As the villain Le Chiffre says to James Bond just before he began to torture him in the movie version of Casino Royal, “Sometimes the old ways are the best.” He then begins to beat Bond’s family jewels with a knotted hemp rope. It is one very painful scene to watch.
I thought of the movie line, but not the torture scene, when I read the most recent Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action where the Korean entity KT Corporation settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) via a Cease and Desist Order (the Order) for “disgorgement of $2,263,821, prejudgment interest of $536,457, and a civil money penalty in the amount of $3,500,000” bringing the total fine and penalty to just over $6.3 million. The reason for the prescience of the Le Chiffre line was that the first bribery schemes in South Korea largely revolved around cash. We have not seen those ‘little brown bags’ of cash in too many recent FCPA enforcement actions. This makes the KT Corp. matter worth looking at in some detail.
In terms of financial penalties, the total amount is obviously low. However, there are multiple lessons to be garnered from the enforcement action that are worth exploring. Over the next few blog posts, I will be taking a deep dive into the enforcement action and exploring it in some detail.
Background
First a word on jurisdiction as you may be asking why is the US SEC bringing a FCPA enforcement action against Korea’s largest telecoms operator? For KT Corp., the answer is that it has American Depositary Shares, (ADRs) which are registered with the SEC and trade on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Additionally, KT Corp. files periodic reports, including Form 20-F, with the SEC. If you represent companies which have ADRs in the US, you might want to inquire if they have any internal controls around the FCPA and whether they even have a compliance program.
According to the SEC Press Release announcing the resolution, KT Corp. is “South Korea’s largest telecommunications operator, engaged in multiple schemes to make improper payments in Korea and Vietnam.” However, the company did not have “sufficient internal accounting controls over charitable donations, third-party payments, executive bonuses, and gift card purchases.” This failure of internal controls leads to numerous compliance failures and FCPA violations where “high-level executives, were able to generate slush funds that were used for gifts and illegal political contributions to government officials in Korea who had influence over KT Corp.’s business. Other employees were able to make payments in connection with seeking business from government customers in Vietnam.”
Moreover, as specified in the Order, “the misconduct involved former high-level managers and executives and occurred under circumstances whereby KT had no relevant anti-corruption policies or procedures with respect to donations, employment candidates, vendors, subcontractors, or third-party agents. In certain instances, this allowed KT employees to provide benefits improperly to government officials and to seek business from government customers. As a result of this misconduct, KT violated the books and records and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA.”
Charles Cain, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit, was quoted in the SEC Press Release for the following, “For nearly a decade, KT Corp. failed to implement sufficient internal accounting controls with respect to key aspects of its business operations, while at the same time lacking relevant anti-corruption policies or procedures. Issuers must be sure to devote appropriate attention to meeting their obligations under the FCPA.” Finally, “in November 2021, South Korean authorities indicted KT Corp. and 14 executives for criminal violations related to illegal political contributions from the slush funds.”
Culture
There were multiple bribery schemes involving KT Corp., which we will detail at some length in this series. However, one thing that is made clear in this Order is the complete and total failure of a culture of compliance at KT Corp. or at least something coming close to an appearance of doing business by not paying bribes. First was the length of the bribery schemes detailed in the Order, which stated, “From at least 2009 through 2017, high-level executives of KT maintained slush funds, comprised of both off-the-books accounts and physical stashes of cash, in order to provide items of value to government officials, among others. These included gifts, entertainment and, ultimately, illegal political contributions to members of the Korean National Assembly serving on committees relevant to KT’s business.”
When this slush fund story was broken open by the Press in South Korea, the company did not take the opportunity to self-disclose, remediate the deficiencies discovered or even stop the bribery and corruption. Instead, KT Corp. officials “devised a new method to continue generating a slush fund.” Clearly this was a business that was committed to feathering its nest via bribery and corruption.
Join us tomorrow where we take a deep dive into the bribery schemes.
Tag: FCPA
In this episode of the FCPA Compliance Report, I am joined by fan favorite James Koukios, partner at Morrison and Foerster. In this episode we consider some of the key ABC issues in the always great MoFo Monthly Top 10 International Anti-Corruption Developments for November 2021. Highlights of this podcast include:
- OECD Updates Recommendation for Combatting Foreign Bribery
- Federal District Court Dismisses FCPA and Money Laundering Charges Against Swiss Wealth Manager
- SEC Reports Surge in Whistleblower Tips and Awards
- Former Coal Executive Pleads Guilty to Egyptian Bribery Scheme
- Adoption Agency Manager Pleads Guilty to Uganda Bribery Scheme
Resources
James Koukios on the MoFo website
November International Anti-Corruption Newsletter here
Super Sunday is here. The NFL finally gets the game in the spotlight after weeks of brutal PR. Who ya got? “Who Dey” or Hollywood? Tom and Jay are back look at some of the week’s top compliance and ethics stories this week in the Super Sunday edition.
Stories
1. Do compliance professionals need a union? Dick Cassin in the FCPA Blog.
2. Jailed employees under the FCPA. Bill Jacobsen explores in the FCPA Blog.
3. New workplace normal for policies and training. Ingrid Freeden in Risk and Compliance Matters.
4. New SOE risk management framework. Alexandra Gillies and Thomas Shipley in the FCPA Blog.
5. 3 questions from KPMG and Carillion tribunal. Neil Hodge in Compliance Week. (sub req’d)
6. SFO investigation protocol announced. Mengqi Sun in the WSJ Risk and Compliance Journal.
7. Companies yet again ask EU for rules around ESG. Lawrence Heim in practicalESG.
8. CCOs say self-reporting a hard sell. Evren Esen in CCI.
9. What comes next for ABC and the Olympics? Andy Spalding in GAB.
10. The Spotify imbroglio. Matt Kelly with a 2-parter in Radical Compliance, Part 1 and Part 2.
Podcasts and More
11. In February on The Compliance Life, I visit with Ellen Smith, a former Director of Trade Compliance who recently started her own consulting firm. In Part 1, she discussed her academic background and early professional career. InPart 2, Ellen moves in-house.
12. Tom and Richard Lummis begin their annual review of Best Picturing winning movies on 12 O’Clock High, a podcast on business leadership. In Part 1 they review Schindler’s List for leadership and ethical lessons. Upcoming episodes will look at Gladiator, A Man for All Seasons and Platoon.
13. CCI releases new e-book from Tom “FCPA 2021 Year in Review”. Available free from CCI.
14. Trial of the Century-the Enron Trial. This week, Tom premiered a 5-part podcast series on the Enron Trial with Loren Steffy, who covered the trial for the Houston Chronicle. In Part 1, run up to the trial. In Part 2, the trial begins. In Part 3, the star witnesses and key testimony. In Part 4, the Verdict comes in. In Part 5, what did it all mean. It is be available on the Compliance Podcast Network, Megaphone, iTunes, Spotify and all other top podcast platforms.
15. In a special 2-part series on the Sunday Book Review, Tom looks at the Notre Dame Deloitte Center for Ethical Leadership’s top books on ethical leadership from 2021. Part 1 and Part 2.
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.
Last week I wrote about the first Opinion Release for 2022, appropriately named Opinion Release 22-01. Several persons emailed me about my analysis and discussion, concluding with the point that there was no need for an Opinion Release on this issue. Jon May made that same argument publicly. Their collective thoughts were that this was a straight extortion claim made against the shipping company (Relator in 22-01) and as both the liberty and health of the ship captain were in immediate danger, there was no need to obtain an Opinion Release from the Department of Justice (DOJ) as this matter fell precisely within extortion and therefore outside the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
I agree with all those who contacted me or put such an opinion in print. The shipping company could have made the payment without the DOJ Opinion Release and in my opinion not run afoul of the FCPA. There is certainly nothing wrong in being cautious and obtaining an Opinion Release on this issue, particularly given the expediency of the DOJ response to the company which sought the Opinion Release, which was literally given in the time span of a few days. However, such a need for cautiousness is not mandated under the FCPA.
If your company or client is facing a situation where its employees are being held and no charges are forthcoming, their liberty is at risk, if your employees are threatened at gun point or in some other manner where the physical safety is at risk, or if your employee’s health is put at risk, and money is demanded to relieve any of these situations; then the FCPA does not apply and your organization or the employees themselves can make the payment and not face FCPA risk.
It is incumbent to remember extortion payments are not illegal under the FCPA. Extortion payments are made for any action which threatens or demands payment for life, liberty, or health. These should be exempted out from your facilitation payments and your compliance program through specific language. You need to do this for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, your employees must understand that the company will support them if they are in any way threatened with harm, arrest or physical detention and/or their health/safety is threatened. As a compliance professional, you need to make sure they understand they need to do whatever they have to do to get themselves out of such a situation.
Some of the situations your employees might face are along the lines of the following:
- Employees are stopped by police, military or paramilitary personnel, or militia (uniformed or not) at designated or other checkpoints or other places and a payment is demanded as a condition of passage of persons or property.
- Employees are stopped at the airport by customs or passport control personnel or military personnel and a payment is demanded for entry or exit of persons or property.
- Employees are asked by persons claiming to be security personnel, immigration control, or health inspectors to pay for an allegedly required inoculation or other similar procedure.
I once had a situation in which an employee was threatened with receiving a vaccination for yellow fever when he was departing a west African country. The employee paid some $85 to get out of that situation. I instructed him to submit it as a travel expense, writing out in a four-sentence paragraph, attached to his expense report. The documentation proved that payment was not a facilitation payment. It was clearly an extortion payment.
In Opinion Release 22-01, the ship captain of the Relator in question was detained by the un-named Country A with no written documentation of the charges. Moreover, according to the Opinion Release 22-01, “Requestor has provided information and documentation showing that the captain was at that time suffering from serious medical conditions that would be significantly exacerbated by the circumstances and conditions of his detention and created a significant risk to his life and well-being.”
If your employees pull up to a roadblock and government authorities pull guns, there is a clear threat of physical safety for those employees. They should pay whatever amount they can to extricate themselves from the situation as quickly as possible.
The key though in each of these situations is that it be properly documented, even if under the first and third scenario above, such documentation could be a handwritten statement by your employees who were a part of the extortion attempt. But more than simply the documentation is that you must specifically list extortion payments in your books and records, so you will not be suspected with hiding them by describing them as something else. It is crucial to train your employees specifically on the actions to take. In your policy, you should clearly state that if there is a threat to health, safety or liberty, it is not a facilitation payment but an extortion payment. Make sure that they understand what their rights are and what their obligations are to report it when they return to their office. Always remember, an extortion payment is not a FCPA violation.
In Opinion Release 22-01, the DOJ stated, “The facts presented by Requestor demonstrate that the proposed payment would not be made with corrupt intent. Based on the information from Requestor, the primary reason for the payment was to avoid imminent and potentially serious harm to the captain and the crew of the Requestor vessel. Under the FCPA, “[a] person acts corruptly if he acts voluntarily and intentionally, with an improper motive of accomplishing either an unlawful result or a lawful result by some unlawful method or means. The term ‘corruptly’ is intended to connote that the offer, payment, and promise was intended to influence an official to misuse his official position.”” This is a correct statement of the FCPA. But it is also a correct statement to say that extortion payments are not made illegal under the FCPA.
As the GOAT of pro football, Tom Brady retires, Brian Flores sues the NFL and the Bengals/Rams make the Super Bowl, Tom and Jay are back look at some of the week’s top compliance and ethics stories this week in the Brady Retires edition.
Stories
- DOJ issues first Opinion Release of 2022. DOJ website. Tom in FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog. Bill Steinman in the FCPA Blog.
- Do BODs have unrealistic expectations on compliance? Dick Cassin explores in the FCPA Blog.
- KPMG mislead FRC through forged docs. Risk and Compliance Platform Europe.
- LRN releases 2022 Program Effectiveness Report. Download report here. Matt Kelly in Radical Compliance.
- A ‘how-to’ on remediating. The HeadSpin enforcement action. Tom in FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog. Aaron Nicodemus in Compliance Week. (sub req’d)
- Learning to scale up ethically. Hemant Taneja in CCI.
- Why compliance should lead ESG. Carrie Penman in Ethics and Compliance Matters.
- The Boardroom agenda in 2022. Deloitte in Harvard Law School forum on Corporate Governance.
- Changes in antitrust enforcement and its impact on compliance. Mike Volkov, Matt Kelly and Tom in Compliance into the Weeds. Mike Volkov with a 3-part blog series in Corruption Crime and Compliance.
- Unclear values can lead to unethical behavior. Brett Beasley in Center for Ethical Leadership.
Podcasts and More
- In February on The Compliance Life, I visit with Ellen Smith, a former Director of Trade Compliance who recently started her own consulting firm. In Part 1, she discussed her academic background and early professional career.
- Aly McDevitt with a multipart series in Compliance Week on the end-to-end story of a ransomware attack. Here more about the series on this month’s edition of From the Editor’s Desk, with Tom and Dave Lefort. A subscription is required but Compliance Week is running a membership special of $199 for the year. Use Promo Code RNSM199. For information and details click here.
- CCI releases new e-book from Tom “FCPA 2021 Year in Review”. Available free from CCI.
- Trial of the Century-the Enron Trial. This week, Tom premiered a 5-part podcast series on the Enron Trial with Loren Steffy, who covered the trial for the Houston Chronicle. In Part 1, run up to the trial. In Part 2, the trial begins. In Part 3, the star witnesses and key testimony. In Part 4, the Verdict comes in. In Part 5, what did it all mean. It is be available on the Compliance Podcast Network, Megaphone, iTunes, Spotify and all other top podcast platforms.
- Looking for a quick daily bite of trade compliance? Check out the Compliance Kitchen with Silvia Surman, who gives a short 3-5 minute update on one trade compliance topic each day. On the Compliance Podcast Network.
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.
Categories
Creative Lawyerin’ and Opinion Release 22-01
Yesterday, I ended my blog post with a few words about what we call in Texas Creative Lawyerin in the context of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement action where there was zero fine and penalty due to the extraordinary remediation engaged in by the recalcitrant company whose Chief Executive Officer (CEO) allegedly engaged in fraudulent and illegal behavior. While the rest of the world calls this ‘Creative Lawyering’; whether you say it with a Texas drawl or not, what it means is that lawyers are at times called upon to find creative ways of working within a legal framework. According to Summize, this means, “The outcome often relies upon a lawyer’s storytelling ability – how they package an argument or a party’s point of view in a suitable and meaningful way. These abilities, in addition to critical thinking, social skills, listening and reasoning, can be particularly useful in commercial law when working with multiple stakeholders.” Another way to say it is one of my most favorite phrases about lawyering which is as a lawyer, “you are only limited by your imagination.”
Background
We saw yet another example of such creativity in the first Opinion Release of 2022, 22-01. The Opinion Release procedure allows companies (Requestor) to submit questions to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to determine if they would see any potential Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations from the actions the Requestor took or anticipates taking. The facts of the matter are quite unique however the discussion and analysis provide significant guidance for FCPA aficionados and compliance practitioners going forward. Additionally, and yet again, the matter does provide a clear example of how a lawyer can be creative and achieve a superior result for their client.
Requestor was required to anchor its ship to await repairs, refit and unloading in Country B. It was directed to a location to do so. However, the location was in the territorial waters of Country A, which promptly arrested the ship’s captain and held the crew aboard the ship. The captain had a medical condition which required treatment. Country B sent a third-party intermediary (intermediary) to demand a monetary payment in the amount of $175,000 for release of the captain. Requestor brought in its own third-party representative (representative) to negotiate the release of the captain with the intermediary, requesting the “formal basis for the payment — such as an invoice or other documentation setting forth charges or an enumerated fine amount — to ensure that the payment would be made pursuant to a fine or other penalty resulting from a legal or regulatory violation, if any.” The intermediary refused to provide any such documentation.
The Requestor also sought the assistance of Country B, US embassy representatives and “sought the assistance from other agencies within the U.S. government to end the captain’s detention and permit the Requestor vessel and its crew to leave Country A expeditiously. Requestor also requested that those agencies notify relevant Country A authorities of the detention of the captain and crew, and the confiscation of the Requestor vessel.” All such avenues were unsuccessful to obtain the release of the captain.
Analysis
The DOJ analysis reminded us all that the FCPA does not prevent payment of all bribes. A predicate for FCPA liability is that the bribe must be made with corrupt intent and used to ‘obtain or retain business.’ The DOJ found neither requirement was present under this fact pattern. First, “the primary reason for the payment was to avoid imminent and potentially serious harm to the captain and the crew of the Requestor vessel.” In fact, the payment was made under duress, and that “an individual who is forced to make payment on threat of injury or death would not be liable under the FCPA.”
Significantly, the payment was not made with an eye towards ‘obtaining or retaining business.’ Requestor was trying to do business in Country B and not Country A and inadvertently strayed into the territorial waters of Country A. The Opinion Release stated, “Requestor has no ongoing or anticipated business with Country A, and the entire episode appears to be the result of an error, emanating from the incorrect advice Requestor received about where to anchor its ship while waiting for the port of Country B to carry out mandatory repairs.” Moreover, the Requestor was transparent in its request for assistance from various US government agencies and representative. The DOJ concluded, “Put simply, under the specific facts presented by Requestor, there does not appear to be a sufficient business purpose associated with the payment — and relatedly, there is a lack of a corrupt intent under the FCPA.”
Discussion
- Corrupt Intent in Obtaining and Retaining Business
First and foremost is the requirement for corrupt intent in the obtaining and retaining of business. As noted, neither was present here. It certainly helped that the Requestor had no commercial business with or in Country A. If not for the delay in getting into port in Country B, the Requestor would never have been in Country A. The Requestor had no “historical, pending, ongoing, anticipated, or sought after business relationships with government actors” in Country A.
2. Extortion Payments Not Prohibited Under the FCPA
Under the FCPA, an “individual who is forced to make payment on threat of injury or death would not be liable under the FCPA. Federal criminal law provides that actions taken under duress do not ordinarily constitute crimes.” Indeed, this was noted in the FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition, which was cited in this Opinion Release for the following, “Situations involving extortion or duress will not give rise to FCPA liability because a payment made in response to true extortionate demands under imminent threat of physical harm cannot be said to have been made with corrupt intent or for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business.”
3. Speed of Decision
A separate note must be made and frankly kudos to the DOJ for the speed in which it handled this most unusual request. As stated in the footnotes, the DOJ received the request on October 19 and 20, 2021. Due to the highly unusual and exigent circumstances, including the risk of imminent harm to the health and well-being of the persons involved, the DOJ provided to the Requestor a preliminary response. Additional information was provided which led to this full Opinion Release.
It is this final piece which caps off the importance of Opinion Release 22-01. Every compliance practitioner should understand that this resource is available to them. I have counseled several companies over the years to use this process and they all declined, not wanting to “open the kimono” and disclose the facts to the DOJ for fear it would result in a FCPA enforcement action. Opinion Release 22-01 shows how being creative as a lawyer can lead to a superior result for your client, especially under the FCPA.
In this episode of the FCPA Compliance Report, I am joined by fan favorite Mike DeBernardis, partner at Hughes Hubbard. In this episode we look at compliance and temporal timeline developments from Q4 2021. Highlights of this podcast include:
- A deep dive into the Lisa Monaco speech, how it impacted the compliance temporal timeline whether it was a change or recalibration.
- Anti-Trust developments.
- The Biden Administration Strategy on Countering Corruption?
- Compliance in 2022 and moving forward.
Resources
Mike DeBernardis on HughesHubbard website.
Nearly six years ago, Matt Ellis writing in CCI, detailed some of the Foreign Corrupt Practices (FCPA) enforcement actions involving Pemex. He detailed the software company Paradigm BV which had a FCPA enforcement action based in part on consultant payments, gifts and travel expenses for a Pemex official related to a subcontract it performed on a Pemex project. Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) had a FPCA enforcement action, partly involving payments the company made to a technology consultant in connection with the sale of HP software packages and licenses to Pemex. Back in 2008, Siemens AG had the first billion dollar plus FCPA enforcement action including, among other things, the payment of approximately $2.6 million in bribes to a well-connected business consultant in Mexico, some portion of which allegedly was routed to a senior Pemex official to help the company resolve cost overrun issues related to three refinery modernization projects.
Since that time, it seems doing business with Pemex only became riskier under the FCPA due to apparent endemic corruption at Pemex. Key Energy Services, Inc. has a FCPA enforcement action caused by bribes from its Mexican subsidiary paid to a Pemex employee. However, this endemic corruption is not a new feature of doing business with Pemex as far back as 1982, Crawford Enterprises, Inc., Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc., C.E. Miller Corporation and International Harvester Company, had a FCPA violation for paying bribes to sell turbine compression systems to Pemex. Book-ending this early FCPA enforcement action, as late as 2020, Vitol Inc. was involved in paying bribes in violation of the FCPA. In short, doing business with Pemex has always been high risk.
Now a new FCPA risk may have arisen for US companies doing business in the US as Pemex purchased a massive Royal Dutch Shell refinery in Deer Park Texas (Shell Deer Park up to the sale, Pemex Deer Park, after the transfer.) According to Reuters, turnover of the refinery occurred in January as the deal finally passed Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review. (How this deal could pass CFIUS review is the subject for another blog post.) Now we have the anomalous situation of Pemex owing one of the largest refineries on the Gulf Coast. What could go wrong?
One only need to look at the Corpus Christi based Citgo Petroleum Corporation which is owned by Venezuela’s state-owned and state-controlled energy company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). According to a 2021 Department of Justice (DOJ) Press Release, Jose Luis De Jongh Atencio (De Jongh) while an official at Citgo Petroleum Corporation, laundered millions of dollars in bribes and corruptly provided business advantages to multiple individuals who obtained contracts with Citgo and PDVSA. He accepted more than $7 million in bribe payments from businessmen in exchange for assisting the businessmen and related companies in procuring contracts with Citgo and providing them with other business advantages.
Another case involving Citgo was Jose Manuel Gonzalez Testino (Gonzalez), who pled guilty in federal court in Houston to one count of conspiracy to violate FCPA, one count of violating the FCPA, and one count of failing to report foreign bank accounts. Yet one of the most interesting items was the reference to Citgo Petroleum Corporation and its involvement in the bribery scheme. As noted in the DOJ Press Release it stated, “Gonzalez also admitted to making bribe payments to several PDVSA officials who were based in Houston and employed by Citgo.” Citgo procured goods and services on behalf of PDVSA and “Gonzalez admitted he and his co-conspirators paid at least four Citgo officials in the Special Projects group and provided gifts and other things of value to a senior Citgo executive.” These Citgo/PDVSA enforcement actions have led nearly 20 different guilty pleas or indictments of other former Citgo/PDVSA employees.
Clearly, there is precedent for a FCPA enforcement action in the United States for a US domiciled business if that business has foreign government ownership. The President of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has taken a decided interest in this acquisition and George Baker, writing in the Houston Chronicle, notes this brings on what he calls the AMLO risk to this facility due to Obrador’s tendency to micromanage Pemex. His position on bribery and corruption is certainly well shown in his administration. In addition to his cutting of Pemex’s budget for repair and plant maintenance, what to you think Pemex and the AMLO administration think of compliance? Not much it appears.
What American companies now need to understand is that every transaction, every meal bought for Pemex Deer Park employees or gifts sent over will have to be screened through a FCPA lens. What happens when Pemex officials from Mexico start arriving to oversee their investment? What happens when Pemex officials in Mexico start to oversee and micromanage contracts and procurement? Given the number of FCPA enforcement actions involving Pemex in the past, would it be too surprising to see a repeat of Pemex employees’ actions at Pemex Deer Park?
What type of due diligence is your American company going to engage in for doing business with Pemex Deer Park? Leaving aside the question of what the financial health of the plant will be under the AMLO regime, what about anti-corruption due diligence? Could Pemex pass such scrutiny or would too many read flags arise? What happens if your company is approached to enter into some type of joint or other business relationship with Pemex Deer Park?
What about training? If you are a US company which has only done due diligence with US owned petro-chemical and chemical plants on the Texas Gulf Coast, you have probably never received FCPA anti-corruption training. Now you will need to do so. You will also need to track all your gifts, travel and entertainment expenses with Pemex, with a separate line item entry in your books and records.
All of these issues and questions will be answered as we move forward into the almost brave new world.
