Scrutiny alerts, compliance defense, be a scholar, industry news, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Scrutiny Alerts
The Bank of New York Mellon Corp (BNY Mellon) recently disclosed:
“In January 2011, the Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC Staff”) informed several financial institutions, including BNY Mellon, that it had commenced an inquiry into certain of their business practices and relationships with sovereign wealth fund clients. BNY Mellon has fully cooperated with the SEC Staff’s investigation. In the third quarter of 2014, the SEC Staff issued Wells notices to certain current and former employees of BNY Mellon, informing them that the SEC Staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend enforcement action against them for alleged violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the provision of a limited number of internships to relatives of sovereign wealth fund officials. BNY Mellon received a similar Wells notice in the fourth quarter of 2014. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this matter, BNY Mellon is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this matter will not have a material effect on BNY Mellon’s business, financial condition or results of operations.”
A Wells Notice is not common in the FCPA context. As highlighted earlier this week regarding Cobalt, just because the SEC issues a Wells Notice does not mean there will be an enforcement action.
Compliance Defense
Singapore, a country hardly viewed as a slouch on law and order issues, is in the process of reviewing its Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). As noted in this Norton Rose Fulbright update, among the areas for potential reform is corporate liability and a compliance defense. As noted in the update:
Corporate Liability
Prosecutions in Singapore for bribery-related offences have primarily focused on individuals. While Singapore law allows corporations to be prosecuted, and international obligations under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention require corporations to be legally liable for corrupt practices, the reality is that it is evidentially difficult to prove that a corporation had the requisite intent and carried out the relevant corrupt conduct. This is usually proven by showing the individual who committed the crime can be regarded as the “embodiment of the company” or its “directing mind and will” – not an easy task in an era of large multinational corporations with complex decision-making trees.
Any reform to the PCA may do well to take a leaf out of the pages of Singapore’s own anti-money laundering law – the Corruption, Drug-Trafficking and Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA). The CDSA renders money-laundering by a corporation a criminal offence that can be proven through the state of mind as well as the conduct of any “director, employee or agent” who was acting within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority. In other words, the evidential threshold is significantly lowered and the outdated “directing mind and will” test is done away with.
Compliance Defense
If the threshold for proving corporate liability is lowered, some balance can be restored by introducing a compliance defence. A corporation that is found liable for bribes paid by its “director, employee or agent” can be absolved of legal liability if it can show that it took reasonable steps to prevent such corrupt practices from taking place. Such a compliance defence provides a legal impetus for companies to adopt prudent business practices and foster ethical corporate cultures through the implementation of anti-corruption compliance programs.
This notion of a compliance defence finds support in the form of the “adequate procedures” defence enshrined in the recent UK Bribery Act 2010, and has been the subject of a movement in the US to introduce a similar affirmative defence in the context of the reform of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
Be a Scholar
Trace International has announced that “applications for the 2015-2016 TRACE Scholar Program at the University of Washington School of Law are being accepted now until February 28, 2015.” Click here and here to learn more.
Industry News
King & Spalding recently announced that Jason Jones (the Assistant Chief of the DOJ’s FCPA Unit) is returning to the firm.
As stated in the release: “As a supervisor in the Justice Department’s FCPA unit, Jones oversaw investigations and prosecutions of corporations and their employees for making improper payments to foreign officials in business transactions. He is well versed in the Justice Department’s increasing enforcement in this area.”
In the release, Christopher Wray, leader of King & Spalding’s Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, states: “We are pleased to welcome Jason back to the firm. Jason is well-known by many lawyers in the firm – and highly respected. His FCPA oversight experience at a national level and his strong trial skills provide added bench strength to the broad range of defense work we offer our clients. Jason is a natural fit for our team.“
*****
Debevoise & Plimpton recently announced that “David A. O’Neil, former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Fraud Section at the Department of Justice, has joined the firm as a partner in Washington, D.C.” As noted in the release, O’Neil “has experience across a broad range of high-profile matters, including the most significant FCPA prosecutions …”.
In this recent Corporate Crime Reporter interview, O’Neil talks about the shift of the corporate crime universe from New York City to Washington, D.C. and states:
“I have witnessed in my time in the Department a significant growth in the work that Main Justice is doing. It is not that the Southern District [of New York] is doing less. It’s that Main Justice is doing more. There are a number of reasons for that. Some are the result of the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, which requires that the Fraud Section have a role in every Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) case. Much of it is FCPA driven.”
“When I started out, I actually worked some FCPA cases in private practice. But at that time, it was more of a niche practice. It was not the same kind of focus that it is now.”
“Today, in some ways, white collar practice is synonymous with FCPA practice. As a result, in every FCPA case, Main Justice’s Fraud Section is going to be an active player.”
Asked whether “the FCPA pipeline is still loaded,” O’Neil states:
“The FCPA is going to continue to be an active area. I don’t think we are anywhere near the end of the pipeline. In fact, you see the Department devoting greater resources, including through the creation of a dedicated FCPA unit at the FBI. My prediction would be that FCPA cases continue at their current pace or increase.”
For the Reading Stack
Reagan Demas (Baker & McKenzie) “Biting the Hands That Feed: Corporate Charity and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”
A Texas-sized double standard? See here from the Texas Tribune in an article that begins as follows. “It is illegal to bribe a public official in Texas, of course. But you might be surprised with what you can get away with if that public official is a state lawmaker.”
*****
A good weekend to all.
