Recent guilty plea in US demonstrates ongoing commitment to corruption prosecutions

On May 19 2011 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Jorge Granados, former chief executive officer (CEO) of Miami-based telecommunications company Latin Node Inc (LatiNode), pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. On December 21 2010 the DOJ obtained a 19-count indictment against Granados and other LatiNode senior executives for their roles in a conspiracy to pay over $500,000 in bribes to Honduran government officials to retain a lucrative telecommunications contract. Granados's plea represents the latest example of the US government's ongoing and aggressive commitment to prosecute high-level business executives for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations.

Background

In December 2005 LatiNode was awarded a contract with Empresa Hondurena de Telecomunicaciones (Hondutel), the wholly state-owned telecommunications authority in Honduras. Almost immediately after winning the contract, LatiNode executives learned that LatiNode would need to bribe Hondutel employees in order to keep them from rescinding the contract. The indictment alleged that Granados and other LatiNode executives agreed to a secret deal to pay bribes to Hondutel officials, including the general manager, a Hondutel senior attorney and a minister of the Honduran government who became a representative on the Hondutel board of directors(1). The indictment also alleged that Granados actively participated in making concealed payments by laundering money through LatiNode subsidiaries in Guatemala and to accounts in Honduras controlled by government officials(2). On April 7 2009 LatiNode pleaded guilty to a one-count criminal violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (3). As part of the plea agreement, LatiNode agreed to pay a $2 million fine and cooperate with any further investigations by law enforcement agencies(4).

Three other former LatiNode senior executives – Manuel Salvoch, chief financial officer (CFO), Juan Pablo Vasquez, chief commercial officer, and Manuel Caceres, vice president for business development – have already pleaded guilty to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations this year for their involvement in the Hondutel bribery scheme. Granados is scheduled for sentencing on August 22 2011 and faces up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 or more(5).

Comment

Granados's plea agreement reflects the DOJ's aggressive stance on holding high-level business executives accountable for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations. During a Senate committee hearing last November, Senator Arlen Specter had expressed concern regarding the lack of significant prosecutions of individuals who are responsible for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, notwithstanding the penalties against companies and shareholders for such violations(6).

Recent cases suggest that, in fact, high-level business executives are being held accountable for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations. For example, on January 24 2011 the former CEO and CFO of Innospec Inc, Paul W Jennings, agreed to settle the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission for approving improper payments to Iraqi and Indonesian government officials(7). On May 10 2011 a federal jury in California found Lindsey Manufacturing Co president, Keith Lindsey, its CFO, Steve Lee, and an intermediary guilty on all counts in a criminal prosecution for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations(8). As Assistant Attorney General Lanny A Breuer of the Criminal Division of the DOJ remarked about the Granados case: "[f]oreign bribery undermines competition in the marketplace, and weakens democratic institutions. CEOs and other corporate executives should know that now, more than ever, violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act will lead to criminal prosecution"(9).

For further information on this topic please contact Richard Craig Smith, John Kelly, Fatema Merchant orRabeha Kamaluddin at Fulbright & Jaworski LLP by telephone (+1 202 662 0200), fax (+1 202 662 4643) or email (rcsmith@fulbright.com, jkelly@fulbright.com, fmerchant@fulbright.com,rkamaluddin@fulbright.com)

Endnotes

(1) Criminal Indictment, United States v Latin Node Inc, Case 10-20881, available athttp://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/granados-jorge/12-21-10granados-indict.pdf

(2) Id at 22-23

(3) In early 2007, Florida-based eLandia International Inc (eLandia) acquired LatiNode. Following the acquisition, eLandia discovered the bribes and self-disclosed the violations to the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission.

(4) Criminal Plea Agreement, United States v Latin Node Inc, Case 09-20239, available athttp://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/litton-applied/04-03-09latinnode-plea-agree.pdf

(5) Specifically, Granados faces a fine of the greater of $250,000, or twice the gross amount of any pecuniary gain or loss that any person derived or sustained from the offence. See Criminal Plea Agreement, 10-CR-20881 (SD Fla May 19 2011)

(6) See "Granados and Caceres Indictments Latest in FCPA Individual Prosecutions," Fulbright & Jaworski LLP Briefing, December 22 2010

(7) See Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release, "SEC Charges Former CEO of Innospec for Role in Bribery Scheme", available at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-21.htm

(8) United States v Noriega et al, 2:10-CR-01031 (CD Cal May 10 2011)

(9) DOJ Press Release, "Former CEO of US Telecommunications Company Pleads Guilty to Foreign Bribery Conspiracy" (May 19 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/May/11-crm-644.html

Contributed by Fulbright & Jaworski LLP

Jury convicts first corporate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act defendant

Comment by Fulbright & Jaworski LLP

On May 10 2011 Lindsey Manufacturing Company, two of its executives and a Mexican intermediary were convicted by a federal jury on all counts for their alleged respective roles in a bribery scheme involving Mexican government officials. After a five-week trial, the jury took just one day to return the guilty verdicts. Executives Keith E Lindsey and Steve K Lee were each convicted of one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and five counts of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations. Angela Aguilar, the Mexican intermediary, was convicted of one count of money laundering conspiracy.

Facts

Lindsey Manufacturing hired Grupo Internacional de Asesores SA to act as its Mexican sales representative and to obtain contracts for Lindsey from Mexico's state-owned utility company, Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE). Grupo received a percentage of Lindsey Manufacturing's revenue from CFE contracts. Aguilar and her husband, Enrique Aguilar,(1) were directors of Grupo.

At trial, the Department of Justice presented evidence that from approximately February 2002 until March 2009, Lindsey Manufacturing and Lindsey, Lee and others orchestrated a bribery scheme whereby Mr Aguilar was paid a 30% commission on Lindsey Manufacturing's sales to CFE, a significantly higher commission than that given to previous Lindsey Manufacturing sales representatives. According to the department's evidence, Lindsey and Lee understood that all or part of this commission amount would be used to bribe CFE officials in exchange for contract awards. According to the evidence presented at trial, Lindsey Manufacturing then increased the price of the goods and services sold to CFE by 30% to ensure that CFE, rather than Lindsey Manufacturing, absorbed the cost of the bribes.

The Department of Justice also presented evidence that:

• Grupo submitted fraudulent invoices to Lindsey Manufacturing for the commission amount;
• Lindsey and Lee then wired the money requested into Grupo's account, knowing that the invoices were fraudulent and that at least some of the funds were being used as bribes;
• Lindsey and Lee learned that Mr Aguilar had a corrupt relationship with a top CFE official;
• Mrs Aguilar authorised money in the Grupo account to be used to buy a CFE official a $297,500 Ferrari Spyder and a $1.8 million yacht, in addition to paying more than $170,000 worth of the official's credit card bills; and
• Mrs Aguilar also authorised the transfer of $500,000 from Grupo's account to relatives of another CFE official.

Comment

The convicted defendants face a penalty of up to five years in prison and a fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the value gained or lost on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act conspiracy charge. Each of the five Foreign Corrupt Practices Act counts carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and a fine of the greater of $100,000 or twice the value gained or lost. The money laundering conspiracy count carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison and a fine of the greater of $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction. In addition, the government is seeking forfeiture against all of the defendants. Sentencing for Lindsey Manufacturing and Lindsey and Lee is scheduled for September 16 2011, while sentencing for Mrs Aguilar is scheduled for August 12 2011.

Before trial, the defendants challenged the Department of Justice's definition of 'foreign official' under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; however, the court upheld the department's definition, finding that CFE was an "instrumentality" of the Mexican government.(2) Therefore, the CFE officer who allegedly accepted the bribes was a "foreign official" for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act purposes.

In its press release regarding the convictions, the Department of Justice quoted Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer as saying:

"Lindsey Manufacturing is the first company to be tried and convicted on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, but it will not be the last... As this prosecution shows, we are fiercely committed to bringing to justice all the players in these bribery schemes – the executives who conceive of the criminal plans, the people they use to pay the bribes, and the companies that knowingly allow these schemes to flourish."(3)

Several points from the verdicts are noteworthy:

• The Department of Justice will continue to pursue Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement aggressively against companies and individuals – and currently plans to do so under a broad definition of 'foreign official'.(4)
• Coupled with the department's aggressive pursuit of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement, the speed with which the jury convicted the defendants is also noteworthy.
• Although historically there have been relatively few enforcement actions leading to trial, this case confirms that the department can prevail at trial against both companies and individuals.
• Multiple theories of potential liability will be pursued by the enforcement authorities in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions; here, violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and conspiracy to money launder were theories on which the government prevailed.
• The department acknowledged in its press release the assistance that it received from the Mexican authorities during the investigation, marking another continuing enforcement trend of increased international enforcement cooperation.

Given the continuing upswing in aggressive enforcement, companies subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act must ensure that they and their employees, agents, consultants or other third-party representatives take steps to comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.(5) Those steps include:

• assessing the company's international business reach and environment and establishing a robust risk-based compliance programme;
• conducting due diligence on third parties and subsidiaries;
• training company personnel and third parties to understand anti-corruption obligations and identify red flags; and
• ensuring transparency and accuracy when recording financial transactions.

As US Attorney André Birotte remarked in connection with the convictions, the Department of Justice:

"remains committed to prosecuting violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to ensure that the payment of bribes can no longer be viewed simply as the cost of doing business in a foreign nation. Bribery, wherever it occurs, will carry the potential cost of criminal prosecution, hefty fines and prison terms."(6)

For further information on this topic please contact Marsha Z Gerber, Richard Craig Smith or Paul Simonat Fulbright & Jaworski LLP by telephone (+1 202 662 0200), fax (+1 202 662 4643) or email (mgerber@fulbright.com, rcsmith@fulbright.com or psimon@fulbright.com).

Endnotes

(1) Mr Aguilar has also been charged with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and money laundering. Mr Aguilar remains a fugitive and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

(2) For an analysis of the court's ruling on the definition of 'foreign official' please see "California court retains government's broad interpretation of 'foreign official'".

(3) Department of Justice press release, May 10 2011, "California Company, Its Two Executives and Intermediary Convicted by Federal Jury in Los Angeles on All Counts for Their Involvement in Scheme to Bribe Officials at State-Owned Electrical Utility in Mexico," available atwww.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/May/11-crm-596.html

(4) The definition of 'foreign official' under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has also been challenged in two other current cases – see US v O'Shea (No 4:09-cr-00629 (SD Tex)) and US v Carson (No 8:09-cr-00077 (CD Ca)). Those courts have yet to rule on the pending motions.

(5) Companies with operations providing a nexus to the United Kingdom must equally ensure compliance with the UK Bribery Act of 2010, which will come into force on July 1 2011.

(6) Supra note 3.

US courts interpret "Foreign Official" to include employees of State-Owned Enterprises

Below there is a case note prepared by the US law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski on the landmark Lindsey Manufacturing decision in interpreting bribery of foreign officials legislation in the US (the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act -FCPA 1977).  However, it's importance will be instructive in other jurisdictions which have also passed counterpart legislation eg the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act 1999 and the UK Bribery Act 2010.  These legislative frameworks emanate principally from the obligations of member states under the OECD Anti Bribery Convention 1997. The OECD Anti Bribery Convention is the first global anti-corruption convention attempting to deal with supply side (cross border) bribery.  Signed by 30 OECD countries in December 1997 this convention entered into force in February 1999 and there are now 38 signatories.  The Convention permits countries to move in a co-ordinated manner to adopt national legislation making it a crime to bribe foreign public officials.  It provides a broad definition of bribery, requiring countries to impose dissuasive sanctions and committing them to providing mutual legal assistance.  Though the US FCPA pre dates the Convention, the provisions were incorporated under the Act in 1998.  In the US the FCPA complements other legislation in this area such as the USA Sarbanes Oxley Act which also requires firms to operate effective systems of control and come clean about instances of fraud. For the Risk Management and Compliance functions of financial firms there is no getting away from these pieces of legislation indeed compliance with one assists the other. 

California court retains government's broad interpretation of 'foreign official'

Contributed by Fulbright & Jaworski LLP

April 18 2011

On April 1 2011 US District Judge Howard Matz issued an opinion from the bench in one of three pending cases challenging the US Department of Justice's broad interpretation of the term 'foreign official' under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The court in US v Enrique(1) (the case has informally been referred to as Lindsey Manufacturing in reference to one of the three defendants) is the first of the three to rule on this seminal issue. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that employees of state-owned enterprises are foreign officials for purposes of the act. The precise issue before the court was whether officials of Mexico's state-owned utility company, Mexican Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), were foreign officials under the act.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act defines a 'foreign official' as:

"any officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or of a public international organization, or any person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of any such government or department, agency, or instrumentality, or for or on behalf of any such public international organization."(2)

However, the act does not define 'department', 'agency' or 'instrumentality'. The Department of Justice and other US enforcement authorities have utilised this apparent lack of clarity to construe liberally the statutory definition and apply it to interactions with employees of commercial state-owned or controlled enterprises. The Department of Justice's interpretation has previously been challenged by defendants in two other recent cases.(3) However, in both cases the court dismissed the defences' challenges with either no substantive analysis of the issue or very little useful analysis. Lindsey Manufacturing marks the first time that the issue appears to have been squarely addressed by the court.

The defendants in Lindsey Manufacturing, as well as the defendants in two other pending cases - one in another California federal district court and the other in the Southern District of Texas(4) - challenged the Department of Justice's broad interpretation of 'foreign official' in pre-trial motions to dismiss. The motions were extensively briefed in all three cases, but Lindsey Manufacturing is the first to be decided. The most elaborately briefed motion is still before the court in the Carson case pending in the Southern District of California. All three motions were filed within the last three months.

The Lindsey Manufacturing defendants argued that:

• the plain meaning of the term 'instrumentality' excludes state-owned enterprises;
• the legislative history of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act indicates that Congress did not intend to include employees of state-owned enterprises as foreign officials; and
• if employees of state-owned enterprises are foreign officials, then the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

The defendants in Carson and O'Shea have made similar arguments.

Reliable media sources reported that Matz stated in his oral ruling from the bench that the defendants' attempt to argue for a more limited definition of the term was "improper, unfounded and incorrect".(5) The judge is expected to issue a written order confirming his oral ruling.

Following the hearing, Lindsey Manufacturing's defence counsel conveyed that the judge's decision was based on the nature of CFE and the "essential governmental function" that CFE performs.(6) Defence counsel further stated that the essential governmental function "appeared to be more important to his ruling than the legislative history" of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and that "it was clear [the judge] felt [CFE] functioned as an agency or department of the Mexican government", and "relied heavily" on the Mexican Constitution and Mexican law.(7)

The Lindsey Manufacturing ruling is significant as it represents a victory for the Department of Justice that - at least for the time being - will likely strengthen and embolden the government's efforts to bring enforcement actions against companies and individuals based on its expansive interpretation of the term 'foreign official'. Additionally, while the extent to which the ruling will affect the Carson and O'Shea courts' decisions is uncertain, the decision will likely be weighed as both courts consider whether to narrow the current government view of who is a 'foreign official' for purposes of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement under the respective facts of each of those cases.

The next two decisions will be highly anticipated. Certainty regarding who will be considered a foreign official under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and thus who should be considered a potential recipient of an improper payment under the act, is critical as companies determine how best to formulate an effective compliance programme in the current enforcement environment. Definitive rulings from the three courts in the pending cases will impact on enforcement and corporate compliance initiatives alike.

For further information on this topic please contact Richard Craig Smith, Marsha Z Gerber, Mary Beth Balhoff or Kimberly Sullivan Walker at Fulbright & Jaworski LLP by telephone (+1 202 662 0200), fax (+1 202 662 4643) or email (rcsmith@fulbright.com, mgerber@fulbright.com, mbalhoff@fulbright.com orkwalker@fulbright.com).

Endnotes

(1) No 2:10-cr-01031-AHM (CD Ca).

(2) 15 USC §§ 78dd-1(f)(1)(A), 78dd-2(h)(2)(A), 78dd-3(f)(2)(A).

(3) See US v Nguyen, No 2:08-CR-522 (ED Pa); US v Esquenazi, 1:09-cr-21010 (SD Fla).

(4) See US v Carson, No 08:09-00077-JVS (SD Ca); US v O'Shea, No 4:09-cr-00629 (SD Tex).

(5) See Steven Mikulan and Aruna Viswanatha, "Judge Upholds DOJ Definition of 'Foreign Official'", Main Justice: Just Anti-Corruption (April 1 2011).

(6) Id.

(7) Id.