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 FCPA

CFTC Updates Reporting and Cooperation Advisory for Foreign Corrupt Practices

Commission Outlines Benefits of Voluntary Disclosure and Remediation

by William Stellmach and Robert Meyer
April 25, 2019
in FCPA, Featured
speech icon on blue background

Willkie Farr’s William Stellmach, Robert Meyer and Sohair Aguirre discuss the latest guidance from the CFTC on self-reporting and cooperation, along with an overview of the Advisory, an analysis of similarities to and differences from other policies.

with co-author Sohair Aguirre

On March 6, 2019, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) Division of Enforcement (DOE or “Division”) issued a fourth Enforcement Advisory related to reporting and cooperation (“Advisory”). This Advisory is limited to violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) involving foreign corrupt practices.

Key Components of the Advisory

The purpose of the Advisory is to provide leniency to individuals or companies who self-report foreign corrupt practices to the Division. Specifically, the Advisory provides that if an individual or a company that is not registered (or required to be registered) with the CFTC: (1) timely and voluntarily discloses to the Division information related to violations of the CEA involving foreign corrupt practices and (2) such reporting is accompanied by full cooperation and appropriate remediation (as further explained in prior Division reporting and cooperation advisories), then the Division “will apply a presumption that it will recommend to the CFTC a resolution with no civil monetary penalty, absent aggravating circumstances involving the nature of the offender or the seriousness of the offense.”[1]

Examples of aggravating circumstances that would preclude the application of such presumption include:

  • involvement of senior management,
  • the pervasive nature of the misconduct within the company and
  • any history of similar misconduct.

While the presumption is not available to registrants (because registrants have existing and independent reporting obligations to report material noncompliance issues under the CEA), registrants who timely and voluntarily report, cooperate and remediate any CEA violations related to corrupt foreign practices may nevertheless benefit from a “substantial reduction” in recommended civil monetary penalties. 

Finally, the Advisory notes that even when the Division applies the presumption and recommends no civil monetary penalty, the Division may seek other appropriate monetary remedies such as disgorgement, forfeiture and/or restitution. Additionally, the Division may seek substantial civil monetary penalties from companies or individuals implicated by the reporting that were not involved in the voluntary disclosure.

Additional Guidance from Enforcement Director James McDonald

In a speech at the American Bar Association’s National Institute on White Collar Crime, DOE Director James McDonald provided examples of CEA violations involving foreign corrupt practices and also furnished additional guidance on how the Division anticipates applying the Advisory. Regarding examples of CEA violations, Director McDonald referenced the following corrupt practices:

  • Bribes employed in connection with CFTC-regulated activities such as trading, advising or dealing in swaps or related derivative contracts;
  • Corrupt practices used to manipulate benchmarks for related derivative contracts;
  • False reporting of prices based on corrupt practices; or
  • Other corrupt practices that might alter the prices of commodity markets that drive U.S. derivative prices. 

Director McDonald emphasized that the Division is currently investigating matters involving conduct similar to the examples summarized above. He also reassured the attendees, however, that in investigating these types of cases, the DOE “will not pile onto other existing investigations.”[2] In that regard, he emphasized both that in matters involving  parallel investigation, DOE will “work closely with [other relevant federal agencies]  to avoid duplicative investigative steps,” and, in cases involving the imposition of disgorgement or restitution, will give dollar-for-dollar credit for similar payments in other related actions.[3]

Similarities to Other Agencies’ Policies

Although various other government agencies have instituted similar initiatives aimed at incentivizing self-disclosure, the CFTC’s new policy most clearly mirrors the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) self-disclosure policy of the Department of Justice (DOJ).[4] Initially launched as a pilot program and then made permanent last year, DOJ’s policy likewise creates a presumption of leniency for self-disclosing parties, absent aggravating factors.[5] That presumption, again like the CFTC’s new policy, depends on the self-disclosing party’s full cooperation and remediation.  Notably, the DOJ policy spells out more precisely the potential discounts from any financial penalties based on whether parties meet those requirements and also the benefits for parties who fail to self-disclose but nevertheless cooperate and remediate.[6] 

At this stage, beyond providing the rough contours for the CFTC, it remains to be seen whether the CFTC will adopt other aspects of the DOJ policy, which includes a more granular description of the metrics by which cooperation and remediation are judged. And, as with any policy, the real impact will only be seen through the CFTC’s approach to enforcement, particularly in providing meaningful incentives to establish a track record of predictability for self-disclosure.

