Taking the Rolls Out for a Spin? Maybe You Should Avoid Brazil

Just as the GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) case in China heralded a new day in international anti-corruption enforcement, the Petrobras case may be equally important going forward. The scope and breadth of the investigation is truly becoming worldwide. Last fall, one of the first questions raised was why was the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was investigating the company as it is headquartered in Brazil. While there is subsidiary Petrobras USA, which is a publicly listed company, it was not immediately apparent what role the US entity might have had in the bribery scandal, which was apparently centered in Brazil. However some recent revelations from across the pond may shed some light on the topic.

As with any corruption scandal there are both bribe payors and bribe receivers. The Petrobras corruption scandal initially focused on the bribe receivers in Petrobras. But last month one of the key bribe receivers, who is now cooperating with the Brazilian authorities, Pedro Barusco has identified the UK Company Rolls-Royce Group PLC as a bribe payor. As reported in the Financial Times (FT) by Samantha Pearson and Joe Leahy, in an article entitled “Rolls-Royce accused in Petrobras scandal”, Barusco has “told police he personally received at least $200,000 from Rolls-Royce — only part of the bribes he alleged were paid to a ring of politicians and other executives at the oil company.”

However the allegations moved far beyond simply Rolls-Royce. The article also reported, “Brazil’s authorities are already investigating allegations that Petrobras officials accepted bribes from SBM Offshore, a Netherlands-based supplier of offshore oil vessels. SBM has said it is co-operating with the investigation. Units of two Singaporean companies, Keppel Corporation and Sembcorp Marine, along with three Brazilian shipbuilders with large Japanese shareholders, have also been accused of participating in the bribes-for-contracts scheme.” Finally, they reported that “Mr Barusco alleged that his friend Luiz Eduardo Barbosa, a former executive of Swiss engineering group ABB, was responsible for organising bribes from Rolls-Royce, SBM and Alusa, a Brazilian construction company.”

Rolls-Royce is currently under investigation by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegations of corruption in several countries. Katherine Rushton, reporting in The Telegraph in an article entitled “Rolls-Royce investigated in US over bribery claims”, said “Rolls-Royce is being investigated by the US Department of Justice (DoJ), following allegations that its executives bribed officials in Indonesia, China and India in order to win lucrative contracts.” She cited to the company’s annual report for the following, ““The group is currently under investigation by law enforcement agencies, primarily the Serious Fraud Office in the UK and the US Department of Justice. Breaches of laws and regulations in this area can lead to fines, penalties, criminal prosecution, commercial litigation and restrictions on future business.””

But more than simply Rolls-Royce, readers will recognize several names from a rogue gallery of companies either implicated with corruption violations or under investigation. SBM Offshore was a poster child last year for the DOJ deferring to foreign authorities to prosecute claims of bribery and corruption. I wonder if SBM Offshore attested in its settlement documents with the relevant Netherlands authorities that it had not engaged in any other bribery and corruption beyond that which was the basis of its settlement? I wonder if the company made any such averments to the DOJ? I wonder if the DOJ will make any such deferments again given the SBM Offshore settlement with the Dutch authorities? What about ABB?

In addition to the above, SBM Offshore may be the most relevant example in the debate of an international double jeopardy standard. Jordan Moran, writing in the Global Anti-Corruption Blog, has consistently argued that international double jeopardy is a bad idea. Most recently, in an article entitled “Why International Double Jeopardy Is a Bad Idea”, he said, “when it comes to the global fight against transnational bribery, double jeopardy probably isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. To begin, most arguments calling for the U.S. and other OECD member countries to recognize international double jeopardy are nonstarters.”

Also interesting was the reference to ABB as the company went through its own Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action. As reported by Dick Cassin, in a 2010 FCPA Blog post entitled “ABB Reaches $58 Million Settlement (Updated)”, the company “reached a settlement Wednesday with the DOJ of criminal FCPA charges and will pay a fine $19 million. And in resolving civil charges with the SEC, the company will disgorge $22.8 million and pay a $16.5 million civil penalty. ABB Ltd’s U.S. subsidiary, ABB Inc., pleaded guilty to a criminal information charging it with one count of violating the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA and one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA. The court imposed a sentence that included a criminal fine of $17.1 million.” There was no information at that time as to whether the individual that Barusco named as the bribe payment facilitator, one Luiz Eduardo Barbosa, was involved in the prior ABB enforcement action in any way.

We have one or more companies, who are under current DOJ investigations, now being investigated in connection with the Petrobras bribery scandal. There are also companies that have gone through prior bribery and corruption enforcement actions now identified in the scandal. All of this now leads me to have some type of understanding of why the SEC might be investigating Petrobras USA. First, and most probably, it would be to see if the US entity was involved in the apparent decade long bribery scheme that the Brazilian parent now finds itself embroiled in. What if the US subsidiary was paying bribes to its parent to obtain or retain a benefit? Next would be any evidence of violations of the accounting provisions or internal controls requirements found in the FCPA. Finally, the SEC might be looking at Petrobras USA to see who its suppliers might be and if those companies merited investigation. Similar to looking that the Panalpina customer lists the SEC could review the Petrobras USA contractor list.

Just as GSK heralded the first time the Chinese government prosecuted a western company for violation of Chinese law, I believe the Petrobras bribery scandal will be a watershed. The outpouring of information and allegations at this time point to a multi-year, truly worldwide, bribery scheme. While it may in part have been Petrobras officials shaking down contractors for payments, it really does not matter under the FCPA or UK Bribery Act. If any company subject to either or both of those laws paid monies to Petrobras I expect they will be fully prosecuted. Further, given the arguments against an international double jeopardy standard made by Moran and others AND the apparent recidivism of prior bribery offenders, some companies may be in for a long and expensive ride.

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, 2015

FIFA and Good-Faith Investigations

You know things are getting bad when the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) questions a business’ moral authority. Things certainly cannot be much better when the regulators begin nosing around your own self-indulgence. What happens when you realize all of a sudden that all those actions you have taken may actually fall under the jurisdiction of both the United Kingdom and the United States and their respective anti-corruption laws, the UK Bribery Act and the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? It turns out all of this may have come through for our friends at Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

Last week FIFA announced that it had considered the investigation into allegations of corruption into the awarding of the 2018 World Cup tournament to Russia and the 2022 World Cup tournament to Qatar and found, as reported in the Financial Times (FT) by Roger Blitz in an article entitled “Fifa thrown into fresh turmoil over Qatar World Cup corruption claims”, that “any improper behaviour in the bidding process for the tournament was “of very limited scope.”” This conclusion was made by a FIFA appointed former judge, “Hans-Joachim Eckert, who is chairman of the adjudicatory chamber of Fifa’s ethics committee.” Eckert had reviewed a 350-page report by investigator Michael J. Garcia, who is a former US prosecutor now practicing law in New York. Eckert released a 42 page “summary study” of the Garcia report, which he claimed supported his decision.

Unfortunately for FIFA and Eckert, Blitz reported in another FT article, entitled “Garcia and Eckert set for showdown over Fifa report”, that “Mr Eckert’s summary was disowned within hours of its publication by Mr Garcia, who claimed it misrepresented his findings. He has protested to Fifa’s appeals committee.” Garcia’s statement “has blown apart Fifa’s attempt to bring to a close nearly three years of allegations of unethical behaviour and has left Mr Eckert under increasing pressure to publish the Garcia investigation.” This action by FIFA led Reinhard Rauball, president of the German football league (DFL), to say, “Europe would have to consider breaking away from Fifa unless the Garcia investigation was published in full.”

All of this came after the summary itself noted that documents and evidence surrounding the Russian bid were lost because the computers on which they were stored had been destroyed. Garcia was not even able to speak with all the relevant witness in the Qatar bid as well. Even with this lack of full investigation, Garcia issues a statement which said that Eckert’s summary contained “numerous and materially incomplete and erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions detailed in the investigatory chamber’s report.”

What does all of this mean for FIFA? Certainly if the head of the German football league says that the European soccer federations may have to pull out of the organization because it is so corrupt that portends poorly. In another article in the FT, entitled “Brussels launches sliding tackle against Fifa”, Alex Barker reported “The EU’s top sports official is urging Fifa to come clean with findings from its corruption investigation, in a warning that signals a Brussels rethink over the commercial freedoms enjoyed by football’s scandal-tarnished governing body. In a direct swipe at Fifa’s attempt to clear Russia and Qatar to run the next two World Cups, Tibor Navracsics, the EU commissioner for sports, has called for full publication of a graft report into the 2010 bidding process to “remove doubts” about its findings. While Sepp Blatter’s Fifa is an unregulated Swiss body independent from government, its lucrative business activities in the European market are subject to rules overseen by EU regulators, including sales of television rights.”

What about any criminal issues? A quick Google search reveals that FIFA has offices in both the US and the UK. Given the very broad jurisdiction of the FCPA and perhaps the UK Bribery Act, it does not seem too far a stretch for either the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) or even the Overseas anti-corruption unit of the London police might want to open an investigation. Indeed CNN reported that the FBI is investigating FIFA at this time, saying “Investigators are moving ahead with their probe, which could result in charges against senior FIFA officials, the U.S. law enforcement officials said.”

For the compliance practitioner there are a couple of important lesson in all of this. First and foremost, in your internal investigations, you need to provide access of both documents and witnesses to your counsel. If you do not that alone may certainly compromise your investigation. This point was recently re-emphasized in the ongoing General Motors (GM) scandal over its ignition switch problems. It turns out that over two months prior to the public announcement the company had ordered over 500,000 new switches from its supplier. According to Hilary Stout and Bill Vlasic, writing in the New York Times (NYT) in an article entitled “G.M. Ordered a Half-Million Replacement Switches 2 Months Before Recall”, the order was placed after an internal company committee met. But no records of the meeting were provided to company’s outside counsel investigating this matter, Anton R. Valukas. Interestingly Valukas released a statement which the article quoted, ““To my knowledge, G.M. provided me access to all information in its possession related to G.M. inquiries regarding various repair options and part availability as G.M. considered potential fixes for the ignition switch in the event that a recall would occur,” the statement said.” That is lawyer-speak for I looked at what they showed me.

Hiding or not providing access to internal or outside counsel can be a recipe for disaster with the DOJ. The reason is the same as it is a disaster for FIFA in Europe. There is no trust left for the organization. Ask any ex-DOJer and they will tell you that it is all about credibility when you self-disclose to the DOJ or when you are in negotiations with the DOJ over a potential FCPA penalty. I regularly hear Stephen Martin and Mike Volkov say precisely that when they talk about their experiences from working for the US government. If you do not allow your investigators access to all relevant documents and those witnesses under your control, the DOJ will most probably not consider the results of your investigation valid. The DOJ may not even consider your exertions worthy of a good-faith effort.

One thing is also very relevant for the compliance practitioner. If your outside counsel disavows him or herself from the company’s interpretation of it going forward, you are in big trouble. Even the WSJ, in its Op-Ed piece said, “FIFA’s moral failure stands out.”

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

The definitive guide to Corporate Self Reporting

Ed. Note-today is the now know as Veteran’s Day. It was previously known as Armistice Day. In the UK it is known as Remembrance Day. Whatever moniker it might take, I thought today we should honor all the fallen from World War I. Below is a photo courtesy of Mike Brown of over 800,000 poppy’s around the Tower of London in honor the British war dead from that conflict. Continuing today’s British theme, today’s post is a report of an article found on thebriberyact.com website on issues related to self-disclosure under the UK Bribery Act. I asked the Bribery Act.com guys, Barry Vitou and Richard Kovalevsky Q.C. if I  could repost it in its entirety, which they graciously allowed me to do. The podcast of my recent interview with Barry Vitou on the current state of the Serious Fraud Office and Bribery Act enforcement actions and related issues on the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report, is available by clicking here. 

 

We have aggregated below the SFO guidance on Self Reporting (available on its website on a number of pages) and importantly recent comments from the Director about it.  If you are considering Self Reporting as an option we strongly advise you consider the following and obtain independent legal counsel.  We would be delighted to talk to you if you have any questions.  Self Reporting is a big step and should not, in our view, be undertaken without advice.

Will my company be prosecuted if it Self Reports?

Whether or not the SFO will prosecute a corporate body in a given case will be governed by the Full Code Test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the joint prosecution Guidance on Corporate Prosecutions and, where relevant, the Joint Prosecution Guidance of the Director of the SFO and the Director of Public Prosecutions on the Bribery Act 2010.

If on the evidence there is a realistic prospect of conviction, the SFO will prosecute if it is in the public interest to do so. The fact that a corporate body has reported itself will be a relevant consideration to the extent set out in the Guidance on Corporate Prosecutions. That Guidance explains that, for a self-report to be taken into consideration as a public interest factor tending against prosecution, it must form part of a “genuinely proactive approach adopted by the corporate management team when the offending is brought to their notice”. Self-reporting is no guarantee that a prosecution will not follow. Each case will turn on its own facts.

In appropriate cases the SFO may use its powers under proceeds of crime legislation as an alternative (or in addition) to prosecution; see the Attorney General’s guidance to prosecuting bodies on their asset recovery powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. If the SFO uses its powers under proceeds of crime legislation, it will publish its reasons, the details of the illegal conduct and the details of the disposal.

In cases where the SFO does not prosecute a self-reporting corporate body, the SFO reserves the right (i) to prosecute it for any unreported violations of the law; and (ii) lawfully to provide information on the reported violation to other bodies (such as foreign police forces).

