I have frequently highlighted (here and here among other posts) the need for a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act lingua franca.
The absence of a lingua franca has all sorts of negative effects including an impact on the quality of FCPA enforcement and related statistics. Nearly every FCPA enforcement statistic one would want to track from:
- “how many FCPA enforcement actions are there,” to
- “what country is the site of the most FCPA enforcement actions,” to
- “what percentage of FCPA enforcement actions are resolved via non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements,” to
- “what percentage of FCPA enforcement actions involve related individual enforcement actions,” to
- “what is the average fine/penalty amount in an FCPA enforcement action” and many, many more
is infected by the lack of an FCPA lingua franca.
As I have stated before, the most reliable and accurate way to keep FCPA statistics is by using the “core” approach which focuses on unique instances of FCPA scrutiny. In other words, Africa Sting was not 22 enforcement actions, but rather 1 core enforcement action. Siemens was not 20 enforcement actions, but rather 1 core enforcement action. Just using these two examples is the difference between 2 core enforcement actions vs. 42 enforcement actions – a massive difference.
The “core” approach to tracking FCPA enforcement has been endorsed by the DOJ, and the “core” approach is a commonly accepted method used in other areas.
Yet, few in FCPA Inc. use the “core” approach.
Moreover, counting methods among FCPA Inc. participants vary widely and the numbers are literally all over the map.
It’s been said that a picture is worth 1,000 words.
Thus, this post concludes with 4,000 words – visual proof for the need for an FCPA lingua franca.
