HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022610.jpg

preferential legislation ora favorable regulation. The word “corruptly” connotes an evil motive or purpose, an intent to wrongfully influence the recipient. S.Rep. No. 95-114, at 10. % See 15 US.C. §§ 78dd-1 (a), 78dd-2(a), 78dd-3 (a). 7 See, 6.8.5 Complaint, SEC v. Monsanto Co., No. 05-cv-14 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2005) (among other things, the company paid a $50,000 bribe to influence an Indonesian official to repeal an unfavorable law, which was not repealed despite the bribe), available at http://www.sec.gov/ litigation/ complaints/ comp19023. pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Monsanto Co., No. 05-cr-8 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2005), available at http ://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/monsanto-co/0 1-06- O5monsanto-info.pdf. Jury instructions in FCPA cases have defined “corruptly” consistent with the definition found in the legislative history. See, e.g, Jury Instructions at 22-23, United States v. Esquenazi, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 10, United States v. Green, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 35, United States v. Jefferson, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 25, United States v. Bourke, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 17, United States v. Kay, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 5, United States v. Mead, supra note 44, 79 See Complaint, SEC vy. Innospec, Inc., No. 10-cv-448 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC »v. Innospecl, available at http:// www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/20 10/comp2 1454.pdf; Criminal Information at 8, United States v. Innospec Inc., No. 10-cr-61 (D.D.C. Mar. 17,2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. Innospecl, available at http ://www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fcpa/ cases/innospec- inc/03-17- 10innospec-info.pdf. 80 See Complaint, SEC v. Innospec, supra note 79; Criminal Information, United States v. Innospec, supra note 79. 81 See 15 US.C. §§ 78dd-1(c)(2)(A), 78dd-2(g)(2)(A), and 78dd-3 (3) (2) © Compare 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(c)(1)(A) (corporate criminal liability under issuer provision) with § 78 ff{c)(2)(A) (individual criminal liability under issuer provision); compare 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(g)(1)(A) (corporate criminal liability under domestic concern provision) with § 78dd-2(g) (2)(A) (individual criminal liability under issuer provision); compare 15 US.C. § 78dd-3(e)(1)(A) (corporate criminal liability for territorial provision) with § 78dd-3(e)(2)(A) (individual criminal liability for territorial provision). However, companies still must act corruptly. See Section 30A(a), 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a); 15 US.C. §§ 78dd-2(a), 78dd-3(a). 83 United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432, 448 (Sth Cir. 2007); see also Jury Instructions at 38, United States v. Esquenazi, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 10, United States v. Green, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 35, United States v. Jefferson, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 25, United States v. Bourke, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 5, United States v. Mead, supra note 44. Bryan v. United States, 524 US. 184, 191-92 (1998) (construing “willfully” in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)) (quoting Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 US. 135, 137 (1994)); see also Kay, 513 E3d at 446- 51 (discussing Bryav and term “willfully” under the FCPA). ® Kay, 513 E3d at 447-48; Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt Int'l BV. v. Schreiber, 327 F.3d 173, 181 (2d Cir. 2003). 6'The phrase “anything of value” is not defined in the FCPA, but the identical phrase under the domestic bribery statute has been broadly construed to include both tangible and intangible benefits. See, 85 United States v. Moore, 525 F.3d 1033, 1048 (11th Cir. 2008) (rejecting defendant’s objection to instruction defining sex asa “thing of value? which “unambiguously covers intangible considerations”); United States v. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299, 1304-05 (6th Cir. 1986) (holding that loans and promises of future employment are “things of value”); United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603, 622-23 (2d Cir. 1983) (approving jury instruction that stock could be a “thing of value” if defendant believed it had value, even though the shares had no commercial value, and noting that “[t]he phrase ‘anything of value’ in bribery and related statutes has consistently been given a broad meaning”). 87 Section 30A(a), 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(a), 78dd- 3(a) (emphasis added). 88 Like the FCPA, the domestic bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, prohibits Endnotes giving, offering, or promising “anything of value.” Numerous domestic bribery cases under Section 201 have involved “small” dollar bribes. See, 6.85 United States v. Franco, 632 F.3d 880, 882-84 (Sth Cir. 2011) (affirming bribery convictions of inmate for paying correctional officer $325 to obtain cell phone, food, and marijuana, and noting that 18 US.C. § 201 does not contain minimum monetary threshold); United States v. Williams, 216 F.3d 1099, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (affirming bribery conviction for $70 bribe to vehicle inspector); United States v. Traitz, 871 F2d 368, 396 (3rd Cir 1989) (affirming bribery conviction for $100 bribe paid to official of Occupational Health and Safety Administration); United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 822 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming bribery convictions including $100 bribe to immigration official); United States v. Bishton, 463 F.2d 887, 889 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (affirming bribery conviction for $100 bribe to division chief of District of Columbia Sewer Operations Division). 89 Complaint, SEC v. Daimler AG, supra note 48; Criminal Information, United States v. Daimler AG, supra note 48. 2» Complaint, SEC v. Halliburton Company and KBR, Inc., No. 09-cv- 399 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2009), ECF No 1 [hereinafter SEC v. Halliburton and KBR], available at http ://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/ comp20897. pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, No. 09-cr-71, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2009) [hereinafter United States v. KBR], available at hetp:/ /www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fepa/ cases/, kellogeb /02-06-09kbr-info. pdf. al Complaint, SEC v. Halliburton and KBR, supra note 90; Criminal Information, United States v. KBR, supra note 90. ” See, 0.85 Complaint, SEC v. RAE Sys. Inc., No. 10-cy-2093 (D.D.c. Dec. 10, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. RAE Sys., Inc.| (fur coat, among other extravagant gifts), available at hetp:/ /www.sec.gov/ litigation/ complaints/ 2010/comp21770 pdf; Non-Pros. Agreement, In re RAE Sys. Inc. (Dec. 10, 2010) [hereinafter J re RAE Sys. Inc. (same), available at http ://www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fepa/ cases/ rae-systems/12-10-1 Orae-systems.pdf; Complaint, SEC v. Daimler AG, supra note 48 (armored Mercedes Benz worth €300,000); Criminal Information, United States v. Daimler AG, supra note 48 (same). 3 See Complaint, SEC v. ABB Ltd, No. 04-cv-1141 (D.D.C. July 6, 2004), ECF No. 1, available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/ complaints/ comp 18775.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. ABB Vetco Gray Inc., et al., No. 04-cr-279 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2004), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. ABB Vetco Gray], available at http ://wwwjustice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/abb/06-22- O4abbvetco-info.pdf. ms Complaint, SEC vy. UTStarcom, Inc. No. 09-cv-6094 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2009), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. UTStarcom), available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/comp2 1357.pdf; Non- Pros. Agreement, In re UTStarcom Inc. (Dec. 31, 2009) [hereinafter Jy re UTStarcom], available at http: //www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fepa/ cases/utstarcom-inc/ 12-3 1-09utstarcom-agree.pdf. 5 Complaint, SEC v. UTStarcom, supra note 94; Non-Pros. Agreement, Inve UTStarcom, supra note 94, %6 Complaint, SEC v. UTStarcom, supra note 94; Non-Pros. Agreement, Inve UTStarcom, supra note 94, mt Complaint, SEC v. Lucent Technologies Inc., No. 07-cv-2301 (D.D.c. Dec. 21, 2007), ECF No.1 [hereinafter SEC v. Lucent), available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2007/comp20414.pdf; Non- Pros. Agreement, In re Lucent Technologies (Noy. 14, 2007) [hereinafter Inve Lucent], available at http ://www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fcpa/ cases/lucent-tech/11- 14-07lucent-agree.pdf. 28 Complaint, SEC v. Lucent, supra note 97; Non-Pros. Agreement, J re Lucent, supra note 97. » The company consented to the entry ofa final judgment permanently 108 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022610