A square peg into a round hole.

That's how Clifford Chance partner Christopher Morvillo in his closing argument described the government's efforts to convict his client—a British citizen working in Paris for French multinational Alstom—of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by allegedly approving the payment of bribes to officials in Indonesia.

But sometimes, you can still make the peg fit—you just have to jam it in.

In a way, that's what happened on Friday, when a federal jury in Connecticut found 69-year-old Lawrence Hoskins guilty of violating the FCPA, as well as money laundering.

The verdict in the closely-watched case sent shivers through the defense bar. "In this case, the conduct at issue took place in 2002, Mr. Hoskins was indicted in 2013, and found guilty in 2019," noted Audrey Ingram, a partner at Richards Kibbe & Orbe. "This case will be a cautionary tale used in every corporate anti-corruption training about the broad scope of U.S. enforcement."

What went wrong for the defense?

Trial transcripts give a sense of how the argument unfolded. While Morvillo vigorously argued that his client was technically beyond the reach of the FCPA, Justice Department prosecutors spun a tale of corruption that jurors may have found more emotionally compelling. 

Consider how DOJ prosecutor Daniel Kahn kicked off his closing.

"The defendant chose to walk down a path of corruption and cover up. He chose to join a criminal conspiracy to pay bribes and launder money," Kahn said. "The defendant made the choice to commit crimes over and over and over again."

And the thing is, it does seem clear that bribes were paid in connection with Alstom's Tarahan Project—a $118 million contract to provide power-related services to the citizens of Indonesia. In 2014, Alstom pleaded guilty to FCPA violations and agreed to pay $772 million in fines. 

But could Hoskins be held personally responsible for some of the wrongdoing? Could a British citizen even be guilty of violating the FCPA if he never set foot in the United States or worked directly for Alstom's Connecticut-based U.S. subsidiary, Alstom Power Inc., or API?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in an interlocutory appeal last year held that prosecutors had to prove that Hoskins was an agent of a domestic concern to make FCPA charges stick. 

As Morvillo told the jury, "Unless the government can prove that Mr. Hoskins was in fact acting as an agent of API, every single one of their FCPA charges fails. Every single one of them, gone. Counts One through Seven, out the door."

The FCPA doesn't define agent, but here's how U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arteron instructed the jury.

"An agent is a person who agrees to perform acts or services for another person or company," she said. "To create an agency relationship, there must be, one, a manifestation by the principal that the agent will act for it; two, acceptance by the agent of the undertaking; and, three, an understanding between the agent and the principal that the principal will be in control of the undertaking."

She continued, "One may be an agent for some business purposes and not others. Here the government must prove that the defendant was an agent of a domestic concern in connection with the specific events related to the Tarahan Project."

So was Hoskins an agent of API?

Kahn said yes. "What were the things that the defendant was actually doing for API? He was helping with sales efforts. He was helping identify consultants. He was helping to vet and hire consultants. He was helping to negotiate the terms of payments," Kahn said. "And so who controlled that undertaking, ladies and gentlemen? That was API."

But Morvillo countered that it wasn't so simple.

"Don't be distracted by arguments that are about other functions that Mr. Hoskins played in the effort to get the Tarahan deal. Mr. Hoskins' alleged role in the alleged crime is the hiring of agents to pay bribes, and that is what he needed to be an agent for API for the purposes of this case," Morvillo said.

He offered a real-world example. "I have two incredible daughters, 18 and 22 years old. I support them in many different ways. Does that mean that I'm under their control and I have to do what they say? Of course not. Just please don't tell them."

Here, Hoskins hired the two consultants who allegedly paid the bribes in Indonesia. In this matter, Morvillo argued, he was the boss.

"He is the one who had control and authority to approve the commercial terms of those engagements," Morvillo said. "That is what his job was … to oversee the hiring of consultants. Oversight. Does that sound like an agent as the court has defined it for you? Does that sound like someone who is under the control of the people who want to hire the agents or is it the other way around?… API does not control Mr. Hoskins in this role. They have to defer to him."

While this may be legally sound, it's not what you'd call a feel-good argument. Hoskins should be acquitted because he was in charge of hiring the alleged bribe payers?

After a day of deliberation, the jury sided with the government. 

In a statement, Morvillo said, "To say we are disappointed by the jury's verdict is a massive understatement. Lawrence Hoskins is innocent of these charges, which relate to conduct by a British citizen that occurred more than 15 years ago entirely outside the U.S. We will continue to work tirelessly towards clearing Lawrence's good name and allowing him to return to England to retire in peace."