When the FCPA Professor Writes, You Should Read It

As many compliance practitioners are aware, the FCPA Professor (in real life, Professor and Ironman Triathlete Mike Koehler) writes a daily blog on all things relating to the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) from the legal perspective. It is a great resource and one that you should put on your daily reading list. However, as a professor he also writes lengthier, law review articles, with his in-depth analysis and commentary. This month we are treated to an excellent law review article entitled “Big, Bold and Bizarre: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enters a New Era”. Coming in at a hefty 50 pages, it is his analysis and commentary of “using 2010 FPCA enforcement actions, related developments and how big FCPA enforcement has become.” It is an excellent and most welcomed resource for the compliance practitioner who needs a solid review of where the FCPA enforcement year has been and what it may portend for the future.

The Professor divides his article into four parts. In Part I, he reviews the specifics of FCPA enforcement in 2010, what he terms the “big, bold and bizarre.” In Part II, he reviews the increased scrutiny of the FCPA, by courts who faced increased legal challenges due to increased individual prosecutions, Congressional scrutiny and business and legal commentary. In Part III, he reviews some legal developments related to the FCPA, such as Dodd-Frank and debarment legislation. In Part IV, he takes a look at the FCPA road ahead.

Big, Bold and Bizarre

A. Big. The Professor lists some of the raw numbers generated through FCPA enforcement actions. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) garnered almost $1.8 billion in fines, penalties and profit disgorgement through FCPA enforcement actions.
B. Bold. Here the Professor recounts that the DOJ “continued to push the envelope as to enforcement theories in two specific areas.” The first is regarding the definition of who is a ‘foreign official’ under the FCPA and the second revolves around the interpretation of “obtain or retain business” and facilitation payments under the FCPA.
C. Bizarre. Here the Professor looks at both general fact patterns and some specific enforcement actions. Generally, he notes that in the majority of DOJ enforcement actions, the eventual DOJ fine or penalty was at an “amount below the minimum range suggested by the [US] Sentencing Guidelines.” He also discussed some of the specific matters he believed had “bizarre patterns” such as Innospec, BAE, Digi International and the Giffen prosecution.

Increased Scrutiny

While noting that the increased scrutiny actually began in Q3, 2009 with the release of the Chamber of Commerce Whitepaper and Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, 2010 brought a more thorough debate in both Congress and the private sector. This included the House Judiciary Committee hearing in June as to whether the FCPA should be made less robust to facilitate job creation, judicial scrutiny in the form of some high profile individual prosecutions, where federal district courts had to directly confront challenges to the FCPA on what are ‘instrumentalities’ under the Act and who is a foreign governmental official. In the private sector, the Chamber of Commerce kept up its attack on the FCPA as anti-competitive and there was also bar and NGO commentary on the FCPA.

FCPA Related Developments

Obviously the passage of Dodd-Frank had a very large impact on the 2010 FCPA discussion. The Professor noted that “Many predict that Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower provisions will greatly increase the number of FCPA enforcement actions.” In addition to his Dodd-Frank discussion, he reports on the passage of the ‘Overseas Contractor Reform Act’ by the House, which would have debarred any company from doing business with the US government if it sustained a final judgment of a FCPA violation. However, the legislation was not passed by the Senate so it died in the last session.

The Road Ahead

The Professor concludes his article by noting that “the years ahead will likely see more of the same big, bold and bizarre developments as 2010.” One development he believes should continue is the increase in the scrutiny of the FCPA, both by Congress and continuing review and commentary by others, such as the Professor (and I). While noting that some have viewed discussion about FCPA reform as akin to “paving the way for business to go on a bribery binge”; the Professor clearly believes in the value of continued discussion and debate on how to achieve the goals of the FCPA is appropriate and necessary.

The article is well worth your time to read and see where we have been and where we might be going. If you needed one article to give you the information to provide to management on FCPA enforcement, trends and commentary from last year; this is it. While you may, or may not, disagree with the Professor’s conclusions, you cannot have a better resource from which to review the facts.

The FCPA Professor’s website has several nifty features, one of which is a Jobs Board. 
This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.
© Thomas R. Fox, 2012

The End is Nigh for Facilitation Payments – Get Ahead of the Breeze

Last summer, an article was published in the University of Pennsylvania, Journal of Business Law, entitled “The OECD’s Call for an End to the ‘Corrosive’ Facilitation Payments and the International Focus on the Facilitation Payments Exception under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”. It was authored by Jon Jordan, Senior Investigations Counsel, in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Unit of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In this article, Jordan reviews, at length, the creation of the facilitation payment exception to the FCPA and the international criticism of the US position by the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Transparency International, the World Economic Forum and TRACE International. The article also contains a discussion of the hidden costs to US companies which still allow facilitation payments under their company compliance regimes. I found this article to be an excellent review of the issue of facilitation payments and a useful guide to the compliance practitioner on how to navigate this knotty problem.

Costs of Facilitation Payments

1. The Bull’s Eye

Jordan notes that the cost of making facilitation payments is often higher than simply the (purportedly) small dollar amount. He believes that once a company starts down the road of making such payments, it may well lead “to higher costs imposed on those companies that choose to engage in that type of activity.” He quotes Alexandra Wrage, President of TRACE International, that having a corporate policy of allowing facilitation payments is like “putting a bull’s eye on your company’s forehead” as the payment of facilitation payments sets “a permissive tone, which leads to more and greater demands.”

2. Books and Records Issues

A second reason detailed by Jordan is the hidden intra-corporate transaction costs in making facilitation payments. There are a “complex matrix of domestic and foreign anti-bribery laws that companies must navigate when making facilitation payments, and steering through that matrix can be a compliance nightmare and a costly legal undertaking.” The clearest example of this situation is the UK Bribery Act, which has no exception for facilitation payments. If your company has a UK subsidiary, or any employees who are UK citizens, you must carve out an exclusion for them from your facilitation payment exception under your FCPA compliance policy. Got that? So not only must you have an entire carve out in your compliance protocols, your internal accounting system, which is required under the FCPA to record internal controls, you must also make sure that no UK citizen or person otherwise under the jurisdiction of the UK Bribery Act, makes such a claim for reimbursement under your company policy.

 3. Customers

The same is true for large UK based multi-national companies with which your company might transact business. The most obvious example in the energy arena is BP, which not only bans facilitation payments, but requires that any company which provides services for them ban facilitation payments made while doing work for or performing services on BP’s behalf. So think through how you would train your employees on how to properly make and record facilitation payments under your FCPA compliance policy with the HUGE EXCEPTION of when they might be performing some work under the 5 year Master Services Agreement with BP. It’s an administrative nightmare.

Is it Legal to Bribe?

Jordan also brings up the issue that there is not any country in which facilitation payments to public officials of that country are permitted under the written law of the recipient’s country. Accordingly, even if a particular facilitation payment qualifies for an exception of the FCPA, it, nevertheless, is likely to constitute a violation of local law – as well as under anti-bribery laws of other countries that also might apply simultaneously – and thus exposes the payer, his employer and/or related parties to prosecution in one or more jurisdictions. While enforcement to date in this area has been limited increased global attention to corruption makes future action more likely. Countries that are eager to be seen as combating corruption are prosecuting the payment of small bribes with greater frequency. Remember the hellish example of UK citizen Bill Smith, who was sentenced to two years imprisonment in an Afghanistan prison for making a ‘facilitation payment’ to get his company’s vehicles out of a Kabul impoundment lot. Apparently, even Afghanistan will fight the corruption of its own government officials, particularly if the fight involves a foreigner.

You Don’t Need a Weatherman

Jordan concludes by stating, “The facilitation payments exception has become a dinosaur remnant of a bygone era…” He advises US companies to get ahead of this issue and ban such payments in their company compliance programs now. This is sound advice. I would, however, add one additional reason for such advice, which is foretold in the intro paragraph to this article.

Who does the author work for and where does he work? Let’s recap: The SEC in the FCPA Unit. The article clearly states, “The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement of its employees…and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission…” Did I mention who the author works for and where he works? You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows and the direction of that breeze you feel at your back about now is clearly running against allowing the facilitation payments to continue.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2012

Checklist for Defending FCPA Cases

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.

An article in the September issue of The Champion, the monthly magazine of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, entitled “You Mean You’re Really Going to Try an FCPA Case?” authors Timothy O’Toole and Andrew Wise provide “a checklist of defenses that should be explored” if an individual finds himself in such a prosecution. They list some of the defenses that might be raised.

The Foreign Official Defense

While the trial judge in the Carson case made a ruling on the defense claim of who might be a foreign official under the FCPA, the authors believe that the factor listed requires a “complicated analysis and are difficult to apply.” Therefore, with “the absence of any appellate precedent, it remains to be seen whether this fact-based analysis will prevail or whether courts will ultimately accept the Carson defendants’ argument that employees of a state-owned business enterprise are not, as a matter of law, ’foreign officials’ under the FCPA.” This would allow such a defense to at least be explored.

Facilitation Payments

This defense might be available where the amount of the alleged bribe made is small and is made to obtain a “routine, ministerial act…” However, the authors note that the line between a bribe and a facilitation payment is a “blurry one” and the Department of Justice (DOJ) considers this exception to “quite narrow.” I would also add that any payment where the facilitation defense is claimed should not be recurring.

Promotional Expenses

This defense might arise where the defendant is alleged to “have paid for travel as well as room and board for foreign governmental officials coming to the United States.” However, the FCPA specifically requires that such payments under the exception to the FCPA might be “reasonable and bona fide”. The authors note that if you took foreign government officials to Disneyland and your employer is not the Walt Disney Corporation that this defense is not available to you by stating, “The more the trip looks like a routine business trip, and the more that the company itself pays for meal and lodging expenses directly, the more viable the defense becomes.” If you have taken the foreign officials to your plant for a visit, have paid for coach travel and have not paid for wives or other family members, this defense might be available. The overall key is reasonableness.

Local Law

The authors note that “The FCPA also contains an affirmative defense for payments to foreign officials that are ’lawful under the written laws and regulations’ of the foreign country.” However, there is no country in the world which allows the bribery of its governmental officials so there has never been a successful invocation of this defense.

Jurisdictional Defenses

The jurisdiction of the FCPA is quite broad reaching any US company, US citizen, anywhere in the world, and any employee of any US company; all for “acts that take place entirely outside of the United States.” The authors note that even with this very wide application, the DOJ interprets this jurisdictional base quite broadly so that “enforcement authorities have based jurisdictional claims entirely on foreign wire transfers denominated in U.S. dollars, under the theory that such transfers proceed through a correspondent bank account in New York.” This may be quite a difficult defense to raise.

Business Nexus Requirement

The authors cite the statute for the basis of criminalization of a payment to a foreign governmental official

(i)                 influencing any act or decision of such foreign official in his official capacity, (ii) inducing such foreign official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official, or (iii) securing any improper advantage … in order to assist [the company making the payment] in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.

Recognizing that the first two elements are more or less straightforward, the authors argue that the third element is “more difficult to apply both because it often involves administrative action similar to the circumstances in which facilitating payments can be made, and because there is confusion about the meaning of the ’obtaining or retaining business’ requirement.” This is the “business nexus requirement.” The authors believe that the case which has the most thorough discussion of the business nexus requirement, the Kay case, “provides little clarity about the scope of the FCPA’s reach other than to suggest that the government must prove a ‘business nexus’ beyond a reasonable doubt.” Due to this lack of “clarity” the authors posit that the business nexus requirement is one that defendants “should pursue both through pretrial motions and potentially as a fact-based defense before the jury.”

Mens Rea

This requires that any payment made to a foreign governmental official is made knowing “that all or part of the money would be used to bribe” such foreign official. As the FCPA is a criminal statute, the government “must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the required mental state coexisted with the proscribed act, i.e., that the defendant acted with the requisite ‘corrupt intent’ when the alleged misconduct occurred.” However, the government also can invoke the “willful blindness” doctrine which the authors define as a doctrine that “merely allows a finding of ’knowledge’ and ’willfulness’ in a situation where the evidence shows the defendant ’actually knew but he refrained from obtaining final confirmation’”. The authors argue that the mens rea defense is important in defending high level company officials when bribes were paid by a lower level employee or an agent.

Entrapment

This is reserved for cases which might be similar to the Gun Sting case in which the government engages in an undercover sting to obtain indictments for violation of the FCPA. Recognizing that this defense will never be an “easy one” it may be “an easier one to pursue in white collar cases than blue collar cases due to the potential differences with regard to predisposition evidence.” Also, as was found after the mistrial in the first Gun Sting trial, juries may be sympathetic to situations where the government creates an entire scenario which the defendant may have believed such conduct was not illegal. Contrast this with the recent conviction of Raj Rajaratnam where the case involved wiretaps but was not an undercover sting operation with an entire business opportunity created by the government.

I found this article though provoking and quite interesting that it should be in the monthly magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. I do believe that there will be an increase in the prosecution of individuals under the FCPA as there is an outcry for such prosecutions even from Congress.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2011

Preparing for the End of Facilitation Payments

In an article published in the July issue of the Compliance Week magazine, entitled  “The UK Bribery Act: How to Mitigate the Risks or Prosecution for Making Facilitation Payments“, authors Jonathan Feig and Richard Thomas discuss how companies can mitigate their risks of prosecution for making facilitation payments under the Bribery Act. This is an area that many US companies may have exposure to as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has an exception for facilitation payments but there is no corresponding exception or exemption under the Bribery Act.

Richard Alderman, Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), was recently quoted in thebriberyact.com regarding facilitation payments as saying:

“…I do not expect facilitation payments to end the moment the Bribery Act comes into force. What I do expect though is for corporates who do not yet have a zero tolerance approach to these payments, to commit themselves to such an approach and to work on how to eliminate these payments over a period of time. I have also said that these corporates should come and talk to the SFO about these issues so that we can understand that their commitment is real. This also gives the corporate the opportunity to talk to us about the problems that they face in carrying on business in the areas in which they trade. It is important for us to know this in order to discuss with the corporate what is a sensible process.” [emphasis mine]

As a lawyer, you might well seek from further clarification on what the “sensible approach” might be and how one could advise a client on such a term. Fortunately that is exactly what my colleagues who run the site, thebriberyact.com, did. Richard Kovalevsky Q.C. and Barry Vitou, sought further guidance from the SFO and reported that the SFO will be “looking to see” the following:

1. Whether the company has a clear issued policy regarding such payments;

2. Whether written guidance is available to relevant employees as to the procedure they should follow when asked to make such payments;

3. Whether such procedures are being followed by employees;

4. If there is evidence that all such payments are being recorded by the company;

5. If there is evidence that proper action (collective or otherwise) is being taken to inform the appropriate authorities in the countries concerned that such payments are being demanded;

6. Whether the company is taking what practical steps it can to curtail the making of such payments.

If the answers to these questions are satisfactory then the corporate should be shielded from prosecution. The Feig and Thomas article would seem to speak to this final Point 6, what practical steps is your company taking “to curtail the making of such [facilitation] payments”? They lay out a 5 step process to help curtail the making of facilitation payments.

I.                   Revisit the Anti-Corruption Policy

Your company should have a plan to phase out facilitation payments made by both company employees and those working on your behalf such as agents, resellers, distributor and other foreign business partners.

II.                Understand How Operations Have Changed Since the Ban on Facilitation Payments

Your company should consider key areas where facilitation payments occur to make certain that they are not being paid in another form. For instance, do employees wait in line like everyone else to go through customs or do they now use an agent to shuffle them through in groups. If your company has engaged in such a customs representative, has this agent been vetted through your due diligence program and if so has this agent been audited.

III.             Understand How Employees Manage Situations Where They are Pressured to Make Facilitation Payments

The key here is listening. Your company needs to listen to key employees who travel overseas to high risk areas about situations that they face where a bribe is solicited. Your company also needs an understanding of areas where what employees face is not solicitation of bribes but really extortion because their life, liberty or health and safety is in immediate peril. Your company will back them up if they are required to pay monies to extricate themselves from such a situation.

IV.              Update Training and Internal Communications for Facilitation Payments

Your company must update your training to make clear that facilitation payments will no longer be allowed under your compliance program. The information that your company obtains from listening to your employee, as set out above will enable your company to develop information that they will need for situations where a bribe is demanded. Incorporating the likely scenarios that employees will face into your training is important so that your company can present responses which can be used by employees. This way an employee is not left out in the cold or in the dark about what might happen and what he or she can do about it.

V.                 Update Your Anti-Corruption Monitoring Program

Your company should update its anti-corruption monitoring program to ensure that it captures the identification of facilitation payments. If any such payments are identified, they should be elevated to the compliance department. These controls need to be tested to ascertain their effectiveness. Lastly such controls need to be extended to your foreign business partners.

As I have previously written, the end of facilitation payments in coming. The OECD recommends that they be done away with and the Bribery Act provides no exemption for them. Perhaps a Republican Congress would feel that by removing the facilitation payment exemption it would somehow hurt US businesses overseas. But this feeling would not last for long. So if your company does business in the UK or has a UK subsidiary, you need to start preparing for the end of facilitation payments. You would do well to regularly read thebriberyact.com and to follow the steps laid out by Feig and Thomas in the Compliance Week magazine.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2011

When Does a Grease Payment Become a Bribe Under the FCPA?

One of the more vexing questions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is when does a facilitation payment become a bribe? It is not uncommon to hear stories about demand for payments in some of the following areas:

• Customs clearance
• Immigration services
• Border crossings
• Work permits
• Security/police protection
• Vehicle registration

But the question still remains for the FCPA Practitioner who must provide concrete guidance to the field personnel, when does a facilitation payment become something illegal under the FCPA?

1. I. The Cases

The FCPA landscape is littered with companies which sustained FCPA violations due to payments which did not fall into the facilitation payment exception. In 2008, the global freight forwarder Con-way paid a $300,000 penalty for making hundreds of relatively small payments to Customs Official in the Philippines. Unfortunately these payments totaled $244,000 and were made to induce the officials to violate customs regulations, settle customs disputes, and reduce or not enforce otherwise legitimate fines for administrative violations.

In 2009, Helmerich and Payne paid a penalty and disgorgement fee of $1.3 million for payments which were made to secure customs clearances in Argentina and Venezuela. The payments ranged from $2,000 to $5,000 but were not properly recorded and were made to import/export goods that were not within the respective country’s regulations; to import goods that could not lawfully be imported; and to evade higher duties and taxes on the goods.

Then there is the DynCorp investigation matter. As reported in the FCPA Blog, it is related to some $300,000 in payments allegedly made by subcontractors who wished to speed up their visa processing and expedite receipt of certain license on behalf of DynCorp.

Finally, there is the Panalpina enforcement action. As reported by the FCPA Blog and others, this matter was partly resolved last year with the payment by Panalpina and six of its customers of over $257 million in fines and penalties. Panalpina, acting as freight forwarder for its customers, made payments to circumvent import laws, reduce customs duties and tax assessments and to obtain preferential treatment for importing certain equipment into various countries but primarily in West Africa.

II. The Statute and Other Responses

Interestingly, when the FCPA was initially passed in 1977, the facilitating payment exception was found under the definition of foreign official. However, with the 1988 Amendments, a more explicit exception was written into the statute making it clear that the anti-bribery provisions “shall not apply to any facilitating or expediting payment to a foreign official, political party, or party official the purpose of which is to expedite or to secure the performance of a routine governmental action . . .” The statute itself provided a list of examples of facilitation payments in the definition of routine governmental actions. It included the following:

• Obtaining permits, licenses, or other official documents;
• Processing governmental papers such as visas and work orders;
• Providing police protection, mail services, scheduling inspections;
• Providing utilities, cargo handling; or
• Actions of a similar nature.

It is important to note that the language of the FCPA makes it clear that a facilitation payment is not an affirmative defense but an exception to the general FCPA proscription against bribery and corruption. Unfortunately for the FCPA Practitioner there is no dollar limit articulated in the FCPA regarding facilitation payments. Even this limited exception has come under increasing criticism. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) studied the issue and, in November 2009, recommended that member countries encourage their corporations to not allow the making of facilitating payments. Additionally the recently enacted, but not yet implemented, UK Bribery Act does not contain an exception for facilitating payments and the Director of the UK Serious Fraud (its Fraud not Frauds) Office (SFO) has warned companies about making a practice of making such payments.

III. Some Guidance

So what does Department of Justice (DOJ) look at when it reviews a company’s FCPA compliance program with regards to facilitation payment? Initially if there is a pattern of such small payments, it would raise a Red Flag and cause additional investigation, but this would not be the end of the inquiry. There are several other factors which the DOJ could look towards in making a final determination on this issue. The line of inquiry the DOJ would take is as follows:

1. Size of payment - Is there an outer limit? No there is no outer limit but there is some line where the perception shifts. If a facilitating payment is over $100 you are arguing from a point of weakness. The presumption of good faith is against you. You might be able to persuade the government at an amount over $100. But anything over this amount and the government may well make further inquiries. So for instance, the DOJ might say that all facilitation payments should be accumulated together and this would be a pattern and practice of bribery.
2. What is a routine governmental action? Are we entitled to this action, have we met all of our actions or are we asking the government official to look the other way on some requirement. Are we asking the government official to give us a break? So the key question here is whether you are entitled to the action otherwise.
3. Does the seniority of the governmental official matter? This is significant because it changes the presumption of whether something is truly discretionary. The higher the level of the governmental official involved, the greater chance his decision is discretionary.
4. Does the action have to be non-discretionary? Yes, because if it is discretionary, then a payment made will appear to obtaining some advantage that is not available to others.
5. What approvals should be required? A facilitation payment is something that must be done with an appropriate process. The process should have thought and the decision made by people who are the experts within the company on such matters.
6. Risk of facilitation payments and third parties? Whatever policy you have, it must be carried over to third parties acting on your behalf or at your direction. If a third party cannot control this issue, the better compliance practice would be to end the business relationship.
7. How should facilitation payments be recorded? Facilitation payments must be recorded accurately. You should have a category entitled, “Facilitation Payments” in your company’s internal accounting system. The labeling should quite clear.  It is critical to any audit trail so recording them is quite significant.
8. 8. Monitoring programs? There must always be ongoing monitoring programs to review your company’s internal controls, policies and procedures regarding facilitation payments.

IV. Extortion

How does one deal with the issue of whether something is an extortion payment or facilitation payment? There is no personal safety exception written into the FCPA, however, most compliance programs do recognize an exception if an employee’s personal health, safety or freedom are at immediate issue. In a prior job, this author was confronted with the situation where an employee, upon exiting a West African country, was told that “his shot card was not in order” and that he would have to immediately be administered a yellow fever shot. However, his shot card could be put in order for the payment of $100. He was then taken in a room; a syringe with an unknown liquid pulled out filled and put in front of him. He was told to roll up his sleeve immediately for the shot. He decided to pay the $100. The key to this situation was that the employee’s personal health was at immediate risk. Moreover, he reported the incident to the Chief Compliance Officer upon his return to the home office. The employee provided a full written description of the event and it was properly recorded and filed with the facilitation payment records. It should also be noted that Richard Alderman, head of the UK SFO, has publicly stated that payments made for personal safety will not be prosecuted under the UK Bribery Act.

In the FCPA enforcement arena is the NATCO enforcement matter. In this case, the company claimed that certain foreign governmental officials extorted payment from the company. Probably the first thing to note about his case is that it was filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This means that it was a civil matter as it was not prosecuted criminally by the DOJ. Nevertheless, even the SEC admitted it was extortion as it acknowledged that the company’s employees were threatened with fines, jail or deportation and that they believed these threats to be genuine. Nevertheless, the SEC found that the company had not properly recorded these payments and this led to a fine for NATCO of $65,000 for books and records and internal controls violation. The key here would appear to be the lack of proper recording by the Company.

So we return to the question of when does a grease payment become a bribe? There is no clear line of demarcation. The test seems to turn on the amount of money involved, to whom it is paid and the frequency of the payments. Additionally, accurate books and records are a must. And for the person in the audience who wonders what the payments should be recorded as, the answer is “Facilitation Payments”.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2011

 

 

The End of the FCPA Facilitation Payment Exception?

In November, 2009 the Organization for Economic and Co-operation and Development (OECD) announced a new recommendation at the OECD’s celebration of “International Anti-Corruption Day” and the Tenth Anniversary of the “Entry into Force of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention”. This change relates to facilitation payments (aka “grease payments”) which remain legal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). 

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría described these low-level payments, designed to expedite performance of a “routine government action” such as obtaining mail delivery, phone or power service, as “corrosive . . . particularly on sustainable economic development and the rule of law”. 

Facilitation payments, also known as “expediting payments” or “grease payments,” are bribes paid to induce foreign officials to perform routine functions they are otherwise obligated to perform. Examples of such routine functions include issuing licenses or permits and installing telephone lines and other basic services. The only countries that permit facilitation payments are the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. Facilitation payments, however, are illegal in every country in which they are paid. They have come under increasing fire under the FCPA as inconsistent with the totality of US policy on anticorruption. 

This change by the OECD brings the considerable problems associated with facilitation in the international business arena into keener focus. Just like large commercial bribes, grease payments abuse the public trust and corrode corporate governance. Treating them as anything other than outright bribery muddies the compliance waters and adds confusion where there should be clarity. This new stance by the OECD, coupled with the passage of the UK Bribery Act which bans facilitation payments and increased enforcement under the FCPA, may well bode the end of facilitation payments. 

I.          TRACE Facilitation Payments Benchmark Survey 

In October, 2009, TRACE International published the results of its “Facilitation Payments Benchmark Survey”. TRACE conducted a global survey with the following objectives: (1) to understand how facilitation payments are perceived in the international business community, including the level of risk they are deemed to pose and the compliance challenges they present; and (2) to map corporate policies on facilitation payments, including whether they are permitted and, if so, the types of safeguards corporations impose on their payment. 

The results of the TRACE survey reveal a definitive move by corporations to ban facilitation payments, coupled with an awareness of the added risk and complexity presented by facilitation payments: 

• 76% of survey respondents believe it is possible to do business successfully without making facilitation payments given sufficient management support and careful planning.
• Over 70% believe that employees of their company either never, or only rarely, make facilitation payments, even if their corporate policy permits facilitation payments.
• Over 93% revealed that their job would be easier, or at least no different, if facilitation payments were prohibited in every country.
• Nearly 44% reported that their corporations prohibit facilitation payments or simply do not address them because facilitation payments are prohibited together with other forms of bribery.
• Almost 60% of respondents reported that facilitation payments pose a medium to high risk of books and records violations or violations of other internal controls.
• Over 50% believe a company is moderately to highly likely to face a government investigation or prosecution related to facilitation payments in the country in which the company is headquartered. 

II. Facilitation Payments under the FCPA 

The original version of the FCPA, enacted in 1977, contained an exception for payments made to non-US officials who performed duties that were “essentially ministerial or clerical”. In 1988 Congress responded by amending the FCPA under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act to clarify the scope of the FCPA’s prohibitions on bribery, including the scope of permitted facilitation payments. An expanded definition of “routine governmental action” was included in the final version of the bill, reflecting the intent of Congress that the exceptions apply only to the performance of duties listed in the subcategories of the statute and actions of a similar nature. Congress also meant to make clear that “ordinarily and commonly performed actions”, with respect to permits or licenses, would not include those governmental approvals involving an exercise of discretion by a government official where the actions are the functional equivalent of “obtaining or retaining business for, or with, or directing business to, any person”. 

The FCPA now contains an explicit exception to the bribery prohibition for any “facilitation or expediting payment to a foreign official, political party, or party official for the purpose of which is to expedite or to secure the performance of a routine governmental action by a foreign official, political party, or party official”. “Routine government action” does not include any decision by a public official to award new business or continue existing business with a particular party. The statute lists examples of what is considered a “routine governmental action” including:

• obtaining permits, licenses, or other official documents to qualify a person to do business in a country;
• processing government papers, such as visas or work orders;
• providing police protection, mail pick-up and delivery, or scheduling inspections associated with contract performance or transit of goods across country;
• providing phone service, power and water supply, loading and unloading cargo, or protecting perishable products from deterioration; and
• actions of a similar nature. 

There is no monetary threshold for determining when a payment crosses the line between a facilitation payment and a bribe. The accounting provisions of the FCPA require that facilitation payments must be accurately reflected in an issuer’s books and records, even if the payment itself is permissible under the anti-bribery provisions of the law

 III.             Risks associated with relying on the “facilitation payments” exception. 

Facilitation payments carry legal risks even if they are permitted under the anti-bribery laws of a particular country. In the US enforcement agencies have taken a narrow view of the exception and have successfully prosecuted FCPA violations stemming from payments that could arguably be considered permissible facilitation payments. Violations of the accounting and recordkeeping provisions of the FCPA are also more likely when a company makes facilitation payments. Abroad, countries are increasingly enforcing domestic bribery laws that prohibit such payments. Companies that allow facilitation payments face a slippery slope to educate their employees on the nuances of permissible payments in order to avoid prosecution for prohibited bribes. 

A.    US enforcement authorities construe the exception narrowly. 

Other than as discussed above, there is no definitive guidance on circumstances in which the facilitation payments exception applies. There may be less risk of enforcement by US authorities in cases involving bona fide facilitation payments that are made specifically for one of the purposes enumerated in the FCPA. However, companies still face the risk of at least facing a governmental inquiry to explain the circumstances surrounding the payments, possibly resulting in penalties based on an unanticipated restrictive interpretation of the exception. As noted by the FCPA Professor, the recent Noble Non-Prosecution Agreement noted that the payments made by Noble’s Nigerian customs’ agent Panalpina, to facilitate the importation of its rigs into Nigeria did “not constitute facilitation payments for routine governmental actions within the meaning of the FCPA”.

B. Potential non-compliance with the FCPA’s accounting and recordkeeping provisions. 

While the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA permit facilitation payments, the accounting and recordkeeping provisions of the law nevertheless require companies making such payments to accurately record them in their books and records. Companies or individuals may be reluctant to properly record such payments, as it shows some semblance of impropriety and effectively creates a permanent record of a violation of local law. However, failure to properly record such expenditures may result in prosecution by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) even if the underlying payments themselves are permissible. One example of prosecution resulting from the misreporting of seemingly permissible facilitation payments involves Triton Energy Corporation, which settled an investigation by the SEC involving multiple alleged FCPA violations, including the miss-recording of facilitation payments. An Indonesian subsidiary of the company had been making monthly payments, of approximately $1,000, to low-level employees of a state-owned oil company in order to assure the timely processing of monthly crude oil revenues. The SEC did not charge that these payments violated the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA; however, these payments were miss-recorded in corporate books and therefore violated the FCPA’s accounting and recordkeeping provisions. Triton Energy consented to an injunction against future violations of the FCPA and was fined $300,000. 

C. Increased enforcement of non-US laws that do not recognize an exception for facilitation payments. 

While the FCPA and certain other national anti-bribery laws contain exceptions for facilitation payments, such payments typically are considered illegal in the country in which they are made; there is not any country in which facilitation payments to public officials of that country are permitted under the written law of the recipient’s country. Accordingly, even if a particular facilitation payment qualifies for an exception of the FCPA, it, nevertheless, is likely to constitute a violation of local law – as well as under anti-bribery laws of other countries that also might apply simultaneously – and thus exposes the payer, his employer and/or related parties to prosecution in one or more jurisdictions. While enforcement to date in this area has been limited increased global attention to corruption makes future action more likely. Countries that are eager to be seen as combating corruption are prosecuting the payment of small bribes with greater frequency. 

D. Corporate approaches to facilitation payments may exceed the legitimate scope and applicability of the exception.

As demonstrated in the TRACE Benchmark Survey, businesses struggle with how to address the “facilitation payments” exception in their compliance policy and procedures, if the subject is covered at all. Businesses should be wary of allowing employees to decide on their own whether a particular payment is permissible. Unless such payments are barred completely or each payment is subject to pre-approval (which in many cases would be unrealistic (e.g., passport control)), there is always the risk that an employee, agent or other person whose actions may be attributed to the company will make a payment in reliance on the exception when in fact the exception does not apply. In addition, the temptation to improperly record otherwise permissible facilitation payments has been discussed above. 

IV.             End of facilitation payments?

 

The global business environment has changed even as the FCPA has remained static. After his prepared remarks at the Compliance Week 2010 Annual Conference, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the US Department of Justice, Lanny Breuer took several questions from the audience. One of his more interesting responses was regarding facilitation payments and whether the US was moving towards the OECD/UK Bribery Act model of not allowing such payments. He responded that it was a question which needed consideration as compliance standards are evolving on a world wide basis. However, as of this date, Breuer was not aware of any proposed change in the FCPA on this issue but that it may be visited in the not too distant future. 

US companies should recognize the weakening of the argument supporting a facilitation payment exception and should develop compliance policies that do not permit any kind of grease payments. A policy that prohibits all payments (unless there is high level of legal and compliance approval) will relieve businesses of the compliance burden of differentiating between lawful and unlawful payments. From the point of view of the modern global corporation, a compliance regime that attempts to differentiate between “good” corrupt payments and “bad” corrupt payments will do more harm than good. 

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com. 

© Thomas R. Fox, 2010