Sigelman Challenges DOJ’s “Foreign Official” Interpretation And Application
In January 2014, the DOJ announced FCPA and related charges against former executives of PetroTiger Ltd., a British Virgin Islands oil and gas company with operations in Colombia and offices in New Jersey, “for their alleged participation in a scheme to pay bribes to foreign government officials in violation of the FCPA, to defraud PetroTiger, and to launder proceeds of those crimes.” The individuals charged were former co-CEOs of PetroTiger Joseph Sigelman and Knut Hammarskjold, and former general counsel Gregory Weisman.
As detailed in this prior post, the alleged foreign official was “an official at Ecopetrol [who] had influence over the approval and award of contracts by Ecopetrol.” Ecopetrol was alleged to be “the state-owned and state-controlled petroleum company in Colombia.”
Unlike his co-defendants Hammarskjold and Weisman who previously pleaded guilty, Sigelman is challenging various aspects of the DOJ’s case, including its interpretation and application of the “foreign official” element.
The introduction of this October 29th motion to dismiss states (internal citations omitted) as follows:
“The indictment alleges that Joseph Sigelman violated the FCPA by authorizing a set of payments in 2010 to David Duran, who the Government claims was an employee of a Colombian corporation called Ecopetrol S.A. (Ecopetrol). Sigelman can be liable only if Duran was a “foreign official,” a term defined to include “any officer or employee of a foreign government or any . . . agency, or instrumentality thereof.” To be an “agency” or “instrumentality,” an entity must perform a governmental function.
The indictment is correct that Ecopetrol used to fit this description. Colombia created Ecopetrol in 1951 to be the official state body in charge of regulating the nation’s hydrocarbon resources. At the same time, Ecopetrol held a mandate to explore and extract oil and gas to sell in the open market. For decades, it carried out these dual functions, albeit lethargically. Being a government regulator stifled Ecopetrol’s ability to compete with private oil-and-gas companies. Its access to credit markets was limited. The Colombian government’s budget, rather than business judgment, guided decisionmaking.
Colombia grew fed up with the lack of commercial success. So in 2003, it split Ecopetrol in two. All of Ecopetrol’s regulatory and other governmental functions as well as its public interest mandate were assigned to a new state entity, the National Hydrocarbon Agency. Once divested of its government authority and functions, Ecopetrol became solely a commercial enterprise, its exclusive mission being to thrive in the highly competitive energy market. To further this mission and encourage Ecopetrol to be more competitive, Colombia amended its laws to treat Ecopetrol like Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, or any other private oil-and-gas company. Ecopetrol became a corporation with shares of stock that could trade on public markets. It lost its privileged access to Colombian oil fields and stopped receiving any special benefits from the Colombian government, such as subsidies, dispensations, and tax exemptions. It became subject to private commercial law. Thus, Colombia’s Commercial Code (which applies to private companies) rather than Colombia’s General Contract Law for the Public Administration (which applies to public establishments) would govern Ecopetrol’s contracts. The labor code applicable to private companies would regulate Ecopetrol’s relations with its employees.
In short, as of 2010, when the events in this case took place, Ecopetrol was, as a matter of Colombian law, an ordinary market participant bereft of any governmental function. As the Government conceded in United States v. Esquenazi, an entity devoid of a governmental function is not an “agency” or “instrumentality” of a foreign government under the FCPA, regardless of whether a foreign government owns a majority of the stock of that entity.2 So even if the factual allegations in the indictment were true, the payments to David Duran would, as a matter of law, not violate the FCPA because they were not made to a “foreign official.” Thus, the FCPA charges must be dismissed.
Any contrary interpretation that stretches the definition of “foreign official” to cover employees of entities that exercise no public function, like Duran, would render the FCPA void for vagueness as applied to Sigelman. Nowhere in the statute’s provisions is there fair notice that it is unlawful to authorize payments to an employee of a corporation that does not perform any governmental functions. Permitting the Government to use the FCPA—a statute whose purpose is to penalize and discourage corruption of government officials—to prosecute payments made to employees of corporations with no governmental functions would leave charging decisions to the whims and personal views of prosecutors, with no reasonable foundation in the words of the statute or the intent of Congress. Thus, if the Government’s reading of the statute is correct, the charges against Sigelman under the FCPAmust also be dismissed on vagueness grounds.
Accordingly, Sigelman respectfully requests dismissal of all charges against him under the FCPA: namely, Counts Two, Three, and Four in their entirety, plus the portions of Counts One and Five alleging that Sigelman conspired to violate, and conspired to transfer money with the intent to violate, the FCPA. Sigelman further requests that this Court hold a hearing on issues of Colombian law pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.1.”
Sigeman’s motion is supported by an expert declaration from Carlos Gustavo Arrieta Padilla who, among other previous positions, was the Attorney Inspector General of Colombia and a Justice of the State Council (the Colombian Supreme Court for administrative and certain constitutional matters).
Sigelman is represented by Patrick Egan (Fox Rothschild) and William Burck (Quinn Emanuel).
In this November 12th opposition memorandum, the DOJ states under the heading “Introduction” as follows.
“Defendant’s latest motion seeks the dismissal of counts corresponding to the FCPA charges in this case. Defendant claims that although the Government included well-pled allegations in the Indictment that the bribe recipient was a “foreign official,” as that term is defined in the FCPA, and was employed by an “instrumentality,” as that term is defined in the FCPA, the Court should look to facts outside the Indictment – including, among other things, a 22-page declaration by an individual who Defendant deems an “expert” – to remove this issue from the purview of the jury and dismiss the counts pretrial. Defendant is incorrect. As every single other court which has addressed this very issue has concluded, this is an issue of fact for the jury to decide after the presentation of all of the evidence. Indeed, the Government intends to submit substantial evidence at trial to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the bribe recipient was a foreign official under the FCPA.
Moreover, and also as every other court to confront this very issue has found, the FCPA is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Defendant. Importantly, the FCPA requires the Government to prove that Defendant acted corruptly and willfully, which is wholly inconsistent with the notion that Defendant did not have fair notice.
Defendant’s most recent motion to dismiss should be denied.”
In its brief, the DOJ states, in pertinent part, that “some of the facts about Ecopetrol that the Government may rely on at trial, and that clearly demonstrate that Ecopetrol is an “instrumentality” under the FCPA, include:
Ecopetrol was created by the government of Colombia;
The Colombian government is required to maintain at least an 80% interest in Ecopetrol, and during the relevant time period Ecopetrol was 89.9% owned by the Colombian government;
The Colombian government has the ability to select a majority of Ecopetrol’s board of directors, and during the relevant time period the board of directors included the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Minister of Finance, and the Director of the National Planning Agency;
The Colombian government has the right and ability to “undertake projects which may not be in [Ecopetrol’s] best interest” but are instead in the government’s interest;
Ecopetrol “reserve[s] the right to plead sovereign immunity under the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 with respect to actions brought against [it] under United States federal securities laws or any state securities laws” by any of Ecopetrol’s minority shareholders;
Ecopetrol prepares its “financial statements in accordance with Colombian Government Entity GAAP”;
Before Ecopetrol “can issue any debt in the international and local capital markets or incur any other type of indebtedness, the Government [of Colombia], through the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, must authorize the issuance of such debt and [Ecopetrol] must register external debt with the Colombian Central Bank”;
The Colombian government “may require [Ecopetrol’s] Board of Directors to declare dividends in an amount that result in [Ecopetrol] having to reduce [its] capital expenditures thereby negatively affecting [its] prospects, results of operations and financial condition”;
Prior to 2004, any oil company wishing to engage in oil-related services in Colombia had to enter into an agreement with Ecopetrol. Ecopetrol remains, to this day, “as counterparty to the contracts which [it] signed prior to January 1, 2004” which include the Mansarovar contract. “The contracts on which [Ecopetrol is] the counterparty all have clauses which provide, at [Ecopetrol’s] sole option, for extensions. If [Ecopetrol] do[es] not extend the contracts, the right to exploit the hydrocarbon reserves which are the subject of the contract revert to [Ecopetrol], and [Ecopetrol] ha[s] the right to exploit them for an indefinite period at no additional cost to [Ecopetrol].” For example, as recently as June 2010 (in the middle of the charged FCPA conspiracy), “the ‘Santiago de las Atalayas Contract’, one of the most important exploration and production contracts due to its amount of crude oil and natural gas reserves, terminated and the right to exploit the hydrocarbon reserves subject to this Contract reverted back to [Ecopetrol].”; and
Employees of Ecopetrol, to this day, are treated as public officials for purposes of Colombia’s public corruption laws, and in fact have been prosecuted for such actions in recent years.”
As stated in the DOJ’s brief, “these are not attributes of a private commercial enterprise – they are the attributes of a foreign government instrumentality.”
In this November 14th reply letter to the court, Sigelman’s lawyers write.
“The validity of the government’s FCPA charges rests upon its assertion that Ecopetrol was an “instrumentality.” It is undisputed that performing a governmental function is a sine qua non of being an “instrumentality” under the FCPA. Yet nowhere in the indictment or its 28 pages of briefing responsive to Mr. Sigelman’s instant motion does the United States identify any Colombian governmental function performed by Ecopetrol in 2010.”
For more on “foreign official” issues, see my “foreign official” declaration and my amicus brief in the recent cert petition to the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Esquenazi (a petition the court denied).
Friday Roundup
Is trust “reasonable,” Sigelman formally indicted, scrutiny alerts and updates, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Is Trust “Reasonable”
This prior post asked:
Would FCPA compliance be better achieved if companies had fewer formal internal controls and instead devoted greater effort to fostering trust within a business organization? Would such an approach even satisfy an issuer’s obligations under the FCPA’s internal controls provisions which require that issuers devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that transactions are properly authorized, recorded, and accounted for by the issuer?
The questions are posed once again after reading this New York Times article titled “Berkshire’s Radical Strategy: Trust.” In the article, Charlie Munger, vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway (arguably one of the most well-respected companies in America) “ruminates on the state of corporate governance, offering a counternarrative to the distrustful culture of most businesses: instead of filling your ranks with lawyers and compliance people, he argued, hire people that you actually trust and let them do their job.”
As highlighted in the article:
“Here’s a little-known fact: Berkshire Hathaway, the fifth-largest company in the United States, with some $162.5 billion in revenue and 300,000 employees worldwide, has no general counsel that oversees the holding company’s dozens of units. There is no human resources department, either.
If that sounds like a corporate utopia, that’s probably because it is. To some people in this day and age — given the daily onslaught of headlines about scandal and fraud in corporate America — that also may sound almost like corporate negligence.”
Sigelman Formally Indicted
In January 2014, the DOJ announced FCPA and related charges against former executives of PetroTiger Ltd., a British Virgin Islands oil and gas company with operations in Colombia and offices in New Jersey, “for their alleged participation in a scheme to pay bribes to foreign government officials in violation of the FCPA, to defraud PetroTiger, and to launder proceeds of those crimes.” The individuals charged were former co-CEOs of PetroTiger Joseph Sigelman and Knut Hammarskjold and former general counsel Gregory Weisman. (See this prior post for additional details).
In this criminal complaint, Sigelman was charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions as well as three substantive FCPA charges. The FCPA charges were based on allegations that Sigelman and others made at least four transfers of money in the approximate amount of $333,500 to an account in Colombia of a “foreign government official in Colombia.”
In this release, the DOJ announced today that Sigelman was formally criminally indicted for the same conduct. The release states that Sigelman “charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA and to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to launder money, and substantive FCPA and money laundering violations.”
The DOJ release further states: “The case was brought to the attention of the department through a voluntary disclosure by PetroTiger, which cooperated with the department’s investigation.”
As previously noted, both Hammarskjold and Weisman have pleaded guilty.
Scrutiny Alerts
Key Energy Services
Key Energy Services disclosed in its recent SEC filing:
“The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has advised us that it is investigating possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act involving business activities of Key’s operations in Russia. We take any such allegations very seriously and are conducting an investigation into the allegations. We are fully cooperating with and sharing the results of our investigation with the Commission. While the outcome of our investigation is currently not determinable, we do not expect that it will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.”
