Tag: FCPA

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
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
Blog

The Gunvor FCPA Enforcement Action: Part 1 – Introduction

In March 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the resolution of an FCPA enforcement action involving the Swiss trading firm Gunvor S.A. The enforcement action comes 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.

  1. Introduction

According to the DOJ Press Release, “Gunvor entered into a plea agreement with the government and pleaded guilty to an information charge charging the company with conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA. Following the plea, the court sentenced Gunvor to pay a criminal monetary penalty of $374,560,071 and to forfeit $287,138,444 in ill-gotten gains. The sentence includes credits of up to one-quarter of the criminal fine for amounts Gunvor pays to resolve investigations by Swiss and Ecuadorean authorities into the same misconduct.”

In a DOJ Press Release, Acting Senior Counselor Brent S. Wible of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division said, “Over nearly a decade, Gunvor representatives bribed high-level government officials at Ecuador’s state-owned oil company to enter into business transactions with other state-owned entities that ultimately benefited Gunvor. As a result of this complex bribery scheme, Gunvor obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit profits. Gunvor’s guilty plea demonstrates that the Criminal Division remains resolute in our efforts to root out bribery and official corruption. We will continue to hold both corporations and individuals who bribe foreign officials to account in coordination with our international partners.”

U.S. Attorney Breon Peace for the Eastern District of New York noted, “Today’s guilty plea and sentencing mark yet another example of this office’s efforts to combat widespread corruption.” He added, “Corruption erodes the public’s trust in their government, prevents government officials from acting in the best interests of the people they represent, and harms businesses that play by the rules, driving up consumer prices. The Justice Department, including my office, will not tolerate bribes paid by American companies or foreign companies misusing the U.S. financial system.”

Finally, Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey B. Veltri of the FBI Miami Field Office added, “Gunvor’s years-long bribery scheme involving high-level Ecuadoran officials was detrimental to the business environment and eroded the public’s trust and confidence in their government. This guilty plea and significant fine would not have been possible without significant cooperation from our international partners in the Cayman Islands, Colombia, Curacao, Ecuador, Panama, Portugal, Singapore, and Switzerland. This truly was an international effort.”

II.Information

The Information found that between 2012 and 2020, Gunvor and its co-conspirators paid more than $97 million to intermediaries, knowing that some of the money would be used to bribe Ecuadorean officials, including a high-ranking official at the country’s national energy concern, Petroecuador. Gunvor managers and agents attended meetings in the United States and elsewhere as part of the scheme. The 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.

In exchange for these bribe payments, high-level Ecuadorian officials front companies for Gunvor to win the rights to a series of oil-backed loan contracts with Petroecuador. This structure allowed Gunvor and its co-conspirators to avoid a competitive bidding process and obtain contractual terms that 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.

The Press Release also noted the guilty pleas from multiple participants in the bribery scheme and recipients of the illegal payments. The DOJ obtained guilty pleas from the following individuals:

  • Antonio Pere Ycaza, a former consultant for Gunvor, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.
  • Enrique Pere Ycaza pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and to violate the FCPA.
  • Raymond Kohut pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.
  • Nilsen Arias Sandoval, a former senior Petroecuador official, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Over this blog series, we will consider bribery schemes, resolutions, and lessons learned for compliance professionals.

Categories
Compliance Week Conference Podcast

Compliance Week 2024 Speaker Preview Podcasts – Michael Koenig on Lessons Learned from JBS

In this episode of the Compliance Week 2024 Speaker Preview Podcasts series, Michael Koenig discusses his presentation at Compliance Week 2024, “Rebuilding The Compliance Department Post-DOJ and SEC Settlements – Lessons Learned from JBS.” Some of the issues he will discuss in this podcast and his presentation are:

  • What happens in the first 6 weeks?
  • Dealing with the DOJ and SEC after post-resolution
  • Learning about new best practices and seeing acquaintances at Compliance Week 2024

I hope you can join me at Compliance Week 2024. This year’s event will be held April 2-4 at the Westin Washington, DC, Downtown. The line-up is first-rate, with some top ethics and compliance practitioners around.

Gain insights and make connections at the industry’s premier cross-industry national compliance event, offering knowledge-packed, accredited sessions and take-home advice from the most influential leaders in the compliance community. Back for its 19th year, join 500+ compliance, ethics, legal, and audit professionals who gather to benchmark best practices and gain the latest tactics and strategies to enhance their compliance programs. Compliance, ethics, legal, and audit professionals will gather safely face-to-face to benchmark best practices and gain the latest tactics and strategies to enhance their compliance programs, among many others, to:

  • Network with your peers, including C-suite executives, legal professionals, HR leaders, and ethics and compliance visionaries.
  • Hear from 80+ respected cross-industry practitioners, including CEOs, CCOs, regulators, federal officials, and practitioners, to help inform and shape the strategic direction of your enterprise risk management program.
  • Hear directly from panels on leadership, fraud detection, confronting regulatory change, abiding by cross-border rules and regulations, and the always-favorite fireside chats.
  • Bring actionable takeaways from various session types, including cyber, AI, Compliance, Board obligations, data-driven compliance, and many others, to your program for you to listen, learn, and share.
  • Compliance Week aims to arm you with information, strategy, and tactics to transform your organization and career by connecting ethics to business performance through process augmentation and data visualization.

I hope you can join me at the event. For information on the event, click here. As an extra benefit to listeners of this podcast, Compliance Week is offering a $200 discount on the registration price. Enter the discount code TFOX2024 for $200 off.

The Compliance Podcast Network produces the Compliance Week 2024 Preview Podcast series. Compliance Week sponsors this series.

Categories
Blog

Ten Top Lessons from Recent FCPA Settlements – Lesson No. 10, Getting to Self-Disclosure: Speak Up, Triage and Internal Investigation

Over this series, I have reviewed the messages communicated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from three key Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions regarding their priorities in investigations, what they want to see in remediations, and what they consider best practices compliance programs. These enforcement actions warrant a close study of the lessons learned. They should guide not simply your actions should you find yourself in an investigation but also how you should think about priorities. One thing is abundantly clear: It all begins with self-disclosure.

The three FCPA enforcement actions we have reviewed are ABB from December 2022, Albemarle from November 2023, and SAP from January 2024. I added a fourth, the Gunvor S.A. enforcement action, as a discussion point, as it was released while I was writing this series. I have also cited several speeches by DOJ officials, including those from Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite. They pointed out a clear path for the company, which finds itself in an investigation, using extensive remediation to avoid monitoring. They provided insight for the compliance professional into what the DOJ expects in a best practices compliance program on an ongoing basis.

Late last week, there were two speeches at the ABA White Collar Conference: one by DAG Lisa Monaco and a second by Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri, which re-emphasized the points I have articulated. Today, I want to use their speeches to add another factor to my Top Ten Lessons List: a Speak Up Culture, effective triage, and quick, efficient, and accurate internal investigation when information is brought forward.

DAG Monaco could not have been clearer when she said, “When a business discovers that its employees broke the law, the company is far better off reporting the violation than waiting for DOJ to discover it. Now, when the DOJ does discover the violation, the company can still reduce its exposure by proactively cooperating in our investigation. But I want to be clear: no matter how good a company’s cooperation, a resolution will always be more favourable with voluntary self-disclosure.” [emphasis supplied]

DAG Monaco noted that the DOJ has structured its “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…We want to empower them to make the business case for investing in compliance. And when they do, they can point to our policies. Early reports on this work are promising. We directed all components and U.S. Attorneys to implement self-disclosure programs.”

The benefits of the VSD come from this self-disclosure. The DOJ’s announcement that it was launching a whistleblower program for payments to people who come forward with information about criminal activity emphasised this idea even more. While the SEC, CFTC, IRS, and other agencies have whistleblower reward programs, this is a powerful message from the DOJ that if your company has an issue, it is far better to self-disclose than investigate, remediate, and hope the DOJ (or any other agency) never finds out about the matter. Put another way, Argentieri spoke about “the benefits that await those that voluntarily disclose misconduct.”

All of this means you must be able to intake, evaluate, and investigate the information.

Culture of Speak Up

Your organization must have an effective and efficient means of allowing employees to raise their hands and speak up. That speak-up can be through an anonymous hotline, by going into their supervisor’s office to report something, or by coming to the compliance function. Or it could be another avenue of reporting. The point is that every company must be ready, willing, and able to hear and act on internal reports of wrongdoing.

Triage

Given the number of ways that information about violations or potential violations can be communicated to government regulators, having a robust triage system is a critical way to separate the wheat from the chaff and bring the correct number of resources to bear on a compliance problem. One important area is determining whether to bring in outside counsel to head up an investigation and the resources you may want or need to commit to a problem. You need to “kick the tyres” of any allegations or information so that you know the circumstances in front of you before you make decisions. You can achieve this through a robust triage process.

Internal Investigations

You can decide whether or not to investigate by consulting with other groups, such as the Compliance Committee of the Board of Directors or the Legal Department. The head of the business unit in which the claim arose may also be notified that an allegation has been made and that the Compliance Department will be handling the matter on a go-forward basis. Using a detailed written procedure, you can ensure complete transparency on all parties’ rights and obligations once an allegation is made. This gives compliance the flexibility and responsibility to deal with such matters, from which it can best assess and decide how to manage them.

We concluded this series where we began with the need for or benefits of self-disclosure. The benefits laid out by the DOJ are clear, tangible, and direct. If you self-disclose, provide extraordinary cooperation, extensively remediate, and disgorge any ill-gotten gains through profit disgorgement, there will be a presumption of declination. Even if you do not meet the self-disclosure threshold, you can still garner significant discounts under the DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy through extraordinary cooperation and extensive remediation.

Categories
Blog

Ten Top Lessons from Recent FCPA Settlements – Lesson No. 8, Enhancing Your Compliance Program

Over the past 15 months, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have made clear, through three Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions and speeches, their priorities in investigations, remediations, and best practices compliance programs. Every compliance professional should study these enforcement actions closely for the lessons learned and direct communications from the DOJ. They should guide not simply your actions should you find yourself in an investigation but also how you should think about priorities.

The three FCPA enforcement actions are ABB from December 2022, Albemarle from November 2023, and SAP from January 2024. Taken together, they point out a clear path for the company that finds itself in an investigation, using extensive remediation to avoid monitoring and providing insight for the compliance professional into what the DOJ expects in an ongoing best practices compliance program.

Over this series of blog posts, I will lay out what I believe are the Top Ten lessons from these enforcement actions for compliance professionals who find themselves in an enforcement action. Today, we continue with Number 8, Enhancement of Compliance. The DOJ has clarified that any company undergoing an FCPA enforcement action must significantly enhance its compliance program with a budget, headcount, and expertise in reporting, investigations, and consequence management processes.

Albemarle

The Albemarle NPA cited several remedial actions by the company that helped Albemarle obtain superior results regarding the discounted fine and penalty. These steps were taken during the pendency of the DOJ investigation so that when the parties were ready to resolve the matter, Albemarle had built out an effective compliance program and had tested it. The NPA provided that Albemarle

  • Strengthening its anti-corruption compliance program by investing in compliance resources, expanding its compliance function with experienced and qualified personnel, and taking steps to embed compliance and ethical values at all levels of its business organization;
  • Transformed its business model and risk management process to reduce corruption risk in its operation and to embed compliance in the business, including implementing a go-to-market strategy that resulted in eliminating the use of sales agents throughout the Company, terminating hundreds of other third-party sales representatives, such as distributors and resellers, and shifting to a direct sales business model;
  • Provided extensive training to its sales team, restructuring compensation and incentives so that compensation is no longer tied to sales amounts;
  • Used data analytics to monitor and measure the compliance program’s effectiveness and
  • It engaged in continuous testing, monitoring, and improvement of all aspects of its compliance program, beginning almost immediately after identifying misconduct.

The NPA noted that Albemarle engaged in holdbacks, as they did not pay bonuses to certain employees involved in the conduct or those with oversight. The NPA said, “During its internal investigation, the Company withheld bonuses totaling $763,453 from employees suspected of wrongdoing.” The illegal behavior involved people who “(a) had supervisory authority over the employee(s) or business area engaged in the misconduct; and (b) knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct.” This effort was important because it allowed Albemarle to get an extra fine reduction of a dollar for every dollar they spent on the investigation.

Indeed, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco cited the Albemarle FCPA resolution: “The company received a clawback credit for withholding bonuses for employees who engaged in misconduct. Not only did Albemarle keep the bonuses that would have gone to wrongdoers, but the company also received an offset against its penalty for the same amount. That’s money saved for Albemarle and its shareholders—and a concrete demonstration of the value of clawback programs.”

SAP

SAP did an excellent job in its remedial efforts to build out its compliance program. In addition to the prior discussions of SAP’s remedial efforts, the DOJ also pointed out the company’s Enhancement of Compliance. Here, the company significantly increased the budget, resources, and expertise devoted to compliance, restructuring its Offices of Ethics and Compliance to ensure adequate stature, independence, autonomy, and access to executive leadership; enhancing its code of conduct and policies and procedures regarding gifts, hospitality, and the use of third parties; and improving its reporting, investigations, and consequence management processes.

Next were the holdback actions SAP engaged in. The DPA noted SAP withheld bonuses totaling $109,141 during its internal investigation from employees who engaged in suspected wrongdoing in connection with the conduct under investigation or who both (a) had supervisory authority over the employee(s) or business area engaged in the misconduct and (b) knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct, and further engaged in substantial litigation to defend its withholding from those employees, which qualified SAP for an additional fine reduction in the amount of the withheld bonuses under the DOJ’s Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Pilot Program.

ABB

According to the ABB Plea Agreement, ABB “took a lot of corrective actions,” such as hiring experienced compliance staff and, after figuring out what caused the behavior described in the Statement of Facts, spending a lot more money on compliance testing and monitoring across the whole company; putting in place targeted training programs and extra case-study sessions on-site; and continuing to test and monitor to as This final point was expanded on in the SEC Order, which reported that all employees involved in the misconduct were terminated.

Additionally, ABB essentially created its monitoring program to test its compliance program and report to the DOJ. In a section entitled “Written Work Plans, Reviews, and Reports,” ABB agreed to conduct a first review and prepare a first report, followed by at least two follow-up reviews and reports. But more than simply reporting, ABB decided to create and submit for review a work plan for this ongoing testing of its compliance program, as the program was detailed in the DPA. The DPA specified, “No later than one (I) year from the date this Agreement is executed, the Company shall submit to the Offices a written report setting forth:

  • a complete description of its remediation efforts to date;
  • a complete description of the testing conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the compliance program and the results of that testing; and
  • It proposes to ensure that its compliance program is reasonably designed, implemented, and enforced so that the program is effective in deterring and detecting violations of the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws.”

The bottom line is that all these companies worked very hard to significantly enhance their compliance programs, with a budget, headcount, and expertise in their reporting, investigations, and consequence management processes. None of the actions by these companies were particularly new or even innovative, as with the innovations around data analytics programs. Indeed, these strategies have been available from the DOJ since at least the first edition of the FCPA Resource Guide in 2012. It was, however, the work of each company to understand the deficiencies in their compliance programs and their superior efforts to upgrade them.

Categories
10 For 10

10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For The Week Ending March 9, 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 DOJ announces a whistleblower program.  (WSJ)
  2. More from DAG Monaco. Changes to ECCP regarding AI. (Compliance Week)
  3. The NYT asks for Boeing whistleblowers. (NYT)
  4. Forced labor and Porsches.  (WSJ)
  5. The SEC approves weakened climate change rules. (NYT)
  6. Bribery acquittal in London. (F T)
  7. The CTA ruled it unconstitutional. (NYT)
  8. Senator Menendez, a co-defendant, pleads guilty. (CNBC)
  9. Ethisphere announces the World’s Most Ethical Company Awards. (Press Release)
  10. Gunvor is to pay $661 million for FCPA violations. (WSJ)

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

Ten Top Lessons from Recent FCPA Settlements – Lesson No. 7, Changing Your Business Model

Over the past 15 months, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have made clear, through three Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions and speeches, their priorities in investigations, remediations, and best practices compliance programs. Every compliance professional should study these enforcement actions closely for the lessons learned and direct communications from the DOJ. They should guide not simply your actions should you find yourself in an investigation but also how you should think about priorities.

The three FCPA enforcement actions are ABB from December 2022, Albemarle from November 2023, and SAP from January 2024. Taken together, they point out a clear path for the company that finds itself in an investigation, using extensive remediation to avoid monitoring and provide insight for the compliance professional into what the DOJ expects in a best practices compliance program on an ongoing basis.

Over a series of blog posts, I will lay out what I believe are the Top Ten lessons from these enforcement actions for compliance professionals who find themselves in an enforcement action. Today, we continue with Number 7, the Change in Sales Model. This is one of the more intriguing insights from these enforcement actions, as changing a sales model has not been previously called out by the DOJ in prior commentary, iterations of the Evaluations of Corporate Compliance Programs, either in the FCPA Resource Guide or in speeches. However, it is such a self-evident change that you might wonder why it has not been called out previously. One reason may be that it seems like a simple change but is challenging. Therefore, many companies may be reluctant to try to do so.

Albemarle

Albemarle changed its approach to sales and its sales teams. Corrupt third-party agents caused the company such FCPA grief. Many of the quotes in the NPA and Order make it clear that Albemarle executives had an aversion to paying bribes but greater moral flexibility when a third-party agent was involved. This led to the company moving away from third-party agents to a direct sales force.

 SAP

On the external sales side, SAP eliminated its third-party sales commission model globally and prohibited all sales commissions for public sector contracts in high-risk markets. It also enhanced compliance monitoring and audit programs, including creating a well-resourced team devoted to third-party partners and supplier audits. On the internal side, SAP adjusted internal compensation incentives to align with compliance objectives and reduce corruption risk.

Gunvor S.A.

The Gunvor FCPA enforcement action was announced in early March. According to the DOJ Press Release, the company has “pleaded guilty and will pay over $661 million to resolve an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department into violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).” I have not included it in this discussion up to this point. However, the DOJ noted that Gunvor had done away with “eliminating the use of third-party business origination agents.” While this is not a complete change in its sales model, it certainly is a significant part of such an action. It also demonstrates that a company can partly change its overall sales model and sales method in a manner that will draw favor from the DOJ.

Moving to a direct sales force does have its risks that must be managed. Still, those risks can certainly be managed with an appropriate risk management strategy, strategy monitoring, and improvement. 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. By having a direct sales business model, your organization will have a direct relationship with your customers and, therefore, the ability to develop it further.

If your organization is under FCPA investigation, you should examine its sales model to determine its maintenance risks. Suppose your model is fully commission-based or highly commission-dependent. In that case, you may consider moving to a direct sales model to help remediate and manage your risks more effectively.

Categories
Everything Compliance

Everything Compliance – Episode 130, The End of SPACs Edition

Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance as we celebrate our second century of shows. In this episode, we have the quintet of Jonathan Marks, Matt Kelly, Karen Woody, Jay Rosen, and Special Guest Karen Moore, all hosted by Tom Fox, joining us on this episode of Everything Compliance.

1. Matt Kelly looks at ongoing proposals by the SEC around climate risk reporting and the PCAOB on its NOCAR proposal. He shouts out to the Russian people who turned in droves for the funeral of murdered activist Alexei Navalny.

2. Karen Woody reviews the current state of SPACs. She shouts out to Caitlin Clark, who set the all-time single-season scoring record in college basketball.

3. Special guest Karen Moore considers the current state of whistleblowing. She shouts out and rants about UW killing the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

4. Jay Rosen looks at the FCPA conviction of Javier Aguilar. He shouts out to the rich getting richer; Shohei Ohtani signing with the LA Dodgers for $700MM and deferring 97% of his salary until 2034; and Adam Turteltaub, an uber Dodgers fan who might see a Dodgers World Series this year.

5. Jonathan Marks looks at Boeing, board governance, and culture. He shouts out garbage collectors who saw a house on fire, saved the family inside and warned neighbors all before the Fire Department arrived.

6. Tom Fox rants about the Supreme Court intentionally delaying the federal trials of Donald Trump.

The members of the Everything Compliance are:

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

• Karen Woody is one of the top academic experts on the SEC. Woody can be reached at kwoody@wlu.edu

• Special Guest Karen Moore is an Adjunct professor at the Fordham School of Law. She can be reached at kmoore51@fordham.edu

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

• Jay Rosen can be reached at Jay.r.rosen@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
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into The Weeds: The Gunvor FCPA Enforcement Action

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 explore a subject more fully. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode, Tom and Matt deeply dive into the recently released Gunvor FCPA Enforcement Action.

The Gunvor FCPA case, a high-profile instance of bribery involving Ecuadorian government officials, is a stark reminder of the perils of corruption in international business and the critical need for stringent compliance measures. Tom emphasizes the importance of adherence to anti-corruption laws and regulations. He stresses the necessity for robust compliance programs and internal controls to prevent such violations and the potential fallout of non-compliance, including reputational damage, financial penalties, and legal repercussions.

Matt Kelly sees the Gunvor FCPA case as a significant example of the consequences companies face when engaging in corrupt practices. He would underscore the importance of strong compliance programs, ethical business practices, transparency, and accountability to prevent similar instances of bribery and corruption in the future. Check out the key lessons learned from this matter.

Key Highlights:

  • Bribery Scheme in Gunvor’s Ecuador Dealings
  • Ethical Practices and Regulatory Compliance Strengthening
  • Gunvor’s Bribery Scheme: FCPA Enforcement Consequences
  • Proactive Transparency in Mitigating Legal Penalties

Resources:

Matt on Radical Compliance

Tom 

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn