The DOJ has a specific website devoted to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
On the page you will find a purported chronological list and alphabetical list of Enforcement Actions.
With any free website (let alone a government website), there is probably not an expectation that the website be updated every day or perhaps every week as developments occur.
However, is it asking too much for the DOJ to keep its FCPA website reasonably current – and thus accurate?
As highlighted below, there have been several developments to individual FCPA enforcement actions that happened several months ago, in some cases, years ago that simply are not reflected on the DOJ’s FCPA website.
As highlighted here, in June 2022 the DOJ moved to dismiss its FCPA (and related) enforcement action against Joseph Baptiste and Roger Boncy for alleged bribery in Haiti. For quite some time in the long-running enforcement action, the defense sought an order compelling the government to turn over evidence in its possession, but the government insisted that it did not have any evidence to turn over. Shortly before an anticipated summer retrial, the DOJ discovered certain exculpatory evidence and soon thereafter dismissed the action.
However, if your only source of FCPA information was the DOJ’s FCPA website (see below) this event simply did not occur and you would probably think – with reason – that Baptiste and Boncy are still convicted felons.
As highlighted here, in Fall 2021 Judge Kenneth Hoyt (S.D. Tex.) granted a motion to dismiss filed by Daisy Rafoi-Bleuler (a citizen of Switzerland and partner in a Swiss Wealth Management firm), an individual criminally charged with FCPA (and related) offenses in connection with an alleged Venezuelan bribery scheme. The judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and also hinted that a key term in the FCPA relevant to the prosecution was unconstitutionally vague.
However, if your only source of FCPA information was the DOJ’s FCPA website (see below) this event simply did not occur and you would probably think – with reason – that the criminal charges remain active.
As highlighted here, in connection with the same alleged Venezuelan bribery scheme, Judge Hoyt also granted Paulo Casqueiro-Murta’s motion to dismiss the based on lack of jurisdiction, lack of due process, vagueness, and statute of limitation issues.
However, if your only source of FCPA information was the DOJ’s FCPA website (see below) this event simply did not occur and you would probably think – with reason – that the criminal charges remain active.
As highlighted here, in 2020 Judge Janet Arterton (D. Conn) granted Lawrence Hoskins motion for acquittal on all FCPA charges in connection with an alleged Indonesian bribery scheme after he was convicted of at trial. Judge Arterton’s decision came after a long FCPA enforcement action in which, among other things, the Second Circuit disagreed with the DOJ’s jurisdictional theory in the case.
However, if your only source of FCPA information was the DOJ’s FCPA website (see below) these events simply did not occur.
Other examples could also be cited, but with five examples you probably get the point.
The DOJ often talks about transparency in its FCPA enforcement program. But how can anyone fall for this rhetoric when the DOJ operates an FCPA website that is so obviously misleading and inaccurate?
Should not the DOJ keep the public informed of all FCPA developments – and not just those that cast the DOJ in a favorable light?