Although the Advisory mirrors the DOJ’s FCPA self-disclosure policy, it does not mirror the CFTC’s existing self-reporting and cooperation credit for all other violations of the CEA.[7] For example, if a market participant self-reports, cooperates and remediates any other violation of the CEA (not related to foreign corrupt practices), the Division will decline to take an enforcement action only under “extraordinary circumstances.” As alluded to in Director McDonald’s remarks, this difference in the CFTC cooperation advisories is likely because DOE recognizes that there are other, more relevant enforcers for foreign corrupt practices issues, but DOE intends to do its job as part of a “team effort” to combat foreign bribery.[8] 

Practical Implications of the Advisory

The CFTC’s new policy highlights the importance of careful consideration of self-disclosure issues under the FCPA. As a practical matter, the benefits of self-disclosure reflected in the CFTC Advisory will ordinarily not drive the decision whether or not to disclose a potential violation, given that criminal prosecution by the DOJ and/or civil enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission likely would carry more significant fines and penalties. Nevertheless, as the CFTC’s policy illustrates, a self-disclosing company may face many constituencies in the U.S. and abroad whose enforcement goals and priorities may or may not be complementary, and these must be considered at the outset in determining whether self-disclosure is in a company’s best interest.

Moreover, the CFTC’s new policy also clearly signals as a general matter increasing scrutiny of potential foreign corrupt practices by market participants. CFTC scrutiny will include an evaluation of any putative respondent’s foreign corrupt practices compliance program as part of any evaluation of potential aggravating circumstances in the event of a self-disclosure to or inquiry by the CFTC. An inadequate compliance program will be considered an aggravating factor, thus any market participant with operations outside the United States should evaluate its anticorruption compliance program now and bring it up to best practices standards.


[1] See Enforcement Advisory:  Advisory on Self Reporting and Cooperation for CEA Violations Involving Foreign Corrupt Practices (Mar. 6, 2019), available at https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/enfadvisoryselfreporting030619.pdf?utm_source=govdelivery.    

[2] See Remarks of CFTC Director of Enforcement James M. McDonald at the American Bar Association’s National Institute on White Collar Crime (March 6, 2019), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamcdonald2?utm_source=govdelivery. 

[3] Id. 

[4] The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has long had guidance in place to incentivize self-reporting and cooperation. The SEC’s program regards self-reporting as one of several factors in measuring a company’s cooperation, a model that informed the CFTC’s approach in its January 2017 cooperation advisories. Relatedly, in 1993, the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department implemented a “leniency” program which rewards self-disclosing parties with reduced penalties or even outright immunity from prosecution.

[5] An analysis of the DOJ’s Corporate FCPA Enforcement Policy can be found here. The policy itself is at https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/838416/download.

[6] DOJ FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, available at https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/838416/download. 

[7] A summary of the CFTC’s prior self-reporting and cooperation credit advisories is available here. 

[8] See Remarks of CFTC Director of Enforcement James M. McDonald at the American Bar Association’s National Institute on White Collar Crime (March 6, 2019), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamcdonald2?utm_source=govdelivery.

Willkie Farr’s William Stellmach, Robert Meyer and Sohair Aguirre discuss the latest guidance from the CFTC on self-reporting and cooperation, along with an overview of the Advisory, an analysis of similarities to and differences from other policies.

with co-author Sohair Aguirre

On March 6, 2019, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) Division of Enforcement (DOE or “Division”) issued a fourth Enforcement Advisory related to reporting and cooperation (“Advisory”). This Advisory is limited to violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) involving foreign corrupt practices.

Key Components of the Advisory

The purpose of the Advisory is to provide leniency to individuals or companies who self-report foreign corrupt practices to the Division. Specifically, the Advisory provides that if an individual or a company that is not registered (or required to be registered) with the CFTC: (1) timely and voluntarily discloses to the Division information related to violations of the CEA involving foreign corrupt practices and (2) such reporting is accompanied by full cooperation and appropriate remediation (as further explained in prior Division reporting and cooperation advisories), then the Division “will apply a presumption that it will recommend to the CFTC a resolution with no civil monetary penalty, absent aggravating circumstances involving the nature of the offender or the seriousness of the offense.”[1]

Examples of aggravating circumstances that would preclude the application of such presumption include:

  • involvement of senior management,
  • the pervasive nature of the misconduct within the company and
  • any history of similar misconduct.

While the presumption is not available to registrants (because registrants have existing and independent reporting obligations to report material noncompliance issues under the CEA), registrants who timely and voluntarily report, cooperate and remediate any CEA violations related to corrupt foreign practices may nevertheless benefit from a “substantial reduction” in recommended civil monetary penalties. 

Finally, the Advisory notes that even when the Division applies the presumption and recommends no civil monetary penalty, the Division may seek other appropriate monetary remedies such as disgorgement, forfeiture and/or restitution. Additionally, the Division may seek substantial civil monetary penalties from companies or individuals implicated by the reporting that were not involved in the voluntary disclosure.

Additional Guidance from Enforcement Director James McDonald

In a speech at the American Bar Association’s National Institute on White Collar Crime, DOE Director James McDonald provided examples of CEA violations involving foreign corrupt practices and also furnished additional guidance on how the Division anticipates applying the Advisory. Regarding examples of CEA violations, Director McDonald referenced the following corrupt practices:

  • Bribes employed in connection with CFTC-regulated activities such as trading, advising or dealing in swaps or related derivative contracts;
  • Corrupt practices used to manipulate benchmarks for related derivative contracts;
  • False reporting of prices based on corrupt practices; or
  • Other corrupt practices that might alter the prices of commodity markets that drive U.S. derivative prices. 

Director McDonald emphasized that the Division is currently investigating matters involving conduct similar to the examples summarized above. He also reassured the attendees, however, that in investigating these types of cases, the DOE “will not pile onto other existing investigations.”[2] In that regard, he emphasized both that in matters involving  parallel investigation, DOE will “work closely with [other relevant federal agencies]  to avoid duplicative investigative steps,” and, in cases involving the imposition of disgorgement or restitution, will give dollar-for-dollar credit for similar payments in other related actions.[3]

Similarities to Other Agencies’ Policies

Although various other government agencies have instituted similar initiatives aimed at incentivizing self-disclosure, the CFTC’s new policy most clearly mirrors the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) self-disclosure policy of the Department of Justice (DOJ).[4] Initially launched as a pilot program and then made permanent last year, DOJ’s policy likewise creates a presumption of leniency for self-disclosing parties, absent aggravating factors.[5] That presumption, again like the CFTC’s new policy, depends on the self-disclosing party’s full cooperation and remediation.  Notably, the DOJ policy spells out more precisely the potential discounts from any financial penalties based on whether parties meet those requirements and also the benefits for parties who fail to self-disclose but nevertheless cooperate and remediate.[6] 

At this stage, beyond providing the rough contours for the CFTC, it remains to be seen whether the CFTC will adopt other aspects of the DOJ policy, which includes a more granular description of the metrics by which cooperation and remediation are judged. And, as with any policy, the real impact will only be seen through the CFTC’s approach to enforcement, particularly in providing meaningful incentives to establish a track record of predictability for self-disclosure.

Although the Advisory mirrors the DOJ’s FCPA self-disclosure policy, it does not mirror the CFTC’s existing self-reporting and cooperation credit for all other violations of the CEA.[7] For example, if a market participant self-reports, cooperates and remediates any other violation of the CEA (not related to foreign corrupt practices), the Division will decline to take an enforcement action only under “extraordinary circumstances.” As alluded to in Director McDonald’s remarks, this difference in the CFTC cooperation advisories is likely because DOE recognizes that there are other, more relevant enforcers for foreign corrupt practices issues, but DOE intends to do its job as part of a “team effort” to combat foreign bribery.[8] 

Practical Implications of the Advisory

The CFTC’s new policy highlights the importance of careful consideration of self-disclosure issues under the FCPA. As a practical matter, the benefits of self-disclosure reflected in the CFTC Advisory will ordinarily not drive the decision whether or not to disclose a potential violation, given that criminal prosecution by the DOJ and/or civil enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission likely would carry more significant fines and penalties. Nevertheless, as the CFTC’s policy illustrates, a self-disclosing company may face many constituencies in the U.S. and abroad whose enforcement goals and priorities may or may not be complementary, and these must be considered at the outset in determining whether self-disclosure is in a company’s best interest.

Moreover, the CFTC’s new policy also clearly signals as a general matter increasing scrutiny of potential foreign corrupt practices by market participants. CFTC scrutiny will include an evaluation of any putative respondent’s foreign corrupt practices compliance program as part of any evaluation of potential aggravating circumstances in the event of a self-disclosure to or inquiry by the CFTC. An inadequate compliance program will be considered an aggravating factor, thus any market participant with operations outside the United States should evaluate its anticorruption compliance program now and bring it up to best practices standards.


[1] See Enforcement Advisory:  Advisory on Self Reporting and Cooperation for CEA Violations Involving Foreign Corrupt Practices (Mar. 6, 2019), available at https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/enfadvisoryselfreporting030619.pdf?utm_source=govdelivery.    

[2] See Remarks of CFTC Director of Enforcement James M. McDonald at the American Bar Association’s National Institute on White Collar Crime (March 6, 2019), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamcdonald2?utm_source=govdelivery. 

[3] Id. 

[4] The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has long had guidance in place to incentivize self-reporting and cooperation. The SEC’s program regards self-reporting as one of several factors in measuring a company’s cooperation, a model that informed the CFTC’s approach in its January 2017 cooperation advisories. Relatedly, in 1993, the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department implemented a “leniency” program which rewards self-disclosing parties with reduced penalties or even outright immunity from prosecution.

[5] An analysis of the DOJ’s Corporate FCPA Enforcement Policy can be found here. The policy itself is at https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/838416/download.

[6] DOJ FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, available at https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/838416/download. 

[7] A summary of the CFTC’s prior self-reporting and cooperation credit advisories is available here. 

[8] See Remarks of CFTC Director of Enforcement James M. McDonald at the American Bar Association’s National Institute on White Collar Crime (March 6, 2019), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamcdonald2?utm_source=govdelivery.


Tags: Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)DOJ pilot program
Previous Post

Despite Demand for More Diversity and Refreshment, Half of Russell 3000 Companies Report No Change in Board Composition

Next Post

U.S. Antiboycott Laws: They’re Not for Everyone (But They May Be for You)

William Stellmach and Robert Meyer

William Stellmach and Robert Meyer

William J. Stellmach is a Partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. A distinguished former federal prosecutor and regulator, Bill previously served as head of the Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and is now a partner in Willkie’s Litigation department and Co-Chair of the White Collar Defense Group. Drawing on a wide range of experience, he regularly represents financial institutions, domestic and multinational corporations, board committees and their officers, directors and other executives in high-stakes investigations and enforcement actions.
Robert J. Meyer is a Partner in the Litigation department at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and a member of the Compliance, Investigations & Enforcement Practice Group in Washington, D.C. He is nationally recognized for his experience conducting internal investigations and in government enforcement matters involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the False Claims Act, government ethics, accounting fraud, bribery, fraud and whistleblower allegations. As a former federal prosecutor with substantial trial experience, Bob is frequently called upon to defend criminal and civil enforcement matters involving all of these subject matter areas.
Sohair A. Aguirre is an Associate in the Washington office of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, where she focuses her practice on representing companies, financial institutions, clearing houses, swap dealers, futures commission merchants and trade associations in a variety of transactional, regulatory, compliance and litigation matters.
This article and others can also be accessed through Willkie Compliance Concourse, a free, on-demand web-based app providing access to practical guidance and the latest developments in regulatory compliance, investigations and enforcement, available at https://complianceconcourse.willkie.com. 

Related Posts

A phone displays the bitmex portal in front of a larger device.

A Laundry List of Compliance Failures Landed BitMEX a $100M Penalty from CFTC and FinCEN

by Spencer Schulten, Stuart Smith and Priya Suhag
September 16, 2021

In a recent assessment, CFTC and FinCEN found the virtual currency exchange BitMEX lacked a number of licenses and had...

Vitol logo broken in half

The Vitol Enforcement Action

by Corporate Compliance Insights
January 7, 2021

If there were ever a question about energy traders and FCPA risk, a recent FCPA enforcement action against Vitol answers...

wrecking ball breaking on red umbrella

How to Safeguard Your Firm from Regulatory Action

by Megan Prendergast Millard
October 29, 2020

A recent SEC settlement with Interactive Brokers underscores the need for true commitment to compliance. Guidepost Solutions’ Megan Prendergast Millard...

Clarity on Sanctions Compliance: Examining OFAC Guidance and Enforcement

Clarity on Sanctions Compliance: Examining OFAC Guidance and Enforcement

by Steven Kuzma and Christian Cooper
March 12, 2020

With U.S. sanctions compliance fines at a decade high, organizations should be taking note of how to address emerging areas...

Next Post
scissors separating paper dolls, boycott concept

U.S. Antiboycott Laws: They're Not for Everyone (But They May Be for You)

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