Former ComEd Executives And Associates Convicted Of FCPA Offenses
Earlier this week, a federal jury in Chicago found four former Commonwealth Edison (“ComEd”) executives and associates guilty on all counts charged, including conspiring to influence and reward the former Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives in order to assist with the passage of legislation favorable to the electric utility company, in addition to multiple bribery and record falsification charges. (See here for the DOJ release).
Bribery of a state politician is not ordinarily the type of conduct that results in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act issues.
However, ComEd (a majority-owned indirect subsidiary of Exelon Corp) was an issuer (as was Exelon) and the FCPA has always been a law much broader than its name suggests because of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.
Indeed, the most serious (from a sentencing and fine perspective) criminal charges the four individuals were found guilty of were record falsification in violation of the FCPA.
“The Company Neglected To Comply With Basic Internal Control Requirements”
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has always been a law much broader than its name suggests.
Sure, the FCPA contains anti-bribery provisions which concern foreign bribery.
Sure, the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions can be implicated in foreign bribery schemes.
However, the fact remains that most FCPA enforcement actions (that is enforcement actions that charge or find violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions) have nothing to do with foreign bribery and these provisions are among the most generic legal provisions one can possibly find.
The latest example is this recent SEC enforcement action against African Gold (a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company incorporated in the Cayman Islands with its principal place of business in New York, New York).
A Further Reminder That The FCPA Has Always Been A Law Much Broader Than Its Name Suggests
This type of post has been published several times before (see here and here among other posts), and once again today, to highlight an important (yet often overlooked) aspect of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: the FCPA has always been a law much broader than its name suggests.
Sure, the FCPA contains anti-bribery provisions which concern foreign bribery. Sure, the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions can be implicated in foreign bribery schemes.
However, the fact remains that most FCPA enforcement actions (that is enforcement actions that charge or find violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions) have nothing to do with foreign bribery. For lack of a better term, let’s call these numerous enforcement actions non-FCPA, FCPA enforcement actions.
The latest example is this recent SEC enforcement action against Gentex (a Michigan based company that provides digital vision, connected car, dimmable glass, and fire protection products).
The SEC’s Other Recent “FCPA” Enforcement Actions
September 30th was the end of the SEC’s fiscal year – and like prior years – there was much enforcement activity in September. Just don’t call it “earnings management” – even though that is a term SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has used to describe enforcement activity in September (see here).
Forty percentage of corporate SEC FCPA enforcement actions thus far in 2022 occurred during a 12-day period last month (see here and here) and this post highlights several other non-FCPA, FCPA enforcement actions (that is – enforcement actions that charge or find violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions, yet have nothing to do with foreign bribery) from late September.
Another Diluted Oracle Enforcement Action
This post highlighted the SEC’s recent $22.9 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Oracle based on subsidiary conduct in Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and India.
It was the second time in the past approximate decade that Oracle has resolved an FCPA enforcement action (see here). The first time Oracle resolved an FCPA enforcement action, this post was titled “The Dilution Of FCPA Enforcement Has Reached A New Level With The SEC’s Enforcement Action Against Oracle.”
The second FCPA enforcement action against Oracle this week was just as diluted – an issue apparent when actually reading the SEC’s findings.