About The Individuals Mentioned In The Comcel Enforcement Action
This prior post went in-depth into the recent $118.2 million FCPA enforcement action against Comcel (doing business as TIGO Guatemala – a mobile and fixed telecommunications service provider with its principal place of business in Guatemala).
There are two specific individuals mentioned in the DOJ charging documents: Acisclo Valladares Urruela (“Valladares” pictured) (a citizen of Guatemala and TIGO Guatemala’s Chief Corporate Affairs Officer and Head of Legal in or around and between 2008 and 2015 and again serving as Chief Corporate Affairs Officer in or around 2017) and Alvaro Estuardo Cobar Bustamante (“Cobar”) [a Guatemalan citizen and director of a Guatemalan bank] who facilitated the bribery scheme by providing Valladares with cash in order to pay bribes to Guatemalan officials and reimbursements for bribes TIGO Guatemala executives had already paid.
A “Foreign Official” Is Sentenced To Approximately 13 Years For Money Laundering
When the Foreign Extortion Prevention Action (FEPA) was enacted in late 2023 it was portrayed by some as filling a legal gap given that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act only captures the supply side of “bribery” and not the “demand side” (the “foreign officials” who receive or request bribes).
Like many things written in the FCPA (and related) space, the assertion lacked context because it ignored the fact that the Department of Justice has long used other criminal statutes (most often money laundering laws) to criminally charge “foreign officials” in connection with alleged bribery schemes before and even after FEPA was enacted. (See here).
Thus, was there really a meaningful “gap” that FEPA was actually filling?
The latest example concerns Omar Ambuila (pictured – a Colombian national employed by the Colombian Tax and Customs Directorate).
For The Reading Stack
Lots of what FCPA Inc. churns out is fluff.
But sometimes, there is actual informed analysis and two articles recently caught my eye.
The first article discusses recent bribery-related money laundering judicial decisions and the second article provides a critical analysis of the recent so-called Monaco Memo.
Second Circuit Affirms Ho’s FCPA And Related Convictions
As described in this prior post, in late 2018 Chi Ping Patrick Ho was found guilty at trial of Foreign Corrupt Practices Ac and money laundering violations in connection with alleged bribery schemes in Chad and Uganda on behalf of China Energy Fund Committee, an entity funded by CEFC China Energy Company Ltd.
This prior post outlined Ho’s arguments on appeal and the FCPA specific issues were presented as follows: (1) “Whether the government, which repeatedly argued that Ho paid bribes on behalf of a Chinese company, presented legally sufficient evidence that he acted on behalf of a “domestic concern,” as required for a conviction under 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2;” and (2) “Whether a defendant may be prosecuted for violating § 78dd-3 where (a) the grand jury determined that he was a “domestic concern,” but § 78dd-3 expressly does not apply to domestic concerns, and (b) the defendant was also indicted for violating § 78dd-2, but §§ 78dd-2 and 78dd-3 are mutually exclusive.”
In this recent decision, the Second Circuit rejected each of Ho’s challenges and affirmed his convictions.