Issues To Consider From The Deutsche Bank Enforcement Action
This previous post detailed the recent $122.6 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Deutsche Bank based on the company’s “improper use … of third party-intermediaries, business development consultants, and findings (BDCs) to obtain and retain global business.”
This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider.
How Much And Which Type Of Internal Controls Are Specifically Legally Required?
Deutsche Bank Joins The Repeat Offender Club By Resolving Second FCPA Enforcement In Just 16 Months
In August 2019, Deutsche Bank paid $16.2 million “to settle changes that it violated the FCPA by hiring relatives of foreign government officials [in both the Asia Pacific Region and Russia] in order to improperly influence them in connection with investment banking business).” (See here and here for prior posts).
Late Friday, Deutsche Bank (a German investment bank and financial services company with shares traded on the NYSE between 2009 and 2016) joined the ever expanding list of FCPA repeat offenders as the DOJ and SEC announced (here and here) an approximate $122.6 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action focused on the company’s relationship with third parties in Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Italy, and China.
The approximate 16 month gap between Deutsche Bank’s FCPA enforcement actions is the shortest among the large group of FCPA repeat offenders.
Was It Smart For The DOJ To Cite E-Smart?
As highlighted in yesterday’s post, the DOJ recently filed a brief in response to Ng Chong Hwa (Roger Ng’s) motion to dismiss a criminal indictment against him in connection with his alleged involvement in bribery schemes involving various Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials in connection with 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
In the brief, the DOJ sets forth its views on the FCPA’s internal controls provisions (believed to be the first instance in the FCPA’s 40+ years in which the DOJ has set forth its internal controls views in a contested matter).
The FCPA space has long know about SEC v. Worldwide Coin (a rare instance in which a court was tasked with substantively construing the books and records and internal controls provisions – see here for the prior post). In addition to citing this case in its brief, the DOJ also cited SEC v. E-Smart Technologies, 82 F.Supp.3d 97 (D.D.C. 2015).
DOJ Responds To Ng’s Motion To Dismiss – Lays Out Its View On Internal Controls
This recent post highlighted former Goldman Sachs executive Ng Chong Hwa (Roger Ng’s) motion to dismiss a criminal indictment against him in connection with his alleged involvement in bribery schemes involving various Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials in connection with 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), Malaysia’s state-owned and state-controlled investment development company.
As highlighted in the prior post, Ng argues that the DOJ’s case against him suffers from several factual errors and legal deficiencies such as whether he was an agent of an “issuer” as well as the proper scope of the internal controls provisions.
Recently, the DOJ filed a response brief stating in pertinent part:
FCPA Flash Podcast – A Conversation With Michael Levy Regarding The SEC’s Internal Controls Theories
The FCPA Flash podcast provides in an audio format the same fresh, candid, and informed commentary about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related topics as readers have come to expect from written posts on FCPA Professor.
This FCPA Flash episode is a conversation with Michael Levy (Mayer Brown) regarding a statement recently released by various SEC Commissioners questioning certain SEC internal controls enforcement theories. (See here for the prior post). During the podcast, Levy provides the context for the statement; discusses how it is uncommon for an SEC Commissioner (let alone two) to publicly criticize SEC enforcement theories; and how FCPA practitioners, general counsel etc. should react and/or make use of the statement.