Do We Have the Luxury to Remain Compliance-Curious? | The Moscow Times

If you are a Russian company that is subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or U.K. Bribery Act (BA), now is an excellent time to switch from being merely FCPA or BA-curious to FCPA or BA-compliant.

There are a number of solid reasons for this. On the one hand there is the increased level of FCPA enforcement with an almost exponentially growing number of staff at the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) looking at Russia ever more closely. On the other hand, as if this were not enough, beginning this summer companies and individuals alike must now also contend with BA enforcement.

What does being compliant mean? It certainly does not mean you should attempt to structure business operations to avoid these two laws. The laws are statutes with long-arm jurisdictions and, as such, cast their nets far and wide. This means that, if you are an international company with a presence and/or a public listing in the United States and the United Kingdom, it is more likely than not that both the FCPA and the BA will apply to you. Furthermore, I would not trust the statement in the Official Guidance to the Bribery Act that a listing by itself will not constitute carrying out business or part of business in the United Kingdom. Instead, I would urge following what the SFO has said, which is that a listing by itself may be just enough to trigger BA jurisdiction.

Being compliant means you should have a proper compliance program in place. It is as “simple” as that.

Your compliance program should cover both the FCPA and BA. Careful analysis and review of existing enforcement practice indicate that, despite textual differences, the two laws are about similar prohibitions. For instance, it is true that the BA does not contain an exception for facilitation or “grease” payments, whereas the FCPA does. Note, however, that U.S. enforcement has rendered this FCPA exception practically obsolete. Commercial bribery is another example. The BA expressly prohibits commercial bribery, whereas the FCPA does not. Nevertheless, the DoJ has charged companies for commercial bribery in the past under the so-called books and records provisions of the FCPA, and with the help of jurisdictional mechanisms available under the U.S. Travel Act.

via Do We Have the Luxury to Remain Compliance-Curious? | The Moscow Times.

Cracking Down on Corruption | Opinion | The Moscow Times

The FCPA prohibits offering, giving or authorizing anything of value — whether cash or other tangible property or intangibles such as personal favors — to any non-U.S. official, including individuals serving state-controlled commercial enterprises, political party or political candidate to obtain some business advantage. The statute also requires companies to keep accurate books and maintain internal controls designed to prevent or detect improper payments.

Why is this relevant? First, non-U.S. companies are also subject to the FCPA if they conduct business in the United States, if their shares are listed on U.S. exchanges, or if they act on behalf of a U.S. company in connection with an illicit payment to a foreign public official.

Mercedes-Benz’s affiliate in Russia recently became the first Russian-based company to face criminal charges under the FCPA. It pleaded guilty in a Washington courtroom on April 2, agreeing to pay more than $27 million in criminal fines to settle charges arising out of bribes paid to Russian officials or relatives of Russian officials, in many cases through shell companies registered in the United States and into or through bank accounts located in the United States.

Second, Russian companies seeking to do business with U.S. partners and others subject to the FCPA must not present compliance risks that outweigh the potential benefits of cooperation. Faced with evidence that a partner is paying or considering bribes in connection with its business, the U.S. company must undertake an internal investigation that can take years to complete and cost tens of millions of dollars. Criminal and civil fines and remediation can add millions more. Given these risks to their reputation and to their bottom line, companies are increasingly saying “no” if they even suspect that a partner may subject them to risks of FCPA liability.

How can Russian companies make sure that they are saying “yes” instead of “no”? First, they must deal with potential compliance problems as quickly as possible and resolve any issues before their prospective partners begin performing due diligence. Second, it is important that companies institute strict and enforceable internal policies to regulate the use of cash, payments to charitable and political organizations at the request of public officials and the questionable use of intermediary companies.

All companies doing business in Russia should  make a commitment to integrity and transparency. This means that if they make or made illicit payments or provided other benefits to any public officials, these practices must stop and remedial methods must be taken as soon as possible.

Russian companies must be committed to the elimination of illicit payments, and the institution of internal controls should be embodied in a comprehensive anti-corruption compliance program. This must be supported by leadership and updated as the company’s business and anti-corruption rules evolve. Employees must believe that there will be real rewards for compliance in terms of compensation and advancement, and there must be real consequences for failure to comply.

Russian companies must ensure that third parties with which it does business are legitimate companies, capable of performing the services for which they were contracted, and not merely conduits for improper payments. To the extent that a third party is connected to a government official, it should be confident that he will not misuse his position for the company’s benefit.

via Cracking Down on Corruption | Opinion | The Moscow Times.