Top Menu

Navigation

Lord Justice Thomas’s Innospec Sentencing Remarks

By on April 6, 2010 in Enforcement Agency Policy, Innospec, Serious Fraud Office, United Kingdom

Given the frequency in which U.S. judges seem to be rubber-stamping FCPA settlements – including plea deals agreed to by the DOJ under circumstances which arguably violate the DOJ’s own policy as set forth in the US Attorneys’ Manual (see here for a prior post), it is refreshing to read Lord Justice Thomas’s stern rebuke of the DOJ-SFO’s joint settlement in the Innospec matter (see here for more on the Innospec matter).

Lord Justice Thomas (Britain’s second most senior criminal judge) concluded that the Director of the SFO “had no power to enter into the arrangements made” to settle the matter and he warned that “no such arrangements should be made again.” (See here for Lord Justice Thomas’s sentencing remarks).

With the SFO publicly stating on numerous occasions that it seeks to adopt DOJ-like enforcement strategies and procedures and given that the SFO’s conduct in the Innospec mater was very “DOJ-like”, Lord Justice Thomas’s remarks, while heavy on English law, should be more broadly viewed as an indictment of DOJ enforcement strategies as well.

The sentencing remarks begin by providing an interesting glimpse into the “negotiations” between the DOJ and SFO in the Innospec matter – the “first case where a ‘global settlement’ had been sought in respect of concurrent criminal proceedings in the UK and the US.”

The conduct at issue largely centered on Indonesia and Iraq. The sentencing remarks note that “both the SFO and DOJ agreed that the fines and other penalties which might be imposed in the US and the UK might exceed $400m in the US and $150m in the UK.”

However because any such amount “would exceed by many times the ability of Innospec to pay” “both the SFO and the DOJ agreed that, in light of Innospec’s full admission and full co-operation, they should not seek to impose a penalty which would drive the company out of business.”

The sentencing remarks then state:

“In September 2009, when it was anticipated that an acceptable settlement would be reached, discussions began between the SFO and the DOJ about the manner in which the authorities in the US and the SFO should proceed to implement any settlement and divide up the monetary amount to be paid. The discussions took place against the background that it had been agreed that the SFO would have primacy in respect to the Indonesian corruption and the DOJ in respect of the Iraq corruption.”

The sentencing remarks note that “the SFO began by suggesting a 50:50 split based upon the fact that the criminality had been orchestrated and arranged from the UK in respect of the corruption in both Iraq and Indonesia.”

However, the “DOJ would not accept this,” but rather proposed a “methodology that in the result produced a split which was approximately one third to the DOJ, one third to the SFO and one third to the SEC and the OFAC.”

As noted in the sentencing remarks, “after much further discussion on 28 January 2010 the SFO agreed to a split that was approximately one third to the DOJ, one third to the SEC and OFAC and one third to the SFO. It was agreed that the DOJ would ask the court to approve a fine of $14.1m with the balance of the US proportion going to the SEC ($11.2m) and OFAC ($2.2m); $12.7m would be the SFO’s share.”

Lord Justice Thomas next turns to the Innospec-SFO plea (see here) and states that “it became quickly apparent … that a number of difficult issues was raised by the process adopted.”

In his remarks, Lord Justice Thomas cites a paper delivered by Nicholas Purnell QC “The Risk of Abusing A Dominant Position” delivered to the International Bar Association at its New York Conference in June 2009 (see here) which notes, among other things, that newly enacted SFO guidance on “alternative methods to the disposal of criminal investigations by way of negotiated pleas or other resolutions by corporate defendants” may “introduce some unintended risks of abuse.”

Lord Justice Thomas next touches upon such issues.

Among other things, he notes that the “question has arisen as to the extent of [the SFO’s Director’s] powers and duties in the light of the constitutional position of a prosecutor, the role of the courts in the UK and the rules relating to plea agreements in the U.K.” Lord Justice Thomas specifically notes that “it is clear” that the “SFO cannot enter into an agreement … with an offender as to the penalty in respect of the offence charged,” but that a reading of the papers submitted in connection with Innospec-SFO plea “suggests that a penalty had in fact been agreed.”

In language that all U.S. judges who have rubber-stamped DOJ FCPA settlements (without inquiring into the factual and legal basis for the settlement including whether other charges more accurately fit the crime – see here) should read, Lord Justice Thomas states:

“Principles of transparent and open justice require a court sitting in public itself first to determine by a hearing in open court the extent of the criminal conduct on which the offender has entered the plea and then, on the basis of its determination as to the conduct, the appropriate sentence. It is in the public interest, particularly in relation to the crime of corruption, that … there may be discussion and agreement as to the basis of plea” and that a court “must rigorously scrutinise in open court in the interests of transparency and good governance the basis of that plea and to see whether it reflects the public interest.”

Lord Justice Thomas then states that “those who commit such serious crimes as corruption of senior government officials must not be viewed or treated in any different way to other criminals.” (See here, here and here for my prior posts on the increasing and alarming trend of bribery, yet no bribery FCPA prosecutions).

Lord Justice Thomas states that the $12.7m SFO fine is “wholly inadequate as a fine to reflect the criminality displayed by Innospec” and that if it were up to him the fine would have measured in the “tens of millions.” Nevertheless, because of Innospec’s apparent inability to pay a larger fine, he “reluctantly concluded that, on this occasion, it would neither be just nor fair in the unusual circumstances of this case for this court to impose a penalty greater than the amount allocated to the UK.”

Even so, Lord Justice Thomas is stinging in his final remarks.

He notes:

“The court was faced with an agreement made between the DOJ, the SEC, the OFAC and SFO as to the division of the sum these bodies had considered Innospec was able to pay. This was not a matter that received judicial determination in either the UK or the US (save that inherent in the Federal District Court’s approval of the plea agreement). As it is the position in both the US and the UK that it is for the court ultimately to determine the sanction to be imposed for the criminal conduct, an agreement between prosecutors as to the division, even if it had been within the power of the Director of the SFO (which as I have explained it was not), cannot be accordance with basic constitutional principles.”

Lord Justice Thomas concludes that “the Director of the SFO had no power to enter into the arrangements made and no such arrangements should be made again.”

He notes that “it is essential for the future that, unless any change is made to the rule of procedure or to the practice direction, it is appreciated this court must and will sentence in the way set out in the law, as that is what the rule of law requires” and that “this applies as much to companies as to individual defendants.”

A couple of other interesting tidbits from Lord Justice Thomas’s sentencing remarks.

With cross-border investigations and global corruption settlements seemingly becoming a new norm, Lord Justice Thomas’s comments on uniform financial penalties also bear mention. He states, “there is every reason for states to adopt a uniform approach to financial penalties for corruption of foreign government officials so that the penalties in each country do not discriminate either favourably or unfavourably against a company in a particular state.” He notes that “if the penalties in one state are lower than in another, business in the state with lower penalties will not be deterred so effectively from engaging in corruption in foreign states, whilst businesses in states where the penalties are higher may complain that they are disadvantaged in foreign states.”

Lord Justice Thomas concludes his sentencing remarks with one final dig, a dig aimed at a common feature in all DOJ FCPA pleas, non-prosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements – and that is the “don’t issue a press release about this unless you first approve it with us” clause.

Lord Justice Thomas notes: “It would be inconceivable for a prosecutor to approve a press statement to be made by a person convicted of burglary or rape; companies who are guilty of corruption should be treated no differently to others who commit serious crimes.”

*****

A couple of final notes about the SFO’s enforcement action against Innospec. Unlike a typical DOJ FCPA charging document, the SFO “names names.” In its previous Mabey & Johnson prosecution (see here for a prior post), the SFO specifically named the foreign official recipients of the bribe payments. That trend continues in the SFO’s charging documents against Innospec (see here).

Finally, in many cases, FCPA fines and penalties are just one “cost” to a company. While I disagree with the notion that the “costs of getting caught” should somehow factor into the final penalty amount (see here for a prior post), this is a cost that can not be ignored by companies. On this issue, para. 32 of the SFO charging document notes that “at this stage … Innospec’s internal investigation and cooperation with the SFO, DOJ, and SEC globally has cost the Company in excess of US$32 million in costs …”

An Update From Across the Pond

By on September 29, 2009 in Angola, Bangladesh, Ghana, Iraq, Jamaica, Joint Venture, Mabey Johnson, Madagascar, Mozambique, Serious Fraud Office, United Kingdom, Voluntary Disclosure

The U.S. is not the only country with an “FCPA-like” domestic statute. The United Kingdom has a similar law (actually a mix of several different statutes on the books for nearly one-hundred years – however, in March 2009, a new bill – the “Bribery Bill” was introduced in Parliament and is currently being debated).

As discussed in a July post (see here), the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) (an enforcement agency similar to the U.S. DOJ) announced “the first prosecution brought in the U.K. against a company for overseas corruption.”

The company – Mabey & Johnson Ltd. (“M&J”) – a U.K. company that designs and manufacturers steel bridges used in more than 115 countries worldwide.

Last week, the SFO issued a press release announcing the details of M&J’s £6.6 million sentence (see here).

The SFO also released two “prosecution opening statements” relating to (a) the company’s conduct in Jamaica and Ghana; and (b) the company’s breach of United Nations Oil for Food Regulations (see here and here).

To state the obvious, one enforcement action does not constitute a practice.

Subject to that qualification, I offer some comments about the SFO’s released documents compared to what the DOJ and SEC typically release in an FCPA enforcement action (where indeed a common practice has developed).

Naming Names

Unlike a typical DOJ deferred prosecution, non-prosecution agreement or plea or SEC complaint, the SFO documents name names. Specifically identified in the documents are numerous “public officials” in Jamaica, Ghana, Angola, Madagascar, Mozambique, and Bangladesh (see pages 11, 25, 28, 32, 33, 35, and 38) alleged to have received improper payments from M&J (or its agents) to help secure company business.

The SFO documents also specifically identify the agents and their companies which were used by M&J to make certain of the improper payments (see pages 12, 22, 28, 32, 35, 37).

Is there value to “naming names,” does it “punish” the foreign or public official recipient of the improper payment (given that the FCPA only punishes the bribe payor not the bribe recipient)? Does naming the agent effectively blacklist the individual/company and thus serve a useful public function for other companies doing business in that particular market?

All interesting questions to ponder. There is also an interesting historical FCPA angle as well. Many, including the Ford administration, were opposed to the FCPA as it now exists, opting instead for a disclosure approach on the theory, to use the famous Justice Brandeis quote that “sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

Back to the SFO documents.

As referenced above, the applicable term used in the SFO documents is “public official” not “foreign official” as used in the FCPA. Do these terms means the same thing? All of the “public officials” identified in the SFO documents are government Ministers or Ambassadors (what I’ll call core government officials).

There is no exception though, an exception relevant to the current debate over the FCPA’s “foreign official” term and whether it should include employees of state-owned or state-controlled companies.

The Angolan “public officials” appear to be Directors of Empresa Nacional des Pontes, an “Angolan State owned entity.”

Joint Venture Partners

Under the FCPA, conventional wisdom seems to hold that joint venture partners will be liable for improper payments made by other joint venture partners, particularly when the joint venture partners share revenues and profits of contracts secured through improper payments and particularly when the joint venture’s board includes individuals from both companies. (see here for a discussion of this issue in connection with the recent Halliburton/KBR enforcement action).

Not so in the M&J matter.

The SFO documents reference a joint venture relationship between M&J and Kier International Ltd. (“Kier”) in order to facilitate both the construction and engineering aspects of “Jamaica 1” (the contract allegedly secured through the bribe payments).

According to the SFO documents, M&J and Kier agreed that “overall revenue and profits from the JV with respect of Jamaica I would be divided 57% and 43% respectively.” The documents further state that under the terms of the JV “a sponsor would have primary responsibility for representing the JV” and that “Kier was nominated to act as the sponsor.” Further the documents indicate that “the supervisory board” of the JV comprised both M&J and Kier executives.

However, the documents evidence that the “SFO has investigated the relationship between Kier and M&J in respect of this contract” and “all the evidence currently available to the SFO” indicates that “there is no evidence that Kier [was] privy to these corrupt practices.”

Will JV partners in the cross-hairs of a future FCPA enforcement action be citing to the SFO’s decision as to Kier in the M&J enforcement action to argue that there is no basis for FCPA liability (whether anti-bribery or books and records of internal controls)? Perhaps so.

Cooperation

Despite these apparent differences between the M&J enforcement action and a “typical” FCPA enforcement action, there are some similarities and it is clear that the SFO is following DOJ’s lead when it comes to “rewarding” voluntary disclosure (see pages 40-41 “the SFO have sought where appropriate to have regard to the model for corporate regulation adopted by the Department of Justice in the United States of America under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977.”).

The SFO’s stance in the M&J matter, in which it noted that M&J’s internal investigation and subsequent voluntary disclosure were “meriting specific commendation” (see pg. 7) is consistent with the approach the SFO set forth in July when it released a memo titled “Approach of the Serious Fraud Office to Dealing with Overseas Corruption” (see here).

Individuals

Finally, much like the DOJ, the SFO appears interested in charging individuals (not just corporations) for participating in improper payments. The SFO specifically noted that “a number of individuals are the subjects of investigation with regard to the corrupt business practices of M&J” (see pg. 5) and it explained that it did not “name certain directors, executives and employees of M&J at this stage because they may face trial in English Courts.”

Again, to restate the obvious, one enforcement action does not constitute a practice. Yet when doing a comparative analysis of the FCPA with other FCPA-like statutes one has got to start “somewhere” and that “somewhere” now exists with release of the specific facts of the U.K.’s first prosecution against a company for overseas corruption.”

FCPA Violations Can Occur Even in Low-Risk Countries

By on September 4, 2009 in DOJ Enforcement Action, Individual Enforcement Action, Leo Winston Smith, Manufacturing Industry, Martin Eric Self, Pacific Consolidated Industries, United Kingdom

The Department of Justice announced today (see here) that Leo Winston Smith pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA. According to the plea agreement, Smith (the former Director of Sales and Marketing for Pacific Consolidated Industries), along with Martin Eric self (a partial owner and former president of the company), created a sham marketing agreement with a relative of a United Kingdom Ministry of Defense official to facilitate the payment of approximately $70,000 to the official in exchange for Pacific Consolidated receiving contracts.

In May 2008, Self pleaded guilty to violating the FCPA for his role in the scheme and he is currently serving a probation sentence (see here). The DOJ release notes that the U.K. official pleaded guilty in the U.K. to receiving the bribes and he was sentenced to two years in prison.

FCPA violations in the U.K. – such things only happen in places like China and Nigeria right?

Wrong.

Companies need to be diligent about FCPA compliance no matter where they do business, not just traditional FCPA high-risk countries.

In announcing the plea, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer warned, “[b]ribery cannot be viewed as standard operating procedure when representatives from U.S. companies seek contracts abroad,” and a FBI official warned “[t]he FBI, with its partners, will continue to actively search for – and counter – these corrupting influences.”

Smith is to be sentenced this December.

Across the Pond

By on July 23, 2009 in Enforcement Agency Policy, Ghana, Jamaica, Mabey Johnson, Serious Fraud Office, United Kingdom, Voluntary Disclosure

Some noteworthy anti-corruption developments to report from the United Kingdom.

Landmark Mabey & Johnson Ltd. Prosecution

Like the U.S., the U.K. has domestic anti-corruption statutes (actually a mix of several different statutes on the books for nearly one-hundred years – in March 2009, a new bill – the “Bribery Bill” was presented to the U.K. Parliament – an issue I will be following).

However, unlike the U.S., the U.K. has never brought a corporate prosecution under the statutes. For this, U.K. government has been criticized. If you want to fill your afternoon with reading just “google” BAE, Saudi Arabia, and corruption. If you prefer listening over reading, you may want to check out portions of Frontline’s “Black Money” (See here).

Against this backdrop, it is noteworthy that in July 2009, the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) (an enforcement agency similar to the U.S. DOJ) announced “the first prosecution brought in the U.K. against a company for overseas corruption.” (See here for the SFO Press Release).

According to the SFO press release, the prosecution arises from Mabey & Johnson Ltd.’s (a U.K. company that designs and manufacturers steel bridges used in more than 115 countries worldwide) voluntary disclosure to the SFO “of evidence to indicate that the company had sought to influence decision-makers in public contracts in Jamaica and Ghana between 1993 and 2001.” According to the release, the prosecution also involves breach of United Nations sanctions as applied to contracts in connection with the Iraq Oil for Food program.

My efforts to locate the actual Mabey & Johnson charging documents (statement of facts, etc.) have thus far proven fruitless. To the extent such documents are publicly available and you have a copy, please do share them with me.

SFO Memo on Corruption Enforcement and the Benefits of Self-Reporting

Also in July 2009, the SFO released a memo titled “Approach of the Serious Fraud Office to Dealing with Overseas Corruption.” The memo notes that the SFO is significantly expanding its anti-corruption resources and staff and that the office will be using “all of the tools at our disposal in identifying and prosecution cases of corruption” as the office “conduct[s] more criminal investigations and prosecutions in the future (particularly if the Bribery Bill becomes law).”

The memo notes that there has been much interest among business and professional advisers for a system of self-reporting cases of overseas corruption to the SFO and the purpose of the memo is thus to set forth SFO policies on self-reporting and the SFO’s position on the benefits which can be obtained from self-reporting.

The memo specifically notes that the benefit to a corporation of self-reporting will be “the prospect (in appropriate cases) of a civil rather than a criminal outcome,” and that a “negotiated settlement rather than a criminal prosecution means that the mandatory debarment provisions under [the relevant EU Directive] will not apply.”

The remainder of the memo touches on general topics familiar to FCPA practitioners currently found in Title 9, Chapter 9-28.000 of the U.S. Attorney’s Manual (Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations) (the so-called Filip Memo – see here). It is encouraging to see that the SFO, unlike the DOJ/SEC thus far, is willing to articulate, in a specific memo, its views and enforcement policies on corruption issues.

The benefits of self-reporting and voluntarily disclosing conduct which does, or could, violate the FCPA is indeed a “hot topic.” DOJ/SEC enforcement officials routinely say that the benefits of self-reporting are real, whereas FCPA practitioners and the clients they represent aren’t so sure. It now looks like this topic will be debated on both sides of the Atlantic and it will indeed be an interesting issue to monitor.

Of particular interest to FCPA practitioners, the SFO memo notes as follows: “We would also take the view that the timing of an approach to the U.S. Department of Justice is also relevant. If the case is also within our jurisdiction we would expect to be notified at the same time as the DOJ.” Of further interest to FCPA practitioners, the memo announces an initial opinion procedure along the lines currently offered by the U.S. DOJ. The memo notes, “[t]he circumstances in which this procedure will be appropriate will need to be discussed, but we are ready to offer assistance in one type of case” and that type of case is where an acquiring company, during due diligence of a target, discovers corruption issues.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes