What’s Old is New Again: Total Settles FCPA Charges Involving Decade-Old Conduct


This week the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that France-based oil and gas company Total S.A. resolved Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) charges by agreeing to pay a near record-setting $398.2 million. In addition to the magnitude of Total’s payout, the case is notable for other reasons, too – the vintage of the misconduct and investigations; the appointment of an independent compliance monitor; the continued expansion of international enforcement cooperation in FCPA matters; and the number of classic FCPA risk factors involving third parties present in the charged conduct. The case thus provides a useful reminder to companies and executives of the omnipresence of the FCPA and other countries’ foreign anti-bribery laws, as well as an opportunity to review and enhance anti-bribery compliance efforts.


According to the SEC and DOJ, Total, a French company with American Depository Shares that trade on the NYSE, paid over $60 million to an Iranian official through the use of intermediaries between 1995 and 2004, in order to secure two lucrative oil development contracts in Iran in 1995 and 1997. Specifically, after Total and the Iranian official met to discuss a contract in 1995, an offshore subsidiary of Total entered into a consulting contract with an intermediary chosen by the official. The intermediary was to perform vaguely defined “economic and marketing research and support services.” Although it is not clear from the charging documents whether the intermediary actually provided any services (other than channeling money to the Iranian official), over two-and-a-half years Total paid approximately $16 million to a Swiss bank account for the benefit of the intermediary and, ultimately, for the Iranian official. In 1997, the process largely repeated itself with a second intermediary and consulting contract, under which Total paid approximately $44 million to a Swiss bank account. In its books and records, Total ambiguously, and misleadingly, described the payments as legitimate “business development expenses.”

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Morrison & Foerster LLP on:

Popular Topics
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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.