One of the most interesting Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) criminal trials in sometime is ongoing in New York, that of Roger Ng. The lead up to the trial and in trial reporting efforts have been led by Law360and its lead reporter Stewart Bishop and most of information in this post comes from that site. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall so if you want to follow it going forward you will have to subscribe. According to Bishop, Ng was charged with conspiring to violate the FCPA and money laundering conspiracy along with his employer Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., its former Southeast Asia chairman Tim Leissner and financier Jho Low. The charges were bribery of “Malaysian and Emirati officials and to circumvent the internal accounting controls of Goldman, which underwrote more than $6 billion in bonds issued by 1MDB in three offerings in 2012 and 2013. Leissner pled guilty over his role in the alleged scheme, while Low has remained abroad, out of reach of U.S. authorities for now.”
The prosecution’s case turns almost exclusively on the testimony of Leissner, one of the most pathological liars ever to grace the witness stand. Indeed, Matthew Goldstein, writing in the New York Times, reported this question by Ng’s defense counsel to Leissner, “Do you think you are good at lying?” Leissner demurred on this question but did admit he had “lied a lot”. Goldstein cited to Rebecca Roiphe, a former prosecutor and a professor at New York Law School who specializes in legal ethics, who related “it could be tricky to rely on such a witness, but “it isn’t a fatal blow.”” She said a prosecutor can argue that a witness is “a horrible person” and “a serial liar” who has had “a come-to-Jesus moment. That can work when you have really bad people who have lied a lot,” she said.””
What do Leissner’s admitted lies consist of? Leissner admitted under cross-examination that he had presented “a bogus divorce decree to his now-estranged wife, the model and fashion designer Kimora Lee Simmons, so that she would marry him eight years ago.” Defense counsel also got Leissner to “recount the many ways he deceived his wives, particularly Ms. Simmons. Mr. Leissner admitted that he had used an email account in the name of his second wife, Judy Chan, to communicate with Ms. Simmons while dating her, and that he was still married to Ms. Chan when he and Ms. Simmons were wed. (Mr. Leissner was also legally married to another woman when he married Ms. Chan.)” Leissner also admitted that some $10MM of his ill-gotten gain from 1MDB was used to “buy a $10 million house for one of his girlfriends (while married) so she would not go to the authorities.”
Of course, Leissner now maintains he is “telling the truth about Mr. Ng, who prosecutors say helped line the pockets of officials in Abu Dhabi and powerful Malaysians close to then Prime Minister Najib Razak.” Leissner testified “Mr. Ng was his primary contact at Goldman, which earned roughly $600 million in fees to arrange the $6.5 billion in bond deals for the fund. “Roger made him one of his clients,” Mr. Leissner said. He testified that Mr. Ng had set up many of the meetings to plan the scheme, including one at Mr. Low’s London apartment during which Mr. Low drew boxes on a piece of paper with the names of all the officials that would get bribes and gifts. For helping arrange the payments, Mr. Leissner said, he raked in more than $80 million. Prosecutors contend that Mr. Ng’s share was $35 million.” Leissner tried to paint Ng as someone very close to Low, even placing Ng “at a star-studded 31st birthday party that Mr. Low arranged for himself in Las Vegas in 2012, although Mr. Ng was not on the guest list.”
But here’s problem No. 1 with this testimony, Ng always worked for and under Leissner during the 1MDB scandal and not the other way round. Leissner admitted under cross that “he — not Mr. Ng — oversaw the payment of most of the bribe money.” As Roiphe later told Goldman, “In a case like this, you hope to avoid a situation where you have a cooperator testifying against someone who is a subordinate.”
Then there is problem No. 2 for the prosecution, which is the government’s claim that Ng received some $35 million in ill-gotten gains from the 1MDB scandal. Ng’s lawyers have responded that any money Ng received, was repayment of a debt one of Leissner’s wives owed Ng’s wife. The prosecution has to show Ng received this money.
As further reported by Bishop, the prosecution concluded its direct case with “An FBI agent on Tuesday outlined how kickbacks allegedly flowed from Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB to former Goldman Sachs managing director Roger Ng and others.” Bishop wrote the monies allegedly from Chan Leissner’s account, “to another shell company in the name of Ng’s mother-in-law, initially called Silken Waters but later changed to Victoria Square.” Then came another web of shell company transfers into entities controlled by some combination of Ng, his wife, Lim Hwee Bin, and Lim’s mother. Around $300,000 was spent on diamond jewelry, another $20,000 for an hourglass and over $200,000 for the purchase of Bristol Myers Squibb shares, according to the government.” Finally, there was another $3.15 million which went into yet another “account the government couldn’t identify.” Nothing in this adds up to $35 million.
Got all that. Does that money transfer convince you that Ng was the mastermind that Leissner and the government is trying to make him out to be? By putting one of the great liars of all time on the stand as their key witness with only this as the ‘documented’ evidence, the government is risking everything on Leissner’s testimony; that it will be believable and credible and will not taint the government’s case in one juror’s eyes so the government can garner a guilty verdict. Remember, it doesn’t take 12 to acquit, only one.
There is lots of other unbelievable things going on in the Ng trial, but I will save them for another day.
Tag: DOJ
The SEC releases regulations around climate change as Tom take a solo turn to look at some of the week’s top compliance and ethics stories in the Seeing Green edition.
Stories
1. SEC comes out with climate change regs. Andrew Ross Sorkin in NYTimes Dealbook. Matt Kelly in Radical Compliance. Tom and Matt in Compliance into the Weeds.
2. SFO spanked again. Andrew Crowley in MLex.
3. Getting rid of old data critical. Debevoise lawyers in Compliance and Enforcement.
4. The ‘S’ in ESG. Mike Volkov in Corruption Crime and Compliance.
5. FINRA and CCO liability. Matt Kelly in Radical Compliance.
6. IDB debars construction company. Harry Cassin in the FCPA Blog.
7. First ZTE monitorship ends. Jaclyn Jaeger in Compliance Week (sub req’d)
8. DOJ raises stakes. Todd Fishman, Noah Brumfield, Eun Woo Jhang and Elaine Johnston in CCI.
9. Top 6 ESG issues for 2022. Giles Newman in Risk and Compliance Matters.
10. A Privacy Shield replacement on the horizon? Neil Hodge in Compliance Week. (sub req’d)
Podcasts and More
11. In March on The Compliance Life, I visit with Audrey Harris, Managing Director at AMI, formerly CCO at BHP. In Part 1, she discussed her academic background and early professional career. In Episode 2, Audrey moved to the CCO chair at BHP. In Episode 3, she moved back to private practice. In Episode 4, she moves to AMI.
12. Tom has a two part series with Aly McDevitt on her recent Ransomware case study, on Greetings and Felicitations, Part 1 and Part 2.
13. Why should you attend Compliance Week 2022? Find out on this episode of From the Editor’s Desk. Listeners get a $200 discount to CW 2022 with the code Fox200. More here.
14. Tom visits with Pop Hair Art Salon founder, Michele Van Fossen on The Hill Country Podcast.
15. An undergrad degree focusing on ESG? Jules Oringel explains on the ESG Compliance Podcast.
Tom Fox is the Voice of Compliance and can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com. Jay Rosen is Mr. Monitor and can be reached at jrosen@affiliatedmonitors.com.
Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance. The entire gang was also recently honored by W3 as a top talk show in podcasting. In this episode, we have the quartet of Jay Rosen, Jonathan Armstrong, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly. We conclude with our fan favorite Shout Outs and Rants.
1. Jay Rosen discusses the connection between corruption and the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the leadership differences between Presidents Putin and Zelensky. Rosen rants about Mavericks owner Mark Cuban over the allegations of former GM Donnie Nelson that Nelson was fired for reporting a sexual assault of a Maverick employee.
2. Matt Kelly looks cybersecurity and the state of proposed new rules from the SEC governing the conduct of public companies which sustain a cyber breach. Kelly rants about West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin opposes electric cars because customers would have to wait too long at charging stations for batteries to be replaced (electric car batteries are recharged not replaced).
3. Jonathan Armstrong looks at the increase in cyber-attacks and ransomware demands and a GDPR enforcement action involving Tucker’s. Armstrong shouts out to TV show editor Marina Ovsyannikova who on live TV in Moscow, stood up to the President Putin by holding a sign which said, “Russian: “Don’t believe the propaganda. They’re lying to you here.” In English it said: “No war … Russians against war.”
4. Tom Fox discusses the recent District Court decision in the Coburn case and what it means for all involved; the DOJ, companies under FCPA investigation and counsel who perform internal investigations. Fox rants about Texas AG Ken Paxton who once again disobeyed a District Court injunction forbidding the state of Texas from investigating the parents of transgender teens for child abuse.
The members of the Everything Compliance are:
• Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.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 with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at jonathan.armstrong@corderycompliance.com
• Jonathan Marks is Partner, Firm Practice Leader – Global Forensic, Compliance & Integrity Services at Baker Tilly. Marks can be reached at jonathan.marks@bakertilly.com
The host and producer, ranter (and sometime 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.
In this episode of Shout Outs and Rants, we submit the following for your consideration:
1.Jay Rosen rants about Mavericks owner Mark Cuban over the allegations of former GM Donnie Nelson that Nelson was fired for reporting a sexual assault of a Maverick employee.
2. Matt Kelly rants about West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin opposes electric cars because customers would have to wait too long at charging stations for batteries to be replaced (electric car batteries are recharged not replaced).
3. Jonathan Armstrong shouts out to TV show editor Marina Ovsyannikova who on live TV in Moscow, stood up to the President Putin by holding a sign which said, “Russian: “Don’t believe the propaganda. They’re lying to you here.” In English it said: “No war … Russians against war.”
4. Tom Fox rants about Texas AG Ken Paxton who once again disobeyed a District Court injunction forbidding the state of Texas from investigating the parents of transgender teens for child abuse.
The members of the Everything Compliance are:
- Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.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 with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.com
- Jonathan Marks is Partner, Firm Practice Leader – Global Forensic, Compliance & Integrity Services at Baker Tilly. Marks can be reached at marks@bakertilly.com
The host and producer, ranter (and sometime 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.
Task Force KleptoCapture
The Kitchen looks at the DOJ announces the launch of Task Force KleptoCapture.
What is the intersection of tax and compliance? Why does a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance professional need to sit down with the corporate head of tax? How does a corporate tax function fit into a best practices compliance program? It turns out there is quite a bit a compliance professional can learn from a tax professional. Moreover, there are many aspects of tax which should be considered by a CCO and compliance professional from an overall risk management perspective. Unfortunately, these questions are rarely explored in the compliance community.
To explore these issues (and remedy this lack of awareness) I recently sat down with noted tax professional Tracy Howell to explore these and other questions. We tackled these issues and others in a five-part podcast series for Innovation in Compliance. We begin with why compliance should talk to tax and why tax needs to have a seat at the table when it comes to a best practices compliance program.
All publicly traded companies and all organizations have an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) system. Companies, especially compliance professionals, work diligently to assess and then monitored the identified risks. Moreover, significant efforts are put in place to mitigate and manage these risks. A key risk that every multinational company’s faces is corporate tax. Unfortunately, as Howell noted, “many times corporate tax risk remains under the radar from what is characterized as your normal risk. An entity normally will identify the risk, a legal risk, environmental risk, transactional risk, supply chain risk, and others. But one of the risks that frequently doesn’t get much attention in a formalized ERM program is tax risk.”
These tax risks can be substantial, especially for multinational companies operating in many jurisdictions. Across the globe, jurisdictions are in different stages of development economically and Rule of Law sophistication, which includes tax jurisprudence. This means there are different levels of risk associated with where a company is performing its work, what type of work it is it doing, how it is delivering goods and services and the overall development of the jurisdiction.
Howell asserted that experienced international tax professionals and multinational entities are usually very good at identifying and mitigating tax risk. Unfortunately, such specialized risk management talent does not usually get outside the visibility of a tax department. Howell provided an example of a transactional risk where a company manufactured in one country and then sold the goods through a foreign affiliate in another country to a customer in a third country. “An Indian affiliate contracted with a customer in outside India. The Indian entity needed for the sale of a manufactured good in the US, but it was a drop shipment. The sale was between the Indian entity and a third-party for the delivery in a third country. Legally, the contract went from US to India to the third party in the third country. However, the flow of goods went in a different way; going directly from the US directly to the third country. Internally, the India subsidiary reported the third-party sale as income and then India was trying to deny the deduction for those goods because the goods never entered the territory of India. In other words, India is saying, okay, we’re going to tax the revenue, but we’re not going to let you deduct the cost of goods. And that’s because the goods never entered and left, were exported for the country. It was a tax risk, and it was huge.”
Typically, such a series of events would have no visibility to the corporate compliance function. Now imagine that same series of events where a tax dispute arises and goes on for literally years. Would compliance ever have visibility into it? What would happen if a bribe was paid, or other type of illegal conduct was involved to resolve it? Now you can perhaps begin to see the issue, more particularly if you consider the Lisa Monaco October 2021 speech about the Department of Justice (DOJ) reviewing all disputes and corporate culture.
This type of problem is amplified globally because of the differences in maturity of governmental tax functions across the globe. I asked Howell about this key difference. He said, “it’s the difference between night and day. I lived and worked in Canada, a very mature, sophisticated and developed tax regime, great environment for jurisprudence. And one of the things you learn once you go outside of the US to get rid of the idea of asking the question, well, this is different, why does it work that way? You focus on the rules, laws, and regulations.”
Howell then compared the maturity and sophistication of the tax regime in Canada with that in Russia. He said, “You compare it to some of the other jurisdictions that I’ve lived and worked in, most jurisdictions will all have a tax code, but the street rules or the rules of the jungle play, those are in play. You go into the remote parts of a country that’s five time zones away where it’s very cold and you’re summoned by a tax official in a very remote place, they want to audit you, you’re a multinational. You’re thinking in a traditional sense, this is very organized, there’s a tax law which is your taxable on profits, but the conversation goes something like the following, “Okay, how much tax are you going to pay me?” That’s the question that was asked by a tax official. And I said, “Well, it’s all calculated based on profits, you have the tax returns.” He said, “No, I want to know, how much are you going to pay me now to resolve this?” And he says, “I have a budget and I have to have some contributions.””
This means the tax function must establish the fact that you do not pay bribes, you do not make facilitating payments regarding tax issues, or any other types of payments and, as Howell noted, “you make it real clear. The reality is if you are doing business outside the US more than likely your organization will have complicated tax issues and while it may seem more expensive to deal with them above board, the bottom is you have to follow the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) so you do not put the company at risk, but you have to be strong and you have to be firm.”
Join us tomorrow when we discuss transfer pricing. Check out the full podcast series Taxman: On the Intersection of Tax and Compliance on the Compliance Podcast Network. Check out Tracy Howell on LinkedIn.
In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:
- Another BitMex founder pleads guilty. (WSJ)
- Corruption stripping Cameroon? (Crux)
- The Enablers of Russian oligarchs. (NYT)
- Regime change in Pakistan? (Bloomberg)
Yesterday, March 6 was the anniversary of the most historic day of many in the history of the great state of Texas, the date of the fall of the Alamo. While March 2, Texas Independence Day, is when Texas declared its independence from Mexico and April 21, San Jacinto Day, is when Texas won its independence from Mexico, probably both have more long-lasting significance, if it is one word that Texas is known for around the world, it is the Alamo. The Alamo was a crumbling Catholic mission in San Antonio where 189 men, held out for 13 days from the Mexican Army of General Santa Anna, which numbered approximately 5,000. But on this date in 1836, Santa Anna unleashed his forces, which over-ran the mission and killed all the fighting men. Those who did not die in the attack were executed and all the deceased bodies were unceremoniously burned. Proving he was not without chivalry, Santa Anna spared the lives of the Alamo’s women, children and their slaves. But for Texans across the globe, this is our day.
While Thermopylae will always go down as the greatest ‘Last Stand’ battle in history, the Alamo is right up there in contention for Number 2. Like all such battles sometimes the myth becomes the legend and the legend becomes the reality. In Thermopylae, the myth is that 300 Spartans stood against the entire 10,000-man Persian Army. However there was also a force of 700 Thespians (not actors; but citizens from the City-State of Thespi) and a contingent of 400 Thebans fighting alongside the 300 Spartans. Somehow, their sacrifices have been lost to history.
Likewise, the legend that lifts the battle of the Alamo to the land of myth is the line in the sand. The story goes that William Barrett Travis, on March 5, the day before the final attack, when it was clear that no reinforcements would arrive in time and everyone who stayed would perish; called all his men into the plaza of the compound. He then pulled out his saber and drew a line in the ground. He said that they were surrounded and would all likely die if they stayed. Any man who wanted to stay and die for Texas should cross the line and stand with him. Only one man, Moses Rose, declined to cross the line. The immediate survivors of the battle did not relate this story after they were rescued and this line in the sand tale did not appear until the 1880s.
But the thing about ‘last stand’ battles is they generally turn out badly for the losers. Very badly. I thought about this when Chuck Duross, when he was head of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) unit, said at a conference that he viewed anti-corruption compliance practitioners as “The Alamo” in terms of the last line of defense in the context of preventing violations of the FCPA. I gingerly raised my hand and acknowledged his tribute to the great state of Texas but pointed out that all the defenders were slaughtered, so perhaps another analogy was appropriate. Everyone had a good laugh back then at the conference. But in reflecting on the history of my state and what the Alamo means to us all; I have wondered if my initial response too facile?
What happens to a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner when they have to make a stand? Do they make the ultimate corporate sacrifice? Will they receive the equivalent of a corporate execution as the defenders of the Alamo received? This worrisome issue has certainly occurred even if the person ‘resigned to pursue other opportunities.’ Michael Scher has been a leading voice for the protection of compliance officers. In a post entitled Michael Scher Talks to the Feds he said, “a compliance officer (CO) working in Asia asked for recognition and protection: “A CO will not stand up against the huge pressure to maintain compliance standards if he does not get sufficient protection under law. Most COs working in overseas operations of U.S. companies are not U.S. citizens, but they usually are first to find the violations. Since the FCPA deals with foreign corruption, how could the DOJ and SEC not protect these COs?””
The DOJ is now looking at not only the quality of your CCO and compliance function, but how they are perceived, treated and received in the corporate setting. In the 2019 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs and the 2020 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, (collectively ‘Evaluation’) the DOJ expanded out its inquiry evaluate the “sufficiency of the personnel and resources within the compliance function, in particular, whether those responsible for compliance have: (1) sufficient seniority within the organization; (2) sufficient resources, namely, staff to effectively undertake the requisite auditing, documentation, and analysis; and (3) sufficient autonomy from management, such as direct access to the board of directors or the board’s audit committee.”
Further there were four specific areas of inquiry and review: (1) Structure; (2) Experience and Qualifications; (3) Funding and Resources; and (4) Autonomy.
In the section entitled “Structure” the Evaluation made the following inquiries:
- How does the compliance function compare with other strategic functions in the company in terms of stature, compensation levels, rank/title, reporting line, resources, and access to key decision-makers?
- What has been the turnover rate for compliance and relevant control function personnel?
- What role has compliance played in the company’s strategic and operational decisions? How has the company responded to specific instances where compliance raised concerns?
- Have there been transactions or deals that were stopped, modified, or further scrutinized as a result of compliance concerns?
In the section entitled “Experience and Qualifications” the Evaluation made the following inquiries:
- Do compliance and control personnel have the appropriate experience and qualifications for their roles and responsibilities?
- Has the level of experience and qualifications in these roles changed over time?
- Who reviews the performance of the compliance function and what is the review process?
In the area of “Funding and Resources” the Evaluation asked
- Has there been sufficient staffing for compliance personnel to effectively audit, document, analyze, and act on the results of the compliance efforts?
- Has the company allocated sufficient funds for the same?
- Have there been times when requests for resources by compliance and control functions have been denied, and if so, on what grounds?
Finally, in the area of “Autonomy” the Evaluation asked:
- Do the compliance and relevant control functions have direct reporting lines to anyone on the board of directors and/or audit committee?
- How often do they meet with directors?
- Are members of the senior management present for these meetings?
- How does the company ensure the independence of the compliance and control personnel?
These were all deeper and more robust focus on the CCO and compliance team from the DOJ. If your compliance team is run on a shoestring, you will likely be downgraded for your overall commitment to doing business in compliance with the FCPA. The same is true for promotions and other opportunities for advancement within an organization. Not many organizations have such a mature compliance function that a CCO is appointed to another senior level position within an organization.
Upon further reflection I now believe Duross was correct and the Alamo reference was appropriate for compliance officers. It is because sometimes we have to draw a line in the sand to management. And when we do, we have to cross that line to get on the right side of the issue, the consequences be damned. The DOJ has made clear they expect CCOs and compliance professionals to draw that line when they must do so and when they do, companies must heed their warnings.