Individual FCPA Enforcement Actions in 2013

As 2013 draws to a close, I am reminded about Mike Volkov’s spring prediction that “It is clear that FCPA enforcement for 2013 will go down as the year of criminal prosecutions of individuals.” He was right when he said it and it is still correct. This year had the largest number of individual Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions since 2010, the year of the Gun Sting case. Here are the highlights of FCPA related enforcement actions against individuals in 2013.

A.     BizJet Executives

The lineup of those three BizJet executives and one employee involved in these enforcement actions is as follows:

1. Bernd Kowalewski – President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO);
2. Peter DuBois – Vice President of Sales and Marketing;
3. Neal Uhl – Vice President of Finance; and
4. Jald Jensen – Regional Sales Manager

Defendants DuBois and Uhl pled guilty in January, 2012 and had their pleas unsealed on April 5, 2013. Defendants Kowalewski and Jensen were charged by Criminal Indictment, also in January, 2012, but are still at large today. The Department of Justice (DOJ) Press Release stated that “The two remaining defendants are believed to remain abroad.” The bribes were characterized as “commission payments” and “referral fees” on the company’s books and records. Payments were made from both international and company bank accounts here in the US. In other words, this was as clear a case of a pattern and practice of bribery, authorized by the highest levels of the company, paid through US banks and attempts to hide all of the above by mis-characterizing them in the company’s books and records.

B.     Alstom Executives

In April, two individuals from a company, later identified as Alstom Power, Inc., were charged or had their charges made public in April. According to a DOJ Press Release dated April 16, 2013, “Frederic Pierucci, 45, a current company executive [of Alstom] who previously held the position of vice president of global sales for the Connecticut-based U.S. subsidiary, was charged in an indictment unsealed yesterday in the District of Connecticut with conspiring to violate the FCPA and to launder money, as well as substantive charges of violating the FCPA and money laundering.” Pierucci was arrested. Additionally, former Alstom executive “David Rothschild, 67, of Massachusetts, a former vice president of sales for the Connecticut-based U.S. subsidiary, pleaded guilty on Nov. 2, 2012, to a criminal information charging one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.”

In May, a third Alstom executive was charged when William Pomponi, a former vice president of sales for Alstom’s US subsidiary, was indicted for conspiring to violate the FCPA and to launder money, as well as substantive FCPA and money laundering offenses. In August, a fourth executive, Lawrence Hoskins, who was the Asia Region Vice President for the company, was also charged. In the prior charging documents, Hoskins was generically referred to as “Executive A.”

All four were charged around the same set of facts, that being the payment of bribes to officials in Indonesia, including a member of Indonesian Parliament and high-ranking members of Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN), the state-owned and state-controlled electricity company, in exchange for assistance in securing a contract for the company to provide power-related services for the citizens of Indonesia, known as the Tarahan project. The charges allege that, in order to conceal the bribes, the defendants retained two consultants purportedly to provide legitimate consulting services on behalf of the power company and its subsidiaries in connection with the Tarahan project.

C.     Frederic Cilins

At the 2013 Dow Jones Compliance Symposium in Washington, D.C., a FBI official warned the attendees that the Shot Show debacle would not deter law enforcement from using proactive investigations techniques. It was a stark warning because it was realized in less than thirty days. This was dramatically demonstrated with the arrest of Frederic Cilins, in April.

An article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “FBI sting says that ‘agent’ sought to have mining contracts destroyed”, reported that “Frederic Cilins held the last of a series of meetings with the widow of an African dictator to discuss what she was going to do with some sensitive documents.” What were these ‘sensitive documents’? The FT reported that it had seen “some of the documents” and “According to one copy of a contract seen by the FT” it appeared to agree to pay $4m to the wife of the then President of the country to help to secure rights to a mining concession in Guinea. Unfortunately for Cilins he “did not realise that the woman he was talking to was wearing a wire and that FBI agents were watching. As he left the meeting, the agents arrested him carrying envelopes filled with $20,000 in cash, the indictment says. That was a pittance compared with the $5m he was taped offering the dictator’s widow during what US authorities say was a two-month campaign to tamper with a witness and destroy records.”

Cilins has been charged with obstruction of justice and was remanded to Manhattan for trial. After bail was initially set at $15MM, Cilins requested that it be reduced. The trial judge, William H. Pauley III threw the $15MM bail out and set a trial date for March 2014.

D.    Uriel Sharef – Siemens

Uriel Sharef was a former officer and board member of Siemens. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Press Release announcing resolution of his matter, “The settlement resolves the Commission’s civil action against Sharef for his role in Siemens’ decade-long bribery scheme to retain a $1 billion government contract to produce national identity cards for Argentine citizens. The final judgment, to which Sharef consented, enjoins him from violating the anti-bribery and related internal controls provisions of the FCPA and orders him to pay a $275,000 civil penalty, the second highest penalty assessed against an individual in an FCPA case.”

The SEC Press Release further stated that “Sharef met with payment intermediaries in the United States and agreed to pay $27 million in bribes to Argentine officials. Sharef also enlisted subordinates to conceal the payments by circumventing Siemens’ internal accounting controls.”

E.     Paul Novak – Willbros

In April, the DOJ announced the sentencing of Paul G. Novak, a former consultant of Willbros International, Inc., a subsidiary of the Houston based Willbros Group, for his role in a conspiracy to pay more than $6 million in bribes to government officials of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and officials from a Nigerian political party. According to the DOJ Press Release announcing the sentencing, “Novak pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and one substantive count of violating the FCPA. Novak admitted that from approximately late-2003 to March 2005, he conspired with others to make a series of corrupt payments”. Novak was sentenced to serve 15 months in a federal prison.

The sentencing continues the long running saga of the company over efforts by Willbros, Novak, certain employees and others to make a series of corrupt payments to assist Willbros and its joint venture partner, a construction company based in Mannheim, Germany, in obtaining and retaining the Eastern Gas Gathering System (EGGS) Project, which was valued at approximately $387 million. The EGGS project was a natural gas pipeline system in the Niger Delta designed to relieve existing pipeline capacity constraints.

F.     Alain Riedo

In October, an indictment was unsealed in the Southern District of California deriving from the Maxwell Technologies, Inc. FCPA enforcement action. This indictment was brought through the Grand Jury against Alain Riedo, who was described as a Swiss citizen, General Manager of Maxwell Technologies SA, (the Swiss company – Maxwell SA) a wholly owned subsidiary of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. (the US parent – Maxwell). Riedo was later promoted to Senior Vice President and officer of the US parent.

The Riedo Indictment gave further detailed specifics about the bribery scheme. The Swiss company used a Chinese Agent (Agent 1) to market its products. The bribes were funded through an overbilling to the end user of 20% above the company’s actual cost. After the end-user paid the fraudulent amount, Agent 1 would then bill the Swiss company separately for the additional 20% and characterize the mark up as “extra amount”, “special arrangement” or “consulting” fee. Riedo would then either pay or request direct payment, from the US, of this extra 20% to Agent 1, who would then in turn distribute this money as bribes for the securing of the contracts.

G.    Direct Access Partners

In the first action against investment brokers, two brokers Tomas Alberto Clarke Bethancourt and Jose Alejandro Hurtado, affiliated with the New York brokerage firm Direct Access Partners, LLC (DAP) were charged in federal court with paying at least $5 million in bribes to María de los Ángeles González de Hernandez, an official at a state-owned Venezuelan bank, Banco de Desarrollo Económico y Social de Venezuela (BANDES) to win bond trading work. After receiving the bribes, she authorized fraudulent trades, which generated more than $66 million in revenue on trades in Venezuelan sovereign or state-sponsored bonds for DAP.

In June, Ernesto Lujan, the former head of the Miami office of DAP, was arrested for conspiracy to bribe an officer at a state-owned Venezuela bank in exchange for bond trading business. He was charged with substantive FCPA and Travel Act offenses and conspiracy counts. He was also charged with two money laundering-related counts.

In August all three pled guilty in New York federal court to conspiring to violate the FCPA, the Travel Act and to commit money laundering, as well as substantive counts of these offenses related to the scheme to bribe a foreign official employed at BANDES. Lujan, Hurtado and Clarke each also pled guilty to an additional charge of conspiring to violate the FCPA in connection with a similar scheme to bribe a foreign official employed by Banfoandes (the “Banfoandes Foreign Official”), another state economic development bank in Venezuela, and to conspiring to obstruct an examination by the SEC of the New York-based Broker-Dealer where all three defendants had worked, to conceal the true facts of the Broker-Dealer’s relationship with BANDES.

The DOJ also charged Hernandez with Travel Act conspiracy and substantive offenses, and two money laundering-related counts. In November, she pled guilty to taking $5 million in kickbacks from DAP in exchange for bond-trading business from her employer. She agreed to cooperate with prosecutors investigating a massive bribery and fraud scheme by a US broker.

A Happy, Joyous and Safe New Year to all…

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, 2013

New Book Available on Anti-Bribery Leadership

I am pleased to announce the release of a new book entitled, “Anti-Bribery Leadership” which I have authored with Jon Rydberg, the CEO of Orchid Advisors. In this book, Jon and I provide practical lessons pertaining to the FCPA, U.K. Bribery Act and broader Anti-Corruption / Anti-Bribery standards for Board Members, Chief Executive Officers, General Counsel and other corporate executives who seek to lower their enterprise risk profile by learning simple strategies from tested compliance veterans.

I am certain that you will find it useful to reinforce the our belief that compliance – both in general and as it pertains to the anti-corruption/anti-compliance – should be viewed, like quality and safety, as an equal business metric. Although compliance should not be designed to impede efficient business operations, it should be part of the decision-making process. In fact, best-in-class compliance programs are enablers of planned and measured risk-taking. This book is a handy guide on how to make such compliance programs work for you and your company.

You can order a hard bound copy through Amazon.com by clicking here or an eBook version for Kindle by clicking here.

More on the ADM FCPA Settlement

Last week, in a post entitled “Supermarket to the World – The ADM FCPA Enforcement Action”, I reviewed the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Compliant brought in connection with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM). There was also a criminal Plea Agreement entered into by the ADM subsidiary, Alfred C. Toepfer International (Ukraine) Ltd. (the Ukraine subsidiary) with the Department of Justice (DOJ), who was the defendant in this criminal action. In addition to the SEC Complaint, ADM entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the DOJ. This post will review some of the requirements found in the NPA and other information found in the Plea Agreement which the company entered into to resolve the FCPA investigation.

I.                   The Fine

As set out in the Plea Agreement, the base fine which the defendant was looking at receiving was $45MM based upon the US Sentencing Guidelines. The culpability score had a -5 based upon some or all of the following factors: “The organization, prior to imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation and within a reasonably prompt time after becoming aware of the offense, reported the offense to appropriate governmental authorities, fully cooperated in the investigation, and clearly demonstrated recognition and affirmative acceptance of responsibility for its criminal conduct.” Based upon the culpability score the fine range was listed from a low of $27.3MM to a high of $54.6MM. However the company paid only a fine of $17.7MM, which was noted to be approximately a 33% reduction from the low end of the fine range, with an additional reduction of “of $1,338,387 commensurate with the fine imposed by German authorities on Alfred C. Toepfer International G.m.b.H”; ADM’s German subsidiary which pled guilty and was involved in the bribery scheme. Additional factors in the reduction of the fine were “(a) the Defendant’s timely, voluntary, and thorough disclosure of the conduct; (b) the Defendant’s extensive cooperation with the Department; and (c) the Defendant’s early, extensive, and unsolicited remedial efforts already undertaken and those still to be undertaken.”

II.                The NPA

ADM entered into a three year NPA regarding the resolution of this matter. In a letter to ADM confirming the NPA, the DOJ stated that it was entering into the agreement with the ADM because of its conduct in self-disclosing the FCPA violations and the company’s conduct thereafter. The letter set out the following: “(a) the Company’s timely, voluntary, and thorough disclosure of the conduct; (b) the Company’s extensive cooperation with the Department, including conducting a world-wide risk assessment and corresponding global internal investigation, expanding the scope of the investigation where necessary to ensure the review was effective and thorough, making numerous presentations to the Department on the status and findings of the internal investigation, voluntarily making current and former employees available for interviews, voluntarily producing documents to the Department, and compiling relevant documents by category for the Department; (c) the Company’s early and extensive remedial efforts already undertaken at its own volition, and the agreement to undertake further enhancements to its compliance program as described in Attachment B (Corporate Compliance Program); and (d) the Company’s agreement to provide annual, written reports to the Department on its progress and experience in monitoring and enhancing its compliance policies.”

III.             Best in Class Compliance Program

Under Attachment B of the NPA, the company agreed to maintain a best practices compliance program which it had created during the pendency of the investigation. ADM agreed to maintain this compliance program at least during the length of the NPA. It included the following components.

1. High level commitment from company officials and senior management to do business in compliance with the FCPA.
2. A substantive written anti-corruption compliance code of conduct.
3. Written policies and procedures to implement this code of conduct.
4. A robust system of internal controls, including accounting and financial controls.
5. Risk assessments and risk reviews of its ongoing business.
6. No less than annual assessments of its overall compliance program.
7. Appropriate oversight and responsibility of a Chief Compliance Officer.
8. Effective training for all employees and relevant third parties.
9. An effective compliance function which can provide guidance to company employees.
10. A robust internal reporting system.
11. Effective investigations of any reported compliance issue.
12. Appropriate incentives for employees to do business ethically and in compliance.
13. Enforced discipline for any employee who violates the company’s compliance program.
14. Suitable due diligence and management of third parties and business partners.
15. A correct level of pre-acquisition due diligence for any merger or acquisition candidate, including a risk assessment and reporting to the DOJ if the company uncovers and FCPA-violative conduct during this pre-acquisition phase.
16. As soon as practicable, ADM will integrate any newly acquired entity into its compliance regime, including training of all relevant new employees, a FCPA forensic audit and reporting of any ongoing violations.
17. Ongoing monitoring, testing and auditing of the company’s compliance function, taking into account any “relevant developments in the field and the evolving international and industry standards.”

IV.              Ongoing Reporting

Under the NPA, ADM was not required to sustain an external corporate monitor. However the company did agree that it would report to the DOJ on no less than an annual basis during the pendency of the NPA, specified as “an initial review and submit an initial report, and (2) conduct and prepare at least two (2) follow-up reviews and reports.” Further, the company is required to “submit to the Department a written report setting forth a complete description of its remediation efforts to date, its proposals reasonably designed to improve the Company’s internal controls, policies, and procedures for ensuring compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti -corruption laws, and the proposed scope of the subsequent reviews.”

V.                 Facilitation Payments

I engaged with a colleague on whether the payments made by the ADM subsidiaries were simply facilitation payments because they were made to simply speed up the tax refund process. Whatever the payments were, they were not in any way, shape or form, facilitation payments. Initially, it should be noted that the FCPA says 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.

In addition to this language, the payments must be properly recorded on a company’s books and records; not disguised as payments for insurance premiums or other false entries that the ADM subsidiaries used in connection with the Ukraine tax authorities. When does a facilitation payment become a bribe? There is no clear monetary 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. In the ADM matter, there were payments of approximately $22MM to receive tax refunds of $33MM. Whatever you might call the payments made by the ADM subsidiaries, they were certainly not facilitation payments.

The ADM FCPA settlement is extremely useful for the compliance practitioner for several reasons. The first is that it sets out some sophisticated mechanisms which are used to fund bribes. In addition to bribery schemes I discussed in the post entitled “Supermarket to the World – The ADM FCPA Enforcement Action” the NPA discussed another bribery scheme used ADM in Venezuela. All of the bribery schemes that the company’s subsidiaries engaged in were discussed or uncovered by the corporate office at some time before it began an official internal investigation. This once again shows the claim of the ‘rogue employee(s)’ is not something that stands up in criminal FCPA enforcement actions.

Equally important is that ADM received clear and very substantive credit for the actions that it took after it began its internal investigation. It self-disclosed, it cooperated extensively, it remediated thoroughly to put together a best practices compliance program. Lest anyone think these actions are for naught, or that the DOJ does not take such actions into account, note the 33% reduction in fine that ADM received, the NPA it received for the corporate parent and the lack of an external corporate monitor. These are clear signs from the DOJ as to the types of conduct and actions that it not only approves of but will be taken into account in the calculation of any fines and penalties. In other words, self-disclose, extensively cooperate, and remediate if your company finds itself in this situation.

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, 2013

My Favorite Blog Posts from 2013

One of the best things about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act and other anti-corruption practice areas is the top notch quality of commentators. While Mike Volkov regularly derides the FCPA paparazzi for being scare mongers and the FCPA Professor chastises FCPA Inc. for attempts to paint FCPA enforcement in the worst possible light so as to draw clients to their collective resources; there is also a great set of bloggers, writers and pundits who put out solid, useful and well-reasoned pieces on FCPA and Bribery Act issues. In this blog post, I would like to highlight some of my favorite posts from some of my favorite commentators over the past year.

From the Dean

If you do not know who the Dean of FCPA bloggers is you have not been looking too long or too hard. It’s Dick Cassin, who is the Founder, Editor and Publisher of the FCPA Blog, which consistently reports on all things compliance around the globe. But for me, it is when Dick writes from the heart, he is able to articulate what many of us are feeling but cannot seem to put into words. My favorite post from Dick this year was his tribute to President Kennedy on the occasion of the 50^th anniversary of the President’s assassination, entitled “And So The Legend of Camelot Was Born”. Dick ended his post with the following quote from Teddy White, “He advanced the cause of America at home and abroad. But he also posed for the first time the great question of the sixties and seventies: What kind of people are we Americans? What do we want to become?” The question still stands.

From the FCPA Professor

If you have never debated the FCPA Professor, live or via email, you should. But be prepared to bring your A-Game and your authority. He posts daily and has become a great resource for guest posts over the years which challenge the status quo on a variety of legal and compliance issues. Each morning I cannot wait to see what the Professor has to say that day. However, what I have really come to appreciate is his Friday Round-Ups. Each Friday, the Professor gives us a round-up of recent FCPA and related news, articles and developments not otherwise covered by him in his Monday – Thursday posts. I should also say he saves some of his best witticism for these posts. My favorite post from the Professor this year was the milestone of his 100^th Friday Round Up, appropriately entitled “The 100^th Edition of the Friday Round-Up”. Tune in each Friday for another edition of this great resource.

From Jim McGrath

I continually bemoan to Jim McGrath that he needs to post blogs more often than his twice or thrice weekly output. The reason being they are so good and I want to see more of his stuff. As you might guess from the title of his blog, Internal Investigations Blog, he tends to focus on investigations; some criminal, some civil, some internal and some external. McGrath is an ex-prosecutor and tends to view things through that prism and give us a different perspective of law enforcement. He writes about investigations inside and outside the realm of anti-corruption but his insights are certainly applicable to any FCPA or Bribery Act investigation.

My favorite post from McGrath this year was his piece on 7-Eleven, entitled “Human Trafficking Concerns for 7-Eleven in Wake of Payroll Scam”. In this article he detailed the federal investigation into allegations that 7-Eleven franchisees in New York and Virginia had engaged in human trafficking and possible involvement by the franchisor through its payroll system. His piece was a cautionary tale for the compliance practitioner about the need for internal controls, internal monitoring and internal investigations. McGrath ended his post with the following, “Further, its future due diligence efforts as regards suppliers and franchisees should include a review for human rights abuses such as those suggested here. Otherwise, it will have to sell a helluva lot of Slurpees to pay the fines, costs, and disgorgements that a failure to do so will no doubt entail.” In other words, trust but verify.

From Mike Volkov

Mike Volkov has worked at the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Capitol Hill and for Big Law. He now has founded his own firm, the Volkov Law Group and writes the Corruption, Crime & Compliance blog. Mike primarily writes about anti-corruption but he also writes about health care fraud, anti-trust compliance and enforcement and many other topics. While I cannot determine if he set out to have a theme this year, Volkov has written many articles this year which focus on the role and position of the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), the need for independence and resources required for the position.

My favorite post from Volkov was entitled “The Only Thing [In-House Counsel and CCOs] Have to Fear, Is Fear Itself”. His title is a play-off of what I believe to be the most inspiring FDR speech so that alone is worth the price of admission. He also tells one of the great stories about his days from Big Law. Volkov related that he wrote his views on the UK Bribery Act and the length of time it would take for any meaningful enforcement to take place, “I received a call from the firm’s London partners and was chastised for undermining their entire “marketing” program. (In stark contrast, many clients wrote me and thanked me for my “honesty.)” As my 16 year old daughter might say, ‘Sometimes you just have to keep it real’.

From Across the Pond

If you do not subscribe to thebriberyact.com, you are missing out on the best site for all things UK Bribery. thebriberyact.com guys, Barry Vitou and Richard Kovalevsky QC, consistently give their readers both practical insight and in-depth analysis. Their interviews of the relevant players allow all compliance practitioners to develop insight into what the top UK regulatory officials are thinking about on the Bribery Act. They also write from the very British perspective of understatement and skewering satire, which is more than a ton of fun for us Americans to read.

My favorite post which illustrated all of the above traits was from March and is entitled “Parliament report calls for Bribery Act review: Our opinion – Junk in. Junk Out.” In this post, they took on the call for the urgent scrutiny of the UK Bribery Act by a parliamentary select committee claiming that the Act has met with “confusion and uncertainty.” To this rather inane claim, the guys responded “We cannot think of a piece of legislation which has sparked much more commentary, advisory, much of it on line and completely free, including our own eponymous website.” But my favorite line was their dénouement to the British MP who brought up the need for clarification of the UK Bribery Act, “And, Tony from Alderly PLC, if you’re reading feel free to give us a call.  We can help you.”

My Favorite from 2013 (Think Big)

My favorite blog post of the year was actually posted on December 28, 2012 by Matt Ellis, Founder and Editor of the FCPAméricas blog, which was entitled “Wal-Mart, Go Big on FCPA Compliance”. The reason that it is my favorite of 2013 is because it is the one post that I have thought the most about, talked the most about, read the most about and it even inspired me to write on the issue myself. In his post Ellis challenged Wal-Mart to “go big” on compliance in the wake of its world-wide FCPA investigation and policy implementation. He wrote, “Wal-Mart should instead use the FCPA investigation, and the attention it has generated, as an opportunity. It is an opportunity to go big on compliance.” Ellis went on to detail some specific suggestions that Wal-Mart could implement to help the fight against bribery and corruption that, due to its size and market share, would be in a unique opportunity to put in place.

Within the anti-corruption compliance community there was a noted buzz about Ellis’ piece and his suggestions. I was inspired to write a blog post, entitled “Wal-Mart-Be a Leader in Compliance”, due to the ideas articulated by Ellis. Seemingly inspired by Ellis’ example, Michael Scher, writing in the FCPA Blog, in a piece entitled “Michael Scher talks to the feds”, used the Wal-Mart investigation as a jumping off point to ask the DOJ to resolve several open issues on compliance as he saw them. In others words, Ellis piece (hopefully) got not only Wal-Mart to thinking but several others of us. That is why it is my favorite blog post of 2013.

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, 2013

Supermarket to the World – The ADM FCPA Enforcement Action

Last week, it was announced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it had settled an enforcement action with Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM). The DOJ resolved a criminal action when, according to the DOJ Press Release, a subsidiary of ADM pled guilty and agreed to pay more than $17 million in criminal fines to resolve charges that it paid bribes through vendors to Ukrainian government officials to obtain value-added tax (VAT) refunds, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). In a parallel civil FCPA action settled with the SEC and the SEC Press Release noted that “The payments were then concealed by improperly recording the transactions in accounting records as insurance premiums and other purported business expenses. ADM had insufficient anti-bribery compliance controls and made approximately $33 million in illegal profits as a result of the bribery by its subsidiaries.” In addition to the DOJ fine of $17.8MM, ADM agreed to pay “disgorgement of $33,342,012 plus prejudgment interest of $3,125,354.”

At this point, the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), Plea Agreement between the company and the DOJ and the Criminal Information is not available. However the SEC Civil Complaint is available, as are Press Releases from both the DOJ and SEC. In today’s blog I will review the underlying facts as set out in the SEC Civil Complaint. In a subsequent blog post, I will review the NPA, Plea Agreement and Criminal Information.

The underlying facts centered on ADM’s ongoing issues related to the receipt of VAT refunds in Ukraine. The company had many years of slow and no response to its application for refunds where goods purchased in Ukraine were then exported. From 2002 to 2010, the company’s Ukrainian subsidiary rolled up VAT receivables of up to $46MM. The company employed three different bribery schemes to help them get this money that they were owed out of the country. ADM’s two entities which were directly involved in the bribery scheme were Alfred C. Toepfer, International GmbH (“the German subsidiary”) and its affiliate, Alfred C. Toepfer International (Ukraine) Ltd. (“the Ukrainian subsidiary”).

Charitable Donation Scheme

According to the SEC Complaint, “an ADM executive in the tax department sent an e- mail to the head of an international tax organization and stated, “One of our affiliates operates in the Ukraine. In order to recover 100% of their input VAT they have to pay 30% of the amount to local charities.” While recognizing that this requirement was not illegal and that there were avenues for appeal and assistance with this issue through the US government and trade groups, the SEC Complaint noted that “Given ADM’s insufficient anti-bribery compliance policies and procedures at the time, it did not prevent or detect the improper payments made by” the German subsidiary or the Ukrainian subsidiary.

Use of Third Parties

A second bribery scheme entailed the German and Ukrainian subsidiaries making “payments to a stevedoring company in the port of Odessa (the “Shipping Company”) so that it could pass on nearly all of those payments to Ukrainian officials in order to obtain VAT refunds on behalf of ACTI Ukraine.” The Shipping Company would present inflated invoices to the German subsidiary and this inflated amount “represented a sum that was available for the Shipping Company to pass to Ukraine government officials.” Further, when the German subsidiary would receive an invoice from the Shipping Company, “it withheld payment of a portion of the amount in the invoice, and then upon receiving the relevant VAT refund, ACTI Hamburg released the funds to the Shipping Company.”

Mischaracterization of Write-offs

In yet another bribery scheme, the German subsidiary reported to the US parent that it would negotiate with the Ukrainian government over the amount of the VAT refund and if there was a negotiated settlement it would be less than the full refund due the company. The German subsidiary would then write-off 18% of the total amount of any VAT refund due to it from the Ukrainian government. However when the VAT refund was actually made it would be at 100% of the total due. As the German subsidiary would have taken a write off of 18% of this total, the corresponding amount of money would be funneled to “third-party vendors so that nearly all of those monies could be provided to Ukrainian government officials.”

Fake Insurance Premiums

In an inventive bribery scheme, the Ukrainian subsidiary General Manager “organized a scheme through which ACTI Ukraine used a Ukrainian insurance company (the “Insurance Company”) to funnel improper payments to Ukrainian government officials. ACTI Ukraine arranged for the Insurance Company to falsely bill it for crop insurance, which the Insurance Company never intended to honor, adjusting the premiums to be roughly 20% of the VAT refund.” This bribery scheme succeeded in the face of email reports from the Ukrainian subsidiary to the German subsidiary that said “The contracts completed here, either sporadically or ad hoc, include no kind of insurance protection, but serve the purpose only of generating a commission for the VAT repayment in this manner. Regardless of the wording of the contract, the content is completely different. That means that in case of conflict, claims could not be made successfully.”

Discussion

The problems that ADM subsidiaries faced in the VAT refund issue is one faced by many companies in many countries. Governments usually have little incentive to timely or otherwise process tax refunds, especially in the amounts which ADM was seeking. From the SEC Compliant it does appear there is not any issue that ADM was seeking or did obtain VAT refunds that it was not entitled to receive, only that the Ukrainian tax authorities were sitting on these refunds. In other words, it may be construed that ADM was involved in a situation where it was paying bribes for something it was otherwise entitled to receive but as noted in the SEC Civil Complaint it that the company received VAT refunds “earlier than they otherwise would have.”

While I might disagree that by speeding up the process, the company obtained some unfair business advantage, I do believe that the payments can in any way be considered legal or otherwise in compliance with the FCPA. Simply considering the amounts of money involved and the false accounting entries are enough to show a FCPA violation. In many ways, I found the most interesting sentence in the SEC Civil Complaint to be the following, “ADM violated Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act by failing to maintain an adequate system of internal controls to detect and prevent the illicit payments.” The SEC Complaint expanded on this when it stated, “ADM failed to implement sufficient anti-bribery compliance policies and procedures, including oversight of third-party vendor transactions, to prevent these payments” at the German and Ukrainian subsidiaries. The message from the SEC Civil Complaint is that your compliance program must have both a prevent and detect component and if it does not, you are susceptible to a books and records violation, with a fine and profit disgorgement assessment.

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, 2013

What Hath GSK Wrought? More Compliance Lessons from China

In an article, entitled “GSK China probe flags up wider worries”, in the Wednesday edition of the Financial Times (FT) reporters Andrew Jack and Patti Waldmeir discussed the ongoing bribery and corruption scandal involving the UK based pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK). They detailed many of the allegations which had been previously made public against GSK, the effect of these allegations on the company and some of the company’s responses to this crisis. It was an excellent summary of where this story has been and where it might be going.

The accusations against GSK have been well publicized. The company has been accused, by its own Chinese employees on national television, of being the “big boss in a criminal partnership” and paying up to $500MM in bribes to officials and doctors. While there certainly has been speculation as to the motives of the Chinese officials in bringing these allegations, the article noted that these allegations certainly raise questions about “GSK’s own conduct and the responsibility of its senior management” and whether the company’s compliance systems were inadequate or the company “turned a blind eye” to the corruption by its Chinese operations. The article did note that Chinese investigators do not yet know how high up the complicity in GSK may have gone or whether the company simply suffered from “poor compliance”.

Interestingly the article discussed not only the endemic nature of corruption in China but how, in many ways, the Chinese health care system is based on such corruption. The piece quoted George Baeder, an independent drug industry advisor, for the following, “Financial flows – both legal and illegal – tied to drug and device sales are funding perhaps 60-80 per cent of total hospital costs. Without this funding, the current system would collapse.” Further, “central and provincial Chinese governments cannot afford to pay doctors a living wage, and may patients cannot afford to pay the true cost of care.” And finally, “Up to now, Beijing has turned a blind eye as pharma companies find ways to subsidise doctor salaries and underwrite their medical education.” How about that for structural corruption?

Intertwined with this structural issue is the problem of the quantity and quality of the drug supply. Many Chinese doctors do not feel that there is an acceptable alternative to foreign pharmaceutical products. This drives up the cost of prescribed medicines as this quantity is therefore limited. But even where indigenous Chinese generic drugs are available as alternatives, many patients do not trust these medicines. This restricts the quality of drugs available. Sort of an economist’s Rubik’s Cube.

But just as market principles can drive other corporate behavior, the fact that by 2020, the drug sales in China are estimated to top $320bn; it is simply too large a market for companies to ignore. The same is true of the Chinese government, which is currently in year 5 of a 12-year healthcare reform plan, part of which is to drive down medical costs to bring “quality affordable care to 1.3 bn” Chinese citizens. So, as the article notes, GSK and “other pharmaceutical companies are bracing for price cuts ahead and the need to be ever more cautious on their practices in emerging markets as well as more industrialized ones.”

GSK has attacked part of its corruption problems by instituting a compensation program which is designed “at removing incentives to sales staff that encouraged excessive marketing, strengthened transparency and cutting funding to doctors.”  Specifically, the company announced the decision to “stop paying speakers’ fees and travel expenses for doctors attending medical conferences by 2015.” For the changes directed at its own sales staff, GSK has said that “Individual sales targets in the remuneration of marketing staff are to be replaced by broader measures of the quality of information they provide to doctors and a link to company-wide performance.”

China is not the only company in Asia or other continents which have socialized medicine. I have opined that the GSK corruption scandal in China is the biggest news in anti-corruption and anti-bribery enforcement in 2013. I believe this because I think that other countries may look at the Chinese model and draw the lesson that it is western companies, not their own structural corruption, which causes the problems. I put this question to Amy Sommers, a partner at K&L Gates Shanghai office and asked her opinion. She replied:

Prior to 2013, when I spoke to Western audiences about anticorruption enforcement risks and mentioned the importance of China’s commercial bribery enforcement as a risk factor in its own right, as well as a potential catalyst for broader enforcement, the message didn’t seem to resonate. With the booming echo of the DOJ’s and SEC’s active FCPA enforcement efforts in the past 8 years ringing in their ears, it’s perhaps understandable that that message was drowned out. As we approach the end of 2013, I think your characterization of China’s action as a game-changer is on the money.  Today companies are evaluating China-initiated enforcement as a factor to be considered in their compliance efforts.

China’s initiation of this case has been a success for China on various levels, so there’s no question that there will be others brought.  The industry that the Chinese government has said publicly that it intends to tackle next is medical devices, but we should not assume that that will be the end of the journey.  Moreover, the question that is still unanswered is whether other jurisdictions in Asia Pacific will elect to emulate China’s example. Some news sources have reported that Asia Pacific-based regulators have expressed that intention, so I suspect they will: going after alleged corruption in the interests of protecting consumers is a desirable aim.  So, while for the moment companies seem to focusing on getting their China compliance house in order, it might be advisable to broaden that effort to other locales in Asia where there is a combination of strong economic growth and relatively high perceived corruption risk.

So in addition to the admonition of Bette Davis that you had better buckle up because it is going to be a bumpy night, any western company doing business or considering doing business in China needs to understand that there are not only direct risks of corruption but also structural defects which may make it endemic. Be careful out there.

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, 2013

Letter from China-Interview with Amy Sommers

Ed. Note-this article is one of a continuing series of interviews of thought leaders in FCPA, Bribery Act and anti-corruption/anti-bribery. In this blog post, I interview Amy Sommers, partner in the Shanghai office of K&L Gates, an international law firm.

1.                Where did you go to university and what experiences there led to your current profession?

For both undergraduate and law school I attended the University of Washington. Geographically, Seattle’s proximity to East Asia has influenced the UW in a number of ways. Among the influences has been a history of strong research and teaching emphasis across a range of disciplines regarding China. The law school had, and still has, an excellent East Asian Law Program and I was fortunate to study with some very good professors, which provided me a solid grounding to pursue my interest in a China-focused legal career.

2.                You began your academic study of the Chinese language in college. What led to your interest in this language?

Shortly after China and the United States had resumed formal diplomatic relations, I entered college and growing up in Seattle, China was high on the radar screen for local news coverage. For example, Seattle was the last city Deng Xiaoping visited on his 1979 tour of the United States, so there were lots of stories in the news speculating about what was going to happen in China and with China. Boeing was then a major employer in the Pacific Northwest and an early beneficiary of China’s opening up, so it seemed apparent that these political and foreign relations changes were going to have some sort of implications in the coming decades. I was interested in foreign languages and also wanted to study law; it occurred to me that if China was in fact going to open up to the West, there would be need for US lawyers who knew about China. So, that was the operating assumption with which I proceeded in my major with the Jackson School of International Studies and later, law school and in my work as a corporate lawyer.

3.                What caused you to move professionally to China for your practice?

I was working in Seattle and about 30% of my practice had a Greater China nexus, but by 2003, the economic restructuring and investments China had been actively making in the prior decade were starting to really pay off. To me it seemed akin to the excitement that had been present on the US West Coast during the 1990’s ecommerce transformation and I felt that I wanted to be at the epicenter, doing this work full time. So, I persuaded my family to take the plunge, and my husband, our two then-small sons (ages 8 and 3) and I moved to Shanghai.

4.                You have worked in China for 10 years as an attorney. What changes have you seen over the years in the practice of law by Western firms?

In the early days of China’s reform, the distinguishing feature for Western law firms was whether they had an office in China. For many years, foreign law firms could have only one, so having two (say one in Beijing and one in Shanghai) wasn’t even an option. Firms prided themselves on simply having a presence here and a lot of their work focused on registering representative offices or forming joint ventures for foreign companies.

Today, the world has changed. Foreign-invested companies often have in-house counsel based in China, many of whom were educated here and who are deeply knowledgeable about the offerings not only of foreign law firms, but also domestic PRC firms. They’re informed consumers of legal services, and law firms now must demonstrate expertise in specialized areas — simply being a ‘China lawyer’ isn’t sufficient. Moreover, whereas China was originally largely a ‘workshop’ for products produced to be exported from China, in the last decade, the play has changed to China-as-the-market, with companies seeking to make increasingly sophisticated investments to position them to distribute products and services within China. Chinese law has been changing and maturing to reflect the economy’s development and transformation.  Chinese law firms have grown in the sophistication of their offering as well, so you have a trifecta of a more complex market, clients wanting to do more challenging and ambitious projects and lots more competition from Western and domestic firms.  It’s fascinating and I feel incredibly fortunate to be here working with such talented and capable people.

5.         I have opined that the GSK anti-corruption enforcement matter in China will be a game changer in international anti-corruption/anti-bribery enforcement. From your perspective, what do you believe it portends, if anything?

Yes, when you and I did a panel on China’s enforcement action against GSK for the Society of Corporate Compliance & Ethics’ National Conference in Washington in October, I was very interested to hear the perspective of you as someone deeply knowledgeable about anti-corruption compliance and who is viewing events from outside of China.

