Top Menu

Navigation

With Chi Guilty Verdict, Focus Shifts To Kinemetrics And Guralp Systems

By on July 21, 2017 in Asset Recovery, Diezani Alison-Madueke, Foreign Non-Issuer Company, Guralp Systems, Jurisdiction, Kinemetrics, Kolawole Akanni Aluko, Nigeria, Olajide Omokore, South Korea
focus

The DOJ recently announced that Heon-Cheol Chi (Chi) of South Korea, “the Director of South Korea’s Earthquake Research Center at the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) was convicted … following a four-day jury trial of laundering bribes that he received from two seismological companies based in California and England through the U.S. banking system.”

As noted here, according to court documents the companies are Kinemetrics (a California company that designs technologies, products, and solutions for monitoring earthquakes and their effects on people and structures) and Guralp Systems Ltd. (a U.K. company that designs, manufactures and delivers products, services, systems and solutions for a wide range of applications for the seismological research community as well as the the oil & gas, civil engineering and energy sectors.)

With the Chi guilty verdict, focus shifts to Kinemetrics and Guralp Systems and when asked if there would be an FCPA enforcement action against these companies a DOJ spokesperson informed me via e-mail that “the investigation is ongoing.”

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

By on October 11, 2013 in Compliance, Leighton Holdings, SEC, South Korea

Scrutiny alert, potential fallout, act like a cop be treated like a cop, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday Roundup.

Scrutiny Alert

Leighton Holdings Limited (an Australia-based holding company with ADRs registered in the U.S.) has been the focus of much recent media attention concerning business conduct in Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, as well as other Asian and Middle Eastern countries (see here and here for instance).  In response, the company issued statements here and here.

Potential Fallout?

As noted here, earlier this week South Korea criminally charged “100 people, including senior executives at state-run energy companies, on corruption charges.”  According to the article, “parts suppliers are suspected of bribing officials to accept their products with faked certification.”  Among the companies mentioned is Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co.  This company, along with other alleged state-owned or state-controlled energy companies, was mentioned in the 2009 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Control Components Inc.

Time will tell if the South Korea charges might implicate various part suppliers subject to the FCPA.

Cop-Like

In this recent speech, SEC Chair Mary Jo White stated:

“The SEC is, in very important part, a law enforcement agency, and should be seen by investors to be ‘their cop.’  And, the SEC must continue to be the tough cop because in many cases, particularly when there is no criminal violation, it is the only agency that can play that role.”

White’s comment reminded me of this excellent guest post by Russell Ryan (King & Spalding and previously an Assistant Director of the SEC Enforcement Division) in which he notes, among other things, that “if the SEC’s enforcement role is more like that of a criminal prosecutor than a private plaintiff, why shouldn’t the SEC be held to some of the same procedural and evidentiary burdens of a prosecutor rather than benefitting from the more relaxed standards accorded to private plaintiffs?”

Reading Stack

An interesting Q&A with Andreas Pohlmann (Chief Compliance Officer at SNC-Lavalin Group Inc) including the following spot-on statement.

“[W]e need one global compliance program.  That means that what we are doing at the time being is not establishing a Canadian compliance program, or a North American compliance program, but we are establishing a global compliance program for all of our associates all over the world, and that’s the challenge. To get out a compliance program in Montreal at the headquarters of SNC-Lavalin is still easy. It becomes challenging when we go to the more difficult regions of this world, like Latin and South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia. We have to get to the hearts and minds of our people and have them live up to our worldwide standards; otherwise, the compliance program would not be credible.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

First Case Under Korea’s Version Of The FCPA Tests The Limits Of Defining “Foreign Official”

By on September 5, 2013 in Foreign Official, Guest Posts, Korea, South Korea

This previous guest post discussed “Korea’s FCPA” and a recent case in which a trial court held that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof that China Eastern Airlines was a state owned enterprise, and, therefore, that the president of China Eastern’s Korean subsidiary was a foreign public official sufficient to state a claim under the law.

The prosecution appealed the ruling and in this guest post Alston & Bird attorneys Edward Kang and Christopher Lucas discuss the appellate court ruling.

*****

An appeals court in Korea affirmed a lower court decision to reject a prosecution’s theory of what it means to be a “foreign official” under Korea’s version of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, called the Act on Preventing Bribery of Foreign Public Officials (“FBPA”). This was the first case brought by prosecutors under the FBPA with allegations that an executive of a state-controlled company was a “foreign official.” Prosecutors have appealed to the Korean Supreme Court, and the high court’s decision could be an important signal as to how aggressively prosecutors can pursue future cases under the FBPA.

In 2011, Korean prosecutors brought FBPA charges against two individuals – executives at a shipping company and a travel agency – for allegedly bribing the president of the Korean subsidiary of China Eastern Airlines to secure improper business advantages. Prosecutors argued that the Korean president of China Eastern Airlines was a “foreign official” and pointed to documents that allegedly linked the company to the Chinese government.

The lower court acknowledged the evidence suggesting a connection with the Chinese government, but found that prosecutors had not met their burden in proving that the China Eastern executive was a “foreign official” under the FBPA. The Korean prosecutors appealed and directed the appellate court to additional pieces of evidence to support its theory, including the facts that the Chinese government: (1) through a wholly-owned subsidiary, owned more than 50% of China Eastern’s capital; (2) had appointment and dismissal power over China Eastern’s CEO; (3) was in charge of certain business decisions of China Eastern, including mergers and spin-off decisions; and (4) provides China Eastern with large amounts of government subsidies.

Despite that evidence, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision without further elaboration. The case has been appealed to the Korean Supreme Court. We will continue to monitor developments and provide an update once this decision has been announced.

The Korean FBPA defines “foreign official” to include employees of certain state-owned or state-controlled companies. Under Article 2(2)(c) of the FBPA, the term “foreign official” includes:

“[A]n executive or employee of a company in which a foreign government contributed more than 50% of the paid-in-capital or with respect to which a foreign government exercises de facto control over its overall management including major business decisions and the appointment or dismissal of its executives.”

Interestingly, at the same time the Korean Supreme Court wrestles with the limits of defining “foreign official” when it comes to state-owned or controlled companies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is currently considering a similar issue in U.S. v. Esquenazi, a case that is slated for oral arguments in October.

*****

Similar to the issue raised in this recent post concerning Canada’s FCPA-like law, Korea’s FBPA defines the targeted recipient category to include state-owned enterprise (“SOE”) definitions and concepts.  As noted in my “foreign official” declaration (which has been cited by the defense in the pending 11th Circuit “foreign official” appeal), despite being aware of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) during the FCPA’s legislative process, despite exhibiting a capability for drafting a foreign official definition that expressly included SOEs in other bills, and despite being provided a more precise way to describe SOEs during the legislative process, Congress chose not to include such definitions or concepts in FCPA.

As noted in this prior post regarding the DOJ’s response brief in the 11th Circuit challenge, among other arguments the DOJ is making is the alarmist argument that “Defendants’ construction of the statute to exclude employees of SOEs … means that the United States is out of compliance with its treaty obligations under the [OECD] Convention.”

Like the U.S., Korea is also a member of the OECD Convention.

[Disclosure – I am providing pro bono expert services to defendants’ counsel relevant to the “foreign official” issue].

A Focus on Korea

By on May 24, 2012 in Compliance Defense, Foreign Official, Guest Posts, South Korea

Today’s post is from Nathan McMurray (an attorney with Barun Law in Seoul, South Korea).  In the post, McMurray discusses “Korea’s FCPA” and an important recent case in which the court held that the prosecution failed to meet its burden and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that China Eastern Airlines was a state owned enterprise, and, therefore, the president of the Korean subsidiary was a foreign public official.  McMurray previously touched upon these issues on his Korea Law Today website (see here).

*****

Korea’s FCPA

In 1999, the Republic of Korea (South Korea) enacted the Act on Preventing Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business (FPBA) (see here for the English translation).  It is Korea’s version of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). But unlike the FCPA, not many people gave much attention to the FPBA, at least until recently.

As Korea has taken steps to increase transparency and stamp out corruption, Korean prosecutors have started pursuing those who have allegedly violated the FPBA. In particular, in May, the Incheon District Court (Incheon is an important port city close to Seoul) heard a case involving two men who were charged with violating the FBPA. This was the first trial ever under the FPBA, but it is not likely to be the last.

Because of the sudden interest in the FPBA and the passage of the U.S. – Korea Free Trade Agreement, it seems like this is the right time to take a closer look at the act and at this recent case. Focusing first on the text of the act, you may notice that its long name belies its brevity. The FBPA is only a short five articles long (two pages).

What’s in the FPBA.

Article 1 summarizes the purpose of the act, namely “the establishment of sound practice in international business transactions” and “criminalizing the act of bribery of foreign public officials.” In other words, the act prevents you from bribing foreign public officials to gain an improper business advantage.

Article 2 defines the term “foreign public official.” Specifically, a foreign public official is any person who:

  1. is engaged in a legislative, administrative, or judicial work for a foreign government (including local government);
  2. conducts official business on authority delegated by a foreign government;
  3. conducts the business of a public organization or agency established by a foreign government to engage in a specific business;
  4. is an executive or employee of an enterprise into which a foreign government has contributed more than 50% of the paid-in-capital or a foreign government exercises substantial control over the management (not including enterprises that operate on a competitive basis in the private economy without preferential treatment); or
  5. conducts the business of a public international organization.

Article 3 specifically defines the crime under the FBPA. It says that any person (meaning a natural person) may be liable for offering a bribe to a foreign official in relation to their official business to gain an improper advantage for the conduct of international business. The penalty for the crime may be up to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to 20 million Korean Won (KRW). If the profit obtained through the offense exceeds 10 million KRW, the penalty may be higher: up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to twice the amount of profit.

There are a few exceptions in Article 3, which are similar to the FCPA exceptions. Payments that are lawful under the law of the foreign public official’s home country are permitted as well as facilitation or grease payments used to speed up the process of obtaining something from a foreign official that a person is already entitled to receive, such as (depending on the circumstances) getting a utility turned on.

Article 4 addresses the responsibility of the company (legal person) for which the person offering the bribe either works or represents. The company may be subject to a fine of up to 1 billion KRW. If the profit obtained through the offence exceeds 500 million KRW, the fine may be up to twice the amount of the profit. But there is another exception, if a company has “paid due attention or exercised proper supervision to prevent the offence” (i.e., reasonable care), it can escape liability.

Article 5 says that the authorities can confiscate any bribe amount still in the possession of the person who committed an offence. There is also a short addendum to the FBPA that says it came into force at the same time as Korea’s OECD obligations under the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, which indicates when and how the FBPA was originally enacted.

What the Recent Case Teaches About the FPBA.

As referred to above, last year the Incheon Prosecutor’s Office charged two individuals with bribing a foreign public official under the FBPA. The president of the Korean subsidiary of China Eastern Airlines was offered the bribes. The two men charged were the president of a shipping company and the president of a travel agency. The shipping company president wanted more favorable rates, and the travel company president wanted China Eastern Airlines to assign it more tickets for sale.

A key issue in the case was whether the Korean president of China Eastern Airlines was a “foreign official” under Article 2 of the FBPA. The prosecution argued the government of the People’s Republic of China controls China Eastern Airlines. Apparently, the key evidence it offered for this claim was certain documents linking China Eastern Airlines to the Chinese government. The defense used employee testimony to challenge the truth, accuracy, and relevance of the documents.

The court held that the prosecution failed to meet its burden and prove beyond a reasonable doubt (or more precisely the Korean equivalent, which is the relevant standard in criminal trials in Korea) that China Eastern Airlines was a state owned enterprise, and, therefore, the president of the Korean subsidiary was a foreign public official. The court based its reasoning in part on the exception in Article 2 of the FBPA regarding enterprises that operate on a competitive basis in the private economy without preferential treatment.

The Ruling and Its Aftermath.

Because the prosecution was unable to prove that the president of China Eastern Airlines was a foreign public official, the two men were found not guilty under the FBPA. But unfortunately for all three men, they were found guilty of bribery under Article 357 of the Korean Criminal Code. The prosecutors, perhaps looking to establish a precedent, have appealed the court’s ruling on the FBPA charges.

This was a test case involving small companies and a prosecution team that seemed unprepared to prove a key element of the crime. But as we await the appeal and anticipate additional cases, what seems clear is that this once overlooked law is not going vanish into obscurity once again.

Many in the business community here are uncomfortable about where this may eventually lead. Korea is an exporting nation with limited natural resources. Major Korean companies (chaebols) have invested in nearly every corner of the world. You cannot help but wonder if Korean prosecutors are contemplating eventually applying the FPBA to these big fish, rather than smalltime operators looking for petty favors and extra tickets.

Also, it is unclear why in the China Eastern Airlines case the prosecution decided to focus on the individuals only and not the companies involved. Does their decision mean that the reasonable care exception for company liability applied, that the two companies were simply too small to focus on, or that the prosecution was concerned that the applying the FBPA to the companies would not withstand court scrutiny for some other reason? We can only speculate.

About Korean Court Precedents.

This post was produced with the help of my Korean colleagues, and the information about the court case summarized above was obtained from publically available sources. The case, however, was never officially published by the court, so we cannot verify all of the facts. Indeed, only Supreme Court cases are regular published in Korea. Lower court cases are sometimes published, but not always. This is in part because Korea is a civil law country. So although court precedent is an important source of law, it is still not treated the same way as it is in the U.S or other common law countries.

Still, court precedents are increasingly important to lawyers trying to understand the application of law. The courts have an internal record keeping system, and there are legal databases like West Law or Lexis Nexis in Korean. The website www.scourt.gov.kr is run by the Korean Supreme Court and is considered official. The site www.lawnb.com is a commercial reporter that provides more data than the official site. You can read more about this and many other issues in English on my blog at www.korealawtoday.com.

Wynn – Okada And Offensive Use Of The FCPA

By on February 29, 2012 in Affirmative Defense – Promotional Expenses, Gaming Industry, Kazuo Okada, Las Vegas Sands, Offensive Use of FCPA, Philippines, South Korea, Travel and Entertainment, Wynn Resorts

Rarely does one hear of offensive use of the FCPA to accomplish a business objective.  Usually it is the other way around – the FCPA thwarts a business objective such as acquiring a foreign target, not hiring the foreign agent who says he knows a way to get that lucrative contract, etc.

But then again, rarely does one hear of a corporate board member accusing the company of conduct that could implicate the FCPA, which then causes the SEC to open an inquiry, which then results in the company accusing the board member of separate and distinct conduct that could implicate the FCPA.

This post discusses Wynn’s internal investigation report that accuses Kazuo Okada (a member of its board) of prima facie FCPA violations.  For previous posts on the Wynn-Okada dispute, see here and here.  The Wynn internal investigation report (here) discusses a number of issues (such as breach of fiduciary duty, issues under Nevada gaming laws and issues under Philippine law), but this post will focus on the FCPA issues in the report authored Louis Freeh (former Director of the FBI) of Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP.

In summary, the Freeh Report states as follows.  “Mr. Okada, his associates and companies appear to have engaged in a longstanding practice of making payments and gifts to his two (2) chief gaming regulators at the Philippines Amusement and Gaming Corporation (“PAGCOR”), who directly oversee and regulate Mr. Okada’s Provisional Licensing Agreement to operate in that country.  Since 2008, Mr. Okada and his associates have made multiple payments to and on behalf of these chief regulators, former PAGCOR Chairman Efraim Genuino and Chairman Cristino Naguiat (his current chief regulator), their families and PAGCOR associates, in an amount exceeding $110,000.”  The report categorizes this conduct as “prima facie violations” of the FCPA.

Because jurisdiction will clearly be an issue in any potential FCPA enforcement action against Okada (a Japanese national currently serving as Director and Chairman of the Board of Universal Entertainment Corporation, a Japanese company), the Freeh Report sensibly begins with a jurisdictional analysis.

According to the report, Aruze USA Inc. (“Aruze USA”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Universal incorporated in Nevada and Okada is a Director of Aruze USA and serves as its President, Secretary, and Treasurer.  In addition, the report states that Okada also currently serves as a Director, Secretary, and Treasurer of Aruze Gaming America, Inc. (“Aruze Gaming”), a U.S. company.

Thus, based on the information in the Freeh report, depending upon which “hat” Okada wears at any given time, he is, in the language of the FCPA, a “domestic concern” or “any person other than an issuer or a domestic concern.”  The Freeh Report covers both bases and correctly notes that FCPA violations can be committed by a “domestic concern” regardless of any U.S. nexus (this was part of the FCPA’s 1998 amendments), but that FCPA violations can be committed by “any person” only if the “while in the territory of the U.S.” jurisdictional test is met.  If Okada is merely “any person” under the FCPA, the Freeh Report states that “means or instrumentalties of interstate commerce” were used by Okada.  Specifically, the Freeh Report states that many of Okada payments at issue passed through the accounts (either the Universal City Ledger Account or the Aruze City Ledger Account) “maintained at the corporate offices of Wynn Resorts, Limited in Las Vegas, Nevada where periodic deposits are made from Universal into the Wynn Resorts, Limited operating account at Bank of America in Las Vegas, Nevada.”

Back to the Freeh Report’s discussion of Philippine PAGCOR Officials at Wynn Resort properties.  The report highlights 36 “separate instances, from May 2008 through June 2011 when Mr. Okada, his associates and companies made payments exceeding $110,000 which directly benefited senior PAGCOR officials, including two chairman and their family members.”  For starters, 35 of the 36 instances involve charges to the Aruze City Ledger account in amounts ranging from $253 to $5,380 for stays (generally multi-night stays) at the Wynn Macau or Wynn Las Vegas.  As separately discussed below, the one instance that sticks out is the September 2010 stay of various PAGCOR officials at the Wynn Macau for which approximately $50,000 was charged to the Aruze City Ledger.

The Freeh Report terms all of these instances “prima facie” FCPA violations, a term presumably chosen carefully because as every first-year law student knows “prima facie” means on first appearance, on the face of it, a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary.

It is here that the Freeh Report is shockingly deficient as it does not contain any discussion of the FCPA’s affirmative defense for payments, gifts, etc. that are a “reasonable and bona fide expenditure, such as travel and lodging expenses, incurred by or on behalf of a foreign official … directly related to (a) the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services; or (b) the execution or performance of a contract with a foreign government or agency thereof.”  The Freeh Report notes, yet disagrees with, Okada’s assertion that “all his efforts in the Philippines prior to the change of presidential administration in the summer of 2010 were undertaken on behalf of and for the benefit of Steve Wynn and Wynn Resorts.”  Summer 2010 is obviously a vague term, but Okada’s assertion could be relevant to 23 of the 36 instances detailed in the Freeh Report.

The one instance identified in the Freeh Report that sticks out is approximately $50,000 charged to the Aruze City Ledger in September 2010 for a five day stay at the Wynn Macau by “then and current PAGCOR Chairman and CEO Cristino L. Naguiat, Jr., his wife, three children, nanny and other PAGCOR officials.”  The Freeh Report devotes five pages to this visit and states, among other things, that Chairman Naguiat occupied Villa 81 (the most expensive accommodation at Wynn Macau – a room that costs approximately $6,000 per day and is mostly reserved for “high-rollers”).  Even if Chairman Naguiat and his delegation visited the resort, in whole or in part, for a business purpose it is unlikely that such expenses would be viewed as “reasonable and bona fide” and directly related to a business purpose – even if the Freeh Report does note that some of the charges may have been reimbursed by Chairman Naguiat’s delegation.

In addition, the Freeh Report says that “Mr. Okada, his associates and companies” made “similar payments to a Korean government official who oversees Mr. Okada’s initial gaming investment in that country.”  The report notes that Okada was pursuing development of a resort complex in the Incheon Free Economic Zone and the report notes six instances in which “possible Korean government officials” stayed at Wynn properties.  Total charges to the Aruze City Account were $5,945 and ranged from $507 to $1,597.  The Freeh Report states that “these payments made for or on behalf of possible Korean government officials may be part of a continuing pattern by Mr. Okada and his associates to commit prima facie violations of the FCPA.”

Finally, the Freeh Report also states that “Universal paid expenses related to then-PAGCOR Chairman Genuino’s trip to Beijing during the 2008 Olympics.

Have there been FCPA enforcement actions focused on excessive and travel entertainment expenses paid to “foreign officials”?  The answer is yes.  In 2007, Lucent Technologies resolved related DOJ and SEC enforcement actions (see here and here) focused on hundreds of trips for Chinese “foreign officials” that included primarily sightseeing, entertainment and leisure.  According to the allegations in that enforcement action, Chinese “foreign officials” were treated to trips to Boston, Las Vegas, the Grand Canyon and Hawaii “for strictly entertainment, travel and leisure purposes.”  In 2009 UTStarcom resolved related DOJ and SEC enforcement actions (see here for the prior post) focused on hundreds of trips for Chinese “foreign officials” that likewise were to places such as Hawaii, Las Vegas, and New York.

However, in pointing numerous FCPA fingers at Okada, even the Freeh Report points a few fingers back at Wynn.  For instance, as to the accounts Okada allegedly used to make the improper payments the report states as follows.

“As a Director of Wynn Resorts, Mr. Okada is entitled to receive the courtesy of what is called a “City Ledger Account.”  Such accounts were originally instituted as a result of Sarbanes Oxley’s prohibition of extensions of credit, in the form of a personal loan from an issuer to an officer or director.  The accounts were funded by deposits from the director or his company.  Such an account exists for billing conveniences related to charges incurred at various Wynn Resorts locales.  Mr. Okada has availed himself of this courtesy and established such a City Ledger Account.  Within Wynn Resorts, this Okada City Ledger Account is referred to either as the “Universal City Ledger Account” or as the “Aruze City Ledger Account.””

Elsewhere, the Freeh Report states that funds in connection with the problematic September 2010 visit were “advanced from the Wynn Macau” to a representative of Aruze USA.

In other words, while accusing Okada of committing “prima facie” FCPA violations through his use of the accounts, including the September 2010 visit, the Freeh Report acknowledges that the accounts were provided to him by Wynn as a courtesy for billing conveniences related to charges incurred at various Wynn Resort locales and that portions of the money used in connection with the problematic September 2010 visit were advanced from the Wynn Macau.

The Freeh Report puts the DOJ (and perhaps even the SEC given Okada’s membership on the Wynn Board) in a difficult position.  How can the agencies not investigate the conduct at issue when the former Director of the FBI is terming the conduct “prima facie” FCPA violations.  An analogy would be like calling the fire department to inform that your house is on the fire, but the fire department fails to show up.  Based on media reports, it appears that the agencies are indeed in active investigation mode.  According to a Feb. 24th article in the Financial Times (“US Probes Wynn Resorts’ Allegations), “the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s investigation is looking into allegations that Mr Okada made at least $110,000 in unauthorised payments to two gaming officials in the Philippines” and last week “Wynn’s attorney, Debra Yang, a partner with Gibson Dunn &  Crutcher and former US attorney for the Los Angeles area, flew to Washington and met with criminal prosecutors at the Department of Justice.”

Does the Freeh Report and the FCPA allegations against Okada evidence offensive use of the FCPA to accomplish a business objective?  The FCPA allegations against Okada – a Wynn business rival – contributed to a finding that Okada was “unsuitable” under Nevada gaming regulations, which then facilitated Wynn’s purchase of Okada’s Wynn shares at a substantial discount.

Another way of asking the same question is as follows – if the Freeh report found the same exact conduct (i.e. 36 instances – 35 of which were very minor in scope, totaling $110,000 involving a person other than Okada) would Wynn have gone public with such “prima facie” FCPA violations through a voluntary disclosure?  I highly doubt it.

By publicly stating that Okada’s conduct (36 instances of lodging expenses and entertainment for “foreign officials” – 35 of which were very minor in scope) evidences “prima facie” FCPA violations, is Wynn opening itself up to greater scrutiny as to its own relationships with the “foreign officials” which regulate its businesses abroad?  Is Wynn supremely confident that someone associated with the company did not charge $253 to a corporate account for a “foreign official” to stay a night at one of its hotels?  Did Wynn leave a chocolate for the “foreign official” on his pillow or pay for a fancy dinner?

In a strange twist to the story, yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that Wynn competitor Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson stated that “complimentary hotel rooms is a common practice in the gambling industry.”  Las Vegas Sands is already under FCPA scrutiny (see here for the prior post) and if that investigation was not already focused on travel and entertainment issues, you can bet it is headed in that direction.

I agree with Professor Peter Henning who writes the White Collar Crime Watch at the New York Times that Wynn’s accusations against Okada “open up a can of worms” (see here) and that Wynn’s accusations “means the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission will be scouring the company’s books for possible violations, a front that neither side can control” and that “by invoking the specter of overseas bribery, Wynn has effectively opened itself up to a wide-ranging federal investigation of its dealings in Macao and elsewhere.”

The question Wynn will have to ask itself as this presumably goes forward is whether it was worth using the unhinged FCPA enforcement theories defining this new era to oust a business rival?

As to the big, big picture, if the DOJ or SEC do bring an enforcement action against Okada (or Wynn) for the conduct described in the Freeh Report, are we prepared to confront the glaring double standard increasingly coming into focus during this new era of FCPA enforcement?  For more on the double standard and corporate benefits given to U.S. officials, see here, here, here, and here.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes