FCPA sentence, scrutiny alerts and updates, flummoxed, lots of time to watch film, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
This December 2016 post highlighted the DOJ’s announcement of FCPA conspiracy charges and plea agreements against four individuals (Daniel Perez, Kamta Ramnarine, Victor Valdez, and Douglas Ray) associated with Hunt Pan Am Aviation in connection with a Mexican bribery scheme.
Perez and Ramnarine were both previously sentenced to three years probation and Valdez was sentenced to 1 year and a day in federal prison, 2 years of supervised release, and ordered to pay approximately $91,000 in restitution.
Yesterday, Ray was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison, 3 years of supervised release, and ordered to pay approximately $590,000 in restitution.
All sentencing documents in the case were filed under seal.
Scrutiny Alerts and Updates
The Spain-based company with American Depositary Receipts registered with the SEC recently disclosed in an SEC filing:
“The Company is currently conducting an internal investigation regarding possible violations of applicable anticorruption laws. The Company has been in contact with governmental authorities about this matter and intends to cooperate with those authorities as the investigation continues. It is not possible at this time to predict the scope or duration of this matter or its likely outcome.”
Montreal-based Bombardier (a company with shares traded “over-the-counter” in the U.S.) recently issued this press release stating:
“Over the past week, a number of media outlets have reported on an investigation being conducted by Swedish Authorities and the World Bank into a Bombardier Transportation contract in Azerbaijan. We take this matter – and any allegation of unethical behavior – very seriously as we are committed to the highest level of integrity and full compliance with all legal requirements in every country where we operate. As a company, and as individuals, we expect open, honest and fair dealings at all times with our customers, suppliers, partners and other stakeholders.
With respect to the Azerbaijan project, we are assisting Swedish authorities in their investigation and conducting our own internal review. Thus far, we have no information of any unlawful behavior and we stand behind the work we are doing to help modernize Azerbaijan’s rail infrastructure. Should we discover any improper activity, we will of course take the necessary and appropriate actions to set things right.
Despite allegations to the contrary, the Bombardier consortium was awarded the Azerbaijan contract after a fair and open competition. Our bid, which was accepted by Azerbaijan Railways ADY in coordination with the World Bank, was deemed the most technically sound and priced lower than our global competitors. Since being awarded the contract in 2013, we have supported our customer’s efforts to upgrade their rail system and we continue to do so.
As we complete our internal review, we will do everything possible to ensure that our stakeholders have a full, fair, and honest accounting of the facts. We will always hold ourselves to the highest standards of conduct and we will always welcome the scrutiny that comes with being one of Canada’s leading multinational companies.”
I am often flummoxed by what other “commentators” write or say about the FCPA.
In the latest example, this FCPA Blog guest post asserts – by pointing to the recent DOJ policy document titled “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” (see here for the prior post) – that the DOJ is showing “increased interest” regarding incentives and disciplinary measures” and attributes “this to the DOJ’s (newly appointed Compliance Counsel (and Subject Matter Expert) Hui Chen).”
For starters, Chen was appointed in September 2015, but more substantively the reference to incentives and disciplinary measures in the recent DOJ policy document is nothing new.
Going back to at least 2012, the following language has consistently appeared in the Corporate Compliance attachments to DOJ corporate FCPA resolutions.
Enforcement and Discipline
The Company will implement mechanisms designed to effectively enforce its compliance code, policies, and procedures, including appropriately incentivizing compliance and disciplining violations.
The Company will institute appropriate disciplinary procedures to address, among other things, violations of the anti-corruption laws and the Company’s anti-corruption compliance code, policies, and procedures by the Company’s directors, officers, and employees.
Such procedures should be applied consistently and fairly, regardless of the position held by, or perceived importance of, the director, officer, or employee. The Company shall implement procedures to ensure that where misconduct is discovered, reasonable steps are taken to remedy the harm resulting from such misconduct, and to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to prevent further similar misconduct, including assessing the internal controls, compliance code, policies, and procedures and making modifications necessary to ensure the overall anticorruption compliance program is effective.
Lots of Time to Watch Film
This recent post highlighted developments in the long-standing legal proceedings against Juthamas Siriwan, the Thai “foreign official” implicated in the Gerald and Patricia Green Thai Film Festival FCPA enforcement action (see numerous priors posts under this subject matter tag).
According to this report, Siriwan was recently sentenced in Thailand to 50 years in prison. That’s lots of time to watch film.
For the Reading Stack
That is, if you read French.
FCPA Institute - Zoom (April 5-7, 2022)
Elevate your FCPA knowledge and practical skills. Nine hours of integrated and cohesive instruction led by Professor Koehler (an FCPA expert with teaching experience). Learn more, spend less. Professional credential available.