Categories
Blog

The FCPA Survival Guide

Today, I am thrilled to announce my first podcast series based on a book I have written. The book and the podcast series are titled FCPA Survival Guide and Ethico sponsors. The book is available in the Kindle format, and you can purchase it on Amazon.com here. You can listen to the podcast here. In the podcast, I am joined by Nick Gallo, Captain Culture and co-CEO at Ethico, throughout this special 10-part podcast series.

Over the past 18 months, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has clearly and consistently communicated its expectations for any company that finds itself in an FCPA enforcement action. The book and podcast are designed for the compliance professional and business executive who finds themselves in an investigation. It details your steps to obtain the most favorable resolutions possible. Since the advent of the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy in 2017 (now Corporate Enforcement Policy), the presumption for any company that self-discloses a potential FCPA violation to the DOJ is declination. Yet even if a company does not self-disclose or there are aggravating factors, a company can take advantage of significant discounts from the DOJ. In the DOJ’s own words, this book and podcast outline what a company can do and its actions to reduce fines and penalties.

The enforcement actions that formed the basis of the book and podcast series involve the following entities: ABB, Albemarle, SAP, and Gunvor. The book includes complete discussions of these enforcement actions and the lessons every compliance professional should take from them. Navigating the complex world of corporate compliance, especially when dealing with the DOJ and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), requires a clear strategy and decisive action. The book and podcast series details the top ten things you should prioritize to ensure your company stays on the right side of the law and minimizes the risks of costly enforcement actions.

1. Self-Disclosure

The DOJ places the highest value on self-disclosure. Companies that voluntarily come forward to report potential violations of the FCPA are more likely to receive favorable treatment. For instance, in the ABB enforcement action, despite the company being unable to disclose its misconduct before the media publicly revealed it, the DOJ still considered ABB’s intent to self-disclose positively. Similarly, in the Albemarle enforcement action, even though the disclosure was delayed by 16 months, the DOJ acknowledged the company’s effort, though it stressed the importance of timely self-disclosure. Kenneth Polite, then Assistant Attorney General, emphasized the importance of self-disclosure by stating that companies that uncover criminal misconduct should voluntarily self-disclose to avoid more severe penalties. The DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy provides significant incentives, such as a presumption against prosecution and reduced penalties, for companies that self-disclose, fully cooperate, and timely remediate.

2. Speed in Reporting

Timely disclosure is critical, but it continues beyond there. The DOJ expects companies to share information with regulators as quickly as they uncover facts, even if they are unsure how this might affect their case. In 2023, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite highlighted the transition from ‘full’ to ‘extraordinary’ cooperation, stressing the importance of immediate and consistent truth-telling and evidence-sharing. The DOJ values collaboration, allowing them to obtain evidence they otherwise could not, such as quickly providing electronic devices or recorded conversations. Companies must be prepared to share information in real time, as seen in the SEC Order against ABB, where the company’s rapid information sharing was crucial.

3. Extensive Remediation

Effective remediation is essential and must be well-documented with data analytics. Companies must invest significantly in compliance personnel, training, and monitoring. ABB, Albemarle, Gunvor, and SAP all demonstrated extensive remediation efforts, including hiring experienced compliance personnel, conducting root cause analyses, and restructuring their compliance programs. Albemarle, for example, strengthened its anti-corruption compliance program by investing in resources, expanding its compliance function, and eliminating the use of sales agents. SAP enhanced its compliance monitoring and audit programs, while ABB continuously tested and monitored.

4. Root Cause, Risk Assessment, and Gap Analysis

Remediation should begin with a root cause analysis, risk assessment, and gap analysis. This approach helps identify the underlying issues and address them effectively. SAP’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) emphasized the importance of root cause analysis. The company conducted a thorough analysis, remediated the root causes, performed a gap analysis of internal controls, and conducted a comprehensive risk assessment focusing on high-risk areas and controls around payment processes.

5. Data Analytics

Implementing a data analytics program is now a best compliance practice. It allows for continuous monitoring and measuring of the compliance program’s effectiveness. Albemarle and SAP used data analytics to monitor compliance program effectiveness and identify high-risk transactions. This capability helped them avoid the need for a corporate monitor by demonstrating effective control implementation and testing.

6. Clawbacks and Holdbacks

The DOJ expects companies to include and enforce clawback and holdback provisions in their compensation agreements. These measures ensure that those involved in misconduct do not benefit from their actions. Albemarle and SAP implemented holdbacks, withholding bonuses from employees involved in wrongdoing. This approach penalized the individuals and qualified the companies for additional fine reductions under the DOJ’s Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Pilot Program.

7. Change in Sales Models

Companies using third-party agents for sales should consider moving to a direct sales model to reduce corruption risks. This change helps ensure better control and compliance oversight. Albemarle eliminated third-party sales agents and switched to a direct sales model. SAP prohibited all sales commissions for public sector contracts in high-risk markets and enhanced its compliance monitoring and audit programs.

8. Enhancement of Compliance Programs

It is crucial to significantly enhance the compliance program, including increasing budget, headcount, and expertise. This enhancement should cover reporting, investigations, and consequence management processes. Albemarle and SAP significantly invested in their compliance programs, restructuring their Offices of Ethics and Compliance, enhancing policies and procedures, and increasing resources devoted to compliance. ABB also invested in compliance testing and monitoring throughout its organization.

9. Internal Controls

Companies must use their internal controls to continuously test, monitor, and improve all aspects of their compliance programs. This approach ensures ongoing effectiveness and adaptability. SAP conducted a gap analysis of its internal controls and enhanced its compliance risk assessment process. ABB invested in controls testing and monitoring, restructuring internal reporting to ensure compliance oversight. Albemarle’s SEC Order highlighted the need for adequate internal controls to prevent and detect improper payments.

10. Investigation Protocol

Having a robust investigation protocol that can quickly triage any claim and escalate decisions. This protocol should facilitate timely self-disclosure and determine the best course of action. A culture of “speak up” encourages employees to report wrongdoing. Effective triage helps prioritize and allocate resources for investigations. Detailed written procedures ensure transparency and responsibility in managing allegations.

These top ten actions provide a roadmap for companies to navigate compliance challenges effectively. These steps, from self-disclosure and rapid information sharing to extensive remediation and robust internal controls, help build a strong compliance program that meets DOJ expectations. Companies can mitigate risks by integrating data analytics, enforcing clawbacks, enhancing compliance efforts, and demonstrating their commitment to ethical conduct.

This is my first pairing of a book and limited podcast series. I hope that however you consume information via written word or audio, I can provide it to you.

Categories
FCPA Survival Guide

FCPA Survival Guide: Step 1 – Self-Disclosure

How can you survive an FCPA enforcement action? In this special podcast series, Tom Fox and Nick Gallo outline the Top 10 things you can do to reduce your overall fine and penalty, perhaps down to a complete declination.

All of the actions you can take come from recent DOJ prosecutions under the FCPA and speeches from DOJ representatives.

This podcast, sponsored by Ethico, is the companion series to the book The FCPA Survival Guide: Surviving and Thriving a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action.

Today, we discuss the DOJ mandate of timely self-disclosure.

The first lesson in the FCPA Survival Guide is the DOJ’s emphasis on self-disclosure by companies in legal scenarios involving misconduct. Highlighted through the cases of ABB and others, Tom and Nick illustrate the substantial financial leniency the DOJ offers to companies that proactively self-disclose their misconduct versus those that do not.

The DOJ emphasizes the timing of self-disclosure in addition to the self-disclosure itself. Through conversations with experts and analysis of specific cases, Tom and Nick demonstrate the DOJ’s strategy to incentivize self-disclosure and the significant financial implications of either failing to disclose or disclosing in a timely and genuine manner.

Key Highlights and Issues:

  • The Importance of Self-Disclosure in DOJ Cases
  • Analyzing the ABB Case: Lessons on Self-Disclosure
  • DOJ’s Clarity and Intent in Compliance and Self-Disclosure
  • The Critical Timing of Self-Disclosure: The Albemarle Case Study
  • Financial Implications of Failing to Self-Disclose: The SAP Example
  • Conclusion: The DOJ’s Priority on Self-Disclosure

Resources:

Nick Gallo on LinkedIn

Ethico

The FCPA Survival Guide: Surviving and Thriving a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
FCPA Survival Guide

FCPA Survival Guide – Introduction

How can you survive an FCPA enforcement action? In this special podcast series, Tom Fox and Nick Gallo outline the Top 10 things you can do to reduce your overall fine and penalty, perhaps down to a full declination. All of the actions you can take come from recent DOJ prosecutions under the FCPA and speeches from DOJ representatives. This podcast, sponsored by Ethico, is the companion series to the book The FCPA Survival Guide: Surviving and Thriving a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been unequivocal in its expectations for any company facing an FCPA enforcement action. This guide is tailored for compliance professionals and business executives who are part of such an investigation. It outlines the necessary steps to secure the most favorable resolutions, offering a glimmer of hope even in the most daunting circumstances. Since the introduction of the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, the default position for any company that self-discloses a potential FCPA violation to the DOJ is that of a declination. This policy provides a significant advantage, even if a company does not self-disclose or there are aggravating factors, as it allows for substantial discounts from the DOJ. In the words of the DOJ, this guide details the actions a company can take to reduce any fine or penalty for an FCPA violation, providing a clear path to a more favorable outcome.

In this 10-part podcast series, we will examine the following tactics for reducing potential exposure if your company finds itself in the FCPA crosshairs:

1.     Self-Disclosure.

2.     The Need for Speed

3.     Extensive Remediation

4.     Root Cause, Risk Assessment and Gap Analysis.

5.     Data Analytics.

6.     Clawback and Holdbacks.

7.     Change in sales models.

8.     Enhancement of Compliance.

9.     Internal Controls.

10.  Investigative Protocol

Resources:

Nick Gallo on LinkedIn

Ethico

The FCPA Survival Guide: Surviving and Thriving a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: May 1, 2024 – The 4-Month 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:

  • CZ gets 4 months. (WSJ)
  • FCPA violator Ericsson bemoans ‘over-regulation’. (FT)
  • Can’t get a contract? Sue the lawyers. (Reuters)
  • Meta sued the EU over election misinformation.  (NYT)

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

Categories
All Things Investigations

All Things Investigations: Compliance Lessons from Gunvor and Trafigura Enforcement Actions

Welcome to the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group’s podcast, All Things Investigation. In this podcast, I joined by Mike DeBernardis to mine compliance lessons from the recently announced Gunvor and Trafigura FCPA enforcement actions.

Mike DeBernardis is a seasoned professional with a comprehensive understanding of FCPA enforcement actions and compliance matters, a perspective deeply informed by his numerous client advisory roles on self-disclosure decisions related to FCPA violations and his regular participation in industry discussions.

DeBernardis believes that FCPA enforcement actions are increasingly considering past misconduct as a determinant in assigning penalties and discounts. He underscores the necessity for companies to be proactive and innovative in their remediation efforts rather than simply adhering to minimal compliance standards. He also notes a decrease in the reliance on external monitors in FCPA resolutions, potentially due to businesses taking more initiative in improving their compliance programs and directly reporting to the DOJ.

In DeBernardis’ view, the Department of Justice’s approach to FCPA enforcement is dynamic and adaptive, with companies helping shape best practices through their communication with outside counsel and the DOJ itself.

Key Highlights:

  • Impact of Self-Disclosure on FCPA Penalties
  • DOJ’s Quantifiable Self-Disclosure Benefits in FCPA
  • Cross-Regional Executives in Trafigura Bribery Scheme
  • Innovative Risk Mitigation Strategies in FCPA
  • Rewarding Compliance Efforts in Energy Trading

Resources:

Hughes Hubbard & Reed website

Mike DeBernardis

Categories
2 Gurus Talk Compliance

2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 26 – The Compliance Week Wrap Up 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 Compliance Week National Conference, a premier event in the field of compliance, offered a rich assortment of discussions and insights on various compliance topics, such as AI monitoring, risk assessment, and oversight of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Among the expert attendees were compliance professionals Tom and Kristy.

Tom highlighted the invaluable practical discussions led by practitioners, which had direct impact on compliance practices. He found the sessions on risk assessments and third-party risk management to be engaging and informative.

Similarly, Kristy found the conference sessions to be enlightening, notably a keynote on artificial intelligence and a workshop on leadership. She also valued the call for transparency in compliance roles, underscoring the conference’s ability to address recurring compliance challenges.

Both Fox and Grant-Hart’s perspectives were shaped by their extensive experiences and expertise in the field of compliance, highlighting the conference’s appeal to both veterans and newcomers alike.

Highlights Include:

1. Compliance Week Conference Roundup – Key thoughts, takeaways, and moments

2. Ericsson released from DPA.   (WSJ)

3. SEC says self-reporting is critical. (WSJ)

4. Corruption with JFK taxi dispatchers.   (NYPost)

5. No more late night messages from your boss—the Right to Disconnect. (WaPo)

6. Trafigura pleads guilty. (The Maritime Executive)

7. Inside the Russian Shadow Trade for Weapons Parts, Fueled by Crypto (WSJ) 

8. Sam Bankman – Fried is still gambling (The Verge) 

9. The Frustration of CCO Job Searches (Radical Compliance)

10. Florida man put car in cruise control, then partially stood up through sunroof while speeding, deputies say (FOX 35 Orlando)

Resources: 

Kristy Grant-Hart on LinkedIn

Spark Consulting

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Everything Compliance

Everything Compliance: Episode 132, The Tribute to Gene Marks 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, Jay Rosen, and Special Guest Karen Moore, all hosted and joined by Tom Fox.

1. Matt Kelly takes a deep dive into the recent speech by Michael Hsu on how fairness helps compliance. (Check out his blog on the topic here.) He shouts out to World Central Kitchen and their continued efforts to feed those in need.

2. Special guest Karen Moore takes a deep dive into the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.  She shouts out to the Austrian government for providing citizenship to descendants of Nazi persecution by means of a declaration without having to give up their current citizenship or nationality in return.

3. Jonathan Marks talks about his father’s influence on him, which helped Jonathan form his views on ethics and the Kobayashi Maru. He shouts out to his father, Gene Marks for a full life well lived.

4. Jay Rosen looks at the enforcement action involving Trafigura. He shouts out to Lou Gossett, Jr. for his Oscar-winning role in An Officer and a Gentleman.

5. Host Tom Fox takes a deep dive into the Trafigura FCPA enforcement action to try and determine how (and why) the company was not required to have a monitor. He shouts out to Houston Astros pitcher Ronel Blanco, who threw a no-hitter in his 8th professional appearance at the age of 30.

The members of the Everything Compliance are:

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

Karen Woody – Is 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 and an experienced data privacy/data protection lawyer in London. He can be reached at windyridgehouse@gmail.com

Jonathan Marks can be reached at jtmarks@gmail.com

Guest Karen Moore can be reached at Kmoore51@fordham.edu

The host, 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.

Categories
10 For 10

10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For The Week Ending April 6, 2024

Welcome to 10 For 10, the podcast which 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 compliance professionals, 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.

  • Trafigura pleads guilty. (The Maritime Executive)
  • Ericsson released from DPA.  (WSJ)
  • Autonomy paid whistleblower for wrongful termination.  (Law360) sub-req’d
  • More 1MDB-Swiss bankers are on trial. (Bloomberg)
  • 20 convictions and $1.7bn in penalties.  (Financial Regulation News)
  • The South African Speaker resigns.  (Reuters)
  • The former head of the Spanish football federation was arrested on corruption charges. (ESPN)
  • The SEC says self-reporting is critical. (WSJ)
  • Corruption with JFK taxi dispatchers.  (NYPost)
  • No more late-night messages from your boss—the Right to Disconnect. (WaPo)

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
Blog

The Trafigura FCPA Enforcement Action – Part 4 – Lessons Learned

We conclude our exploration of the resolution of the FCPA enforcement action involving the Swiss trading firm G Trafigura Beheer B.V. (Trafigura), an international commodity trading company with its primary operations in Switzerland. The company pleaded guilty and will pay over $126 million to resolve an investigation stemming from the company’s corrupt scheme to pay bribes to Brazilian government officials to secure business with Brazil’s state-owned and state-controlled oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras (Petrobras). The matter was resolved via a Plea Agreement. Information detailing the company’s conduct was also issued.

Despite substantial violations of the FCPA and its extension into the corporate offices, Trafigura received the 10% discount noted above. The message from this enforcement action is the cost of failing to self-disclose, creating liability under the FCPA and creating jurisdiction for the DOJ to bring an enforcement action, denial that you have done anything wrong, failure to cooperate (at least initially), and not sanctioning any of the culpable company actors. In other words, there is a bit of reverse logic and analysis in this case. However, as noted several times, the DOJ rewarded Trafigura with some credit and gave them a discount. Most importantly, and perhaps inexorably, Trafigura was not required to retain a monitor.

Remediation 

While most of the remediation is reported as standard, the one item that every compliance professional should consider is that the company proactively discontinued using third-party agents for business origination. This point is perhaps the most significant, as we have now seen the DOJ call out Albemarle and SAP for discontinuing their use of third-party agents.

As Matt Kelly noted in Radical Compliance, in his discussion of Guvnor FCPA enforcement action, “This is the latest in a string of FCPA enforcement cases where we’ve seen a big, structural change to the sale function. Albemarle eliminated its use of third-party sales agents as part of its FCPA settlement last year; SAP eliminated its third-party sales commission model globally as part of its own FCPA settlement announced in January. Now we have a third global enterprise going that same route, reducing its FCPA risk in a deep, permanent way by restructuring its sales operations.” With Trafigura, we now have a fourth.”

As I noted in my review of the Albemarle and SAP enforcement actions, SAP eliminated its third-party sales commission model globally, prohibited all sales commissions for public sector contracts in high-risk markets, and enhanced compliance monitoring and audit programs, including the creation of a well-resourced team devoted to audits of third-party partners and suppliers. Albemarle changed its approach to sales and its sales teams. Guvnor also moved from being a third-party agent to a direct sales force.

Moving to a direct sales force does have its risks, which must be managed, but those risks can certainly be managed with an appropriate risk management strategy, monitoring of the strategy, and improvement; those risks can be managed. Yet there is another reason, and more importantly, a significant business reason, to move towards a direct sales business model. Whenever you have a third-party agent or anyone else between you and your customer, you risk losing that customer because your organization does not have a direct relationship with the customer. A direct sales business model will give your organization more direct access to your customers.

Another exciting aspect of this approach used by Albemarle, SAP, and Trafigura is that it is not an approach laid out in either the 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition, or the 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. The companies developed all of these strategies based on their own analysis and risk models. It may have come from a realization that the risk involved with 3rd party sales models was too great, that the companies wanted more control over their sales, or another reason. Whatever the reason for the change, the DOJ clearly noted each organization and viewed it affirmatively.

Bribery Schemes

This area is essential for all compliance professionals to take note of. The bribes were initially funded with a $ 0.20 surcharge or uplift for every barrel of oil traded. With the price of oil fluctuating wildly at the time in question, between $60 to $100 per barrel, I am not sure such a small amount would even seem anomalous. It would not rise to a rounding error but generate $19 million in bribes. While I am not sure that the bribery scheme was designed to be so hard to detect, the reality is that no compliance professional could look at the trades and determine if a bribe was baked into the pricing.

Yet there was even a deeper part of the bribery scheme. Executives at Trafigura and corrupt traders at Petrobras prearranged the oil trading prices rather than letting the market determine them. The information noted, “The Trafigura Executive 2 and Brazilian Official 1 agreed to prices for trades of oil products and bribe amounts for each trade. After determining the price, Trafigura Executive 2 instructed Trafigura traders to negotiate with Petrobras, which Trafigura Executive 2 knew to be a sham, to arrive at the pre-agreed price.” [emphasis supplied]

Finally, another set of bribes was funded through an unrelated business unit. This occurred when one of the two corrupt Trafigura executives involved in the bribery scheme was transferred to run the company’s Singapore business unit. From there, this corrupt executive had a corrupt third party in Hong Kong bill the Singapore business unit for non-existent consulting services related to the Chinese market for $500,000. This money funded additional bribes to corrupt Petrobras employees. This extra step would require someone in compliance to connect the dots between a corrupt third-party bribery scheme in Singapore and China and the corruption at Petrobras in Brazil.

Lack of a Monitor

The following DOJ Memo governs the decision of whether a company needs a monitor: Revised Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters, released in March 2023. The memo has 10 factors a prosecutor must consider.

  1. Did the corporation voluntarily self-disclose?
  2. At the time of the resolution and after a thorough risk assessment, has the company implemented an effective compliance program and sufficient internal controls to detect and prevent similar misconduct in the future?
  3. At the time of the resolution, the company had adequately tested its compliance program and internal controls to demonstrate that they would likely detect and prevent similar misconduct.
  4. Whether the underlying criminal conduct was long-lasting or pervasive across the business organization or was approved, facilitated, or ignored by senior management, executives, or directors (including through a corporate culture that tolerated risky behavior or misconduct or did not encourage open discussion and reporting of possible risks and concerns),.
  5. Whether the underlying criminal conduct involved exploiting an inadequate compliance program or system of internal controls.
  6. Did the conduct involve the active participation of compliance personnel?
  7. Did the company take adequate investigative or remedial measures to address the underlying criminal conduct, including terminating business relationships and practices that contributed to it?
  1. At the time of the resolution, the company’s risk profile had substantially changed.
  2. Whether the corporation faces any unique risks or compliance challenges.
  3. Is the company subject to other oversight?

A review of the Information and Plea Agreement reveals no self-disclosure. Equally significantly, there is no information about whether the company has implemented an effective compliance program or sufficient controls, let alone tested them. According to the data, the conduct was long-lasting across multiple business units. If there were internal controls in place, they were undoubtedly inadequate. There does not appear to be involvement in the compliance function. The only positive factor from the resolution documents is that Trafigura did terminate its use of third parties to initiate and foster business development, but that appears to be the only factor they have met.

Writing again in Radical Compliance, Matt Kelly said, “Either way, these cases send mixed messages to the compliance community. It looks like you can get away with not self-disclosing misconduct and perhaps even slow-rolling your cooperation if you’re prepared to invest lots in a newly invigorated compliance program and tolerate the Fraud Section as your new BFFs for the next three years of a settlement agreement.”

If the DOJ has discontinued its monitoring program or changed the requirements, it is undoubtedly its prerogative to do so. It would be helpful if they communicated that change to the compliance community.

Categories
Blog

The Trafigura FCPA Enforcement Action – Part 3 – The Penalty

We continue our exploration of the resolution of the FCPA enforcement action involving the Swiss trading firm G Trafigura Beheer B.V. (Trafigura), an international commodity trading company with its primary operations in Switzerland. The company pleaded guilty and will pay over $126 million to resolve an investigation stemming from the company’s corrupt scheme to pay bribes to Brazilian government officials to secure business with Brazil’s state-owned and state-controlled oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras (Petrobras). 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, the lack of self-disclosure, and the admittedly lack of stellar cooperation, one might wonder how Trafigura could obtain any discount from their overall penalty.  There was no total figure to show the amounts of bribes paid by Trafigura in the Plea Agreement.  However, it was noted that Trafigura earned over $61 million in profits from the business obtained through the corrupt scheme. Yet Trafigura received a 10% discount off the 50th percentile of the applicable US Sentencing Guidelines acceptable range. How did Trafigura achieve this discount?

Cooperation

The starting point for this analysis is the Plea Agreement. However, we should note that Trafigura failed to preserve and produce certain documents and evidence on time and, at times, took positions inconsistent with full cooperation, “particularly during the early phase of the department’s investigation.” Additionally, Trafigura was slow to exercise disciplinary and remedial measures for certain employees whose conduct violated company policy. Finally, Trafigura “ultimately accepted responsibility for its criminal conduct. Its previous position in resolution negotiations also caused significant delays and required the offices to expend substantial efforts and resources to develop additional admissible evidence before the defendant constructively reengaged with the offices in agreeing to a negotiated resolution.”

This cooperation included (i) providing timely updates on facts learned during its internal investigation, (ii) making factual presentations to the DOJ, (iii) facilitating the interviews of employees and agents, including an employee located outside the United States, and arranging for counsel for employees where appropriate; (iv) producing relevant non-privileged documents and data to the department, including documents located outside the United States in ways that navigated foreign data privacy laws, accompanied by translations of certain documents; and (v) providing all relevant facts known to it, including information about individuals involved in the conduct. The compliance professional should note that Trafigura provided documents to the DOJ outside the United States in ways that navigated foreign data privacy laws.

The Remediation 

The Plea Agreement also included information on the remediation Trafigura carried out. Trafigura also took steps to fix the problems. These included (i) creating and implementing better, risk-based policies and procedures for things like fighting corruption, using middlemen and consultants, making payments to third parties, and assessing the risk of joint ventures and equity investments; (ii) improving the processes and controls around high-risk transactions; (iii) spending more money on training employees and testing their compliance; and (iv) making sure that the problems were fixed regularly. The final point is perhaps the most significant, as we have now seen the DOJ call out Albemarle and SAP for discontinuing their use of third-party agents.

Prior Misconduct

Trafigura also had prior misconduct, which the DOJ called out. While noting it was “not recent,” Trafigura had sustained a 2006 guilty plea for entering goods through false statements and a 2010 conviction for violating Dutch export and environmental laws concerning the discharge of petroleum waste in Côte d’Ivoire.

Fine Calculation

The explanation from the DOJ raised an open question in the minds of many compliance professionals regarding recent FCPA enforcement. That question was about how culture and prior misconduct were factored into the acceptable determination. This case follows the recent SAP enforcement action, in which a similar analysis was conducted. The DOJ does not discount fines off the low end of an acceptable range but instead in the middle between the high and low range. In the case of Trafigura, the high end of the acceptable range (after the complete calculation under the Sentencing Guidelines) was $170,345,061, and the low range was $85,172,530. As a result of the defendant’s cooperation and efforts to make things right, as well as the fact that some Trafigura Group companies had been guilty of similar crimes in the past, the DOJ took 10% off the middle of the two ranges, which put them in the 50th percentile. This led to a “total criminal fine” of $80,488,040, 10% less than the fifth percentile above the lowest possible fine under the Sentencing Guidelines.

Join us tomorrow, and we will conclude with lessons learned from the Trafigura enforcement action.