“Victim” Restitution Claim Related To Leissner Conviction Denied
Previous posts here and here discussed the recent two year prison sentence imposed on Tim Leissner (the former Southeast Asia Chairman at Goldman Sachs) who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and conspiracy to commit money laundering in connection with a bribery scheme involving various Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials in connection with 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), Malaysia’s state-owned and state-controlled investment development company.
In connection with the sentencing, Xavier Justo (a former employee of PetroSaudi) filed a letter with the court seeking restitution from Leissner pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) and Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”) in the amount of $18,266,909.31, inclusive of (i) $128,500 in costs directly flowing from Justo’s unlawful incarceration, (ii) $9,525,726 in lost property, (iii) $1,054.02 in expenses incurred during participation in the 1MDB investigation, and (iv) $8,611,629.29 in pre-judgment interest.
Glencore Acknowledges A Victim, But Disputes The Amount Of Restitution Owed
As highlighted in this prior post, in connection with the May 2022 Glencore FCPA enforcement action, the majority owners of Crusader Health (Ian and Laureth Hagen) petitioned the court in the underlying enforcement action to file a restitution claim under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act and the Crime Victims Act on the basis that the entity was a victim of Glencore’s conduct in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The court granted the petition.
Recently, Glencore acknowledged “that Crusader—and by extension, the Hagens—was harmed by the offense to which Glencore has pled guilty, and it is prepared to pay restitution in the amount of any loss directly and proximately caused by that offense.”
However, Glencore is disputing the amount of restitution properly owed.
Medical Services Company To File Restitution Claim In Connection With Glencore FCPA Enforcement Action
As highlighted here, in May 2022 Glencore (a commodities company incorporated in the United Kingdom and headquartered in Switzerland) resolved a net $443 million FCPA enforcement action.
According to the DOJ: “From at least in or about 2007 up to and including in or about 2018, Glencore, through certain of its employees and agents, while acting on behalf of Glencore, together with its co-conspirators, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed with others to corruptly provide more than $100 million in payments and other things of value to various intermediaries with the intent that a significant portion of these payments would be used to pay bribes to and for the benefit of foreign officials to secure an improper advantage and to influence those foreign officials in order to obtain or retain business in Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, Brazil, Venezuela, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
A portion of the conduct in the Democratic Republic of Congo related to bribe paid in connection with a litigation dispute.
From The Docket – A Rare Restitution Order
I recently spent some time in the court dockets for individuals charged with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act offenses and discovered some interesting tidbits. Next week, these pages will highlight a motion to dismiss currently pending that generally escaped public attention.
In the meantime, this post concerns a rare restitution order issued in an individual FCPA enforcement requiring the defendant to pay $500,000 to a “victim.”
FCPA Flash Podcast – A Conversation With Moe Fodeman Regarding The Och-Ziff Restitution Order
The FCPA Flash podcast provides in an audio format the same fresh, candid, and informed commentary about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related topics as readers have come to expect from written posts on FCPA Professor.
This FCPA Flash episode is a conversation with Moe Fodeman (who along with colleagues at Wilson Sonsini) successfully represented certain investors who were deemed “victims” of Och-Ziff’s bribery and secured a $138 million restitution order under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. During the podcast, Fodeman discusses the chronology leading up to the restitution claim, how (and why) the DOJ resisted “victim” status for his clients, and what impact, if any, the restitution award may have on future actions.