KT Corporation is a Seoul, South Korea based telecommunications company with American Depositary Shares registered with the SEC and traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
Yesterday, the SEC announced that the company agreed to pay $6.3 million “to resolve charges that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by providing improper payments for the benefit of government officials in Korea and Vietnam.”
In summary fashion, this administrative order finds:
What happens when the Greek, Swiss, and South Korean subsidiaries of a Swiss company engage in improper conduct in Greece, Vietnam and South Korea? Why of course, approximately $345 million flows into the U.S. treasury.
Yesterday, Novartis joined the long and growing list of FCPA repeat offenders as the DOJ and SEC announced (see here and here) a combined approximate $347 million enforcement action. (As highlighted in this prior post, in 2016 Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis coughed up $25 million to resolve a SEC FCPA enforcement action focused on the conduct of its indirect Chinese subsidiaries).
Yesterday’s enforcement action included a DOJ component (in which the company agreed to pay approximately $234 million) and a SEC component (in which the company agreed to pay approximately $113 million).
Previous posts here and here looked at the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Airbus.
This previous post looked at the U.K. Bribery Act enforcement action against Airbus.
This post completes the enforcement trilogy, bylooking at the French enforcement action against Airbus.
Like the prior U.S. and U.K. bribery enforcement action, the French enforcement action against Airbus (see here for the Judicial Public Interest Agreement) focused on the use of business partners in connection with sales or attempted sales in various countries.
A facade of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement is when a business organization – often for reasons of risk aversion and efficiency – agrees to resolve an enforcement action in the absence of any judicial scrutiny even though no employee or agent of the company (business organizations obviously can only act through real human beings) was charged. (See here for the article “The Facade of FCPA Enforcement” and here for the article “Measuring the Impact of NPAs and DPAs on FCPA Enforcement.”)
Even more troubling is when employees are charged, put the government to its burden of proof, are acquitted yet the business organization still resolves an enforcement action based on the same underlying conduct.
This 2014 post, published after the United Kingdom formally adopted deferred prosecution agreements, was titled “The U.K. Enters the Facade Era.” As discussed below, recently there was a major facade moment in the U.K.
Yesterday, the SEC announced that United Technologies Corporation resolved a $13.9 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action.
The conduct at issue concerned Otis Elevator Co. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of UTC), Pratt & Whitney (an operating division of UTC), and International Aero Engines (a joint venture of five aerospace companies including Pratt & Whitney) regarding a Russian and Azerbaijani improper payment scheme, a China aviation scheme, improper payments for Otis Elevator sales in China, and leisure travel for foreign officials from several countries including China, Kuwait, South Korea, Pakistan, Thailand, and Indonesia.
