Tag: OECD

Money Laundering Using Trust and Company Service Providers

Trusts and Company Service Providers (TCSPs) can provide an important link between financial institutions and some of their customers.  TCSPs have often been used, wittingly or unwittingly, in the conduct of money laundering activities. The majority of TCSPs are established for legitimate purposes, the Financial Action Task Force’s research Shows that some TCSPs are being used, unwittingly or otherwise, to help facilitate the misuse of trust and corporate vehicles.

The FATF’s Money Laundering Using Trust and Company Service Providers report evaluates the effectiveness of the practical applications of the FATF’s 40+9 Recommendations as they relate to TCSPs.  It also considers the role of TCSPs in the detection, prevention and prosecution of money laundering and terrorist financing.

The report is an update f the 2006 report: The Misuse of Corporate Vehicles, Including Trust and Company Service Providers, 2006. presents issues for consideration that should help to reduce the use of TCSPs for money laundering purposes.

There are no simple answers, other than knowing your business partner. Complex arrangement of entities are usually required to make structures tax-efficient across international borders, to isolate risk, to meet regulatory requirements, and to clarify management. On the other hand, bad guys can use these structures to hide the true ownership and that the true source of capital is dirty money.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an independent inter-governmental body that develops and promotes policies to protect the global financial system against money laundering and terrorist financing.

Sources:

Lawyers and Corruption Laws

In April 2010, the International Bar Association, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, launched the Anti-Corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession. The project is focusing on the role lawyers play in fighting corruption in international business transactions.

Nearly half of all respondents recognized corruption to be an issue affecting the legal profession in their own jurisdiction. However, responses varied significantly from region to region. It ranged from only 16 per cent of respondents from Australasia saw corruption as an issue to nearly 90 percent of respondents from the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) region, which includes Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, and Russia.

The bad news:

  • Nearly 40 per cent of respondents had never heard of the major international instruments that make up the international anticorruption regulatory framework, such as the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the UN Convention against Corruption.
  • More than one in five said they have or may have been approached to act as an agent or middleman in a transaction that could reasonably be suspected to involve international corruption.
  • Nearly a third of respondents said a legal professional they know has been involved in international corruption offences.

The good news:

  • 42 per cent of respondents agreed that national anti-corruption laws and regulations were effective in preventing
    both inbound and outbound international corruption compared to five years ago
  • 60 per cent of survey respondents were aware of the FCPA and its scope, while 30 per cent were aware of the UK
    Bribery Act and its scope. (Of course you could look at the other side as bad news.)

Sources:

The International View on US Anti-Bribery Efforts

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s report on U.S. anti-bribery efforts released their Phase 3 Report on the United States.

In its report, the Working Group commended the United States for its engagement with the private sector, substantial enforcement, and commitment from the highest levels of the U.S. Government. In addition to the recommendation on facilitation payments, it also made recommendations that include the following on ways to improve U.S. enforcement:

  • Consolidating publicly available information on the application of the FCPA, including the affirmative defence for reasonable and bona fide expenses;
  • To increase transparency, making public, where appropriate, more information on the use of Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) in specific cases; and
  • Ensure that the overall limitation period applicable to the foreign bribery offence is sufficient to allow adequate investigation and prosecution

The phase 2 evaluation happened in 2002. The report notes that since 2002, the US has prosecuted 71 individuals and 88 enterprises, criminally and civilly, for transnational bribery. They also achieved record penalties for FCPA violations and note the $800 million penalty against Siemens.

They also note more than 150 criminal and 80 civil ongoing FCPA investigations. There may be some double counting since some involve parallel civil and criminal cases.

One focus of the report was the facilitation payment exception under the FCPA. The private sector representatives that spoke to the OECD complained that the scope of the exception was unclear. The DOJ countered that there is sufficient guidance and had never received a request for an Opinion Procedure Release on this issue. In the end the OECD noted that the US position to allow facilitation payments is counter to the OECD position.

One theme that pops out from the report is the the United States may no longer be the leading the charge on international corruption. In several ways, the FCPA does not meet the higher standard the OECD’s Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. The UK Bribery Act is likely to take the top spot once the government starts enforcement.

The OECD certainly encouraged the expansion the FCPA.

They don’t like the facilitation payment exception. The DOJ confirmed that facilitation payments may be tax deductible in the United States where they are properly classified as ordinary and necessary expenses, because they are not illegal under the FCPA. Of course, for an expense to be deductible, it must be an ‘ordinary and necessary expense.’

They also don’t like that non-issuers are not subject to the FCPA’s books and records provisions. They think it should be expanded to cover companies based on their level of foreign business.

Sources:

Bribery in Britain

The British government is working on a new Bribery Bill “to reform the criminal law of bribery to provide for a new consolidated scheme of bribery offenses to cover bribery both in the United Kingdom (UK) and abroad.”

The Bribery Bill would replaces the offenses under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 with two crimes. The first makes it a crime to bribe another person. The second makes it a crime to accept a bribe.

The Bribery Bill also creates a discrete offense of bribery of a foreign public official and a new offense where a commercial organization fails to prevent bribery. This would create a British version of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and and bring the United Kingdom compliant with its obligations under the OECD.

There is an affirmative defense for the failure of a commercial organization to prevent bribery: “adequate procedures.” The Bribery Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance about procedures that a company can put in place to prevent bribery.

The Bribery Bill is widely expected to come into force later this year.

According to research from the Eversheds, many businesses are unaware of this new Bribery Bill, with 60% of businesses unaware that failing to prevent bribery will be a criminal offense.

Sources:

Money Laundering Awareness Handbook

money laundering

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development issued a handbook that provides guidance designed to help tax examiners and tax auditors detect and deter money laundering: The Money Laundering Awareness Handbook for Tax Examiners and Their Auditors.

The purpose of this handbook is to raise the awareness level of tax examiners and auditors on money laundering, by providing guidance in identifying money laundering during the conduct of normal tax audits.

The handbook does not detail criminal investigation methods. But it does describe the nature of money laundering activities so that tax examiners and auditors can better understand how their contribution can assist criminal investigators in battling money laundering.

The handbook is rather basic. I focused on the section with specific indicators on real estate. It offered some typical examples of how money can be concealed in several different types of real estate transactions. The handbook failed to show how the illegal activities could be identified.

I suppose general awareness of ways to launder money is a good start.

Table of Contents:

  • Money Laundering
  • Role of Tax Examiners and Auditors
  • Money Laundering Indicators for Individuals
  • Tax Return Examination and Pre-Audit Indicators
  • Audit Indicators
  • Specific Indicators on Real Estate
  • Specific Indicators on Cash
  • Specific Indicators on International Trade
  • Specific Indicators on Loans
  • Specific Indicators on Professional Service Providers

France Decides Not to Criminalize International Bribery

eiffel tower

“France has severely restricted its jurisdiction and its ability to prosecute cases with an international dimension, which, given the country’s importance in the international economy and the scale of many of its companies, is very regrettable,” according to a report by GRECO. The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor States’ compliance with the organization’s anti-corruption standards.

In June of 2000, France introduced legislation related to the OECD Convention. However in the GRECO report the evaluation team wonders “why, despite the economic weight of France and its close historical links with certain regions of the world considered to be rife with corruption, it has not yet imposed any penalties for bribing foreign public officials.” (¶ 76)

France ratified the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173) on April 25, 2008 with an effective date of August 1, 2008. France entered two reservations as part of enacting the law.

France’s Reservation on the Offense:

“In accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the French Republic reserves the right not to establish as a criminal offence the conduct of trading in influence defined in Article 12 of the Convention, in order to exert an influence, as defined by the said Article, over the decision-making of a foreign public official or a member of a foreign public assembly, referred to in Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.”

France’s Reservation on Jurisdiction:

“In accordance with Articles 17, paragraph 2, and 37, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the French Republic declares that it reserves the right to establish its jurisdiction as regards Article 17, paragraph 1.b, of the Convention, only when the offender is one of its nationals and the offences are punishable under the legislation of the country where they have been committed, and that it reserves the right not to establish its jurisdiction regarding the situations referred to in Article 17, paragraph 1.c, of the Convention.”

In my reading of the GRECO report, it sounds like France dropped the international bribery charge because it is too hard to prove and obtain conviction. (¶ 83)

To be fair to France, GRECO has not yet completed the Third Evaluation Round for all 46 members. So other countries many take a similar position. But the 11 made public so far have not excluded bribery of foreign officials.

France causes other problems with compliance programs. France blocks traditional SOX whistleblower programs because of concerns abut worker’s privacy.  If you want a whistleblower program in France, you need to register it with the CNiL and it must be limited to reports about the “vital interests of the company or it its employee’s physical or mental integrity”

See:

Who Is a Foreign Official After the Government Bailout of Financial Instiutions?

We have all read about the bailout of US financial institutions by the US government. This is not happening in other countries.  This complicates the analysis under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

As Joel M. Cohen, Michael P. Holland, and Adam P. Wolf of Clifford Chance examined in Under the FCPA, Who Is a Foreign Official Anyway?, the FCPA does not define a foreign official. An employee of a state-owned enterprise is a foreign official. But the FCPA does not define a state-owned enterprise. The Anti-Bribery Convention of OECD does a better job of defining. See International Standards for the Bribery of Public Officials.

In some of these government bailouts, the governments are purchasing equity and equity-like interests in the financial institutions. Is AIG a state-owned enterprise? The US government has the right to purchase majority ownership!

Morgan Lewis put out LawFlash on this issue: Financial Turmoil and the Expanding Reach of the FCPA.

Morgan Lewis points out that the DOJ will likely treat sovereign wealth funds as state-owned enterprises and therefore their employees are foreign officials under the FCPA.

If a government has a small passive interest in a company, then the company is probably not a state-owned enterprise. As the ownership interest increases and the management control increases the company starts looking more like a state-owned enterprise.

Merely buying assets (like crappy CMBS and CDO interests) or guaranteeing loans should not affect the treatment of the company.

International Standards for the Bribery of Public Officials

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is the U.S. standard for bribery of public officials by U.S. concerns or international concerns with a presence in the U.S. The international standard is the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions promulgated by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

The convention sets a criminal offense for:

any person intentionally to offer, promise or give any undue pecuniary or other advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, to a foreign public official, for that official or for a third party, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of official duties, in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.

A foreign public official means:

any person holding a legislative, administrative or judicial
office of a foreign country, whether appointed or elected; any person exercising a public
function for a foreign country, including for a public agency or public enterprise; and any
official or agent of a public international organisation.

A public enterprise means:

any enterprise, regardless of its legal form, over which a government, or governments, may, directly or indirectly, exercise a dominant influence. This is deemed to be the case, inter alia, when the government or governments hold the majority of the enterprise’s subscribed capital, control the majority of votes attaching to shares issued by the enterprise or can appoint a majority of the members of the enterprise’s administrative or managerial body or supervisory board.

Who is a Foreign Official under the FCPA?

The FCPA defines “foreign official” as:

[A]ny officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or a public international organization, or any person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of any such government or department, agency, or instrumentality, or for or on behalf of any such public international organization.

It is obvious that person holding political office is a foreign official. In this age of increasing privitization of government services and the sudden investment of government investment in private businesses, it is not clear when an entity is an “instrumentality” of a foreign government.

The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention uses the term “public enterprise” which it defines to include “any enterprise in which the government holds a majority stake, as well as those over which a government may exercise a dominant influence directly or indirectly.

Under the FCPA, Who Is a Foreign Official Anyway? by Joel M. Cohen, Michael P. Holland, and Adam P. Wolf of Clifford Chance examine some of thses issues in great detail. You can find the article in the August 2008 edition of The Business Lawyer.

History of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

In 1977, Congress enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as part of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act .  The FCPA criminalized the bribery of foreign officials by U.S. corporations and individuals pursuing business in other countries and required that companies with publicly-traded stock meet certain standards regarding their accounting practices, books and records, and internal controls.

The FCPA consequently was amended in both 1988 and 1998.  First in 1988, Congress added two affirmative defenses and directed the executive branch to urge America’s global trading partners to pass anti-corruption laws to promote international parity with regard to business corruption.

In 1998, the FCPA was again amended to implement the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.  Congress ratified the OECD Convention and enacted implementing legislation.  These new amendments broadened the reach of potential FCPA bribery violations by expanding the scope of persons covered by the Act to include some foreign nationals.  Also, the 1998 amendments extended the FCPA’s jurisdiction beyond America’s borders to allow greater enforcement efforts by U.S. prosecutors.