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.

SEC, DOJ Join Bribery Investigation Involving Hewlett-Packard – Law Blog – WSJ

It’s not exactly like the Justice Department or Securities & Exchange Commission to stand by and watch European regulators conduct a sizable bribery investigation of a high-profile U.S. company. It’s like asking a child to stand still after a pinata’s been smashed open.

So we weren’t exactly surprised to find out that on Thursday that, mere hours after we’d written up news of the European bribery investigation of Hewlett-Packard, word broke that U.S. authorities were also looking into the matter, focusing chiefly on whether H-P violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Click here for the WSJ story, from David Crawford and Dionne Searcey.

German prosecutors have centered their inquiry into the suspected bribes on one current and two former H-P senior executives, according to German court records and people familiar with the probe. Those under investigation include a former head of H-P’s sales operations in Russia and the former Soviet Union.

via SEC, DOJ Join Bribery Investigation Involving Hewlett-Packard – Law Blog – WSJ.

$2.2 Billion IP Suit Filed Against Computer Makers, Chinese Government

A family-owned firm in Santa Barbara, Calif., has filed a $2.2 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against the People's Republic of China, two Chinese software makers and seven major computer manufacturers that helped distribute Green Dam Youth Escort software.

Critics claim that the Chinese government used the software to block its citizens from accessing political and religious Web sites that the government deemed objectionable.

A lawyer for the plaintiff, Solid Oak Software Inc., called the lawsuit a test case for U.S. companies.

“Here you've got seven major computer manufacturers conspiring with the Chinese government and two software developers to take a program they all knew came from a U.S. company and integrate that into another program and then distribute tens of millions of copies of it,” said Gregory Fayer, an attorney at Los Angeles-based Gipson Hoffman & Pancione. “We think this is an important test case for enforcement of U.S. IP rights in U.S. courts against folks who are not respecting those rights in places other than the U.S.”

via $2.2 Billion IP Suit Filed Against Computer Makers, Chinese Government.