Chodan’s 9% Plea Agreement
If one were to categorize “successful” FCPA enforcement actions or DOJ “wins” and “losses” in FCPA enforcement actions, how does one categorize a plea agreement in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty to 9% of the original charges?
In February 2009, Wojciech Chodan (along with Jeffrey Tesler) was charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and ten counts of substantive FCPA anti-bribery violations in connection with the massive Bonny Island, Nigeria bribery case. (See here).
Earlier this week, the DOJ announced (here) that Chodan agreed to plead guilty to the one conspiracy charge. What you will not see in the DOJ’s release is that, in exchange, the DOJ agreed to dismiss the other 10 charges (i.e. 91% of the original charges) assuming the court accepts the plea agreement. (See here for the plea agreement).
Who is Wojciech Chodan?
As reflected in the plea agreement and original indictment, Chodan is a United Kingdom citizen who “was a commercial vice president (a non-officer position) and then, beginning in 1999, a consultant for M.W. Kellogg Ltd., which was a United Kingdom subsidiary of The M.W. Kellogg Company and then Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc. (collectively KBR).”
Chodan reported to KBR’s CEO, Albert Jackson Stanley, among others. (In August 2008, Stanley pleaded guilty (see here) to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.).
According to the plea agreement, Chodan assisted KBR and its three partners in the so-called TSKJ joint venture obtain engineering, procurement, and construction (“EPC”) contracts (collectively valued at over $6 billion) to build liquefied natural gas facilities on Bonny Island.
According to the plea agreement, between 1994 and June 2004 “Chodan agreed with Stanley and others to pay bribes to Nigerian government officials in order for TSKJ, KBR, and others to obtain and retain the EPC contracts to build the Bonny Island Project.” The plea agreement states that “Chodan knew that it was unlawful under U.S. law to bribe foreign government officials.”
According to the plea agreement, Chodan “recommended and agreed to the hiring of Jeffrey Tesler and Tri-Star Investments Ltd. (“Tri-Star) by TSKJ, expecting that Tesler and Tri-Star would pay bribes to high-level Nigerian government officials to assist TSKJ, KBR, and others in winning the EPC contracts to build the Bonny Island Project.” Also, according to the plea agreement, Chodan “recommended and agreed to the hiring of a global trading company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan (“Consulting Company B”) by TSKJ, expecting that Consulting Company B would pay bribes to lower level Nigerian government officials to assist TSKJ, KBR, and others in winning the EPC contracts to build the Bonny Island Project.”
The factual basis for the guilty plea states that “Chodan and his co-conspirators committed acts in furtherance of the scheme […] in Houston, Texas, however, the factual basis for the guilty plea does not provide any further detail on this issue.
As noted in the DOJ release, Chodan “faces a maximum penalty of 60 months in prison on the conspiracy charge” and “as part of his plea agreement, Chodan agreed to forfeit $726,885.”
Andrew Lourie (here – who “served in various high-level positions with the U.S. Department of Justice, including as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff for the Criminal Division and as Chief of the Public Integrity Section”) represents Chodan.
For an overview of prior Bonny Island enforcement actions – see here.
The FCPA and Potential Reforms
Last week’s U.S. Chamber of Commerce Annual Legal Reform Summit included a panel titled: “Navigating a Global Marketplace — Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Potential Reforms.”
Amanda Ulrich (here), an associate in the New York office of Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, provides a summary in this guest post.
*****
The recent expansion of FCPA enforcement and new FCPA-related bounty provisions in the Dodd Frank Act had audience members thoroughly engaged as an impressive assembly of speakers from the public and private sectors gathered to discuss these issues at the United States Chamber of Commerce’s Annual Legal Reform Summit last week.
Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorney General of the United States and current partner at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, introduced and moderated a panel that also included John S. Darden, former Assistant Chief of the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and currently a partner at Patton Boggs, LLP, Cheryl J. Scarboro, Chief of the FCPA Unit within the Division of Enforcement at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), George J. Terwilliger III, former DOJ Deputy Attorney General and currently global head of the White Collar Practice Group of White & Case LLP, and Andrew Weissmann, former Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and Co-Chair of the White Collar Practice at Jenner & Block LLP. The audience was treated to a vigorous debate on FCPA enforcement between representatives of the private sector who called for more clarity and predictability in enforcement, and individuals arguing the federal government’s perspective, looking to level the playing field for business through increased enforcement and increased cooperation among foreign and domestic agencies.
The discussion opened with remarks by Judge Mukasey, who commented that the rapid expansion of FCPA enforcement in the United States since 2004 has brought increased anxiety to companies, which are concerned about competitive disadvantages in the global business environment. Judge Mukasey suggested, however, that this anxiety should be tempered by the fact that 34 countries have signed on to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development’s Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Transactions. He noted further that although the United States remains in the forefront of enforcement, with the UK’s Anti-Bribery Bill coming into effect next year, there is a global trend towards more vigorous enforcement of anti-bribery laws.
Expanding Views on Jurisdiction have led to Global Enforcement by the DOJ
Mr. Darden presented the DOJ’s perspective on the expansion of FCPA enforcement, and explained that, since 2005, the DOJ’s Fraud Section has concluded more than 40 criminal FCPA matters and collected over $2 billion in criminal fines. He noted that the six largest FCPA investigations have been resolved in the past 22 months, that more than 75 individuals have been criminally charged with FCPA violations since 2005, and that more than 45 of those individual prosecutions have taken place in the past two years. These statistics dwarf those of the first thirty years of FCPA enforcement.
According to Mr. Darden, the recent surge in enforcement is the result of an expanding view of jurisdiction by the government, as applied to both corporations and individuals. For corporations, the FCPA applies not only to U.S. corporations and foreign companies whose shares are traded on U.S. exchanges and regulated by the SEC, but also individuals and companies that take any action in the United States in furtherance of a bribery scheme. As a result of a more expansive jurisdictional reach, Mr. Darden argued that the idea that U.S. companies are disadvantaged by stringent FCPA provisions has been turned on its head; he noted that five of the six largest FCPA actions have involved foreign corporations.
Mr. Darden pointed out that the expanding fight against bribery has extended beyond the scope of the FCPA itself. Although the FCPA punishes only the payor (as opposed to the Federal Anti-Kick Back Law, which punishes both the payor and the payee), at least two FCPA-related cases in the last few months have involved charges against foreign officials under other statutes.
SEC stepping up enforcement, increasing cooperation with other agencies, but approaching remedies with more flexibility
Ms. Scarboro described the FCPA program at the SEC, where, she noted, FCPA enforcement has been a high priority for quite some time. In 2010 alone, with several cases still ongoing, the SEC has settled with 11 corporations and 7 individuals, recovering over $400 million in disgorgement and civil penalties.
Ms. Scarboro reminded the audience that the SEC has reorganized its efforts and now has a dedicated unit focused exclusively on combating foreign bribery. She said that the division has become smarter, more proactive, and more internally coordinated; the unit has also increased the SEC’s coordination with the DOJ. In addition, there have been more coordinated efforts with investigative authorities in other countries, including in connection with the Siemens investigation and this year’s Innospec case. Ms. Scarboro said that the SEC and the DOJ have been at the forefront of enforcing this country’s OECD obligations and have begun encouraging and engaging international counterparts in the pursuit of anti-bribery enforcement.
Ms. Scarboro emphasized that the SEC will continue to pursue disgorgement of profits in its FCPA investigations, and also explained that the SEC has begun to focus on industry-wide corruption, taking individual instances of bribery and investigating whether patterns emerge within a given industry. The SEC has stepped up its pursuit of individuals, she said, viewing enforcement against individuals as a better deterrent than enforcing sanctions against a company.
The SEC has pursued a more flexible approach to remedies in its investigations. To encourage cooperation by businesses under scrutiny by federal agencies, Ms. Scarboro explained, the SEC has begun pursuing deferred prosecution and cooperation agreements with companies that voluntarily report and cooperate with the SEC. She said that the SEC fashions relief on a case-by-case basis, given that the facts and circumstances of each case, as well as the level of cooperation, differ significantly, and the SEC considers a broad range of factors in determining the relief in each case.
Calls for Reform from the Private Sector
Andrew Weissman has written critically about the statute in the past, and recently released an article, sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, calling for specific reforms to the statute. Mr. Weissmann expressed concern that, because the vast majority of FCPA-related cases against corporations, like those involving allegations of other criminal law violations, are settled without trial, the DOJ and the SEC serve as the judge and jury; thus, there is no meaningful way to question their interpretation of the FCPA’s grey areas.
Mr. Weissman’s second major stated concern was that, due to the lack of clarity in enforcement, companies are less likely to pursue business opportunities in countries seen as highly corrupt, such as China, where the risks of running afoul of the FCPA are high. The potential for FCPA enforcement hangs over such business ventures, and Mr. Weissman characterized this as a tax on companies looking to do business abroad.
Mr. Weissman encouraged the United States to adopt a provision similar to one contained in the UK’s Anti-Bribery Bill, which, when it becomes effective in April 2011, will provide a defense to enforcement actions for companies that devote “adequate” resources to creating and enforcing anti-bribery procedures. Mr. Weissman suggested that the British statute recognizes the limitations of what a corporation can do about the actions of its individual employees.
Mr. Weissman also called for more clarity with respect to what constitutes an “instrumentality” of a foreign government, light-heartedly suggesting that almost everyone in China is an instrumentality of the government. Mr. Weissman fears that, without more clarity, a business would not know whether it could take someone employed at General Motors out to dinner (as the U.S. government is now a shareholder). Similar arguments might apply to hospitality provided to an employee of Bloomberg (as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg owns 85% of that company), or a Professor at Columbia (a school that receives public grants).
Judge Mukasey noted that the United States has a facilitation payment exception that the UK statute does not have, but Mr. Weissman described the facilitation payment exception as very narrow, and limited to grease payments that expedite inevitable occurrences. Judge Mukasey characterized this exception as applying to payments that help a company to “move up the list” toward an approval it would obtain in any event as opposed to helping a company “get on the list.” Mr. Weissman also noted that there is no de-minimis exception in the FCPA, putting companies at risk of FCPA violations even for very minor favors or transactions.
Although the new UK statute goes beyond the FCPA in some ways – including its extension to commercial bribery – Mr. Weissmann believes that the availability of the “adequate procedures” defense makes that statute more reasonable than the FCPA.
The intent standard applied in FCPA enforcement actions also concerns Mr. Weissman. For individual prosecutions under the FCPA, he explained, the intent standard is “willfulness,” which is considerably more stringent than the “knowing” standard applied to corporations. The “knowing” standard, Mr. Weissman argued, makes doing business in certain countries very risky, as the act in furtherance of the bribery needs to be only an intentional act, that is, not one that is a mistake.
Anomalies Resulting from Increased Enforcement
Mr. Terwilliger began his discussion of anomalies in increased enforcement by noting that U.S. companies are devoted to free market principles, and that corrupt markets are not free – a principle sufficient to justify anti-bribery enforcement but not necessarily sufficient to justify uneven enforcement.
Mr. Terwilliger outlined problems with what he described as the great leverage held by the DOJ and the SEC in FCPA enforcement: few trials (almost no trials involving corporate defendants) and no body of jurisprudence governing the field, which results in no real opportunity for corporations to contest the government’s decision to pursue an FCPA enforcement action.
Although prosecutors stress the benefits of self-reporting and internal investigations, Mr. Terwilliger expressed an ongoing concern of many corporations that plaintiff’s lawyers representing shareholders and sometimes competitors have begun to latch on to those self-reports in pursuing litigation against companies who report bribery activities.
Similarly, Mr. Terwilliger explained that, in his view, the new bounty provisions of the Dodd Frank Act, which provide for recoveries of up to 30% of settlements with the SEC in excess of $1 million, misalign incentives that are crucial for successful self-reporting. The best source for self policing bribery issues are a company’s employees, and as such, companies are now required to rely on people who have financial incentive to go directly to the government to report these issues. Mr. Terwilliger said he viewed this as a major concern given that a company’s willingness to self-report is often a consideration in the remedies pursued by government agencies.
Incentives for Self-Reporting
Mr. Terwilliger argued that the incentives for companies faced with potential FCPA violations are also skewed in the self-reporting context. The better the procedures to detect bribery, the more likely the company will be to uncover bribery and face the decision of whether or not to self-report. Rather than being rewarded for voluntarily rooting out bribery problems, companies are often faced with costly punishment, an anomaly that weighs heavily in the board room when determining whether to self-report. Mr. Terwilliger called for the creation of a presumption of non-criminal disposition and reduced penalties for companies voluntarily reporting FCPA violations. Judge Mukasey added that such an approach could help lawyers in advising their clients on FCPA compliance policies.
Mr. Darden responded that the DOJ would see this as an unnecessary step, because the program is working well without such a “carrot.” Characterizing Mr. Terwilliger’s suggestion as amnesty and comparing it to the anti-trust division’s amnesty program, Mr. Darden said that the DOJ does not need companies to come forward and voluntarily report, whereas the anti-trust division’s amnesty policy is justified by the fact that it is impossible to investigate a cartel without one member of that cartel coming forward. Mr. Darden said that additional carrots are not needed in anti-bribery enforcement, as companies have shown that there is enough incentive to come forward.
Mr. Terwilliger argued that, in his experience with certain long-running voluntary FCPA investigations, it would have been impossible for the DOJ to gather the same evidence as was gathered in a voluntary investigation, and said that the anti-trust program is a very good analogy to the DOJ’s program. He also noted that he was not discussing amnesty, but rather a reduced penalty that would give the company better incentives to self-report.
Mr. Darden and Ms. Scarboro both stated that only about one-third of FCPA investigations are voluntarily reported to the DOJ or the SEC, but the proportion of cases that are resolved with cooperation of the companies being investigated is much higher than one-third, and in those cases that cooperation factors significantly into the remedies the agencies seek.
Ms. Scarboro noted that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which the DOJ uses (and courts apply) in assessing fines for FCPA violations, provide for downward departures, and the availability of non-prosecution agreements gives the DOJ added flexibility. While other enforcement models, like the UK’s, provide for the negotiation of remedies prior to the investigation, the U.S. model gives federal agencies discretion to account for a variety of facts and circumstances after an investigation to assess the proper penalty. The SEC, for example, in determining whether to bring an action against a corporation, considers the corporation’s cooperation in the investigation and its remediation efforts in determining what remedies the SEC will seek, if any.
Ms. Scarboro noted that, in many cases, the level of cooperation is sufficient that the SEC will not initiate a full investigation. Those cases are generally not publicized in order to avoid unwanted publicity or embarrassment for the cooperating companies. Mr. Darden echoed that sentiment, and said that, while some companies affirmatively publicize their avoidance of FCPA charges, in many cases when the DOJ determines not to pursue charges, companies do not want the publicity of the DOJ’s decision not to prosecute or investigate, because that publicity could give rise to the need to issue a new 8-K.
During a Q&A period, Mr. Darden stated that the Federal Prosecution Principles, which were supposed to add clarity, have in some cases raised more questions than answers. In an attempt to give more clarity, especially in the area of compliance, the Prosecution Principles fail to give guidance about the type of cases the DOJ seeks to pursue. For example, the DOJ cares less about a company with some far flung employee who did not “get the memo” on the company’s anti-bribery compliance policy, than it does about a higher level corporate employee generating phony documents. Mr. Darden said that the failure to distinguish these schemes is a weakness in the Federal Prosecution Principles and is driving a need for more clarity.
Conclusion
Although the private sector has called for reform, the federal agencies responsible for FCPA enforcement have signaled no reversal of the trend of increased enforcement of the FCPA against companies and individuals at home and abroad.
Securency International Probe Heats Up
According to this U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO) release, “a coordinated search and arrest operation” involving U.K., Spanish, and Australian authorities focused on Securency International PTY Ltd. has taken place. According to the release, the action involves the “activities of employees and agents of Securency International and their alleged corrupt role in securing international polymer banknote contracts.”
Securency International (here) is a joint venture between the Reserve Bank of Australia, the country’s central bank, and Innovia Films (here), a Cumbria, England-based company that makes cellulose films for packaging and labels.
According to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald the “Reserve Bank is reeling after Federal Police and overseas law-enforcement agencies staged co-ordinated global raids yesterday to uncover evidence of corruption and bribery involving the bank note firm Securency.” Bribery is suspected to have occurred in several countries, including Vietnam, Nigeria, Malaysia and Indonesia. As the article notes, if criminal charges are filed, it would be Australia’s first foreign bribery prosecution.
The above linked Sydney Morning Herald article also has an informative five minute audio clip about the raid and the allegations against Securency International.
Will the U.S. get involved?
That depends if there is even jurisdiction.
Neither Securency or Innovia appear to be an “issuer” or “domestic concern.” But there is still the 78dd-3 prong of the FCPA which applies to “any person” (corporate or individual) that generally performs any act in furtherance of an improper payment scheme while in the territory of the U.S. Like most FCPA issues, the DOJ takes an expansive view of this jurisdictional element and prior enforcement actions have been based on use of the U.S. bank accounts, U.S. dollar-denominated financial transactions, and use of the U.S. mail and wires (such as e-mail) in connection with the improper payment scheme.
For more on expansive FCPA jurisdiction over non-U.S. companies, see this July 2010 Shearman & Sterling publication.
More on Snamprogetti, ENI
Yesterday’s post (see here) provided a high-level overview of the joint DOJ / SEC FCPA enforcement action.
Today’s post provides a summary of the DOJ criminal information (here), deferred prosecution agreement (here), and SEC civil complaint (here).
For starters, the conduct at issue focuses on Snamprogetti Netherlands BV (“Snamprogetti”), a Dutch company headquartered in Amsterdam. Snamprogetti was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Snamprogetti, S.p.A., an Italian company, which in turn was a wholly-owned subsidiary of ENI, S.p.A., an Italian company headquartered in Rome that has been an issuer since 1995 and currently has common stock and American Depository Shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange. In February 2006, ENI sold Snamprogetti to Saipem, S.p.A., an Italian company. As indicated in this Saipem press release, even though Snamprogetti is a current subsidiary of Saipem, “in connection with the sale of Snamprogetti to Saipem, Eni agreed to indemnify Saipem for losses resulting” from the Bonny Island bribery investigation and accordingly neither the DOJ or SEC penalty “will impact Saipem’s consolidated income statement and balance sheet.” According to the SEC, “ENI owns 43% of, and exercises control over” Saipem.
With that out of the way, back to Snamprogetti.
Information
Not surprisingly, the Snamprogetti information largely mirrors the criminal informations previously filed last week against Technip (see here) and in February 2009 against the Kellogg Brown & Root (see here) – entities also part of the joint venture engaged in the Bonny Island bribery scheme.
The Snamprogetti information charges conspiracy to violate the FCPA and aiding and abetting violations of the FCPA’s antibribery provisions and alleges that Snamprogetti was part of a joint venture (“JV”) in Nigeria to design, build and expand LNG facilities on Bonny Island. According to the information, JV profits, revenues, and expenses were equally shared among the four JV partners. The JV’s Steering Committee consisted of high-level executives from each of the four companies and the Steering Committee made major decisions on behalf of the JV, including whether to hire agents to assist the JV in winning contracts, who to hire as agents, and how much to pay the agents.
The information charges that the JV operated through three Portuguese special purpose corporations, including a corporation (#3), 25% owned by Snamprogetti, specifically used to enter into consulting agreements with JV agents.
The criminal conduct charged centers on two agents hired by the JV.
The first agent, Jeffrey Tesler was a citizen of the United Kingdom who used a Gibraltar-based company as a vehicle to enter into agent contracts and receive payments from the JV. The information charges that the JV paid the company over $130 million to bribe high-ranking Nigerian government officials. According to the information, Tesler was an agent of the JV and each of the JV companies.
The second agent was a global trading company headquartered in Tokyo (the “Japanese Agent”), which was hired by the JV to help it obtain business in Nigeria, including by paying bribes to Nigerian officials. The information charges that the JV paid the consulting company over $50 million to bribe Nigerian government officials. According to the information, the Japanese Agent was an agent of the JV and each of the JV companies.
According to the information, between 1995 and 2004, the JV was awarded four contracts (collectively valued at over $6 billion) to build the Bonny Island Project and alleges that Snamprogetti, Technhip, Kellogg Brown & Root, Tesler, the Japanese Agent, and others, were engaged in a conspiracy to obtain and retain the contracts “through the promise and payment of tens of millions in bribes to officials of the Executive Branch of Nigeria, officials of Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), officials of Nigeria LNG Limited (NLNG) and others.”
[According to the information, NNPC was a Nigerian government-owned company and an entity and instrumentality of the Government of Nigeria whose officers and employees were “foreign officials” under the FCPA. According to the information, NLNG was also an entity and instrumentality of the Government of Nigeria whose officers and employees were “foreign officials” under the FCPA, notwithstanding the fact that NLNG was 51% owned by multinational oil companies. Why? Presumably because, as the information alleges, “through the NLNG board members appointed by NNPC, among other means, the Nigerian government exercised control over NLNG, including but not limited to the abilty to block the award” of the relevant contracts.]
Among other means of the conspiracy, the information alleges that:
“officers, employees, and agents of Snamprogetti and their co-conspirators caused wire transfers totaling approximately $132 million to be sent from [#3’s] bank account in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, to bank accounts in New York, New York, to be further credited to bank accounts in Switzerland and Monaco controlled by Tesler for Tesler to use to bribe Nigerian government officials.”
“officers and employees of Snamprogetti and their co-conspirators caused wire transfers totaling over $50 million to be sent from [#3’s] bank account in Amsterdam, The Netherlands to [Japanese Agent’s] bank account in Japan for [the Japanese Agent to use to bribe Nigerian government officials.”
Based on the same core conduct, the information also charges Snamprogetti with aiding and abetting violations of the FCPA’s antibribery provisions and alleges that “Snamprogetti aided and abetted Kellogg, Brown and Root in causing […] corrupt U.S. dollar payments to be wire transferred from [#3’s] bank account in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, via correspondent bank accounts in New York, New York, to bank accounts of [Tesler’s Gibraltar based company] in Switzerland for use in part to bribe Nigerian government officials.”
DPA
The DPA has a term of two years. Parties to the DPA include Snamprogetti, Saipem and ENI.
Pursuant to the DPA, Snamprogetti admitted, accepted, and acknowledged that it is responsible for the acts of its employees, subsidiaries, and agents as detailed in the above criminal information.
According to the DPA, the DOJ agreed to enter into the agreement with the parties based on the following factors: “(a) Snamprogetti, Saipem, and ENI cooperated with the DOJ’s investigation of Snamprogetti and others; (b)Snamprogetti, Saipem, and ENI undertook remedial measures, including the implementation of an enhanced compliance program; and (c) Snamprogetti, Saipem, and ENI agreed to continue to cooperate with the DOJ in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of Snamprogetti and its present and former employees, agents, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and others relating to violations of the FCPA.”
According to the DPA, the fine range under the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for Snamprogetti’s conduct is $300 million – $600 million. Snamprogetti agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $240 million or approximately 20% below the bottom of the fine range. Thus another example of the DOJ allowing a corporation to settle significant bribery allegations for an amount below even the bottom range of fines available under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines.
The DPA, unlike the recent Technip DPA, does require the engagement of a corporate compliance monitor.
Representing Snamprogetti, Saipem, and ENI in the FCPA enforcement action was Karen Patton Seymour (here) and Nicolas Bourtin (here) of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
In the DOJ release (here) Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman stated: “the resolutions in this investigation demonstrate the U.S. government’s commitment to identifying and holding accountable all companies and individuals who scheme to bribe foreign government officials to win business;” “Snamprogetti and its joint-venture partners conspired to pursue lucrative contracts through a massive bribery scheme – a scheme that has led to more than $1.28 billion in criminal and civil penalties to date. The monetary penalties and enforcement actions that have resulted from this investigation should send a clear message to companies and their employees that using foreign bribery as a means of winning contracts abroad will be punished.” Kevin L. Perkins, assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division added: this “resolution is yet another example of the FBI’s willingness to aggressively investigate individuals and businesses that engage in corrupt conduct around the globe;” “those who elect to expand or protect their business interests through the payment of illegal bribes to foreign public officials should know that they are not beyond the reach of the FBI. Together, with our law enforcement partners around the world, we will identify these bad actors and work with the Justice Department to prosecute them under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other appropriate federal statutes.”
SEC Complaint
The SEC complaint “arises from multiple violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” by ENI and its former indirect subsidiary Snamprogetti. According to the complaint: “between at least 1995 and 2004, senior executives at Snamprogetti, among others, devised and implemented a scheme to bribe Nigerian government officials to assist in obtaining multiple contracts worth over $6 billion to build liquefied natural gas production facilities on Bonny Island, Nigeria” that a four-company JV, of which Snamprogetti was a member, won the contracts to build.
Specifically, the SEC complaint alleges that “to conceal the illicit payments, Snamprogetti and others, through the JV, entered into sham ‘consulting’ or ‘services’ agreements” with Tesler and the Japanese Agent “who would then funnel their purportedly legitimate fees to Nigerian government officials.”
According to the SEC, “as a result of the scheme, numerous books and records of Snamprogetti and ENI contained false information relating to, among other things” Tesler and the Japanese Agent “and the payments made to them.” Specifically, the SEC alleged that “Snamprogetti’s business records […] contained the contracts with [Tesler] and the Japanese Agent, which falsely described the purpose of the contracts in order to make it appear that the agents would perform legitimate services.” According to the SEC, “these documents were part of Snamprogetti’s business records and supported Snampogetti’s financial statements, which were consolidated into ENI’s financial statements.”
The SEC alleges that “Snamprogetti did not conduct due diligence” on Tesler or the Japanese Agent and “ENI failed to ensure that Snamprogetti complied with ENI’s policies regarding the use of agents.” Specifically, the SEC alleged that “ENI’s policies and procedures governed Snamprogetti’s use of agents” but that “ENI failed to ensure that Snamprogetti conducted due diligence on agents hired through JV’s in which Snamprogetti participated.” “As a result,” the complaint alleged, “ENI’s internal controls failed to detect, deter or prevent the decades-long bribery scheme.”
Based on the above allegations, the SEC charged Snamprogetti, as “an agent of a U.S. issuer” with violating the FCPA’s antibribery provisions and knowingly falsifying books and records that supported the financial statements of ENI and knowingly circumventing ENI’s internal accounting controls. The SEC charged ENI with violating the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions. According to the SEC, “ENI exercised control and supervision of […] Snamprogetti during the relevant time and on certain of its business decisions, such as Snamprogetti’s entry into the JV.”
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Snamprogetti and ENI consented to court orders permanently enjoining the companies from future violations of the FCPA and court orders requiring the companies, jointly and severally, to pay $125 million in disgorgement.
In a press release (see here) with the grabbing line “SEC charges Italian Company and Dutch Subsidiary in Scheme Bribing Nigerian Officials With Carloads of Cash,” Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated: “this elaborate bribery scheme featured sham intermediaries, Swiss bank accounts, and carloads of cash as everyone involved made a concerted effort to cover their tracks” … “but the billion-plus dollars in sanctions paid by these companies show that ultimately there is no hiding or profiting from bribery.”
[As to the carload of cash, the SEC complaint alleges that the joint venture in which Snamprogetti participated in, paid Tesler (the UK agent) $40 million under a sham consulting agreement, and that Tesler then used a subcontractor to transfer $5 million to a Nigerian government official for the benefit of a Nigerian political party. According to the SEC complaint, “on several occassions, the Subcontractor personally delivered hand-delivered $1 million in U.S. currency in a brief case to the Nigerian official in a hotel room in Abuja, Nigeria.” The complaint alleges that the “Subcontractor delivered the remainder of the $5 million to the Nigerian official in local Nigerian currency,” but that because the currency “was too bulky to deliver by hand, the Subcontractor loaded the cash into vehicles, which were delivered to the Nigerian official.”
In a press release (see here) ENI stated, among other things, as follows:
“As the U.S. authorities’ court filings indicate, the criminal activity with which Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V. was charged ceased by June 15, 2004. Eni, Saipem, and Snamprogetti cooperated with the U.S. authorities’ investigations. In the agreements, the SEC and DOJ did not require the implementation of any independent compliance monitor. Since the conduct at issue, Eni, Saipem, and Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V. have made substantial enhancements to their anti-corruption compliance programs, which monitor Eni and its subsidiaries’ compliance systems. Eni and its subsidiaries are committed to continuous improvements to their internal compliance program and policies.”
Innospec Agent Pleads Guilty
Approximately one year ago, a criminal indictment against Ousama Naaman was unsealed (see here). The indictment charged Naaman, a dual Canadian and Lebanese national, with violating the FCPA and conspiring to violate the FCPA and commit wire fraud, while acting on behalf of a U.S. public chemical company and its subsidiary in connection with kickback payments to the Iraqi government under the United Nations Oil for Food Program. The indictment also charged Naaman with making payments on behalf of the company to Iraqi Ministry of Oil officials.
Since then, Naaman was extradited to the U.S. and the chemical company was identified as Innospec – which resolved its own FCPA enforcement action in March (see here).
As noted in this DOJ release, last Friday Naaman “pleaded guilty … to a two-count superseding information filed June 24, 2010, charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and falsify the books and records of a U.S. issuer; and one count of violating the FCPA.”
According to the release:
“From 2001 to 2003, acting on behalf of Innospec, Naaman offered and paid 10 percent kickbacks to the then Iraqi government in exchange for five contracts under the OFFP. Naaman negotiated the contracts, including a 10 percent increase in the price to cover the kickback, and routed the funds to Iraqi government accounts in the Middle East. Innospec inflated its prices in contracts approved by the OFFP to cover the cost of the kickbacks. Naaman also admitted that from 2004 to 2008, he paid and promised to pay more than $3 million in bribes, in the form of cash, as well as travel, gifts and entertainment, to officials of the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and the Trade Bank of Iraq to secure sales of tetraethyl lead in Iraq, as well as to secure more favorable exchange rates on the contracts. Naaman provided Innospec with false invoices to support the payments, and those invoices were incorporated into the books and records of Innospec.”
For additional coverage of the Naaman plea, see here from Christopher Matthews at Main Justice.
In 1998, the FCPA’s antibribery provisions were amended to, among other things, broaden the jurisdictional reach of the statute to prohibit “any person” “while in the territory of the U.S.” from making improper payments through “use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce” or from doing “any other act in furtherance” of an improper payment. (see 15 USC 78dd-3(a)). “Any person” is generally defined to include any person other than a U.S. national or any business organization organized under the laws of a foreign nation. (see 15 USC 78dd-3(f)).
In other words … the FCPA … it isn’t just for Americans.
Ousama Naaman found out the hard way.
Other foreign nationals that have been the focus of FCPA enforcement actions include Jeffrey Tesler and Wojciech Chodan (both U.K. citizens criminally indicted for their roles in the KBR / Halliburton bribery scheme)(see here) and Chrisitan Sapsizian (a French citizen who pleaded guilty to violating the FCPA for his role in a scheme to bribe Costa Rican foreign officials) (see here).