Previous posts have focused on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and other Southeast Asian countries.
In total, 66 enforcement actions were highlighted (in some instances one enforcement action concerned conduct in multiple Southeast Asian countries and was counted separately for each country at issue).
Drawing conclusions from Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions is relevant, but only to a certain extent.
For instance, the enforcement actions spanned nearly 50 years and specific business conditions in a country (which may give rise to FCPA issues) change over time.
Resolution documents in an FCPA enforcement action obviously tell a “story,” but that “story” is often the subject of negotiation between the DOJ/SEC and the company as to what conduct is included or left out.
With these qualifications in mind, set forth below are some take-away points from FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct (in whole or in part) in Southeast Asian countries.
A diverse range of companies have resolved FCPA enforcement actions concerning conduct in Southeast Asian countries: agriculture, financial services, pharma/healthcare, technology, automotive, telecommunications, and oil and gas services. This is hardly surprising. Four of the top 20 countries in terms of population are located in Southeast Asia (including #4 Indonesia) and the countries are thus a desirable place to do business for a diverse range of companies.
In nearly every enforcement action, the conduct at issue involved the use of a third party of some kind. This dynamic is not necessarily unique to Southeast Asia FCPA enforcement actions as approximately 90% of all FCPA enforcement actions involve the use of a third-party of some kind.
In many of the enforcement actions, the DOJ/SEC alleged that employees of various state-owned or state-controlled enterprises (SOEs) were “foreign officials” under the FCPA. For instance, seven of the Indonesia enforcement actions involved Pertamina.
Many enforcement actions concerned (in whole or in party) travel and entertainment and corporate hospitality of alleged “foreign officials.”