Quanta Services
Quanta Services (an engineering, procurement and construction services company) disclosed in its recent SEC filing:
“On March 10, 2014, the SEC notified Quanta of an inquiry into certain aspects of Quanta’s activities in certain foreign jurisdictions, including South Africa and the United Arab Emirates. The SEC also requested that Quanta take necessary steps to preserve and retain categories of relevant documents, including those pertaining to Quanta’s U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance program. The SEC has not alleged any violations of law by Quanta or its employees. Quanta has complied with the preservation request and is cooperating with the SEC.”
PTC Inc.
PTC Inc. (formerly known as Parametric Technology) first disclosed its FCPA scrutiny in August 2011 and recently disclosed in this SEC filing:
“China InvestigationWe have been cooperating to provide information to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice concerning payments and expenses by certain of our business partners in China and/or by employees of our Chinese subsidiary that raise questions concerning compliance with laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Our internal review is ongoing and now includes periods earlier than those previously examined. We continue to respond to requests for information from these agencies, including a subpoena issued to the company by the SEC. We cannot predict when or how this matter may be resolved. Resolution of this matter could include fines and penalties; however we are unable to estimate an amount that could be associated with any resolution and, accordingly, we have not recorded a liability for this matter. If resolution of this matter includes substantial fines or penalties, this could materially impact our results for the period in which the associated liability is recorded or such amounts are paid. Further, any settlement or other resolution of this matter could have collateral effects on our business in China, the United States and elsewhere.”
“[The previously disclosed internal] review has identified conduct that raises concerns under the FCPA or other anti-bribery laws that may result in monetary penalties or other sanctions. In addition, the Company’s ability to conduct business in certain jurisdictions could be negatively impacted. The Company has recorded a non-material accrual for an identified matter. Given the current status of the internal review, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of possible loss that may result from additional identified matters or from the final outcome of the continuing internal review.”
In case you had not heard that numerous financial services companies were under FCPA scrutiny for alleged hiring practices, the Wall Street Journal reports:
“U.S. regulators have expanded their investigation into large banks’ hiring practices in Asia, seeking more information from at least five U.S. and European firms, according to people close to the probe. The Securities and Exchange Commission in early March sent letters to a group of companies including Credit Suisse Group AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, Citigroup Inc. and UBS AG seeking more information about their hiring in Asia, according to people. […] The SEC late last year issued a round of letter to at least six banks, seeking information on their hiring practices, such as whether the firms had special programs dedicated to relatives of influential officials, according to people close to the inquiry. The second round of requests reflects a deepening of the probe. The agency is seeking more data on the banks’ recruiting in Asia, including lists of employees hired as a result of referrals from foreign officials and clients, added the people familiar with the investigation.”
As to the above, Goldman disclosed in its most recent SEC filing:
“Regulatory Investigations and Reviews and Related Litigation.
[The company] and certain of its affiliates are subject to a number of other investigations and reviews by, and in some cases have received subpoenas and requests for documents and information from, various governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations and litigation relating to various matters relating to the firm’s businesses and operations, including:
compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including with respect to the firm’s hiring practices …”
Reading Stack
No surprise that an individual who paid $174 million to post bail has hired an A-list legal team in defense of DOJ allegations that he violated, among other laws, the FCPA. (See here for a recent New York Times article regarding Dmitry Firtash).
Sound advice from former DOJ FCPA Unit Chief Chuck Duross in this MoFo Tech article concerning FCPA risk and the technology industry:
“[T]echnology companies are also at risk from the distribution model that’s often used in the industry. Many companies sell their products to channel partners, which add some value to the product or service—such as other hardware, software, an installation, or a service plan—and then resell it at a higher price. That’s an entirely appropriate business model. But as with any third party, companies need to appreciate the potential risk if, for example, the distributor is simply reselling at a higher price without adding any legitimate value and using that profit as a slush fund to funnel bribes to government officials. It may seem to the company that it is not violating the FCPA. It has simply sold its product to another company. But if a company’s employees are aware that the distributor is paying (or just offering) bribes to government officials to help sell the product, the company and its employees could be criminally liable as conspirators and aiders and abettors.
What should tech companies be doing to avoid these issues?
