FCPAméricas Blog
Tips on Tips (Four recommendations for responding to FCPA whistleblower information)
1.11.2013
At a time when there are significant incentives for FCPA whistleblowers to take their information directly to the government, it is essential that companies consider the ways they respond to whistleblower tips. Preliminary reports since the Dodd-Frank whistleblower provisions went into place indicate that whistleblowers are generally choosing to go to their companies first with information. FCPAméricas has previously discussed ways that companies can encourage employees to do so. But companies must also take great care to keep whistleblowers engaged after they report so that the government does not ultimately get involved.
Here are four rules of thumb for responding to whistleblower tips.
Focus on the substance, not the source. When questioning a whistleblower, focus ... Read more
The World Bank’s Negotiated Resolution: Settling a Sanctions Case
1.09.2013
Settlements of foreign bribery charges by national authorities are common. The vast majority of the DOJ’s FCPA actions end in plea agreements, deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), or non-prosecution agreements (NPAs). Such mechanisms are gaining traction in the UK as part of UK Bribery Act enforcement.
The World Bank is following suit. Since 2010, the Bank’s Integrity Vice Presidency (INT), the unit in charge of investigating allegations of corruption, fraud, and collusion tied to Bank-financed projects, has pursued formal “Negotiated Resolutions” with companies with a growing frequency.
Normally, as described here, INT builds its case and the Evaluation and Suspension Officer (EO) reviews it and reaches a finding on wrongdoing. If contested, the matter goes before the Sanctions Board for review. But, with the negotiated settlement, the matter is put to rest quickly and efficiently.
... Read moreAiding, Abetting, Conspiracy … Non-U.S. Companies and Individuals … and the FCPA
1.04.2013
Non-U.S. companies and individuals should take note. Their actions do not have to occur in the territory of the United States for FCPA enforcement officials to assert jurisdiction over them. They do not even have to pay the bribes themselves to violate U.S. law.
This is because the principles of aiding, abetting, and conspiracy under U.S. law allow enforcement officials to reach non-U.S. entities and individuals in ways many do not expect. Consider the following, as described in the recent FCPA Guidance:
• “A foreign national or company may also be liable under the FCPA if it aids and abets, conspires with, or acts as an agent of an issuer or domestic concern, regardless of whether the foreign national or company itself takes any action in the United States.” FCPA Guidance, p. 12 (citations to settled cases omitted).
• Thus, even if a non-U.S. company takes no actions within the territory of the United States related to a corruption scheme, it can still be subject to jurisdiction under a “traditional application of conspiracy law” and to substantive FCPA charges “under Pinkerton liabilit... Read more
