In-House Compliance Requires Company-Wide Efforts | Corporate Counsel

When Frances McLeod and Greg Mason need to find missing money or probe a company’s compliance programs, they construct and analyze large datasets of the company’s financial transactions. About 75 percent of their global forensic accounting business is driven by compliance and enforcement issues, particularly those related to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)—a priority area for U.S. regulators, and a top concern for general counsel.

Even though they’ve consulted with corporations and assessed market risks the world over, McLeod continues to be amazed by gaps in company compliance programs that bear on bribery and illicit payments. “There are a lot of companies that still don’t get it,” says McLeod, who worked in investment banking and on international banking and money-laundering investigations before co-founding Forensic Risk Alliance, a consultancy, in 1999.

via In-House Compliance Requires Company-Wide Efforts.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Government Misconduct in FCPA Prosecution May Impact Other Cases | National Law Journal

A federal judge’s dismissal of convictions in a high-profile Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case because of prosecutorial misconduct has prompted a defense attorney in a related prosecution to challenge the government’s case against his client.

U.S. District Judge Howard Matz in Los Angeles on Dec. 1 threw out the convictions of Lindsey Manufacturing Co. and two of its senior executives on charges that they paid an intermediary to bribe two officials of a Mexican utility in violation of the FCPA. Matz cited numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct, including an FBI agent’s false statements to the grand jury and false information in affidavits submitted for search and seizure warrants.

via Government Misconduct in FCPA Prosecution May Impact Other Cases.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Reform the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act | National Law Journal

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is lobbying Congress to amend the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to lessen the financial burden on U.S. companies doing business in foreign countries. That burden has cost U.S. companies upwards of a trillion dollars and has made our nation less competitive in the world marketplace. Unfortunately, the most important amendment suggested by the Chamber is likely to make the problem worse. There is a better and simpler solution.

The FCPA is our nation’s effort to prevent companies from bribing government officials to secure business in a foreign country. Companies found guilty of paying bribes, or of failing to accurately describe the bribes in their financial records, have had to pay billions of dollars in fines and have faced the possibility of debarment from government contracts. Why so much money? Under U.S. law, companies are responsible for the acts of their employees even if management is unaware of the employee’s conduct. A typical scenario involves a company executive hiring a foreign consultant to help negotiate a contract with a particular ministry for the sale of a product or service. Unknown to management, the consultant’s fee includes a bribe to a foreign official.

Although intended to level the playing field, the FCPA has actually made it harder for U.S. companies to compete in the marketplace. Money that a company could have used to hire employees, build plants and market its products has been diverted to efforts to show that any illegal conduct was the act of a rogue employee.

If the bribe is uncovered, the company has no defense to criminal liability. Even though the bribe was not authorized by management, no one in management was aware of the bribe and the bribe was specifically against company policy, the company is criminally responsible. The only thing the company can do is try to convince the government not to charge it with a crime.

How does a company do this? Primarily by showing the U.S. Department of Justice that the company had a compliance program designed to prevent such conduct. Companies must evaluate their business environment to identify areas where unlawful conduct might occur. Such an evaluation must include an examination of the business culture of the foreign nation and even a boots-on-the-ground investigation of the company’s foreign partners or intermediaries. Companies must promulgate policies that detail permitted and prohibited practices, and employees must receive regular training on permitted practices and the penalty for noncompliance.

via Reform the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

SEC’s Sought-After Powers May Not Affect FCPA – Corruption Currents – WSJ

New powers sought by the Securities and Exchange Commission seem likely to have a limited effect on the agency’s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

As the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro is seeking to impose much larger penalties on financial firms and individuals that commit fraud, after U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff spurned a $285 million settlement between the SEC and Citigroup. That pact addressed civil-fraud charges that the New York company failed to disclose to investors its role in selecting investments in a $1 billion mortgage-bond deal that it was simultaneously betting would fail.

In a letter sent to senators late Monday, Schapiro asked Congress to pursue legislation that changes the legal formulas used by the agency to calculate penalties. Her proposals would allow the SEC to impose fines up to nine times greater than the maximum currently allowed by U.S. law. But the new formula wouldn’t apply to the primary tool used by the SEC in FCPA enforcement: disgorgement of profits.

Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the SEC is authorized to pursue ill-gotten gains obtained through violation of federal securities law, a penalty called disgorgement. Disgorgement is a so-called “equitable remedy,” meaning the SEC is only allowed to recover the approximate amount earned from the crimes. Disgorgement is not intended to be punitive, but acts as a deterrent to illegal profit (See here for a good explanation).

The SEC has increasingly relied on disgorgement in its ramped-up enforcement of the FCPA. In April, Johnson & Johnson disgorged $48.6 million in profits including  prejudgment interest to settle allegations that it violated the FCPA. The drug maker also paid a $21.4 million criminal penalty to the Department of Justice as part of a coordinated settlement.

While the SEC can and does levy civil fines for FCPA violations, it usually chooses disgorgement from its toolbox of civil penalties. Danforth Newcomb, counsel at Shearman & Sterling LLP, said that reliance stemmed, in part, from increased coordination with the Justice Department and foreign law enforcement authorities on FCPA settlement proceedings.

via SEC’s Sought-After Powers May Not Affect FCPA – Corruption Currents – WSJ.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Why FCPA Prosecution Risk Has Become Personal

There was a time when the U.S. Department of Justice primarily focused its attention on prosecuting companies responsible for bribing foreign officials. Critics of this practice argued that the resulting fines had become just another cost of doing business. So, about eight years ago, the DoJ announced a new strategy of targeting corporate officers and directors for criminal prosecution under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in order to more significantly deter global corporations from engaging in corrupt practices.

If the number of convictions is any indication, the strategy may be paying off: since 2005, dozens of corporate executives have been convicted of violating the FCPA, paid hefty fines from their personal assets, and spent years in prison. (Of course, companies are still the subject of federal agencies’ wrath: the most recent case will result in Pfizer paying more than $60 million to settle FCPA charges, according to the Wall Street Journal.)

Last month, law firm Chadbourne & Parke released a study of the 61 FCPA prosecutions involving individual defendants over the past six years. A surprising number, 35%, of the defendants were the president, chief executive officer, or chief operating officer of their firm. In all, 53 of the individuals charged with violating the FCPA during this period were senior officers — a staggering 87% of all defendants.

These findings should be of concern to corporate executives worldwide. Though the U.K. Bribery Act — which went into effect earlier this year — has captured headlines as a force to be reckoned with, in many ways, the 33-year-old FCPA still reigns supreme in its threat to CEOs and CFOs who do business in the United States.

To understand the potential magnitude, one need look no further than the recent News of the World phone-hacking scandal that has consumed Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. for much of the year. The gravest threat of criminal prosecution facing the Murdochs and other senior executives of News Corp. might come not from British authorities, who would directly oversee the publication, but from the FCPA.

via Why FCPA Prosecution Risk Has Become Personal.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Why FCPA Prosecution Risk Has Become Personal | CFO.com

There was a time when the U.S. Department of Justice primarily focused its attention on prosecuting companies responsible for bribing foreign officials. Critics of this practice argued that the resulting fines had become just another cost of doing business. So, about eight years ago, the DoJ announced a new strategy of targeting corporate officers and directors for criminal prosecution under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in order to more significantly deter global corporations from engaging in corrupt practices.

If the number of convictions is any indication, the strategy may be paying off: since 2005, dozens of corporate executives have been convicted of violating the FCPA, paid hefty fines from their personal assets, and spent years in prison. (Of course, companies are still the subject of federal agencies’ wrath: the most recent case will result in Pfizer paying more than $60 million to settle FCPA charges, according to the Wall Street Journal.)

Last month, law firm Chadbourne & Parke released a study of the 61 FCPA prosecutions involving individual defendants over the past six years. A surprising number, 35%, of the defendants were the president, chief executive officer, or chief operating officer of their firm. In all, 53 of the individuals charged with violating the FCPA during this period were senior officers — a staggering 87% of all defendants.

These findings should be of concern to corporate executives worldwide. Though the U.K. Bribery Act — which went into effect earlier this year — has captured headlines as a force to be reckoned with, in many ways, the 33-year-old FCPA still reigns supreme in its threat to CEOs and CFOs who do business in the United States.

