FCPA Professor will once again be the place to visit in January for a plethora of 2019 year in review statistics.
But first, this post closes out the fourth quarter of 2019. (See here for a similar post for the first quarter of 2019, here for the second quarter of 2019, and here for the third quarter of 2019).
DOJ Enforcement (Corporate)
The DOJ brought 2 corporate FCPA enforcement action in the fourth quarter. Recovery in these enforcement actions was approximately $558 million.
Ericsson (Dec. 6th)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: As to Ericsson Egypt Ltd., conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. As to Ericsson, conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: As to Ericsson Egypt, a criminal information resolved through a plea agreement. As to Ericsson, a criminal information resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $612 million – $1.22 billion.
Settlement: $520 million.
Origin: SEC investigation.
Monitor: Yes
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No
Samsung Heavy Industries (Nov. 22nd)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Criminal information resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $94.4 million to $188.7 million
Settlement: $37.7 million (with the same amount paid to Brazilian authorities).
Origin: Media reports / foreign law enforcement investigation.
Monitor: No.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No
DOJ Enforcement (Individual)
The DOJ brought or announced 3 core enforcement actions against 6 individuals in fourth quarter.
As highlighted here, the DOJ brought an enforcement action against former Braskem CEO Jose Grubisich in connection with the same core conduct alleged in the 2016 corporate enforcement action.
As highlighted here, the DOJ brought an enforcement action against former Herbalife China executives Yanliang Li and Hongwei Yang “for their roles in a scheme to violate the anti-bribery and the internal controls provisions of the FCPA” in connection with obtaining a direct selling permit.
As highlighted here, the DOJ announced that Cyrus Ahsani and Saman Ahsani (the former CEO and Chief Operations Officer of Monaco-based Unaoil) plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA for their roles in a scheme to corruptly facilitate millions of dollars in bribe payments to officials in multiple countries. The DOJ also announced that Steven Hunter (a former business development manager at Unaoil) plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.
SEC Enforcement (Corporate)
The SEC brought 1 enforcement action in the fourth quarter. Recovery in this enforcement action was $540 million.
Ericsson (Dec. 6th)
See here and here for prior posts.
Charges: Civil complaint charging violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery, books and records and internal controls provisions.
Settlement: $540 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.
Origin: SEC investigation.
Individuals Charged: No
Related DOJ Enforcement Action: Yes
SEC Enforcement (Individual)
As highlighted here, the SEC charged former Herbalife China executive Yanliang Li with violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and aiding and abetting books and records and internal controls violations.
As highlighted here, based on the same core conduct alleged in a 2018 criminal action, the SEC also brought an enforcement action against former Goldman executive Tim Leissner.
Other Developments or Items of Interest
Recently, a bill was introduced in the Senate seeking to tax certain FCPA enforcement actions (those in which total criminal fines and penalties are in excess of $50 million) by imposing an “additional prevention payment equal to $5 million which shall be deposited in the Anti-Corruption Action Fund.”
As highlighted in this post, FCPA “tips” continue to be a minor component of the SEC’s whistleblower program and this post highlights how the Supreme Court has agreed to hear another SEC disgorgement case with potential FCPA implications.
In this speech , Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski delivered typical DOJ corporate compliance talking points, yet also use the word “deterrence” several times in an odd way.
The DOJ released a non-binding policy memo titled “Evaluating a Business Organization’s Inability to Pay a Criminal Fine or Criminal Monetary Penalty.” (See here ). While not FCPA specific, the memo is FCPA relevant as certain FCPA enforcement actions have involved inability to pay claims. As discussed here, the DOJ’s latest voluntary disclosure guidance is absurd.
As highlighted here , the Mexican government recently sued Styker in U.S. court in connection with a 2013 FCPA enforcement action.
FCPA Institute - Zoom (May 16-18, 2023)
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.
Learn More and Register
