Categories
All Things Investigations

All Things Investigations: Episode 8 – ABC Enforcement in Mexico and Brazil with Diego Duran and Salim Saud

 

Welcome to the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption and Internal Investigations Practice Group’s Podcast, All Things Investigations. In this podcast, host Tom Fox and Diego Duran and Salim Saud of the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group highlight some of the key legal issues involved in white collar and other investigations, both domestically and internationally. 

 

 

Diego Duran is a Hughes Hubbard partner and criminal defense attorney licensed to practice in some parts of the US and Mexico, where he spent several years working for one of its top boutique law firms. Salim Saud is an attorney and partner based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, at Saud Advogados, in association with Hughes Hubbard. He specializes in anti-corruption and is also the coordinator of the Anti-Corruption Compliance practice at FGV.

Key areas we discuss on this podcast are:

  • The Mexican administration’s approach to anti-corruption investigation and enforcement.
  • Corporate criminal liability is a fairly recent concept in Mexican law.
  • Mexico’s National Digital Platform is anticipated to be a centralized database designed to host and process information about federal and state officials.
  • Brazil has two systems for anti-corruption enforcement; one is led by the CGU and AGU, and the other is led by the NPF.
  • Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on Brazilian anti-bribery and anti-corruption investigation and enforcement efforts. 
  • Highlights of Brazil’s recent regulations surrounding their anti-corruption law, the Clean Companies Act.

Resources

Hughes Hubbard & Reed website 

Diego Duran on LinkedIn

Salim Saud on LinkedIn

 

Categories
The ESG Report

ESG in Business – Principles + Purpose with Raj Arora

 

Tom Fox welcomes Raj Arora to the ESG Report. Raj is the CEO of Jensen Hughes, deemed the global leader in safety, security, risk-based engineering, technology, and consulting. It is primarily known for its innovative work in fire protection and engineering. In this week’s show, Raj and Tom discuss the firm, his professional background, and how it relates to ESG.

 

 

Risk-Based Engineering

Tom asks Raj to define risk-based engineering. “Risk-based engineering and consulting are all the facets of trying to assess the risk, to ensure that the probabilities and the consequences are limited for our clients,” Raj responds. They help clients prepare for emergencies, mitigate losses and respond and recover from those accidents quickly. They assess emergency management situations through risk frameworks and use the popular method of probabilistic risk assessment. 

 

Principles + Purpose with Jensen Hughes

Tom asks Raj to explain how Jensen Hughes put their Principle + Purpose strategy into practice. “Our purpose is to make our world safe, secure, and resilient,” Raj remarks, “and we have principles that we lead the company by and live by every day and that is our clients, our industry, and our performance.” A successful business needs to have a purpose and a drive for what you’re doing and who you’re doing it for. Your main priority should be being “good partners and understanding your clients objective.” You must also be performance-oriented and focused on business growth “which helps advance the purpose of the firm.” 

 

ESG and the Engineering Industry

Tom asks Raj what role an engineering firm like Jensen Hughes plays in ESG. He responds that Jensen Hughes believes that they must help achieve their ESG goals, as their mission is “making the world safe, secure, and resilient”. Most engineering firms are all about focusing on the environmental aspect of ESG, by reducing their carbon footprint, decarbonization, and environmental stewardship. Jensen Hughes also helps their clients follow ESG regulations by “helping manage wildfires, risk-based engineering, new energy storage solutions and safely advancing carbon-free energy.” 

 

Resources 

Raj Arora | LinkedIn | Twitter 

Jensen Hughes | Website | LinkedIn

 

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

Alvarez & Marsal Threatscape 2022 Report

In this episode of the FCPA Compliance Report, I am joined by Keith Williamson and Henry Chambers, Managing Directors at Alvarez and Marsal. We look at the firm’s Threatscape Report. Highlights of this podcast include:

A.    Threat 1-ABC Threats

  1. Why do you see a potential increase in anti-corruption investigations?
  2. In addition to the US under the FCPA, do you see other countries are actively assisting US authorities in ABC investigations?
  3. The new DOJ Monaco Doctrine reinstate the Yates Memo and the DOJ focus on individuals.  What does this mean for ABC investigations?
  4. What are some of the key challenges in handling investigations in China?
  5. How does this increase in ABC enforcement impact M&A?

B.     Threat 2-Fraud and Digital Asset Fraud Threats

  1. What are digit assets and digit asset fraud?
  2. The US has not yet released many regulations regarding cryptocurrency. What is the role of other countries in such regulation, if any?
  3. Why is the Ukraine war the first ‘digital asset war’?
  4. How have the worldwide sanctions against Russia impacted the growth and use of digit assets?
  5. What are the key controls and screen tools for digital assets that you advocate a company employ?

C.     Threat 3-Data Privacy and Data Protection

  1. What is the Personal Information Protection Law and how does it relate to the Chinese State Secrets and Data Security Laws?
  2. How can a non-Chinese company get data out of China?
  3. What are some of the key components of compliance program for this new law?
  4. How does this new law impact investigations in China?

Resources

Categories
Daily Compliance News

July 25, 2022 The Vince McMahon Retires Edition

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • VW CEO retires. (NYT)
  • Vince McMahon retires. (NYT)
  • My Big-Coin founder is guilty of crypto fraud. (WSJ)
  • Uber avoids prosecution in the hacking cover-up. (Reuters)
Categories
Blog

The Wreck of the Andrea Doria and the Biotronik Anti-Kickback Enforcement Action

We have not had a This Day in History opening for the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog for some time. So not only is one long overdue but a shipwreck which occurred some 66 years ago makes a great opening for today’s start of a multi-part blog post series on a Federal Anti-Kickback  enforcement action which was announced last week, involving the Oregon based medical device manufacturer Biotronik Inc. (Biotronik).

The shipwreck of course was the catastrophe involving the Italian passenger liner the Andrea Doria and the Swedish passenger liner, the Stockholm off the coast of New York on this date in 1956. According to This Day in History, at approximately, 10:45 pm, the Stockholm showed up on the Andrea Doria’s radar screens, at a distance of about 17 nautical miles. Next Andrea Doria showed up on the Stockholm’s radar, at 12 miles away. The Andrea Doria Captain then “exacerbated a dangerous situation by making a turn to port for an unconventional starboard-to-starboard passing, which he wrongly thought the other ship was attempting.” Third Officer Johan-Ernst Bogislaus Carstens, commanding the bridge of the Stockholm, then made a conventional turn to starboard. Andrea Doria Captain Calami realized he was on a collision course with the Stockholm and turned hard to the left, hoping to race past the bow of the Swedish ship but it was too late. Five were killed on the Stockholm and 46 persons on the Andrea Doria died but over 1,600 were rescued. It was one of the final great nautical disasters involving the collision of passenger ships.

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Press Release, “the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering or paying anything of value to induce referrals of items or services covered by Medicare and other federally funded programs. The statute is intended to ensure that medical providers’ judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives.” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said, “Paying kickbacks to doctors to influence their selection of medical devices undermines the integrity of federal healthcare programs. When medical devices are used in surgical procedures, patients deserve to know that their device was selected based on quality of care considerations and not on improper payments from manufacturers.”

Biotronik is a company which manufactures and sells cardiac rhythm management (CRM) devices, including pacemakers, defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices throughout the United States. The company engaged in bribery and corruption inside the US rather than outside of the US as we see in cases involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Press Release claims that the company engaged in a “kickback scheme to pay certain favored physicians to induce and reward their use of Biotronik’s pacemakers, defibrillators and other cardiac devices. In particular, Biotronik allegedly abused a new employee training program by paying physicians for an excessive number of trainings and, in some cases, for training events that either never occurred or were of little or no value to trainees.”

Biotronik was on actual knowledge that these payments were illegal as the corporate compliance function “warned that salespeople had too much influence in selecting physicians to conduct new employee training and that the training payments were being over-utilized.” The Press Release also noted, “the settlement also resolves allegations that Biotronik violated the Anti-Kickback Statute when it paid for physicians’ holiday parties, winery tours, lavish meals with no legitimate business purpose and international business class airfare and honoraria in exchange for making brief appearances at international conferences.”

Interestingly, this matter involved two whistleblowers. The civil settlement included the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA),  which, under those provisions, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. The whistleblowers were Jeffrey Bell and Andrew Schmid, both of whom had been employed as independent sales representatives for Biotronik. They brought suit against the company, alleging, as stated in the Settlement Agreement, that Biotronik “knowingly caused the submission of false claims for payment to federal healthcare programs by providing remuneration to physicians to induce them to use Biotronik’s CRM devices in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b). The United States intervened in the Civil Action on June 21, 2021.” Bell and Schmid received approximately $2.1 million as their share of the recovery in this case.

Biotronik agreed to pay $12.95 million to resolve these allegations “by causing the submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid by paying kickbacks to physicians to induce their use of Biotronik’s implantable cardiac devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators.” There were multiple US enforcement authorities involved in this case. The Press Release noted, “the resolution obtained in this matter was the result of a coordinated effort between the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. HHS-OIG assisted in the investigation.”

Join us tomorrow when we consider the bribery schemes allegedly used by Biotronik and the lessons learned for the compliance professional.