This previous post summarized the recent $155 million FCPA enforcement action against J&F Investimentos S.A. (a Brazilian holding company) and a related entity for allegedly bribing Brazilian officials.
This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider.
Piling On
The DOJ can claim that it has an anti-piling on policy (see here). However, piling on is precisely what the DOJ (and SEC) did in the recent enforcement action.
This recent post posed the question of whether “foreign” in the FCPA’s “foreign official” element means as it relates to the U.S. or as it relates to the specific company at issue. The post highlighted how in recent years the FCPA enforcement agencies have adopted the former interpretation in bringing FCPA enforcement actions against foreign companies for allegedly bribing their own “domestic” officials – but “foreign” as it relates to the U.S.
In yet another example, the DOJ and SEC announced yesterday (see here and here) that J&F Investimentos S.A. (J&F a private investment holding company based in Brazil that owns approximately 250 companies primarily involved in the meat and agriculture business) and a related entity resolved a net $155 million FCPA enforcement action for allegedly bribing Brazilian officials.
The enforcement action involved a: (i) DOJ component against J&F resolved through a plea agreement in which the company paid net $128.2 million; and (ii) an SEC component against J&F, a related entity, and two individuals in which the related entity paid approximately $26.8 million and the two individuals each paid a $550,000 civil penalty.
In mid-2013, the DOJ announced that various current and former of Alstom resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action in connection with the Tarahan power project in Indonesia. The underlying charging documents were from 2012. (See here). Thereafter, in 2013 additional individuals associated with Alstom were also charged (see here and here) including Lawrence Hoskins who was found guilty at trial in 2019. (See here).
In early-2014, Marubeni (a consortium partner of Alstom on the Tarahan project) resolved an FCPA enforcement action. (See here and here). In late 2014, Alstom resolved an FCPA enforcement action regarding alleged conduct around the world including in Indonesia in connection Tarahan power contract. (See here and here).
Yesterday, the DOJ announced the unsealing of this 2015 indictment charging Reza Moenaf (the former president of Alstom’s subsidiary in Indonesia), Eko Sulianto (the former director of sales of Alstom’s subsidiary in Indonesia) and Junji Kusunoki (the former deputy general manager of Marubeni’s Overseas Power Project Department) with conspiracy to violate the FCPA and conspiracy to commit money laundering in connection with the same core allegations found in the previous enforcement actions.
Prior posts here and here went in-depth into the recent $294 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Airbus as well as the United Kingdom’s prosecution of the company.
This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider.
“Piling On”
As highlighted in this prior post, in 2018 the DOJ announced a non-binding policy discouraging “piling on” by instructing DOJ “components to appropriately coordinate with one another and with other enforcement agencies in imposing multiple penalties on a company in relation to investigations of the same misconduct.”
These pages have long asserted that if a country is to have a deferred prosecution regime that the regime in the United Kingdom (which requires meaningful judicial review and approval) is far more preferable than the U.S. regime.
This is apparent when reviewing the Statement of Facts,, Deferred Prosecution Agreement and Approved Judgment relevant to the U.K. Serious Fraud Office prosecution of Airbus. (See here for a collection of the U.K. documents and see here for the prior post regarding the U.S. enforcement action). The U.K. documents provided a substantially more thorough and transparent glimpse into the underlying conduct compared to the U.S. resolution documents.
