Top Menu

Convicted FCPA Felon Ng Ordered To Pay Lawyer $1.9 Million

Seng2

As highlighted in this prior post, in 2017 a federal jury convicted Ng Lap Seng of two counts of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, one count of paying bribes and gratuities, one count of money laundering and two counts of conspiracy “for his role in a scheme to bribe United Nations ambassadors to obtain support to build a conference center in Macau that would host, among other events, the annual United Nations Global South-South Development Expo.”

In 2018 Seng was sentenced to 48 months in prison and three years of supervised release. In addition, Seng was ordered to pay a $1 million fine, $302, 977 in restitution to the United Nations and the judge also ordered a forfeiture money judgment of $1.5 million. In March 2021, Seng was granted a compassionate release from prison and deported to China.

Recently, in a civil lawsuit brought by the Law Firm of Hugh H. Mo, P.C., Ng was ordered to pay $1.9 million to the firm for services rendered in connection with the FCPA enforcement action. (See 2002 WL 17363951).

The decision, after a bench trial conducted by Judge Alvin Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y) provides a rare glimpse into representing a criminal FCPA defendant and the lawyers and services involved in such a representation.

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

Roundup

Acquitted, scrutiny alert, under scrutiny again, across the pond, and compassionate release. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Acquittals

The so-called conventional wisdom in the U.S. is that business organizations under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act scrutiny (particularly publicly-traded corporations) simply can’t put the DOJ (or SEC for that matter) to its burden of proof in an enforcement action because it is too risky and may result in a “death sentence” for the company.

As highlighted in this post, the conventional wisdom is b.s., but the narrative still persists. In other countries however, corporations more frequently put government enforcement agencies to their burdens of proof by making factual and legal arguments.

Continue Reading

Potpourri

Potpourri

Commercial Bribery

The United Kingdom Bribery Act is a more comprehensive statute than the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Unlike the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions which has a required “foreign official” element, the U.K. Bribery Act – including its so-called Section 7 “failure to prevent bribery” offense – is capable of capturing commercial bribery as well.

Last week the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office announced a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Airline Services Limited (ASL) “for three counts of failing to prevent bribery arising from the company’s use of an agent to win three contracts … to refit commercial airliners for Lufthansa.”

According to the DPA, “at the time [between 2011 and 2013], notwithstanding the recent passing of the Bribery Act, ASL had made negligible efforts to educate its staff or to introduce processes to identify and counteract occasions of bribery.”

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

Roundup

The Bible?, Rampage?, scrutiny alert, cert denied and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

The Bible?

This Vinson & Elkins alert calls the FCPA Guidance “the ‘Bible’ for those operating in the FCPA space.”

The “Bible” for those operating in the FCPA space is the law and other legal authority – not non-binding enforcement agency guidance.

Continue Reading

Seng Seeks Supreme Court Review

Seng2

This previous post highlighted how the Second Circuit affirmed Ng Lap Seng’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related conviction“for his role in a scheme to bribe United Nations ambassadors to obtain support to build a conference center in Macau that would host, among other events, the annual United Nations Global South-South Development Expo.”

The issues in the Second Circuit appeal were: (i) whether the United Nations is an “organization” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 666; (ii) whether the jury was correctly instructed as to controlling law, particularly as pertains to bribery in light of McDonnell v. United States (see here for the prior post concerning the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision construing 18 USC 201 – the domestic bribery statute – particularly the meaning of “official act”; and (iii) whether the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty plea.

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes