Big Sting: January Sting Sets FCPA Precedent
DOJ ups the ante on FCPA probes, netting 22 executives.
February 28, 2010 at 07:00 PM
14 minute read
Online Exclusive: White-collar defense lawyers left with fewer options in new era of FCPA enforcement.
A stunning January sting operation has set an entirely new precedent for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement. Using tactics reminiscent of drug busts and mob crackdowns, FBI agents arrested 21 executives at the opening of a gun-industry trade show in Las Vegas. One more was simultaneously arrested in Miami.
The sting was the culmination of a two-and-a-half-year investigation and the result of extensive interagency–and even international–collaboration. It's also the single largest FCPA prosecution of individuals in DOJ history.
As the executives were taken into custody to face a total of 16 federal indictments, 150 FBI agents executed 14 search warrants across the country.
“What you see here is a very aggressive law enforcement action,” says Joshua Berman, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman. “Most FCPA investigations have longer build-ups, hundreds of thousands of pages of subpoenaed documents. Here, no one saw this coming. You have a cooperating witness recording conversations, you had searches executed–it was a classic takedown.”
Weapons and Tactics
Just as dramatic as the bust itself is the story that preceded it. Through a well-connected cooperating witness–widely thought to be an industry executive who was caught and flipped–disguised investigators met with the targets, presenting a fictitious business opportunity.
FBI agents posing as the emissaries of an African defense minister offered a plum $15 million contract to outfit the unspecified nation's presidential guard with weapons and other light military equipment. They also let it be known he wanted a bribe in the form of a 20 percent commission. The targets were asked to prepare two sets of invoices–one with the true cost and one that included the “commission”–and to engage in smaller test deals.
According to Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, this is the first time the government has used such large-scale undercover tactics in FCPA enforcement, but it won't be the last. “From now on, would-be FCPA violators should stop and ponder whether the person they are trying to bribe might really be a federal agent,” he stated in an announcement of the arrests.
Undercover operations are enormously expensive, both in terms of money and personnel. The massive outlay required for such a large sting, experts say, shows just how serious the feds are about cracking down on FCPA crimes.
“[Breuer] has intimated that they're going to be more aggressive and use more sophisticated means,” says Pat Brady, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg. “He said they're going to focus on individuals. True to his word, they did. There are supposedly 140 open FCPA investigations, so there's a whole new universe of leaders of corporate entities that might be in the crosshairs.”
The amped-up tactics may also owe to the background, experience and hardball inclination of the current generation of prosecutors, led by DOJ Fraud Section Deputy Chief Mark Mendelsohn.
“A lot of the guys who do FCPA stuff, including Mendelsohn and some of his deputies, have done either drug stuff or Mafia stuff in the past,” says John Davis, chair of the international department at Miller & Chevalier. “It's not surprising that they're putting their heads together and saying, 'Hmmm, that worked there, let's try it here.'”
Smaller Targets
Another new wrinkle of the case is the fact that most of the target companies are smaller operations without extensive international experience–a far cry from the FCPA mega-cases against Siemens and Halliburton. The message to companies is clear: $800 million settlement agreements are not what drive prosecutions.
Other than a senior sales executive for Smith & Wesson, the executives caught in the sting work for companies that are not household names. These are smaller businesses that usually supply small arms and protective gear such as bulletproof vests to local police forces, not massive military contractors.
The sting is evidence that no business is off the radar for FCPA crimes, and may indicate the current direction of the enforcement spotlight.
“As is true in a lot of these cases, they're looking at an industry,” Davis says. “This has been one of the trends the last couple of years. They've looked at the oil field industry, they've done blanket-type investigations in the pharmaceutical industry. Now they're looking at the [small arms] industry.”
The investigation required active cooperation of many domestic and foreign agencies. In addition to the sting in Vegas, they executed search warrants in Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Virginia, as well as in London.
“Back when I was at [the Department of] Justice, there wasn't that much cooperation–even between the SEC and the DOJ, let alone the fraud office or any other enforcement agencies,” Brady says. “Now it's all global cooperation and information sharing.”
Natural Progression
It will take years to see whether undercover tactics prove effective in sending defendants to jail. The set-up, which calls to mind the classic ABSCAM sting, will undoubtedly raise questions of entrapment and other defenses normally seen in mob and drug trials. But the bust is clearly a game changer in the area, and no one expects it to be a one-off prosecution.
“This is just a natural progression in FCPA enforcement,” Brady says. “You start out with self-disclosure. Now investigators put resources into it, and it becomes a priority. Other countries make it a priority, and you get big hits like Siemens and Halliburton. It gets a lot of press, and it goes from flavor of the day to being around for a long, long time.”
The increase in FCPA enforcement over the past decade received a lot of publicity, giving companies fair warning to ramp up compliance efforts. Yet egregious behavior persists. The violations in the Vegas case were not marginal, gray-area questions of interpretation, but blatant, substantial bribes. So the message for in-house counsel is clear: The gloves are off.
“Counsel have heard all the compliance stuff before, but the wake-up call to me on this one is that the regulators, law enforcement and justice department are prepared to use whatever means available to investigate and prosecute FCPA,” Brady says. “The era of self-disclosure is coming to an end. To me, this changes a whole lot.”
Online Exclusive: White-collar defense lawyers left with fewer options in new era of FCPA enforcement.
A stunning January sting operation has set an entirely new precedent for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement. Using tactics reminiscent of drug busts and mob crackdowns, FBI agents arrested 21 executives at the opening of a gun-industry trade show in Las Vegas. One more was simultaneously arrested in Miami.
The sting was the culmination of a two-and-a-half-year investigation and the result of extensive interagency–and even international–collaboration. It's also the single largest FCPA prosecution of individuals in DOJ history.
As the executives were taken into custody to face a total of 16 federal indictments, 150 FBI agents executed 14 search warrants across the country.
“What you see here is a very aggressive law enforcement action,” says Joshua Berman, a partner at
Weapons and Tactics
Just as dramatic as the bust itself is the story that preceded it. Through a well-connected cooperating witness–widely thought to be an industry executive who was caught and flipped–disguised investigators met with the targets, presenting a fictitious business opportunity.
FBI agents posing as the emissaries of an African defense minister offered a plum $15 million contract to outfit the unspecified nation's presidential guard with weapons and other light military equipment. They also let it be known he wanted a bribe in the form of a 20 percent commission. The targets were asked to prepare two sets of invoices–one with the true cost and one that included the “commission”–and to engage in smaller test deals.
According to Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, this is the first time the government has used such large-scale undercover tactics in FCPA enforcement, but it won't be the last. “From now on, would-be FCPA violators should stop and ponder whether the person they are trying to bribe might really be a federal agent,” he stated in an announcement of the arrests.
Undercover operations are enormously expensive, both in terms of money and personnel. The massive outlay required for such a large sting, experts say, shows just how serious the feds are about cracking down on FCPA crimes.
“[Breuer] has intimated that they're going to be more aggressive and use more sophisticated means,” says Pat Brady, a partner at
The amped-up tactics may also owe to the background, experience and hardball inclination of the current generation of prosecutors, led by DOJ Fraud Section Deputy Chief Mark Mendelsohn.
“A lot of the guys who do FCPA stuff, including Mendelsohn and some of his deputies, have done either drug stuff or Mafia stuff in the past,” says John Davis, chair of the international department at
Smaller Targets
Another new wrinkle of the case is the fact that most of the target companies are smaller operations without extensive international experience–a far cry from the FCPA mega-cases against Siemens and Halliburton. The message to companies is clear: $800 million settlement agreements are not what drive prosecutions.
Other than a senior sales executive for Smith & Wesson, the executives caught in the sting work for companies that are not household names. These are smaller businesses that usually supply small arms and protective gear such as bulletproof vests to local police forces, not massive military contractors.
The sting is evidence that no business is off the radar for FCPA crimes, and may indicate the current direction of the enforcement spotlight.
“As is true in a lot of these cases, they're looking at an industry,” Davis says. “This has been one of the trends the last couple of years. They've looked at the oil field industry, they've done blanket-type investigations in the pharmaceutical industry. Now they're looking at the [small arms] industry.”
The investigation required active cooperation of many domestic and foreign agencies. In addition to the sting in Vegas, they executed search warrants in Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and
“Back when I was at [the Department of] Justice, there wasn't that much cooperation–even between the SEC and the DOJ, let alone the fraud office or any other enforcement agencies,” Brady says. “Now it's all global cooperation and information sharing.”
Natural Progression
It will take years to see whether undercover tactics prove effective in sending defendants to jail. The set-up, which calls to mind the classic ABSCAM sting, will undoubtedly raise questions of entrapment and other defenses normally seen in mob and drug trials. But the bust is clearly a game changer in the area, and no one expects it to be a one-off prosecution.
“This is just a natural progression in FCPA enforcement,” Brady says. “You start out with self-disclosure. Now investigators put resources into it, and it becomes a priority. Other countries make it a priority, and you get big hits like Siemens and Halliburton. It gets a lot of press, and it goes from flavor of the day to being around for a long, long time.”
The increase in FCPA enforcement over the past decade received a lot of publicity, giving companies fair warning to ramp up compliance efforts. Yet egregious behavior persists. The violations in the Vegas case were not marginal, gray-area questions of interpretation, but blatant, substantial bribes. So the message for in-house counsel is clear: The gloves are off.
“Counsel have heard all the compliance stuff before, but the wake-up call to me on this one is that the regulators, law enforcement and justice department are prepared to use whatever means available to investigate and prosecute FCPA,” Brady says. “The era of self-disclosure is coming to an end. To me, this changes a whole lot.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
AT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
How Gen AI Is Changing Legal Work for In-House Counsel
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250