To understand the potential magnitude, one need look no further than the recent News of the World phone-hacking scandal that has consumed Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. for much of the year. The gravest threat of criminal prosecution facing the Murdochs and other senior executives of News Corp. might come not from British authorities, who would directly oversee the publication, but from the FCPA.

via Why FCPA Prosecution Risk Has Become Personal.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

In First U.K. Bribery Act Sentencing, Former Court Clerk Handed 6-Year Term | Legal Week

former magistrates’ court clerk has become the first person to be sentenced under the U.K. Bribery Act, after he admitted accepting a £500 bribe to “get rid” of a speeding charge.

Munir Patel was sentenced to six years in prison at Southwark Crown Court Friday after last month pleading guilty to bribery and misconduct in public office during his employment as an administrative clerk at London’s Redbridge Magistrates’ Court.

He has been handed a three-year sentence under the Bribery Act and a six-year sentence for misconduct in public office. The two sentences will run concurrently, resulting in six years imprisonment.

Patel accepted the bribe in exchange for omitting to record a traffic offense on a court database and has been prosecuted under Section 2 of the Bribery Act for requesting and receiving a bribe intending to improperly perform his functions, as well as misconduct in public office.

Ashurst dispute resolution partner Angela Pearson said: “The sentencing of Munir Patel for three years for bribery under the new Bribery Act demonstrates the significant sentences that the courts are willing to impose on individuals who commit an offense under the act.

“This is to run concurrently with a six-year sentence for misconduct in a public office. It is only a matter of time before the Serious Fraud Office bares its teeth and prosecutes the first corporate or its directors under the act. In the meantime, the business community collectively hold their breath.”

via In First U.K. Bribery Act Sentencing, Former Court Clerk Handed 6-Year Term.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

FCPA Map: Where the Bribes Are – Mintz Group

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, passed in 1977, has led to more than 200 cases covering activity in about 80 countries. On this map, the darker red that a country appears, the larger the total penalties assessed for FCPA violations in that country. Roll over a country to see the FCPA cases there (the bigger the box, the larger the penalty in that case). Click on each box for case details. Click on the sector list (lower left) for a breakdown by industry.

via Where the Bribes Are – Mintz Group FCPA Map.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Many Fortune 500 Policies Unclear on Foreign ‘Grease Payments’ | Corporate Counsel

Among Fortune 500 companies, only 19 of those with public codes of conduct prohibit their employees from making so-called “grease payments” to foreign officials. But a whopping 373 companies deal with the same issue by simply not mentioning it at all in their codes of conduct, according to a new study.

Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a facilitation or grease payment is legal if made to a foreign official, political party, or party official for “routine government action,” such as processing papers or issuing permits in order to expedite an act that would occur anyway. The payment becomes a bribe, however, if it attempts to influence the outcome of an official’s action—such as approval of a permit—rather than the timing of it.

One of the 19 companies that are explicit about banning this kind of payment is Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble Company. “At P&G, we strive to do the right thing, and this often means that our policies exceed legal requirements,” said Libby Rutherford, P&G’s vice president and general counsel for global compliance.

Rutherford explained, “We know that bribery harms the company and the communities in which we do business. P&G’s policy is to prohibit facilitating payments worldwide, even though they are permissible under U.S. law. In this regard, we support government efforts around the world in combating bribery, while helping to improve local communities.”

via Many Fortune 500 Policies Unclear on Foreign ‘Grease Payments’.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Checklist for Defending FCPA Cases | Thomas Fox – JDSupra

Most readers of this blog will be familiar with the Lindsey Manufacturing and Esquenazi Rodriguez prosecutions earlier this year. Both sets of individual defendants in these cases were convicted of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). These convictions were what the FCPA Blog called, “quick verdicts”. There was also the first of four groups of defendants tried in the Gun Sting case. In this case the jury deliberated for five days before the judge declared a mistrial. The second group of defendants is currently in trial.

While the Lindsey Manufacturing defendants have yet to be sentenced, Joel Esquenazi was sentenced to 15 years in prison and Carlos Rodriguez received a sentence of seven years. The John O’Shea case, which was set to go to trial this week here in Houston has been delayed until January, 2012 and the individual defendants in the Control Components case, US v. Carson, are scheduled to go to trial next spring. So there is an increase in the number of individuals going to trial and the length of their sentences, with apparently more to come.

via Checklist for Defending FCPA Cases | Thomas Fox – JDSupra.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare