Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: March 22, 2024 – The Big Mistake Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee and listen to the Daily Compliance News. All from the Compliance Podcast Network.

Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • Goldman files a suit against Malaysia over 1MDB. (Bloomberg)
  • The DOJ sues Apple.  (Reuters)
  • The Vietnamese President resigns over corruption issues. (NPR)
  • Warren wants the SEC to look into Tesla’s independence. (WSJ)

For more information on the Ethico ROI Calculator and a free White Paper on the ROI of Compliance, click here.

Categories
Blog

Argentieri at ABA White Collar Conference: Compliance Programs, Part 2

There were recently two significant speeches by Department of Justice (DOJ) officials at the American Bar Association National Institute on White Collar Crime. The first was by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. The second was by Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicole Argentieri. They both had important remarks for the compliance professional. I have taken a deep dive into both speeches and what indicates compliance programs, compliance professionals, DOJ expectations, and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement going forward. We have previously considered the Monaco speech and began exploring the speech by Nicole Argentieri. Today, we conclude with remarks by Argentieri regarding how the DOJ will put these policies into practice and what they mean for compliance professionals and programs going forward.

Robust Compliance

The DOJ has either concluded or is in the middle of an FCPA industry sweep through oil and energy trading companies. In addition to Gunvor, there have been enforcement actions involving Vitol Trading, Glencore, and Freepoint. Argentieri noted that as a part of their resolutions with the DOJ, “each of these trading companies was required to make critical enhancements to their compliance programs to prevent future violations of the FCPA. Companies that take forward-leaning steps on compliance will be better positioned to certify that they have met their compliance obligations at the end of the term of their agreements, as is now required in corporate resolutions with the Criminal Division. These prosecutions also help set the tone for the energy trading industry as a whole — they show that a robust compliance function is critical.”

Corporate Culture

It all begins with corporate culture. The DOJ will assess the corporate culture and a company’s prior misconduct in determining the appropriate form of resolution and the financial penalty. This is where culture becomes critical, particularly for the recidivist, because, as Argentieri noted, “we will not hesitate to require substantial penalties — including, where appropriate, guilty pleas — for companies that show themselves to be repeat offenders.”

Coupling that statement with the superior resolution obtained by ABB and Albemarle shows that the DOJ is serious about corporate culture. The bottom line is that a company can move to a culture of compliance if senior management is committed to the effort. One need only consider the superior result obtained by the first three-time recidivist ABB. Culture is critical, and you must demonstrate that you have assessed and worked to improve your corporate culture.

Clawbacks and Holdbacks

One of the key initiatives brought forward under DAG Monaco’s tenure has been around incentives and consequences. However, under DAG Monaco’s tenure, incentives and consequence management were further refined in the 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (2023 ECCP). It was also enshrined in the DOJ Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Pilot Program (Pilot Program), which has two components: (1) incentivization of compliance and (2) disincentives through clawbacks and holdbacks.

Argentieri pointed to the SAP resolution as a key example of how clawbacks and holdbacks can benefit a company. She noted, “Even before its criminal resolution, SAP had adjusted its compensation incentives to align with compliance objectives and reduce corruption risk.” She said, “SAP also took advantage of the second part of the Pilot Program, which allows companies to reduce their fines when they withhold compensation from culpable employees.” The DOJ “reduced SAP’s criminal penalty by over $100,000 for compensation that the company withheld from certain employees.”

However, the pilot program requires a real effort from the company regarding clawbacks and holdbacks. SAP “went to great lengths to defend this corporate decision, including through litigation.’ Argentieri believes that “These actions sent a clear message to other SAP employees—and employees of companies everywhere—that misconduct will have individual financial consequences. This is another example of the company’s remediation that supported our decision to award a 40% fine reduction.”

Before SAP, Albemarle was “the first company to receive a fine reduction under the Pilot Program in an FCPA resolution last year.” While Gunvor did not engage in clawbacks or holdbacks, Argentieri applauded their efforts in incentivizing compensation, relating that “Gunvor had already updated and evaluated its compensation policy better to incentivize compliance with the law and corporate policies.”

Argentieri concluded this section by stating, “All of these policies should send a simple, but strong, message: being a good corporate citizen is not just the right thing to do. It is good business. Those who step up will be able to unlock the benefits afforded by our policies. And those who do not will face stiff punishments. And for companies making the tough decision of whether to disclose, take note — we now have more ways than ever to discover misconduct.”

The Bottom Line

DAG Monaco’s speeches and Nicole Argentieri’s provided significant information for the compliance professional. Both are the DOJ expectations for a best practices compliance program and what a company needs to do if they find themselves under an FCPA investigation. DAG Monaco made four key points: (1) the DOJ will invest the most significant resources in the most serious cases, hold individuals accountable, and pursue tough penalties for repeat offenders absent a significant culture shift and remediation. (2) The Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program is a key component of enforcement and incentives. (3) The DOJ whistleblower bounty program should lead to new referrals to the DOJ. (4) Compliance professionals should be ready to address new, disruptive technologies, such as the rise of AI, through their corporate enforcement programs.

Argentieri emphasized details in compliance programs. It all starts with corporate culture, but companies must strive towards robust compliance programs, including effective internal controls, incentives for employees to work ethically and in compliance, and significant consequences for failure to do so: vigorous internal reporting, triage, and investigative protocols. Compliance professionals and compliance programs have never been more important for companies.

Categories
Everything Compliance

Everything Compliance – Episode 131, The Whistleblower Edition

Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance as we celebrate our second century of shows. In this episode, we have a quintet of commentators; Jonathan Marks, Matt Kelly, Jonathan Armstrong, Jay Rosen, and Special Guest Mary Inman; all hosted by Tom Fox.

1. Matt Kelly bemoans the lack of monitoring in recent FCPA enforcement actions. He shouts out to Ken Buck for his resignation from Congress.

2. Host Tom Fox shouts out to the Ides of March and the Mooring Theater Company’s Production of Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar,  starring Corin and Vanessa Redgrave.

3. Jonathan Armstrong reviews NIS2 and the changing climate around cybersecurity regulation. He rants about the disaster management failures of the British Crown around Kate Middleton.

4. Jay Rosen looks at the enforcement action involving Gunvor S.A. and the potential Vice-Presidential candidacy of Aaron Rogers and says, “You ain’t no Bill Bradley.”.

5. Special Guest Mary Inman takes a deep dive into the DOJ whistleblower bounty program.  She shouts out to whistleblower John Barnett and rants about the need for mental health resources to be made available to whistleblowers.

6. Jonathan Marks looks at the DOJ’s renewed call for self-disclosure. shouts out a fast-thinking and fast-acting McDonald’s employee who used CPR to save a customer who had a heart attack.

The members of the Everything Compliance are:

Jay Rosen– Jay can be reached at Jay.r.rosen@gmail.com

Karen Woody – One of the top academic experts on the SEC. Woody can be reached at kwoody@wlu.edu

Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com

Jonathan Armstrong –is our UK colleague, who is an experienced data privacy/data protection lawyer in London.

Jonathan Marks can be reached at jtmarks@gmail.com.

The host, producer, ranter (and sometimes panelist) of Everything Compliance is Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance. He can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com. Everything Compliance is a part of the Compliance Podcast Network.

Categories
Blog

Argentieri at ABA White Collar Conference: Corporate Enforcement, Part 1

There were recently two significant speeches by Department of Justice (DOJ) officials at the American Bar Association National Institute on White Collar Crime. The first was by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. The second was by Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicole Argentieri. They both had important remarks for the compliance professional. Over the next several blog posts, I will review both speeches and what they might indicate for compliance and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement going forward. Yesterday, I considered the Monaco speech. Today is the speech by Nicole Argentieri.

After reviewing some of the more significant individual prosecutions, Argentieri turned to corporate enforcement, noting, “Corporate accountability is the other side of our white-collar work because companies are the first line of defense against misconduct.” She emphasized the need for “a strong compliance program that is key to preventing corporate crime before it occurs and addressing misconduct when it does occur.” The DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy also encourages “companies to invest in strong compliance functions and to step up and own up when misconduct occurs.” She cited one company that did not have a robust compliance program (or a culture of compliance), Binance, which explicitly communicated its “priorities, telling employees that, when it came to compliance, it was “better to ask for forgiveness than permission.”

In the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement arena, Argentieri pointed to four cases the DOJ prosecuted over the past 18 months. The companies all entered into corporate resolutions for FCPA violations. This group included Vitol, Glencore, Freepoint, and, most recently, Gunvor. Additionally, the DOJ prosecuted multiple individuals in connection with these cases. She even detailed the multiple bribery schemes involved: “Bribe payments funneled into the pockets of foreign officials through corrupt third-party agents using sham contracts and fake invoices.”

In each organization, there was a decided lack of a culture of compliance. Additionally,  employees exploited gaps in their companies’ internal controls and compliance programs. Personal cell phones and personal email accounts were used, which the organizations seemingly had no access to during the corruption and after the internal investigations. To make payments, internal controls were overridden or ignored to make off-the-books systems not subject to the organization’s standard checks and controls.

Because of the internal control and compliance failures that led to or contributed to the FCPA violations, each of these entities was required to make critical enhancements to their compliance programs to prevent future violations of the FCPA. Argentieri said, “Companies that take forward-leaning steps on compliance will be better-positioned to certify that they have met their compliance obligations at the end of the term of their agreements, as is now required in corporate resolutions with the Criminal Division.”

However, the DOJ’s work done after a settlement with a company is equally important. She clarified that the DOJ will monitor companies after resolution as they make, monitor, and attest to their compliance program and internal controls enhancements. She reported that “twenty-four companies have a market capitalization of more than $1 billion, and 22 are public companies. Over the past decade, hundreds of other companies across a wide range of industries have similarly been subject to compliance obligations in cases brought by the Criminal Division.” This ongoing oversight is not an independent monitorship but to ensure compliance with the resolution documents and to “have a real impact on corporate culture and compliance.”

The DOJ wants good corporate citizens and incentivizes companies to do so in various ways. Beyond enforcement actions are the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program (ECCP), the Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP), the Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program (VSP), and the Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Pilot Program. Argentieri reported that self-disclosures have increased over the past three years: “In 2023, we received nearly twice as many disclosures as in 2021. We expect this trend to continue as more companies take advantage of the benefits of voluntary self-disclosure and the CEP more generally.”

Argentieri believes that the DOJ has articulated policies that apply transparent criteria for both prosecutors to use and as “guideposts for companies and their counsel to consider when deciding what to do when faced with the prospect of a government investigation. It is a goal of the DOJ “to demonstrate the benefits that await those who voluntarily disclose misconduct.” She concluded this section by stating, “It’s one thing to issue and update policies. It’s another way to change corporate behavior. That is why we track the number of disclosures from companies. I’m proud to announce that early indications are that our policies are bearing fruit.”

Join us tomorrow as we examine how the ECCP, VSD, CEP, and Clawbacks Program have been reflected in recent enforcement actions.

Categories
Blog

DAG Monaco at ABA White Collar Conference: Self-Disclosure, Wanted Posters and AI

There were recently two significant speeches by Department of Justice (DOJ) officials at the American Bar Association National Institute on White Collar Crime. The first was by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. The second was by Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicole Argentieri. They both had important remarks for the compliance professional. Over the next few blog posts, I will look at both speeches and what they might indicate for compliance and enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Today is the speech by DAG Lisa Monaco.

Self-Disclosure Initiatives

Monaco emphasized the importance of timely self-disclosure for companies to receive benefits under the Corporate Enforcement Policy. This tracks speeches made by DOJ officials over the past 18 months and the most significant enforcement actions over the past 15 months, ABB, Albemarle, SAP, and Gunvor. Monaco restated the incentives in place, “ I want to be clear: no matter how good a company’s cooperation, a resolution will always be more favorable with voluntary self-disclosure. We’ve structured our Voluntary Self Disclosure (VSD) programs to encourage companies to take responsibility for misconduct within their organizations. And we’ve conditioned benefits on the company’s willingness to step up and own up—requiring it to disgorge profits, upgrade compliance systems, and cooperate in investigations of culpable employees.”

Monaco also pointed to two separate US Attorney’s Offices, which have initiated their own self-disclosure programs. She stated, “At least two U.S. Attorney’s Offices — led by the Southern District of New York and recently the Northern District of California — are piloting initiatives that are, in essence, voluntary self-disclosure programs for individuals. Both offer non-prosecution agreements to certain categories of at-fault individuals who self-disclose wrongdoing and cooperate against other, more culpable targets. We look forward to evaluating the results of these pilots and determining what’s to come later this year.”

 DOJ Whistleblower Program-Modern Day Wanted Posters

The next area is a new DOJ whistleblower initiative. The money line from her talk was, “Going back to the days of “Wanted” posters across the Old West, law enforcement has long offered rewards to coax tipsters out of the woodwork.” She added, “Today, we’re announcing a program to update how DOJ uses monetary rewards to strengthen our corporate enforcement efforts.” How will the DOJ incentivize this program? The short answer is money.

The DOJ has recognized that paying bounties is a surefire method to attract whistleblowers. She pointed to the examples of Dodd-Frank whistleblower programs at the SEC and the CFTC. She said, “Those agencies have received thousands of tips, paid out many hundreds of millions of dollars, and disgorged billions in ill-gotten gains from corporate bad actors.” There are other similar programs at different agencies and departments, such as the IRS and FinCen, as well as through qui tam actions. “These programs have proven indispensable — but they resemble a patchwork quilt that doesn’t cover the whole bed. They don’t address the full range of corporate and financial misconduct that the Department prosecutes.”

The DOJ will offer payments under four parameters:

  • Only after all victims have been properly compensated;
  • Only to those who submit truthful information not already known to the government;
  • Only to those not involved in the criminal activity itself and
  • Only in cases without an existing financial disclosure incentive — including qui tam or another federal whistleblower program.

Monaco also offered the types of areas the DOJ wants to focus its whistleblower initiative around:

  • Criminal abuses of the U.S. financial system;
  • Foreign corruption cases outside the jurisdiction of the SEC, including FCPA violations by non-issuers and violations of the recently enacted Foreign Extortion Prevention Act,
  • Domestic corruption cases, especially involving illegal corporate payments to government officials.

The DOJ will engage in a 90-day “Policy Sprint” to develop and implement a pilot program, with a formal start date later this year. But the premise should be simple: ” If an individual helps DOJ discover significant corporate or financial misconduct—otherwise unknown to us—then the individual could qualify to receive a portion of the resulting forfeiture.”

Monaco ended with a message for whistleblowers and corporations: “With these announcements, our message to whistleblowers is clear: the Department of Justice wants to hear from you. And to those considering voluntary self-disclosure, our message is equally clear: knock on our door before we knock on yours. “

Justice AI

Recognizing that “all new technologies are a double-edged sword—but AI may be the sharpest blade yet,” Monaco announced that the DOJ would seek sentencing enhancements to increase penalties for criminals whose conduct uses or includes AI. She stated, “Where AI is deliberately misused to make a white-collar crime significantly more serious, our prosecutors will seek stiffer sentences—for individual and corporate defendants alike.”

She went on to add that “compliance officers should take note. When our prosecutors assess a company’s compliance program — as they do in all corporate resolutions — they consider how well the program mitigates its most significant risks. And for a growing number of businesses, that now includes the risk of misusing AI.” To assist compliance professionals with this new area of responsibility, she said that “assessment of disruptive technology risks — including risks associated with AI — into its guidance on Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs.”

Cliff Notes

For those old enough to know what Cliff Notes were, Monaco ended with the following:

First, we’re continuing to execute our core strategy: invest the most significant resources in the most serious cases, hold individuals accountable, and pursue tough penalties for repeat offenders.

Second, we’re using carrots and sticks to encourage companies to step up, own up, and report misconduct to the government. With a first-in-the-door strategy, we’re making it clear that neither companies nor individuals can afford to sit on evidence of wrongdoing.

Third, we’re designing our whistleblower rewards program as part of our broader effort to fill gaps and innovate in this space. Stay tuned.

And finally, we’re applying DOJ tools to new, disruptive technologies — like addressing the rise of AI through our existing sentencing guidelines and corporate enforcement programs.

Join me tomorrow as I look at Nicole Argentieri’s speech.

Categories
Blog

The Gunvor FCPA Enforcement Action: Part 3 – The Discounted Fine

We continue our exploration of the resolution of the FCPA enforcement action involving the Swiss trading firm Gunvor S.A. The enforcement action came in with a $661 million penalty against the company, which has pleaded guilty to bribing Ecuadorian government officials through the 2010s in exchange for intelligence about upcoming business contracts with the state-owned oil company of Ecuador. The matter was resolved via a Plea Agreement. Information detailing the company’s conduct was also issued.

Given the multi-year nature of the bribery scheme, how high it went up in the organization, and the lack of self-disclosure, one might charitably wonder how Gunvor was able to garner a fine that was so low. According to the Plea Agreement,  Gunvor paid over $97 million to corrupt third-party agents, who then made bribes to Ecuadorian officials. Gunvor earned over $384 million in profits from the business obtained through the corrupt scheme. Yet Gunvor received a 25% discount off the 30th percentile of the applicable US Sentencing Guidelines fine range. How did Gunvor achieve this discount?

Extensive Cooperation

The starting point for this analysis is the Plea Agreement. It noted several factors, including, among others, the nature and seriousness of the offense. Gunvor received credit for its cooperation with the department’s investigation, which included: (i) producing documents to the department from multiple foreign countries expeditiously while navigating foreign data privacy and criminal laws; (ii) providing information obtained through its own internal investigation to the department, which allowed the department to preserve and obtain evidence as part of the department’s investigation; (iii) making detailed, factual presentations to the department; (iv) arranging for the interview of an employee based outside the United States; (v) promptly collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous information, including complex financial information, at the request of the department, and producing an analysis of trading activity conducted by multiple outside forensic accounting firms retained by Gunvor; (vi) translating foreign language documents to facilitate and expedite review by the department; and (vii) imaging the phones of relevant custodians at the beginning of Gunvor’s internal investigation, thus preserving business communications sent on mobile messaging applications.

The Remediation

The Plea Agreement also included information on the remediation that Gunvor carried out. Gunvor also engaged in timely and appropriate remedial measures, including: (i) eliminating the use of third-party business origination agents; (ii) enhancing its third party due-diligence process; (iii) developing and implementing a control framework for internal business developers and additional layers of review and approval for counterparty payments; (iv) enhancing the independent compliance committee with responsibility for reviewing high-risk transactions; (v) engaging resources to review its compliance program and test the effectiveness of its overall reporting process, its reporting hotline and the effectiveness of the investigation of reports made through the hotline; (vi) evaluating and updating its compensation policy to better incentivize compliance with the law and corporate policies; (vii) hiring additional compliance personnel; (viii) testing and enhancing its compliance program, including by conducting compliance culture reviews, testing new third party due diligence process and payment controls, and evaluating controls around business development activities; and (ix) developing and implementing a risk-based business communications policy that addresses the use of ephemeral and encrypted messaging applications.

Prior Misconduct

The department also considered Gunvor’s history of misconduct. In October 2019, Gunvor resolved with the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland concerning a corrupt scheme to bribe officials in Congo-Brazzaville and Côte d’Ivoire to secure oil contracts obtained between 2009 and 2012. As part of the 2019 Swiss resolution, Gunvor admitted that it lacked sufficient controls to prevent the underlying misconduct and failed to take “all the reasonable organizational measures” required to prevent Gunvor’s employees and agents from engaging in bribery.

Fine Calculation

The explanation from the DOJ answered an open question in the minds of many compliance professionals about recent FCPA enforcement. That question was about how culture and prior misconduct were factored into the fine determination. This case follows the recent SAP enforcement action, where there was a similar analysis. The DOJ is not discounting fines off the low end of a fine range but instead on some point above that low end. In Gunvor’s case, the high end of the fine range (after the full calculation under the Sentencing Guidelines) was $768,328,352, and the low end of the fine range was $384,164,176. With the uplift to the 30th percentile, the final fine was $374,560,071, with an additional forfeiture of $287,138,444. In the SAP enforcement action, the company received a 40% discount off the 10th percentile of the Sentencing Guidelines fine range.

Failure to Self-Disclose

We need to emphasize, once again, that under the Corporate Enforcement Policy, Gunvor’s failure to self-disclose cost it an opportunity of at least 50% and up to a 75% reduction off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: fine range. Moreover, its actions resulted in the company not receiving a reduction of at least 50% and up to 75% from the low end of the U.S.S.G. fine range but rather at the 30th percentile noted above. Gunvor’s failure to self-disclose cost it an estimated $50 million under the Sentencing Guidelines. Its inability to self-disclose and recidivism cost it a potential $150 million in total discounts available under the Corporate Enforcement Policy.

 Once again, the significance is that the DOJ is sending the message that self-disclosure is the single most important thing a company can do in any FCPA investigation or enforcement action. Kenneth Polite said that when announcing the updated Corporate Enforcement Policy in January 2023, the new Monitor Selection Policy was the number one reason for a company not having a monitor required. The DOJ’s message could not be more explicit: self-disclose, self-disclose, self-disclose, self-disclose.

Join us tomorrow as we consider the lessons learned from the Gunvor FCPA enforcement action.

Categories
10 For 10

10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For The Week Ending March 16, 2024

Welcome to 10 For 10, the podcast that brings you the week’s Top 10 compliance stories in one podcast each week. Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings to you, the compliance professional, the compliance stories you need to be aware of to end your busy week.

Sit back, and in 10 minutes, hear about the stories every compliance professional should be aware of from the prior week. Every Saturday, 10 For 10 highlights the most important news, insights, and analysis for the compliance professional, all curated by the Voice of Compliance, Tom Fox.

Get your weekly filling of compliance stories with 10 for 10, a podcast produced by the Compliance Podcast Network.

  1. The Swiss bank settles sanctions violations.  (WSJ)
  2. JPMorgan was fined $350MM. (Reuters)
  3. Accountability and corruption in South Sudan. (State Dept. Press Release)
  4. DOJ should have a policy sprint to get the whistleblower program ready.  (WSJ)
  5. MOD paid millions into a Saudi account. (The Guardian)
  6. Leadership lessons from Robert Oppenheimer.  (WSJ)
  7. The NYT reviews the new off-Broadway play, Corruption. (NYT)
  8. A Boeing whistleblower was found dead. (BBC)
  9. The DoT wants South Africa to increase its fight against corruption. (Reuters)
  10. Boeing overwritten the video of safety work. (Axios)

For more information on the Ethico ROI Calculator and a free White Paper on the ROI of Compliance, click here.

You can check out the Daily Compliance News for four curated compliance and ethics related stories each day, here.

Connect with Tom 

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
2 Gurus Talk Compliance

2 Gurus Talk Compliance – Episode 24 — The Self-Disclosure Edition

What happens when two top compliance commentators get together? They talk about compliance, of course. Join Tom Fox and Kristy Grant-Hart in 2 Gurus Talk Compliance as they discuss the latest compliance issues in this week’s episode! In this episode, Tom and Kristy take on a wide variety of compliance-related topics.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is launching a paid whistleblower initiative, specifically targeting cases of criminal exploitation of the U.S. financial system that slip through the cracks of existing agency schemes. This move has elicited various perspectives, notably from compliance experts Tom Fox and Kristy Grant-Hart. Fox, drawing on his extensive experience in compliance, identifies the program as a vital development, filling a gap in whistleblower compensation efforts. He anticipates that it will compel compliance officers to foster a culture of reporting and enhance efficiency in managing investigations. On the other hand, Kristy, a renowned compliance specialist, also views the initiative positively but expresses concerns about the increased pressure on organizations to ensure compliance.

Despite this, both experts agree that the program is a step in the right direction towards promoting transparency, accountability, and ethical corporate behavior.

Highlights Include:

1. DAG Monaco Speech (DOJ Release)

2. Nicole M. Argentieri Speech (DOJ Release)

3. CTA struck down (WSJ)

4. Leadership Lessons from Robert Oppenheimer (WSJ)

5. State governments move to regulate AI (NYU)

6. The Percentage Of Corporate DOJ And SEC FCPA Enforcement Actions That Result From A Voluntary Disclosure (FCPA Professor)

7. Husband Who Eavesdropped on Wife’s Work Calls Pleads Guilty to Insider Trading (WSJ)

8. SEC Adopts Climate Disclosure Rule (Radical Compliance)

9. Is It Ever OK to Have an 8 a.m. Meeting? (WSJ)

10. The Florida Man Games (NYTimes)

Resources:

Kristy Grant-Hart on LinkedIn

Spark Consulting

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

The Gunvor FCPA Enforcement Action: Part 2 – The Bribery Schemes

We continue our exploration of the resolution of the FCPA enforcement action involving the Swiss trading firm Gunvor S.A. The enforcement action came in with a $661 million penalty against the company, which has pleaded guilty to bribing Ecuadorian government officials through the 2010s in exchange for intelligence about upcoming business contracts with the state-owned oil company of Ecuador. The matter was resolved via a Plea Agreement. Information detailing the company’s conduct was also issued.

The Gunvor bribery schemes ran for nearly 8 years. Between 2012 and 2020, Gunvor paid more than $97 million to intermediaries, knowing that some money was used to bribe Ecuadorean officials. Those officials included Nilsen Arias Sandoval, a then-high-ranking official at Petroecuador. To show the blatantness of the bribery scheme, Gunvor managers and agents attended meetings in the United States and elsewhere, and bribe payments were routed through banks in the United States using shell companies in Panama and the British Virgin Islands controlled by Gunvor’s co-conspirators. According to the DOJ, a Gunvor employee also directed one of the intermediaries to use the money to purchase an 18-karat gold Patek Philippe watch.

According to the Plea Agreement, the Brothers Ycaza, Antonio Pere, and  Enrique Pere were agents for Gunvor who exercised control over companies and bank accounts in the United States and elsewhere. These accounts were used to facilitate the payment of bribes to Ecuadorian government officials to, among other things, obtain and retain business for Gunvor.

Gunvor paid over $97 million to the Brothers Ycaza via their companies, EIC and OIC. Several Gunvor employees, including Kohut, Gunvor Manager #1, and Gunvor Manager #2, knew and intended that some payments would be used to bribe Ecuadorian officials. After that, the Brothers Ycaza made millions of dollars in bribe payments on Gunvor’s behalf, directly and indirectly, to Ecuadorian officials identified by number in the Plea Agreement.

To do so, the Brothers Ycaza set up shell companies to launder Gunvor’s corrupt payments, entered into several service agreements to facilitate the payment of bribes, created fake invoices for purported consulting services, and used email accounts with pseudonyms to transfer funds to offshore shell companies involved in the conspiracy. The illegal payments were made through multiple bank accounts in the United States and abroad to conceal the bribes.

Gunvor Singapore made the corruption payments through a services agreement with the Brothers Ycaza and their company through EIC, which enabled the payment of bribes to Ecuadorian officials on Gunvor’s behalf. The agreement provided for certain prepayments and success fees, but the bulk of the compensation was through per-barrel “volume fee” payments to EIC that depended on the amount of oil purchased in connection with the oil-backed loan contract. Gunvor and EIC amended the services agreement several times to change, among other things, the amount of the volume fees due to be paid to EIC. The Brothers Ycaza used portions of the volume fees to pay bribes to Ecuadorian officials on Gunvor’s behalf. The volume fee compensation model for the Brothers Ycaza was increased multiple times to increase both their compensation and the amount of bribes being paid on behalf of Gunvor over the length of the bribery scheme.

In exchange for the bribes, Ecuadorian officials provided improper advantages to Gunvor, including (a) helping to direct Petroecuador to award contracts to State-Owned Entities for the ultimate benefit of Gunvor and (b) providing Gunvor, through certain of its employees and agents, information about Petroecuador that assisted Gunvor in corruptly obtaining and retaining business for Gunvor in connection with Petroecuador. This structure allowed Gunvor and its co-conspirators to avoid a competitive bidding process and obtain contractual terms they could not have otherwise. Gunvor also received confidential Petroecuador information in exchange for the bribes. Gunvor earned more than $384 million in profits from the contracts it obtained corruptly from Petroecuador.

In 2017, when the corrupt Petroecuador official Arias left the company, the Brothers Ycaza engaged other corrupt Petroecuador officials through cash bribe payments. This new scheme included effecting bribe payments on Gunvor’s behalf in exchange for confidential Petroecuador information about shipping windows. To facilitate this scheme phase, Gunvor continued to pay fees to the Brothers Ycaza through another company, OIC, on each barrel of oil products purchased in connection with their oil-backed loan contracts with Petroecuador. As in the prior phase of the scheme, Gunvor employee Kohut continued to coordinate the processing and payment of the invoices by Gunvor. Upon receiving funds from Gunvor, the Brothers Ycaza wired money to intermediaries based in Ecuador, who then arranged for the bribes to be delivered in cash to Ecuadorian officials within Petroecuador, who provided confidential Petroecuador information to Gunvor.

Gunvor employees and officers participating in the bribery scheme worked to conceal their illegal actions. One Gunvor Manager instructed Kohut to communicate using personal email accounts. The Brothers Ycaza also used personal or pseudonymous email accounts to speak about the scheme. Alias were often used rather than their actual names.

Interestingly, and perhaps equally troublingly, Gunvor executives and compliance personnel knew that Gunvor had paid the Brothers Ycaza tens of millions of dollars. This was without receiving other supporting documentation for EIC’s or OIC’s business activities on Gunvor’s behalf. Between May 2018 and May 2020, Gunvor executives and compliance personnel requested the Brothers Ycaza (i) for supporting documentation to justify the commission payments and (ii) to meet with executives and compliance personnel. The Brothers Ycaza repeatedly failed to respond entirely to Gunvor’s documentary requests and would not travel to Gunvor’s headquarters for the requested meeting. Finally, the Plea Agreement dryly noted, “Notwithstanding these repeated failures, Gunvor continued to make corrupt payments to entities owned and controlled by Antonio Pere and Enrique Pere until approximately January 2020, at which time Gunvor suspended payments to OIC.”

It is unclear from any resolution documents or the DOJ Press Release how the bribery scheme was uncovered or even ended. It may have been through a DOJ investigation into one of the other corrupt companies that came to grief working in Ecuador or with Petroecuador. It is clear that Gunvor did not self-disclose.

Join us tomorrow, and we will consider Gunvor’s steps after the DOJ knocks.

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into The Weeds: Monaco on DOJ Whistleblower Initiative and AI

The award-winning Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to more fully explore a subject. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode, Tom and Matt take a deep dive into a recent speech by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco on the DOJ’s creation of a whistleblower program and compliance oversight of AI.

The Department of Justice Whistleblower Awards Program is a recent development that has prompted considerable discussion due to its possible implications and the potential range of awards. The program, which is designed to protect whistleblowers, raises a number of complex issues, particularly for compliance officers. According to Tom, the program is aligned with those from other regulatory bodies, like the SEC, and is not necessarily groundbreaking. He points out potential limitations in the range of awards and questions the efficiency of the review process.

Matt views the program as a significant, yet familiar, development for compliance officers. He highlights that the program seems to follow an existing trend, rather than pioneering a new approach and points out the need for further clarification on the eligibility criteria and the procedure for issuing awards. Both Fox and Kelly, from their extensive experience in the field, emphasize the program’s potential benefits for whistleblowers seeking protection but concur that there are still many details to be clarified.

Key Highlights:

  • Navigating DOJ Whistleblower Program: Award Dynamics
  • Navigating Compliance in DOJ’s Whistleblower Program
  • Enhancing Criminal Penalties for AI-based Crimes
  • Enforcement Challenges in AI Technology Governance

Resources:

Matt on Radical Compliance

Tom 

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn