As highlighted in this post, 18 companies have resolved FCPA enforcement actions – not once – but twice. Nine of these instances have occurred since 2017.

Note: this post uses the term repeat offender to mean a business organization that has resolved more than one FCPA enforcement action regardless of which agency (DOJ or SEC) brought the enforcement action; regardless of the form of resolution (plea agreement, NPA, DPA, administrative order, etc.) and regardless of whether the charges or findings were anti-bribery violations or books and records and internal controls violations in connection with foreign bribery issues. This post does not include instances in which a company resolved an enforcement action concerning foreign bribery and then resolved an action implicating the books and records and internal controls in a so-called non-FCPA FCPA enforcement action. (See here and here for examples). Nor does it include instances in which there was a time gap between a DOJ enforcement action and an SEC enforcement action based on the same core conduct (for instance Las Vegas Sands and Beam).

Continue Reading

This recent FCPA Blog post asks “How Big a Problem Is Corporate FCPA Recidivism?” The post asserts that there have been 13 repeat FCPA defendants. However, like a lot of data on the FCPA Blog, this number is wrong.

As highlighted in this prior post, there have been 17 repeat corporate FCPA offenders and the post contained the complete list.

While the difference between 13 and 17 may seem like a trivial matter, the difference is statistically meaningful. Moreover, the FCPA Blog’s calculation of the corporate FCPA recidivism rate is also misleading.

Continue Reading

As highlighted in this post, 17 companies have resolved FCPA enforcement actions – not once – but twice. Eight of these instances have occurred since 2017.

Note: this post uses the term repeat offender to mean a business organization that has resolved more than one FCPA enforcement action regardless of which agency (DOJ or SEC) brought the enforcement action; regardless of the form of resolution (plea agreement, NPA, DPA, administrative order, etc.) and regardless of whether the charges or findings were anti-bribery violations or books and records and internal controls violations in connection with foreign bribery issues. This post does not include instances in which a company resolved an enforcement action concerning foreign bribery and then resolved an action implicating the books and records and internal controls in a so-called non-FCPA FCPA enforcement action. (See here and here for examples). Nor does it include instances in which there was a time gap between a DOJ enforcement action and an SEC enforcement action based on the same core conduct (for instance Las Vegas Sands and Beam).

Continue Reading