Top Menu

Glencore Acknowledges A Victim, But Disputes The Amount Of Restitution Owed


As highlighted in this prior post, in connection with the May 2022 Glencore FCPA enforcement action, the majority owners of Crusader Health (Ian and Laureth Hagen) petitioned the court in the underlying enforcement action to file a restitution claim under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act and the Crime Victims Act on the basis that the entity was a victim of Glencore’s conduct in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The court granted the petition.

Recently, Glencore acknowledged “that Crusader—and by extension, the Hagens—was harmed by the offense to which Glencore has pled guilty, and it is prepared to pay restitution in the amount of any loss directly and proximately caused by that offense.”

However, Glencore is disputing the amount of restitution properly owed.

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup


Settled, not a victim, and monitor reports. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.


As highlighted in this prior post, in 2021 Shaquala Williams (a former employee of JPMorgan in New York city) filed a civil complaint in federal court (S.D.N.Y) against JPMorgan in connection with (at least in part) compliance obligations imposed upon JPMorgan in connection with resolution of its 2016 FCPA enforcement action. JPMorgan responded (see here) by filing a motion for summary judgment which was mostly denied by Judge Jed Rakoff who set a trial date for November 2022.

As reported here, the parties have reached an agreement to resolve the matter.

Continue Reading

Medical Services Company To File Restitution Claim In Connection With Glencore FCPA Enforcement Action


As highlighted here, in May 2022 Glencore (a commodities company incorporated in the United Kingdom and headquartered in Switzerland) resolved a net $443 million FCPA enforcement action.

According to the DOJ: “From at least in or about 2007 up to and including in or about 2018, Glencore, through certain of its employees and agents, while acting on behalf of Glencore, together with its co-conspirators, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed with others to corruptly provide more than $100 million in payments and other things of value to various intermediaries with the intent that a significant portion of these payments would be used to pay bribes to and for the benefit of foreign officials to secure an improper advantage and to influence those foreign officials in order to obtain or retain business in Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, Brazil, Venezuela, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

A portion of the conduct in the Democratic Republic of Congo related to bribe paid in connection with a litigation dispute.

Continue Reading

Victims … But No Victims


“Bribery is not a victimless crime.”

It is a narrative in DOJ FCPA talking points (see here for instance).

If bribery is not a victimless crime, then why do FCPA fines and penalties nearly always simply go directly into the U.S. Treasury?

If bribery is not a victimless crime, then why does the DOJ often oppose the attempts by purported victims to pursue legal remedies in connection with certain FCPA enforcement actions? For instance, in connection with certain FCPA enforcement actions, private plaintiffs have sought restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, however the DOJ has opposed such efforts. (See here for an example).

If bribery is not a victimless crime, then why did the Deputy Solicitor General acknowledge during oral arguments before the Supreme Court that “there really is no obvious universe of individual victims from an FCPA violation.” (See here for the prior post).

All interesting issues to ponder.

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup


Where is the outrage now, Odebrecht related, and for the people. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Where Is The Outrage Now?

In 2016 the Obama Justice Department invented another way to resolve an FCPA enforcement action – the so-called “declination” – a form of resolution that sometimes requires disgorgement. In 2016, the DOJ used this way of resolving an FCPA enforcement five times. (See here).

In 2017 the Trump Justice Department used this way of resolving an FCPA enforcement and – all of a sudden – some commentators were outraged. This commentator stated: “bring a matter to the department’s attention, fall all over yourself to help prosecutors understand the case, and show them you cleaned up your act—and presto, you avoid the DPA or monitor …”. The commentator added: “President Trump himself doesn’t seem much interested in enforcing the [FCPA]” (another odd statement because President’s don’t enforce the law.

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes