Tag: Gunvor

Categories
Compliance Tip of the Day

Compliance Tip of the Day: Compliance Lessons from The Gunvor FCPA Enforcement Action

Welcome to “Compliance Tip of the Day,” the podcast where we bring you daily insights and practical advice on navigating the ever-evolving landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements.

Whether you’re a seasoned compliance professional or just starting your journey, our aim is to provide you with bite-sized, actionable tips to help you stay on top of your compliance game.

Join us as we explore the latest industry trends, share best practices, and demystify complex compliance issues to keep your organization on the right side of the law.

Tune in daily for your dose of compliance wisdom, and let’s make compliance a little less daunting, one tip at a time.

In today’s episode, we consider Gunvor FCPA’s enforcement action, which  presents numerous lessons learned. Today we unpack the key compliance takeaways.

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

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
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
Everything Compliance

Everything Compliance – Episode 131, The Whistleblower Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The members of the Everything Compliance are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Blog

The Gunvor FCPA Enforcement Action: Part 4 – Forward – Leaning Steps

As noted in this series, Gunvor received a 25% discount despite substantial violations of the FCPA that extended into the corporate offices. The company made multiple changes, which compliance professionals should study. We conclude with key lessons learned from the Gunvor enforcement action for compliance professionals.

Remediation

The company did an excellent job in its remedial efforts. It took major steps to create an effective, operationalized compliance program that met the requirements of the Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program as laid out in the 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition, and the 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (23 ECCP).

The remedial actions by Gunvor can be grouped as follows:

  1. Implemented a control framework for internal business developers, as well as additional levels of review and approval for counter-party payments;
  2. Enhanced the independent compliance committee with responsibility for reviewing high-risk transactions;
  3. Updated its incentives to more fully align with the 23 ECCP;
  4. Tested and enhanced its compliance program, including compliance culture reviews, testing new third-party due diligence process and payment controls, and evaluating controls around business development activities; and
  5. It has implemented a business communications policy that addresses using ephemeral and encrypted messaging applications.

Change in Business Model

Gunvor eliminated the use of third-party business origination agents. Matt Kelly noted in Radical Compliance, “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.”

As I have 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, moving away from third-party agents 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 customer access.

The fact that the 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition, or the 23 ECCP does not lay out this strategy is another intriguing aspect of how Albemarle, SAP, and Gunvor use it. The companies developed all of these strategies based on their own analysis and risk models. It may have been 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.

(Lack of) Self-Disclosure

Even though this factor was not present in the Gunvor enforcement action, the DOJ’s message could not be any more explicit regarding the DOJ’s expectation of self-disclosure and the undeniable and palpable benefits. 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. Its actions as a criminal recidivist resulted in it 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 40% from above the low end. Gunvor’s failure to self-disclose cost it an estimated $40 million under the Sentencing Guidelines. Its inability to self-disclose and recidivism cost it a potential $150 million in discounts under the Corporate Enforcement Policy. The DOJ’s message could not be any clearer.

Cooperation

While most of the cooperation listed in the Plea Agreement was standard action previously seen, there are two that I believe were worth noting. The first was that the company expedited the production of documents for the DOJ from multiple foreign countries while navigating foreign data privacy and criminal laws. This language indicated that there were data privacy issues to overcome and that the company did so. This means that the DOJ expects any company to do so going forward.

The second was imaging the phones of relevant custodians at the beginning of Gunvor’s internal investigation, thus preserving business communications sent on mobile messaging applications. As with the SAP enforcement action, this is clear instruction around messaging apps in FCPA enforcement actions.

 Forward-Leaning Steps

Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri said in her speech, “As part of their resolutions with the Criminal Division, each of these trading companies was required to make critical enhancements to their compliance programs to prevent future violations of the FCPA. Companies that take forward-leaning steps on compliance will be better positioned to certify that they have met their compliance obligations at the end of the term of their agreements, as is now required in corporate resolutions with the Criminal Division. These prosecutions also help set the tone for the energy trading industry as a whole—they show that a robust compliance function is critical.”

This may be the most significant lesson garnered from the Gunvor enforcement action. By taking these “forward-leaning” steps, a company that finds itself in this situation can return even when home office officials look the other way or are directly involved in bribery and corruption.

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
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.