Tag: Richard Cassin

But Everyone Else is Doing it

In my hasty post on last week’s FCPA sting operation my focus was on the aggressive use of an undercover operation to catch violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That was big news. It’s the first time that’s happened. The indictments did not disclose the companies involved.

It’s now clear that this sting operation was much bigger deal. The Department of Justice went after an entire industry. Richard Cassin dug around and found that those arrested came from dozens of different companies. Small companies, big companies, private companies, public companies.

Twenty-one of the arrests happened at the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show and Conference (SHOT Show), “the largest and most comprehensive trade show for all professionals involved with the shooting sports and hunting industries.” The SHOT show attracts tens of thousands of people from across the US and the world, with 1,800 exhibitors covering 700,000 square feet.

The sting was clearly a statement that the Department of Justice is not going to take an excuse that “everyone else is doing it.”

It does not matter if greasing palms happens to be a common way to transact commerce in the industry. They are willing to take on an entire industry. They are willing to use undercover operations. They are willing to make a big splash at a big media event.

Sources:

DOJ Nets 22 in FCPA Sting

“The largest single investigation and prosecution against individuals in the history of DOJ’s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”

The Department of Justice has gotten serious about the FCPA.

“This ongoing investigation is the first large-scale use of undercover law enforcement techniques to uncover FCPA violations and the largest action ever undertaken by the Justice Department against individuals for FCPA violations,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer. In connection with these indictments, approximately 150 FBI agents executed 14 search warrants in locations across the United States. Plus, the United Kingdom’s City of London Police executed seven search warrants.

According to the indictments, the defendants agreed to pay a 20 percent “commission” to a sales agent who the defendants believed represented the minister of defense for a country in Africa to win a portion of a $15 million deal. The “sales agent” was actually an undercover FBI agent. The defendants were told that half of that commission would be paid directly to the minister of defense. The defendants allegedly agreed to create two price quotes in connection with the deals, with one quote representing the true cost of the goods and the second quote representing the true cost, plus the 20 percent commission. The defendants also allegedly agreed to engage in a small “test” deal to show the minister of defense that he would personally receive the 10 percent bribe.

I have not gotten through all of the indictments, but the DOJ purposefully omitted the name of the employers of the indicted individuals. I would guess that he have not heard the end of this. People can run; companies cannot.

Sources:

Compliance Bits and Pieces

Here are some interesting compliance stories that have not made their into their own posts:

Canada’s Commitment to Combating the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials: Watching Bill C-31 from the Wrageblog

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act, was introduced to Parliament on May 15, 2009. The timing of the bill’s first reading was clearly tied to the June 2009 release of Transparency International’s Progress Report on the Enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. The TI Report criticized Canada, calling Canada a laggard, and listing it as one of 21 countries making little or no effort to enforce its anti-corruption laws.

The FCPA’s Murky Knowledge Element by Mike Koehler for the FCPA Professor

In a superb new piece titled, “The ‘Knowledge’ Requirement of the FCPA Anti-Bribery Provisions: Effectuating Or Frustrating Congressional Intent?,” – Kenneth Winer and Gregory Husisian of Foley & Lardner (the “Authors”) conclude that “[t]he DOJ and SEC … now interpret the knowledge requirement so broadly that they have effectively eviscerated the 1988 statutory changes thereby raising an important question: Are the DOJ and SEC frustrating the intent of Congress by ignoring the reason that Congress amended the FCPA?” (see here).

Changes to Cayman AML Guidance Notes from Compliance Avenue

According to recent changes to the Guidance Notes on the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in the Cayman Islands (the “Guidance Notes”), offshore funds registered in the Cayman Islands and regulated by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (“CIMA”) should designate and appoint a compliance officer (“Compliance Officer”) at the management level, who: . . .

How BAE Got Caught by Richard Cassin for the FCPA Blog

Investigative reporters may be disappearing from newsrooms everywhere, but they still have an important role to play in holding institutions and people accountable for overseas bribery. Rob Evans of the U.K. Guardian contributed an essay to TI’s Global Corruption Report 2009 here. It’s about how he and David Leigh broke the BAE story.

ERISA Bonding Requirements for Hedge Fund Managers by The Hedge Fund Lawyer

Hedge fund managers who manages hedge funds which exceed the 25% ERISA threshold will need to purchase a fidelity bond.  The questions and answers below on the ERISA fidelity bonding requirements were prepared by the Department of Labor which is the governmental agency which is in charge of enforcing the ERISA laws and regulations.

The Time I was Written Up for Blogging by New CommBiz

About a year and a half ago I was written up for blogging. It was kind of a weird moment and I’ve never really talked about it much. It wasn’t that big of a deal but I thought I’d share how it happened and what I learned from it.

Here’s what I did wrong:

  • Technically I responded to a “press inquiry” (nothing freaks out PR people more than employees talking to the press)
  • I talked about the layoffs and certain financial aspects of the company during the “quiet period”

Diplomatic Immunity, Corruption and Parking Tickets

parking ticket

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act only applies to those making bribes. It does not apply to the recipients of bribes. Since the recipient must be a “foreign official” you run into the issue of “diplomatic immunity.” Richard Cassin looked at one of the approaches to taking actions against the kleptocrats in Proclamation 7750 Unwrapped on The FCPA Blog.

The concept of diplomatic immunity is that officials should only be held accountable to the laws in their home state. We would not want our officials being courted off to a foreign country for prosecution. Other countries should not expect their officials to be courted off to the U.S. for prosecution. I am sure you have seen an episode of Law & Order or Lethal Weapon 2 where a criminal runs free under diplomatic immunity.

It should not surprise you that there is a correlation between parking violations scofflaws under diplomatic immunity and the corruption in their home country.  Ray Fishman and Edward Miguel published a paper researching parking violations and diplomatic immunity in New York City.

The Clinton-Schumer Amendment, which gave the New York City permission to tow diplomatic vehicles, revoke their official parking permits, and have 110 percent of the total amount due paid from U.S. government aid to the offending diplomats’ countries of origin, resulted in a substantial decrease in diplomatic parking scofflaws.

The authors also found that there is strong correlation between the affinity for the U.S. and the diplomat’s home country.

Here is the top ten from the study:

  • KUWAIT
  • EGYPT
  • CHAD
  • SUDAN
  • BULGARIA
  • MOZAMBIQUE
  • ALBANIA
  • ANGOLA
  • SENEGAL
  • PAKISTAN

Most of these are well known for corruption. It seems these countries also export their corruption.

See:

Legal Expenses

Mark A. Srere and Amy J. Conway-Hatcher of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP wrote Legal Expenses for The Recorder (CAL LAW). The article compares the results of U.S. Department of Justice and SEC investigation against Lucent with FCPA Opinion Procedure Release 08-03.

Lucent spent millions of dollars on hundreds of trips for Chinese government officials over a three year period. The trips were primarily sightseeing and leisure activities, including Disneyland, Niagra Falls and the Grand Canyon.  Lucent also labeled the attendees as “decision-makers” who could help award new business to the company.  See The FCPA Blog’s post on Lucent.

TRACE International under FCPA Opinion Procedure Release 08-03 was merely paying out of pocket costs for journalists to cover the company’s news stories. Local journalists got lunch money and local transportation costs. Out-of-town journalists got some extra travel expenses and more meals.

TRACE tied the payments to expenses directly related to the “promotion, demonstration or explanation of the company’s products or services” and were reasonable in amount. Lucent failed both of these tests under 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(c)(2)(A).

Kay v. United States

Kay v. United States (Docket: 07-1281) is on the docket of the Supreme Court’s opening conference on September 29, 2008 for the Court’s October 2008 term. The petition for certiorari and all cert-stage briefs are available at scotusblog.com.

David Kay and Douglas Murphy were sentenced in 2005 to 37 and 63 months in prison respectively for violating the FCPA. They bribed Haitian officials in order to reduce their company’s taxes.

Richard L. Cassin over at The FCPA Blog has an excellent background article on the case