Categories
10 For 10

10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending October 28, 2023

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, gets 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 know 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.

  • Financial integrity oaths heighten compliance.   (UC San Diego Today)
  • WPP detained an employee in China terminated for bribery.  (WSJ)
  • Suspicious death shadows Austrian corruption probe. (FT)
  • Don’t play games with the SEC. (Reuters)
  • Meta was sued by state AGs for addicting children.   (NYT)
  • Is Trump guilty of accepting bribes?  (NY Magazine)
  • Ex-Homeland Security Investigator Sentenced for Corruption. (Chicago Tribune)
  • The US warns against Iranian exports.  (WSJ)
  • Brazil was told to pick up its ABC game. (WSJ)
  • Big 10 investigating UM football for sign stealing. (ESPN)

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
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: October 27, 2023 – The Forgiven Loan Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen to the Daily Compliance News. All from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

Stories we are following in today’s edition:

  • Financial integrity oaths heighten compliance.  (UC San Diego Today)
  • A WPP-detained employee in China was terminated for bribery. (WSJ)
  • How AI is revolutionizing contracts. (FT)
  • More COI at the Supreme Court: the ‘forgiven loan’. (Reuters)
Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: October 23, 2023 – The More Trouble in China Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen to the Daily Compliance News. All from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

Stories we are following in today’s edition:

  • WPP execs are detained in China. (FT)
  • A former Albanian PM was arrested for corruption.  (AP)
  • Crypto mixers are under greater scrutiny. (WSJ)
  • US sides with Tesla on direct-to-consumer sales in LA. (Reuters)
Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

Mike Volkov on FCPA Enforcement and Compliance from 2021 and into 2022

In this episode of the FCPA Compliance Report, I am joined by Mike Volkov to take a look back at FCPA enforcement and compliance from 2021 and prognosticate to where it may be going in 2022. Highlights of this podcast include:

  1. Three FCPA enforcement actions.
  2. DAG Lisa Monaco’s October Speech to the ABA White Collar Defense Conference.
  3. The Biden Administration’s Strategy on Countering Corruption.
  4. Where will FCPA enforcement head in 2022.
  5. Where will ABC compliance go in 2022?

Resources

Tom in the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

FCPA Year in Review

Compliance Year in Review

Categories
Blog

2021 – The Year in FCPA Enforcement

There was a paucity of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions in 2021. However, the few enforcement actions announced did provide significant lessons for every compliance professional.
Deutsche Bank
The year started off with a bang when, according to a Department of Justice (DOJ) Press Release, Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, “agreed to pay more than $130 million to resolve the government’s investigation into violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and a separate investigation into a commodities fraud scheme. “The resolution includes criminal penalties of $85,186,206, criminal disgorgement of $681,480, victim compensation payments of $1,223,738 and $43,329,622 to be paid to the US Securities & Exchange Commission in a coordinated resolution.” Settlement documents include a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and Information from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a Cease and Desist Order (Order) entered to with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This settlement comes on the heels of another FCPA settlement in August 2019, where the Bank paid $16.2 million to settle a ‘Princeling’ charge that it corruptly hired sons and daughters of foreign officials and of employees of state-owned enterprises.
One can only wonder at the culture at the Bank which basically boiled down to win at all costs: lie, cheat, steal, engage in bribery and corruption, manipulate the markets, we don’t care. Just Win Baby. The Bank was also comfortable in dealing with some very dodgy characters beyond even Donald Trump and his family. The Bank has now said it will no longer do business with Trump and his personal banker left the Bank at the end of 2020.
Does this mean the Bank will turn state’s evidence against Trump? It is hard to say at this point, but the Bank is committed in the DPA to “cooperate fully with the Offices in any and all matters relating to the conduct described in the Statement of Facts and other conduct under investigation by the Offices at any time during the Term, subject to applicable laws and regulations, until the later of the date upon which all investigations and prosecutions arising out of such conduct are concluded, or the end of the Term.” [emphasis supplied] While this is boilerplate language found in every DPA it certainly takes on greater significance now.
Amec Foster Wheeler
The next matter was the Amec Foster Wheeler FCPA enforcement action, which is currently owned by John Wood Group PLC (Wood), the successor-in-interest to Amec Foster Wheeler Plc. It involved a long-standing corruption investigation which involved multiple investigative and enforcement agencies in multiple jurisdictions regarding the use of the disgraced agent Unaoil to pay bribes to secure business. In a Press Release, the Company said that it had reached agreements with the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the DOJ and SEC) in the US, and the Ministério Público Federal (MPF), the Comptroller General’s Office (CGU) and the Solicitor General (AGU) in Brazil, to resolve their respective bribery and corruption investigations into the past use of third parties in the legacy Foster Wheeler business. Under the terms of these various agreements, the Company will pay compensation, disgorgement and prejudgment interest, fines and penalties totaling $177m. The payment will “be phased over the next three years with approximately $62m payable in H2 2021, and the balance to be paid in instalments in 2022, 2023 and 2024.”
There were some key lessons learned from the matter. In the area of internal controls, hopefully in 2021, if a General Counsel is asked to draft an agreement, even an interim agreement which violates a company’s internal controls for the vetting and contracting with third-party agents, that GC would stop the process. But if not, there should trips wires which would alert those at the highest level of a corporation that a key control was been over-ridden or worked around. This of course means the Board of Directors should have visibility into the highest risks an organization faces and in the world of international commerce, a third-part sales agent is that level of risk.
This case also involved multiple failures in the area of Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A). There were at least two acquisitions involved here where the acquiring entity; first Amec  acquired Foster Wheeler (forming Amec Foster Wheeler) and then the second, the John Wood Group PLC (acquiring Amec Foster Wheeler) failed to perform either sufficient pre-acquisition due diligence or even post-acquisition audit of the acquired company’s high-risk ventures. Once again, this involved Petrobras which was well-known for corruption issues by 2014. There was no mention of the failures of Amec and Wood in the M&A areas on this matter but clearly something went through unnoticed.
Since at least the 2012 FCPA Resource Guide, the DOJ and SEC have specified the steps for compliance in M&A. It is pre-acquisition due diligence which should form the basis of post-acquisition integration. After acquisition, there should be a full forensic FCPA audit and investigation, most notably in high-risk markets and with high-risk ventures. There must be full compliance training and integration of the acquired entity into the acquirer’s compliance regime.
WPP
Finally, was the SEC Cease and Desist Order entered into with WPP plc, the world’s largest advertising group, for paying bribes to Indian government officials and participating in other “illicit schemes” in China, Brazil and Peru. WPP agreed to pay $11 million+ in disgorgement and interest and penalty of $8 million for a total amount of just over $19 million. Some of the key lessons from compliance including the following.
Culture Matters – It seems about the most basic thing to say in the compliance realm, but the most important thing is your corporate culture. If your culture puts no value on doing business ethically and in compliance, your organization will surely have problems. Investigations – From the ignoring of internal whistleblower reports, to selecting poor investigative counsel, to allowing the persons involved in the corruption to help shape the original internal investigation, this matter is an excellent teaching tool for how NOT to perform an investigation. M&A  – There was no preacquisition compliance due diligence into any of the entities acquired. This was bookended with no forensic compliance audit of the acquired entities after acquisition as well. Incentives – When do sales or remuneration incentives become perverse incentives? WPP crossed that threshold when they made the earnouts for the founders of the organizations they acquired, who were kept on to run subsidiaries such as WPP-India, contingent on hitting sales numbers they could not reach without engaging in bribery and corruption.
While there was a smaller number of FCPA enforcement actions in 2021 than in prior years, the cases that were resolved were significant. They provide many lessons for every Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) and compliance professional.

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

John Davis and James Tillen on WPP


In this Episode of the FCPA Compliance Report, I visit with Miller & Chevalier members John Davis and James Tillen. We take a deep dive into the WPP Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action. Highlights of this podcast include:

  1. What the basic facts?
  2. What were the missed red flags and M&A failures?
  3. When do compliance incentives become perverse?
  4. What were the investigative failures?
  5. What made the Chinese bribery scheme so unusual?
  1. The Peru bribery scheme was across national lines. Does that make it harder to detect?
  1. Where is the DOJ?
  2. Where is the SFO?
  3. How did WPP get a resolution with no monitor?

Resources
John Davis
James Tillen
 

Categories
Blog

WPP Enforcement Action: Part 5 – The Lessons Learned

This week we have been exploring the recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Cease and Desist Order (Order) entered into last week with WPP plc, the world’s largest advertising group, for paying bribes to Indian government officials and participating in other “illicit schemes” in China, Brazil and Peru. WPP agreed to pay $11 million+ in disgorgement and interest and penalty of $8 million for a total amount of just over $19 million. Today we conclude with some lessons learned for the compliance professional.
Culture Matters
It seems about the most basic thing to say in the compliance realm, but the most important thing is your corporate culture. If your culture puts no value on doing business ethically and in compliance, your organization will surely have problems. As I have cited to multiple times in this exploration of WPP, the Order stated, “WPP had no compliance department during the relevant period”. If your company will not have a compliance function, it speaks about as highly as one can about the values and culture of your organization. It could not be put more simply, with no compliance program, your organization does not value having a culture of compliance. Throughout the Order are examples of this lack of value. From the perfunctory first investigation into allegations in India, to the paper compliance program in place, to the lack of preacquisition due diligence from the compliance perspective; it is clear WPP put no value into having a culture of compliance.
Investigations 
The Order made clear that after the initial whistleblower report, “which identified CEO A by name as the architect of the scheme”; WPP then tasked part of the group involved in the actions to investigate the allegations. That group then hired “an Indian partner firm of an international accounting firm ostensibly to investigate the allegations and review India Subsidiary’s processes regarding government contracts and transactions involving government clients.” [emphasis supplied] Who did this investigator rely on for information? The very leaders of the corruption scheme, the WPP-India Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO).
What were other key deficiencies in the investigation?

  • There was no contact with the identified recalcitrant 3rd
  • The investigative firm relied on information from the parties identified in the whistleblower report.
  • There was no independent verification.
  • There were no conclusions related to the bribery allegations brought forward by the whistleblower.

The WPP matter is an excellent teaching tool for how NOT to perform an investigation.
Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A)
Here WPP apparently engage in none of the M&A components of even a minimum standard for compliance. There was no preacquisition due diligence into any of the entities acquired. Simply doing acquisitions in a high-risk environment is not verboten. But doing so with no compliance is. Moreover, there was apparently no integration of the acquired entities into the WPP compliance program, such as it was. Once again without a compliance function to drive this to the finish, there was no corporate group tasked to finish it out. Obviously, there was no forensic compliance audit of the acquired entities after acquisition as well. I cannot point to a shortcoming of WPP as there were no shortcomings in execution, as there was no effort.
Incentives
When do sales or remuneration incentives become perverse incentives? For Wells Fargo, it came when the corporate hierarchy determined that the proper number of Wells Fargo products was eight per customer and employees continued employment and compensation would depend on hitting that inane number. (Remember the CEO, John Stumpf, said “8 is great!”) WPP crossed that threshold when they made the earnouts for the founders of the organizations they acquired, who were kept on to run subsidiaries such as WPP-India, contingent on hitting sales numbers they could not reach without engaging in bribery and corruption. When you couple that with no effective controls, no culture of compliance and outright fraud, you see how WPP came to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) grief.
Whistleblower Reports
The bribery schemes were so blatant that in India there were seven internal whistleblower reports. As stated in the Order, “From July 7, 2015 through September 2, 2017, WPP received seven anonymous complaints alleging – with increasing specificity – two bribery schemes related to India Subsidiary’s work for DIPR.” That is seven, count them seven documented whistleblower reports which had details including names of the participants and the bribery schemes. This failure simply boggles the mind, yet is axiomatic of the culture of WPP.
It is still not clear how WPP came to the attention of the SEC. We do know if it was not through self-disclosure. It may well have been an internal whistleblower. For companies who decry whistleblowers who go public, WPP is Prime Example 1 of why. Moreover, how many whistleblowers would have the continued drive to continue to report illegal conduct after the first report which was dismissed through a sham investigation?
We are now at the end of the WPP sage from the perspective of the SEC enforcement action. I began this series with several questions which still remain open. They include:

  • How was the SEC made aware of WPP’s bribery and corruption?
  • Is there a parallel Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement action?
  • Where is the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)?
  • How did WPP avoid a monitor?

As these questions remain open, we may well be revisiting WPP again.

Categories
Blog

WPP Enforcement Action: Part 4 – The Bribery Schemes

This week we are exploring the recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Cease and Desist Order (Order) entered into last week with WPP plc, the world’s largest advertising group, for paying bribes to Indian government officials and participating in other “illicit schemes” in China, Brazil and Peru. WPP agreed to pay $11 million+ in disgorgement and interest and penalty of $8 million for a total amount of just over $19 million. Today we consider the bribery schemes and the lessons they present for the compliance professional.
Due Diligence
Before we get to the bribery schemes, a word (yet again) about due diligence. Clearly WPP was deficient in performing the most rudimentary level of due diligence. This is true whether or not it was a potential business partner acquired through acquisition or a vendor hired to assist in WPP sales efforts. Due diligence is one of the most basic functions in any compliance program. Obviously one function of due diligence is to determine if you are going into business with bad actors who have engaged in bribery and corruption previously. But the next level of inquiry is perhaps even more important. Are you going into business with persons who want to and will do business ethically and in compliance with anti-corruption programs? This requires more than simply a Level 1 search of social media and the relevant bad guy lists. It requires understanding the person or entity you are going to do business with going forward. This means you have to sit down (or Zoom) and talk to people and get a sense of their values and their ethics. A simple computer search is not going to give you such insights.
Bribery Schemes 
India
As laid out in the Order, the Vendor A bribery scheme worked with the customer DIPR awarding WPP India a contract under which WPP India developed advertisements and then purchased space in newspapers to display the advertisement. The customer set the fee to media agencies for purchasing advertisement space. WPP-India CEO A negotiated rates with the newspapers that were significantly less than the fee and utilized the difference between the approved fee and the actual price paid to the newspapers to create a pot of money to pay bribes to the government officials. WPP-India hid this arrangement by agreeing to pay Vendor A to purchase the advertising space. The Vendor A paid the newspapers, took a cut and forwarded the difference on as bribe to government officials.
The next scheme involved Vendor B, which once again involved WPP-India bribing government officials through an intermediary. Here the customer paid WPP-India Subsidiary $1.5 million to create and run a media campaign to celebrate the formation of the Indian state of Telangana in June 2015. But there was never any such campaign. There were fake records created at the behest of the WPP-India CFO, by Vendor B falsify that the campaign occurred. Vendor B then paid $1+ million to another 3rd party who made the bribe payments. All the recalcitrant parties split the rest of the money.
China
Here WPP-China avoided paying $3,2 million in taxes to a tax authority by making corrupt payments to a vendor selected by corrupt tax officials. WPP-China paid approximately $107,000 to the corrupt vendor in the two months before a tax audit finalized. The vendor kept a cut of the bribe payment and distributed the bulk of the monies as bribes. But it did not end there as the WPP-China books and records were doctored to show the vendor performed services for a client. There was also $2,000 of gifts and entertainment to tax officials during the same time period. Finally, WPP uncovered an off-the-books account maintained by China Subsidiary reflecting the payments to the vendor recommended by the tax officials.
Brazil
WPP acquired a majority interest in a public relations agency in São Paulo, Brazil, with the acquired entity’s minority owner serving as CEO of WPP-Brazil going forward. WPP-Brazil made improper payments to vendors in connection to obtain government. As Mike Volkov has noted, “These payments were made in circumstances in which there was a high probability that a portion of the payments may have been passed to the government officials with the authority to award the contracts. To disguise the fact that Brazil Subsidiary’s payments to the vendors related to obtaining or retaining government contracts, Brazil Subsidiary falsified its books and records to reflect that the vendors performed bona fide services, such as marketing or IT services.”
Peru
This was perhaps the most sophisticated bribery scheme for its complexity. Once again, it began with WPP obtaining a majority interest in an entity headquartered in Lima, Peru, with the acquired entity’s founder staying on as CDO of WPP-Peru. The bribery scheme involved a construction company funding the mayor of Lima’s political campaigns in exchange for contract awards. WPP-Peru was a conduit for the construction company’s bribe to the mayor of Lima. However, WPP-Peru disguised the corrupt source of the funds by channeling the construction company’s payments through WPP subsidiaries in Colombia and Chile. WPP-Chile and WPP-Colombia then falsely recorded that they received money in return for services performed for the construction company, and WPP-Peru maintained no records that the construction company paid for a portion of the mayor of Lima’s political campaigns.
There are multiple lessons for every compliance professional of a multi-national organization about the selection, use and management of third parties in high-risk environments. You have to know the folks you are doing business with. Equally important is the quality of their character and commitment to doing business ethically. CEOs and/or CFOs who are willing to create advertising campaigns out of thin air did not wake up one morning with that idea. They were committed to getting business anyway possible. Moreover, all procedures must have appropriate oversight or a second set of eyes. Finally, when reports of misconduct come in, they must be thoroughly investigated.

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

The WPP Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action


Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast which takes a deep dive into a compliance related topic, literally going into the weeds to more fully explore a subject. This week Matt and Tom take a deep dive into the second FCPA enforcement action of 2021, involving the UK entity, WPP.
Some of the issues we consider are:

  • Why does a $15bn, 100K employee worldwide, multination not have a compliance function? What does that say about its culture?
  • What is the role of compliance in M&A?
  • When does a financial incentive become perverse?
  • Where is the DOJ? Where is the SFO?
  • How did WPP avoid a monitor? 

Resources
Matt in Radical Compliance
WPP Pays $19M on FCPA: An Analysis
 Tom in the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog
Part 1-Background
Part 2-Structural Compliance Deficiencies
Part 3-Bribery Schemes

Categories
Blog

WPP Enforcement Action: Part 3 – Investigative Failures

This week we are exploring the recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Cease and Desist Order (Order) entered into last week with WPP plc, the world’s largest advertising group, for paying bribes to Indian government officials and participating in other “illicit schemes” in China, Brazil and Peru. WPP agreed to pay $11 million+ in disgorgement and interest and penalty of $8 million for a total amount of just over $19 million. Today we consider the faulty investigation engaged in by WPP based upon whistleblower reports.
The Order related the following scenario, “Following the receipt of the original complaint in July 2015, which identified CEO A by name as the architect of the scheme, WPP tasked its Financial Director for the India region (“WPP India FD”) to oversee a review of the allegations. The WPP India FD retained an Indian partner firm of an international accounting firm (“Accounting Firm”) ostensibly to investigate the allegations and review India Subsidiary’s processes regarding government contracts and transactions involving government clients. However, the Accounting Firm relied on information provided by CEO A and India Subsidiary CFO (“CFO A”), did not contact third parties, and ultimately provided a report to WPP, which contained no conclusions related to the bribery allegations. Instead, the Accounting Firm noted several red flags regarding Vendor A, such as the India Subsidiary failing to obtain comparative quotes from other vendors or properly vetting Vendor A. After receipt of the Accounting Firm’s report, WPP allowed India Subsidiary to continue routing DIPR’s media purchases through Vendor A.”
With these stated facts it may not be that WPP intentionally engaged in a sham investigation but even the SEC said an accountant was “ostensibly to investigate the allegations and review India Subsidiary’s processes regarding government contracts and transactions involving government clients.” The language in the Order was certainly not high praise. What were the deficiencies in this ‘ostensible’ investigation?

  • There was no contact with the identified recalcitrant 3rd
  • The investigative firm relied on information from the parties identified in the whistleblower report.
  • There was no independent verification.
  • There were no conclusions related to the bribery allegations brought forward by the whistleblower.

If there are serious allegations made concerning your company’s employees engaging in criminal conduct, a serious response is required. Your company needs to hire some seriously good investigators to handle any internal investigation. These investigators need to have independence from the company so do not call your regular corporate counsel or regular accounting firm as WPP did. Hire some seriously good investigators. This may well mean you need specialized outside counsel.
Despite the fact that using specialized investigation counsel is a best practice that is worth the money, it was not done here. This is particularly so when small or medium sized business units are part of larger organizations. While General Counsels (GCs) and Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) may be up to speed on outsourcing critical inquiries, managers in business units often are not and frequently reply that they “got someone” in the company who “takes care of that stuff.” As stated in the Order, WPP did not even engage its own legal function, “WPP tasked its Financial Director for the India region”. This approach was costlier to WPP in the long run. That was clearly the case of the over-matched Finance Director at WPP who oversaw the initial India investigation.
In an article, entitled “Risks and Rewards of an Independent Investigation”, Jim McGrath and David Hildebrandt wrote about the use of specialized outside counsel to lead an independent internal investigation as compliance and ethics best practices. The authors provided three reasons for this suggestion of the utilization of specialized counsel. The first is that the regulators look towards the independence and impartiality of such investigations as one of its factors in favor of declining or deferring enforcement.
There is yet another reason for the use of specialized outside counsel to handle an investigation. If a company insider is used to conduct the investigation, the regulators might feel the results had less than full credibility because the firm hired to handle the investigation would surely know “who buttered their bread” and that investigator would not want to bring bad news to client and endanger the ongoing business relationship between the law firm and the client. By employing specialized counsel, a business comports with the expectations under the US Sentencing Guidelines, gives a company the protections of the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine and, finally, “assures the government of the integrity of the internal investigation.”
As noted in the Order, the investigative report “contained no conclusions related to the bribery allegations. Instead, the Accounting Firm noted several red flags regarding Vendor A, such as the India Subsidiary failing to obtain comparative quotes from other vendors or properly vetting Vendor A. After receipt of the Accounting Firm’s report, WPP allowed India Subsidiary to continue routing DIPR’s media purchases through Vendor A.” In other words, if not a whitewash, the report by the investigative firm in India did not bring any significant untoward conduct forward.
Serious investigative counsel means more than simply knowing the law. It is working with the client so that they understand the posture they find themselves in. WPP demonstrated a desire to put profits before all else, doing business ethically or even obeying the law. So, the first thing defense counsel must do is to disabuse any notion that this is not an extremely serious matter. Investigative counsel then has to engage in the investigation, root cause analysis and remediate. The investigative counsel hired by WPP failed in all of these requirements. Was it incompetence? Was it a truncated investigative scope? Was it a desire not to bring bad news to a big client? At this point, we do not know. All we do know is that the investigation into the whistleblower allegations was certainly substandard.