(Information as of 13 June 2007)
Date of deposit of instrument of ratification/acceptance or date of accession
Deposit of instrument of ratification/acceptance: 8 December 1998
Entry into force of the Convention: 15 February 1999
Entry into force of implementing legislation: 10 November 1998
Implementing legislation
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, 15 U.S.C. 78dd-1, et seq., as amended by the International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998, Pub. L 105-366, signed on 10 November 1998.
Other relevant laws, regulations or decrees that have an impact on a country’s implementation of the OECD Convention or the Recommendations
- The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000 made it possible to seek civil and criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of foreign bribery.
- The President signed an executive order in March 2002 designating the European Union’s organisations and Europol as public international organisations, making bribery of officials from these organisations a violation of the FCPA.
- The U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgated amendments, effective November 2002, making violations of the FCPA and violations of the domestic bribery law subject to the same sentencing guidelines.
- The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made violations of foreign bribery laws as predicate offences under the Money Laundering Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
Other information
Relevant authorities
U.S. Department of Justice
Criminal Division, Fraud Section
10th & Constitution Ave. NW (Bond 4th floor)
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: 202-514-7023
Fax: 202-514-7021
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Enforcement Division
100 F. Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20549
Tel: 202-551-4500
Fax: 202-772-9279
Relevant Internet links to national implementing legislation, for example
www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa.html
Signature/Ratification of other relevant international instruments
The United States has also ratified the Inter-American Convention against Corruption, signed the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and the U.N. Convention, and joined GRECO. The United States Senate voted September 15, 2006 to consent to ratification of the U.N. Convention Against Corruption. The United States became a party to the U.N. Convention on 29 November 2006.
Working Group on Bribery Monitoring Reports
Phase 1: Review of Implementation of the Convention and 1997 Recommendation
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/50/2390377.pdf
Phase 2: Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/19/1962084.pdf
Phase 2: Follow-up Report on the Implementation of the Phase 2 Recommendations on the Application of the Convention and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/35/35109576.pdf
Judicial decisions (and enforcement actions)
Court decisions, first instance and appeal courts, relevant to the enforcement of the Convention and other relevant legislation should be provided to the Group as soon as possible.
United States v. Christian Sapsizian and Edgar Valverde Acosta (S.D. Florida): On June 8, 2007, in the Southern District of Florida, Christian Sapsizian, a former Alcatel CIT executive, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy (Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371) and one count of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Count 2: 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1) contained in a superseding indictment, which added co-defendant Edgar Valverde Acosta, returned on March 20, 2007, in connection with a scheme to make corrupt payments to Costa Rican officials to obtain a mobile telephone contract from the state-owned telecommunications authority. As part of the plea agreement, Sapsizian agreed to fine and forfeiture amounts and to cooperate with law enforcement officials in an ongoing investigation. Sentencing is scheduled for December 20, 2007.
Sapsizian was the Deputy Vice President of Latin America for Alcatel CIT, a wholly owned subsidiary of Alcatel, S.A., a global telecommunication services company at the time of the alleged conduct. Sapsizian admitted that from February 2000 through September 2004, he conspired with co-defendant Acosta, a Costa Rican citizen who was Alcatel’s senior country officer in Costa Rica, and others to pay more than $2.5 million in bribes to senior Costa Rican officials in order to obtain a mobile telephone contract on behalf of Alcatel. The payments, funneled through one of Alcatel’s Costa Rican consulting firms, were made to a director of Instituto Costarrisence de Electricidad (ICE), the state-owned telecommunications authority in Costa Rica, which was responsible for awarding all telecommunications contracts. Sapsizian further admitted that the ICE director was an advisor to a senior government official and the payments were shared with the senior government official. According to Sapsizian, the payments were intended to cause the ICE director and the senior government official to exercise their influence to initiate a bid process which favored Alcatel’s technology and to vote to award Alcatel a mobile telephone contract. Alcatel was in fact awarded a $149 million mobile telephone contract in August 2001.
United States v. William J. Jefferson (E.D. Virginia): On June 4, 2007, in the Eastern District of Virginia, United States Congressman William J. Jefferson was charged in a 16-count indictment with two counts of conspiracy (Counts 1-2: 18 U.S.C. § 371), two counts of solicitation of bribes (Counts 3-4: 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A)), six counts of honest services wire fraud (Counts 5-10: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346), one count of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)(Count 11: 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(a)), three counts of money laundering (Counts 12-14: 18 U.S.C. § 1957), one count of obstruction of justice (Count 15: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)), and one count of violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)(Count 16: 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)). The indictment also seeks forfeiture (18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982, 1963; 28 U.S..C. § 2461).
The indictment alleges that from August 2000 through August 2005, Congressman Jefferson, while serving as an elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives, used his position and his office to corruptly seek, solicit and direct that things of value be paid to Jefferson and his family members in exchange for his performance of official acts to advance the interests of people and businesses who paid him the bribes.
The things of value allegedly sought and received by Jefferson on behalf of his business interests and relatives included hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bribes in the form of monthly fees or retainers, consulting fees, percentage shares of revenues and profits, flat fees for items sold and stock ownership in the companies seeking his official assistance. The official activities allegedly undertaken by Jefferson included leading official business delegations to Africa, corresponding with U.S. and foreign government officials, and utilizing congressional staff members to promote these businesses and business persons. Business ventures that Jefferson sought to promote included: telecommunications deals in Nigeria, Ghana, and elsewhere; oil concessions in Equatorial Guinea; satellite transmission contracts in Botswana, Equatorial Guinea, and the Republic of Congo; and development of different plants and facilities in Nigeria.
The indictment alleges that Jefferson knowingly conspired with Vernon L. Jackson, a Louisville, Kentucky, businessman, and Brett M. Pfeffer, a former Jefferson congressional staff member, and others as part of the bribery and corruption scheme. Jefferson allegedly discussed and solicited bribes in return for being influenced in the performance of certain official acts, including receiving things of value from iGate, Jackson’s company. According to the indictment, Jefferson also corruptly sought bribes from an individual identified in the indictment as a Cooperating Witness (CW) to be paid to family members. The indictment alleges, for example, that Jefferson required 5-7 percent of the CW’s newly formed Nigerian company be given to members of his family in exchange for his assistance. Jefferson allegedly made the request of the CW in December 2004, during a meeting in a congressional dining room.
The indictment further alleges that Jefferson violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by allegedly offering, promising and making payments to foreign officials to advance the various business endeavors in which he and his family had a financial interest. Jefferson was allegedly responsible for negotiating, offering and delivering payments of bribes to one official identified in the indictment as “Nigerian Official A.”
United States v. Baker Hughes Services International, Inc. and Baker Hughes Incorporated (S.D. Texas): On April 26, 2007, in the Southern District of Texas, Baker Hughes Services International, Inc. (BHSI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Baker Hughes Incorporated, pleaded guilty to a three-count criminal information, filed under seal on April 11, 2007, charging it with one count of conspiracy (Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371), one count of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)(Count 2: 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(a)), and one count of aiding and abetting the falsification of books and records (Count 3: 15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(b)(2)(A), 78m(b)(5), and 78ff(a)). Also on April 26, the parent corporation, Baker Hughes Incorporated, entered into a two-year deferred prosecution agreement in connection with a three-count criminal information, filed under seal on April 11, 2007, charging it with one count of conspiracy, one count of violating the FCPA (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a)) and one count of falsification of books and records. Both informations were unsealed on April 26, 2007.
As part of the plea agreement, it was agreed that BHSI would pay a criminal fine of $11 million, serve a three-year term of organizational probation and adopt a comprehensive anti-bribery compliance program. Under the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Baker Hughes has agreed to hire an independent monitor for three years to oversee the creation and maintenance of a robust compliance program and to continue to cooperate completely with the Department in ongoing investigations into corrupt payments by company employees and managers.
In a related matter, Baker Hughes reached a settlement of a complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission under which it agreed to pay $10 million in civil penalties and more than $23 million in disgorgement of all profits it earned in connection with the Karachaganak project, including prejudgment interest. The $44 million in combined fines and penalties is the largest monetary sanction ever imposed in an FCPA case.
As the charging and plea documents reflect, the government of Kazakhstan and Kazakhoil, entered into an agreement with a consortium of four international oil companies for the purpose of developing and operating a giant oil field known as Karachaganak in northwestern Kazakhstan. In February 2000, BHSI submitted a bid, on behalf of Baker Hughes, to perform comprehensive services such as project management, oil drilling, and support services in connection with the Karachaganak project. Kazakhoil wielded considerable influence as Kazakhstan’s national oil company, and the ultimate award of any contract by the consortium of international oil companies depended upon the favorable recommendation of Kazakhoil officials. After BHSI submitted its bid for the Karachaganak project and before the award was announced, Kazakhoil officials demanded that Baker Hughes pay a commission to “Consulting Firm A,” located on the Isle of Man, to act as its agent. Although Consulting Firm A had performed no services to assist Baker Hughes, in September 2000, BHSI agreed to pay a commission equal to 2 percent of the revenue earned on the Karachaganak project, and 3 percent on future projects in Kazakhstan. Baker Hughes was awarded the contract for Karachaganak in October 2000. From May 2001 through November 2003, Baker Hughes paid a total of $4.1 million in commissions to Consulting Firm A. The payments were made from a BHSI bank account in Houston to an account of Consulting Firm A at a bank in London.
SEC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated and Roy Fearnley, (Case No. H-07-1408 (S.D. Tex.) (EW), filed April 26, 2007, Litigation Release No. 20094). On April 26, 2007, the Commission filed a settled enforcement action charging Baker Hughes Incorporated with violations of the FCPA. Without admitting or denying the charges, Baker Hughes agreed to pay more than $23 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest for its violations and to pay a civil penalty of $10 million for violating a 2001 Commission cease-and-desist Order prohibiting violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. In the Matter of Baker Hughes Incorporated, Admin. Proc. No. 3-10572 (September 12, 2001). In the same action, the SEC also charged Roy Fearnley, a former business development manager for Baker Hughes, with violating and aiding and abetting violations of the FCPA. Fearnley has not reached any settlement with the Commission regarding these charges. The SEC’s complaint alleges that Baker Hughes paid approximately $5.2 million to two agents while knowing that some or all of the money was intended to bribe government officials, specifically officials of State-owned companies, in Kazakhstan. The SEC’s complaint against Baker Hughes also alleges violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA in Nigeria, Angola, Indonesia, Russia, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. In addition to the monetary sanctions, Baker Hughes consented to the entry of a permanent injunction from future violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws and to retain an independent consultant to review the company’s FCPA compliance and procedures.
SEC v. Charles Michael Martin, Case No. 1:07CV0434 (D.D.C.) (filed March 6, 2007), Litigation Release No. 20029: On March 6, 2007, the Commission filed a settled enforcement action charging Charles Michael Martin with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"). In its complaint, the Commission alleged that in 2002, Martin authorized and directed an Indonesian consulting firm to pay a bribe of $50,000 to a senior Indonesian Ministry of Environment official ("the Senior Environment Official"). The complaint alleged that the illegal payment was made to influence the Senior Environment Official to repeal language in a decree that was unfavorable to Monsanto's business in Indonesia. The complaint further alleged that Martin directed a false invoicing scheme to conceal the unlawful activity; Martin approved the false invoices; and Martin took steps to ensure that Monsanto paid the false invoices. Without admitting or denying the charges, Martin consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violating and/or aiding and abetting violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. Martin also agreed to pay a $30,000 civil penalty. Based, in part, on these allegations, the Commission previously filed a settled enforcement action and instituted settled administrative proceedings against Monsanto. [SEC v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 1:05CV00014 (D.D.C. January 6, 2005); Monsanto Company, No. 3-11789, Exchange Act Rel. No. 19023 (January 6, 2005)].
In the Matter of The Dow Chemical Company, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-12567. On February 13, 2007, the Commission filed a settled enforcement action against The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”). Without admitting or denying the Commission’s findings the company agreed to cease-and-desist from violating the books and records and internal control provision of the FCPA and to pay a civil penalty of $325,000. The Commission’s order found that a fifth-tier foreign subsidiary of Dow made an estimated $200,000 in improper payments to Indian government officials from 1996 through 2001. The order found that the Dow subsidiary, DE-Nocil Crop Protection Ltd. ("DE-Nocil"), headquartered in Mumbai, India, manufactured and marketed pesticides and other products primarily for use in the Indian agriculture industry. According to the order, beginning in 1996, DE-Nocil made approximately $39,700 in improper payments to an official in India's Central Insecticides Board to expedite the registration of three DE-Nocil products. The order also found that from 1996 to 2001, DE-Nocil made $87,400 in improper payments to state officials in order to distribute and sell its products. The order further states that, in addition to these payments, DE-Nocil also made improper payments to Indian government officials consisting of an estimated $37,600 for gifts, travel, entertainment and other items; $19,000 to government business officials; $11,800 to sales tax officials; $3,700 to excise tax officials; and $1,500 to customs officials. In sum, over a six-year period, DE-Nocil distributed an estimated total of $200,000 in improper payments through federal and state channels. According to the order, none of these payments were accurately reflected in Dow's books and records, and Dow's system of internal accounting controls failed to prevent the payments.
Securities & Exchange Commission v. El Paso Corporation, Civil Action No. 07CV00899 (S.D.N.Y.) On February 7, 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled enforcement action against El Paso Corporation (“El Paso”), a Texas based energy company, alleging that it violated the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, El Paso consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining it from future violations of Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, ordering it to disgorge $5,482,363 in profits, and to pay a civil penalty of $2,250,000. The parties agreed that El Paso would satisfy its disgorgement obligation by forfeiting $5,482,363 pursuant to a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. The Commission’s complaint alleges that from approximately June 2001 through June 2002, El Paso, and its predecessor in-interest The Coastal Corporation, indirectly made approximately $5.5 million in illegal surcharge payments to Iraq in connection with its purchases of crude oil from third parties under the U.N. Oil for Food Program. The complaint further alleges that in September 2000, The Coastal Corporation – which merged with an El Paso subsidiary in January 2001 - received its first surcharge demand from a SOMO official. An El Paso consultant and former Coastal official arranged a $201,877 surcharge payment on the company’s behalf. After receiving notice from SOMO that all oil contracts would include surcharges, El Paso ceased direct purchases from SOMO but continued its purchases through third parties. Beginning in June 2001, El Paso entered into fourteen additional third-party transactions involving fifteen contracts to purchase some 21.4 million barrels of oil. Approximately 25 to 30 cents of every barrel was illegally kicked back to Iraq by third parties. El Paso knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that $5.5 million in illegal surcharges were made on those contracts, and passed back to El Paso in premiums.
United States v. Vetco Gray Controls, Inc., Vetco Gray Controls, Ltd., Vetco Gray UK Ltd., and Aibel Group Limited (S.D. Texas): On February 6, 2007 three wholly owned subsidiaries of Vetco International, Ltd., a global supplier of products and services for oil drilling production, pleaded guilty and were sentenced for conspiring to violate the FCPA and for violating the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA in connection with the payment of approximately $2.1 million in corrupt payments to Nigerian government officials to avoid paying customs duties. From September 2002 to April 2005 these corrupt payments were paid through a major international freight forwarding and customs clearance company to employees of the Nigerian Customs Service. Aibel Group, Ltd., another wholly owned subsidiary of Vetco International, simultaneously entered into a deferred prosecution agreement regarding the same underlying conduct. As part of the plea and deferred prosecution agreements, it was agreed that Vetco Gray Controls Inc., Vetco Gray Controls Ltd., and Vetco Gray UK Ltd. would pay criminal fines of $6 million, $8 million, and $12 million, respectively, for a total of $26 million. In addition to the criminal fines, the plea agreements and the deferred prosecution agreement require the defendants to hire an independent monitor to oversee the creation and maintenance of a robust compliance program.
Schnitzer Steel Industries Inc.; United States v. SSI International Far East Ltd. (D. Or. 2006): On October 16, 2006, SSI International Far East Ltd. (SSI Korea), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Schnitzer Steel Industries Inc., pled guilty to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, conspiracy, and wire fraud in connection with more than $1.8 million in corrupt payments to officers and employees of government-owned customers in China and South Korea to induce them to purchase scrap metal from Schnitzer Steel. SSI Korea was sentenced to pay a $7.5 million criminal fine. Schnitzer Steel Industries Inc. entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement regarding the same underlying activity and agreed to the appointment of a compliance consultant.
In the Matter of Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-12456. On October 16, 2006, the Commission filed a settled enforcement action against Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. (“Schnitzer”). Without admitting or denying the Commission’s findings the company agreed to cease-and-desist from violating the anti-bribery, books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA and pay disgorgement of $7,725,201. The Commission’s order found that Schnitzer, an Oregon-based steel company that sells scrap metal, from at least 1999 through 2004, paid cash kickbacks or made gifts to managers of government-controlled steel mills in China to induce those managers to purchase scrap metal from Schnitzer. Schnitzer made the payments on its own behalf and as a broker for Japanese steel companies. During this period, Schnitzer also paid bribes to managers of private steel mills in China and South Korea, and improperly concealed those payments in its books and records.
United States v. Statoil ASA (S.D.N.Y. 2006): Statoil ASA, a Norwegian corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange, entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement on October 13, 2006; admitted to paying $5.2 million in bribes to an Iranian official in order to secure oil and gas rights in Iran; agreed to pay a $10.5 million penalty, with a credit for the approximately $3 million fine imposed by Okokrim in connection with a proceeding in Norway; and agreed to the appointment of a compliance consultant. Statoil agreed to cooperate fully with the Department of Justice and the SEC in connection with further inquiries.
In the Matter of Statoil, ASA, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-12453. On October 13, 2006, the Commission filed a settled enforcement action against Statoil, ASA (“Statoil”). Without admitting or denying the Commission’s findings the company agreed to cease-and-desist from violating the anti-bribery, books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA and pay disgorgement of $10,500,000. The Commission’s order found that In June 2002 and January 2003, Statoil paid bribes to an Iranian government official (the “Iranian Official”) in order for him to use his influence to: (i) assist Statoil in obtaining a contract to develop three phases of the South Pars oil and gas field in Iran (the “South Pars Project”) and (ii) open doors to additional projects in the Iranian oil and gas exploration industry. The Iranian Official was the head of the Iranian Fuel Consumption Optimizing Organization (“IFCOO”), a subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Company (“NIOC”). Statoil agreed to pay the Iranian Official through a consulting contract (the “Contract”) with an intermediary company (the “Consulting Company”) organized in the Turks and Caicos Islands and nominally owned by a third party located in London, England. The Contract obligated Statoil to make initial payments of $200,000 and $5 million, and ten subsequent annual payments of $1 million each. In October 2002, Statoil obtained the contract to develop the South Pars Project. Statoil made the initial payments to the Iranian Official, but in June 2003, Statoil suspended payments under the Contract. On September 6, 2003, the Contract was publicly disclosed in the Norwegian press. On September 10, 2003, Statoil terminated the Contract. The next day, the Norwegian authorities announced an investigation into the Contract. During the relevant time period, Statoil employees circumvented Statoil’s internal controls and procedures that were in place to prevent illegal payments, and Statoil lacked sufficient internal controls. In addition, by mischaracterizing the payments as legitimate consulting fees, Statoil violated the books and records provisions of the federal securities laws.
United States v. Jim Bob Brown (S.D. Tex. 2006): Jim Bob Brown, a former executive of a subsidiary of Houston-based Willbros Group Inc., pled guilty to violating the FCPA on September 14, 2006. Brown acknowledged that he and another Nigeria-based Willbros executive paid approximately $1.5 million in cash as part of a conspiracy to make corrupt payments to officials of the Nigerian state-owned oil company to obtain and retain gas pipeline construction business in Nigeria. Brown also admitted that he conspired with Willbros employees to pay at least $300,000 to officials of the Ecuadorian state-owned oil company to obtain a gas pipeline rehabilitation contract. Brown is cooperating with the ongoing investigation and has not yet been sentenced.
SEC v. Jim Bob Brown, Civil Action No. 06-CV-2919, U.S.D.C./Southern District of Texas (Houston Division). On September 14, 2006, Commission filed a civil action against Jim Bob "J.B." Brown, a former employee of a subsidiary of Willbros Group, Inc., alleging that Brown violated and aided and abetted violations of the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, the prohibitions against circumventing internal controls and falsifying records, and the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Exchange Act. Brown has agreed to settle the charges against him, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint.
The Commission alleges in its complaint that Brown, a former supervisory employee in Willbros's Nigerian and Latin American operations, participated in three separate schemes to bribe foreign officials. First, the complaint alleges that, in February and March 2005, Brown procured $1 million on behalf of a Willbros affiliate and delivered that money as partial payment of previously-made commitments to Nigerian government officials and to employees of the operator of a joint venture majority owned by an arm of the Nigerian government. He also assisted, according to the complaint, in the payment of an additional $550,000 that was also used to satisfy the earlier commitments. Second, Brown, in return for the granting to Willbros of a $3 million contract, knowingly assisted a scheme to pay a $300,000 bribe to officials of an oil and gas company owned by the government of Ecuador and its subsidiary. Finally, Brown knowingly assisted a long-running scheme in which employees of Willbros affiliates used fabricated invoices to procure cash from the company's administrative headquarters in Houston that was used to, among other things, bribe Nigerian tax and court officials.
The Commission alleges that, through these activities, Brown violated Sections 13(b)(5) and 30A of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder. In addition, the complaint alleges that Brown aided and abetted violations of Sections 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B) and 30A of the Exchange Act. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Brown consented to the entry of a judgment that permanently enjoins him from future violations of these provisions. Pursuant to the judgment, the Court will determine, at a later date upon motion by the Commission, whether to order Brown to pay a civil penalty and the amount of such penalty.
United States v. Yaw Osei Amoako (D.N.J. 2006): On September 6, 2006, Yaw Osei Amoako pled guilty to conspiring to violate the FCPA and the Travel Act during his employment as a regional manager for Africa by the ITXC Corporation (in 2004, ITXC merged with Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd.). Amoako acknowledged that he paid approximately $266,000 in bribes in the form of illegal “commissions” to employees of foreign state-owned telecommunications carriers in various African countries. Sentencing is scheduled for December 11, 2006.
SEC v. Yaw Osei Amoako (Civil Action No. 05-4284, GEB, D.N.J.) On September 1, 2005 the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Yaw Osei Amoako, the former Regional Director for Africa of ITXC Corp., alleging that he violated the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 (FCPA), as amended, which is codified as Section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Commission’s complaint alleges that Amoako bribed a senior official of the government-owned telephone company in Nigeria, known as Nigerian Telecommunications Ltd., in order to obtain a lucrative contract for ITXC. The contract was necessary for ITXC to be able to transmit telephone calls to individuals and businesses in Nigeria. According to the complaint, Amoako paid the Nitel official a total of $166,541.31 in bribes between November 2002 and May 2004, and ITXC made $1,136,618 in net profits from the contract. In 2004, ITXC merged with Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd. The Commission seeks to have the Court enjoin Amoako from any future violations of the FCPA, require him to disgorge all ill-gotten gains derived from his misconduct, and order him to pay a civil money penalty. The Commission’s investigation is continuing.
SEC v. Steven J. Ott and Roger Michael Young, Civil Action No. 06-4195 (GEB) (D.N.J.). On September 6, 2006, the Commission filed a civil enforcement against two former executives of ITXC Corp. (ITXC). Steven J. Ott, the former Vice President for Global Sales, and Roger Michael Young, the former Managing Director for the Middle East and Africa, were charged with violating the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 (FCPA), as amended, which is codified as Section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The complaint also alleges that Ott and Young caused ITXC to record the bribes as legitimate business expenses on its books and records, which violated Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1 and aided and abetted ITXC's violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B).
ITXC was a publicly-held international telecommunications carrier based in Princeton, New Jersey that sought to do business in Africa. According to the complaint, Ott and Young approved, and in some cases negotiated, bribes that ITXC paid to senior officials of government-owned telephone companies in Nigeria, Rwanda and Senegal, in order to obtain contracts that were necessary for ITXC to be able to transmit telephone calls to individuals and businesses in those countries. The complaint alleges that Ott and Young were responsible for $267,468.95 in bribes that ITXC paid between August 2001 and May 2004. The complaint further alleges that ITXC made $11,509,733 in net profits from the contracts. In 2004, ITXC merged with Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd., which was subsequently acquired by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. in 2006.
The Commission is seeking injunctions, disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains derived from the alleged misconduct (with prejudgment interest thereon) and civil penalties against Ott and Young.
United States v. Faheem Mousa Salam (D.D.C. 2006): Faheem Mousa Salam, a former employee of a U.S. government contractor working in Iraq, pled guilty to violations of the FCPA on August 4, 2006. Salam admitted that he offered a senior Iraqi police official approximately $60,000 in exchange for the official’s assistance with facilitating the sale of armored vests and a sophisticated map printer for approximately $1 million. Salam also acknowledged that he later offered an undercover agent of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction a separate bribe to process the contracts.
SEC v. John Samson, John G. A. Munro, Ian N. Campbell, and John H. Whelan, Civil Action No. 06 CV 01217 (D.D.C.). On July 5, 2006, the Commission filed a settled complaint charging four former employees of subsidiaries of ABB Ltd., with violating the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA. The Commission's complaint alleges that the four former employees -- John Samson, a former regional sales manager for West Africa, John G. A. Munro, a former senior vice president of operations, Ian N. Campbell, a former vice president of finance, and John H. Whelan, a former vice president of sales -- participated in a scheme by offering, approving, and/or paying bribes to Nigerian government officials in furtherance of ABB's bid to obtain a $180 million contract to provide equipment for an oil drilling project in Nigeria's offshore Bonga Oil Field. According to the complaint, as a result of the defendants' actions, during the period 1999 through 2001, ABB paid approximately $1 million in bribes to officials of National Petroleum Investment Management Services ("NAPIMS"), the Nigerian state-owned agency responsible for overseeing oil exploration and production in Nigeria. The Commission alleges that these illicit payments -- which took the form of both cash and gifts -- were intended to induce and reward NAPIMS officials for providing ABB with confidential competitor bid information, and securing favorable consideration of ABB’s bid on the Bonga contract, which ultimately was awarded to ABB in early 2001.
The Commission alleges that during the tender process for the Bonga contract in 2000, Samson, the regional sales manager for West Africa, negotiated to pay six NAPIMS officials a total of $800,000 in bribes. The Commission further alleges that Samson subsequently informed Munro and Campbell of the payments promised to the NAPIMS officials. According to the complaint, at the direction of a senior officer (now deceased) of ABB's Vetco Gray U.S. subsidiary, Munro instructed Campbell and Samson to arrange payment to the NAPIMS officials using a local consultant as a conduit. The complaint alleges that Campbell arranged to funnel $800,000 in bribes to the consultant under the cover of false invoices for consulting work. The complaint also alleges that Samson personally profited from this bribery scheme by obtaining $50,000 in kickbacks from one the NAPIMS officials who received illicit payments.
In addition, the complaint alleges that between 1999 and 2001, Samson arranged for Whelan to provide cash and other gifts -- including lodging and meals -- to NAPIMS officials when they visited the United States. According to the complaint, these payments totaled more than $176,000.
The Commission's complaint alleges that Samson, Munro, Campbell and Whelan each violated the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, codified as Section 30A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and the books and records and internal accounting control provisions of Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder. The complaint further alleges that each defendant aided and abetted ABB's books and records and internal accounting control violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B). Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Samson, Munro, Campbell and Whelan consented to the entry of final judgments that (1) permanently enjoin each of them from future violations of these provisions, (2) order each to pay a civil monetary penalty ($50,000 as to Samson, and $40,000 each as to Munro, Campbell and Whelan), and (3) orders Samson to pay $64,675 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.
United States v. ABB Vetco Gray, Inc. and ABB Vetco Gray (UK) Ltd.; SEC v. ABB Ltd.: In July 2004, two subsidiaries of ABB Ltd., a Swiss company, pleaded guilty to violations of the FCPA in connection with obtaining oil construction projects in Nigeria and agreed to pay a combined fine of $11,000,000. On the same date, the SEC charged the Swiss parent company with violations of the books and records provisions of the FCPA related to the Nigerian conduct and issues involving payments in other countries, and the parent company agreed to disgorge illicit profits of $5,900,000.
In the Matter of Oil States International, Inc., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11789. On April 27, 2006, the Commission instituted settled administrative proceedings against Oil States International, Inc. for violations of the record keeping and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. The Commission Order arises from certain payments made through its Hydraulic Well Control, LLC (“HWC”) subsidiary. Oil States, through certain employees of HWC, provided approximately $348,350 in improper payments to employees of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”), an energy company owned by the government of Venezuela. The employees were asked to participate in the scheme by a consultant for HWC, after he was requested to do so by the PDVSA employees. HWC improperly recorded the payments in its accounting books and records as ordinary business expenses, which were consolidated into those of its parent, Oil States.
SEC v. Tyco International Ltd., (Civil Action No. 06 CV 2942 S.D.N.Y.) On April 17, 2006, the Commission filed a settled complaint against Tyco International Ltd and imposing a $50 million penalty for a range of violations of the federal securities laws including violations of the FCPA for Tyco’s operations in Brazil and South Korea. The complaint alleges that Tyco violated the antibribery provisions of the FCPA when employees or agents of its Earth Tech Brasil Ltda. subsidiary made payments to Brazilian officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for Tyco.
United States v. Steven Lynnwood Head (S.D. Cal. 2006): Steven Lynnwood Head, former CEO of Titan Africa, Inc., a subsidiary of the Titan Corporation, pled guilty to a one-count Information charging falsification of the books, records and accounts of Titan Corporation. Further discussion regarding the Titan case appears below under United States v. Titan Corporation. Head will cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation. Sentencing is scheduled for March 2007.
United States v. Richard John Novak (E.D. Wash. 2006): On March 20, 2006, Richard John Novak pled guilty to one count of violating the FCPA and an additional count of wire fraud and mail fraud in connection with corrupt payments to embassy officials of Liberia, the Director of National Commission of Higher Education of Liberia, and the Director General of Higher Education of Liberia for their assistance in obtaining false accreditation for online universities as part of an online “diploma-mill” scheme. Sentencing is scheduled for December 2006.
United States v. Viktor Kozeny, Frederic Bourke, Jr, and David Pinkerton: On October 6, 2005, a grand jury in New York indicted Viktor Kozeny, Frederic Bourke Jr., and David Pinkerton for allegedly participating in a massive scheme to bribe senior government officials in Azerbaijan to ensure that those officials would privatize the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (“SOCAR”) and allow Kozeny, Bourke, Pinkerton and others to share in the anticipated profits arising from that privatization. The indictment charges that Kozeny, acting on his own and as an agent of Bourke, Pinkerton and others, made a series of corrupt payments and promises to pay to a senior official of the Government of Azerbaijan, a senior official of SOCAR, and to senior officials of the State Property Committee, the agency responsible for administrating the privatization program. The defendants are also charged with related crimes, including money laundering. Kozeny was arrested in The Bahamas and on September 28, 2006, a Bahamian magistrate approved his extradition to the United States. It is expected that Kozeny will appeal the extradition order. Bourke and Pinkerton voluntarily surrendered to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and have been arraigned. Three other individuals previously pleaded guilty in connection with their participation in this bribery scheme. Trial has not yet been scheduled.
United States v. DPC (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. (C.D. Cal. 2005): On May 20, 2005, DPC (Tianjin) Co. Ltd., the Chinese subsidiary of Los Angeles-based Diagnostic Products Corporation (DPC) – pled guilty to violating the FCPA in connection with the payment of approximately $1.6 million in bribes in the form of illegal “commissions” to physicians and laboratory personnel employed by government-owned hospitals in the People’s Republic of China. In addition to pleading guilty, the company, a producer and seller of diagnostic medical equipment, agreed to adopt internal compliance measures, cooperate with ongoing criminal and SEC civil investigations, and appoint an independent compliance expert to audit the company’s compliance program and monitor its implementation of new internal policies and procedures. DPC Tianjin paid a criminal penalty of $2 million.
In The Matter of Diagnostic Products Corporation, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11933. On May 19, 2005, the Commission filed a settled enforcement action against Diagnostic Products Corporation (“DPC”). Without admitting or denying the Commission’s findings the company agreed to cease-and-desist from violating the anti-bribery, books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA and pay disgorgement of $2,788,622. The Commission’s order found that in October 1991, DPC established DePu Biotechnological & Medical Products Inc. (“DePu”) in Tianjin, China as a joint venture. Initially, DPC owned 90% of DePu and the joint venture partner was a local Chinese government entity. In 1997, DePu became a wholly-owned subsidiary of DPC. Throughout the relevant period, the financial results of DePu were a component of the consolidated financial statements included in DPC’s filings with the Commission. DePu’s customers are primarily state-owned hospitals in China. From 1991 through 2002, DPC through DePu routinely made improper commission payments totaling approximately $1.6 million to doctors and laboratory employees who controlled purchasing decisions at these state-owned hospitals. The commissions represented a certain percentage of sales to the hospitals (typically 3% to 10%), and DePu determined the percentages based on the prevailing rate in the customer’s region, the sales amount, and the prior relationship with the customer. In most cases the payments were made in cash and delivered by DePu’s sales employees by mail or wire transfer. During the relevant period, DePu’s then management knew about, approved, and administered the payment of these commissions. Throughout the relevant period, the individuals who received improper payments from DePu were foreign officials within the meaning of the FCPA, and the hospitals were instrumentalities of a foreign government within the meaning of the FCPA. The purpose of the improper payments was to influence these individuals’ official decisions and to induce them to use their influence with the hospitals to assist DPC to obtain or retain business.
United States v. Titan Corp. (S.D.CA. 2005): On March 1, 2005, Titan Corporation, a San Diego-based military intelligence and communications company, pleaded guilty to a three-count Information charging it with violating the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA and assisting in the filing of a false tax return. The charges stem from Titan’s corrupt payment of more than $2 million towards the election of Benin’s then-incumbent President. That same day, Titan was sentenced to pay a criminal fine of $13,000,000 and serve three years’ probation. Titan was ordered to adopt a strict FCPA compliance program. Titan also agreed to pay $15.4 million in a parallel civil case filed by the SEC. The combined civil/criminal penalty of $28 million imposed is the largest FCPA penalty for a public company.
SEC v. The Titan Corporation (Case No. 05-0411 (D.D.C.) (JR), filed March 1, 2005, Litigation Release No. 19107.): On March 1, 2005, the Commission filed a settled enforcement action charging The Titan Corporation ("Titan") with violating the FCPA. Simultaneously with the filing of the Commission's complaint, and without admitting or denying its allegations, Titan consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining it from future violations of the FCPA and requiring it to pay (i) $15.479 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, and (ii) a $13 million penalty, which will be deemed satisfied by Titan's payment of criminal fines of that amount in parallel criminal proceedings. The Commission's complaint alleges that, in 2001, at the direction of at least one former senior Titan officer based in the United States, Titan funneled approximately $2 million, via its agent in Benin, towards the election campaign of Benin's then-incumbent President. The complaint also alleges that some of these funds were used to reimburse Titan's agent for the purchase to T-shirts adorned with the President's picture and instructions to vote for him in the upcoming election. According to the complaint, Titan made these payments to assist the company in its development of a telecommunications project in Benin and to obtain the Benin government's consent to an increase in the percentage of Titan's project management fees for that project.
Micrus Corporation: On February 28, 2005, Micrus Corporation, a privately held company based in Sunnyvale, California, and its Swiss subsidiary Micrus S.A. entered into a two-year deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in which Micrus and its subsidiary admitted paying more than $105,000 to doctors employed at publicly owned and operated hospitals in the French Republic, the Republic of Turkey, the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany in return for the hospitals purchase of Micrus’ medical devices; agreed to pay $450,000 in penalties; agreed to implement a rigorous compliance program with a monitor for a period of three years; and agreed to cooperate fully in the investigation by the Department of Justice.
United States v. Monsanto Co. (D.D.C., 2005): On January 6, 2005, Monsanto Company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in which it agreed to pay a $1,000,000 penalty and admit to violations of the FCPA involving a payment to an Indonesian official to induce him (unsuccessfully) to repeal an environmental regulation, and a related false books and records entry. Pursuant to the agreement, the Government will seek the dismissal of the charges in three years provided the company implements a strict compliance program and continues to cooperate with the Government's investigation. Monsanto also agreed to hire an independent compliance monitor to meet its obligations. Related complaints and orders were filed by the SEC.
SEC v. Monsanto Co. (Civil Action No. 1:05CV00014, (D.D.C.) filed January 6, 2005; Litigation Release No. 19023; Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11789.): On January 6, 2005, the Commission filed settled enforcement proceedings charging Monsanto Company with making illicit payments in violation of the FCPA. The Commission charged that in 2002, a senior Monsanto manager, based in the United States, authorized and directed an Indonesian consulting firm to make an illegal payment totaling $50,000 to a senior Indonesian Ministry of Environment official ("the senior Environment Official"). The bribe was made to influence the senior Environment Official to repeal an unfavorable decree that was likely to have an adverse effect on Monsanto's business. Although the payment was made, the unfavorable decree was not repealed. Without admitting or denying the Commission's charges, Monsanto consented to pay a $500,000 civil penalty and consented to the Commission's issuance of its administrative order. In addition, the Commission charged that, from 1997 to 2002, Monsanto inaccurately recorded, or failed to record, in its books and records approximately $700,000 of illegal or questionable payments made to at least 140 current and former Indonesian government officials and their family members.
SEC v. GE InVision Inc. (formerly known as InVision Technologies, Inc. Civil Action No. C-05-0660 MEJ (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal.); Litigation Release No. 19078; Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11827.): On January 14, 2005, the Commission filed a settled enforcement action against InVision Technologies, Inc. (InVision) for authorizing improper payments to foreign government officials in violation of the FCPA. Simultaneous with the filing of the Commission's charges InVision agreed, without admitting or denying the charges, to disgorge $589,000 in profits plus prejudgment interest of approximately $28,700, and pay a $500,000 civil penalty. InVision was acquired in December 2004 by the General Electric Company, and now operates under the name GE InVision, Inc.; the conduct charged by the Commission occurred prior to the acquisition. The Commission charged that from at least June 2002 through June 2004, InVision employees, sales agents and distributors pursued transactions to sell explosive detection machines to airports in China, the Philippines and Thailand. According to the Commission, in each of these transactions, InVision was aware of a high probability that its foreign sales agents or distributors made or offered to make improper payments to foreign government officials in order to obtain or retain business for InVision. Despite this, InVision allowed the agents or distributors to proceed on its behalf, in violation of the FCPA.
InVision Technologies Inc.: On December 6, 2004, InVision Technologies, Inc., a U.S. company, entered into a two-year deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in which it admitted to violations of the FCPA in Thailand, China, and the Philippines, agreed to pay $800,000 in penalties, agreed to implement a rigorous compliance program with a monitor, and agreed to cooperate fully in the ongoing parallel investigations by the Justice Department and the SEC. General Electric Company, which acquired InVision after the criminal conduct, agreed to ensure compliance by InVision of InVision's obligations under its agreement and to effect FCPA compliance programs within GE's new InVision business. GE and InVision conducted an internal investigation of potential FCPA violations discovered in the course of acquisition due diligence and voluntarily disclosed their findings to the Justice Department and the SEC. Related complaints and orders were filed by the SEC.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Schering-Plough Corporation (D.D.C 2004), On June 16, 2004 a federal court in Washington, D.C. entered a Final Judgment against Schering-Plough, a pharmaceutical company, compelling it to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500,000 for violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions. Further, as a result of these violations, the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered the company to appoint an independent consultant to review its internal controls. Both the Court’s Final Judgment and the Commission’s Order were the result of a settlement with the company in which it neither admitted nor denied the allegations. The Commission’s complaint alleges that, between February 1999 and March 2002, one of Schering-Plough’s foreign subsidiaries, Schering-Plough Poland, made improper payments to a charitable organization called the Chudow Castle Foundation. The Foundation was headed by an individual who was the Director of the Silesian Health Fund during the relevant time. The health fund was a Polish governmental body that, among other things, provided money for the purchase of pharmaceutical products and influenced the purchase of those products by other entities, such as hospitals, through the allocation of health fund resources. According to the complaint, Schering-Plough Poland paid 315,800 zlotys (approximately $76,000) to the Chudow Castle Foundation to induce the Director to influence the health fund's purchase of Schering-Plough's pharmaceutical products.
United States v. Hans Bodmer (S.D.N.Y. 2003): In 2003, a grand jury in New York returned an indictment charging Hans Bodmer, a Swiss lawyer, with conspiring to violate the FCPA in connection with alleged bribery of senior officials of the Government of Azerbaijan. At the United States’ request, Korea extradited Mr. Bodmer to the United States in 2004. In June 2004, the trial court dismissed the FCPA charges based on technical issues relating to extradition. In October 2004, Mr. Bodmer pleaded guilty to money laundering.
United States v. James H. Giffen: In April 2003, a grand jury in New York returned an indictment charging James Giffen, a U.S. citizen, who acts as a counselor to the Government of Kazakhstan on oil transactions, with inter alia, violations of the FCPA, money laundering, and fraud associated with the diversion of fees paid by oil companies and the deposit of funds into Swiss bank accounts held for the benefit of Kazak officials. The trial, which had been scheduled to begin on October 4, 2004, has been postponed to October 2006.
SEC v. Murphy et al. (Civil Action No. H-02-2908 S.D. Texas) On July 30, 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil enforcement action against two former officers of American Rice, Inc., Douglas A. Murphy and David G. Kay, alleging that they authorized bribery payments to Haitian customs officials during 1998 and 1999, in violation of the FCPA. The complaint also alleges that a third individual, Lawrence H. Theriot, a former American Rice consultant, assisted Kay and Murphy. According to the complaint, in advance of certain rice shipments to Haiti between January 1998 and October 1999, Kay directed an American Rice employee to prepare false shipping records that underreported the tonnage of rice on the relevant vessels. Haitian customs officials used the false records to clear the American Rice vessels through customs. After the vessels cleared customs, Kay allegedly directed American Rice employees in Haiti pay cash bribes to certain customs officials. To hide the payments, Kay then directed American Rice’s controller in Haiti to improperly record the bribery payments as routine business expenditures. American Rice employees made at least 12 bribery payments totaling approximately $500,000. In exchange, American Rice illegally avoided approximately $1.5 million in Haitian import taxes. Without admitting or denying the Commission’s charges, Theriot consented to payment of an $11,000 civil penalty and entry of an order permanently enjoining him from violating the FCPA on December 30, 2004. The Commission’s action against Murphy and Kay remains stayed pending completion of the parallel criminal action against them.
United States v. David Kay: In December 2001, a grand jury sitting in Houston, Texas, returned an indictment charging David Kay, an officer of American Rice Inc., with violating the FCPA by allegedly authorizing bribes of Haitian customs officials. In March 2002, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment adding a second defendant, Douglas Murphy, a former officer of American Rice Inc. In April 2002, the district court dismissed the indictment, finding that the conduct alleged did not fall within the FCPA’s requirement that the bribes be paid to “assist in obtaining or retaining business.” The United States appealed this decision, and, in February 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the indictment. United States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2004). In July 2004, the United States obtained a second superseding indictment, which added a conspiracy count against both defendants and an obstruction of justice count against Murphy based on his allegedly false testimony to the SEC. On October 6, 2004, Kay and Murphy were convicted on all counts following a two-week jury trial. On June 29, 2005, the Honorable David H. Hittner, U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sentenced Douglas Murphy and David Kay, two former officers of American Rice, Inc., to prison for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Murphy, a resident of Texas, was sentenced to 63 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Kay, also a resident of Texas, was sentenced to 37 months in prison followed by two years of supervised release. The defendants were released on bond pending appeal.
United States v. Frerik Pluimers: In April 1998, a grand jury sitting in Trenton, New Jersey, returned an indictment charging Frerik Pluimers, a Dutch national, and David Mead, a U.K. national, both of whom were officers of an American company, Saybolt Inc., with conspiracy and violations of the FCPA and the Travel Act in connection with a bribe allegedly paid to Panamanian officials. Mr. Mead was convicted at trial in October 1998. The United States requested the Netherlands to extradite Mr. Pluimers in March 2000. Despite extended litigation, including a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court authorizing the extradition, the Dutch authorities have not yet ordered Mr. Pluimers’ extradition.
Other Enforcement Actions
2 FCPA Opinion Procedure Releases:
a. Opinion Procedure Release No. 06-01 - In October 2006, the Department of Justice issued an Opinion Procedure Release in response to a request from a Delaware Corporation with headquarters in Switzerland declining to take enforcement action if the corporation proceeded with a proposed contribution to the government of an unspecified African country. The company proposed to contribute $25,000 to the African country’s regional Customs department and/or Ministry of Finance as part of a pilot project to improve local enforcement of anticounterfeiting laws. The company represented that it would execute a formal memorandum of understanding with the country, and would establish several procedural safeguards to ensure that the funds would be used as intended.
b. Opinion Procedure Release No. 06-02 - In December 2006, the Department of Justice issued an Opinion Procedure Release in response to a request in response to a request from a subsidiary of a U.S. issuer declining to take enforcement action if the corporation retain a law firm in the foreign country and paid it substantial fees to aid the company in obtaining foreign exchange from a government agency of that country by preparing its foreign exchange applications to that agency and representing the company during the review process. The Department’s release under the circumstances was based on the company’s representations regarding steps taken in conducting due diligence regarding the law firm; the inclusion in the agreement between the company and the law firm several provisions designed to prevent corruption from occurring; and a number of additional representations.
|
Video: South Africa Signing Anti-Bribery Convention
