A Look At Oztemel’s Second Circuit Appeal
In September 2024, Glenn Oztemel (previously employed by Arcadia Fuels Ltd. and Freepoint Commodities LLC) was found guilty at trial of FCPA and related offenses in connection with a Brazil bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
As stated in the DOJ release: “According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Oztemel […] paid bribes to officials of Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), the Brazilian state-owned oil and gas company, to obtain lucrative contracts for Arcadia Fuels Ltd. (Arcadia) and Freepoint Commodities LLC (Freepoint). […] With the assistance of others, Oztemel paid and caused the payment of bribes to Petrobras officials for their assistance in helping Arcadia and Freepoint to obtain and retain fuel oil contracts with Petrobras and by providing Oztemel and others with confidential information regarding Petrobras’ fuel oil business. Oztemel and his co-conspirators caused Arcadia and Freepoint to make corrupt payments — disguised as purported consulting fees and commissions — to a third party intermediary and agent, Eduardo Innecco, 74, knowing that Innecco would pay a portion of those funds to Brazilian officials, including to Houston-based Petrobras trader Rodrigo Berkowitz.”
How Much Do You Really Know About The FCPA?
You know about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
But how much do you really know?
Do you know why Congress passed the FCPA and the various legislative responses Congress considered in addressing the so-called foreign corporate payments problem? See here for “The Story of the FCPA.”
Have you ever actually read the FCPA statute? It can be found here (in 50 different languages).
Gaining Comfort With Uncertainty
Many people, when first learning of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, may expect to learn bright-line rules and may be initially disappointed upon discovering that there are few FCPA bright-line rules.
Thus, as highlighted below, an initial learning curve associated with the FCPA is gaining comfort with uncertainty.
For starters, the FCPA is a principle-based statute and not a rule-based statute and because of that learning about the FCPA (let alone conforming one’s conduct to the FCPA) is more difficult.
The analogy is as follows: as a driver it is easier to conform your conduct to a rule-based law (the speed limit is 65) or a principle-based law (the speed limit is to drive reasonable at all times).
FCPA Repeat Offenders
As highlighted below, there are 22 companies that have resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action – not just once – but twice – and in one instance – three times.
Note: this post uses the term repeat offender to mean a business organization that has resolved more than one FCPA enforcement action regardless of which agency (DOJ or SEC) brought the enforcement action; regardless of the form of resolution (plea agreement, NPA, DPA, administrative order, etc.) and regardless of whether the charges or findings were anti-bribery violations or books and records and internal controls violations in connection with foreign bribery issues. This post does not include instances in which a company resolved an enforcement action concerning foreign bribery and then resolved an action implicating the books and records and internal controls in a so-called non-FCPA FCPA enforcement action. (See here and here for examples). Nor does it include instances in which there was a time gap between a DOJ enforcement action and an SEC enforcement action based on the same core conduct (for instance Las Vegas Sands and Beam).
An Interesting Take
Law firm client alerts on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act topics are usually rather basic – the so-called “who, what, where” regarding the development.
Which makes this recent Morrison & Foerster alert which addressed the recent dismissal in U.S. v. Rovirosa a bit unusual.
First, some background.
In December 2025, Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez was found guilty after a bizarre trial of various charges in connection with an alleged Mexican bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
As reported here, the trial featured no fact witnesses which led the judge to block the government from introducing most of its evidence until their closing argument.