Internal Review of a Proposed Foreign Business Partner under the FCPA | Thomas Fox – JDSupra

SUMMARY: In prior articles, we explored how to rank Foreign Business Partners so that you can begin an appropriate due diligence process. We also explored what you might wish to investigate during the due diligence process. A Foreign Business Partner Review Committee should be established which is tasked with reviewing all the investigative due diligence and the Business Unit’s case for partnering with the person or entity. The next area of review should of the proposed Foreign Business Partner’s ethics and compliance program. Such a program should have, at a minimum, the following elements of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)-style compliance program in place.

via Internal Review of a Proposed Foreign Business Partner under the FCPA | Thomas Fox – JDSupra.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Establishing Relationships with Foreign Business Partners—Due Diligence, Due Diligence and then Due Diligence | Thomas Fox – JDSupra

There are several critical components in the selection, use and retention of any Foreign Business Partner, such as agents, resellers, joint venture partners or distributors. In view of the critical risks a US Company must manage when entering into a relationship with a Foreign Business Partner, the US Company should, prior to establishing the relationship, kick off the risk management process by initiating thorough due diligence on the proposed Foreign Business Partner. Remember, due diligence, due diligence and once that has been completed; more due diligence.

via Establishing Relationships with Foreign Business Partners—Due Diligence, Due Diligence and then Due Diligence | Thomas Fox – JDSupra.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Changing The Focus Of The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act | BNET Government Blog | BNET

Last week the Justice Department announced that they were charging twenty-two individuals from thirteen different defense and security contractors with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). These persons representing the companies had been enticed by an African country offering to buy weapons and equipment for their security forces as long as the company paid a decent “commission” to the official negotiating the contract. The United States has made it clear through the FCPA that the paying of bribes or compensation to foreign officials as a way to get contracts is a serious crime and companies have received stiff punishment.

I discussed this case and its implications with Mr. Will Barry of the law firm Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP is an expert on compliance for individuals and corporations with the FCPA and practices out of Washington DC. He makes it clear that their has been a shift in focus of the FCPA away from targeting corporations and to their employees. He believes this is being done “because it is a more effective deterrent and because it helps build the cases against the companies those individuals work or worked for.”

In the recent case the employees were not necessarily senior managers or officers of the companies involved but the FCPA “incorporates the concept of “willful blindness.” This concept leads to circumstances where officers might be charged even though they were not actually involved, if they were aware of a high probability that funds would be used for bribing foreign officials.” Furthermore the corporation is also liable to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as they have pursued “control person” liability in the past. The arrest of these individuals will only allow further investigation and scrutiny of their employers and their potential participation in the FCPA violation.

via Changing The Focus Of The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act | BNET Government Blog | BNET.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Gibson, Dunn 2009 Year-End FCPA Update Releases

“One can say without exaggeration that this past year was probably the most dynamic single year in the more than thirty years since the FCPA was enacted.”  So began Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer in a recent recap of 2009 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement.  Indeed, for the fourth time in the last five years, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the statute's dual enforcers, set a record by bringing more FCPA prosecutions than in any prior year in the FCPA's history.  Foreign anti-corruption prosecutions also have reached unprecedented levels.  Once an erratic enforcement priority, combating international corruption has now garnered attention at the highest levels of U.S. and foreign regulatory circles and with CEOs and board chairmen of multinational companies around the globe.

This update provides an overview of the FCPA and a survey of FCPA enforcement activities during 2009.  It also analyzes recent enforcement trends and offers practical guidance to help companies and their executives avoid or minimize liability under the FCPA.  A collection of Gibson Dunn's publications on the FCPA, including prior enforcement updates and more in-depth discussions of the statute's complicated framework, may be found on our FCPA Website.  Later this month, we plan to release another update surveying recent developments in foreign anti-corruption enforcement activities.  And, for additional insight and analysis, please watch for an invitation to our complimentary FCPA and international anti-corruption enforcement webcast briefing, which is scheduled to take place in late January 2010.

[continued] Gibson Dunn – 2009 Year-End FCPA Update.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

The End of Corruption? Opinion – The Korea Times

The United States looked unrealistic, and perhaps even eccentric when the U.S. Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act FCPA in 1977, making it illegal for publicly held companies to bribe foreign officials.

Many U.S. firms complained about this law, arguing that in many countries the payment of bribes was commonplace and tax deductible.

They also claimed that the law hindered their efforts to compete internationally against companies from countries that had no such anti-bribery laws.

Research at the time supported this claim by indicating that in the years after the anti-bribery legislation was enacted, U.S. business activity declined precipitously in those countries in which government officials routinely received bribes.

Since then, the issue of bribery has taken on new momentum. Thirty-eight countries, eight more than its membership of 30 nations are now subscribing to the OECD rules which prohibit the bribery of public officials, among them South Korea, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and Argentina.

Large companies such as Siemens have been taken to court and punished for paying bribes. Increasingly, companies state that the anti-bribery drive now gives them a clear rationale to say “no” when bribes are requested. The progress is good. Several questions remain though: Should rules across borders be the same, particularly when it comes to the allocation of expenses and the treatment of family members, or should there be an acknowledged role for cultural differences? Current estimates of bribery levels range between 5 and 20 percent of international contracts. What is a realistic level of how low we can expect to drive this pernicious waste.

via The End of Corruption?.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Investigating The FCPA – Forbes.com

For almost 40 years, prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), enacted in 1977 in response to widespread corporate bribery scandals, were rare. In the past few years, FCPA prosecutions have exploded, landing high-profile executives in prison and netting the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission almost a billion dollars in penalties.

There are an estimated 120 pending FCPA investigations. Several factors have caused this, including increased penetration of U.S. companies into countries like oil-rich Nigeria, where bribes are expected; the Patriot Act of 2001, which connects bribing foreign officials to the advancement of terrorist activity; the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which makes senior executives of public companies accountable for the criminal activities of the company; a heightened sensitivity to FCPA violations with mergers; and a significant increase in voluntary disclosures.

While these causes have increased investigations, governments will keep pursuing corrupt business practices for one very simple reason–it's lucrative.

[continued] Investigating The FCPA – Forbes.com.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare