FCPAméricas Blog

Anti-Corruption Enforcement in Brazil Heats Up Against Individuals

Author: Matteson Ellis

corpcrimliability2While the world awaits Brazil’s first enforcement action under the new Brazilian Clean Companies Act (the BCCA), local authorities are busy pursuing corruption cases against individuals. Prosecutors are making clear their interest in holding individuals accountable for international bribery.

Ex Petrobras Director: Brazilian authorities have arrested Paulo Roberto Costa, the former refining chief of Petrobras. The allegations involve bribery and money laundering related to the company’s purchase of an oil refinery in Texas for US$1.7 billion. The company appears to have overpaid significantly and has already had to write off US$500 million of the investment. Based on reports, Mr. Costa recently admitted to accepting US$636,000 in bribes related to the purchase. He is reported...Read more

Election Season in Brazil: Political Contributions and Anti-Corruption Compliance

Author: Carlos Ayres

Political contributions are often an area of anti-corruption compliance concern in Brazil. As highlighted by Lucio Rennó, Associate Professor in the Program on the Americas at University of Brasília, in his book Corruption and Democracy in Brazil: The Struggle for Accountability, “it is impossible to understand the Brazilian election without considering the impact of corruption.”

Given that Brazil is now in election season (elections for the Senate, Federal Congress and State Congresses took place on October 5 and the second round of voting for president and governor in some states takes place on October 26), this post provides a list of areas that compliance personnel should take into consideration with respect to political contributions here.

Pay attention to local law. Local legislation limits political contributions of companies to 2% of the gross of their revenue (or, for individuals, 10% of their income) o...Read more

FCPA Voluntary Disclosure Considerations

Author: Matteson Ellis

MeaCulpaNeither a company nor its directors or officers have an affirmative obligation under the FCPA to disclose knowledge of a violation. But enforcement officials stress that there are benefits to doing so, including more lenient treatment and credit when penalties are calculated. Recently, outgoing DOJ Fraud Section Chief Jeffrey Knox said in an interview with Just Anti-Corruption, “[C]ompanies that self-disclose conduct are in a much better position than those who don’t. They are much more likely to be given deference by us than those that are receiving a phone call from us telling them about the conduct.”

What issues can companies consider when facing the question – should we disclose?

How egregious was the violation? Did the misconduct involve high-ranking employees? Was it extensive and systemic in the organization? The better the facts, the more inclined authorities will be to extend significant leniency to the com...Read more

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

View previous campaigns.