Top Ten International Anti-Corruption Developments for May 2017

by Morrison & Foerster LLP
Contact

Morrison & Foerster LLP

In order to provide an overview for busy in-house counsel and compliance professionals, we summarize below some of the most important international anti-corruption developments from the past month, with links to primary resources.  This month we ask:  How will recent leadership changes in the U.S. government impact Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement? What was the outcome of a money laundering trial in New York federal court that involved allegations of foreign bribery? Are attorney notes from an internal investigation still considered privileged in the United Kingdom?  The answers to these questions and more are here in our May 2017 Top Ten list.

1. More Leadership Changes in Key U.S. Government Positions

  • New SEC Chairman Steps into Role. On May 4, 2017, Jay Clayton was sworn into office as the new Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), following his confirmation by the U.S. Senate in a 61 to 37 vote. While in private practice, Clayton helped write a 2011 paper for the New York City Bar Association that was critical of FCPA enforcement, citing the “disproportionate burdens on U.S. regulated companies” and “unilateral and zealous enforcement of the FCPA by the United States.” In a written response submitted in connection with his nomination hearing, however, Clayton stated that the paper was “clear that combating government corruption is an important policy objective” and noted that anti-corruption enforcement efforts by non-U.S. law enforcement agencies “appear to be more prevalent” than they were a decade ago.
  • FBI Director Fired.  On May 9, 2017, President Donald Trump fired James Comey as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI is the most significant law enforcement agency for FCPA investigations, with dedicated FCPA and Kleptocracy squads. Comey’s termination is not likely to directly affect any pending FCPA investigations, but the abrupt departure of the FBI Director could create some instability at the agency, at least in the short term.
  • Fraud Section Chief Joins Special Counsel. At the end of May 2017, the Chief of DOJ’s Criminal Fraud Section, which has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal FCPA enforcement, left the Section to join the Russia investigation team led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller (Comey’s predecessor as FBI Director). Sandra Moser, previously Weissmann’s Principal Deputy Chief and an experienced federal prosecutor who has worked on FCPA and other cross-border criminal investigations, was named Acting Chief.  Weissmann was selected as Chief of the Fraud Section in January 2015. Despite controversy over a 2010 paper he authored on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which criticized FCPA enforcement and urged significant amendments to the law, Weissmann oversaw a number of important FCPA-related initiatives while at the Fraud Section, including the FCPA Pilot Program and the hiring of an in-house compliance expert, and a record year of FCPA penalties in 2016.

2. FCPA Assistant Chief Selected for Detail to UK Financial Enforcement Authorities. In May 2017, it was reported that Albert “BJ” Stieglitz, an assistant chief of DOJ’s FCPA Unit, had been selected for a position in the United Kingdom dedicated to further enhancing the already close relationship between DOJ and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The Fraud Section has worked with its British counterparts on numerous cross-border FCPA and rate manipulation investigations over the past several years. Stieglitz will spend one year at the FCA and another at the SFO, after which he will return to DOJ to provide training to other Fraud Section prosecutors on best practices learned at the UK agencies.

3. DOJ Moves to Terminate Technology Company’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement.  On May 25, 2017, DOJ filed a motion in the Northern District of California to dismiss its three-year deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with Hewlett-Packard Polska, Sp. Z o.o. (HP Poland).[1] In 2014, HP Co. and three of its subsidiaries paid over $108 million to resolve DOJ and SEC allegations that it had paid bribes in Russia, Poland, and Mexico.  In its motion to dismiss the charges, DOJ stated that HP Poland had fully complied with its obligations under the DPA.

4. Ex-Republic of Guinea Minister Convicted of Laundering Bribe Payments. On May 4, 2017, DOJ announced the conviction of Mahmoud Thiam, a former Minister of Mines and Geology of the Republic of Guinea, for one count of transacting in criminally derived property and one count of money laundering. A jury in the Southern District of New York convicted Thiam following a seven-day trial and five hours of deliberation. The charges against Thiam were related to his role in a scheme to launder bribes paid to him by executives of China Sonangol International Ltd. and China International Fund, SA in exchange for the award of lucrative mining rights in the Republic of Guinea. Evidence presented at trial showed that the Chinese entities paid Thiam $8.5 million, a portion of which was then transferred to other accounts, including accounts located in the United States, and used to pay for luxury goods and other expenses. Thiam allegedly tried to conceal the source of the funds by claiming to banks in Hong Kong and the United States that he was employed as a consultant and that the money was income from the sale of land before he was a minister. The Thiam prosecution is another example of DOJ’s efforts to combat the use of the U.S. banking system to launder the proceeds of foreign bribery. Sentencing is scheduled for August 2017.

5. Individual Sanctions in FCPA Cases.

  • Son of Late Gabonese Prime Minister Sentenced to Two Years in Prison for African Bribery Scheme. On May 31, 2017, Samuel Mebiame was sentenced in the Eastern District of New York to two years in prison for conspiring to violate the FCPA. In December 2016, Mebiame, a Gabonese national and the son of a former Gabonese prime minister, pleaded guilty to conspiring to make corrupt payments to government officials in Africa in order to obtain business opportunities and mining rights for a joint venture involving a U.S. hedge fund, in violation of the FCPA.
  • Former GC Suspended from Practicing Before SEC Following Guilty Plea in Bribery Case. On May 25, 2017, the SEC issued an order suspending Gregory Weisman, former general counsel of PetroTiger Ltd., from practicing before the Commission. In November 2013, Weisman pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and to commit wire fraud by engaging in a scheme with other PetroTiger executives to make improper payments to a Colombian official and to secure kickback payments from owners of a company acquired by PetroTiger. However, Weisman’s poor performance as a trial witness contributed to a lenient plea deal for co-conspirator and former PetroTiger co-CEO Joseph Sigelman in the District of New Jersey in June 2015. As a result of Weisman’s guilty plea, he had already been disbarred from practicing law in New York and Pennsylvania in 2014 and 2015, respectively.

6. Ruling in Civil Forfeiture Case Demonstrates DOJ’s Challenges in Obtaining Foreign Evidence. On May 9, 2017, Southern District of New York Judge William H. Pauley III ruled that certain evidence obtained by prosecutors from foreign sources was admissible in a civil asset forfeiture case, notwithstanding that the documents lacked the requisite certifications under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The case, United States v. Prevezon Holdings Ltd., concerned whether a Cypriot-registered real estate company laundered millions of dollars through Manhattan real estate.  Prosecutors alleged that the funds could be traced back to a 2007 fraud scheme involving shell companies filing fake lawsuits in Russian courts and then using court judgments to claim tax refunds in Russia. The scheme was allegedly perpetrated with the involvement of Russian government officials and defrauded the Russian treasury of approximately $230 million. In preparation for a May 15, 2017, trial, prosecutors moved in limine to admit copies of bank records obtained from a Russian criminal case file that had been photographed by a witness in connection with his work as a lawyer in an unrelated matter. Prosecutors had initially requested these records directly from the Russian government, but that request was rejected. Instead of providing copies of the bank records, the Russian Federation provided “a selection of non-germane documents and a letter purporting to exonerate all Russian officials and Prevezon personnel”—which the court described as a “counter narrative to the [prosecution’s] theory of liability.” The Prevezon case unexpectedly settled on May 23, 2017, just three days prior to trial, for less than $6 million.  Although the court ultimately admitted the photographed bank records, the Prevezon case underscores the unique challenges DOJ faces in obtaining evidence from abroad—especially from uncooperative foreign governments whose officials are accused of wrongdoing.

7. Ukrainian Billionaire Moves to Dismiss FCPA Conspiracy Charge.  In February 2017, an Austrian appeals court approved the extradition of Dmitry Firtash to the United States to face accusations that he conspired to pay at least $18.5 million in bribes to government officials in India to allow the mining of titanium minerals, in violation of the FCPA and other statutes. On May 9, 2017, in the Northern District of Illinois, Firtash filed a motion to dismiss the charges filed against him.[2] With respect to the FCPA conspiracy charge, Firtash contends that the indictment does not allege sufficient facts to establish a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3, the FCPA’s territorial jurisdiction provision, because neither he nor his alleged co-conspirators are alleged to have “committed bribery” while in the United States. But because the indictment alleges several uses of “a means or instrumentality of interstate commerce [and] other acts” by his co-conspirators while in the United States that were “in furtherance of” the alleged bribery scheme, Firtash seems unlikely to win with this argument. Additionally, Firtash cites the District of Connecticut’s August 2015 opinion in the Hoskins case to argue that he is outside of the class of people who can be charged with an FCPA conspiracy because his companies “had no United States subsidiary and zero United States connection.” The Second Circuit heard the oral argument in the Hoskins case in March 2017. The outcome of that case—and how another federal court in a different district will react to the arguments raised in Hoskins—are stories to watch.

8. World Bank Debars Medical Company for Corrupt Practices in Romania. On May 5, 2017, the World Bank announced the debarment of Tehnoplus Medical S.R.L. for two years. According to the announcement, evidence was uncovered during an investigation that the company paid 168,860 EUR in bribes in exchange for the award of an equipment supply contract in connection with the Romania Health Sector Reform 2 Project. The debarment is part of a negotiated resolution agreement (NRA) between the World Bank and the company and qualifies for cross-debarment by other Multilateral Development Banks under the Agreement of Mutual Recognition of Debarments. Also under the NRA, the company committed to cooperate with the World Bank Group Integrity Vice Presidency and to make its internal compliance program consistent with the Integrity Compliance Guidelines approved by the World Bank Board of Directors.

9. UK Court Finds Attorney Notes of Internal Investigation Interviews Not Privileged. On May 8, 2017, the High Court in London ruled that notes taken during an internal investigation by the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation’s (ENRC) outside counsel were not protected by the litigation privilege or legal advice privilege. In August 2011, following a news report alleging that ENRC had engaged in corrupt activity, the company and SFO entered into a year and a half of discussions regarding the allegations. Between 2011 and 2013, the company’s outside counsel conducted an internal investigation. In April 2013, the SFO began a formal criminal investigation of the company, focused on allegations of fraud, bribery, and corruption in Kazakhstan and Africa. The SFO later sought a declaration that certain documents generated during the internal investigation were not subject to legal professional privilege. The Court granted the declaration. The Court explained that the litigation privilege, which generally protects documents prepared for litigation, did not apply to documents created during the period of cooperation and dialogue between the company and the SFO because “prosecution only becomes a real prospect once it is discovered that there is some truth in the accusations, or at the very least that there is some material to support the allegations of corrupt practices. In this case, there is no evidence that there was anything beyond the unverified allegations themselves. . . . nothing concrete had materialised by 19 August 2011.” The Court further found that outside counsel’s internal investigation was primarily about gathering information, rather than providing legal advice about contemplated litigation. The Court also rejected the company’s argument that certain individuals interviewed by outside counsel had become part of the “client group” covered by the legal advice privilege, which generally protects communications made in confidence between a lawyer and his or her client for the purpose of providing legal counsel. The company is appealing the decision.

10. Controlling Shareholder of Brazilian Meat-Packing Company Agrees to Pay $3.2 Billion in Connection with Corruption Probe. On May 31, 2017, J&F Investimentos, the controlling shareholder of a Brazilian meat-packing company, announced that it had agreed to pay $3.2 billion as part of a leniency deal with the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor’s Office. Under the deal, J&F would have 25 years to make the payments. The owners of J&F, Joesley and Wesley Batista, reportedly testified that they spent approximately $180 million to bribe almost 1,900 politicians. Joesley Batista also reportedly turned over an audio tape of his conversation with current Brazilian president Michel Temer, in which Mr. Temer purportedly condoned paying hush money to Eduardo Cunha, the former speaker of Brazil’s lower legislative house. In testimony, other executives of the Brazilian meat-packing company have accused Mr. Temer of taking nearly $5 million in bribes from the company. Mr. Temer has denied any wrongdoing.


[1] United States’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Information with Prejudice, United States v. Hewlett-Packard Polska, Sp. Z o.o., No. 5:14-cr-00202-BLF (N. D. Cal. May 25, 2017), ECF No. 22.

[2] Dmitry Firtash’s Memorandum of Law in Support of His Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, United States v. Dmitry Firtash, No. 1:13-cr-00515 (N. D. Ill. May 9, 2017), ECF No. 120.

[View source.]

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
Contact
more
less

Morrison & Foerster 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.
Custom Email Digest
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.