In First Ruling by a Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit Adopts Broad Definition of “Foreign Instrumentality” under FCPA

by Dechert LLP
Contact

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) prohibits bribing a “foreign official,” yet courts have rarely had the chance to weigh in on who exactly qualifies as a foreign official. Enforcement agencies have taken the position that state-owned entities generally are covered “foreign instrumentalities”—and therefore their employees are “foreign officials”1—while others have countered that only entities performing a traditional, core government function, not a commercial function, count as “foreign instrumentalities.” Many recent investigations and prosecutions have involved employees of state-owned or controlled entities such as oil companies, banks, and healthcare providers, so the scope of these definitions is crucial to the government’s enforcement activities.

On May 16, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit—which has jurisdiction over federal cases in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama—issued the first appellate court decision interpreting the term “foreign instrumentality.” Siding with the government, the Court upheld the convictions of two owners of a Florida-based company who had been found to have bribed employees of the Haitian telecommunications company, Teleco.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision clarifies that a separate inquiry into an entity’s function—as well as the level of governmental control—is required by the statute, holding that “[a]n ‘instrumentality’ under . . . the FCPA is [1] an entity controlled by the government of a foreign country that [2] performs a function the controlling government treats as its own.”2 Each of these two separate requirements must be satisfied:  “[P]rovision of a service by a government-owned or controlled entity is not by itself sufficient” for that entity to qualify as an “instrumentality” under the FCPA.  Furthermore, the decision’s “definition of ‘instrumentality’ requires that the entity perform a function the government treats as its own.”3

As to the first requirement, the Court put forth several non-exhaustive factors to guide the determination of whether a foreign government controls an entity:

  • The foreign government’s designation of the entity
  • Whether the government has a majority interest in the entity
  • The government’s ability to hire and fire the entity’s principals
  • The extent to which the entity’s profits, if any, go directly into government coffers and conversely whether the government funds the entity if it fails to break even
  • The length of time these indicia have existed

The Court noted that these factors are informed by the commentary to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (“OECD”) Anti-Bribery Convention, which the United States ratified in 1998.4 In reaching its conclusions, the Court found significant that Congress amended the FCPA in order to bring the United States into compliance with the OECD Convention but did not change the definition of “foreign instrumentality” or “foreign official,” indicating that Congress believed that the existing statute already complied with the OECD’s definitions of those terms.5

As to the second requirement, the Court found that the following non-exhaustive list of factors should be considered in determining whether the entity “performs a function the government treats as its own”:

  • Whether the entity has a monopoly
  • Whether the government subsidizes the entity’s costs
  • Whether the entity provides services to the public at large
  • Whether the public and the government of the foreign country generally perceive the entity to be performing a governmental function6

Again, the Court drew these factors in part from the OECD’s guidance about its own Anti-Bribery Convention, as well as U.S. Supreme Court and other U.S. precedent.7 The decision emphasized that another country’s definition of what constitutes a governmental function may well be different from the United States’, and courts must look to the objective manifestations of whether the particular foreign government and foreign populace view the entity’s function as a governmental function.8 The factors the Court set forth for these two requirements are similar but not identical to those set forth by the government in its 2012 Resource Guide.9

Conclusion

Although the Court noted that the entity at issue “would qualify as a Haitian instrumentality under almost any definition we could craft,”10 and although the Court has jurisdiction over only three states, this decision is likely to be influential because it is the first appellate decision to address this crucial definition. The decision likely means that companies will face even stronger headwinds than previously if they attempt to avoid prosecution based on an argument that the government body at issue did not perform “core” governmental functions.11 Notably, the Court set no bright-line rules, nor did it opine on which factor or factors may be most significant, but instead established a fact-based framework to be applied in each case’s particular circumstances.  The Court’s reliance on the guidelines set forth by the OECD could likewise lead future courts to look to the OECD’s guidance on other interpretive issues that arise under the FCPA.  This decision underlines the need for a case-by-case analysis and for companies to implement policies and procedures that ensure genuine engagement with compliance or legal personnel on these sensitive issues.

Footnotes

1

 
See The Criminal Division of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice & the Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, FCPA: A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act at 20-21 (Nov. 2012) (“Resource Guide”), available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/guide.pdf (stating that determining whether an entity is an “instrumentality” “requires a fact-specific analysis of an entity’s ownership, control, status, and function” and listing numerous non-exclusive factors).

2

 
United States v. Esquenazi, No. 11-15331 (11th Cir. May 16, 2014), Slip Op. at 20, available at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115331.pdf.

3

 
Id. at 25, 28 (emphases in original).

4

 
Id. at 15, 21.

5

 
Id. at 15-17. The Court did not address several defense arguments based on the FCPA’s legislative history, including that early drafts of the FCPA specifically included “state-owned entities” in the definition of foreign government, but the final version passed by Congress did not.

6

 
Id. at 22-23.

7

 
Id. at 23.

8

 
See id. at 19 & n.8.

9

 
See Resource Guide at 20.

10

 
Esquenazi Slip Op. at 20.

11

 
As the Resource Guide also points out, bribery to employees of an entity that may not fall under the definition of “foreign instrumentality” could very well violate the FCPA’s accounting provisions or other federal law. Resource Guide at 21.
Because private bribery is prohibited by other U.S. laws such as the Travel Act and by the anti-bribery laws of many other countries, such as the U.K., it would not be advisable to adopt anti-corruption policies and practices that place too much emphasis on whether a counterparty is a “foreign instrumentality.” Rather, companies should continue to adopt a broad approach to preventing bribery.

 

Written by:

Dechert LLP
Contact
more
less

Dechert LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!