Restitution Archives - FCPA Professor

Potpourri

By Mike Koehler on July 29, 2020 in Basil Al Jarah, Edward Thiessen, FCPA Sentences, Och-Ziff Capital, Och-Ziff Capital Management, Restitution, Sculptor Capital Management, Serious Fraud Office, SFO, Stephen Whiteley, Unaoil, United Kingdom, Victims, Ziad Akle

Agreement in Principle

As highlighted in prior posts here and here in 2016 hedge fund Och-Ziff resolved a $412 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action concerning improper business practices in various African countries.

As highlighted in this 2018 post, former shareholders of Canadian mining company Africo Resources Ltd. (“Claimants”) sough restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act for losses allegedly incurred as a result of Och-Ziff’s bribery of corrupt officials in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Petroecuador Faces Uphill Climb In Seeking “Victim” Status

By Mike Koehler on December 18, 2019 in Foreign Official, Foreign Officials, Frank Roberto Chatburn Ripalda, Restitution, Victims

In recent years, several entities employing alleged “foreign officials” who receive bribe payments from individuals prosecuted for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act offenses have sought “victim” status under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.

(See here for more on the unsuccessful attempt by Instituto Constarricense de Electricidad of Costa Rica in connection with the Alcatel-Lucent FCPA enforcement action; see here for more on the unsuccessful attempt by a subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. in connection with individual FCPA enforcement actions involving the entity).

In the latest attempt, Petroecuador is seeking “victim” status in connection with the FCPA enforcement action against Frank Chatburn (see here for more on the underlying enforcement action).

Forced To Brief The Issue, The DOJ Requests That The Court Order Och-Ziff To Pay Its “Victims” Between $150 – $188 Million

By Mike Koehler on December 4, 2019 in Africo Resources Ltd., Och-Ziff Capital, Och-Ziff Capital Management, Restitution

As highlighted in this 2018 post, in the aftermath of the 2016 Och-Ziff Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action (see here and here for prior posts) former shareholders of Canadian mining company Africo Resources Ltd. (“Claimants”) sough restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act for losses allegedly incurred as a result of Och-Ziff’s bribery of corrupt officials in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The DOJ opposed the request arguing, among other things, that Claimants had not show direct or proximate causation of quantifable harm from Och-Ziff’s conduct and that damages were too speculative.

The Supreme Court’s Recent Unanimous Decision In A Restitution Case Provides Yet Another Reason Not To Voluntarily Disclose

By Mike Koehler on June 5, 2018 in Internal Investigation Issues, Restitution, Victims, Voluntary Disclosure

The scenario is relatively common. Whether in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act context or otherwise, an individual acts contrary to the law and when his or her conduct is discovered various business organizations impacted by the illegal activity conduct an internal investigation.

The question arises: if the individual engaged in the illegal activity is convicted, may the impacted business organizations recover from the individual internal investigation expenses under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) and, if so, under what circumstances? In recent years, circuit courts have split on the relevant issues.

Last week though the Supreme Court provided clarity in Lagos v. U.S. In the unanimous decision authored by Justice Breyer, the court concluded that the words “investigation” and “proceedings” in the MVRA are limited to government investigations and criminal proceedings. After excerpting the case, this post highlights how business organizations can best position themselves for MVRA restitution in certain FCPA matters by not voluntarily disclosing.

An FCPA Enforcement Action Involving A U.S. Government Aid Program (With A Few Ironies)

By Mike Koehler on September 19, 2017 in 1998-2004 Enforcement Actions, DOJ Enforcement Action, FCPA Enforcement Actions & Gov’t Assistance Or Aid Programs, FCPA Sentences, Individual Enforcement Action, Non-Profits, Restitution, Richard Pitchford, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom

[This post is part of a periodic series regarding “old” FCPA enforcement actions]

Yesterday’s post highlighted a number of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions in connection with U.S. government aid or assistance programs.

This post goes into more detail regarding the DOJ’s 2002 FCPA enforcement action against Richard Pitchford (the Vice President and Country Manager in Turkmenistan for the Central Asia American Enterprise Fund (CAAEF), an entity wholly funded by a $150 million appropriation from Congress pursuant to the Support for Eastern European Democracy Act of 1989 and the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Market Support Act of 1992).

One of the ironies with this enforcement action (there is another highlighted at the end of the post) is that prior to the enforcement action Pitchford was quoted as saying: “The potential in Central Asia is tremendous, especially in Turkmenistan because of its proximity to Turkey and the Persian Gulf. What’s missing is government political will to do the job. There’s no doubt this is a dictatorship and from top to bottom, it’s corrupt.” A short time later, Pitchford himself would be prosecuted for corruption.

1 2 3 Next →

Top Menu

Navigation

Potpourri

Petroecuador Faces Uphill Climb In Seeking “Victim” Status

Forced To Brief The Issue, The DOJ Requests That The Court Order Och-Ziff To Pay Its “Victims” Between $150 – $188 Million

The Supreme Court’s Recent Unanimous Decision In A Restitution Case Provides Yet Another Reason Not To Voluntarily Disclose

An FCPA Enforcement Action Involving A U.S. Government Aid Program (With A Few Ironies)

Subscribe