Top Menu

The Origins Of 2022 Corporate Enforcement Actions


This recent post compared corporate FCPA enforcement actions in 2022 to prior years. However, before a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action is announced, scrutiny must first arise.

This post highlights the origins of the ten corporate enforcement actions in 2022. (See here for a similar post highlighting the origins of 2021 corporate enforcement actions; here for 2020; here for 2019, here for 2018, here for 2017, and here for 2016).

In summary, of the ten corporate enforcement actions from 2022, five enforcement actions (50%) appear to have originated with a voluntary disclosure; four enforcement actions (40%) appear to have originated with a foreign law enforcement investigation; and two enforcement actions (20%) appear to have originated with a DOJ/SEC investigation.

KT Corp.

Foreign law enforcement investigation (South Korea).


Voluntary disclosure.


The company previously disclosed:

“On June 12, 2017, the SEC issued a subpoena to the Company, requesting documents and information relating to the Company’s compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) or other foreign or domestic anti-corruption laws with respect to certain of the Company’s operations in Latin America. In addition, the Department of Justice has notified the Company that it is investigating this matter in parallel with the SEC. The Company is cooperating with these agencies.”


The company previously disclosed:

“Glencore Ltd, a subsidiary of Glencore plc, has received a subpoena dated 2 July, 2018 from the US Department of Justice to produce documents and other records with respect to compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and United States money laundering statutes.  The requested documents relate to the Glencore Group’s business in Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Venezuela from 2007 to present. Glencore is reviewing the subpoena and will provide further information in due course as appropriate.”


Voluntary disclosure.


Foreign law enforcement investigation (Brazil).


Voluntary disclosure.

The SEC’s order states: ” that Oracle self-reported certain unrelated conduct, remedial acts it undertook, and cooperation afforded the Commission Staff.”


Voluntary disclosure / foreign media reporting.

The DOJ stated:

“[T]he Company did not receive voluntary disclosure credit … because it did not voluntarily and timely disclosed to the office the conduct …; although the Company did not receive voluntary disclosure credit, the Offices, in evaluating the appropriate disposition of this matter – including the appropriate form of the resolution – considered evidence that, within a very short time of learning of the misconduct, the Company contacted the Fraud Section and scheduled a meeting to discuss matters under investigation by the Fraud Section and the Company. The Company did not specifically identify the South Africa misconduct in that meeting request, but it disclosed the South Africa misconduct during the scheduled meeting, subsequently presented evidence to the Offices that it intended to disclose the misconduct related to South Africa during the scheduled meeting and did not know of any imminent media reports when the meeting was scheduled. However, before the scheduled meeting occurred and prior to making any such disclosure to the Fraud Section, a media report was published related the misconduct.”


Foreign law enforcement investigation (Brazil).

The company previously disclosed:

“Petrobras and Unaoil

We are cooperating with certain investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and Brazilian authorities relating to our use of third parties who previously worked for our UOP business in Brazil in relation to Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”). The investigations are focused on compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar Brazilian laws, and involve, among other things, document production and interviews with former and current management and employees. The DOJ and the SEC are also examining a matter involving a foreign subsidiary’s prior engagement of Unaoil S.A.M. in Algeria. We are cooperating with the authorities in each of the above matters. While we cannot predict the outcome of these matters, based on the facts currently known to us, we do not anticipate that these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.”


Voluntary disclosure.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes