FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

June 1, 2011

We’re No. 1: What Level of Due Diligence Should You Perform?

New Zealand is generally recognized as having some of the lowest instances of corruption across the globe, at least that is the perception. Over the past 3 years it has either been Number 1 or led outright the Transparency International Corruptions Perceptions Index with scores of

  • 2010-9.3
  • 2009-9.4
  • 2008-9.3

It was, therefore, with some surprise that I came across a story referred to in yesterday’s Corruptions Currents blog by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), on a website in New Zealand, Stuff.co.nz, entitled “NZ firms linked to money laundering” authored by Michael Field.

The article reported that companies created in New Zealand had been linked to “Russian crime, a Mexican drug cartel and Romanian extortion.” Additionally it reported that certain companies created in New Zealand had been tied to a company alleged to have smuggled arms into North Korea. These were accomplished by the creation of New Zealand shell companies which were used to move monies through to avoid detection.

The article reported certain international criticisms of New Zealand corporate registration protocols. The Canadian Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, “identified the “exploitation of New Zealand’s weak company registration laws” as a problem. International expert Martin Woods was quoted in the article as saying that shell companies were “ideal vehicles for money launderers, tax evaders and arms traffickers”. But the topper is the following line, “The government admits there is a problem but says it has had other priorities” but we do note that this final quote is not attributed.

The problem all of this raises for a compliance practitioner here in the US is how to evaluate a company for due diligence purposes? The Transparency International Corruptions Perceptions Index is a generally recognized index that many companies rely on to set the appropriate level of due diligence. New Zealand, with a sterling score of 9.3 or 9.4 and a ranking of Number 1 over the past three years, is a country that may be perceived to have one of the lowest levels of corruption in the world. However, the article in Stuff.co.nz demonstrates the need for active and strong due diligence in all places across the globe.

The article reports that one individual was, at one point, listed as a Director of over 300 New Zealand formed companies. Another person, listed as the Director of the New Zealand company alleged to have been involved with the shipment of arms to North Korea was “convicted of 75 breaches of the Companies Act for giving false addresses on registration forms”. Both of these examples cited in the article should give pause to companies when they set their due diligence levels. A traditional Level One US/UK database search may not be enough to protect your company.

You may need to move to a more sophisticated search such as one which makes a database search for in-county records. It is certainly important to know if and when a person holds multiple Directorships in various and not obviously related companies. This should raise a very big Red Flag.

The moral of this story is that due diligence is not a rote exercise. Care must be given in all phases. Simply because you are doing compliance due diligence for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) issues does not mean you can ignore money laundering and export control issues. I have written on compliance convergence and heard my colleague Howard Sklar talk on this several times. Your compliance program needs to be cognizant and integrated to evaluate and manage these risks for your company.

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

1 Comment »

  1. There are some decidedly _odd_ goings on at Transparency International NZ – see http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/02/transparency-international-new-zealand.html

    The comments at http://transparency.net.nz/ ring very true to me. I like the definition of an “Axminster” government at https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/axminster-system-we-sweep-it-under-the-carpet-and-we-dont-have-corruption/

    From very personal experience(*), the govt tries to cover up instances when they’re unearthed and only defines bribery as corrupt behaviour, despite the OECD’s other 5 definitions of corruption.

    Given the government’s attitude to corruption, it’s quite disturbing to find that TINZ is largely government funded – whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

    It was very clear in the 1990s that one large company had the government of New Zealand in its back pocket – ministerial orders repeatedly shut down Ministry of Commerce investigations as soon as they unearthed anything of significance – and if anyone suggested there was a corruption problem they were usually hounded out of the country.

    (*) I accidentally caused widescale corruption within the NZ Department of Social Welfare and Inland Revenue Departments to be discovered. The whistleblowers who went to police (despite very strong pressure to stay quiet) were ostracised and so was I, simply because I’d caused them to investigate some strange behaviour in departmental computers – bear in mind that New Zealand has ZERO protection for whistleblowers and a legal system which quite effectively muzzles the press using defamation threats.

    Comment by Alan Brown — June 7, 2011 @ 2:50 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: