Category: Criminal Law

Recent FinCEN FAQs Provide Additional Guidance on Compliance

The US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released several new FAQs this month to provide further clarity on the Corporate Transparency Act’s (CTA) provisions.
Notably, FinCEN provided guidance on who is considered “primary responsible” for directing a filing, as well as what is necessary to qualify under the subsidiary exemption, among other matters.

The CTA’s requirements went into effect on January 1, 2024. As we’ve previously detailed, reporting companies formed prior to that date will be required to file their initial reports with FinCEN no later than January 1, 2025. A reporting company created during 2024 is required to file its initial report within 90 days of its creation or registration, and one created on or after January 1, 2025, will have 30 days to file its initial report. A previously registered company will need to update its registration within 30 days of a change in its beneficial ownership or other information reported to FinCEN. For detailed overviews of the CTA, please visit our earlier posts located here, here, and here.

Company Applicants: Who is “Primarily Responsible” for Directing a Filing?
The CTA requires that reporting companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, disclose their “company applicant.” An individual is a “company applicant” if (1) they directly file the company’s formation or registration documents with a secretary of state or similar office or (2) if more than one person is involved in the filing, they are primary responsible for directing or controlling the filing. A maximum of two individuals can be reported as company applicants.

The FAQs clarify that the person who signs the formation document, such as an incorporator, is not necessarily a company applicant. Instead, the rule focuses on the person responsible for making decisions about the filing, including how the filing is managed, what contents to include, and when and where filing will occur.

FinCEN provides three scenarios to illustrate the rule. In two of the scenarios, an attorney or a paralegal instructed by that attorney completes a company creation document using information provided by a client and sends the document to a corporate service provider to be filed with a secretary of state. In this scenario, the attorney will one of the company applicants, and the employee at the corporate service provider who directly filed the document with the secretary of state will be the other company applicant. In the third scenario, the attorney’s client initiated the company creation directly with the corporate service provider — in this case, the client will be a company applicant (as will the employee at the corporate service provider who directly filed the document).

Subsidiary Exemption: Is Partial Control of a Subsidiary’s Ownership Interests By an Exempt Entity Sufficient to Qualify for the Subsidiary Exemption?
The short answer is — no.

The CTA lists 23 categories of entities that are exempt from the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements. A subsidiary of certain categories of exempt entities will also be exempt if the subsidiary is controlled or wholly owned, whether directly or indirectly, by one or more of such exempt entities.

The FAQs clarify what happens when the exempt entity partially controls the subsidiary. Partial control is insufficient for an entity to fall within the subsidiary exemption — a subsidiary’s ownership interests must be fully, 100% owned or controlled by the exempt entity to qualify for this exemption. Thus, control of ownership interests means that one or more exempt entities entirely control all of the ownership interests in the reporting company, in the same way that an exempt entity must wholly own all of a subsidiary’s ownership interests for the exemption to apply.

Selected Additional Matters Covered by the New FAQs
Reporting Company Ownership Subject to Dispute: If ownership of a reporting company is the subject of active litigation, all individuals who own or control (or claim to own or control) at least 25% of the company’s interests are considered beneficial owners, and BOI must be submitted for each individual (in addition to BOI for all individuals who exercise substantial control over the company). If, after the legal dispute is solved, the reporting company has different beneficial owners from those initially reported, an updated BOI report must be filed within 30 calendar days after the litigation is resolved.
Third-Party Couriers or Delivery Service Employees: Third-party courier or delivery service employees who solely deliver documents to a secretary of state are not company applicants, as long as the third-party courier, the delivery service employee, and the delivery service that employs them play no other roles in the creation or registration of the reporting company.
Automated Incorporation Service: An automated incorporation service’s employees are not company applicants if the service solely provides software, online tools, or generally applicable written guidance for the creation of a reporting company and its employees are not directly involved in filing creation documents.
No Photo on Identification Document for Religious Reasons: If a beneficial owner’s or company applicant’s identification document does not include a photograph for religious reasons, the reporting company may submit an image of that identification document when submitting its report, provided that the document is otherwise an acceptable type of identification. If the individual in question obtains a FinCEN identifier, then the burden of providing the identification document to FinCEN would fall on the individual and not on the company (which would only need to report the FinCEN identifier).
No Permanent Residential Address: When a reporting company must report an individual’s residential address, but no such permanent address is available, the reporting company should report the residential address that is current at the time of filing the report. If the address later changes, the reporting company must submit an updated report within 30 days from such change. The use of a FinCEN identifier by the individual will eliminate the company’s need to submit an updated report, although the individual would be required to update his or her address with FinCEN directly.

© 2024 ArentFox Schiff LLP

by: Evgeny Magidenko of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more news on Corporate Transparency Act Compliance, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

A New Year for Whistleblowers? Emergency Action Needed to Make Current Whistleblower Laws Work

In 2021 the White House, in conjunction with every major executive agency, approved The United States Strategy on Countering Corruption. In this authoritative and non-partisan Anti-Corruption Strategy, the United States for the first time formally recognized the key role whistleblowers play in detecting fraud and corruption. Based on these findings it declared that it was the official policy of the United States to “stand in solidarity” with whistleblowers, both domestically and internationally. As part of the Anti-Corruption Strategy the United States recognized that whistleblower qui tam reward laws must play a major role in combating financial frauds, such as money laundering. The proven ability of whistleblowers to detect fraud among corporate and government elites led the United States government to formally identify them as key players in preventing fraud, strengthening democratic institutions, and combating corruption that threatens U.S. national security.

Despite these findings, leading federal agencies responsible for enforcing whistleblower rights have failed to implement the U.S. Anti-Corruption Strategy’s whistleblower-mandates. Many of their current rules and practices directly undercut and undermine the very whistleblower rights identified by the White House Strategy as playing an essential role in combating corruption.

The 118th Congress will end on January 3, 2025. Thus, there is one year remaining for Congress and the current-sitting executive officers to act on a number of pending whistleblower initiatives, all of which have strong bipartisan support, are based on the plain meaning of laws already passed by Congress, and which are individually or collectively essential for the implementation of the U.S. Anti-Corruption Strategy. Outside of political interference by those who stand to lose when whistleblowers are incentivized and protected, there is no legitimate reason why these reforms cannot be quickly approved. The actions listed below are needed for the Strategy to be implemented, but whose approval has been stalled or blocked by resistant executive agencies or a timid Congress:

  • AML Whistleblower Regulations. The Treasury Department must enact regulations fully implementing the money laundering and sanctions whistleblower provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. This law has been in effect since January 1, 2021, but Treasury has failed to implement the required regulations. Congress did its job, but Treasury has dropped the ball on approving the regulations necessary to ensure that the law is enforced. President Biden must demand that his Secretary of Treasury fully implement the anti-corruption Strategy his White House has approved as a critical national security measure.
  • Justice Department Whistleblower Regulations. Since January 1, 2021 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been required, as a matter of law, to accept anonymous and confidential whistleblower disclosures concerning violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, including illegal money laundering and the use of crypto currency exchanges to facilitate violations of law. In December 2022, this requirement was by law extended to whistleblowers, worldwide, who wish to report violations of sanctions covering Russia, Hamas, ISIS, and other covered entities. In contempt of its legal requirements the Justice Department has ignored this law, and has failed to adopt regulations permitting anonymous whistleblowing. Congress did its job, Justice has dropped the ball. President Biden must demand that his Attorney General fully implement the anti-corruption Strategy his White House has approved as a critical national security measure.
  • SEC Whistleblower Regulations. Although the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Whistleblower Program has radically improved since its failure to respond to whistleblower disclosures regarding the fraudster Bernie Madoff, regulations approved over 12-years ago continue to violate the statutory rights granted whistleblowers under the Dodd-Frank Act and strip otherwise qualified whistleblowers of their rights. For example, although the law gives whistleblowers the right to provide “original information” to the SEC through a news media disclosure, the SEC has never enforced this right. This has resulted in numerous extremely important whistleblowers to be denied protection or compensation. In the context of foreign corruption, DOJ statistics inform that 20% of all Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases (which are covered under Dodd-Frank) are based on news media disclosures. Based on these numbers, one in five whistleblowers who report foreign corruption are illegally denied compensation under current SEC rules. An audit by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development released data regarding how whistleblowers were being harmed by the SEC’s interpretation of the law, including the failure to protect whistleblowers who make initial reports to international regulatory or law enforcement agencies, even if these agencies work closely with the United States. The SEC can resolve these issues by issuing clarifying decisions and exemptions consistent with the plain meaning of the Dodd Frank law and Congress’ clear intent. President Biden must demand that his appointments to the SEC fully implement the anti-corruption Strategy his White House approved.
  • Stop Repeal by Delay. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the SEC both fail to compensate whistleblowers in a timely manner. These delays, which the IRS admits average over 10-years, cause untold hardship to whistleblowers, many of whom have lost their jobs and careers, and their only hope for economic survival is the compensation promised under law. In response to these untenable and unjustifiable delays, Congress has introduced two laws to expedite paying legally required compensation to whistleblowers, the SEC Whistleblower Reform Act and S. 625, the IRS Whistleblower Reform Act. Both amendments have strong bipartisan support and should be/could be passed quickly. See https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-warren-reintroduce-bill-to-strengthen-sec-whistleblower-program and https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-wyden-wicker-cardin-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-strengthen-irs-whistleblower-program.
  • Strengthen the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act (FCA) whistleblower qui tam provision has proven to be the most effective law ever passed protecting the government from greedy contractors, fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, and from criminal procurement practices. Over $70 billion has been recovered by the taxpayers directly from fraudsters, and countless billions has also been paid in criminal fines. Two bipartisan amendments to the FCA are languishing in Congress.  The first is designed to prevent federal contractors from colluding with government officials when trying to justify their frauds. The second permits the federal government to administratively sanction contractors in smaller cases, where prosecutors rarely file charges in court.  The Administrative False Claims Act, S. 659, has been unanimously passed by the Senate but is stalled in the House of Representatives. The False Claims Act Amendment targeting collusion has strong bipartisan support, but is awaiting votes in Congress.  See    https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/senators-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-close-loophole-in-fight-against-fraud    https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/bipartisan-fraud-fighting-bill-unanimously-passes-senate.
  • Pass the CFTC Fund Improvement Act. The whistleblower reward law covering violations of the Commodity Exchange Act has proven successful beyond the wildest dreams of Congress. Billions upon billions in sanctions has been recovered from fraudsters who have manipulated markets ripping off consumers across the globe. These unprecedented whistleblower-triggered prosecutions have created an unintended problem: there are inadequate funds available to compensate whistleblowers as required under law. It is unconscionable for Congress to pass a law mandating that whistleblowers obtain compensation when they risk their jobs, reputations, and even their lives to serve the public interest, but then refuse to allocate funding to pay the mandatory rewards. The CFTC Fund Improvement Act, S. 2500, which has strong bipartisan support, would fix this problem. It needs to be immediately passed. Congress must live up to its promises.  See  https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-nunn-and-hassan-lead-bipartisan-bicameral-effort-to-bolster-successful-whistleblower-program.
  • Demand that Federal Agencies Respect, Honor, and Compensate Whistleblowers. One of the most unacceptable and unjustifiable hardships facing whistleblowers is the continued resistance to protecting whistleblowers in numerous (most) federal agencies.  This is exemplified by the complete failure of agencies to use their discretionary powers to protect or compensate whistleblowers. The Department of Commerce/NOAA can reward whistleblowers who report illegal fishing or “IUU” fishing violations and crimes committed by large ocean fishing boats operated by countries like China. Yet they have repeatedly failed to implement their whistleblower laws. The same can be said of the Department of Interior/Fish and Wildlife Service which have ignored the Lacey and Endangered Species Acts’ strong whistleblower reward provisions, allowing billions in illegal international wildlife trafficking to fester. Likewise, the Coast Guard largely ignores the whistleblower provisions of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, turning down numerous whistleblower tips and failing to conduct investigations. Worse still, is the Justice Department’s penchant for prosecuting whistleblowers – even those who report crimes voluntarily to the Department pursuant to whistleblower disclosure laws.  President Biden must take action and demand that all executive agencies use their discretionary authorities permitted under law to incentivize and protect whistleblowers consistent with the anti-corruption Strategy his administration has approved.

A first step in changing the anti-whistleblower culture that undermines the public interest within most federal agencies is for the President to enforce the National Whistleblower Appreciation Day resolution that has been unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate over the past ten years. The resolution urges every executive agency to acknowledge the contributions of whistleblowers and educate their workforce as to these contributions. See https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ten-years-running-grassley-wyden-lead-whistleblower-appreciation-day-resolution (S. Res. 298).

The importance of President Biden’s requiring all federal agencies to institute to Senate resolution is clear, based on the text of the resolution asking that all agencies “inform[] employees, contractors working on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States, and members of the public about the legal right of a United States citizen to ‘blow the whistle’ to the appropriate authority by honest and good faith reporting of misconduct, fraud, misdemeanors, or other crimes; and acknowledging the contributions of whistleblowers to combating waste, fraud, abuse, and violations of laws and regulations of the United States.”

These seven reforms all have bipartisan support and/or can be immediately implemented through executive action. There is simply no justification for delaying the implementation of these minimum and absolutely necessary reforms.

But the buck does not stop at the top. Strong and vocal public support can push all of these bipartisan reforms across the finish line. The American people – across all demographics, stand behind whistleblowers. How do we know this? The highly respected Marist polling agency conducted a scientifically valid survey of “likely American voters.” Their findings speak for themselves:

  • 86% of Americans want stronger whistleblower protections
  • 44% of “likely voters” state that the position of candidates on this issue would impact their vote. 

Despite the divisions within American society the Marist Poll findings demonstrated that the American public is united in supporting whistleblowers:

  • 84% of people without a college education want stronger protection for whistleblowers
  • 89% of people with a college education want stronger protection for whistleblowers
  • 85% of people earning under $50,000 want stronger protection for whistleblowers
  • 89% of people earning over $50,000 want stronger protection for whistleblowers
  • 86% of people living in urban areas want stronger protection for whistleblowers
  • 83% of people living in rural areas want stronger protection for whistleblowers
  • 86% of women want stronger protection for whistleblowers
  • 87% of men want stronger protection for whistleblowers
  • 88 % of Independents want stronger protection for whistleblowers
  • 78 % of Republicans want stronger protection for whistleblowers
  • 94 % of Democrats want stronger protection for whistleblowers

The only thing holding back effective whistleblower laws in the United States is the lobbying power of special interests and powerful government officials’ hostility toward dissent. This must end. Whistleblowing has proven to be the most effective means to detect waste, fraud, abuse and threats to the public health and safety. The United States Strategy on Countering Corruption represents a roadmap for action. It’s time for the President, Congress and those running agencies such as the Department of Treasury and the SEC to get the job done.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2023. All Rights Reserved.

by: Stephen M. Kohn of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto 

For more news on Current Whistleblower Laws, visit the NLR Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.

Beware of Corporate Transparency Act Scams and Fraud

The Corporate Transparency Act’s (CTA) Beneficial Ownership Information reporting requirements are set to take effect on January 1, and bad actors are already using the CTA’s requirements to solicit unauthorized access to Personally Identifiable Information. To that end, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) recently issued a warning regarding such scams. FinCEN describes these efforts as follows:

“The fraudulent correspondence may be titled “Important Compliance Notice” and asks the recipient to click on a URL or to scan a QR code. Those e-mails or letters are fraudulent. FinCEN does not send unsolicited requests (emphasis added). Please do not respond to these fraudulent messages, or click on any links or scan any QR codes within them.”

© 2023 Varnum LLP
For more news on Corporate Transparency Act Scams and Fraud, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Privacy Tip #382 – Beware of Fake Package Delivery Scams During Holiday Season

There are lots of package deliveries this time of year. When shopping online, companies are great about telling you when to expect the delivery of your purchase. Fraudsters know this and prey on unsuspecting victims especially during this time of year.

Scammers send smishing texts (smishing is just like phishing, but through a text), that embeds malicious code into a link in the text that can infect your phone or try to get victims to provide personal information or financial information.

It is such a problem, that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently issued an Alert to provide tips to avoid these scams.

The tips include:

What to do

  • If you get a message about an unexpected package delivery that tells you to click on a link for some reason, don’t click.
  • If you think the message might be legitimate, contact the shipping company using a phone number or website you know is real. Don’t use the information in the message.
  • If you think it could be about something you recently ordered, go to the site where you bought the item and look up the shipping and delivery status there.
  • No matter the time of year, it always pays to protect your personal information. Check out these resources to help you weed out spam text messages, phishing emails, and unwanted calls.

These are helpful tips any time of year, but particularly right now.

Copyright © 2023 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
For more news on Holiday Package Delivery Scams, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

New FEHA Regulations Alter How, When Employers Can Consider Applicant’s Criminal Histories

The California Civil Rights Council (CRD) (formerly the DFEH) has issued new regulations that modify the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the law that governs how and when California employers can consider a job applicant’s criminal history when making employment decisions. The new regulations took effect on October 1, 2023, and provide more coverage, prohibitions and requirements for potential employers to consider.

IN DEPTH

THE LAW

Under the FEHA, employers are prohibited from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal history prior to extending a conditional offer of employment, including through job applications, background checks and internet searches.

The FEHA also requires that if an employer is considering taking an adverse action with respect to a job applicant or employee, the employer must first conduct an individualized assessment of the job applicant’s criminal history—including determining whether the applicant’s criminal history has a “direct and adverse” effect on their ability to perform the functions of the position.

While the thrust of the law remains the same, the new regulations expand the scope of who is covered by the FEHA, the kinds of inquiries the law prohibits, the kinds of evidence employers must accept and consider regarding an applicant’s justification for the past offense in question and the process for recission of a conditional offer of employment.

EXPANDED COVERAGE

First, the new FEHA regulations expand the definitions of “employer” and “applicant.” Previously, an “employer” was defined as “a labor contractor or client employer.” The updated regulations clarify that the definition of employer additionally encompasses any direct or joint employers, agents of the employer, staffing agencies, entities that evaluate the applicant’s criminal history on behalf of an employer, and entities that select or provide workers to an employer from a pool or availability list.

Similarly, the updated regulations clarify that an “applicant” may include, in addition to an individual who has been conditionally offered employment, existing employees who have applied to a different position with their current employer, those who have indicated a specific desire to be considered for a different position with their current employer, and even an existing employee who is subjected to a review and consideration of their criminal history because of a change in ownership, management, policy or practice.

Employers should note that job applicants are still considered “individuals who have been conditionally offered employment” even if they have commenced employment during the post-conditional offer review and criminal background check process. In other words, employers cannot transition an applicant to an employee before beginning the background check process to avoid the FEHA.

EXPANDED PROHIBITIONS

The new regulations make clear that employers are prohibited from including statements in job advertisements, postings, applications or other materials indicating that they will not consider applicants with criminal histories, including statements such as “no felons” or “must have clean record.”

In addition, employers are prohibited from conducting pre-hire internet searches on job applicants, and they cannot consider criminal history even if voluntarily provided by the job applicant during the application or interview process.

Moreover, employers are now barred, at any stage of the hiring process, from the following:

  • Refusing additional evidence voluntarily provided by an applicant contextualizing the offense in question (or another party at the applicant’s request);
  • Requiring an applicant to submit additional evidence, or a specific type of documentary evidence, regarding the offense in question; and
  • Requiring an applicant to disclose their status as a survivor of domestic abuse or comparable statuses, medical records, or the existence of a disability or diagnosis.

EXPANDED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION REQUIREMENTS

Currently, employers are required to conduct an individualized assessment of an applicant’s criminal offense and its bearing on the individual’s candidacy before rescinding a conditional offer of employment if the decision is based in whole or in part on the applicant’s criminal history. However, the updated regulations explain that employers must additionally conduct a reassessment after the job applicant has had an opportunity to respond to the pre-adverse action notice and before making a final decision. The result is a four-step process: (1) the initial individualized assessment, (2) the pre-adverse action notice and applicant response, (3) reassessment and (4) the final decision. We discuss each step below.

1 – INITIAL INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT

The new regulations expand the scope of the employer’s individualized assessment. The regulations require the assessment to be reasoned and evidence-based, take place prior to sending the pre-adverse action letter and consider the following factors:

  • The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct;
  • The time that has passed since the offense or conduct;
  • The nature of the job held or sought; and
  • Evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances.

2 – THE PRE-ADVERSE ACTION NOTICE AND APPLICANT RESPONSE

If an employer wishes to rescind a conditional offer of employment after conducting an individualized assessment, the employer must notify the applicant in writing. The notice requirements largely remain the same: Employers must identify the conviction(s) they based their decision on, provide a copy of all the reports they utilized (including internet search results), inform the applicant that they have a right to respond before the decision is finalized and explain the kinds of evidence the applicant may provide evidence as part of their response. However, the new regulations do make a few notable changes to the notice requirement:

  • The regulations require the employer to provide the job applicant with notice of their right to respond to a pre-adverse action notice and with a response deadline that is at least five (5) business days from the date the applicant receives the notice.
  • If an applicant timely notifies the employer in writing that additional time is needed to respond, the employer must give the applicant at least five additional business days to respond to the notice before making a final decision. The regulations contain ambiguity regarding what is a “timely” notification.
  • If the pre-adverse action notice is sent to the applicant through email, the notice is deemed received two business days after it is sent, meaning that the five-day response deadline begins to run after the second day post-transmittal.

3 – REASSESSMENT

If the applicant provides evidence related to mitigating circumstances or their rehabilitative efforts since the conviction at issue, the employer must consider the information—a process the new regulations call “reassessment.” The employer must consider factors such as the applicant’s conduct during incarceration, employment history since the conviction or release from incarceration, community service and engagement, and other rehabilitative efforts.

4 – FINAL DECISION

There are no new requirements for employers to consider when making their final decision to rescind a conditional offer of employment.

EMPLOYER LIABILITY IMPOSED BY FEHA

Job applicants may allege violations of the FEHA by arguing that there is a less discriminatory policy or practice that serves the employer’s goals as effectively as its current background check policy or practice without significantly increasing the cost or burden on the employer. These allegations can be lodged through a complaint filed with the CRD or a civil lawsuit for discrimination. A variety of remedies are available for possible violations of the FEHA, such as reinstatement of back pay and benefits, compensatory damages for emotional distress and out-of-pocket losses, injunctive relief and punitive damages. Courts also regularly award attorneys’ fees if job applicants prevail.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

Employers with background check programs can start implementing the following key action items in response to the updated FEHA regulations:

  • Review and update job postings and applications to ensure that they do not include statements suggesting that job applicants are barred from the process because of their criminal history, including “no convicted felons,” “criminal background check required” and language referring to “ex-offenders.”
  • Review background check policies as necessary to ensure compliance with the FEHA’s new requirements, including expanded time periods in communications with job applicants consistent with the four-step process above if considering an adverse action.
  • Ensure detailed and organized documentation of all discussions with job applicants who may be subject to an adverse action in preparation for future challenges to the employer’s hiring process under the new regulations.
  • Consider providing additional or updated trainings to human resources professionals who handle the application and new-hire process, especially to emphasize that internet searches (including social media) of job applicants are strictly prohibited prior to extending a conditional offer of employment. All inquiries should be saved until after a conditional offer of employment has been extended.
© 2023 McDermott Will & Emery
By Marjorie C. Soto Garcia of McDermott Will & Emery 
For more news on Employer Considerations of Criminal History, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Investigation Spurs Launch of Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Environmental Crimes Task Force

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced the launch of a new Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Environmental Crimes Task Force. The DOJ’s announcement, on May 11, 2023, coincided with its announcement of the grand jury indictments of two individuals in Puerto Rico who are accused of committing environmental crimes between 2020 and 2022.

As noted by the DOJ, its formation of the Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Environmental Crimes Task Force also comes one year after the Department’s formation of an Office of Environmental Justice within its Environment and Natural Resources Division. This suggests that the DOJ is engaging in a long-term strategy to combat environmental crime, with particular emphasis on combating environmental crime in Puerto Rico and the USVI.

For companies and individuals doing business in Puerto Rico and the USVI, this is cause for concern. Even compliance won’t necessarily prevent an investigation; and, in the event of an investigation, insufficient documentation of compliance can present risks regardless of the underlying facts at hand. As a result, companies and individuals doing business on the islands need to prioritize environmental compliance (and adequately documenting their compliance), and they need to have strategies in place to deal effectively with the DOJ’s Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Environmental Crimes Task Force if necessary.

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. By announcing the formation of its new task force on the same date that it announced two grand jury indictments, it is also sending a clear message that it will not hesitate to pursue criminal charges when warranted.

The DOJ’s Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Environmental Crimes Task Force: An Overview

To be prepared to deal with the DOJ’s Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Environmental Crimes Task Force, companies and individuals doing business on the islands need to have a clear understanding of the task force’s composition and law enforcement priorities. Here is an overview of what we know so far:

Federal Agencies with Personnel on the DOJ’s Task Force

While the Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Environmental Crimes Task Force falls under the DOJ’s law enforcement umbrella, it includes personnel from several federal agencies. Each of these agencies is likely to have its own set of enforcement priorities—setting the stage for wide-ranging investigations in Puerto Rico and the USVI.

As identified by the DOJ, the federal agencies with personnel on the Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Environmental Crimes Task Force include:

  • Army Criminal Investigation Division (Army CID)
  • Army Corps of Engineers
  • Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General (DOA OIG)
  • Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General (DOC OIG)
  • Department of Homeland Security Homeland Security Investigations (DHS HSI)
  • Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (DOT OIG)
  • Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division (EPA CID)
  • Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General (EPA OIG)
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA OCI)
  • Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG)
  • IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS CI)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Law Enforcement (NOAA OLE)
  • U.S. Coast Guard – Sector San Juan (USCG San Juan)
  • U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service (USCG IS)
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

The DOJ’s press release announcing the formation of the task force also notes that its personnel will work closely with local authorities on both islands. This includes the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources, Puerto Rico Department of Justice, U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources, and U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office.

The Task Force’s Enforcement Priorities in Puerto Rico and the USVI

The DOJ’s press release also identifies several areas of enforcement that are priorities for the Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Environmental Crimes Task Force. As of the date of its launch, the task force’s priorities will include:

  • Air and water quality violations involving agriculture, construction, transportation, and other industries
  • Fraud, waste, and abuse affecting government programs (including, but not limited to, EPA programs)
  • Harm to wetlands, navigable waters, and wildlife (including harm caused by pesticide misuse)
  • Hazardous material spills and transportation violations
  • Marine environmental violations and harm to federal marine resources
  • Public corruption involving environmental compliance and risks
  • Violations involving medications, foods, cosmetics, and other biological products
  • Violations involving workplace and housing conditions affecting residents working in the islands’ protected environments

As you can see, not all of these violations are strictly related to environmental compliance. This reflects the task force’s composition as well as the DOJ’s general disposition to investigate and prosecute all crimes, regardless of the impetus for a particular inquiry. Environmental crime investigations in Puerto Rico and the USVI will present risks for conspiracy, money laundering, tax evasion, wire fraud, and other federal criminal charges as well—and targeted companies and individuals could potentially face these charges even if they are ultimately cleared of any alleged environmental law violations.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2023
For more Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Changes to Conditions of SEC Rule 10b5-1 Obligations

New amendments to insider-trading regulations are about to go into effect. SEC Rule 10b5-1 has long provided an affirmative defense to insiders who trade under a written plan adopted in good faith and who lack material nonpublic information (MNPI).

Over the years, pundits have noticed that trades under Rule 10b5-1 plans have been unusually profitable, suggesting that some insiders might have misused these plans. As a result, in December 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced amendments and new disclosure requirements to address perceived abuses. Below are the significant provisions that go into effect on February 27, 2023.

New Good-Faith Requirements

Companies have always had to act in good faith when they adopt a Rule 10b5-1 plan. The new amendments extend that obligation, requiring insiders to continue to act in good faith throughout the duration of the plan. See 17 C.F.R. § 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii)(A). This means that insiders not only need to act in good faith when creating a plan but also have an obligation to avoid opportunistic trades or timing disclosures that coincide with trades under the plan.

While this is a heightened requirement, it is not clear who will bear the burden of pleading good faith during any ensuing litigation. The regulation is framed as an affirmative defense, but at least one court had previously interpreted the old regulation as placing the burden on the plaintiff to plead facts specifying that a plan was not entered into in good faith or was part of a plan to evade the regulations. [1] It is not clear how courts will interpret the new regulation and whether they will require a pleading of scienter or bad faith for this new obligation.

Director and Officer Certifications

Directors and officers must now certify that (1) they are unaware of any material nonpublic information about the security or issuer and (2) they are adopting the plan in good faith and not as a part of a plan or scheme to evade the regulations.

Cooling-Off Periods

The amendments impose various “cooling-off periods” for trades under Rule 10b5-1 plans, which could vary based on the identity of the trader. These “cooling-off periods” start when a company adopts a new plan or modifies a plan to alter the sale or purchase price, the ranges, the amount of securities sold or purchased, or the time of the trades.

Directors or officers cannot trade under a plan until the later of (a) 90 days after the plan’s adoption or after certain modifications or (b) two business days after filing a Form 10–Q or Form 10–K [2] that discloses the financial results of a quarter in which the plan was adopted or modified (subject to no more than 120 days). Anyone else (non-officers or non-directors) faces a 30-day cooling-off period after any adoption or modification of a plan. [3]

Multiple or Overlapping Plans

A Rule 10b5-1 defense will not be available to anyone who enters multiple or overlapping plans at the same time. This prohibition includes three exceptions:

First, a series of separate contracts with different broker-dealers acting on behalf of a non-issuer may be treated as a single plan if the plans, taken together, meet the regulation’s other conditions.

Second, a non-issuer may enter into one subsequent plan for the purchase or sale of any security of the issuer on the open market. But trading cannot begin until after all trades under the earlier starting plan are completed or expired, pending the effective cooling-off period.

Third, eligible sell-to-cover transactions will not be considered outstanding or additional plans under this section. The SEC defines an eligible sell-to-cover transaction as a contract, instruction, or plan that “authorizes an agent to sell only such securities as are necessary to satisfy tax withholding obligations arising exclusively from the vesting of a compensatory award, such as restricted stock or stock appreciation rights, and the insider does not otherwise exercise control over the timing of such sales.”

Single-Trade Plans

The final condition imposed by the amendment is the addition of § 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii)(E), which limits the affirmative defense for non-issuers to one single-trade plan designed to affect the open-market purchase or sale of the total amount of securities as a single transaction during a twelve-month period. As with the prior condition, this regulation does exclude eligible sell-to-cover transactions.

Takeaways

Companies, directors, and officers who intend to use a Rule 10b5-1 plan to insulate themselves from accusations of insider trading need to revisit their plans. They need to ensure that the plan articulates a cooling-off period and that the plan includes the director-officer certification. Participants in the plan need to ensure they are conducting themselves in good faith, that they are not joining multiple competing plans during the same period, and that they are abiding by the new restrictions on single-trade plans. Rule 10b5-1 is a powerful tool to insulate insiders from liability, and it is imperative to align these plans with the new regulations.

Copyright © 2023 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

For more Financial, Securities & Banking legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

ENDNOTES

[1] Arkansas Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 28 F.4th 343, 356 n.4 (2d Cir. 2022).

[2] Foreign issuers, Form 20-F or Form 6-K.

[3] The SEC did not impose cooling-off periods on issuers but has suggested that it is investigating whether such a period is appropriate.

New York Adult Survivors Act

New York’s Adult Survivors Act[1] (“ASA” or “the Act”) (S.66A/A.648A) became effective on November 24, 2022. The Act provides a one-year lookback window for people to seek civil remedies for sexual abuse they experienced after they turned 18, regardless of what year the abuse occurred. This law adds critical energy to the ongoing momentum of the #MeToo movement, allowing survivors to file suit against both their abusers and the institutions that enabled them.

The one-year lookback window lasts until November 23, 2023, so as of today, survivors have just over ten months to take advantage of the law. The following guide provides context and recommendations for understanding and using New York’s Adult Survivors Act.

What does the ASA do?

The ASA creates a one-year lookback window for sexual assault survivors to pursue civil claims in court for abuse that may have occurred years earlier, as long as they were over 18 at the time. Previously, a person who experienced sexual abuse only had a few years to file a lawsuit in New York before their claim would be time-barred. This meant that survivors had little time in which to come to terms with the abuse they experienced, find an attorney, prepare a case, and file an action. For those who missed that small window, the ASA reopens the courthouse doors. So until November 23, 2023, whether you experienced abuse in 2015, 2000, or 1985, you can file a claim in court and seek recovery for what happened to you.

What does the law cover?

Sexual offenses covered by the ASA span a wide range of behaviors, including but not limited to forcible touching, rape, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, and other forms of sexual abuse. Not every sexual offense is covered under the ASA,[2] and an attorney can help assess whether your claim falls within its provisions.

Who can you sue?

Another powerful provision of the law is who it allows to be named as a defendant. Survivors are not limited to suing their abusers—they can also hold accountable the institutions that insulated those abusers from justice. These institutions can include entities that had responsibility to keep the survivor safe and to control the actions of the abuser. Claims against the institutions can involve both intentional and negligent acts. If your abuser was part of a larger organization that contributed to or failed to prevent, notice, or stop the abuse, the ASA empowers you to go after that organization.

This provision comes directly from New York’s 2019 Child Victims Act (“CVA”).[3] Over 10,000 people have used the CVA to sue institutions that had a role to play in their abuse, including churches, hospitals, overnight and day camps, and schools. For example, a large number of CVA cases name the Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America as institutional defendants. The ASA provides a similar recourse to justice: oftentimes, survivors are subject to abuse by people who hold power over them. For minors, these people could be coaches, religious leaders, teachers, mentors, or other caregivers. For people over 18, those in power may be employers, professors, or community leaders. The ASA enables adult survivors to sue the institutions that gave their abusers power and protected those abusers from answering for their actions.

The institutional defendant provision of the ASA opens significantly larger opportunities for recovery, as institutions oftentimes have deeper pockets than individual abusers. Examples of institutions that could face liability under the ASA include employers, colleges and universities, social organizations such as fraternities and sororities, medical practices, and facilities that house people with disabilities. Any entity that knew about or should have known about and stopped the abuse could be on the hook.

Who is it for?

The ASA opens the courts to people who were over the age of 18 when they experienced sexual abuse but are otherwise unable to file due to missing the statute of limitations. You can use the ASA even if you have previously tried to file but had your suit dismissed as untimely.[4]

It is important to note that if you have resolved or released your claims through a settlement process, you may not file under the ASA. For example, the nearly 150 women who received payment from a settlement with Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York Presbyterian Hospital based on sexual abuse by Dr. Robert Hadden cannot use the ASA to file new suits as their claims have been fully resolved.

Why do we need this?

The Adult Survivors Act is a game-changer for people who were previously unable to file claims for sexual abuse due to a short statute of limitations. In 2019, New York extended the statute of limitations for certain civil lawsuits related to sex crimes from five to 20 years. But that law did not apply retroactively, so survivors who experienced abuse just a few years prior were still barred from seeking justice.

The ASA honors the lived reality of sexual abuse. Like the CVA before it, the ASA recognizes sexual abuse can take years to process, and those years often extend far beyond the short filing windows New York historically placed on these types of claims.

Survivors have many reasons for waiting to come forward with claims of sexual abuse. Some face retaliation by their abusers, some fear the risk of community backlash, and others lack the resources to seek legal representation. Finally, “[t]rauma takes time,” as New York State Senator and ASA champion Brad Hoylman said when promoting the then-bill. Many sexual assault and sexual abuse survivors need years to process what they endured. This can be particularly true when an abuser uses power, manipulation, or threats to coerce submission to sexual contact, a common tactic of notorious abusers Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Dr. Robert Hadden. Understanding the event as sexual abuse, reconciling yourself with your experience, and deciding how to move forward can take decades. The ASA is an effort to respect this process and empower survivors to hold their abusers accountable.

Why would I file a lawsuit about what happened to me?

For many people, surviving sexual abuse is not something that can be “fixed” by any kind of legal action. But the remedies available through civil suits can serve as a proxy for some measure of justice, and that proxy can enable survivors to move forward.

Successful ASA plaintiffs can recover economic, compensatory, and punitive damages from both the individual abuser and the institution. Many survivors suffer financial loss in addition to the mental, emotional, and physical harm of the abuse itself. If your boss sexually harasses you and then terminates you when you protest, you may find yourself without an income. If a classmate assaults you, you may forfeit tuition money after deciding to leave campus for your safety. Civil courts can make you financially whole and further compensate you for the pain of the experience and the efforts you must make to heal. Courts can also provide other remedies, requiring the people who perpetrated or allowed abuse to do or stop certain behaviors, thereby protecting other potential future targets of abuse and assault.

How do I use the ASA?

The first thing you should do is consult an attorney. These cases can be complicated, and plaintiffs still maintain the burden of proof, so you want the expertise of an experienced lawyer. There are several firms that regularly bring these kinds of actions, and many will provide you with a free consultation. If you decide to move forward with your case after a consultation, your attorney will work with you to determine the best strategy. This strategy may include going to court, or it may involve seeking a resolution that works for you outside of court.

As you go through the process of finding an attorney, please know that you deserve counsel that is compassionate, knowledgeable, and focused on your needs and interests as a client. This is about what happened to you, and your attorney is there to guide you. You should feel heard, understood, and respected.

When do I need to file?

You must file your claim by November 23, 2023.

While the ASA is a powerful effort by New York to support the rights of sexual abuse survivors, it is time-limited. November 23, 2023 is the cutoff date for filing a claim, but if you are interested in seeking recovery under the Act, you should take action now. It may take time to find the right attorney for you, and your lawyer will need additional time to put together your case. If you and your lawyer decide to pursue a resolution without going to court, that process could take even longer.

Ten months sounds like a long time, but in the legal world, it can move very quickly. Start considering whether you want to take advantage of the ASA and reach out to an attorney as soon as possible.

What happens after I file?

This will come down to conversations you have with your attorney. Filing is the first major step in the process. Following that process through might include discovery, more court filings, and hearings before a judge or a jury.

What else should I consider?

Take care of yourself as you think about your next steps. Reach out to trusted loved ones and mental health professionals. It is critical that you ground yourself in what is best for you.

FOOTNOTES

[1] New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the ASA into law on May 24, 2022. The ASA passed the New York Assembly by a majority vote of 140 in favor to 3 against after receiving unanimous support in the state Senate one month prior.

[2] Article 130 of the New York Penal Law lists offenses covered under the ASA.

[3] The CVA came into effect in 2019, providing a two-year lookback window for people who experienced abuse as minors. The CVA amends N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 208 (2019) and allows victims to initiate civil action against their abusers and enabling institutions. As to victims where civil actions were barred before the CVA took effect, N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214-g (2020) creates a lookback period to file a claim. Since 2019, over 10,000 people have filed lawsuits in New York against abusers and the institutions that protected them.

[4] The ASA can revive your claim only if it was dismissed for failure to file by the statutory deadline. If your claim was dismissed for other reasons, this law cannot fix that.

For more labor and employment news, click here to visit the National Law Review. 

Katz Banks Kumin LLP Copyright ©

Will CMS’s Proposed Rule on “Identified Overpayments” Increase Reverse FCA Cases?

On December 27, 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a proposed rule which, in part, seeks to amend the existing regulations for Medicare Parts A, B, C, and D regarding the standard for when an “identified” overpayment must be refunded, pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the False Claims Act (FCA) reverse false claims provision. As written, the proposed rule would remove the existing “reasonable diligence” standard for identification of overpayments, and add the “knowing” and “knowingly” FCA definition. As a result, an overpayment would be “identified” when the entity has actual knowledge of an identified overpayment, or acts in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of an identified overpayment. And, a provider is required to refund overpayments it is obliged to refund within 60 days of such identified overpayment.

If this proposed rule is finalized, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) should be applying the same intent standard to their evaluation of potential reverse false claims and Civil Monetary Penalty liability.

The Lay of the Land

Currently, the applicable overpayment regulations state:

A person has identified an overpayment when the person has, or should have through the exercise of reasonable diligence, determined that the person has received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment. A person should have determined that the person received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment if the person fails to exercise reasonable diligence and the person in fact received an overpayment.

42 C.F.R. § 401.305(a)(2). In the 2016 Final Rule, CMS agreed “the 60-day time period begins when either the reasonable diligence is completed or on the day the person received credible information of a potential overpayment if the person failed to conduct reasonable diligence and the person in fact received an overpayment.” This reasonable diligence standard allows entities to not only determine credibility of allegations, or issues relating to, a potential overpayment but also, when credible, to conduct a properly scoped internal investigation, during which an entity also accurately quantifies any associated overpayment due for refund.

In the proposed rulemaking, CMS is suggesting instead the following standard:

A person has identified an overpayment when the person knowingly receives or retains an overpayment. The term “knowingly” has the meaning set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(1)(A).

31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(1)(A) defines “Knowingly” as any circumstance in which “a person, with respect to information—(i) has actual knowledge of the information; (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information.”

The currently proposed provision has similar effect to the language CMS proposed in 2012 and, after consideration of comments, ultimately rejected in the 2014 Final Rule (Medicare Advantage and Part D) and 2016 Final Rule (Medicare Part A and Part B). In that final rulemaking, CMS removed the “actual knowledge,” “reckless disregard,” and “deliberate ignorance” terms in favor of the reasonable diligence standard, leaving practitioners to argue that CMS had lowered requisite intent to a standard less than required by the FCA.

Potential Impact

The FCA is a fraud statute, requiring intent. If a company investigating the credibility, issue, and scope of a matter (i.e., exercising reasonable diligence) also diligently determines the scope of a possible refund obligation, it would be difficult for DOJ to credibly claim an entity has acted recklessly, or with deliberate indifference to repayment under the FCA. DOJ’s general practice has been to bring reverse FCA cases when a provider does not investigate credible allegations and does not refund associated overpayments, after identifying them. For example, in a 2015 case, DOJ attorneys stated in a court conference, “[T]his is not a question … of a case where the hospital is diligently working on the claims and it’s on the sixty-first day and they’re still scrambling to go through their spreadsheets, you know, the government wouldn’t be bringing that kind of a claim.” United States ex rel. Kane v. Healthfirst, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 370, 389 (S.D. N.Y. 2015).

It remains to be seen whether this change will result in an increased pursuit of reverse FCA cases. The proposed rule would eliminate an explicit diligence period (generally not to exceed six months, except in particularly complicated analyses, such as under the Physician Self-Referral or “Stark” Law) to ascertain the validity and amount of a potential obligation to refund an overpayment. The proposed rule does not explain whether providers, suppliers, and others still will have an opportunity to conduct a reasonably diligent inquiry into whether any obligation to refund exists at all, prior to the ACA 60-day clock starting to run. Ideally CMS would make clear in any preamble that the government still expects reasonable and professional efforts be undertaken before making refunds, even if that process may take some time to complete

Absent such clarity, the fact remains that it is difficult to “identify” an obligation to refund, much less any refundable amounts, without first validating the alleged overpayment and quantifying any obligation.

Additionally, this standard may prompt entities to submit an HHS-OIG self-disclosure before all facts are known. While OIG requires a disclosing party to conduct an internal investigation prior to submission, it is near impossible to thoroughly investigate issues and identify any refund 60 days from learning of a possible issue that might result in a refund (especially when multiple payors are involved). Even if a disclosing party notes within a self-disclosure that an investigation is ongoing, the disclosing party must certify that it will complete its investigation within 90 days of the submission date – which still may not be enough time based on the complexity of the allegations or claims review required. The resulting back-and-forth of incomplete information likely would create unnecessary delays in reaching a resolution and frustration among all parties involved.

We encourage all providers, suppliers, Medicare Advantage organizations, Part D participants, and other stakeholders to submit comments on this proposed rule. The public has until 5 p.m. ET on February 13, 2023 to submit comments, which are accepted, electronically or by mail.

Article By Kara (Schoonover) Sweet, Lisa M. Noller, and Lawrence W. Vernaglia of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more healthcare and health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Foley & Lardner LLP

What You Need to Know About the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch

The Consumer Protection Branch of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is one of the most overlooked and misunderstood parts of the country’s largest law enforcement agency. With a wide field of enforcement, the Branch can pursue civil enforcement actions or even criminal prosecutions against companies based in the United States and even foreign companies doing business in the country.

Here are four things that Dr. Nick Oberheiden, a defense lawyer at Oberheiden P.C., thinks that people and businesses need to know about the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch.

The Wide Reach of “Protecting Consumers”

According to the agency itself, the Consumer Protection Branch “leads Department of Justice enforcement efforts to enforce consumer protection laws that protect Americans’ health, safety, economic security, and identity integrity.” While “identity integrity” is relatively tightly confined to issues surrounding identity theft and the unlawful use of personal data and information, “health,” “safety,” and “economic security” are huge and vaguely defined realms of jurisdiction.

Under the Branch’s enforcement focus or interpretation of its law enforcement mandate, it has the power to prosecute fraud and misconduct in the fields of:

  • Pharmaceuticals and medical devices

  • Food and dietary supplements

  • Consumer fraud, including elder fraud and other scams

  • Deceptive trade practices

  • Telemarketing

  • Data privacy

  • Veterans fraud

  • Consumer product safety and tampering

  • Tobacco products

Business owners and executives are often surprised to learn that the Consumer Protection Branch has so many oversight powers. But the Consumer Protection Branch’s wide reach is not limited to the laws that it can invoke and enforce; it also has a wide geographical reach, as well. In order to carry out its objective, the Branch brings both criminal and affirmative civil enforcement cases throughout the country. In one recent case, the Consumer Protection Branch prosecuted a drug manufacturer for violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) after the drug maker hid and destroyed records before an inspection by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The drug manufacturer, however, was an Indian company that sold several cancer drugs in the U.S. The plant inspection took place in West Bengal, India.

The Branch Has Lots of Laws at Its Disposal

The extremely broad reach of the Consumer Protection Branch comes with a significant implication: There are numerous laws that the Branch can invoke as it regulates and investigates businesses. Many of these are substantive laws that prohibit certain types of conduct, like:

Others, however, are procedural laws, which prohibit using certain means to carry out a crime, like:

  • Mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), which is the crime of using the mail system to commit fraud

  • Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), which is the crime of using wire, radio, or television communication devices to commit fraud, including the internet

This can mean that many defendants get hit with multiple criminal charges for the same line of conduct, drastically increasing the severity of a criminal case. For example, in one case, a group of pharmacists fraudulently billed insurers for over $900 million in medications that they knew were not issued under a valid doctor-patient relationship. They were charged with misbranding medication and healthcare fraud, in addition to numerous counts of mail fraud for shipping that medication through the mail.

The Branch Has the Power to Pursue Civil and Criminal Sanctions

Lots of business owners and executives are also unaware of the fact that the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch has the power to pursue both civil and criminal cases if the law being enforced allows for it.

This has serious consequences for companies, and not just because the Branch can imprison individuals for putting consumers at risk: It also complicates the strategy for defending against enforcement action.

A good example of how this works in real life is a healthcare fraud allegation that is pursued by the Consumer Protection Branch under the False Claims Act, or FCA, because the alleged fraud implicated money from a government healthcare program, like Medicare or Medicaid. For it to be the crime of healthcare fraud, the Consumer Protection Branch would have to prove that there was an intent to defraud the program. If there is no intent, though, the Branch can still pursue civil penalties.

This complicates the defense strategy because keeping prosecutors from establishing your intent is not the end of the case. It just takes prison time off the table. While this is a big step in protecting your rights and interests, it still leaves you and your company open to civil liability. That liability can be quite substantial, as many anti-fraud laws – including the FCA – impose civil penalties on each violation and impose treble damages, or three times the amount fraudulently obtained.

As Dr. Nick Oberheiden, a consumer protection defense lawyer at the national law firm Oberheiden P.C., explains, “While relying on a lack of intent defense can work with other criminal offenses, it is a poor choice when fighting against allegations of fraud because it tacitly admits to the fraudulent actions. Enforcement agencies like the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch can then easily impose civil liability against your company.”

The Branch Works in Tandem With Other Agencies

The Consumer Protection Branch only has about 200 prosecutors, support professionals, embedded law enforcement agents, and investigators. However, between October 2020 and December 2021, the Branch charged at least 96 individuals and corporations with criminal offenses and another 112 with civil enforcement actions, collecting $6.38 billion in judgments and resolutions.

The Branch can do this in large part because it works closely with other federal law enforcement agencies, like the:

By pooling their resources with other agencies like these, the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch can bring more weight to its enforcement action against your company.

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

For more consumer protection legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022