One thing is to know the third parties they’re doing business with. It is also fundamental to understand the business reason for working with third parties. One of the first questions asked during a DOJ or SEC investigation will often be, “What was the business purpose behind working with X?” Having a clear answer will earn credibility with regulators and underscore the company’s commitment to compliance. Also, making sure employees—and third parties—understand company policies, are properly trained, execute FCPA certifications, and are subject to appropriate ongoing reviews can prevent violations and mitigate (or avoid altogether) penalties if a problem does occur. That is just good business. Corruption tends to occur at companies with loose control environments. While I was at DOJ, we routinely saw loose control environments leading to embezzlement, self-dealing, fraud, and even antitrust violations. When a company doesn’t know where its money is going, that’s bad business and negatively impacts shareholder value. When companies invest in a compliance program, they are investing in the health of the business.”
This Kyiv Post article notes:
“Some of Ukraine’s underpaid cadre of civil servants might get bonuses from international finance institutions to reduce the temptation of taking bribes. According to Ukrainian Tax Service chief Ihor Bilous, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is exploring the idea of setting up a fund that would provide officials with additional pay. ‘Last week I had a meeting with EBRD representatives and they proposed to create a fund to pay money for people who serve the state in high positions,’ Bilous told the Kyiv Post. This idea was successfully implemented in Georgia, he adds, “we need to change the system, state salaries are very low and this situation creates some kind of temptation.”
*****
A good weekend to all, and to all mothers, Happy Mother’s Day!
DOJ Announces FCPA Enforcement Action Against Former CEO’s and General Counsel Of PetroTiger
Yesterday the DOJ announced FCPA and related charges against former executives of PetroTiger Ltd., a British Virgin Islands oil and gas company with operations in Colombia and offices in New Jersey, “for their alleged participation in a scheme to pay bribes to foreign government officials in violation of the FCPA, to defraud PetroTiger, and to launder proceeds of those crimes.”
The individuals charged were former co-CEOs of PetroTiger Joseph Sigelman and Knut Hammarskjold and former general counsel Gregory Weisman.
According to the DOJ release, Sigelman and Hammarskjold “were charged by sealed complaints filed in the District of New Jersey on Nov. 8, 2013” and “Hammarskjold was arrested Nov. 20, 2013, at Newark Liberty International Airport” and “Sigelman was arrested on Jan. 3, 2014, in the Philippines and appeared [yesterday] in Guam before a U.S. Magistrate Judge” and “will have an initial appearance in New Jersey federal court on a date to be determined.” According to the release, Weisman “pleaded guilty on Nov. 8, 2013, to a criminal information charging one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and to commit wire fraud.”
Sigelman
This criminal complaint, charges Sigelman with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions as well as three substantive FCPA charges. The FCPA charges are based on allegations that Sigelman and others made at least four transfers of money in the approximate amount of $333,500 to an account in Colombia of a “foreign government official in Colombia.”
Elsewhere, the complaint identifies the foreign official as “an official at Ecopetrol [who] had influence over the approval and award of contracts by Ecopetrol, including the Mansarovar Contract.” Ecopetrol is alleged to be “the state-owned and state-controlled petroleum company in Colombia” and the complaint states as follows.
“Ecopetrol was created by national law, and it was required by law that Colombia conserve, at a minimum, eighty percent of the shares in circulation, with voting rights. During the relevant time period, Colombia controlled 89.9% of Ecopetrol’s outstanding capital stock, and held the right to elect the majority of the members of the company’s board of directors. Ecopetrol’s board of directors included the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Minister of Finance, and the Director of the National Planning Agency of Colombia. Ecopetrol was responsible for approving contracts to drill or perform services on oil fields in Colombia, including the Mansarovar Contract.”
The complaint also refers to the official’s wife and states that “the Official’s Wife purportedly provided finance and management related consulting services for PetroTiger [when] in reality, the Official’s Wife served as a conduit for bribe payments to the Official.”
Under the heading “Bribery Scheme,” the complaint alleges that Sigelman and other PetroTiger executives [Hammarskjold and Weisman] “attempted to secure the Mansarovar Contract” and “because Ecopetrol had ultimate authority for approving projects and contracts to perform oil-related services in Colombia, Sigelman [and the other executives] were required to obtain approval from Ecopetrol for the Mansarovar Contract.”
According to the complaint, Sigelman and others “in order to secure Ecopetrol’s approval for the Mansarovar Contract,” “paid bribes to the Official, who had the ability to influence the approval process.”
The complaint states that Sigelman and others “attempted to conceal the bribes by funneling the payments through the Official’s Wife and by falsely claiming in documents that the payments were for finance and management consulting services that the Official’s Wife purportedly performed for PetroTiger.” The complaint further states that “when transfers to the bank account in the name of the Official’s Wife failed as a result of incorrect account information,” Sigelman and others “transferred the money directly to a bank account in the name of the Official.”
According to the complaint, PetroTiger was successful in “obtaining Ecopetrol’s approval, and secured the Mansarovar Contract” which was valued “at approximately $39.6 million, and has resulted in a gross profit to date, of approximately $3.5 million.”
The Sigelman complaint also charges one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. These charges are based, in pertinent part, on allegations that an owner of a company “being acquired by Sigelman and others” transferred approximately $262,000 “as part of an illegal kickback scheme” to Sigelman’s bank account and that Sigelman then “divided up the money and transferred portions of the money” to other PetroTiger executives. According to the complaint, Sigelman and the others “did not disclose to their investing partners that they were receiving a kickback in exchange for the additional money that the investing partners would be paying in connection with the acquisition of the Target Company. As a result, the investing partners were deprived of money and property and the honest services of” Sigelman and others. According to the complaint, this “Target Company” was “an oil services company with operations in Colombia” that PetroTiger acquired in 2009 for approximately $53 million.
Hammarskjold
This criminal complaint also charges Hammarskjold with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions as well as three substantive FCPA charges based on the same conduct alleged in the Sigelman complaint.
The Hammarskjold complaint also charges one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud based on the same kickback scheme alleged in the Sigelman complaint.
Weisman
This criminal information alleges the same bribery scheme and kickback scheme as the Sigelman and Hammarskjold complaints. However, the information only charges one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and to commit wire fraud.
The Weisman information further states as follows.
“On or about September 28, 2010, at board meeting of PetroTiger, Executive A [Sigelman] stated that he and others were dealing with non-transparent commercial practices in Colombia. On or about September 28, 2010, at the board meeting … in response to a question about whether Executive A was upholding PetroTiger’s Code of Business Principles, which included a prohibition on bribery, Executive A stated that he was.”
The Weisman information also contains a forfeiture allegation seeking forfeiture of approximately $52,000 (the amount of the alleged kickback Weisman received).
In the DOJ’s release, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman stated:
“We have said – repeatedly and emphatically – that foreign corruption, whether committed by companies or by the individuals entrusted to run those companies, will not be tolerated. And, our track record in vigorously enforcing the FCPA has shown that message to be undeniably true. The charges unsealed today against two former CEOs of PetroTiger and the guilty plea announced today of the former General Counsel reaffirm our clear message that we will prosecute corruption and fraud wherever we find it. Bribery distorts what should be a level playing field and deprives corporations and governments of funds that should instead be used to strengthen those institutions. Today’s announcement should be a reminder to CEOs and other executives who seek to corrupt the system at the expense of honest businesses: we are not going away.”
U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman of the District of New Jersey stated:
“Bribery of public officials, whether at home or abroad, corrupts business opportunity and undermines trust in government. The under-the-table deals alleged in today’s charges are not an acceptable way of doing business.”
Special Agent in Charge Aaron Ford of the FBI’s Newark Division stated:
“The FBI is committed to pursuing those who disrupt the level playing field to which companies in the U.S. and around the world are entitled. We will continue to investigate these matters by working with law enforcement agencies, both foreign and domestic, to ensure that both corporations and executives who bribe foreign officials for lucrative contracts are punished.”
The DOJ’s release further states:
“The department has worked closely with and has received significant assistance from its law enforcement counterparts in the Republic of Colombia and greatly appreciates their assistance in this matter. The department also thanks the Republic of the Philippines, including the Bureau of Immigration, for its assistance in this matter. Significant assistance was also provided by the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs.”