No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

A Tale of Two Corruption Investigations

Alstom and Goodyear

by Amanda Knapp
August 11, 2015
in Compliance
A Tale of Two Corruption Investigations

In May, the head of the Criminal Division for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, advised companies to study the facts and circumstances underlying other companies’ guilty pleas, deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements – using the official pleas and other government documents made publicly available online – as a tool to measure their own compliance and assess their potential criminal or regulatory exposure.[1]

You may initially conclude, dear reader, that the suggested reading materials will be dull and unlikely to excite the imagination. Never fear! This author is an avid reader who has put www.justice.gov and www.sec.gov on her summer reading list, and is now happy to share with you and other readers the fascinating Tale of Two Corruption Investigations, along with thoughts on lessons to be learned from the foibles and victories of our fellows.

“Is Resistance Futile?” – Lessons Learned From the Alstom Investigation

Our first tale, dear reader, is the woeful story of French power and transportation company Alstom S.A.  A sense of foreboding settles upon our audience as we travel back to October 2014, when AAG Caldwell offered the following remarks:

“Although the department welcomes and encourages corporate cooperation, we do not rely upon it. We conduct our own robust investigations – often alongside that of the company – to build our own criminal cases and to pressure-test corporate claims of cooperation.”[2]

Only one short month later, Caldwell truly set the stage for Alstom’s sad tale when she publicly touted the DOJ’s momentum in collaborating with other international law enforcement and regulatory authorities in “the battle against transnational bribery,” explaining:

“Increasingly, we and our counterparts share information about bribery schemes. We report schemes to one another. And, where appropriate, we discuss strategy and coordinate our use of investigative techniques, so that we can obtain the best possible results, especially in very high-impact cases.”[3]

Her rapt audience did not have to wonder long about the circumstances that would warrant such cooperation. Caldwell went on to describe a recent collaboration where “countries across the globe” worked together to prosecute a scheme to bribe government officials in Indonesia. Caldwell told of the discovery of years of corrupt activities in Indonesia, the United States, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, France and the United Kingdom, and a coalition of global law enforcement partners who “were able to share vital information and evidence,” in addition to “access individuals located overseas.”

Who were the actors in this tale of corruption? By that time, the DOJ had charged four executives of Alstom and its subsidiaries, as well as Japanese trading company Marubeni Corporation (which pleaded guilty and paid an $88 million fine). In concluding her remarks, Caldwell declared:

“Together, these coordinated global actions sent a powerful message – countries all over the world are now engaged in the fight against foreign bribery, and together we can and will hold to account individuals and companies who engage in corruption, regardless of where they operate or reside.”

Following these remarks, Alstom itself did not have to wait long for the tempest to set in. On Dec. 22, 2014, the DOJ announced that Alstom had pleaded guilty to a widespread bribery scheme involving tens of millions of dollars of bribes paid in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Bahamas and Taiwan and that the company had agreed to pay an astounding $772.29 million criminal fine,[4]  the second-highest fine ever recovered by the DOJ in an FCPA case.

Dear reader, you may find your spirit dampened as you contemplate the enormity of the sanctions imposed on Alstom and wonder how it could have found itself in such an unenviable and infamous position. Thanks to our fine reading materials, the answer to these questions is at our fingertips.  The factors are outlined in the DOJ press release and plea agreement:

  • Breadth of corruption: The sophisticated scheme spanned years, occurred in multiple countries and business lines and targeted bribes to high-level government officials.
  • Prior misconduct: Alstom had engaged in prior criminal misconduct, including conduct that led to resolutions with various other governments and the World Bank.
  • Lack of an effective compliance and ethics program: Alstom lacked an effective compliance and ethics program and was even held up by Caldwell as a real-life example of how “[t]he lack or insufficiency of a compliance program can have real consequences for a company when a violation of law is discovered.”[5]
  • Failure to report: Alstom failed to voluntarily disclose, despite knowledge of related misconduct at a subsidiary that previously resolved corruption charges with the DOJ.
  • Refusal to cooperate: Alstom refused to fully cooperate with the investigation for years, only offering full cooperation after several executives were publicly charged by the DOJ.

Although valuable lessons may be derived from these factors, Alstom’s tale is truly distinguished by the final factor. Not only did Alstom fail to voluntarily report its representatives’ actions, it actively refused to assist with the investigation for years after the DOJ came knocking. While this refusal put the onus on the DOJ to develop its own case against Alstom’s representatives, it denied Alstom the opportunity to seek credit for cooperation when it finally faced the music.

While the DOJ is no alien menace from science fiction, boldly declaring that “resistance is futile,”[6] any company confronted with evidence of its own corrupt activity must be very careful in evaluating whether to cooperate or “resist.” Given what we have learned from Alstom, it would be unwise to assume that any incriminating evidence is likely to stay hidden from the growing number of international watchdogs.  As Caldwell stated in the Alstom press release:

“[W]e will not wait for companies to act responsibly. With cooperation or without it, the department will identify criminal activity at corporations and investigate the conduct ourselves, using all of our resources, employing every law enforcement tool and considering all possible actions, including charges against both corporations and individuals.”[7]

“An Offer You Can’t Refuse?” – Lessons Learned From the Goodyear Investigation

Our next tale offers a pleasant contrast to the first. Although our protagonist, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, discovered apparent corrupt activities implicating its own employees, it faced these dire circumstances with resolve and emerged as an example of how a company may successfully navigate the minefield of an FCPA violation.

To set the stage, we will travel again to October 2014, when AAG Caldwell offered remarks acknowledging that most companies now understand the benefits of internal investigations and voluntarily disclosure, but noted that companies often fail to understand the importance of “willingness to cooperate in the investigation of [their] agents.” She explained:

“Corporations do not act, but for the actions of individuals. In all but a few cases, an individual or group of individuals is responsible for the corporation’s criminal conduct. The prosecution of culpable individuals – including corporate executives – for their criminal wrongdoing continues to be a high priority for the department.

For a company to receive full cooperation credit following a self-report, it must root out the misconduct and identify the individuals responsible, even if they are senior executives.”[8]

In further explanation, Caldwell noted that companies are not expected to become surrogate FBI agents or engage in surreptitious monitoring activities. Instead, they are expected to provide the government with pertinent facts, even when those facts suggest that company executives violated a criminal law. As she subsequently explained:

“To receive cooperation credit, a company must do more than comply with subpoenas or other compulsory process. Companies must provide a full accounting of the known facts about the conduct or events under review and affirmatively must identify responsible individuals (and provide evidence supporting their culpability), including corporate executives and officers – and they must do so in a timely way.”[9]

As you consider these expectations, dear reader, we advance our tale to February 24, 2015, when the SEC issued a press release revealing that it had charged Goodyear with violating the FCPA based on its subsidiaries’ payment of more than $3.2 million in bribes in Kenya and Angola. Although you may be tempted to imagine the sky darkening with foreboding, you should imagine instead a swelling of uplifting music as it is revealed Goodyear settled these serious charges by agreeing to certain remedial actions, monitoring, disgorgement of illicit profits and prejudgment interest – without any criminal charges or punitive fines.[10]

As the SEC explained in its Order, these terms were applied because Goodyear promptly halted improper payments once it learned of the bribes, reported to the SEC, produced pertinent documents and information, divested its interests in the participating company and subsidiary and – notably – “undertook disciplinary action against certain employees, including executives … who had oversight responsibility, for failing to ensure adequate FCPA compliance training and controls were in place at the company’s subsidiaries…”[11]

What we learn from the Goodyear investigation is the value of quick, decisive, dispassionate action in the face of the first signs of corrupt activity – even when that action may expose employees and executives to scrutiny, discipline or worse. While the potential benefits of cooperation according to the government’s terms may not quite qualify as “an offer you can’t refuse,”[12] they certainly warrant every wise company’s strong and serious consideration.

[1] http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-leslie-r-caldwell-delivers-remarks-compliance-week-conference (“Caldwell Remarks, May 2015”).

[2] http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/remarks-assistant-attorney-general-criminal-division-leslie-r-caldwell-22nd-annual-ethics (“Caldwell Remarks, Oct. 2014”).

[3] http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-leslie-r-caldwell-speaks-american-conference-institute-s-31st (“Caldwell Remarks, Nov. 2014”).

[4] http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alstom-pleads-guilty-and-agrees-pay-772-million-criminal-penalty-resolve-foreign-bribery (“Alstom Press Release”).

[5] Caldwell Remarks, May 2015.

[6] Star Trek – First Contact (1996), http://www.moviequoter.com/actor/jeff-coopwood/.

[7] Alstom Press Release.

[8] Caldwell Remarks, Oct. 2014.

[9] Caldwell Remarks, May 2015.

[10] http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-38.html

[11] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-74356.pdf

[12] The Godfather (1972), http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/quotes.


Previous Post

Social Media Week Part II – Sharing in the Compliance Function

Next Post

A Boost in FCPA Declinations? Why FCPA Enforcement Has Fallen This Year

Amanda Knapp

Amanda Knapp

Amanda Knapp new headshot (sorry, Ling) 12-2-14Amanda M. Knapp is an Associate at Roetzel & Andress, where she focuses her practice on business and commercial litigation, white collar government enforcement, and corporate compliance. She practices routinely before state and federal courts, representing businesses and individuals in antitrust and other class-action litigation, intellectual property litigation, environmental cleanup actions, constitutional and statutory challenges, contract and tort disputes, and other complex matters. She also routinely represents and advises clients in both government and internal investigations relating to white collar matters, and advises businesses in the establishment and improvement of effective corporate compliance programs. Ms. Knapp earned her law degree from Harvard Law School and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania. She can be reached at aknapp@ralaw.com or 216-615-7416.

Related Posts

Fox_DOJ Speeches_f

Analysis of Recent DOJ Statements

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 23, 2023

DOJ leaders provide insight into agency's plans. Analysis of Recent Statements DOJ Shaping the Future of Corporate Criminal Enforcement What’s...

Fox_2023 ECCP Update_f

2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 23, 2023

Keeping up with 2023 changes to DOJ guidelines. Additions, Deletions & Changes From 2020 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs...

encompass update

Encompass Launches pKYC Maturity Model

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 22, 2023

KYC automation platform Encompass has unveiled a new perpetual Know Your Customer (pKYC) maturity model designed to help banks improve...

consilio onna partnership

Consilio, Onna Seek to Streamline eDiscovery for Cloud Apps

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 22, 2023

Legal technology provider Consilio has launched a new platform, Sightline Collect, powered by data management supplier Onna. The platform is...

Next Post
A Boost in FCPA Declinations? Why FCPA Enforcement Has Fallen This Year

A Boost in FCPA Declinations? Why FCPA Enforcement Has Fallen This Year

Compliance Job Interview Q&A

Jump to a Topic

AML Anti-Bribery Anti-Corruption Artificial Intelligence (AI) Automation Banking Board of Directors Board Risk Oversight Business Continuity Planning California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Code of Conduct Communications Management Corporate Culture COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Culture of Ethics Cybercrime Cyber Risk Data Analytics Data Breach Data Governance DOJ Download Due Diligence Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) ESG FCPA Enforcement Actions Financial Crime Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) GDPR HIPAA Know Your Customer (KYC) Machine Learning Monitoring RegTech Reputation Risk Risk Assessment SEC Social Media Risk Supply Chain Technology Third Party Risk Management Tone at the Top Training Whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT