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.
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.
