil], Scandimed [a wholly-owned Swedish subsidiary through which Biomet sold products into China and elsewhere], and Biomet China [a wholly-owned Chinese subsidiary through which Biomet sold products into China], which books and records were incorporated into the books and records of Biomet for purposes of preparing Biomet’s year-end financial statements, which were filed with the SEC …”.

The information alleges as follows.  “In total, from 2000 to 2008, Biomet, Biomet Argentina, Biomet International, Scandidmed, and Biomet China, and their related subsidiaries and employees, authorized the payment, directly or indirectly, of at least $1.5 million, some or all of which was paid to publicly-employed HCPs to induce the purchase of Biomet products.”

As to Argentina, the information largely focuses on internal e-mails or memos which indicated that “royalties are paid to surgeons if requested” and that the payments “are disclosed in the accounting records as commissions.”  The information details a 2005 internal investigation into certain allegations of improper conduct, but alleges that thereafter problematic payments continued to be made.  For instance, a 2007 internal e-mail states as follows.  “Doctors receive a ‘consulting fee’ for every surgery.”  According to the information, in August 2008 “Biomet distributed new compliance guidelines that emphasized the FCPA and related issues, and the company’s managing director for Argentina sought advice from the company’s lawyers, causing Biomet to suspend payments to Argentine doctors.”

As to Brazil, the information largely focuses on internal e-mail or memos noting that the Brazilian Distributor was paying commissions to doctors and that the Brazlian Distributor admitted that it “paid doctors for buying Biomet products and described the payments as ‘scientific incentives.”

As to China, the information discusses various internal e-mails which reference: the China Distributor “paying a 10-15% ‘rebate’ to surgeons on the sale of Biomet artificial hips;” a Scandimed employee stating that, regarding commissions to surgeons, “Scandimed has no control over this … as we understand it, giving commissions or gifts of various kinds to surgeons is common in China;”the China Distributor stating that a “Doctor will become the most loyal customer of Biomet if we send him to Switzerland”;  and the China Distributor stating as follows – “Doctor is the department head of [public hospital] and that Doctor uses about 10 hips and knees a month and its on an uptrend, as he told us over dinner a week ago … Many key surgeons in Shanghai are buddies of his.  A kind word on Biomet from him goes a long way for us.  Dinner has been set for the evening of the 24th.  It will be nice.  But dinner aside, I’ve got to send him to Switzerland to visit his daughter.”  The information also references a distribution memo which states that “Chinese surgeons typically receive a commission on sales, which can range from 5% to 25% and that distributors are expected to hold banquets for surgeons and to sponsor meetings.”  Another internal e-mail discusses “consulting fees paid to doctors for conducting clinical trials” and a “proposal for a two week visit for Chinese doctors to the United Kingdom, with the second week being a ‘holiday’ paid for by Chinese Distributor.”  The information also alleges that in October 2007 “Biomet China sponsored the travel of 20 surgeons to Barcelona and Valencia for training, including a substantial portion of the trip being devoted to sightseeing and other entertainment at Biomet’s expense.”  According to the information, in 2005 “Director of Internal Audit [based in Warsaw, Indiana] instructed an auditor to classify improper payments being made to doctors in connection with certain clinical trials as ‘entertainment’ and in 2007, the product manager for Biomet China sent an e-mail to [an Associate Regional Manager based in Hong Kong] “discussing ways to evade efforts by the Chinese government to halt corruption in health care by requiring all international companies to declare actual cost for import to the government, noting, ‘obviously, China government doesn’t have ability to forbid the corruption from hospitals & surgeons …’ and proposing four methods for avoiding the regulation, including falsified invoices.

DPA

The DOJ’s charges against Biomet were resolved via a deferred  prosecution agreement.  Pursuant to the DPA, Biomet admitted, accepted and acknowledged “that it is responsible for the acts of its officers, employees and agent, and  wholly-owned subsidiaries” as set forth in the information.

The term of the DPA is three years and it states that the DOJ entered into the agreement based on the following factors: Biomet investigated and disclosed to the DOJ and SEC the misconduct, “a portion of which was voluntarily disclosed”; Biomet reported its findings to the DOJ and SEC; Biomet cooperated fully in the DOJ and SEC investigation; Biomet undertook remedial measures, including the implementation of an enhanced compliance program and agreed to undertake further remedial measures as set forth in the DPA; Biomet agreed to continue to cooperate with the DOJ, SEC, and foreign authorities in any related investigations; “Biomet has cooperated and agreed to continue to cooperate with the DOJ in the DOJ’s investigations of other companies and individuals in connection with business practices overseas in various markets;” and “were the DOJ to initiate proseuction of Biomet and obtain a conviction, instead of entering into the agreement to defer prosecution, Biomet would potentially be subject to exclusion from participation in federal health care programs pursuant to 42 USC 1320a-7(a).”

Pursuant to the DPA, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for the conduct at issue was $21.6 – $43.2 million.  The DPA states as follows.  “Biomet agrees to pay a monetary penalty in the amount of $17.28 million, a 20 percent reduction off the bottom of the fine range.  Biomet and the DOJ agree that this fine is appropriate given Biomet’s extensive internal investigation, the nature and extent of Biomet’s cooperation in this matter, Biomet’s cooperation in the DOJ’s investigation of other companies … and Biomet’s extraordinary remediation.”    The guidelines calculation notes that Biomet received a credit for “substantial assistance in the prosecution of others.”

