HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022609.jpg

107 55 See International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-366, 112 Stat. 3302 (1998); 15 US.C. § 78dd-3(a); see also US. Dept. OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL RESOURCE MANUAL § 9-1018 (Nov. 2000) (the Department “interprets [Section 78dd-3(a)] as conferring jurisdiction whenever a foreign company or national causes an act to be done within the territory of the United States by any person acting as that company’s or national’ agent.”). This interpretation is consistent with US. treaty obligations. See S. REP. No. 105-2177 (1998) (expressing Congress’ intention that the 1998 amendments to the FCPA “conform it to the requirements ofandto implement the OECD Convyention.”); Anti-Bribery Convention at art. 4.1, supra note 19 (“Each Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the bribery ofa foreign public official when the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory.”). 5615 US.C.§ 78dd-3 (a); see, CL Criminal Information, United States v. Alcatel-Lucent France, S.A., et al., No. 10-cr-20906 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Uvited States v. Alcatel-Lucent France| (subsidiary of French publicly traded company convicted of conspiracy to violate FCPA), available at http ://www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fcpa/ cases/alcatel-lucent-sa-etal/12-27- 10alcatel-et-al-info.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia SAO, No. 10-cr-64 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2010), ECF No. 1 (subsidiary of German publicly traded company convicted of violating FCPA), available at http ://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/daimler/03-22- 10daimlerrussia-info.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Siemens S.A. (Argentina), No. 08-cr-368 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2008), ECF No. 1 (subsidiary of German publicly traded company convicted of violating FCPA), available at http ://www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fcpa/ cases/ siemens/ 12- 12-08siemensargen-info. pdf. *” See 15 US.C. §§ 78dd-2(h)(5) (defining “interstate commerce”), 78dd- 3(£)(5) (same); see also 15 U.S.C. §78c(a)(17). 3815 US.C. §§ 78dd-2(h)(5), 78dd-3(£)(5). 59 See 15 US.C. § 78dd-3. 6 Criminal Information, United States v. JGC Corp., No. 11-cr-260 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2011), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. JGC Corp. |, available at http ://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/ jgc-corp/04-6- 1 ljge-corp-info.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Snamprogetti Netherlands BV., No. 10-cr-460 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 7, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. Snamprogetti|, available at http ://wwwjustice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/snamprogetti/07-07- 10snamprogetti-info.pdf. $1 See 15 US.C. §§ 78dd-1(g) (“irrespective of whether such issuer or such officer, director, employee, agent, or stockholder makes use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in furtherance of such offer, gift, payment, promise, or authorization”), 78dd-2(i) (1) Cirrespective of whether such United States person makes use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in furtherance of such offer, gift, payment, promise, or authorization”). &§, Rep. No. 105-277 at 2 (“[T ]he OECD Convention calls on parties to assert nationality jurisdiction when consistent with national legal and constitutional principles. Accordingly, the Act amends the FCPA to provide for jurisdiction over the acts of US. businesses and nationals in furtherance of unlawful payments that take place wholly outside the United States, This exercise of jurisdiction over U.S. businesses and nationals for unlawful conduct abroad is consistent with US. legal and constitutional principles and is essential to protect USS. interests abroad.”). % Td, at 2-3. 15 US.C. §§ 78dd-1(a), 78dd-2(a), 78dd-3 (a). % See H.R. Rep. No. 95-831, at 12 (referring to “business purpose” test). 66 See, Cs Complaint, SEC v. Siemens AG, supra note 48; Criminal Information, United States v. Siemens AG, supra note 48, S7Ty amending the FCPA in 1988, Congress made clear that the business purpose element, and specifically the “retaining business” prong, was meant to be interpreted broadly: The Conferees wish to make clear that the reference to corrupt payments for “retaining business” in present law is not limited to the renewal of contracts or other business, but also includes a prohibition against corrupt payments related to the execution or performance of contracts or the carrying out of existing business, such as a payment toa foreign official for the purpose of obtaining more favorable tax treatment. The term should not, however, be construed so broadly as to include lobbying or other normal representations to government officials. H.R. Rep. No. 100-576, at 1951-52 (internal citations omitted). 8 See, £5 Complaint, SEC v. Panalpina, Inc., No. 10-cv-4334 (S.D. Tex. Noy. 4, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. Panalpina, Inc.|, available at http ://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/20 10/comp2 1727.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Panalpina, Inc., No. 10-cr- 765 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. Panalpina, Inc. |, available at http ://wwwjustice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fepa/ cases/ panalpina-inc/ 11-04- 10panalpina-info. pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., No. 10-cr-769 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2010), ECF No. 1, available at http ://www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fcpa/ cases/ panalpina- world/11-04- 10panalpina-world-info.pdf; see also Press Release, U.S. Sec. and Exchange Comm., SEC Charges Seven Oil Services and Freight Forwarding Companies for Widespread Bribery of Customs Officials (Nov. 4, 2010) (“The SEC alleges that the companies bribed customs officials in more than 10 countries in exchange for such perks as avoiding applicable customs duties on imported goods, expediting the importation of goods and equipment, extending drilling contracts, and lowering tax assessments. ), available at http ://www.sec.gov/ news/press/2010/2010-2 14.htm; Press Release, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Oil Services Companies anda Freight Forwarding Company Agree to Resolve Foreign Bribery Investigations and to Pay More Than $156 Million in Criminal Penalties (Nov. 4, 2010) (logistics provider and its subsidiary engaged in scheme to pay thousands of bribes totaling at least $27 million to numerous foreign officials on behalf of customers in oil and gas industry “to circumvent local rules and regulations relating to the import of goods and materials into numerous foreign jurisdictions”), available at http ://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/20 10/November/10- crm-1251.html. © United States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738, 755-56 (Sth Cir. 2004). ” Id. at 749. Indeed, the Kay court found that Congress’ explicit exclusion of facilitation payments from the scope of the FCPA was evidence that “Congress intended for the FCPA to prohibit ad/ other illicit payments that are intended to influence non-trivial official foreign action in an effort to aid in obtaining or retaining business for some person.” Jd. at 749-50 (emphasis added). 1 Td. at 750. ” Id, at 749-55. 3 Td. at 756 (“Te still must be shown that the bribery was intended to produce an effect—here, through tax savings—that would ‘assist in obtaining or retaining business.”). 7 The FCPA does not explicitly define “corruptly, but in drafting the statute Congress adopted the meaning ascribed to the same term in the domestic bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b). See H.R. Rep. No. 95-640, at 7. The House Report states in full: The word “corruptly” is used in order to make clear that the offer, payment, promise, or gift, must be intended to induce the recipient to misuse his official position; for example, wrongfully to direct business to the payor or his client, to obtain preferential legislation or regulations, or to induce a foreign official to fail to perform an official function. The word “corruptly” connotes an evil motive or purpose such as that required under 18 US.C. 201(b) which prohibits domestic bribery. As in 18 US.C. 201(b), the word “corruptly” indicates an intent or desire wrongfully to influence the recipient. It does not require that the act [be] fully consummated or succeed in producing the desired outcome. Id. The Senate Report provides a nearly identical explanation of the meaning of the term: The word “corruptly” is used in order to make clear that the offer, payment, promise, or gift, must be intended to induce the recipient to misuse his official position in order to wrongfully direct business to the payor or his client, or to obtain HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022609