Can payments made directly to a government be a bribe?
Recently the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published an Opinion Release concerning the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This release, numbered 20-01, was the first such release since 2014.
The entity requesting the release (Requestor) wanted to buy some assets held by a foreign investment bank which was indirectly owned by a foreign government. It asked a different foreign subsidiary of the same investment bank to help. That separate subsidiary did indeed help and asked for compensation for the work that they did. The payment was to be made directly to that subsidiary and not to any individual.
On first blush this seems straightforward under the FCPA and almost any other national anti-bribery law. First, the payment was being made directly to a government instrumentality and not to an individual. Secondly, it was a payment for services that were legitimately rendered and commercially reasonable.
However, the Opinion Release goes further. It refers, amongst other things, to the certification provided by the Chief Compliance Officer of the subsidiary that the payment made will be deposited into the subsidiary's bank account and will only be used for the benefit of that company and will not be forwarded to any other entity.
The Opinion Release noted in this regard that "there is no indication that Requestor intends or believes the money will be diverted to any individual, and there is no indication that the money will, in fact, be diverted to any individual". Why has the DOJ referred to the absence of such indicia when the received wisdom is that such a payment would not fall foul of the FCPA.
What it may mean is that the DOJ will start to look at the knowledge of a party as to how payments made directly to a government will be used. Perhaps this is the first sign of a growing willingness across the Atlantic to look beyond the veneer of transactions to see whether individuals behind the government stand to benefit personally. Is the DOJ communicating its position on this in advance of taking actions? If so, will this policy change start to seep across the world and usher in further work for companies doing business directly with foreign government and government agencies? Do companies need to start seeking certification from governments that payments made to them or to others on their behalf will not be used to pay individuals?
Adding claimants pre-service and amending outside the limitation period: pitfalls for the unwary
Sonia looks at a recent High Court judgment and its important guidance on the ability of claimants to be added to a claim before service
Damages-based agreements: an island of clarity in changing seas
Simon, Joe and Lauren look at a recent judgment which is a welcome island of clarity in the damages-based agreement sea of uncertainty.
Rhys Novak quoted by Citywealth on the ways companies can combat potential issues of fraud
Is fraud on the rise and should investors be wary?
Bribery & Corruption team successfully act in Italian bribery prosecution
Warranties on an indemnity basis: a question of damages
John and Simon take an in-depth look at warranties on an indemnity basis
Disclosure and documents referenced in expert reports: a level playing field?
Sonia looks at the impact of the recent High Court decision in Zverev v Ace Group International Ltd
First international corruption trial held in Geneva
Bruno looks at the recent milestone for Geneva prosecutors
UK agrees to "Surrender" (and other changes to investigations and enforcement options post Brexit)
Embiricos - (partial) closure of route to early resolution of domicile enquiries
Companies failing to prevent economic crime? Is a new dawn coming?
Durra Al Ali
“Subject to contract” wording in settlement negotiations: a label that sticks
Durra looks at the term “subject to contract” and how it was put to the test in Joanne Properties Ltd v Moneything Capital Ltd and another.
Investigations: Bribery & Corruption
This episode looks at issues relating to bribery that can occur in business.
Beckwith v SDT: Private v Professional?
FCA reminds firms that the fight against market abuse continues during lockdown – can you demonstrate that your policies are fit for purpose in a home working environment?
The fight against market abuse continues during lockdown – can you demonstrate that your policies are fit for purpose?
Unexplained Wealth Orders: Playing the Trump card
Privilege and Fraud – when can the iniquity exception override legal professional privilege?
Jason and Heidi look at when the can iniquity exception override legal professional privilege
Safeguarding search orders and the role of public interest: lessons to be learned from recent case law
Caroline looks at lessons to be learned from the recent decision in Calor Gas Ltd v Chorley Bottle Gas Ltd and others
Unexplained Wealth Orders - £10million seized from "cleanskin"
FCA's first criminal case of destroying evidence unsuccessful - but don't count the FCA down and out...
Is the FCA reluctant to probe money laundering?
Rhys looks at the FCA's decision to discontinue 50% of its criminal investigations into money laundering rule breaches