FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

November 26, 2014

Doing Business in India – Corruption Risks and Responses

IndiaRecently the US law firm of Foley and Lardner LLP and MZM Legal, Advocates & Legal Consultants in India jointly released a white paper, entitled “Anti-Bribery and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Guide for U.S. Companies Doing Business in India”. For any compliance practitioner it is a welcome addition to country specific literature on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act and other anti-corruption legislation and includes a section on India’s anti-corruption laws and regulations.

FCPA Enforcement Actions for Conduct Centered in India

Under the FCPA, several notable US companies have been through enforcement actions related to conduct in India. Although not monikered as a ‘Box Score’ the authors do provide a handy chart which lists the companies involved, a description of the conduct and fine/penalty involved.

Company Description Disposition (in USD)
Pride International Payment made for favorable administrative judicial decision regarding customs issues $56.1 million
Tyco International German subsidiary paid third parties to secure contracts; payments recorded as commissions $26 million
Diageo Subsidiary made payments to government official responsible for purchase/authorization of Diageo’s products in India $16.4 million
Textron Subsidiaries paid foreign officials to secure contracts; characterized as commission and consulting fees $5.05 million
Oracle Corporation Oracle distributor allegedly created “slush” fund to pay third parties $2 million
Dow Chemical Company Payments made to India Central Insecticides Board to expedite registration of products $325,000

India Anti-Bribery/Anti-Corruption Laws 

The authors identify the principal anti-corruption legislation in India as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), which focuses on bribery of public servants. They go on to state, “Bribery under the PCA includes any “gratification” that a public servant receives other than his/her legal remuneration. Gratification constituting a bribe would include anything intended to motivate, influence, or reward a public servant for performing (or forbearing performance of) an official act, or for showing “favour or disfavour” to any person, or for rendering any service or disservice to a public servant.” However, there are other laws, in addition to the PCA, which govern such issues. These include “specific public servants’ Conduct Rules, which set specific guidelines on the value of gifts that may be accepted in furtherance of local or religious customs (where no reciprocal action is expected and where the public servant has no current or expected future official dealings with the gift giver). The guidelines for permissible gifts are based on the public servant’s rank and service classification and broadly range between 500 – 7,500 Rupees (approximately $8 – $120 U.S. dollars).”

Corruption Risks in India

Corruption risks in India are generally perceived to be high due to its “complex administrative and bureaucratic environment”. Similarly the FCPA Professor would say there are a high number of barriers to trade. Coming at it from a different direction, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would say the risk is high because of the number of licenses and permits required. More pruriently, I would say this leads to more folks having their collective hand out looking to speed things up. Indeed, in the recently released TRACE Matrix India comes in at 185th out of 197 countries listed, with a corruption score of 80, based largely on its score of 92 in the highest weighted category of “Interactions with Governments”.

a. Licenses and Permits

The authors identify that “a host of regulatory hurdles exists in India, including the need to obtain permits, licenses, and other regulatory approvals and to pay various application and registration fees. These types of low-level transactions provide opportunities for bribery. Payments made in such transactions — whether in cash or gifts — may appear minimal (by U.S. standards) and may seem harmless, but they can nonetheless result in violations of U.S. and/or India law.” They go on to list some “Examples of Problematic Conduct” around this issue they identify the following:

  • Paying (or providing some other benefit to) a customs official to bypass inspection or overlook incorrect or incomplete paperwork;
  • Paying a local tax regulator to overlook errors or inconsistencies in filings;
  • Paying an official to expedite the processing of a permit or license;
  • Paying a utilities provider to reduce billings; and
  • Paying a local health and safety regulator to overlook code violations.

b. Gifts, Travel and Entertainment

In the area of gifts, travel and entertainment, the authors state that “companies run the risk of triggering the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws if their marketing and entertainment expenditures cross a line into conduct that could be characterized as bribery or lends to the appearance of attempting to induce a breach of trust or impartiality on the part of the recipient…the various conduct rules for public servants in India establish specific guidelines for accepting gifts and hospitality, and, for some public servants, the maximum permissible gift value may be as low as 500 rupees ($8 U.S. dollars). Companies operating in India should thus familiarize themselves with these guidelines before providing even what may seem to be a modest gift or hospitality.” Some examples of problematic conduct identified is these areas are as follows:

  • Paying for extravagant meals, drinks, and entertainment in connection with a visit by a foreign official;
  • Paying for “side trips” so that foreign officials can visit tourist attractions (e.g., Walt Disney World, Las Vegas) while in the United States;
  • Providing per-diems or “pocket money” for foreign officials to use during a visit;
  • Paying for a foreign official’s spouse or family to accompany the foreign official on a trip; and
  • Providing foreign officials with excessive gifts for birthdays, weddings, holidays, or other events.

c. Third Parties

This is always recognized as the highest FCPA risk and in India it is no different. More importantly, it may be even greater in this country because “Navigating India’s extensive regulations and bureaucracy often requires U.S. companies to rely on third parties, such as agents, brokers, consultants, sales representatives, distributors, and other business partners…The PCA similarly criminalizes bribery through third parties as a direct violation by the third party and as an abetment violation by the company on whose behalf the bribe is being made.” The key is subject any third party to rigorous due diligence and closely manage the relationship after the contract is signed. If a Red Flag appears at any point in the third party lifecycle it should be evaluated and cleared. The authors provide a handy list of some examples of Red Flags regarding third parties when doing business in India. They include:

  • A third party is listed in databases reporting known corruption risks (e.g., World Bank List of Debarred Firms) or has been previously investigated for, charged with, or convicted of corruption or other ethics violations;
  • A foreign official has specifically requested that a certain third party be involved in the company’s transaction or business;
  • An agent or consultant holds himself out as someone with close connections to an important minister or minister’s aide;
  • A third party does not appear to have sufficient resources, real estate/infrastructure, or experience to perform the requested tasks;
  • A third party asks the company to provide it with unreasonably large discounts, excessive commissions, reimbursements, or contingency fees; and
  • A third party requests payment in an irregular or convoluted manner (e.g., cash, offshore bank account, payments to another company, over/under invoicing).

Managing Corruption Risk in India

In their concluding section, the authors relate solid risk management tools tailored to the Indian market. It all starts with robust standards and procedures. From there you should train not only your employees on what may be illegal conduct and how to resist requests for bribes but also your third parties. Annual certifications are an important tool for not only risk management but also communication about anti-corruption expectations. Your compliance program should devote the appropriate level of personnel and resources for your operations in India. Finally, a robust reporting mechanism is key but equally critical is your response after any information comes to light. It must be thoroughly investigated, quickly remedied and reported as appropriate.

The Foley & Lardner/MZM Legal white paper is a welcome addition to literature about country specific risks, remedies and responses. A copy of the full white paper can be obtained by clicking here.

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, 2014

November 23, 2011

An FCPA Exam – Selling Health Insurance in India

If you do not read the FCPA Professor on a daily basis, you should do so as he consistently posts about all things Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), from the legal angle, far more often and better than any other of the FCPA commentaries. If you want to hone some legal FCPA points, you can do no better than to engage in some good Socratic dialogue with the Professor via email. I have often mused on how the Professor might obtain his final examination questions for his FCPA class exams. Given the ‘stranger than life’ real world FCPA matters that arise, almost weekly; it might be that he only needs to read the newspapers to get his questions.

So inspired by the FCPA Professor, I would like to have a FCPA exam for the readers of this blog. In this posting, I will set out the hypothetical question and in a subsequent post I will set out some proposed answers. As a law school professor once told me when I (meekly) sought an upward adjustment of my final grade, “Tom, there is no right or wrong answer to my exams, only incomplete ones and yours was not a complete answer.” With that in mind, there will be no right or wrong answers to the question I pose. Hopefully, the above disclaimer will keep me from failing my own exam. It also means that anyone who responds to all or part of the question raised below, will not receive a failing grade. I should also note that, all persons listed in this hypothetical are fictional.

You are the first Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) for a company which sells health insurance products to the consumer market. You were hired to get the company ready to go into the overseas market by setting up a FCPA compliance program. You have been on the job one month.

One lovely Monday morning, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) calls you into his office and informs you of the following: his legal department has formed a joint venture in India, to sell health insurance policies, with an Indian company which specializes in making and selling cooking equipment to the Indian consumer market. At this point there is no value set for the joint venture but you may assume that it will be a multi-million dollar entity. As a show of good faith, the CEO has established the joint venture ownership, and Board of Directors, as a 50/50 partnership between both companies. The joint venture was formed in India and is governed by the laws of India.

The CEO has met several times with the CEO of the Indian joint venture partner, has looked him in the eye and knows he is a ‘straight shooter’ and someone he wants to do business with. To that end, the CEO of the Indian joint venture has assured him, due to his good relationship with various Indian governmental officials that he has met through his cooking equipment business, that he can get the joint venture through the byzantine Indian licensing process much quicker than some other person. He just needs the funding for the joint venture to come though as the licensing process cannot begin until the joint venture is formed.

The CEO envisions a sales force of employees, agents and other representatives of the joint venture  , banks and other financial institutions which will receive commissions based upon the sales. He is excited because a large market for the products will be a trifecta of Indian public employees; federal, state, regional and local government employees. In other words, a captive market that the Indian partner will set up to tap into. Your CEO believes that each sales representative for the joint venture will need a separate license to sell health insurance for the products to be offered by the joint venture but the CEO of the joint venture partner has assured you gaining the license will not be a problem.

There is a signing ceremony scheduled to conclude the joint venture in two weeks and your CEO is making a final presentation to your company’s Board of Directors next week. This will be the first Board meeting that you will attend and you will present to them your vision for FCPA compliance in the company going forward. Your CEO wants you to give your blessing to the Board of Directors for the joint venture at the Board meeting, from the compliance perspective.

Please discuss the FCPA issues that you can identify in the above hypothetical.

————————————————————————————————-

I hope that you and all of you loved ones have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Also Hook ‘Em Horns in their final battle against Texas A&M on Thanksgiving evening. 

————————————————————————————————-

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

September 20, 2011

Delhi’s Battle Against Bribery: Compromise or Cop Out? (Part II) Examining The Intent Behind the Lokpal Bill

Ed. Note-today we conclude a two-part series by our colleague, Mary Shaddock Jones on corruption in India.

Yesterday I reported on an article published in Current Intelligence Magazine written by Eric Randolph entitled “Delhi’s Battle Against Bribery”.   As indicated, the state government of Delhi recently enacted a law designed to bring about changes to the pervasive corruption in India by addressing the demand side of the equation.  According to an article published in the Times of India newspaper by Ambika Pandit, the law named the “Right of Citizen to Time Bound Delivery of Services Act, 2011.  Delhittes are “now empowered to get compensation for delays in services rendered by 32 city departments and agencies.

My question is this:  Did the Delhi government just try to pacify the people demanding reforms or are is it really willing to make a serious attempt to reduce corruption by attacking the demand side of the equation?   There have been numerous articles written about the two “Lokpal Bills” floating through the Delhi government (“Jan Lokpal Bill”).  The original Lokpat Bill produced by the Delhi government was deemed way too inadequate- as it failed to allow the prosecution of some people in important positions.  As a result, the activist prepared their own bill that had more teeth in it.

From what I can tell, the” Right of Citizen to Time Bound Delivery of Services Act, 2011” is only a small part of the Lokpal package.  I thought one comment published in response to the passing of the “Right of Citizens” was especially poignant:

“Common People now have to pay double bribes. Instead of Terminating Corrupt Government Employee, they are asking for fines. That means Government is supporting Corruptions to increase their income! These Fines will be Recover from Common People. Common People have to pay for their Salary Cut. If Common People don’t pay their Fine then they will not Deliver their Service in Time. More harassment will increase. Termination of Service is the best Solution; otherwise Common People are in Great Danger.”

In many third world countries, civil servants are paid extremely low salaries.  In Nigeria, for instance, the accepted method of increasing the salaries was through the demand of small bribes in order to process paperwork.  The person who wrote the comment above in India obviously believes that the passage of the “Right of Citizens bill” will only exacerbate this problem in India.  It is a vicious cycle.

What the activists want in India is much bigger than what is reflected in the “Right of Citizens to Time Bound Delivery of Services Act, 2011.  Perhaps it is time for our government to put political pressure on countries which profess to want an end to corruption, but fail to enact strong legislation and enforcement of that legislation to bring about change.  We must, as individuals and as companies, continue to push for reforms from the demand side of the equation.  It is simple economics- “Supply = Demand”.  But unless the salaries of civil servants are addressed, people will continue to do what they believe is necessary to feed their family.  The type of money discussed in the “Right of Citizens to Time Bound Delivery of Services Act, 2011” isn’t going to make any civil servant rich.  It may simply compound the problem as predicted by the commentator above.

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

Mary Shaddock Jones, Attorney at Law and former Assistant General Counsel and Director of Compliance at Global Industries, Ltd. can be reached via email at  msjones@msjllc.com or via phone at 337-515-8527 .

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

This Week in FCPA, ep #17, is UP! wp.me/p1qOzv-23. Howard Sklar and I talk about News Corp, Alcatel (again), and more!

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

Please join Mike Volkov, Stephen Martin, Jim Feltman and myself on Oct. 6 in NYC for a presentation on ” The Gathering Storm: Anti-Corruption Compliance for Private Equity and Hedge Funds”. The presentation is hosted by World Check and Ethisphere and the event is complimentary. More information and registration details can be found at http://ethisphere.site-ym.com/events/event_details.asp?id=179863. If you are in the NYC area I hope you can attend.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

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. 

September 19, 2011

Delhi’s Battle Against Bribery: Compromise or Cop-Out? Part 1

Ed. Note-today we begin a two-part series by our colleague, Mary Shaddock Jones on corruption in India.

Current Intelligence Magazine published a story on September 15th written by Eric Randolph entitled “Delhi’s Battle Against Bribery”.   The article succinctly described a situation found in many places in the world- the demand for small payments by low level governmental officials for services routinely requested by citizens in the state.

Mr. Randolph reports on a man named Arjun who lives in Delhi.  According to the article “When Arjun, a Delhi-based photographer, was attempting to relocate his family overseas earlier this year, he found himself breaking a cardinal rule he had set for himself. He had never paid a bribe in his life, but now he needed a ‘Letter of Good Conduct’ from the police that would allow him to apply for residency abroad, and it quickly became clear that this would not happen without money changing hands. “I’ve always refused to pay bribes in the past,” he said. “But every time I went to the police station, they would tell me that it would take a few more days. “We needed the letter in a hurry. There was no choice. In the end, I handed over 2,500 rupees (USD $52.54) before they would give me the letter.”

Mr. Randolph continued by stating that “this sort of low-level corruption is a ubiquitous part of daily life across India. Buying a house, getting a phone connection, applying for a passport – almost anything which involves a government office invariably requires a palm to be greased.”

The state government of Delhi enacted a law designed to bring about changes to the pervasive corruption in India by addressing the demand side of the equation.  According to an article published in the Times of India newspaper by Ambika Pandit, the law named the “Right of Citizen to Time Bound Delivery of Services Act, 2011.  Delhittes are “now empowered to get compensation for delays in services rendered by 32 city departments and agencies.

The new law sets limits such as 7 days for issuing a birth or death certificate, 21 days to register a vehicle, or 55 days to issue a restaurant license. An e-monitoring system has also been installed that will allow members of the public to monitor the progress of their applications. Officials will pay Rs.10 (USD $0 .21) per day when they exceed the limit, and repeat offenders will face disciplinary action.

According to the Times of India article, “The Act provides for on-the-spot compensation to be paid to citizens who have suffered delay in service. The erring official will be served a notice within 15 days. The official will be expected to either deposit the cost of delay within a week or submit a representation to the officer concerned on why the delay took place.  If the reason for delay is found valid, the competent officer can issue notices to other defaulting officials, if any. The aggrieved official will also have the right to appeal to an appellate authority.”

The Act calls for “appropriate administrative action” against officials who have more than 25 defaults in a year and an adverse entry in their service records. Efficient employees may get cash incentive not exceeding Rs 5,000. (USD $105.88)

Perhaps what is more interesting are the comments posted online in response to the Times of India article.  Here are a couple of the comments.  The names associated with each comment have been withheld for privacy purposes.

  1. Wow., never thought such a day would come ..wonder if this is to stay and properly implemented !! However, good job Delhi !!
  2. 55 days to give license to eating house? 21 for registration, 10 rupees a day!! They would have wasted money hiring more officials to manage this process! Worst thing is that Delhi & other states will look at this and INCREASE the average delay up to the “maximum”, in Karnataka, TN etc. it takes much less time.
  3. Common People now have to pay double bribes. Instead of Terminating Corrupt Government Employee, they are asking for fines. That means Government is supporting Corruptions to increase their income! These Fines will be Recover from Common People. Common People have to pay for their Salary Cut. If Common People don’t pay their Fine then they will not Deliver their Service in Time. More harassment will increase. Termination of Service is the best Solution; otherwise Common People are in Great Danger.

According to both articles, the reforms occurred as a result of the actions of Anna Hazare.  “ Hazare, a Gandhian by belief, outlook and practice, has become the face of India’s fight against corruption. During his fast over the Lokpal Bill, Hazare, a quintessential traditional Indian by looks and mannerism, managed to inspire and mobilize the support of even the ultra-modern Indians – Indians for whom the word “social” only means having a profile on social networking sites. The “Anna Hazare fast” can be described as the first real “social networking movement” in India.

In my next post, I will provide you a short history of the Lokpal Bill and then analyze the comments reported above in light of the original intent behind Anna Hazare’s fast. Stay tuned.

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

Mary Shaddock Jones, Attorney at Law and former Assistant General Counsel and Director of Compliance at Global Industries, Ltd. can be reached via email at  msjones@msjllc.com or via phone at 337-515-8527 .

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

Please join Mike Volkov, Stephen Martin, Jim Feltman and myself on Oct. 6 in NYC for a presentation on ” The Gathering Storm: Anti-Corruption Compliance for Private Equity and Hedge Funds”. The presentation is hosted by World Check and Ethisphere and the event is complimentary. More information and registration details can be found at http://ethisphere.site-ym.com/events/event_details.asp?id=179863. If you are in the NYC area I hope you can attend.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

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. 

Blog at WordPress.com.