Corporate FCPA Repeat Offenders

As highlighted in this post, 15 companies have resolved FCPA enforcement actions – not once – but twice. Six of these instances have occurred since 2017.

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 vs. 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).

Eni

• 2020 ($24.5 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Algeria)
• 2010 ($125 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Nigeria)

Technip

• 2019 ($87 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Brazil and Iraq)
• 2010 ($340 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Nigeria)

Stryker

• 2018 ($7.8 million enforcement action concerning conduct in India, China, and Kuwait)
• 2013 ($13.2 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Mexico, Poland, Romania, Argentina, and Greece)

Halliburton

• 2017 ($29.2 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Angola)
• 2009 ($177 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Nigeria)

Biomet

• 2017 ($30.4 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Brazil and Mexico)
• 2012 ($22.8 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Brazil, Argentina and China)

Orthofix

• 2017 ($6 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Brazil)
• 2012 ($7.4 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Mexico)

Goodyear

• 2015 ($16 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Kenya and Angola)
• 1989 ($250,000 enforcement action concerning conduct in Iraq)

Marubeni

• 2014 ($88 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Indonesia)
• 2012 ($55 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Nigeria)

Tyco

• 2012 ($26.8 million enforcement action concerning conduct in China, India, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Libya, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Mauritania, Congo, Niger, Madagascar, Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt, and Poland)
• 2006 ($50 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Brazil)(Note: this was largely an accounting fraud enforcement action and the FCPA prong was a relatively minor component).

IBM

• 2011 ($10 million enforcement action concerning conduct in South Korea and China)
• 2000 (cease and desist order concerning conduct in Argentina)

General Electric

• 2010 ($23.4 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Iraq)
• 1992 ($9.5 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Israel)(Note: FCPA as well as related charges)

ABB

• 2010 ($58.3 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Mexico and Iraq)
• 2004 ($16.4 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Nigeria, Angola and Kazakhstan)

Lucent / Alcatel-Lucent

• 2010 ($137.4 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Costa Rica, Honduras, Malaysia, Taiwan, Kenya, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Angola, the Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Mali)
• 2007 ($2.5 million enforcement action concerning conduct in China)

Aibel Group / Vetco Gray

• 2008 ($4.2 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Nigeria)
• 2007 ($26 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Nigeria)

Baker Hughes

• 2007 ($44 million enforcement action concerning conduct in Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Angola, Indonesia, Russia, Uzbekistan)
• 2001 (cease and desist order concerning conduct in Indonesia, India and Brazil)

The number of FCPA repeat offenders calls into question whether the FCPA has been successful in achieving its objectives. (See here for the article). But then again, there are two ways to view corporate FCPA repeat offenders. (See here).

Of note, several instances of corporate FCPA repeat offenders involve companies whose first FCPA enforcement action (as well as second) was resolved via an NPA or DPA. For many years the DOJ has advanced the policy position that DPAs (and NPAs) “have had a truly transformative effect on particular companies and, more generally, on corporate culture across the globe.” (See here for the prior post). Specifically in the FCPA context, the DOJ stated that “the companies against which DPAs and NPAs have been brought have often undergone dramatic changes.” (See here for the prior post).

FCPA Institute Online

The most comprehensive online FCPA training course available. Over 12 hours of narrated instruction from Professor Koehler allowing professionals to elevate their FCPA knowledge and practical skills at their own pace.    

Purchase