Pursuant to the DPA, Biomet agreed to engage an independent compliance monitor “for a period of not less than 18 months” and to provide periodic reports to the DOJ regarding remediation and implementation of the enhanced compliance measures as described in an attachment to the DPA.  As is customary in FCPA DPA’s, Biomet agreed that it shall not make any public statement contradicting its acceptance of responsibility.

See here for the DOJ’s release.

SEC

The SEC’s settled civil complaint (here) against Biomet is based on the same core conduct as described above.  In summary it alleges “violations of the FCPA by Biomet and four of its subsidiaries to obtain sales for their medical device business” and that from “2000 through August 2008, Biomet and its four subsidiaries paid bribes to public doctors employed by public hospitals and agencies in Argentina, Brazil, and China.”

Among other things, the SEC’s complaint alleges that “executives and auditors at Biomet’s Indiana headquarters were aware of the Argentine payments to doctors as early as 2000.”    The SEC alleges as follows.  “Internal audit took no steps to determine why royalties were paid to doctors purchasing Biomet medical devices, or why the payments to the doctors were 15-20 percent of sales.  The internal auditors did not obtain any evidence of services provided for the payments.  In fact, the internal audit report concluded that there were adequate controls in place to properly account for royalties paid to surgeons without any supporting documentation.”  Elsewhere, the SEC alleges that “despite the bribery” [the] Latin America Auditor’s only recommendation was to change the journal entry from ‘commission expenses’ to ‘royalties.'”

The SEC complaint references the September 2007 letter “Commission staff” sent to Biomet “inquiring of payments made to public doctors” but that “while the inquiry was underway in certain countries, additional conduct was occurring at Biomet Argentina.”  For instance, the complaint alleges that in March 2008, “Managing Director of Biomet Argentina again reported the payments to surgeons to internal compliance personnel but no efforts were made by compliance to stop the practice.”

As to Biomet’s FCPA anti-bribery violations, the SEC complaint alleges that “Biomet employees who were U.S. nationals approved the payments to Argentine doctors and the arrangements with the Brazilian Distributor and Chinese Distributor that included payments to doctors.”

As to Biomet’s failure to maintain adequate internal controls, the complaint alleges as follows.  “Biomet failed to implement internal controls to detect or prevent bribery.  Biomet and four subsidiaries were involved in bribery that lasted for over a decade.  The conduct involved employees and managers of all levels involved in Biomet’s sales in Argentina, Brazil and China.  False documents were routinely created or accepted that concealed the improper payments.”

Based on the above allegations, the SEC complaint charges violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and books and records and internal controls provisions.

As stated in the SEC’s release (here), without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Biomet consented to the entry of a court order requiring payment of approximately $4.4 million in disgorgement and approximately $1.1 million in prejudgment interest.

The SEC’s release states as follows.  “Biomet’s compliance and internal audit functions failed to stop the payments to doctors even after learning about the illegal pratices.”  Kara Brockmeyer (Head of the SEC’s FCPA Unit) stated as follows.  “A company’s compliance and internal audit should be the first line of defense against corruption, not part of the problem.”

In this release, Biomet’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey R. Binder, stated: “Biomet has long been committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical and legal conduct both in the United States and abroad. Over the past several years, we have significantly enhanced our global compliance procedures and financial controls, and we fully intend to work with the independent monitor and the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission to bolster our FCPA compliance practices and procedures. Moving forward, we intend to continue to adhere to our enhanced global compliance procedures, and to promote the Company’s commitment to the highest ethical standards in all the markets that we serve.”

Laurence Urgenson (Kirkland & Ellis – here) and Asheesh Goel (Ropes & Gray – here) represented Biomet.

As to the origins of the FCPA inquiry, Biomet’s most recent quarterly filing stated as follows.  “On September 25, 2007, Biomet received a letter from the SEC informing the Company that it is conducting an informal investigation regarding possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the sale of medical devices in certain foreign countries by companies in the medical devices industry. […]  On November 9, 2007, the Company received a letter from the Department of Justice requesting any information provided to the SEC be provided to the Department of Justice on a voluntary basis.”

Industry Sweeps

[A new job has been posted to the Jobs Board – see here.  Both job seekers and organizations seeking to hire individuals with FCPA or related experience will benefit from a wide selection of job listings, so please spread the word and send the job link to your HR department and professional contacts]

Industry sweeps – it’s a term in the vocabulary of most FCPA practitioners.  And with good reason.  Industries that have been subjected to industry sweeps or are reportedly in the middle of industry sweeps include:  oil and gas, pharmaceutial / medical devices, and financial services.

But what are industry sweeps, what issues do they pose, and what policy implications are implicated?

Homer Moyer (Miller & Chevalier) recently penned (here) “The Big Broom of FCPA Industry Sweeps” and it is re-posted below with his permission.

*****

The Big Broom of FCPA Industry Sweeps

Inaugurated by the series of so-called “Panalpina cases,” which focused on companies doing business with the giant Swiss freight forwarding company, FCPA enforcement has seen additional industry-wide government investigations that have come to be known as “industry sweeps.” Focusing on particular industries —  pharmaceuticals and medical devices come to mind — industry sweeps are  investigations that grow out of perceived FCPA violations by one company that  enforcement agencies believe may reflect an industry-wide pattern of wrongdoing.

Industry sweeps are often led by the Securities and Exchange Commission  (“SEC”), which has broad subpoena power as a regulatory agency, arguably broader  oversight authority than prosecutors. They are different from internal  investigations or traditional government investigations, and present different challenges to companies. Because the catalyst may be wrongdoing in a single company, agencies may have no evidence or suspicion of specific violations in the companies subject to an industry sweep. A sweep may thus begin with possible cause, not probable cause. In sweeps, agencies broadly solicit information from companies about their past FCPA issues or present practices. And they may explicitly encourage companies to volunteer incriminating information about competitors. This practice not only fuels the “salesman’s defense” (that “everybody does it”), but can also generate anecdotal or speculative information that simply leads to additional rounds of inquiries.

Inevitably, industry sweeps become organic and evolve, with government investigators using information from one company as the basis for additional requests to others. Pooling information about unreliable third parties, suspect government instrumentalities, and information about employees who have worked for multiple companies can prolong an investigation or cause its scope to expand or turn in new directions.

The coming year could well force some of the issues of industry sweeps to the surface. What threshold of evidence is appropriate to target a particular company in an industry sweep? What prevents sweeps from becoming fishing expeditions that are costly to the companies and unconstrained in the agencies? What are the disclosure considerations for a company in a sweep investigation focused on Asia if issues arise in Latin America? Can a company decline to participate or cooperate, and, if so, what are the risks or trade-offs for doing so? Answers to questions such as these — which often raise policy issues, not legal ones — could affect corporate attitudes about disclosure generally, and  possibly result in challenges to the agencies.

Major Shipment – Customs Cases Bring In $236.5 Million

The pipeline that contains pending FCPA enforcement actions burst yesterday as the DOJ and SEC announced enforcement actions against 13 separate entities.

In enforcement actions that have long been anticipated, Panalpina entities, as well as several others, settled DOJ and SEC enforcement actions principally focused on customs and related payments in Nigeria, but also including alleged improper conduct in Angola, Brazil, Russia, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, India, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Congo, Libya, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea.

The combined DOJ/SEC settlement amounts total $236.5 million.

Your FCPA scorecard thus shows that since June 28th, the U.S. government has brought FCPA enforcement actions totaling approximately $1.1 billion. With numbers like these, aggressive FCPA enforcement based on, often times, dubious legal theories (more on that later) seems like the most profitable government program ever conceived.

Set forth below is a basic overview of the settlements. A more thorough review of the hundreds of pages of relevant documents will be forthcoming.

The DOJ resolution documents can be found here, the SEC resolution documents here.

Panalpina Entities

DOJ

Entities: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd. and Panalpina Inc.

Resolution Vehicles: Criminal information charging Panalpina World Transport(Holding) with conspiracy to violate and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. Charges resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement. Criminal information charging Panalpina Inc. with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s books and records provisions and aiding and abetting certain customers in violating the FCPA’s books and records provisions. Charges resolved through a plea agreement.

Countries: Angola, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Russia, and Turkmenistan

Penalty: Combined $70.56 million

SEC

Entity: Panalpina, Inc.

Resolution Vehicle: Settled civil complaint charging FCPA anti-bribery violations, aiding and abetting FCPA anti-bribery violations, and FCPA books and records and internal controls violations.

Countries: Nigeria, Angola, Brazil, Russia, and Kazakhstan

Disgorgement: $11,329,369

Pride Entities

DOJ

Entities: Pride International Inc. and Pride Forasol S.A.S.

Resolution Vehicle: Criminal information charging Pride International with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and books and records provisions; violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions; and violating the FCPA’s books and records provisions. Charges resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement. Criminal information charging Pride Forasol with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions; violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions; and aidng and abetting violations of the FCPA’s books and records provisions. Charges resolved through a plea agreement.

Countries: Venezuela, India and Mexico

Penalty: $32.625 million (combined)

SEC

Entity: Pride International Inc.

Resolution Vehicle: Settled civil complaint charging FCPA anti-bribery violations, FCPA books and records and internal controls violations.

Countries: Venezuela, India, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Republic of Congo, and Libya

Disgorgement and interest: $23,529,718

Tidewater Entities

DOJ

Entities: Tidewater Marine International Inc., Tidewater Inc.

Resolution Vehicle: Criminal information charging Tidewater Marine with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions and violating the FCPA’s books and records provisions. Charges resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement with Tidewater that requires, among other things, Tidewater Marine to pay a $7.35 million criminal penalty.

Countries: Azerbaijan and Nigeria

Penalty: $7.35 million

SEC

Entity: Tidewater Inc.

Resolution Vehicle: Settled civil complaint charging FCPA anti-bribery violations, FCPA books and records and internal controls violations

Countries: Nigeria, Azerbaijan

Disgorgement: $8,104,362

Civil Penalty: $217,000

Transocean Entities

DOJ

Entities: Transocean Inc. and Transocean Ltd.

Resolution Vehicle: Criminal information charging Transocean Inc. with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provision; violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions; and aiding and abetting the FCPA’s books and records provisions. Charges resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement with Transocean Ltd. that requires, among other things, Transocean Inc. to pay a $13.44 million criminal penalty.

Countries: Nigeria

Penalty: $13.44 million

SEC

Entity: Transocean Inc.

Resolution Vehicle: Settled civil complaint charging FCPA anti-bribery violations, FCPA books and records and internal controls violations

Countries: Nigeria

Disgorgement and interest: $7,265,080

GlobalSantaFe Corp.

SEC

Entity: GlobalSantaFe Corp.

Resolution Vehicle: Settled civil complaint charging FCPA anti-bribery provisions, FCPA books and records and internal controls violations

Countries: Nigeria, Gabon, Angola, Equatorial Guinea

Disgorgement: $3,758,165

Civil Penalty: $2.1 million

Noble Corporation

DOJ

Entity: Noble Corporation

Resolution Vehicle: Non-proseuction agreement in which Noble Corporation: (i) acknowledged that certain of its employees knew that payments would be passed on as bribes to Nigerian customs officials; and (ii) admitted that the company falsely recorded the bribe payments as legitimate business expenses.

Countries: Nigeria

Penalty: $2.59 million

SEC

Entity: Noble Corporation

Resolution Vehicle: Settled civil complaint charging FCPA anti-bribery violations, FCPA books and records and internal controls violations

Countries: Nigeria

Disgorgement and interest: $5,576,998

Royal Dutch Shell Entities

DOJ

Entities: Royal Dutch Shell plc and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd. (“SNEPCO”)

Resolution Vehicle: Criminal information charging SNEPCO with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions and with aiding and abetting the FCPA’s books and records provisions resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement with Royal Dutch Shell Plc requiring, among other things, SNEPCO to pay a $30 million criminal penalty

Countries: Nigeria

Penalty: $30 million

SEC

Entity: Royal Dutch Shell plc and Shell International Exploration and Production Inc (“SIEP”).

Resolution Vehicle: Administrative cease and desist order finding FCPA books and records and internal control violations by Royal Dutch Shell and FCPA anti-bribery violations by SIEP

Countries: Nigeria

Disgorgement: $18,149,459

*****

According to the SEC release (here), Cheryl Scarboro, Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit stated: “This investigation was the culmination of proactive work by the SEC and DOJ after detecting widespread corruption in the oil services industry. The FCPA Unit will continue to focus on industry-wide sweeps, and no industry is immune from investigation.”

The SEC release further states: [t]his is the first sweep of a particular industrial sector in order to crack down on public companies and third parties who are paying bribes abroad.”

The OECD Report – Initial Observations

Yesterday, the OECD released its much anticipated “Phase 3” report (here) on the U.S. implementation and enforcement of the “Convention of Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.” In other words, the OECD Report (“Report”) comments on U.S. enforcement of the FCPA, a statute which (at least in theory) is supposed to model the OECD Convention.

As noted in this OECD release:

“The Working Group commended the United States for its engagement with the private sector, substantial enforcement, and commitment from the highest levels of the U.S. Government. In addition to the recommendation on facilitation payments, it also made recommendations that include the following on ways to improve U.S. enforcement:

– Consolidating publicly available information on the application of the FCPA, including the affirmative defence for reasonable and bona fide expenses;

– To increase transparency, making public, where appropriate, more information on the use of Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) in specific cases; and

– Ensure that the overall limitation period applicable to the foreign bribery offence is sufficient to allow adequate investigation and prosecution.

The Working Group also highlighted good practices developed within the U.S. legal and policy framework that helped it achieve such a high level of enforcement, including the creation of specialised enforcement units dedicated to foreign bribery, and the use of plea agreements, DPAs and NPAs and the appointment of corporate monitors. These efforts have also encouraged the establishment of robust compliance programmes and measures among companies subject to U.S. anti-bribery law. The Working Group also welcomed the United States’ efforts to encourage close co-operation between the United States and foreign authorities.”

The Report is perhaps the single largest collection of FCPA related information and statistics ever in one document. This post will be the first of several posts in the coming days on the information and views contained in the Report.

This post highlights the “Executive Summary,” “Introduction” and “Recent Trends in Investigation and Prosecuting FCPA Violations” sections of Report. In addition, this post discusses specific sections of the Report dealing with the FCPA’s “obtain or retain business” and “foreign official” elements as well as the use of NPAs or DPAs to resolve FCPA matters.

Before turning to the Report’s Executive Summary, let me provide one of my own. [For ease of reading, my observations in this post are in italics].

There is no question that the U.S. is a world leader in enforcing its domestic foreign bribery statute (the FCPA) and the Report rightfully commends the U.S. for this. However, quantity does not always mean quality and U.S. enforcement of the FCPA is not without criticism and questions, including in the Report. One would hardly realize this if all one did was read this joint statement of the Departments of Justice, Commerce and State, and the Securities and Exchange Commission issued yesterday in connection with the Report’s release.

Perhaps the message for other OECD member nations reading the Report is this – enforce your domestic bribery law in questionable ways, seemingly inconsistent with the intent of the legislature in passing the law, and figure out a way to resolve the enforcement actions without judicial scrutiny. If so, perhaps your nation will one day be praised in an OECD Report for its “high level” of enforcement activity.

The “Executive Summary” of the Report states, among things:

That, since Phase 2 (see here and here) “U.S. enforcement has increased steadily and resulted in increasingly significant prison sentences, monetary penalties and disgorgement. Increased enforcement was enabled by the good practices developed within the U.S. legal and policy framework, including the dedication of resources to specialised units in the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).”

[…]

“The U.S. has investigated and prosecuted cases involving various business sectors and various modes of bribing foreign public officials. In addition, it has been conducting proactive investigations, using information from a variety of sources and innovative methods like plea agreements (PAs), Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs), and the appointment of corporate monitors. Vigorous enforcement and record penalties, alongside increased private sector engagement, has encouraged the establishment of robust compliance programmes and measures, particularly in large companies, which are verified by the accounting and auditing profession and monitored by senior management. Less is known of the effect increased FCPA enforcement has had on small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which is an issue shared by all Parties to the Convention.”

“Ways in which implementation of the Convention could be made more effective have also been identified. For instance, the Working Group recommends that the U.S., in its periodic review of its policies and approach on facilitation payments, consider the views of the private sector and civil society… The evaluation also recommended the consolidation and summarisation of publicly available information on the application of the FCPA, including information regarding the affirmative defence for reasonable and bona fide expenses. This could be especially useful for SMEs. Similarly, given that the U.S. authorities are increasingly enforcing the FCPA by using DPAs and NPAs, the Working Group believes that transparency and public awareness of these measures could be enhanced if the U.S. made public, where appropriate, more detailed reasons on issues such as why a particular type of agreement is used, the choice of an agreement‘s terms and duration, and how a company has met the agreement‘s terms. The Working Group also recommends that the U.S. ensure that the overall limitation period applicable to the foreign bribery offence is sufficient to allow adequate investigation and prosecution.”

The Introduction to the Report, under the heading “Cases involving the bribery of foreign public officials,” states:

“The United States has investigated and prosecuted the most foreign bribery cases among the Parties to the Anti-Bribery Convention. From 1998 to 16 September 2010, 50 individuals and 28 companies have been criminally convicted of foreign bribery, while 69 individuals and companies have been held civilly liable for foreign bribery. In addition, 26 companies have been sanctioned (without being convicted) for foreign bribery under non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) and deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs). Sanctions have also been imposed for accounting misconduct and money laundering related to foreign bribery.”

“These cases have resulted in increasingly significant penalties. From 1998 to 2003, the maximum monetary sanctions levelled against a company in an FCPA case were USD 2.5 million. Since then, 23 companies have received monetary sanctions in excess of USD 10 million. In one case, monetary sanctions totalling USD 800 million were ordered against a single company. In 2010, an 87-month sentence was imposed against an individual in an FCPA case. Since 2004, over USD 1 billion in foreign bribery proceeds have been recovered through disgorgement actions. The SEC also obtains civil penalties in addition to DOJ criminal fines. In the first 9 months of 2010 alone, the SEC obtained over USD 404 million in disgorgement, interest and civil penalties from thirteen companies and eight individuals. Representatives of the private sector told the evaluators that these increasingly heavy sanctions combined with the increased number of prosecutions against companies and individuals have significantly raised the FCPA‘s profile. They are also felt to be the main reason why many companies have taken steps to improve their anti-bribery measures, internal controls, books and records, and compliance systems.”

[Note – the above referenced 87-month sentence of Charles Jumet is misleading. Elsewhere in the Report it states: “In a recent case, a defendant was sentenced to 87 months in prison for FCPA violations.” Fact check – Jumet pleaded guilty to two counts – conspiracy to violate the FCPA and making false statements to federal agents. The false statements portion of his sentence was 20 months. Thus, Jumet’s “FCPA” sentence was 60 months – not 87 months]

“These cases come to the authorities‘ attention through a myriad of means. A significant number (but not the majority) of investigations result from voluntary self-reporting by companies. Other sources include corporate securities filings; suspicious activity reports from financial institutions; the media, including keyword searches of the Internet; whistleblowers, employees, customers, competitors, and agents; qui tam and civil complaints; referral from other U.S. government agencies, including overseas embassies; international financial institutions such as the World Bank; reports through a “hotline” email address and website; and information from foreign states, including requests for mutual legal assistance (MLA). A recent case resulted from an undercover sting operation. Investigations also originate from research and traditional law enforcement operations to determine where corruption may exist. The U.S. utilizes statistics that it compiles and information obtained in prior and current FCPA cases to identify trends and patterns of behaviour that warrant investigation. The U.S. also conducts industry sweeps, which are targeted investigations focusing on a particular industry or market. The U.S. believes that the use of such proactive tools keeps its regulators ahead of trends and allows them to combat corruption in a timely fashion. The U.S. did not provide statistics on the sources of investigations, due to the need to protect investigative sources and methods, but confirms that no one source accounted for a majority.”

“These FCPA enforcement figures are expected to increase in the near future. Presently, the United States has more than 150 criminal and 80 civil ongoing FCPA investigations. [a footnote states “many are parallel criminal and civil investigations of the same alleged conduct”] The U.S. authorities recently announced new initiatives including investigations of specific industries (“targeted sweeps” or “industry-wide sweeps”) and an increased emphasis of prosecuting natural persons in addition to companies. These efforts will likely lead to more prosecutions and convictions.”

Under the heading “Recent trends in investigating and prosecuting FCPA violations,” the Report states, among other things, as follows:

“Allegations of FCPA violations come from a variety of sources. This part of the report canvasses a few of the most important sources. According to the DOJ, voluntary disclosures are the source of a significant proportion of investigations, although not the majority.”

[…]

“… companies consider it in their interest to be co-operative, and seem willing to settle more often than not when they have voluntarily disclosed. While some companies self-report violations of the FCPA, some companies do not. Representatives of companies in the extractive industry explained that it is very common for a company to uncover one discrete violation of the FCPA and voluntarily disclose it, following which the DOJ or SEC asks the company to look further to see if the conduct is pervasive and occurring in other places. In some cases, the conduct is pervasive and is fully investigated by the DOJ and SEC. In other cases, the conduct is limited in scope and no additional violations are uncovered. Some companies may find this very cumbersome and expensive, and try to settle the case without a full investigation. However, the DOJ and SEC advise that they require companies to complete their investigations before finalising settlement discussions.”

[…]

“Proactive investigative steps by the DOJ and SEC, such as industry-wide sweeps, can also produce information that leads to enforcement actions. In November 2009, an industry-wide investigation into the pharmaceutical industry was announced by Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer. An investigation into the medical device industry has also been discussed publicly. The Oil-for-Food cases involved a sweep of companies that paid kickbacks to the Iraqi Government during the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. The sweep was very effective and more than fifteen companies have been charged to date.”

“Such investigations may be commenced by sending “sweep letters” requesting co-operation from industry members on a voluntary basis. If a company chooses to not respond to such a letter, the DOJ and SEC consider whether a subpoena should be issued to compel the production of relevant documents and the testimony of individuals. Recently, the SEC announced that it will be conducting more industry-wide sweeps. Investigations of this kind enable the DOJ and SEC to develop specialised expertise identifying illegal conduct and conducting prosecutions involving various industries. In addition, due to the cross-connections between various members of the same industry, an investigation into one company can produce leads about other companies, including those in the supply-chain.”

“More traditional sources of allegations also continue to be useful, such as anonymous whistleblower reports. Such reports are often received from current and former employees, competitors, and others, and are analysed by the FBI to ensure their veracity. The DOJ provides a “hotline” to report anonymously directly to the FCPA Unit. The SEC also has a hotline and a detailed process for analysing tips, complaints and reports of FCPA violations.”

[…]

“[Mutual Legal Assistance] requests from foreign jurisdictions also provide a basis for allegations, although to a lesser extent than other sources.”

“United States embassy staff are also important sources of information about FCPA violations. The DOJ cited examples of full-blown investigations that were launched due to information provided by an embassy and referrals from State Department and Commercial Services branches. In one of these investigations, the embassy stayed involved throughout.”

As to Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower provisions, the Report states:

“The U.S. authorities believe that in light of this new legislation, reporting violations of the FCPA is likely to increase.”

FCPA Elements

Among other elements, the Report discusses the “obtain or retain business” and “foreign official” elements of the FCPA.

“Obtain or Retain Business”

The Report states:

“One important aspect of the foreign bribery offence in the FCPA is different from the description of the offence in Article 1 of the Convention. Under the FCPA, the bribery of a foreign public official must be committed in order to assist the briber “in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person‘ (known as the “business nexus test‘). In Article 1 of the Convention, the corresponding formulation is: “in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.”

“Thus, unlike Article 1 of the Convention, the FCPA language does not specifically convey that the case is covered where the purpose of the bribe is to obtain or retain other improper advantage in the conduct of international business, such as obtaining an operating license or permit to operate a business, or a reduction in tax or import duty. In other words, the FCPA language might be read to only address bribes for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business per se. Reference is made to “improper advantage” elsewhere in the FCPA, but in a different context – i.e., the offences in the FCPA inter alia cover the case where the purpose of a bribe to a foreign public official is to secure “any improper advantage…in order to assist such [person/issuer/domestic concern] in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person‘.”

“However, it has been the position of the United States Government throughout that the FCPA formulation is very broadly interpreted and covers in practice the kinds of advantages required to be covered by the Convention. The evaluation team notes that this position has been largely confirmed by jurisprudence, in the 2007 decision of the United States Court of Appeals in United States v. Kay.”

“In U.S. v. Kay, the Court of Appeals held that a payment to customs officials to reduce import duties on rice falls within the parameters of the “business nexus” test because when Congress enacted the FCPA it was concerned about: (1.) Bribery that leads to discrete business contract arrangements; and (2.) Payments that even indirectly assist in obtaining business or maintaining existing business operations in a foreign country. The Court of Appeals also stated that:

…bribes paid to foreign officials in consideration for unlawful evasion of customs duties and sales taxes could fall within the purview of the FCPA‘s proscription. We hasten to add, however, that this conduct does not automatically constitute a violation of the FCPA: It must be shown that the bribery was intended to produce an effect – here through tax savings – that would “assist in obtaining or retaining business”.”

“The decision of the Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Kay is therefore helpful, in that it clarifies that payments to, for instance, reduce import duty “could” satisfy the “business nexus test”. The United States has also successfully enforced the FCPA in cases involving similar advantages, such as payments to customs officials to import goods and materials (Helmerich & Payne; and Natures Sunshine), and payments to tax officials to reduce tax obligations, and to judicial officials for favourable treatment in pending litigation (Willbros Group). On the other hand, the clarification by the Court of Appeals leaves open the possibility that there might be cases where a bribe to a foreign public official to facilitate international business does not violate the FCPA, although it does meet the test of “other improper advantage in the conduct of international business” in Article 1 of the Convention.”

For more on U.S. v. Kay (see here and here).

The Report’s discussion of the “obtain or retain business” is noteworthy.

I must also take issue with the sentence in the Report that suggests when the DOJ enters into a NPA (such as in Helmerich & Payne) or DPA that this is evidence of the U.S. “successfully enforcing the FCPA.” This is one of the many reasons why the “facade of FCPA enforcement” matters – because it fosters the absurd notion that privately negotiated settlements, subject to little or no judicial scrutiny, entered into in the context of the enforcement agencies possessing substantial “carrots” and “sticks” should serve as de facto case law or otherwise represent “successful” enforcement of the FCPA.

“Foreign Official”

As to the definition of “foreign official,” the Report states:

“Due to an absence of explicit language in the definition of “foreign official” in the FCPA, two questions arise concerning the scope of the definition: (1.) Whether, in compliance with the Convention, it covers a person holding a judicial office of a foreign country‘; and (2.) Whether it covers a person exercising a public function for a foreign country, including for a…public enterprise‘ (i.e. a state-owned or controlled enterprise).”

Readers know that this second question is a frequent topic on these pages and deservingly so. It is no small matter. As I highlight in this recent article in the Indiana Law Review (here), this dubious interpretation of the “foreign official” element was at the core of 66% of 2009 FCPA enforcement actions against business entities as well as numerous individuals. And that was just in 2009. Several pre-2009 enforcement actions as well were based on the theory that employees of state-owned or state-controlled enterprises are “foreign officials” under the FCPA.

So again, on the one hand the Report praises the U.S.’s high level of FCPA enforcement, yet on the other hand, the Report openly questions the definition of “foreign official” that was used in a significant percentage of recent FCPA enforcement actions.

The Report then contains a discussion of the Nexus Technologies case and advances the DOJ’s curious assertion that resolution of this matter (see here) validates its interpretation that employees of so-called state-owned or state-controlled enterprises are “foreign officials” under the FCPA.

The Report states:

“Since Phase 2, there have been positive legal developments regarding the second question on the bribery of employees of state-owned or controlled enterprises, in U.S. v. Nam Quoc Nguyen, et al. (E.D. Pa., September 4, 2008), in which the District Court recently held in favour of the United States Government in a case involving allegations that the defendants bribed employees of a foreign state-owned company. The defendants argued that the definition of “foreign official” in the FCPA does not include employees of state-owned enterprises, because in order for an organisation to be considered an “agency or instrumentality” of a foreign government, it must serve a “purely public purpose”. The United States Government, citing the legislative history of the FCPA, responded by arguing that “public purpose” is only one of the many factors in determining that an organisation is an “agency or instrumentality” of a foreign government, and that Congress expressly intended to include employees of state-owned enterprises in the definition of “foreign official”.”

As I highlighted in this prior post, in its briefing in the Nexus case the DOJ specifically urged the judge, on a number of occassions, not to consider the defendant’s substantive “foreign official” argument because they were premature. The following are snippets from the DOJ’s brief: (i) “the Court need not address any of these faulty arguments at this time:” (ii) “although styled as a motion to dismiss, Defendants’ submission is instead a premature request for a ruling on the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence before any of that evidence has been presented. These arguments, which are premature at best, will be moot after presentation of the Government’s case.” (iii) “because Defendants’ arguments turn entirely on issues of fact, they are premature.”

Continuing on this issue, the Report states:

“Although the Court ruled in favour of the United States, it did not issue a written opinion, and the defendants did not file an appeal. In addition, District Court opinions are not binding on higher courts or courts of other U.S. jurisdictions. The DOJ informed the evaluators that this means the Government interpretation could be disputed again. However, the DOJ believes the argument would fail again given the FCPA‘s legislative history, and because numerous cases have been brought by the DOJ and SEC in which the definition of “foreign official” has been broadly interpreted.” This last sentence has a footnote which states: “For instance Willbros Group involved the bribery of foreign judicial officials, Siemens AG involved payments to various persons from state-owned companies, and Diagnostic Products, involved payments to doctors of state-owned hospitals. The United States explains that in each of these cases, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, a court had to determine whether all the elements of the offence have been proven including that the receiving individual was a foreign public official.”

On this issue, the Report concludes with this “commentary”

“The evaluators welcome positive legal developments concerning the application of the definition of ‘foreign official’ in the FCPA to members of the judiciary and employees of state-owned or controlled enterprises.”

In the “Recommendations” section, the Report notes that the “Working Group will follow up the issues below, as the case-law continues to develop, to examine: […] whether amendments are required to the FCPA to supplement or clarify the existing language defining the elements of the offense of foreign bribery with regard to […] (ii) the scope of the definition of a ‘foreign public official,’ in particular with respect to […] the directors, officers, and employees of state-controlled enterprises or instrumentalties.”

NPAs / DPAs

The Report states:

“Due to their increasing importance in law enforcement actions by the DOJ, the evaluators sought information about the deterrent effect of DPAs and NPAs. The evaluators were also conscious that the SEC intends to also begin using DPAs and NPAs to encourage companies and individuals to co-operate with SEC investigators.”

“It seems quite clear that the use of these agreements is one of the reasons for the impressive FCPA enforcement record in the U.S. However, their actual deterrent effect has not been quantified; although the DOJ hears anecdotally from companies that their use has made FCPA compliance high priority.”

The Report states:

“DPAs are technically subject to judicial review and approval, but most judges do not appear to scrutinise DPAs. Unlike a DPA, an NPA does not involve the court.”

“Although DPAs and NPAs have existed since 1993, their use has grown dramatically in recent years. Since 2004, the annual average number of DPAs and NPAs entered into by the DOJ has grown from less than 5 to over 20 and a high of 38 in 2007. In FCPA cases, DPAs and NPAs were not used until 2004. Since then, they have been used in 30 out of 39 concluded criminal enforcement actions against companies.”

“Explanations for this phenomenon vary. The dramatic increase occurred shortly after the prosecution and collapse of the accounting firm Arthur Andersen which led to thousands of jobs lost. Avoiding such collateral consequences of prosecution is generally cited as why DPAs and NPAs are used. In FCPA cases, factors such as the protection of employees and shareholders also play a role, according to U.S authorities. The U.S. authorities also believe that companies often prefer to resolve matters through DPAs and NPAs in lieu of going to court and undergoing a potentially lengthy process and resulting press scrutiny. As well, the DPAs and NPAs in FCPA cases generally cite factors such as the defendants‘ co-operation and self-reporting of the crime as the reasons for the agreement. These agreements are thus used as an incentive for voluntary disclosure and co-operation. The U.S. authorities also use DPAs and NPAs to resolve cases quickly. Finally, FCPA cases usually involve obtaining evidence from foreign countries, which can be time-consuming and unsuccessful. DPAs and NPAs can be used to secure a company‘s co-operation and obtain overseas evidence where the MLA process is cumbersome or unavailable.”

“In January 2010, the SEC announced that it would begin using co-operation agreements, DPAs and NPAs in FCPA cases. A co-operation agreement is similar to a plea agreement in criminal proceedings. An individual or company must provide substantial assistance to an SEC investigation and co-operate fully and truthfully. In return, the SEC Enforcement Division agrees to make certain recommendations to the Commission, such as the individual or company should receive credit for co-operating. DPAs and NPAs require the company or individual to co-operate fully and truthfully, and to agree to comply with prohibitions and/or undertakings. DPAs also require the company or individual to admit to or not contest certain alleged facts. NPAs are available only in “limited and appropriate circumstances”. All three types of agreements require the company or individual to agree to toll the statute of limitations. The SEC has not yet used one of these agreements, given that the policy to use them was adopted only recently.”

In the “commentary section” the Report states:

“The evaluators note that PAs, DPAs, NPAs and the appointment of corporate monitors are an innovative method for resolving cases, and has evolved into an important feature of the U.S. criminal justice system, which has helped to enable a high level of enforcement activity. These measures have been used extensively in FCPA cases, especially in recent years. Guidance exists on the use of these agreements. Some private sector representatives would like more guidance but the U.S authorities disagree.”

“A useful compromise may be for the DOJ and the SEC, where appropriate, to make public in each case in which a DPA or NPA is used, more detailed reasons on the choice of a particular type of agreement, and the choice of the agreement’s terms and duration; and the basis for imposing monitors. The DOJ already does so for PAs through sentencing memoranda. Greater transparency on these issues would add accountability and enhance public confidence in the DOJ’s and SEC’s enforcement of the FCPA. Making public this information would also raise awareness of how these agreements enhance foreign bribery enforcement efforts.”

As to “recommendations” the Report states:

“Regarding the use of NPAs and DPAs, the Working Group recommends that the United States:

a. Make public any information about the impact of NPAs and DPAs on deterring the bribery of foreign public officials [..]; and

b. Where appropriate, make public in each case in which a DPA or NPA is used, more detailed reasons on the choice of a particular type of agreement; the choice of the agreement‘s terms and duration; and the basis for imposing monitors […]”.

As noted in the OECD release:

“The United States will make an oral follow-up report on its actions to implement certain key recommendations of the Working Group after one year. The United States will further submit a written report to the Working Group within two years, which will be the basis of a publicly available evaluation by the Working Group of the United States’ implementation of the recommendations.”

Stay tuned for more.