A quirky feature of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is that you can ask the Department of Justice to opine on whether your proposed action would violate the FCPA. Generally, one or two of these FCPA opinions pop up each year. It’s been a six-year drought since the last one.
Some of the FCPA opinions have provided great insight into how the DOJ thinks about FCPA compliance. This latest is not one of those. I scratch my head wondering why the Requestor even bothered.
The Requestor planned to buy some assets from a state-owned foreign bank. Another subsidiary of that state-owned foreign bank helped with the transaction and wanted to get paid a fee. The opinion was on whether it was okay to pay that fee.
Sure, the parties are state-owned and the people working at them should be treated as government officials under the FCPA for compliance purposes. The FCPA doesn’t prevent US firms from entering into transactions with foreign companies, even if the company is state-owned. You just can’t pay a bribe to the people involved.
There is nothing in the facts that says any individual is getting paid a fee. The money is all going to a company. The opinion includes a statement that the Requestor has no belief that any of the money will be diverted to an individual.
The Requestor received legitimate services from the company, the payment is commensurate with the services and there is no indicia of corrupt offers.
The latest release notes that three prior releases all addressed this topic: 09-01, 97-02, and 87-01. They each had a declination when the payment was going to the government entity and not to an individual.
The fee to be paid was only $237,500. I would guess that the Requestor paid almost as much in legal fees to get the FCPA opinion.
Whatever uncertainty the Requestor had in making the payment I guess has been erased. We can pile this fact pattern into the stack of things that are okay to do.
Sources: