Category: Criminal Law

The Federal Grand Jury: Ten Tips If You Receive a Subpoena

Other than having to respect testimonial and constitutional privileges of the people called to appear before it, a federal grand jury can pretty much do what it wants in questioning witnesses and compelling the production of documents. Federal grand jury subpoenas are almost never quashed on grounds that they call for irrelevant information or go beyond the grand jury’s authority. Federal grand juries have a maximum of 23 members, 16 of whom must be present to form a quorum. Indictments are returned by a vote of 12 or more members. Federal grand juries typically sit for a term of 18 months and meet at regular intervals. As a practical matter, a grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. This is the basis for Judge Sol Wachtler’s famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” Testifying or providing documents to such a powerful body entails grave risks. You should never attempt to face these risks without the help of an experienced white collar criminal defense attorney. Here you will find 10 tips for responding to federal grand jury subpoenas that call for your testimony or documents. Of course, every case is different and you should always develop a strategy in consultation with your attorney.

1. Keep Your Attorney Close at Hand. 

Your lawyer can’t be with you in the grand jury room, but he or she can be right outside the room and you have the right to consult with him or her after each and every question. In fact, you can spend as much time as you need conferring with your lawyer, as long as you are not attempting to disrupt the grand jury process. You can also leave the grand jury room in order to brief your attorney about the questions being asked and your responses. In most federal jurisdictions you can also take notes of any questions asked during the grand jury session. These can later be shared with your attorney.

2. Beware of Agreeing to Pre-Grand Jury Interviews 

You are under no obligation to talk to government agents before the grand jury process begins. Some Assistant United States Attorneys trick unrepresented persons into interviewing with federal agents prior to the beginning of the grand jury session. The letter accompanying the witness’ subpoena may ask or direct the witness to appear an hour or two early at the grand jury room or the U.S. Attorney’s Office. These pre-grand jury interviews are dangerous and ill-advised and the government has no authority to compel them. You may make a harmful admission during one of these interviews. In addition, you may be accused of lying to a government agent during the interview. Lying to government agents during an interview, like lying to the grand jury, is a federal crime. At the grand jury session, however, there will be an official recording and/or transcript of the proceedings, so there will be no dispute about what you say. The pre-grand jury agent interview will not be recorded. Two federal agents will take notes of what you say and it will be their word against yours in the event of a dispute.

3. Don’t be Bullied or Misled About Grand Jury Secrecy. 

Federal grand jurors, grand jury court reporters and the prosecutors running the grand jury are under a strict duty to keep any “matter occurring before the grand jury” a secret. This duty is codified in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Violations of this rule can result in sanctions or criminal contempt charges against a prosecutor. But the rule of secrecy does not apply to federal grand jury witnesses. If you are a grand jury witness, you have the right to tell the whole world about your grand jury testimony. Of course, it may not be in your interest to do this.  You may want to keep your appearance before the grand jury under close wraps. You need to understand, however, that it is your call-not the government’s. But some federal prosecutors attach cover letters to grand jury subpoenas, informing the witness that revealing the contents, or even the existence, of the subpoena “may impede” a criminal investigation. These cover letters then “request” non-disclosure of the subpoena (and/or the documents requested in the subpoena) and ask the witness to notify the prosecutor if the witness has any “problems” with non-disclosure. You should by no means put up with this nonsense. If you receive a cover letter like this, you should consider having your attorney write a polite response to the prosecutor or the case agent including the following language: “Your cover letter requests non-disclosure of the subpoena (and/or the documents requested in the subpoena) and asks to be notified if there are problems with such non-disclosure. I am reluctant to have my client take on a formal affirmative obligation, regarding either non-disclosure of the subpoena or notification of problems with such non-disclosure, beyond the requirements, if any, found in Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) or in some other statutory or court authority you can point me to. Rest assured, however, that my client has absolutely no desire to compromise your investigation or to publicize the existence of either the subpoena or your investigation.”

4. Insist on Grand Jury Secrecy from the Government. 

As mentioned, Rule 6(e) prohibits the government from revealing “a matter occurring before the grand jury.” This prohibition, of course, covers the content of grand jury testimony. But it goes much further. The government cannot even reveal that you appeared before the grand jury or that you have been subpoenaed or scheduled to appear. Many prosecutors and agents get sloppy about this and reveal that a person or company has been subpoenaed. In addition, some grand juries have waiting rooms where multiple witnesses are invited to wait until they are called. In these situations, each witness is told, in effect, that the other witnesses waiting with him have been summoned to appear “before the grand jury.” On other occasions, members of the press, who know what day the federal grand jurors meet, have been tipped off to be at the courthouse entrance, so that they can see a grand jury witness enter and draw the obvious conclusion. Your white collar criminal defense attorney should be vigilant in guarding against these abuses and should put the federal prosecutors handling your appearance on notice not to violate grand jury secrecy with such maneuvers.

5. Let Your Attorney Accept Service of the Subpoena. 

Your attorney should arrange with the prosecutor to accept service of the grand jury subpoena on your behalf. This spares you the embarrassment of being personally served by FBI agents at your home or in the workplace. What if the agents don’t know or care that you have an attorney, and decide to serve you personally anyway? You should politely accept service, tell the agents that you have an attorney, and decline to answer any and all substantive questions about the case. Refer all questions to your attorney. What if you don’t yet have an attorney when you are personally served with the grand jury subpoena? Politely accept service and tell the agents that you will decline to answer any substantive questions until you have had the opportunity to obtain an attorney. You are under no obligation to do anything other than accept service of the subpoena. If you say anything at all about the case to the agent you could be making dangerous admissions that may be used against you at a later time. For example, let’s say that you are being investigated in connection with an alleged tax fraud scheme involving foreign trust accounts. Assume that there are no documents which on their face tie you to any such trust accounts. Then an FBI Special Agent (or an IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent) serves you with a grand jury subpoena for all records related to those foreign trust accounts. When she serves the subpoena, the agent asks: “Are you going to cooperate?” You respond: “Yes, I’ll cooperate. You’ll get the documents.” What have you done? You have just admitted to the government that you possess or have access to the foreign trust account documents. You have in effect acknowledged a connection between yourself and the foreign trusts. If you instead respond to the agent as follows: “I’m sorry, but I have an attorney and she will be contacting you,” you have admitted nothing.

6. Learn the Difference Between Types of Grand Jury Subpoenas. 

Federal grand jury subpoenas are for: (a) testimony (ad testificandum); (b) documents or objects (duces tecum); or (c) both. The face of the subpoena will inform you which type of subpoena you received. You will be subpoenaed as an individual or as a custodian of records for a business entity. In many instances, individuals have the right to refuse to answer grand jury questions by invoking the Fifth Amendment’s Privilege against Self-Incrimination. Corporations and other business entities, however, cannot invoke this privilege. But since a corporation operates through human agents, it must designate a custodian of records when subpoenaed by the federal grand jury. Under Supreme Court case law the corporate custodian is only required to answer a narrow category of questions, related to how the subpoenaed documents were searched for and gathered. If you are properly subpoenaed as a business custodian, it is very important that you limit your answers to this narrow category of questions. Prosecutors love to get corporate custodians into the grand jury room and ask extra questions. These questions might seem innocuous, but they are often very dangerous. You need to have your white collar criminal lawyer with you for consultation, right outside of the grand jury room, to ensure that you are not tricked into answering one question too many. Some federal prosecutors have recently started the practice of issuing one subpoena to a person in that person’s individual capacity and his custodial capacity. This tactic is dangerous, confusing, and, in my view, unauthorized. It is tantamount to issuing one subpoena to two persons or companies. Your attorney should insist on two separate subpoenas-one for you as an individual and one to the company’s custodian of records.

7. Don’t Testify if You Have Exposure. 

As mentioned above, if you are subpoenaed for testimony in your individual capacity, you may be able to avoid answering substantive questions by invoking the Fifth Amendment’s Privilege against Self-Incrimination. This is true even if you are not a target of the investigation. Keep in mind that even if a prosecutor designates you a witness or subject, rather than a target, this designation provides you with no rights or protection and can be changed at any time. The right to invoke the Privilege against Self-Incrimination is much broader than most witnesses and attorneys realize.  If a truthful answer to a grand jury question would even tend to incriminate you, you can invoke the privilege and refuse to answer. How can an answer tend to incriminate you? If it furnishes a link in the chain that might lead to your conviction. Can a person who is totally innocent of wrongdoing invoke the privilege? Absolutely! The Supreme Court has ruled that the privilege protects the innocent as well as the guilty. Why would an innocent person want to invoke the privilege? To keep from being ensnared by a mistaken, incompetent, or unscrupulous prosecutor. Take the following example. The federal grand jury is investigating a corporation for accounting fraud. You work in the corporation’s accounting department. The prosecutor believes that any accounting department employee who reviewed Document X and later booked entries related to Document X is guilty of fraud. You looked at Document X and later booked entries related to Document X, but don’t believe you defrauded or intended to defraud anyone. No record shows that you reviewed Document X and no other person knows that you reviewed Document X, but several documents and co-workers can establish that you booked entries related to Document X. If you testify at the grand jury and truthfully admit that you reviewed Document X, you will tend to incriminate yourself, even though you don’t believe that you are guilty, because you will furnish a link in the chain that the prosecutor may use to indict and convict you.   You also may be able to invoke the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination to avoid producing certain documents. Although documents created prior to receipt of a grand jury subpoena are typically not covered by the Privilege, this is not always the case. If the very act of producing a document would tend to incriminate you, the Privilege will often apply. For example, if you are under investigation for receiving classified documents, and you are subpoenaed for those documents, the very act of producing the classified documents to the grand jury is in itself incriminating.

8. Review Your Prior Testimony. 

Some federal prosecutors like to call witnesses back to the grand jury to testify on multiple occasions. This is dangerous because it can cause you to inadvertently give inconsistent testimony under oath. Under §1623(c) of the federal criminal code, the government can prosecute you for testifying to two irreconcilably contradictory statements under oath, and the government does not even have to prove that either of the statements in question was false. When you are called back to the grand jury to testify for a second time, your attorney should insist on your right to review ahead of time the official transcript of your first session. In this way, you can refresh your recollection as to your earlier testimony, correct any mistakes, and prepare yourself for the upcoming session. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled that grand jury witnesses, even if they have not been called back to testify for a second time, have an inherent right to review a transcript of their earlier testimony.

9. Conduct a Shadow Grand Jury. 

If you have the money, your attorney can often conduct what is known as a shadow grand jury. Friendly witnesses will sometimes inform you if they have been subpoenaed to the grand jury and you and your defense team can often figure out who else the government may call. Grand jury witnesses are then interviewed, before or after they testify, giving you valuable information on where the investigation is heading. Of course, grand jury witnesses are under no obligation to cooperate with your defense team, and the use of shadow grand juries often infuriates prosecutors. You should proceed with great caution and make sure that all interviews are carefully documented so that your defense team is not accused of witness tampering or obstructing justice. And it should go without saying that your attorney and his staff should conduct and arrange all interviews-not you.

10. Don’t Wait Until the Last Minute. 

Do NOT wait until one day or one week before your grand jury appearance date to contact a federal criminal defense attorney. Any decent attorney will need time to discuss the facts of your case with you in detail and talk to the Assistant U.S. Attorney who is running the grand jury. In other words, your attorney needs time to assess your level of exposure and develop a game plan. This can’t be done overnight. On rare occasions, prosecutors issue “forthwith subpoenas” requiring witnesses to appear before the grand on very short notice. Even in these situations, you should immediately consult an attorney who can advise you on how to proceed. At the end of the day, you may be nothing more than a routine witness, asked to provide routine documents. But federal grand juries exist to investigate, and prosecute, serious crimes. You could be stepping into a mine field. Don’t go it alone and don’t wait until the last minute to seek professional help.

Copyright ©2019 Solomon L. Wisenberg
This article was written by Solomon L. Wisenberg of Nelson Mullins.
For more on appearing in court & litigation, please see the National Law Review pages on Civil Procedure or Litigation & Trial Practice.

Japanese Toyobo Pays $66 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations Over Selling Defective Fiber to Government for Use in Bullet Proof Vests

The Department of Justice recently announced the settlement of a qui tam lawsuit against Toyobo, the sole manufacturer of Zylon fiber used in bulletproof vests, in relation to their violation of the False Claims Act (FCA). According to the allegations of the case, between 2001 and 2005, Toyobo actively marketed and sold defective Zylon fiber for bullet proof vests, knowing that Zylon degraded quickly in normal heat and humidity, which makes the material unfit for use in bullet proof vests. It is further alleged in the whistleblower lawsuit, that Toyobo published misleading degradation data, that underestimated the degradation issue and started a public campaign to influence body armor manufacturers to keep selling bullet proof vests made with Zylon fiber.

Within the Complaint that the United States filed following their decision to intervene in the case, the U.S. alleged that Toyobo’s actions delayed the government’s efforts to determine the defect in Zylon fiber by several years. After a study of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in August 2005 found out, that more than 50 percent of Zylon-containing vests could not stop bullets that they had been certified to stop, NIJ decertified all Zylon-containing vests.

The qui tam lawsuit is brought to Government’s attention by relator Aaron Westrick, Ph.D., who is a law enforcement officer, formerly employed as the Director of Research and Marketing at Second Chance Body Armor (SCBA), which used to be the largest bullet proof vest company in the United States. In the lawsuit, whistleblower Westrick alleged, that Toyobo knew the strength of Zylon fibers sold to the bullet resistant vest makers would degrade quickly under certain environment, and nevertheless Toyobo did not disclose such fact or made misleading disclosures, resulting in the United States’ payment for the defective bullet resistant vests.

The relator Westrick brought the qui tam lawsuit under the FCA, which allowed him to act on behalf of the U.S. government in exposing the government programs fraud. Under the FCA, relators receive a portion of the money that has been recovered by the government, which is known as the relator’s share. For his participation as a relator, or whistleblower, within the case Dr. Westrick will receive $5,775,000, as a reward for exposing the government fraud scheme. Such high rewards are not uncommon for individuals who file qui tam lawsuits on behalf of the federal government. If and when a case settles, whistleblowers can receive between 15% and 30% of the amount recovered by the government.

 

© 2018 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

New Sheriff In Town As Rolls-Royce Pays Record Penalty For Foreign Bribery And Corruption

Rolls-RoyceOn 17 January 2017, the UK Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”),[1] the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”),[2] and the Brazilian Ministério Público Federal (“MPF”) announced an $800 million global settlement with Rolls-Royce plc and Rolls-Royce Energy Systems Inc., (together, “Rolls-Royce”) resolving allegations of a long-running scheme to bribe foreign officials in South America, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Asia in exchange for assistance in obtaining government contracts. In addition to the payment of disgorgements and fines – the largest ever imposed under the UK’s Bribery Act 2010 (“UK Bribery Act”) – Rolls-Royce has agreed to implement a number of compliance measures and reporting requirements pursuant to deferred prosecution agreements (“DPAs”) with UK, US, and Brazilian authorities. The joint settlement, which was spearheaded by the SFO, heralds a new era in global cooperation and coordination in the enforcement of bribery and corruption laws.

Unprecedented simultaneous tripartite global penalty

Under its DPA with the SFO, Rolls-Royce will pay a penalty of over £497 million (US $612 million), comprising disgorgement of profits of £258 million and a financial penalty of £239 million (US $294 million), plus interest. In addition, Rolls-Royce will pay approximately £13 million (US $16 million) to reimburse the SFO’s full investigation and litigation costs.

In the US, Rolls-Royce has agreed to pay a criminal penalty of nearly $170 million (UK £138 million) for conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) by having paid bribes in excess of $35 million between 2000 and 2013. The penalty reflects a 25-percent reduction from the bottom of the US Sentencing Guidelines fine range and a credit of more than $25 million (UK £20 million) in recognition of the fine paid in Brazil. The settlement with the DOJ falls within the top fifteen largest FCPA settlements of all time.

In Brazil, Rolls-Royce has agreed to a fine of approximately $25 million, reflecting $12 million in profits received from contracts with Brazil’s state-run oil company, Petrobras, $6 million paid in kickbacks paid to intermediaries, and a fine equal to the amount of kickbacks.

DPAs – more than just a fine

In the UK, DPAs are voluntary agreements which result in the suspension of a prosecution in return for the offending company meeting certain obligations including that the company must account for its conduct before a criminal court. The terms of the DPA must be approved by a judge as fair, reasonable, proportionate, and in the interests of justice. A DPA is not available to individuals. Upon review, on 17 January 2017, Sir Brian Leveson, sitting as a judge in the Crown Court, approved the Rolls-Royce DPA noting that the financial penalty was “broadly comparable to a fine that a court would have imposed on conviction following a guilty plea.”[3]

In addition to payment of the fine, under the UK DPA, Rolls-Royce is required to continue the independent compliance review of its approach to anti-bribery and anti-corruption which commenced in January 2013 when Rolls Royce appointed independent lawyer, Lord Gold, to conduct the review. Lord Gold has already produced two interim reports and is due to produce a third report by the end of March 2017. Rolls-Royce has agreed to provide the SFO with Lord Gold’s third report and produce a written Implementation Plan setting out how it will give effect to the third report’s recommendations and any other outstanding recommendations not yet implemented in the first and second reports. Rolls-Royce must implement or have sustainment plans to execute the Implementation Plan to the satisfaction of Lord Gold within 2 years of its commencement. Once the Implementation Plan is complete, Rolls-Royce must obtain a final report from Lord Gold and provide it to the SFO.

In addition to these compliance measures, Rolls Royce has agreed to continue its cooperation with the SFO including the disclosure of all relevant information and material in its possession, custody or control, which is not protected by legal professional privilege, in respect of its activities and those of its present and former directors, employees, agents, consultants, contractors and sub-contractors. It must also use its best efforts to make available for interview, as requested by the SFO, present or former officers, directors, employees, agents and consultants of Rolls-Royce.

Much like in the UK, DPAs in the US set the terms by which prosecutors will decline to pursue a case against the offending company. The DOJ agreed that it will not pursue a criminal or civil case against Rolls-Royce, provided that, within three years, the company pays the $170 million penalty, cooperates fully with US and foreign authorities in all matters related to corrupt payments, implements a compliance program that meets the elements identified in the DPA, and annually reports to the DOJ regarding remediation and implementation of its compliance program. Among other requirements, Rolls-Royce must develop and maintain policies and procedures addressing particular risk areas (e.g., gifts, entertainment, travel, political contributions and charitable donations) through periodic risk-based review, assign one or more senior corporate executives for implementation and oversight of the policies and procedures, implement periodic training and compliance certifications, establish an effective system for internal reporting and investigation, and institute risk-based due diligence and compliance requirements for all agents and business partners. The DPA does not provide any protection against the prosecution of individuals.

Brazilian law empowers the relevant authorities to enter into agreements (“leniency agreements”) with entities that have cooperated with the authorities’ investigations. By satisfying the conditions of the agreements, companies may face lower fines or lesser sanctions. Rolls-Royce reportedly provided the MPF with the results of an internal investigation in early 2015 and agreed to cooperate with Brazilian authorities. The terms of its agreement with the MPF also impose measures designed to ensure that the company enhances its existing compliance programs.

Cooperation can be a mitigating factor

Rolls-Royce’s cooperation with and accountability to regulators appears to have factored into the global settlement. In the UK, the court acknowledged that, despite not initially self-reporting its conduct, Rolls-Royce cooperated extensively with the SFO since 2012, and “[c]ould not have done more to expose its own misconduct.”[4] This extensive cooperation was one of the primary reasons the court concluded that the DPA was in the interests of justice and a relevant factor in mitigation when assessing the value of the agreed penalty. However, the UK settlement does not conclude the matter in its entirety. As noted by the court, the SFO will continue to investigate the conduct of current and former Rolls-Royce employees. These individuals are afforded no protection from prosecution under the DPA and, given the wide-ranging allegations documented in the DPA’s statement of facts, more charges seem likely.

The US also acknowledged Rolls-Royce’s cooperation throughout the government investigation, including its thorough internal investigation, numerous factual presentations, and producing witnesses for interviews. Going forward, Rolls-Royce must continue to cooperate for three years under the terms of its settlement with the DOJ, and must promptly report any evidence or allegations of past or new FCPA violations, truthfully disclose all factual information, provide documents or evidence requested by the DOJ, and use its best efforts to make current and former officer, directors, employees and agents available for interviews or testimony.

SFO led investigation – A new trend?

To date, the US has irrefutably been the global leader in investigating and enforcing anti-bribery and anti-corruption offences. In 2016, twenty-seven companies paid approximately $2.48 billion to resolve criminal and civil FCPA enforcement matters with the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission. In contrast, the SFO has been criticised for failing to undertake comprehensive investigations capable of securing high-profile convictions under the UK Bribery Act. This has led many commentators to conclude that the UK Bribery Act is less effective than the FCPA, despite the fact it is more extensive than the FCPA in terms of its jurisdictional reach and the conduct it prohibits.

Rolls-Royce’s DPA with the SFO is only the third of its kind endorsed by English courts. In each instance, courts have emphasized the importance of self-reporting. Indeed, Sir Brian Leveson noted in his judgment endorsing the Rolls-Royce settlement that a “DPA will likely incentivise the exposure and self-reporting of wrong doing by organisations in similar situations to Rolls-Royce. This is of vital importance in the context of the investigation and prosecution of complex corruption cases in bringing more information to the attention of law enforcement agencies so that crimes can be properly investigated, and prosecuted effectively. Furthermore, the effect of the DPA is to require the company concerned to become a flagship of good practice and an example to others demonstrating what can be done to ensure ethical good practice in the business world.”[5]

The Rolls-Royce settlement may also signal a new trend in global anti-bribery and anti-corruption enforcement. It is the single largest individual investigation the SFO has conducted to date, spanning a four year period, with over 30 million documents reviewed, and numerous arrests and interviews of current and former Rolls-Royce employees (taken both voluntarily and under compulsion). Additionally, the settlement follows in the footsteps of VimpleCom’s $795 million resolution with US and Dutch authorities in 2016, having been reached with the assistance of law enforcement officials in several jurisdictions, including Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and Turkey. The scope of the SFO’s investigation and its cooperation with other global law enforcement agencies, together with the resulting penalty, should be a warning to businesses operating internationally that they may face scrutiny from several global regulators simultaneously and expect intense scrutiny of world-wide conduct.

Gone are the days of US authorities being the lone sheriff in town, policing foreign companies that have contacts in the US but consoling themselves to non-intervention by the home countries. Rather, companies must be aware that there are now consequences for non-compliance on their home turf as well. As the SFO and other foreign authorities demonstrate the will to pursue bribery and corruption cases, the US may allow the countries in which corrupt companies are domiciled to police those practices at home.

ARTICLE BY Jodi L. Avergun, Steven Baker, Bret A. Campbell, Joseph V. Moreno, Jenna Rennie & Janaki Tampi of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
© Copyright 2017 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

[1]   See SFO Case Information, Rolls-Royce PLC (17 January 2017), available athttps://www.sfo.gov.uk/cases/rolls-royce-plc/.

[2]   See Press Release, Rolls-Royce plc Agrees to Pay $170 Million Criminal Penalty to Resolve Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Case (17 January 2017), available athttps://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/rolls-royce-plc-agrees-pay-170-million-criminal-penalty-resolve-foreign-corrupt-practices-act.

[3]   See Serious Fraud Office v Rolls Royce PLC Rolls-Royce Energy Systems Inc [2017] at paragraph 63, available at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/sfo-v-rolls-royce.pdf 

[4]   See Serious Fraud Office v Rolls Royce PLC Rolls-Royce Energy Systems Inc [2017] at paragraph  38, available at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/sfo-v-rolls-royce.pdf. 

[5] See Serious Fraud Office v Rolls Royce PLC Rolls-Royce Energy Systems Inc [2017] at paragraph  60, available at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/sfo-v-rolls-royce.pdf. 

DOJ Releases its 2016 False Claims Act Recovery Statistics

DOJ False Claims actOn Wednesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released its annual False Claims Act (FCA) recovery statistics, which revealed that Fiscal Year 2016 has been another lucrative year for FCA enforcement.  Based on these statistics, DOJ recovered more than $4.7 billion in civil FCA settlements this fiscal year — the third highest annual recovery since the Act was established.  Since 2009 alone, the government has recovered $31.3 billion in FCA settlements and judgments.  This is a truly staggering statistic.  It shows that the government’s reliance on the FCA to combat fraud will continue for the foreseeable future.

The healthcare and financial industries represent the largest portions of this year’s FCA recoveries.  In the healthcare industry alone, DOJ recovered a total of $2.5 billion based on federal enforcements.  DOJ also touted its instrumental role in assisting states recovering funds overpaid under state Medicaid programs.  From the financial industry, the government collected another $1.7 billion, largely as a result of enforcement actions arising from alleged false claims in connection with federally insured residential mortgages.

The number of new FCA matters through both qui tam and non-qui tam actions has increased since last year.  Interestingly, however, the statistics indicate that the share of settlements and judgments for relators declined—the percentage of the total recoveries from qui tam suits decreased from 80.7% in 2015 to 61% in 2016.  Most significantly, the percentage of recoveries for cases where the government declined to intervene decreased from 31% to 2.2% since last year.  Although the cause for this decline is uncertain, one could argue that this indicates that DOJ views the assistance of relators as less valuable in recent years.

Notwithstanding the specific observations related to the industries and types of actions resulting in recoveries this fiscal year, the statistics demonstrate that the FCA remains a powerful tool for the government’s fraud deterrence efforts.

ARTICLE BY Heather L. Petrovich of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Copyright © 2016, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Multi-Level Tipping: Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. XI [VIDEO]

In this Presidential transition season, we bring you a very special episode of the Insider Trading Cartoon Series.

David Smyth has a wide-ranging enforcement and litigation practice that focuses on representation of individuals and corporations facing action by federal and state authorities.

ARTICLE BY David Smyth of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP
Copyright © 2016, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard LLP

Part 1 – The Insider Trading Cartoon Series Vol. I — Classical Theory

Part 2 – Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. II — Temporary Insiders

Part 3 – The Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. III — Very Temporary Insiders

Part 4 – Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. IV — Rank-and-File Employees [VIDEO]

Part 5 – Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. V — Misappropriation Theory [VIDEO]

Part 6 – Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. VI — Misappropriation (Part Deux) [VIDEO]

Part 7 – Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. VII — Misappropriation Theory (Part the Third)

Part 8 – Negligence Based Charges – The Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. VIII [VIDEO]

Part 9 – Tender Offers – The Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. IX [VIDEO]

Part 10 – Tipping (Pre-Newman): Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. X

Salman Decision: Supreme Court Weighs in on Insider Trading

insider trading law Supreme CourtSignificant decision comes after nearly two decades of silence. For the first time in nearly 20 years, the US Supreme Court has weighed in on insider trading law and handed a victory to the government and its insider trading enforcement efforts. In Salman v. United States,[1] the Court put to bed confusion generated by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Newman.[2] In Newman, the Second Circuit held that to be guilty of insider trading, (i) a tippee must know that the insider/tipper breached a duty of confidentiality in exchange for a “personal benefit” and (ii) the personal benefit must be an “an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similar valuable nature.”

The second part of this holding posed more questions than it answered because it appeared to conflict with the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in Dirks v. SEC.[3] The Court in Dirks found that an insider/tipper may be liable for insider trading, and a tippee derivative liable, only if the insider disclosed confidential information in exchange for a personal benefit. And this “personal benefit,” Dirks found, can be shown when an insider “makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.” But in 2014, Newman injected a pecuniary-gain element into the personal-benefit test, leaving the government and defense counsel to wonder what is required when a tipper gifts information to a relative or friend who then trades on the information. As discussed below, Salman has dispelled this confusion by following Dirks in holding that an insider’s gift of confidential information to a trading relative is a sufficient personal benefit.

The Newman Case

In Newman, defendants Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson were “remote” or “downstream” tippees charged with trading on material nonpublic information (MNPI) that they received from other tippees concerning earnings information at two prominent technology companies.

At trial, Newman and Chiasson urged the court to adopt jury instructions that predicated guilt upon a showing that they knew the insiders tipped the MNPI in exchange for a personal benefit. US District Judge Richard J. Sullivan found that although such an instruction could be supported by Dirks, he was obliged to follow the Second Circuit’s decision in SEC v. Obus,[4] which, arguably, only required a showing that the tippee knew of a tipper’s breach of duty to establish scienter.[5] Newman and Chiasson were convicted at trial.

On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed both convictions. The court held that a tippee only knows of the tipper’s breach of fiduciary duty if “he knew the information was confidential and divulged for personal benefit.”[6] In other words, the court agreed with defendants that knowledge of a tipper’s breach of fiduciary duty required knowledge that the confidential tip was made in exchange for a personal benefit.[7] But the court further held that a personal benefit cannot be inferred “by the mere fact of a friendship”; rather, it must be established through “proof of a meaningfully close relationship that generates an exchange that is objective, consequential, and that represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.”[8] The government appealed the Second Circuit’s decision, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

The Salman Case

In the summer of 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Salman,[9] in which defendant Bassam Yacoub Salman, a remote tippee, had received and traded on MNPI from his brother-in-law Michael Kara, who in turn had obtained the information from his older brother Maher Kara, an investment banker at a large bank. Evidence showed that Salman was aware that the MNPI originated with Maher, and that from 2004 to 2007, Salman and Michael had profited from trading in securities issued by the bank’s clients just before major transactions were announced, but there was no evidence that Maher received any pecuniary benefit for his tips. Salman was convicted at trial.

On appeal, Salman argued that under Newman, the evidence was insufficient to show that Maher had tipped the information to his brother in exchange for a pecuniary benefit or that Salman knew of any such benefit. The court dismissed this argument as a strained misreading of Newman, holding that Newman did not seek to undermine Dirks’s crucial observation that a tipper may obtain a personal benefit when (s)he “makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.” Otherwise, as the court noted, “a corporate insider . . . would be free to disclose [MNPI] to her relatives, and they would be free to trade on it, provided only that she asked for no tangible compensation in return.” Notably, the Ninth Circuit held that Newman’s personal-benefit language must be interpreted in a narrower way than others might attempt to use it, and that to the extent Newman cannot be interpreted so narrowly, the Ninth Circuit would “decline to follow it.”[10] Salman appealed the Ninth Circuit’s holding, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

In Salman v. United States,[11] the Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s holding. The Court squarely rejected Salman’s argument that an insider must receive a pecuniary quid pro quo from a tippee for there to be a sufficient personal benefit. The Court found that Dirks made clear that a tipper breaches a fiduciary duty—and receives a personal benefit—by making a gift of confidential information to a “trading relative or friend,” which clearly happened in this case. Notably, the Court declined to adopt the government’s broader argument that “a tipper personally benefits whenever the tipper discloses confidential trading information for a noncorporate purpose.”[12] Rather, the Court found that Dirks “easily resolves the narrow issue presented here.”[13] In applying Dirks, the Court found that “Maher, a tipper, provided inside information to a close relative, his brother Michael. Dirks makes clear that a tipper breaches a fiduciary duty by making a gift of confidential information to ‘a trading relative,’ and that rule is sufficient to resolve the case at hand.”[14]

Regarding the Second Circuit’s holding in Newman, the Court found that “[t]o the extent the Second Circuit held that the tipper must also receive something of a ‘pecuniary or similarly valuable nature’ in exchange for a gift to family or friends, Newman, 773 F.3d, at 452, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that this requirement is inconsistent with Dirks.”[15] The Court held that Salman’s jury was properly instructed that a personal benefit includes the benefit one would obtain from simply making a gift of confidential information to a trading relative, and, accordingly, upheld the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.

The Supreme Court’s decision is extremely significant. Salman resolves confusion raised by Newman by specifically rejecting—as inconsistent with Dirks—the Second Circuit’s requirement that the tipper must receive something of a “pecuniary or similarly valuable nature” in exchange for the information and that a gift to family or friends was insufficient. In so doing, and on the issue of what constitutes a “personal benefit,” the Salman decision essentially turns back the clock on the law of tipper liability to its status pre-Newman, which had partially derailed the government’s insider trading enforcement efforts. Thus, it appears that Salman is a boon to the government’s ability to get its insider trading efforts back on track.

ARTICLE BY David I. Miller, Nathan J. Hochman, Kenneth I. Schacter, E. Andrew Southerling & Grant R. MacQueen of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Copyright © 2016 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

[1] 580 U.S. __ (2016).

[2] 773 F.3d 438, 450 (2d Cir. 2014).

[3] 463 U.S. 646 (1983).

[4] 693 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2012).

[5] See United States v. Newman, 1:12-cr-00121-RJS-2, Docket No. 215, pp. 3594-3605 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2012).

[6] 773 F.3d 438, 450 (2d Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).

[7] Newman, 773 F.3d at 447-49 (“[W]e conclude that a tippee’s knowledge of the insider’s breach necessarily requires knowledge that the insider disclosed confidential information in exchange for personal benefit.”).

[8] Id., 773 F.3d at 452.

[9] 792 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2015).

[10] Id., 2015 WL 4068903 at *6.

[11] 580 U.S. __ (2016).

[12] Slip op., at 7.

[13] Slip op., at 8.

[14] Slip op., at 9.

[15] Slip op., at 10.

SEC Whistleblower Awards: Can You Hear Whistles Blow? Valued At More Than $100 Million, You Bet You Can!

Some very loud whistles have been blowing across corporate America since 2011 – whistles valued at $107 million, in fact. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced on August 30, 2016, that since its whistleblower program began in 2011, they have awarded more than $107 million total to 33 individuals who voluntarily provided the SEC with original and useful information that led to a successful enforcement action. Whistleblower awards can range from 10 percent to 30 percent of the money collected when the SEC’s monetary sanctions in a matter exceed $1 million.

The SEC encourages employees to report suspected wrongdoing, because they, according to Acting Chief Jane Norberg, “are in unique positions behind-the-scenes to unravel complex or deeply buried wrongdoing.” And, last year alone, employees responded by providing nearly 4,000 tips to the agency. With this kind of incentive from the SEC and other government agencies, as well as a growing number of successes in whistleblower lawsuits, it is more important than ever for companies to get advice on a regular basis. Moreover, companies must be strategic and proactive in their approach to implementing an effective whistleblower protection and anti-retaliation system.

Key elements of an effective whistleblower protection and anti-retaliation system include:

  1. Clear and visible leadership commitment and accountability. This is truly the most important piece of the puzzle. Without sincere support from the top, no internal whistleblower program can succeed.

  2. The creation of a true “speak-up” organizational culture focused on prevention, including encouraging employees to raise all suspicions and issues quickly and insuring the fair resolution of such issues.

  3. Independent, protected resolution systems for employees and third-parties who believe they are experiencing retaliation as a result of raising concerns.

  4. Specific training to educate all employees about their rights and available protections (including both internal and external programs).

  5. Specific training for managers who may receive complaints or information from employees, requiring the manager to be considerate of the employee making the report, to be diligent, and, most importantly, to act on the information with no corporate tolerance of the “just telling me as a friend, not as a manager” excuse.

  6. Internal monitoring and measurement of corporate compliance efforts and the effectiveness of the speak-up and non-retaliation culture, without contributing to the suppression of employee reporting.

  7. Independent auditing to determine if the whistleblower protection and anti-retaliation system is actually working.

Post written by Denise K. Drake of Polsinelli LLP.

Lawmakers Continue Focus on TSA Wait Times, While House Spending Panel Approves TSA Funding for FY 2017; Government Officials React to Deadliest Shooting in US History, Worst Terror Attack Since 9/11

TSA wait linesLawmakers Continue Focus on TSA Wait Times, While House Spending Panel Approves TSA Funding for FY 2017

The House Appropriations Committee approved it draft FY 2017 homeland security appropriations measure on Thursday, June 9, including $7.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $163 million more than in FY 2016 and $21.8 million greater than the Obama Administration’s FY 2017 budget request.  The House Appropriations Committee has yet to approve a request from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for an additional $28 million to help keep airport security lines under control during the ongoing summer travel season.  The Senate Appropriations Committee, which has already approved of its FY 2017 homeland security spending measure increasing funds for TSA, has also signed off on the reallocated funds, the second such request from DHS this year.

On June 7, the House of Representatives approved legislation, the Checkpoint Optimization and Efficiency Act of 2016 (H.R. 5338), aimed at shortening TSA wait times.  The measure would direct both the TSA Administrator and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review TSA’s staffing allocation model.  The Act also requires the TSA Administrator to take a number of actions related to the agency’s staffing and resource allocation.  Across the Capitol, TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger testified before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing last week, where lawmakers encouraged the agency to increase access to PreCheck, an expedited security screening program.

This Week’s Hearings:

  • Tuesday, June 14: The House Homeland Security Committee Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security will hold a hearing titled “Overstaying Their Welcome: National Security Risks Posed by Visa Overstays.”

  • Wednesday, June 15: The Senate Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing titled “America’s Insatiable Demand for Drugs: Examining Alternative Approaches.”

  • Thursday, June 16: The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a meeting to consider pending legislation and nominations.

Executive Branch Activity

Government Officials React to Deadliest Shooting in US History, Worst Terror Attack Since 9/11

President Barack Obama, senior Administration officials, and lawmakers reacted to the shooting at a crowded Orlando nightclub filled with members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.  As of Sunday night, the shooting, which ended with police storming the club after a three-hour stand-off, had left 50 dead and at least 53 injured.  Reports indicated the alleged shooter had pledged allegiance to ISIS, making it the United States’ worst terror attack since September 11, 2001, and the deadliest mass shooting in the country’s history.

President Obama delivered remarks from the White House early in the day, confirming he had met with his homeland security and national security advisors and assuring Americans that he has “directed that the full resources of the federal government be made available for this investigation.”  Congressman Mike McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered thoughts and prayers for the victims and thanked local law enforcement for their efforts responding to the attack, calling it “a sobering reminder that radical Islamists are targeting our country and our way of life.” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, echoed his House colleague, confirming that his committee “will work to support the federal role in investigating this terror attack and protecting against further threats.”  Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson stated that senior agency officials “are dedicated to investigating this tragedy, along with the FBI and our state and local partners, and supporting the Orlando community in the tragedy’s aftermath.”  Secretary Johnson canceled planned travel to Beijing in light of the attack.

ARTICLE BY Ludmilla L. Savelieff & Clark Kent Ervin of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2016 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

U.S. Designations Targeting a Major Panamanian Money Laundering Organization Not Aided by the Panama Papers Leak

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced designations against the Panama-based Waked Money Laundering Organization, including its leaders, network of supporters and associates, and companies. According to press reports, Colombian law enforcement arrested the organization’s leader, Nidal Ahmed Waked Hatum, at a Bogota airport the day prior to the designations.

In total, OFAC added 8 individuals and 68 business entities to the List of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN List) pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act). Narcotics traffickers have used these businesses to obscure the source of drug money through a variety of means, including trade-based money laundering, bulk cash smuggling, real estate development, and illicit financial services.  The designation of Balboa Bank & Trust is particularly noteworthy, as it reflects Treasury’s continued willingness to use the Kingpin Act against financial institutions.  As noted in a previous entry, OFAC had not designated a bank pursuant to the Kingpin Act prior to November 2015.

OFAC clearly anticipates that these designations will cause significant disruptions, as it concurrently issued three General Licenses authorizing certain wind down transactions involving a hotel, newspapers, and a shopping mall.  U.S. persons should carefully consider the scope and expiration dates of these licenses prior to engaging in any dealings with these designated companies.

The designations do not signal the beginning of United States government actions in response to the Panama Papers leak.  Any potential use of those documents will be limited by the legal ethical issues surrounding the use of intentionally disclosed materials likely protected by the attorney-client privilege.  In addition to the legal ethical limitations, the evidentiary which serves as the administrative record for the designations would have required several months for investigation, drafting and interagency approval.  OFAC could not have finalized such an extensive package of designations within one month of the leak.

Article By Jeremy P. Paner of Holland & Hart LLP
Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2016.

DOJ Issues New FCPA Guidance and Launches Self-Reporting Pilot Program

The US Department of Justice has announced the creation of a one-year pilot program intended to encourage companies to self-report bribery violations and provide extensive cooperation in exchange for reduced penalties, ranging from reductions in fines to declinations.

On April 5, the Fraud Section of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) issued its “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Plan and Guidance” (Guidance) outlining the following “three steps in [its] enhanced FCPA enforcement strategy”:

  1. The intensification of its investigative and prosecutorial efforts by substantially increasing its FCPA law enforcement resources.

  2. The strengthening of its coordination with foreign law enforcement.

  3. Its implementation of an “FCPA enforcement pilot program” to encourage voluntary disclosure, cooperation, and remediation.[1]

While the first two steps have been championed in prior DOJ press releases and speeches, the third step—the creation of the FCPA enforcement pilot program—is an important development that has the potential to change the voluntarily disclosure calculus in connection with FCPA matters.

The Guidance applies “to organizations that voluntarily self-disclose or cooperate in FCPA matters during the pilot period, even if the pilot thereafter expires.”[2]

Intensification of DOJ’s Investigative and Prosecutorial Efforts

The Fraud Section plans to more than double the size of its FCPA Unit by “adding 10 more prosecutors to its ranks”[3]—a staffing goal that was previously announced by Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell at an FCPA conference in November 2015.[4] The Guidance also cites the FBI’s establishment of “three new squads of special agents devoted to FCPA investigations and prosecutions,” a hiring initiative that was announced approximately a year ago.

Strengthening of DOJ’s Coordination with Foreign Law Enforcement

The second part of the Guidance builds on previous statements by senior DOJ leaders that they “are greatly aided by our foreign partners”[5] and “it is safe to say [in 2013] that we are cooperating with foreign law enforcement on foreign bribery cases more closely today than at any time in history.”[6]

FCPA Enforcement Pilot Program—Eligibility and Potential Benefits

The most important part of the Guidance is the Fraud Section’s announcement of a one-year “FCPA enforcement pilot program,” which provides for “mitigation credit” that takes into consideration three essential factors: (1) voluntary disclosure, (2) full cooperation, and (3) remediation. In cases in which the above three factors are met but a criminal resolution is nonetheless warranted, “mitigation credit” can include “up to a 50% reduction off the bottom end of the Sentencing Guidelines fine range, if a fine is sought” and the avoidance of a third-party compliance monitor.”[7] Moreover, the Guidance states that, in appropriate cases, where the above factors are fully satisfied, DOJ “will consider a declination of prosecution.”[8]

Voluntary Self-Disclosure

A company must voluntarily disclose an FCPA violation to the Fraud Section in order to be eligible for the full mitigation credit. As a preliminary matter, the disclosure must be truly voluntary—a disclosure that the “company is required to make, by law, agreement, or contract” would not constitute voluntary self-disclosure for purposes of this pilot.[9] Second, the disclosure must occur “prior to an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation” and be “within a reasonably prompt time after becoming aware of the offense,” with the burden on the discloser to demonstrate timeliness.[10] Finally, the disclosure must include “all relevant facts known to [the company], including all relevant facts about the individuals involved in any FCPA violation.”[11]

DOJ’s voluntary disclosure requirement follows a recent announcement by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that companies subject to FCPA enforcement actions are required to self-report their potential misconduct to be eligible for deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements. Full Cooperation

The Guidance sets forth nearly a dozen requirements for companies seeking cooperation credit under the pilot program.[12] Those requirements can be distilled into the following four categories:

  • Disclosure of Relevant Facts: Companies are expected to disclose “all facts relevant to the wrongdoing at issue” on a timely basis, including “all facts related to involvement in the criminal activity by the corporation’s officers, employees, or agents” and “all facts relevant to potential criminal conduct by all third-part[ies].” Disclosure is expected to be “proactive” rather than “reactive,” and facts relevant to the investigation should be voluntarily provided “even when [companies are] not specifically asked to do so.” In addition, disclosures are expected to include “all relevant facts gathered during a company’s independent investigation.”

  • Preservation and Disclosure of Documents: All relevant documents—as well as “information related to their provenance”—are expected to be collected, preserved, and disclosed. This expectation extends to “overseas documents” and important details about those records such as their location and the individuals who discovered them. In some cases, prosecutors may insist that companies provide translations of foreign-language documents. Finally, it is expected that companies will assist with the “third-party production of documents . . . from foreign jurisdictions.”

  • Making Individuals Available for Interviews: Upon request, companies are expected to “mak[e] available for [DOJ] interviews those company officers and employees who possess relevant information,” including—where appropriate and possible—individuals located overseas, as well as those who no longer work for the company.

  • Conducting Transparent and Coordinated Internal Investigations: Companies are expected to provide timely updates about their internal investigations and, where requested, ensure that such investigations do not conflict with those being conducted by the government.

The Guidance notes that “cooperation comes in many forms,” and that the Fraud Section “does not expect a small company to conduct as expansive an investigation in as short a period of time as a Fortune 100 company.”[13]

Remediation

The final requirement is that of “timely and appropriate remediation,” and the following items generally will be required in order for companies to receive remediation credit:

  • Implementation of an Effective Compliance Program: While the criteria depend on the size and resources of the organization, the following factors are normally considered:

    • Whether the company has established a “culture of compliance”

    • Whether the company has sufficient compliance resources

    • The quality and experience of the compliance personnel

    • The independence of the compliance function

    • Whether the company’s compliance program has performed an effective risk assessment and tailored the compliance program based on that assessment

    • How a company’s compliance personnel are compensated and promoted

    • Auditing of the program to assure its effectiveness

    • The reporting structure of compliance personnel within the company

  • Discipline of Culpable Employees: It is expected not only that companies discipline culpable employees, but that they have systems that provide for the possibility of disciplining others with oversight of the responsible individuals.

  • Acceptance of Responsibility and Implementation of Reforms: Companies are expected to recognize the seriousness of the misconduct, accept responsibility for it, and implement reforms to identify and reduce the risk of similar violations.[14]

Credit

Where the above conditions are met but a criminal resolution is warranted, the Fraud Section’s FCPA Unit (1) may accord up to a 50% reduction off the “bottom end” of the Sentencing Guidelines fine range, if a fine is sought; and (2) generally should not require appointment of a monitor if a company has, at the time of resolution, implemented an effective compliance program.

Furthermore, where the same conditions are met, the Fraud Section’s FCPA Unit will consider a declination of prosecution. In doing so, prosecutors must balance the importance of encouraging disclosure against the seriousness of the offense. In assessing the seriousness of the offense, prosecutors are to consider the involvement by executive management in the FCPA misconduct, the size of the ill-gotten gains in relation to the overall revenue of the company, a history of noncompliance by the company, and any prior resolutions by the company with DOJ within the past five years.

Finally, if the company cooperates and remediates, but has not voluntarily disclosed, the Fraud Section’s FCPA Unit may provide partial mitigation credit, but will agree to no more than a 25% reduction off the bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines fine range.[15]

Implications

This Guidance comes after what has been a growing perception that voluntary disclosures have slowed significantly due to a lack of transparency, consistency, and clarity as to what the benefits are, if any, to self-disclosing. Whether the pilot program succeeds in encouraging self-disclosures will likely depend on the perception of companies and defense counsel of the fairness and openness of the application of the criteria in the Guidance.

[1] US Dep’t of Justice, Memorandum from Andrew Weissmann titled “The Fraud Section’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Plan and Guidance” (Apr. 5, 2016) (Guidance)

[2] Guidance at 3.

[3] Id. at 1.

[4] Stephen Dockery, “US Justice Dept. Boosting Foreign Corruption Staff,” Wall Street Journal (Nov. 17, 2015)

[5] US Dep’t of Justice, “Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell Speaks at American Conference Institute’s 31st International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” (Nov. 19, 2014)

[6] See id.; see also US Dep’t of Justice, “Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman Delivers Keynote Address at the Global Anti-Corruption Congress” (June 17, 2013)

[7] Guidance at 8.

[8] Id. at 9.

[9] Id. at 4.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at 5-6.

[13] Id. at 6.

[14] Id. at 7-8.

[15] Id. at 8-9.