Bloomberg BNA’s Corporate Law & Accountability Report is available on the Corporate Law Resource Center. This news service keeps corporate practitioners informed of legal developments of...
By Mark A. Srere and Kristin Robinson
Mark Srere is co-leader of Bryan Cave's Global Anti-Corruption/FCPA Team. He provides a full range of counseling for clients in anticorruption compliance areas, including drafting policies, implementing compliance programs, and addressing due diligence issues that arise from mergers and acquisitions, hiring of agents and joint ventures. Mr. Srere also conducts internal investigations related to anticorruption issues, counsels clients on disclosure issues and defends against government investigations.
Kristin Robinson is a member of Bryan Cave's White Collar Defense and Investigation group, where she defends individuals and corporations under investigation by government agencies. She also conducts internal investigations for corporate clients involving whistle-blower complaints and other allegations of fraud.
Anticorruption compliance is not a new frontier. For the past 10 years, the U.S. government has significantly enhanced its enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) against both companies and individuals. As a result, every year or so, a new nine-figure monetary penalty is imposed and another top executive goes to jail. By now, every U.S. company doing business overseas should at least have an anticorruption policy and an associated compliance program. As part of such a program, a company should conduct periodic reviews to evaluate and improve its program. In conducting such a review, it is helpful to review recent enforcement actions to assess how the government views compliance programs. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is not shy in criticizing companies for perceived compliance failures. This article offers six practical tips on benchmarking your company's FCPA compliance program against recent enforcement actions.
Corporate hospitality is an area that can create friction between Sales and Compliance. To reduce that tension, a company should have in place clear, written policies of what conduct and expenditures are acceptable or prohibited and what situations must be pre-cleared by Compliance/Legal. In this area, the SEC has made clear that an actual bribe is not necessary to find an FCPA violation. In the May 2015 settlement with BHP Billiton, the SEC noted that even though the company “recognized that inviting government officials to the Olympics created a heightened risk of violating anti-corruption laws and the company's own Guide to Business Conduct … the internal controls it developed and relied upon in an effort to address this risk were insufficient” (21 CARE 21, 5/22/15). Thus, while there were no allegations that any bribes were contemplated or paid, the SEC highlighted the risk that a bribe could take place by Billiton inviting to the Olympics government officials who were in a position to influence pending contract negotiations.
The government will not go after a company that provides “reasonable and bona fide” travel and lodging expenses to foreign officials as long as those expenses are (i) directly related to the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of a company's products or services, or (ii) related to a company's execution or performance of a contract with a foreign government or agency. In the February 2016 SciClone Pharmaceuticals settlement for $12.8 million, the SEC criticized the company for using local travel agencies to arrange travel and lodging for conferences that either did not include a legitimate educational purpose or were minimal in comparison to the associated recreational activities, such as a half-day of educational activities compared to six days of sightseeing.
Two settlements in March 2015, one with a major financial institution and one with a major telecommunications company, emphasize that your anticorruption compliance program should not ignore the Human Resources department or any established process for hiring decisions. In the first settlement, the SEC stated that the bank's “system of internal accounting controls was insufficiently tailored to the corruption risks inherent in the hiring of client referrals, and therefore was inadequate to fully effectuate [its] stated policy against bribery of foreign officials.” In the second settlement, the SEC cited e-mails discussing “must place” or “special” hires. These decisions show that offering a job (even an unpaid internship) could be viewed as violating the FCPA.
The SEC criticizes companies for failing to detect payments that raise red flags. In some cases, such as the $9 million settlement in April 2016 with a Fortune 500 company, the surrounding circumstances point to an overall lax control environment (68 CARE, 4/8/16). In that case, “tens of millions of dollars … [were] paid out without appropriate documentation or authorization,” a consultant referred to as a “beard” was paid $32 million, and one employee received a $26,000 cash advance and an $86,000 cash reimbursement without proper authorization. Similarly, in the February 2016 settlement with a software company, the SEC stated that the company's internal controls failed to flag an 82 percent discount on software licenses, which allowed an employee to create a slush fund from which to pay bribes.
In other cases, however, the SEC has found fault with a company's controls where red flag payments are deliberately hidden from company auditors. In a $14 million settlement in July 2016, the company had acquired a Chinese subsidiary that was involved in bribes before the acquisition. The company cleaned house and instituted a new compliance program. The Chinese employees deliberately circumvented the new controls and continued paying bribes by falsely characterizing the payments as vendor payments in amounts that were so small that they were considered to be low risk. The SEC criticized the company's global auditors for not truly understanding the transactions.
The purpose of an effective compliance program is to prevent and detect misconduct. A key component of such a program is to ensure that compliance-related issues are investigated promptly and appropriately. In the $28 million settlement with PTC in February 2016, the SEC specifically criticized PTC for failing to identify and stop the illicit payments to Chinese government officials and failing to take effective remedial measures despite conducting compliance reviews in its Chinese subsidiaries during 2006, 2008 and 2010 that included investigating possible corruption involving its business partners (31 CARE, 2/17/16).
Although the FCPA does not impose liability on an acquiring company for a target company's conduct that occurred before an acquisition, the moment a U.S. company acquires a foreign company, it is on the hook for violations that occur after the acquisition. In the $16.2 million settlement with Goodyear Tire & Rubber in February 2015, the SEC criticized the company for failing to conduct “adequate due diligence” when it acquired a Kenyan company and for failing to implement “adequate FCPA compliance training and controls after the acquisition” (13 CARE 440, 2/27/15).
The above tips are important reminders to keep monitoring and updating as necessary your company's anticorruption compliance program. It is not sufficient for a program to remain stagnant; instead, you must actively engage and train appropriate employees to understand the policies and procedures and ensure that those policies and procedures are implemented and followed.
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)