An Interesting Comparison
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act when enacted directed the DOJ Attorney General to establish a procedure to provide responses to specific inquiries by those subject to the FCPA concerning conformance of their conduct with the DOJ’s “present enforcement policy.”
Pursuant to the governing regulations of the so-called DOJ Opinion Procedure Release Program, only “specified, prospective—not hypothetical—conduct” is subject to a DOJ opinion. While the DOJ’s opinion has no precedential value, its opinion that contemplated conduct conforms with the FCPA is entitled to a rebuttable presumption should an FCPA enforcement action be brought as a result of the contemplated conduct.
The DOJ’s opinion procedure release program is rarely used.
Since 2020, the DOJ has issued only four opinions (see here).
Checking In On The Murta Enforcement Action
As highlighted in this prior post, in September 2019 the DOJ announced the unsealing of a criminal indictment against (among others) Paulo Casqueiro Murta in connection with an alleged bribery scheme involving Venezuela’s state-owned and state-controlled energy company, PDVSA. According to the DOJ, Murta (a citizen of Portugal and Switzerland) provided financial services to various co-defendants (including former employees of PDVSA) in connection with various bribery schemes and he was charged with directly violating or assisting others in violating the FCPA and money laundering laws.
This post discussed the many judicial decisions in the matter – mostly on non-FCPA procedural issues – the latest of which was the trial court dismissing with prejudice the indictment due to Speedy Trial Act violations.
The matter was back at the Fifth Circuit and recently the court issued this decision in which it affirmed the dismissal due to Speedy Trial Act violations, but reversed and remanded the dismissal with prejudice issue and ordered that a new judge be assigned to the case.
From Where Does This Sh*t Originate?
In reference to the SEC’s recently released annual report for enforcement results for fiscal year 2023 (see here for the prior post) this headline by a for profit media company which generally publishes behind a paywall states “records show decline in new FCPA cases at SEC continues” with the teaser “lawyers say the continued downturn in new cases at the SEC’s foreign bribery unit could be related to DOJ guidance on self-disclosure and sanctions.”
My question is from where does this sh*t originate?
Set forth below is the SEC’s own data for FCPA enforcement actions from its four most recent annual reports.
This Week On FCPA Professor
FCPA Professor has been described as “the Wall Street Journal concerning all things FCPA-related,” and “the most authoritative source for those seeking to understand and apply the FCPA.”
Set forth below are the topics discussed this week on FCPA Professor.
As highlighted here, eleven years ago the DOJ/SEC released FCPA Guidance. The question is though – has anything changed?
This Week On FCPA Professor
FCPA Professor has been described as “the Wall Street Journal concerning all things FCPA-related,” and “the most authoritative source for those seeking to understand and apply the FCPA.”
Set forth below are the topics discussed this week on FCPA Professor.
As highlighted here, the Royal Bank of Canada resolved a books and records and internal controls matter – in yet another instance of a non-FCPA, FCPA enforcement action.