This recent post summarized SEC Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement against issuers in 2024.
Today’s post focuses on the other FCPA enforcement agency – the Department of Justice – and highlights various facts and figures relevant to DOJ FCPA enforcement in 2024 against business organizations. (See here for a similar post for 2023; here for for 2022; here for 2021; here for 2020; here for 2019; here for 2018; here for 2017, here for 2016, here for 2015, here for 2014, here for 2013, here for 2012, here for 2011, and here for 2010).
Settlement Numbers and Amounts
In 2024, the DOJ brought 9 corporate enforcement actions.
By comparison:
- in 2023 the DOJ brought 7 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2022 the DOJ brought 7 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2021 the DOJ brought 2 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2020 the DOJ brought 8 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2019 the DOJ brought 8 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2018 the DOJ brought 8 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2017 the DOJ brought 9 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2016 the DOJ brought 13 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2015 the DOJ brought 2 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2014 the DOJ brought 7 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2013 the DOJ brought 7 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2012 the DOJ brought 9 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2011 the DOJ brought 11 corporate enforcement actions;
- in 2010 the DOJ brought 17 corporate enforcement actions.
(Note: these figures use the “core” approach to FCPA statistics – see here for the prior post – an approach also endorsed by the DOJ – see here).
In the 9 corporate FCPA enforcement actions from 2024, the DOJ collected approximately $1.09 billion.
(Note: this figure represents net FCPA settlement amounts after accounting for various credits or deductions in certain related law enforcement actions (either domestic or foreign) or inability to pay in certain instances).
By comparison:
- in the 7 corporate enforcement actions from 2023, the DOJ collected approximately $252 million;
- in the 7 corporate enforcement actions from 2022, the DOJ collected approximately $652 million;
- in the 2 corporate enforcement actions from 2021, the DOJ collected approximately $87.2 million;
- in the 8 corporate enforcement actions from 2020, the DOJ collected approximately $2.10 billion;
- in the 8 corporate enforcement actions from 2019, the DOJ collected approximately $1.62 billion;
- in the 8 corporate enforcement actions from 2018, the DOJ collected approximately $618 million;
- in the 8 corporate enforcement actions from 2017, the DOJ collected approximately $845 million;
- in the 13 corporate enforcement actions from 2016, the DOJ collected approximately $1.17 billion;
- in the 2 corporate enforcement actions from 2015, the DOJ collected approximately $24.2 million;
- in the 7 corporate enforcement actions from 2014, the DOJ collected approximately $1.25 billion;
- in the 7 corporate enforcement actions from 2013, the DOJ collected approximately $420 million;
- in the 9 corporate enforcement actions from 2012, the DOJ collected approximately $142 million;
- in the 11 corporate enforcement actions from 2011, the DOJ collected approximately $355 million;
- in the 17 corporate enforcement actions from 2010, the DOJ collected approximately $870 million;
Corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement in 2024 ranged from $474.4 million (Gunvor) to $6 million (BIT Mining / 500.com).
Corporate v. Individual Prosecutions
In the 9 corporate DOJ enforcement actions in 2024, 4 (44%) have resulted, at present, in any related DOJ FCPA charges.
Stay tuned for future posts specifically about DOJ individual FCPA enforcement actions in 2024 and historically.
Resolution Vehicles
The 9 corporate FCPA enforcement actions by the DOJ in 2024 involved: 5 deferred prosecution agreements; 2 plea agreements; 1 so-called declination with disgorgement; and 1 non prosecution agreement. Thus, 78% of DOJ corporate FCPA enforcement in 2024 involved an alternative resolution vehicle not subjected to any meaningful judicial scrutiny.
By comparison:
- in 2023, 100% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2022, 86% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2021, 100% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2020, 75% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2019, 100% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2018, 100% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2017, 100% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2016 92% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2015 100% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2014 71% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2013, 100% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2012 100% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2011 82% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles;
- in 2010 94% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions involved alternative resolution vehicles.
Voluntary Disclosures
Of 9 DOJ corporate enforcement actions in 2024, 3 (33%) were the result of a voluntary disclosure.
By comparison:
- in 2023, 43% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure;
- in 2022, 43% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure;
- in 2021, 0% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure;
- in 2020, 13% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure;
- in 2019, 37% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure;
- in 2018 25% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure;
- in 2017 33% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure;
- in 2016 38% of DOJ corporate enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure;
- in 2015, 50% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure;
- in 2014, 29% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosures;
- in 2013, 57% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure or the direct result of a related voluntary disclosure;
- in 2012, 78% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of a voluntary disclosure or casually related to previous voluntary disclosures;
- in 2011, 73% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of corporate voluntary disclosures.
Monitors
Of the 9 corporate FCPA enforcement actions in 2024, 1 (11%) resulted in a formal corporate monitor imposed by the DOJ.
By way of comparison:
- in 2023, 0% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2022, 29% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2021 0% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2020 0% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2019 50% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2018 12% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2017 33% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2016 54% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2015 50% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2014 14% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2013 57% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2012 33% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor;
- in 2011 9% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor; and
- in 2010 41% of corporate enforcement actions resulted in a formal corporate monitor.
(Note: in certain enforcement actions the DOJ concluded that a formal monitor was unnecessary because the company already had monitoring requirements imposed upon it as a result of a related foreign law enforcement action).
This remainder of this post provides an overview of corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement in 2024.
SAP (Jan 10)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and to falsify books and records.
Resolution Vehicle: Criminal information charges resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $180 – $360 million.
Settlement: Net $63.6 million (after certain credits and/or reductions for related foreign law enforcement investigations).
Origin: In 2019, the company disclosed: “SAP has received communications and whistleblower information alleging conduct that may violate anti-bribery laws in South Africa, the United States (including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)), and other countries. The Legal Compliance and Integrity Office of SAP is conducting investigations with the assistance of an external law firm and voluntarily advised local authorities in South Africa as well as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (U.S. SEC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ).”
Monitor: No
Individuals Charged: No
Gunvor (March 1)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Criminal information resolved through a plea agreement.
Guidelines Range: $384 – 768 million.
Settlement: Net $474.4 million (after certain credits and/or reductions for related foreign law enforcement investigations).
Origin: Related foreign law enforcement investigation.
Monitor: No
Individuals Charged: Yes
Trafigura (March 28)
See here for the prior post.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Criminal information resolved through a plea agreement.
Guidelines Range: $85.2 million – $170.3 million.
Settlement: $100.2 million (after certain credits and/or reductions for related foreign law enforcement investigations).
Origin: Related foreign law enforcement investigation.
Monitor: No
Individuals Charged: No
Boston Consulting Group (Aug. 27th)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: N/A – declination with disgorgement letter refers to violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Declination with disgorgement.
Guidelines Range: Not mentioned in the declination with disgorgement letter.
Settlement: $14,424,000 “which represents the profit to BCG from the contracts secured by the agent, as calculated by the Government and agreed to by the Company.”
Origin: Voluntary disclosure
Monitor: No
Individuals Charged: No
RTX (Oct. 16th)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $240 – $480 million.
Settlement: $260 million (criminal penalty and forfeiture)
Origin: SEC Subpoena
Monitor: Yes
Individuals Charged: No
Boston Consulting Group (Aug. 27th)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: N/A – declination with disgorgement letter refers to violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Declination with disgorgement.
Guidelines Range: Not mentioned in the declination with disgorgement letter.
Settlement: $14,424,000 “which represents the profit to BCG from the contracts secured by the agent, as calculated by the Government and agreed to by the Company.”
Origin: Voluntary disclosure
Monitor: No
Individuals Charged: No
Telefonica Venezuela (Nov. 8th)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $101.5 million to $203 million.
Settlement: $85.2 million.
Origin: Beginning in early 2020, the annual report of Telefónica S.A. contained the following disclosure. “Although the Group has internal policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with the abovementioned applicable anti-corruption laws and sanctions regulations, there can be no assurance that such policies and procedures will be sufficient or that the Group’s employees, directors, officers, partners, agents and service providers will not take actions in violation of the Group’s policies and procedures (or, otherwise in violation of the relevant anti-corruption laws and sanctions regulations) for which the Group, its subsidiaries or they may be ultimately held responsible. In this regard, the Group is currently cooperating with governmental authorities (and, where appropriate, conducting the relevant internal investigations) regarding requests for information potentially related, directly or indirectly to possible violations of applicable anti-corruption laws. Telefónica believes that, considering the size of the Group, any potential penalty as a result of matters relating to those specific information requests would not materially affect the Group’s financial condition.”
Monitor: No
Individuals Charged: No
BIT Mining / 500.com (Nov. 18th)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and books and records provisions and violation of the books and records provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $60 million – $120 million
Settlement: $6 million
Origin: Foreign law enforcement investigation.
Monitor: No
Individuals Charged: Yes
McKinsey (Dec. 5th)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $180 million – $360 million
Settlement: $61.4 million
Origin: Foreign law enforcement / media investigation
Monitor: No
Individuals Charged: Yes
AAR (Dec. 19th)
See here for a prior post.
Charges: N/A – NPA references conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Non prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: Not mentioned in the NPA
Settlement: $26.4 million
Origin: Voluntary disclosure
Monitor: No
Individuals Charged: Yes
