Litigation: Anti-corruption acts and the global economy
The FCPA continues to garner significant attention because of the severe penalties, sparse legal guidance and expansive interpretation of the Act
September 19, 2013 at 05:00 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In our expanding global economy, companies increasingly conduct business internationally. As a result, in-house counsel must be more aware than ever of anti-corruption laws both in the U.S. and abroad.
In the United States, the key anti-corruption statute is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Only moderately enforced until the 2000s, FCPA “enforcement actions” have generally increased through 2010 with a slight leveling off in 2011 and 2012. Nonetheless, the statute continues to garner significant attention because of the severe penalties, sparse legal guidance and expansive interpretation of the Act.
FCPA basics
The FCPA has two main sections dividing anti-bribery and accounting or “books and records” provisions. The anti-bribery provisions prohibit parties from paying or offering to pay anything of value to a foreign official to influence that official to do anything that helps the offerer obtain or retain business. The books and records provisions require companies to accurately maintain certain record keeping and internal accounting information so they fairly reflect the actual transactions and disposition of assets. The anti-bribery section is generally enforced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against domestic companies or individuals and foreign persons who violate the FCPA in the United States. By contrast, the books-and-records section is primarily enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
For the anti-bribery provisions, the FCPA applies to “issuers” (and their officers, directors, employees, agents and shareholders); domestic concerns (and their officers, directors, employees, agents and shareholders); and certain other persons or entities that act while within the United States. For the accounting provisions, the Act covers only “issuers”–companies that are registered with the SEC or are required to file periodic reports under the Exchange Act–though individuals and other entities can be liable for aiding and abetting violation of the accounting provisions. Notably, while the accounting provisions cover a narrower class, they apply regardless of whether the business operates internationally or has engaged in an illegal transaction.
Despite straightforward definitions, applying the anti-bribery provisions in practice is difficult. In November 2012, the DOJ and SEC issued a helpful resource guide that has provided further guidance, including hypotheticals, that further clarifies the scope of FCPA liability. For example, among the situations that appear not to violate the FCPA: A company that provides promotional items to foreign officials at a trade show or pays for a moderate bar tab; a moderately-priced wedding gift for a manager of a government-owned concern with which a company has a contract; and reasonable travel expenses and entertainment at a company's training facility. In each case, the permissible conduct is distinguished from examples of exorbitant gifts or expenses inconsistent with the claimed purpose.
The accounting provisions, while more straightforward, also pose potential landmines. To comply, companies must keep records sufficiently detailed to accurately and fairly describe transactions. There is no materiality standard, which means even minor transactions and dissipation of small amounts of assets are subject to the requirement. In addition, companies must maintain internal accounting controls to assure transactions are executed and recorded in accordance with management's authorization.
Other anti-corruption acts
While the FCPA is well-known, U.S. companies doing business abroad must be aware that they are potentially subject to other countries' local laws and customs, including their anti-bribery laws. Two of the most notable for U.S. concerns are:
- The U.K. Bribery Act: Adopted in 2010, the UK Bribery Act replaced existing common law and modernized longstanding statutes on anti-bribery in the United Kingdom. In general, it creates four types of bribery offenses (making bribes, accepting bribes, bribing a foreign official and vicarious corporate liability for bribes made on their behalf). The Act is broader in than the FCPA in that (1) it applies to all bribes, including purely commercial bribes, not just those to government officials, (2) it applies to the person accepting the bribe as well as the offerer; and (3) there are no exceptions for “facilitation” payments.
- Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA): The CFPOA more closely mirrors the FCPA, particularly after recent amendments that strengthened and expanded its reach. In 2013, amendments to the CFPOA formally authorized jurisdiction based on Canadian nationality (regardless of the connection of the conduct to Canada), broadened the definition of subject “businesses” and added a books and records provision, among other changes. 2013 has further proven to be a signal year in Canadian enforcement with a largest fine levied against a company and, in August, the first ever conviction of an individual under the Act.
Regardless of the countries in which they do business, companies must be vigilant when conducting business abroad to ensure their compliance standards–and their employees' and agents' conduct–meet the requirements of the growing web of anti-bribery law.
In our expanding global economy, companies increasingly conduct business internationally. As a result, in-house counsel must be more aware than ever of anti-corruption laws both in the U.S. and abroad.
In the United States, the key anti-corruption statute is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Only moderately enforced until the 2000s, FCPA “enforcement actions” have generally increased through 2010 with a slight leveling off in 2011 and 2012. Nonetheless, the statute continues to garner significant attention because of the severe penalties, sparse legal guidance and expansive interpretation of the Act.
FCPA basics
The FCPA has two main sections dividing anti-bribery and accounting or “books and records” provisions. The anti-bribery provisions prohibit parties from paying or offering to pay anything of value to a foreign official to influence that official to do anything that helps the offerer obtain or retain business. The books and records provisions require companies to accurately maintain certain record keeping and internal accounting information so they fairly reflect the actual transactions and disposition of assets. The anti-bribery section is generally enforced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against domestic companies or individuals and foreign persons who violate the FCPA in the United States. By contrast, the books-and-records section is primarily enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
For the anti-bribery provisions, the FCPA applies to “issuers” (and their officers, directors, employees, agents and shareholders); domestic concerns (and their officers, directors, employees, agents and shareholders); and certain other persons or entities that act while within the United States. For the accounting provisions, the Act covers only “issuers”–companies that are registered with the SEC or are required to file periodic reports under the Exchange Act–though individuals and other entities can be liable for aiding and abetting violation of the accounting provisions. Notably, while the accounting provisions cover a narrower class, they apply regardless of whether the business operates internationally or has engaged in an illegal transaction.
Despite straightforward definitions, applying the anti-bribery provisions in practice is difficult. In November 2012, the DOJ and SEC issued a helpful resource guide that has provided further guidance, including hypotheticals, that further clarifies the scope of FCPA liability. For example, among the situations that appear not to violate the FCPA: A company that provides promotional items to foreign officials at a trade show or pays for a moderate bar tab; a moderately-priced wedding gift for a manager of a government-owned concern with which a company has a contract; and reasonable travel expenses and entertainment at a company's training facility. In each case, the permissible conduct is distinguished from examples of exorbitant gifts or expenses inconsistent with the claimed purpose.
The accounting provisions, while more straightforward, also pose potential landmines. To comply, companies must keep records sufficiently detailed to accurately and fairly describe transactions. There is no materiality standard, which means even minor transactions and dissipation of small amounts of assets are subject to the requirement. In addition, companies must maintain internal accounting controls to assure transactions are executed and recorded in accordance with management's authorization.
Other anti-corruption acts
While the FCPA is well-known, U.S. companies doing business abroad must be aware that they are potentially subject to other countries' local laws and customs, including their anti-bribery laws. Two of the most notable for U.S. concerns are:
- The U.K. Bribery Act: Adopted in 2010, the UK Bribery Act replaced existing common law and modernized longstanding statutes on anti-bribery in the United Kingdom. In general, it creates four types of bribery offenses (making bribes, accepting bribes, bribing a foreign official and vicarious corporate liability for bribes made on their behalf). The Act is broader in than the FCPA in that (1) it applies to all bribes, including purely commercial bribes, not just those to government officials, (2) it applies to the person accepting the bribe as well as the offerer; and (3) there are no exceptions for “facilitation” payments.
- Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA): The CFPOA more closely mirrors the FCPA, particularly after recent amendments that strengthened and expanded its reach. In 2013, amendments to the CFPOA formally authorized jurisdiction based on Canadian nationality (regardless of the connection of the conduct to Canada), broadened the definition of subject “businesses” and added a books and records provision, among other changes. 2013 has further proven to be a signal year in Canadian enforcement with a largest fine levied against a company and, in August, the first ever conviction of an individual under the Act.
Regardless of the countries in which they do business, companies must be vigilant when conducting business abroad to ensure their compliance standards–and their employees' and agents' conduct–meet the requirements of the growing web of anti-bribery law.
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
© 2025 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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Is It Time for Large UK Law Firms to Begin Taking Private Equity Investment?
- 2Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Launch Defensive Measure
- 3Class Action Litigator Tapped to Lead Shook, Hardy & Bacon's Houston Office
- 4Arizona Supreme Court Presses Pause on KPMG's Bid to Deliver Legal Services
- 5Bill Would Consolidate Antitrust Enforcement Under DOJ
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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