This statement of policy has immediate effect. It supersedes any statement of policy or practice on self-reporting previously made by or on behalf of the SFO.

Self-reporting process. How does a corporate Self Report?

The SFO’s restatement of policy on corporate self reporting explains that, in determining whether or not to prosecute, the fact that a corporate body has reported itself will be a relevant consideration to the extent set out in the Guidance on Corporate Prosecutions.

According to the guidance, for a self-report to be taken into account as a public interest factor tending against prosecution it must form part of a genuinely proactive approach adopted by the corporate management team when the offending is brought to their notice, involving self-reporting and remedial actions, including the compensation of victims. The guidance also explains that, in considering whether a self-reporting corporate body has been genuinely proactive, prosecutors will consider whether it has provided sufficient information, including making witnesses available and disclosing the details of any internal investigation, about the operation of the corporate body in its entirety.

Prosecutors will also be mindful that a failure to report the wrongdoing within a reasonable time of the offending coming to light is a public interest factor in favour of a prosecution. It should be borne in mind that the SFO may have information about wrongdoing from sources other than the corporate body’s own self-report. The timing of any self-report is therefore very important. A failure to report properly and fully the true extent of the wrongdoing a further public interest factor in favour of a prosecution.

The following is an outline of the process to be adopted by corporate bodies and/or their advisers when self-reporting to the Serious Fraud Office.

Initial contact, and all subsequent communication, must be made through the SFO’s Intelligence Unit (confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk). The Intelligence Unit is the only business area within the SFO authorised to handle self-reports.

Hard copy reports setting out the nature and scope of any internal investigation must be provided to the SFO’s Intelligence Unit as part of the self-reporting process.

All supporting evidence including, but not limited to emails, banking evidence and witness accounts, must be provided to the SFO’s Intelligence Unit as part of the self-reporting process.

Further supporting evidence may be provided during the course of any ongoing internal investigation.

As stated within the SFO’s revised policy, self-reporting is no guarantee that a prosecution will not follow. Each case will turn on its own facts.

Apart from the information provided above, the SFO will not advise companies or their advisers on the format required for self-reports. Nor will the SFO give any advice on the likely outcome of a self-report until the completion of that process.  For further information visit our Q&A section.

FAQ

The Serious Fraud Office has reviewed its policy on…corporate self-reporting.

1. Why are revisions being published?
2. Following his appointment, the Director of the SFO decided to review SFO policies and take forward recommendations made by the OECD Working Group on Bribery. The revisions have been published to:

restate the SFO’s primary role as an investigator and prosecutor of serious and/or complex fraud, including corruption;

ensure there is consistency with the approach of other prosecuting bodies; and

take forward certain OECD recommendations.

The SFO’s primary role is to investigate and prosecute. The revised policies make it clear that there will be no presumption in favour of civil settlements in any circumstances.

1. Is this a shift in the SFO’s position?
2. The new approach restates the SFO’s primary purpose.

Around the time when the Bribery Act 2010 came into force, joint guidance was issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of the SFO, and separate guidance was published by the Ministry of Justice. Save for one change, that guidance continues to apply. The only change is that the reference in the joint prosecution guidance to the SFO’s former policy on self-reporting has been removed.

Any decision to prosecute unlawful activity will be governed by the Full Code Test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the applicable joint prosecution guidance.

1. What about companies that have already acted on the old guidance?
2. Each case will be reviewed and assessed according to its own circumstances. If there has been reliance on a previous statement of policy or practice the SFO will consider such reliance in the context of the Full Code Test. If before the publication of the revised policy statements the SFO entered into an agreement with a corporate body based on an earlier SFO statement of policy or practice, and the corporate body has fully complied with the terms of that agreement, then the previous statement of policy or practice will continue to apply
3. Why is there a revised approach to self-reporting?
4. As explained above, the revisions have been made to:

• restate the SFO’s primary role as an investigator and prosecutor of serious and/or complex fraud, including corruption;
• ensure there is consistency with the approach of other prosecuting bodies; and
• take forward certain OECD recommendations.

The revised statement of policy explains in clear terms that that any decision to prosecute unlawful activity will be governed by the Full Code Test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the applicable joint prosecution guidance.

The revised statement of policy is not limited to allegations involving overseas bribery and corruption.

If the requirements of the Full Code Test are not established, the SFO may consider civil recovery as an alternative to a prosecution.

1. Will the SFO communicate with corporate bodies about their past or future conduct?
2. The SFO encourages corporate self-reporting, and will always listen to what a corporate body has to say about its past conduct; but the SFO offers no guarantee that a prosecution will not follow any such report.

The SFO is primarily an investigator and prosecutor of serious and/or complex fraud, including corruption. It is not the role of the SFO to provide corporate bodies with advice on their future conduct.

What the Director of the SFO says

Director of the SFO, David Green QC CB Quoted at Pinsent Masons annual regulatory conference on Self Reporting on 24 October 2013. He said:

“I recently attended a private gathering of general counsel from a number of major multi-national corporations. I spoke on the subject of corporate self-reporting of instances of suspected criminality, including bribery and corruption.

There was then a Q&A session, during which 2 attendees indicated that the advice they were receiving from their external lawyers was that such matters should NOT be reported to the SFO, because “the SFO was not as helpful as it used to be”. There followed a vote on the issue, which was firmly in favour of self-reporting. Well they would, wouldn’t they.

I became DSFO in April 2012.

It is now a year since I changed the published SFO guidance on self-reporting by corporates.

The guidance I inherited contained an implied presumption that self-reported misconduct would be dealt with by civil settlement rather than prosecution.

I took the view that no prosecutor should appear to offer such a guarantee in advance. As a prosecutor, you can never anticipate what set of facts and conduct might be next in through the door.

I took the guidance back to the historic position agreed with the Director of Public Prosecutions: that we would apply the full code test for crown prosecutors to self-reported criminality. In other words, we ask (after our own investigation): is there sufficient evidence to prosecute, and if so, is a prosecution in the public interest?

The SFO’s message is carefully expressed and nuanced. Assume the evidential sufficiency test is passed. If a company made a genuine self-report to us (that is, told us something we did not already know and did so in an open- handed, unspun way), in circumstances where they were willing to cooperate in a full investigation and to take steps to prevent recurrence, then in those circumstances it is difficult to see that the public interest would require a prosecution of the corporate.

Some parts of the blogosphere seem to have difficulty with this, writing that it means self-reporters will be prosecuted. It means no such thing.

Some corporate lawyers complain that the new approach (actually, the principled, established approach) creates “uncertainty”. I disagree: and I think that when they say “certainty” it is code for “guarantee”.

For the avoidance of doubt, the SFO continues to receive self-reports, and I anticipate the numbers will only rise as Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) bed in next year.

So why should a company self-report instances of suspected criminal misconduct to the SFO?

(i)                A self-report at the very least mitigates the chances of a corporate being prosecuted.  It opens up the possibility of civil recovery or a DPA.

(ii)             There is the moral and reputational imperative: it is the right thing to do and it demonstrates that the corporate is serious about behaving ethically.

(iii)           If the corporate chooses to bury the misconduct rather than self-report, the risk of discovery is unquantifiable. There are so many potential channels leading to exposure: whistle-blowers; disgruntled counterparties; cheated competing companies; other Criminal Justice agencies in the UK; overseas agencies in communication with SFO; and the SFO’s own developing intelligence capability, to name but a few.

(iv)           If criminality is buried and then discovered by any of the above routes, the penalty paid by the corporate in terms of shareholder outrage, counterparty and competitor distrust, reputational damage, regulatory action and possible prosecution, is surely disproportionate.

(v)             Last but not least, burying such information is likely to involve criminal offences related to money laundering under sections 327-9 of the Proceeds of Crime Act.

There are, I suggest, very powerful arguments in favour of self-reporting.

Once the decision to self-report has been made by the corporate, then the question of timing arises. Common sense suggests that an initial report of suspected criminality should be made to the SFO as soon as it is discovered. This surely protects the company against the SFO finding out by other means whilst the company investigates further. The corporate can then investigate in depth and report back to the SFO. The SFO will   carry out its own assessment with possible use of S2A powers (in the case of bribery), and, if justified, the opening of a criminal investigation and the exercise of S2 powers.”

Coolness in Being the Bad Guy? Eli Wallach and GSK

Eli Wallach died Tuesday. For my money, he was about the coolest bad guy out there. Not tough like Lee Marvin, just cool. My favorite Wallach roles were as Calvera in The Magnificent Seven and as Tuco in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. An early proponent of method acting, Wallach performed on the stage and in films for over 60 years. Although originally from Brooklyn, Wallach was also a fellow Texas Longhorn, having attended the University of Texas. He served in France as a Second Lieutenant in France during World War II.

I thought about Wallach’s über coolness when considering the most decided uncool position of the UK pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) recently. Last month the Chinese government issued a most very stern warning to GSK when it accused the former head of GSK’s China business of direct involvement in bribery and corruption. But more than this direct accusation, the move was a clear warning shot across the bow of not only western pharmaceutical companies doing business in China but also all western companies. In an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), entitled “Beijing Warns Sernly on Glaxo”, Laurie Birkett quoted Helen Chen, a director and partner at consultancy L.E.K., as saying “Focusing much of the blame on a foreigner sends a strong message to all. Companies will see that if authorities are willing to accuse even a foreigner, who is in senior management, the issue is being taken seriously, it’s a clear message that bribery is unacceptable in the market.” Burkitt went on to say, “Experts say China’s medical system is deeply underfunded, giving doctors, hospitals and administrators an incentive to overcharge and overprescribe. Glaxo, in the past, organized trips for doctors around China and to places such as Budapest and Greece as part of a broader effort involving perks and cash to get doctors to boost drug prescriptions, according to documents previously reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.”

Such reports of endemic corruption are not new. 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 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.

But with this recent round of accusations against GSK it appears that the Chinese government has opened a new front. In an article in The Telegraph, entitled “GSK bribery scan could cause ‘irreparable damage’, says China”, Denise Roland reported that “Beijing has apparently issued a warning to all foreign firms, cautioning that the corruption charges against GlaxoSmithKline executives could cause “irreparable damage” to the drug maker’s Chinese operations.” She quoted from the state news agency Xinhua for the following, “GSK’s practices eroded its corporate integrity and could cause irreparable damage to the company in China and elsewhere. The case is a warning to other multinationals in China that ethics matter.”

In addition to these charges against a senior GSK executive, which could lead liability up to the GSK boardroom, Jonathan Russell, also writing in The Telegraph, in an article entitled “GlaxoSmithKline is facing more than double jeopardy”, said that “GlaxoSmithKline’s problems are multiplying fast. In China authorities have identified 46 individuals connected to the company they claim were involved in “massive and systemic bribery”. In the UK the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) marked out its pitch this week, revealing it has opened an official investigation into allegations of bribery; and an internal GSK probe is looking at potential wrongdoing in Jordan and Lebanon.” More ominously, he also noted that “Given the slew of allegations so far it seems a fair assumption that other international law enforcement agencies, notably the US Department of Justice, will be taking a long, close look at the allegations.”

While Russell points to the general UK prohibition against prosecutions, which might invoke double jeopardy, he says “As ever with the law there are exceptions to the principle. However they are limited in scope and rare in number. It may also be the case that the principle of double jeopardy may not be invoked in this case if the alleged offences the SFO is investigating are separate to those under investigation in China. They could relate to matters that took place in Jordan or Lebanon.” Russell also pointed out that “international prosecutors carving up parts of prosecutions so they can all have their pound of flesh. A very painful prospect for GSK.” It will also be interesting to see if GSK is charged under the UK Bribery Act, under the prior law or both. If charges are brought under the Bribery Act, which became effective on July 1, 2011, do you think GSK would try and raise a compliance defense based on the Six Principals of Adequate Procedures? I guess having a compliance defense is pretty useless if your company engages in bribery and corruption.

While Russell talks about the aggressiveness of US prosecutors under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), he does not discuss what may be GSK’s greatest exposure in the US. GSK was under the equivalent of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) called a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) for its prior sins related to off-label marketing. This CIA not only applied to the specific pharmaceutical regulations that GSK violated but all of the GSK compliance obligations, including the FCPA. In addition to requiring a full and complete compliance program, the CIA specified that the company would have a Compliance Committee, inclusive of the Compliance Officer (CO) and other members of senior management necessary to meet the requirements of this CIA, whose job was to oversee full implementation of the CIA and all compliance functions at the company. These additional functions required Deputy Compliance Officers for each commercial business unit, Integrity Champions within each business unit and management accountability and certifications from each business unit. Training of GSK employees was specified. Further, there was detail down to specifically state that all compliance obligations applied to “contractors, subcontractors, agents and other persons (including, but not limited to, third party vendors)”.

For the compliance practitioner, one clear message from the GSK matter is to monitor, audit and continuously review your Chinese operations. I will have more to say about the China corruption crackdown in an upcoming blog post but just like Eli Wallach as Calvera in The Magnificent Seven told the gunmen hired to protect the Mexican village, you have been warned.

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

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.

Reports Just In: Invasions from Mars and the UK Bribery Act

On this day 75 years ago Orson Welles caused a nationwide panic with his broadcast of “War of the Worlds” – a realistic radio dramatization of a Martian invasion of Earth. The show began on Sunday, October 30, at 8 pm. A voice announced: “The Columbia Broadcasting System and its affiliated stations present Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater on the air in ‘War of the Worlds’ by H.G. Wells.” Welles introduced his radio play with a spoken introduction, followed by an announcer reading a weather report. Then, seemingly abandoning the storyline, the announcer took listeners to “the Meridian Room in the Hotel Park Plaza in downtown New York, where you will be entertained by the music of Ramon Raquello and his orchestra.” Then the scare began when a very excited announcer broke in to report that “Professor Farrell of the Mount Jennings Observatory” had detected explosions on the planet Mars. Then the dance music came back on, followed by another interruption in which listeners were informed that a large meteor had crashed into a farmer’s field in Grover’s Mills, New Jersey. The panic was on when as many as a million radio listeners believed that a real Martian invasion was underway.

Fortunately for us Americans, Welles’ show was just that – a dramatized radio show. Just as fortunately for us Americans, and indeed the rest of the world, when it comes to the UK Bribery Act we have thebriberyact.com guys, Barry Vitou and Richard Kovalevsky QC, who continually communicate to us through the shroud of our common language to bring clarity and insight to the UK Bribery Act. Once again proving that they are a prolific duo, they have posted four articles over the past few days which merit discussion.

1.      What’s On Your Mind?

In the first post I want to bring your attention to, entitled “SFO to target UK PLC in corporate crackdown – it’s still all about the money”, the lads discuss some of the issues that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) must deal with in the enforcement of the Bribery Act. First and foremost is the way in which corporate liability is determined in the UK. “Broadly speaking in the UK the prosecutor needs to finger someone very senior in the Company for criminal liability to be attributed to the corporate.” Further, “the UK position is the opposite of the Respondeat Superior principle in the US” as the “‘directing mind’ principle has to be satisfied.” They go on to note that “evidence to prove the directing mind principle is often hard to find. The SFO Director has (somewhat cynically!) feigned his ‘surprise’ on a number of occasions that the email chain runs out before you get to the main board.” For their recommendation you should read the rest of the article.

2.      Watch This Space

In another post entitled “Corporate prosecutions under the Bribery Act. Racing certainty or outsider? Watch this space” they cite to a talk that SFO Director David Green recently gave at the Pinsent Masons regulatory conference where he said:

“To those who are impatient for the first prosecution under the Bribery Act:-

We still have cases under the old legislation under investigation and awaiting trial.

 The new Act is not retrospective, and covers conduct after 1/7/2011.

Comparisons with the US are misleading. Prosecutions under the FCPA of 1977 did not hit their stride until well into this century.

The DoJ has only last November published detailed guidance on the act, based on the action taken under it thus far.

We have charged our first offences under our Bribery Act. There will be more. We have cases under development.

The SFO will bring the right cases at the time that is right for us.

More generally, the SFO currently has some 13 cases involving 34 defendants (2 of which are corporates) in the court system awaiting their trial. 8 of these trial are listed after April 2014.”

From this, the guys emphasize that now is the time to prepare and get your compliance program into shape as “it would be a mistake to do nothing.” And of course, “Watch this space.”

3.      To Self Report or Not Self Report, that is the Question

A further post, entitled “YES, YES, YES, YEEES, YEEEEES, YEEEEESSSSS. But. SFO Director repeats benefits of Self Reporting. Again”, has SFO Director Green once again extoling the virtues of self-disclosure but he emphasized, “The SFO’s message is carefully expressed and nuanced. Assume the evidential sufficiency test is passed. If a company made a genuine self-report to us (that is, told us something we did not already know and did so in an open- handed, unspun way), in circumstances where they were willing to cooperate in a full investigation and to take steps to prevent recurrence, then in those circumstances it is difficult to see that the public interest would require a prosecution of the corporate.” He then went on to list reasons why a company should self-report. They include:

• A self-report at the very least mitigates the chances of a corporate being prosecuted.  It opens up the possibility of civil recovery or a DPA.
• There is the moral and reputational imperative: it is the right thing to do and it demonstrates that the corporate is serious about behaving ethically.
• If the corporate chooses to bury the misconduct rather than self-report, the risk of discovery is unquantifiable. There are so many potential channels leading to exposure: whistle-blowers; disgruntled counterparties; cheated competing companies; other Criminal Justice agencies in the UK; overseas agencies in communication with SFO; and the SFO’s own developing intelligence capability, to name but a few.
• If criminality is buried and then discovered by any of the above routes, the penalty paid by the corporate in terms of shareholder outrage, counterparty and competitor distrust, reputational damage, regulatory action and possible prosecution, is surely disproportionate.
• Last but not least, burying such information is likely to involve criminal offences related to money laundering under sections 327-9 of the Proceeds of Crime Act.

The guys made clear their thoughts on the matter when they wrote, “where a corporate comes in and tells the SFO about something that they do not know; where the disclosure of the issue to the SFO is not ‘spun’; where genuine and comprehensive action is taken to remedy the problem; and, where there is a serious commitment going forward to ensure no repeat *then* it is very *unlikely* that the Public Interest test would be satisfied and so it is *unlikely* that there would be a prosecution.”

4.      Do the Right Thing

And finally, in a post entitled “A purchaser worries about liabilities after buying a business with limited information up front”, the guys were asked a question by a reader which read, “Will my company and my Board of Directors likely be prosecuted if they buy another company which has problems after doing limited due diligence?” If you have ever met the guys or heard them speak, you know that practical advice is their raison d’etre. They said, “The key is that you do what you can and that you do the right thing post-closing. This means that in cases where you have had limited opportunity to do due diligence up front you should make sure that post-closing proper diligence is done. You should be doing this sort of thing anyway as you integrate the new Company into your own business. However, it will be important to specifically include anti-bribery in that process and an independent work stream post-closing to look at compliance (or lack of it) needs to be undertaken. If as part of this you uncover a problem it is important that this is dealt with in the appropriate way, namely properly investigated, fixed, cleaned up and remediated.” “You should ensure that if money laundering reporting obligations are triggered the appropriate reports are made to the authorities. They end by noting, “in our view the chances of the Purchaser itself being prosecuted for the sins of the target if the purchaser ‘does the right thing’ post-closing should be slim.”

Unlike Orson Welles, who gave America a fictitious report of an invasion from Mars, thebriberyact.com guys continue to shine a light on all things Bribery Act related. Their latest reports from the UK clearly indicate that the SFO is picking up steam and moving forward. You do not have to be afraid, but you do have to be very prepared.

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

SFO & the Bribery Act: Sector sweeps, facilitation payments & London listed companies

Ed. Note-today we post an article which was up on the site, thebriberyact.com. It discusses some recent remarks by SFO Director David Green. We are thankful to our colleagues Barry Vitou and Richard Kovalevsky QC for allowing us to post it. As always, the guys continue to ‘Shine a Light’.

News reaches us of a private small round table session put together by Transparency International and attended by some from the US FCPA white collar community (we understand Mark Mendelsohn attended) and our very own David Green CB QC, Director of the Serious Fraud Office.

Here’s the skinny based on our source.

The headline message promulgated by David Green will be not be news to those who have been following Mr. Green’s hard hitting public pronouncements in the UK (or reading this website) though as ever, it’s always important to be able to read between the lines.

The clue’s in the name

Mr. Green emphasized that the SFO is reverting to type and will focus on prosecution of Serious Fraud.

The advisory and guidance role of the SFO, something Mr. Green’s predecessor branched out into, was shuttered on the (not so) new Director’s arrival at the SFO over a year ago.  We understand that this was something that some hapless souls learnt the hard way when they stumbled into the SFO looking for some help!

Nevertheless, while we understand the rationale we think it’s a shame the SFO is no longer extending the olive branch of advice and guidance.

It seemed to us that there was something to be gained from a channel of communication between corporations and the SFO outside of the usual dynamic of prosecutor and prosecuted.  The DoJ engage in something along these lines with their Opinion Release procedure (which to be fair the SFO has never offered).  However, we digress…

Facilitation payment Guidance tossed in the garbage

Mr. Green also publicized his junking of the facilitation payment guidance and the presumption against prosecution for Self Reporting companies.

It’s fair to say that many have, in our view, misconstrued this to mean that Civil Recovery Orders are off the table and that we are now back to ‘cat and mouse’ and the binary decision of whether to prosecute or not.  This is silly, in particular when one of the first things Mr. Green did on arrival at the SFO was to approve a civil recovery order in respect of Oxford University Press.

Listen carefully.  Mr Green says that a true Self Report (namely a corporate telling the SFO something that it does not already know or would not find out about, but for the Self Report) will weigh very heavily in the balance when weighing the public interest about whether or not to prosecute.

In our view Civil Recovery Orders (which Oxford University Press should demonstrate anyway) are not dead and buried – though that does not fit the narrative of those whose marketing relies on scaring potential customers.

As we recently reported the publication of the guidance around Civil Recovery Orders was not for nothing.  Cue, Civil Recovery Orders still very firmly on the menu – but only in the right circumstances.

In a hurry but not going to rush

At the US meeting Mr. Green signaled a desire to bring headline cases and as soon as possible.  The truth is that this is not just a desire but a political reality.  Mr. Green is on a 4 year contract at the SFO and is already a quarter of the way through his tenure.

An extra credit line from Whitehall of nearly £4 million last year to deal with LIBOR (and no doubt the same again this year) means that, like it or not (and regardless of what might be said publicly), the political paymasters will be looking for some crowd pleasing banker bashing headline prosecutions in short order.

This will be easier said than done in a legal system where, unlike the US, there is (thank goodness at least for the forseeable future) NO concept of Respondent Superior.

Sweeps

In other news we understand Mr. Green conveyed that he is attracted to sector sweeps with customs duties (in other words what many would understand to be facilitation payments) a possible area of attention.

Frankly sector sweeps MUST be the way to go in any sensible SFO strategy.  Otherwise known as ‘pulling the thread’ the chances are that a corruption investigation will open new lines of enquiry.  As to the issue of facilitation payments, they are a thorny topic but under UK law they are illegal.

London listed? Mind your backs…

Finally we understand David Green explained, broadly speaking, that companies listed in London in his view fall under the regulatory purview of the Serious Fraud Office.  Given the importance of the London markets to the UK economy this is hardly a surprise.

While, some may express consternation by this given the Ministry of Justice guidance (which said that broadly speaking a London listing on its own would not be enough to trigger the jurisdiction of the Bribery Act) we know that privately it has ALWAYS been the SFO view that there WILL almost ALWAYS be additional connections with the UK which give it jurisdiction.  Ultimately this will be a question for the courts if and when it is tested.

The proof of the pudding

Of course the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.  Something David Green QC is only too well aware of.  Expect Mr. Green to act.

The SFO story has now moved on.  Today the real question in the wake of the numerous recently kicked off investigations is:

Has the SFO bitten off more than it can chew?

The answer remains the same, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Any Special Effects Left for ENRC?

Ray Harryhausen died yesterday. For my money, he was the greatest special effects artist of the 20^th century. I absolutely loved his stop motion animation. He began his career working under Willis O’Brien on the original King Kong. However he went on to surpass O’Brien by developing what the New York Times said was the process Harryhausen called “Dynamation. It involved photographing a miniature — of a dinosaur, say — against a rear-projection screen through a partly masked pane of glass. The masked portion would then be re-exposed to insert foreground elements from the live footage. The effect was to make the creature appear to move in the midst of live action. It could now be seen walking behind a live tree, or be viewed in the middle distance over the shoulder of a live actor — effects difficult to achieve before.” If you want to see real special effects, check out the Jason and his crew sword fighting against the raised-from-the-dead skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts.

We saw some very different ‘special effects’ for the UK listed company Eurasian Natural Resources Corp (ENRC) in the month of April. As reported in the UK Telegraph, the title of the April 30 piece says it all – “ENRC’s annual report is full of laughs – for all the wrong reasons”, reporter Alistair Osborne says that the worldwide mining conglomerate’s value “has been disappearing down the mineshaft.” While all of the company’s economic metrics were headed downward, the company’s chairman, Mehmet Dalman declared “The primary focus for 2013 will be to maximise shareholder value through the implementation of our strategic priorities.” Unfortunately, Chairman Dalman wrote this statement before he resigned as company chairman.

What was it that led to this resignation? It may be something related to an announcement by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) that it “has launched a criminal investigation into Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) amid allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption”. In an article, entitled “SFO launches criminal investigation into ENRC”, it states the “SFO has confirmed that it has taken over an internal investigation by the mining giant into allegations made by a whistleblower relating to its operations in Africa and Kazakhstan.”

According to an article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “ENRC looks to dig itself out of a hole”, some of these allegations in Africa related to claims that the company became involved in deals in the Congo and with transactions involving its President, Joseph Kabila. One of these transactions involved the purchase of mining rights in a project “outside the town of Kolwezi, which had been confiscated by the Congo government from the Toronto-listed miner First Quantum.” After legal action by the Canadian company, ENRC “settled with its rival for $1.25 bn.” The allegations of bribery and corruption in Kazakhstan relate to allegations of fraudulent payments at ENRC’s Kazakhstan unit Sokolovsko-Sarbai, known as SSGPO.

Unfortunately, ENRC seems to be stumbling over itself as it has investigated these whistleblower allegations. The first stumble was when ENRC dismissed its lead internal investigator, Alex Gaft. This individual dismissal came after ENRC dismissed the US law firm Dechert, which had headed up the external investigations of these allegations. This dismissal came after Dechert presented a preliminary report to the SFO, which the FT said “raised concerns over payments totalling at least $100m over four years.”

According to the FT,  Dechert received a Section 2a notice, immediately after being terminated, “and just weeks before a second report into ENRC’s business practices in Africa was due to be handed to the SFO, say people familiar with the investigation. The SFO uses Section 2a notices specifically to demand information at a pre-investigation stage when it suspects overseas bribery and corruption, its website says. Sending out such a notice to the law firm signalled that the SFO felt it could no longer depend on the information provided by the company alone. The SFO now has the job of investigating the African operations of ENRC, which recently hired ex-attorney general Lord Goldsmith as a legal adviser.”

To top off all of the above dismissals of investigators and investigating law firms, the ENRC representative who was overseeing the internal investigation was none other than Chairman Dalman, the same person who resigned his position last week. Now the SFO has taken over the investigation, which according to the FT means that it can “use its full criminal powers such as arrests, dawn raids and demands for documents.”

Thebriberyact.com guys have been telling us that the SFO is still out there and SFO enforcement cases are moving forward. When you have a lead internal investigator dismissed, external counsel let go and your own chairman heading an investigation all leave a public company within 30 days, it is bound to get the attention of regulators. I wonder if the Department of Justice may have noticed?

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

Quadrophenia and Four Compliance Issues

This past weekend I saw the remaining members of The Who perform in their Quadrophenia Tour. While I had seen Roger Daltry perform the rock opera Tommy, I had never seen Pete Townsend in concert. To say I was blown away would be putting it mildly, especially as Quadrophenia does not even make it into my top three favorite Who albums, which are, in descending order, Who’s Next, Tommy and Live at Leeds. While Roger Daltry’s voice was not as strong as it was during his Tommy tour, not doubt due to the longer duration of this tour, it was still a great performance and it was worth it to see Pete Townsend. He can still rock. Also they ended the show with three songs from Who’s Next, which alone was worth the price of admission.

The story generally revolves around four themes based upon the four personalities of the members of the band; Daltry, Townsend, Keith Moon and John Entwhistle. However, it was also a play on (for those of you old enough to remember) quadrophonic sound. According to Pete Townsend, “”The whole conception of Quadrophenia was geared to quadraphonic, but in a creative sort of way. I mean I wanted themes to sort of emerge from corners. So you start to get the sense of the fourness being literally speaker for speaker.” So inspired by ‘fourness’ today, I will review four issues that have, or will, impact the compliance practitioner.

I.                   EU and Data Privacy

In an article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “EU refuses to bend on tough data privacy law”, reporter James Fontanella-Khan wrote that Viviane Reding, the EU Commissioner for Justice, said that she will continue to fight any US attempts to water down its proposed data protection and privacy law, “which would force global technology companies to obey European standards across the globe.” Further, “Exempting non-EU countries from our data protection regulations is not on the table. It would mean applying a double standard.” Fontanella-Khan said that “US tech companies argue that it would be unfair for them to be subject to EU laws that are too stringent and could result in expensive administrative burdens and hefty fines for errant companies.” Can you think of any US laws that non-US companies have to comply with?

Issues for the compliance practitioner? There could be a myriad, from internal investigations, to sharing data with US regulators to ongoing monitoring and auditing. While it is currently US technology companies which are leading the fight against these new tough standards, non-tech companies could do well to assess how these changes may well impact them.

II.                Will DOJ Open FCPA Investigation Against EADS?

Perhaps not fully appreciating the irony in reporting the EADS story in the same issue as the above EU data privacy story, the FT also had an article by Carola Hoyos, entitled “FBI probe of EADS unit claims”, who reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has interviewed “a witness and taken possession of documents in connection with allegations” that a British subsidiary of the European aerospace entity EADS, named GPT Special Management Systems, bribed Saudi Arabian military officials, in connection with business dealings. Hoyos reported that GPT “made ₤11.5 of unexplained payments – some via the US – to bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.”

Although there is no known open US Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation open into the EADS matter at this point, Hoyos noted that it was the DOJ which led the effort to investigate and eventually fine the UK company BAE, the amount of $400MM after the British government ordered the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) inquiry into allegations of BAE bribery for sales of equipment into Saudi Arabia “citing economic and diplomatic interests”. The FBI interviews occurred even though the SFO is currently investigating the matter. Hoyos also reported that EADS “maintained that its own investigations into the matter had yielded no evidence of wrongdoing.”

III.             Think Before You Hit That Send Button

In a post in his blog, the D&O Diary, entitled “Damning E-mails: Can We Talk?”, author Kevin LaCroix wrote that “revelations this past week arguably represent some type of high-water mark, as a cluster of serious allegations were accompanied by a trove of embarrassing excerpts from emails and instant messages. While the latest disclosures provide yet another reminder of the dangers associated with ill-considered use of modern electronic communications technology, they also raise questions about the use that regulators and claimants are attempting to make of the communications.” He was talking about the Commodities Futures Trading Commission’s press releases announcing RBS’s settlement this past week of charges of alleged Libor manipulation drew heavily on excerpts from the bank’s internal electronic communications. While noting that “emails do sometimes in fact evidence wrongdoing” the problem with them “is that when seemingly damning email excerpts are blasted into the media, it is very difficult to appreciate the larger context within which the excerpts fit.”

As much as he has distaste for the selective use of emails in this manner by regulators, LaCroix believes that they can provide a teachable moment. He writes that “a useful exercise to try to adopt is to pause and ask yourself, before hitting “send”, how the message would look if it were to fall into the hands of a hostile and aggressive adversary who was looking for ways to try to make you or your company look bad. Were this simple test to be more widely implemented, we would certainly see a marked reduction in, for example, running email jokes about the French maid’s outfit. My final thought is this – we all know that many electronic messages are written in haste and sometimes with insufficient care. With full awareness of this attribute of electronic communications, we should hesitate to jump to too many conclusions about the seemingly damaging inferences that could be drawn from email or instant message excerpts. But we should also learn from the inferences that regulators and claimants are trying to draw and try to take that into account in our own communications.” I could not have put it better myself.

IV.              Trust Your Gut and Raise Your Hand

There have recently been a plethora of articles about ‘big data’ and how it can help in the monitoring of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance program. I have been one of the folks to write and talk about it. However, in an article in the New York Times (NYT), entitled “Sure, Big Data is Great. But So Is Intuition”, reporter Steve Lohr wrote that while he thinks that big data is a powerful tool and an unstoppable tread it “might be a time for reflection, questions and qualms about this technology.” This is because, like all mathematical models, big data is “a simplification.” He quotes Thomas Davenport for the following. “A major part of managing Big Data projects, he says, is asking the right questions: How do you define the problem? What data do you need? Where does it come from? What are the assumptions behind the model that the data is fed into? How is the model different from reality?”

So the underlying basis for analyzing big data may actually be “too simple minded, rather than too smart.” All of this leads back to intuition. I would add that if the hair on the back of your neck stands up, your gut tells you something is wrong or something does not smell right, it probably isn’t right. The implications for the compliance practitioner? I would like to propose that the largest is in the area of training. What I try and tell non-compliance practitioners when I put on training is that if you see, smell or sense one of the above, just raise your hand. You do not have to know the ins and outs of the FCPA or know the answer but I do ask that you raise your hand and get the issue to a person who does have the expertise to analyze the issue.

If you have the chance to see The Who on their Quadrophenia Tour, all I can say is to drop whatever you are doing and go see it. I do not know if it will be your last chance to see Pete Townsend but when he winds up for one of those trademark windmill slams down the guitar strings, just close your eyes and listen. It is pure bliss and a quad of sensations for the ages.

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

The Bribery Act in 2012: a Year for Transition

The past year has been one of transition for the UK Bribery Act and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The transitions began with the appointment of David Green QC, as Director of the SFO. Green’s appointment brought a different focus to the SFO regarding the enforcement of the Bribery Act. At the start of his four-year term David Green released a statement to the press in which he said, in part, “The SFO is here to stay. It is and will remain a key crime fighting agency targeting top-end fraud, bribery and corruption. We will play our part in maintaining in the national interest a level playing field for investors and the business community. We will work cooperatively with others in the emerging counter-fraud landscape. We will press for all the tools necessary to maximise our impact. The SFO will be tough but approachable. I am delighted to take on the leadership of the agency at this exciting and challenging time. There is much to be done.”

This change in tone was perhaps responding to a critical report by Transparency International (TI) in its 8th annual progress report on OECD Convention enforcement, entitled “Exporting Corruption”. While the TI report focused on anti-corruption efforts across the globe, it did state that “The UK Government must strengthen its anti-bribery effort by ensuring that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has adequate resources to investigate and prosecute bribery”. Although TI noted that under the Bribery Act, prosecutions had increased over the past year, “cutbacks to the SFO could see a decline in future UK enforcement. The Government has cut more than a third of the SFO’s budget in the last four years, hampering the prosecutor’s ability to tackle complex and damaging bribery cases.” Chandu Krishnan, Executive Director of Transparency International UK, was quoted in a Press Release as stating, “If the Government is serious about fighting corruption, it should not be cutting resources for enforcing the legislation designed to do just that. We must ensure that the SFO is not outgunned by those it should be prosecuting, who incidentally can usually afford the best legal advice available. The SFO should never be in a position where it is unable to investigate and prosecute cases due to a lack of resources.”

I.                   Change in Tone at the Top

This new tone was a departure from the prior Director Richard Alderman. This noticeable change began in earnest in September with the statement by Director Green, that his agency has no real interest in pursuing cases concerning corporate hospitality under the Bribery Act. He was quoted as saying “We are not interested in that sort of case. We are interested in hearing that a large company has mysteriously come second in bidding for a big contract. The sort of bribery we would be investigating would not be tickets to Wimbledon or bottles of champagne. We are not the “serious champagne office.”” This was followed by the removal from the SFO’s website of pages for its guidance on facilitation payments and corporate hospitality. Then in October, the SFO published their position in relation to facilitation payments, corporate hospitality and self-reporting. As noted by Barry Vitou and Richard Kovalevsky, QC, writing in thebriberyact.com, “The honeymoon is over.” They went on to say that “The revised guidance is a model of clarity.  The new Director has previously made his position clear namely that the SFO is not there to provide guidance and those seeking it should liaise with their advisers.”

II.                The New Guidance

In a Press Release announcing this new guidance the SFO stated that “the Serious Fraud Office has reviewed its policies on facilitation payments, business expenditure (hospitality) and corporate self-reporting. The purpose is to: (1) restate the SFO’s primary role as an investigator and prosecutor of serious or complex fraud, including corruption; (2) ensure there is consistency with other prosecuting bodies; and (3) meet certain OECD recommendations.” The new guidance discussed three areas that companies need to address in their compliance programs. These were self-reporting, business expenditures and facilitation payments. Writing in the Bribery Library, Adams Greaves said “the guidance reinforces a widely held belief by the legal profession that Mr. Green is likely to prove to be a much tougher prosecutor than his predecessor Richard Alderman, who had (perhaps a little unfairly) acquired a reputation for seeking civil settlements with corporate defendants rather than prosecuting them through to trial.”

Self-Reporting

The SFO stated that it will prosecute a company if it is in the public interest to do so. The fact that a corporate body has reported itself will be a relevant consideration to the extent set out in the Guidance on Corporate Prosecutions. The Guidance explains that, for a self-report to be taken into consideration as a public interest factor tending against prosecution, it must form part of a “genuinely proactive approach adopted by the corporate management team when the offending is brought to their notice”. However, the SFO cautioned that self-reporting is no guarantee that it would not prosecute and emphasized that each case would ‘turn on its own facts.”

Business Expenditures

The SFO recognized in the new Guidance that bona fide hospitality, promotional or other legitimate business expenditure is recognized as an established and important part of doing business. It is also the case, however, that bribes are sometimes disguised as legitimate business expenditure. However, the SFO would prosecute if there was a realistic prospect of conviction, the SFO will prosecute if it is in the public interest to do so. The SFO could also use its powers under proceeds of crime legislation as an alternative (or in addition) to prosecution.

Facilitation Payments

In the area of facilitation payments, the SFO was very clear that it considers facilitation payments as a type of bribe. It provided the example where a government official is given money or goods to perform, or speed up the performance of, an existing duty. The SFO emphasized that facilitation payments were illegal before the Bribery Act came into force and they are illegal under the Bribery Act, regardless of their size or frequency. This SFO position basically restates the UK legal position and the various tests the SFO will use when weighing prosecution.

III.             The Rolls-Royce Investigation

One of the areas of criticism of the SFO has been the lack of prosecutions. This may have an effect on the SFO in the recent announcements by Rolls-Royce that it is investigating allegations of bribery. In December, the BBC online service reported that Rolls-Royce was in talks with the SFO regarding potential allegations of bribery and corruption in Indonesia and China. It was reported that this investigation began when the SFO requested information from Rolls-Royce about possible bribe-paying in those two countries. This prompted Rolls-Royce “to bring in a legal firm to conduct an internal investigation earlier this year, which uncovered potential misbehaviour in other countries as well as the two named by the SFO.” The FT has also reported that Rolls-Royce has now retained Lord Gold for a review of its compliance on a world-wide basis.

Such a high profile UK company and investigation will certainly test the mettle of the SFO regarding prosecutions of UK entities. While the FT noted that Lord Gold was brought in by Rolls-Royce “precisely to avoid the costs” that the British company BAE incurred in its massive scandal and to perhaps make a “radical change” in not only Rolls-Royce but the entire British aerospace industry, if there are allegations of bribery and corruption substantiated by the internal investigation and Rolls-Royce is not prosecuted, it may make companies less inclined to follow the strictures of the Bribery Act.

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