Prior to 2013, then I spoke to Western audiences about anti-corruption enforcement risks and mentioned the importance of China’s commercial bribery enforcement as a risk factor in its own right, as well as a potential catalyst for broader enforcement, the message did not seem to resonate. With the booming echo of the DOJ’s and SEC’s active FCPA enforcement efforts in the past 8 years ringing in their ears, it’s perhaps understandable that that message was drowned out. As we approach the end of 2013, I think your characterization of China’s action as a game-changer is on the money.  Today companies are evaluating China-initiated enforcement as a factor to be considered in their compliance efforts.

China’s initiation of this case has been a success for China on various levels, so there’s no question that there will be others brought.  The industry that the Chinese government has said publicly that it intends to tackle next is medical devices, but we should not assume that that will be the end of the journey.  Moreover, the question that is still unanswered is whether other jurisdictions in Asia Pacific will elect to emulate China’s example. Some news sources have reported that Asia Pacific-based regulators have expressed that intention, so I suspect they will: going after alleged corruption in the interests of protecting consumers is a desirable aim.  So, while for the moment companies seem to focusing on getting their China compliance house in order, it might be advisable to broaden that effort to other locales in Asia where there is a combination of strong economic growth and relatively high perceived corruption risk.

Amy Sommers can be reached via email at amy.sommers@klgates.com.

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, 2013

Joan Fontaine and the Evolution of Compensation Issues in a Compliance Program

Yesterday I noted the passing of Irish actor Peter O’Toole this past weekend. But we also lost one of the great female leads from the 1940s and 50s this weekend as well, Joan Fontaine. Ms. Fontaine was the younger sister of Olivia de Havilland. She won a Best Actress Oscar in 1941 for her role in Suspicion making her the only woman to win a Best Actress Oscar for acting in an Alfred Hitchcock film. It also made her a member of the only sisters’ duo to win Best Actress Oscars. Prior to winning her Oscar, Fontaine had been nominated in 1940 in the Best Actress category for her role in another Hitchcock film, Rebecca, in which she played the haunted second wife of Laurence Olivier. For my money, her role in Rebecca was by far the greater performance than Suspicion. While born of British parents, Fontaine never actually lived in England, being born in Japan and then coming to the United States as a teenager. Fontaine also had one of the greatest sibling rivalries of all-time with her equally famous sister, stating once that, “I married first, won the Oscar before Olivia did, and if I die first, she’ll undoubtedly be livid because I beat her to it!” She did.

So with the sisters, some things never changed. However in the compliance world, things do change. Compliance programs evolve just as the thinking on best practices has changed over the past few years. One of the areas that has not received as much attention in compliance programs is the amount of compensation paid to third party representatives. Clearly a great amount of attention has been paid to due diligence, knowing just who you are doing business with and the management of the relationship. However the area of the quantum of compensation is not something as explicitly considered. Another area which is now drawing greater scrutiny in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and other anti-corruption law arenas, is compensation which results in a conflict of interest.

Jeff Kaplan, editor of the Conflict of Interest Blog, wrote, in a post entitled “Conflicts of Interest and Industry Culture”, that “intersection of culture and C&E that is too often overlooked: industry culture.” He went on to say that “As a general matter industry culture is not as significant a cause of risk as organizational or geographical culture. But it can be potent, particularly in industries with a high degree of inter-company mobility, such as financial services.”

I thought about Kaplan’s insights when I read an article in today’s New York Times (NYT), entitled “Glaxo to Stop Paying Doctors To Boost Drugs”, by Katie Thomas. This is the same GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) that is under investigation for bribery and corruption in China, in violation of Chinese domestic anti-corruption legislation. In her article Thomas wrote that “British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline will no longer pay doctors to promote its products and will stop tying compensation of sales representatives to the number of prescriptions doctors write, its chief executive said Monday, effectively ending two common industry practices that critics have long assailed as troublesome conflicts of interest.” While this practice has gone on “for decades” it had been prohibited in the United States through an “industry-imposed ethics code but still occurs in other countries, specifically in China. I found this quite interesting since the FCPA only applies to non-US (foreign) government officials, such as those in socialized medicine health care system.

In addition to this ban on paying doctors to speak favorably about its products at conferences, GSK will “also no longer compensate sales representatives based on the number of prescriptions doctors write, a standard practice that some have said pushed pharmaceutical sales officials to inappropriately promote drugs to doctors.” Instead GSK would pay its sales representatives “based on their technical knowledge, the quality of service they provided to clients to improve patient care, and the company’s business performance.” (What a novel idea, compensation based on quality!) There was nothing in Thomas’ article to suggest that GSK made these changes based upon the ongoing investigations in China. Indeed, a company spokesman interviewed for the NYT article “declined to comment on the investigation because he said it was still underway.” However the timing of such changes and the fact that it seemed to apply more fully to GSK operations outside the US, would make the timing of the changes certainly appear less than coincidental.

In addition to the obvious conflict of interest, which apparently is an industry wide conflict because multiple companies have engaged in these tactics, there is also clearly the opportunity for abuse leading to allegations of illegal bribery and corruption. Indeed one of the key bribery schemes alleged to have been used by GSK in China was to pay doctors, hospital administrators and other government officials, bonuses based upon the amount of GSK pharmaceutical products which they may have prescribed to patients. But with this new program in place, perhaps GSK may have “removed the incentive to do anything inappropriate.”

This new program by GSK demonstrates that companies can make substantive changes in compensation, which promote not only better compliance but also promote better business relationship. A company spokesman interviewed for Thomas’ piece noted that the changes which GSK will make abroad had already been made in the US and because of these changes, “the experience in the United states had been positive and had improved relationships with doctors and medical institutions.”

For the compliance practitioner, one of the lessons from the GSK scandal is to look not only at the amount of compensation paid but how it was paid. If there is a way to remove or even help to remove “the incentive to do anything appropriate” it certainly can be positive for the company and positive for your overall compliance efforts.

You might also fire up the DVD player over this holiday season for a Joan Fontaine double shot of Hitchcock.

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, 2013

Good Bye To Peter O’Toole and the SFO Prosecution of Victor Dahdahleh

This past weekend Peter O’Toole died. He was one of the foremost actors of his generation, garnering eight Oscar nominations. He also starred in one of my favorite movies of all-time-Lawrence of Arabia. Last week, before O’Toole passed away, the UK Serious Fraud Office’s prosecution of Victor Dahdahleh also died when the SFO notified the Court that it did not believe a guilty verdict was possible due to some very odd in trial machinations. As you might expect, thebriberyact.com guys, Barry Vitou and Richard Kovalevsky QC, wrote about it in their blog, thebriberyact.com. Rather than summarize their thoughts, I asked them if I could re-post their original piece, which they graciously allowed me to do.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Key question for SFO after Dahdaleh collapse

The collapse of the SFO case against Dahdahleh represents a low point in a bad year for the SFO.

The continuing fall out from the botched Tchenguiz investigation (where the SFO is being sued), finding lost SFO documents relating to the BAE Systems investigation in a Cannabis warehouse in East London and now this all put the SFO in the headlines on the front page, again, for all the wrong reasons.

The new Director is doing his best to fix the SFO.  The question some in Whitehall will be asking now is: can it ever be fixed?

The Dahdahleh case was a high profile prosecution and there will be a post mortem.

Two key pieces to the puzzle

The SFO in its Press Release identified two key points.

First, a key witness, who had already pleaded guilty, changed his tune.

In the words of the SFO: “Bruce Hall pleaded guilty and gave evidence for the prosecution. The account he gave in court differed markedly from the witness statement he had provided to the SFO.”

If you bring cases to trial there is always a risk that witnesses can change their story or crumble under cross examination.

You win some.  You lose some.

David Green has repeatedly made the point that because of the very nature of its work there will always be the risk of losing cases.

That is all part and parcel of the rough and tumble of litigation.

Though the SFO badly needs some more of the ‘You win some’ and less of ‘You lose some’.

Reliance on information obtained from third parties

Second, press reports say that reliance was placed on information received from Akin Gump a law firm representing Alba which in turn is involved in a ‘hotly contested’ civil law suit against Mr. Dahdahleh.

The SFO said in its Press Release yesterday that “Two key witnesses from the USA were unwilling to attend trial in the UK and face cross-examination. That impacts on the fairness of the trial as well as the prospects of conviction.”

In its more detailed statement to the Court the SFO said:

“Secondly, we have the unwillingness of two witnesses to face cross-examination. That impacts both on the fairness of the trial as well as the prospects of conviction.

Since last Thursday, yet further contact has taken place with Akin Gump, the lawyers for Aluminium Bahrain, or “Alba”, to secure the attendance of these two American witnesses, Mark MacDougall and Randy Teslik who are both partners in that firm. As you will see from the correspondence, they have attempted to place limits on the extent to which they can be cross-examined.  The Serious Fraud Office does not believe it would be appropriate to attempt to persuade the court to agree to such limits nor, given your comments last week, that they should appear via video-link.

The Defence have raised issues questioning Akins Gump’s role in the provision of assistance to the Serious Fraud Office both as to what their motives may have been in the dissemination of material and assistance as to witnesses who could provide relevant information, this in the context, as accepted by the defence, of the Serious Fraud Office acting in good faith. The attendance of the two American witnesses would have allowed this aspect of the case to be ventilated before the jury. Their refusal to attend creates a situation where it is clear that the trial process cannot remedy the position and we accept unfairness now exists for the Defence.

In seeking to secure the attendance of these two witnesses – who have previously attended court on every other occasion when their attendance has been required – the Serious Fraud Office has taken every available step, including a direct telephone conversation between the Director of the Serious Fraud Office and the chair of Akin Gump.

Not every unfairness necessarily leads to trials being discontinued, particularly where there is other evidence and taking into account the public interest in pursuing serious crime. After careful consideration of all of the circumstances of the case the Serious Fraud Office has concluded that there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction in this case and accordingly we offer no evidence.”

The SFO will always need to rely on evidence from others in order to bring cases and those parties may have a variety of motives for supplying it to them.  The fact here is that questions over those motives led to the collapse of the case.

The question for the SFO is did it take reasonable steps to prevent the possibility of the collapse happening in this case.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

While I do not pretend to understand the nuances of British criminal trial procedure, I have some experience trying cases and you always have to expect the unexpected. Even if that means a key witness becomes adverse to your position or indeed his or her prior position in negotiating a plea agreement. That is the reason you have the prior statements memorialized so that they can be used against the interest of the witness, if required. The actions of the law firm Akin, Gump would seem to be more problematic. In the UK, there appears to much criticism of the SFO for using materials developed by Akin, Gump. While, I do not find that conduct troubling, if you are going to rely on a third party for any evidence, you had better be assured that they will show up at trial to prove up such evidence. If it turns out that Akin, Gump went back on its word and did not provide the testimony that it agreed to, that is another story. Lastly, for all those who criticize prosecutors who lose cases, I only have one thing to say, “If you have never lost a case, you have never been to the courthouse.”

So good-bye to Peter O’Toole, good-bye to the SFO prosecution of Victor Dahdahleh but as Barry Vitou reminded me, assured it is not good-bye to the SFO, although I bet it is looking forward to the new year a bit more than most of us.

Compliance Video Podcasts

I thought today I might see if some of the readers might want to head over to the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report and check out some of the podcasts I have posted over the past couple of months. I try to present my own views on anti-corruption compliance as well as noted practitioners in the field. I also talk to folks that a niche product or service that can be of use to the compliance practitioner. So if learning about the nuts and bolts of anti-corruption compliance is something you would like to catch up on this holiday season, you might want to take a look or listen at the following podcasts.

1. Getting Stakeholder Buy-In for Your Compliance Program
2. Mergers and Acquisitions Under the FCPA
3. Charitable Donations Under the FCPA
4. Management Oversight of Your Compliance Program

If you want to learn about what’s going on across the pond and all things UK Bribery Act related, check out these interviews with Barry Vitou, co-founder of thebriberyact.com, click here  or here.

To see what has been on the mind of the FCPA Professor, check out these three interviews, here,here and here.

Matt Ellis tells all about the new Brazilian anti-corruption legislation and the Embraer investigation.

Stephen Martin explains how to do a risk assessment here and Mike Volkov tells all about his compliance practice and his new firm here.

I have just scratched the surface of what is available on the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report. You can also download all the episodes on iTunes, audio only on the iTunes site.

Lastly if you would like a topic or question explored, please email me and let me know and I will put it into an upcoming episode.

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, 2013