No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • CCI Magazine
    • Writing for CCI
    • Career Connection
    • 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
  • Library
    • Download Whitepapers & Reports
    • Download eBooks
    • New: Living Your Best Compliance Life by Mary Shirley
    • New: Ethics and Compliance for Humans by Adam Balfour
    • 2021: Raise Your Game, Not Your Voice by Lentini-Walker & Tschida
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
    • Great Women in Compliance
    • Unless: The Podcast (Hemma Lomax)
  • Research
  • Webinars
  • Events
  • Subscribe
Jump to a Section
  • At the Office
    • Ethics
    • HR Compliance
    • Leadership & Career
    • Well-Being at Work
  • Compliance & Risk
    • Compliance
    • FCPA
    • Fraud
    • Risk
  • Finserv & Audit
    • Financial Services
    • Internal Audit
  • Governance
    • ESG
    • Getting Governance Right
  • Infosec
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
  • Opinion
    • Adam Balfour
    • Jim DeLoach
    • Mary Shirley
    • Yan Tougas
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home GRC Vendor News

Esquenazi, Part 2: the Test for Determining an Instrumentality Under the FCPA

by Thomas Fox
May 26, 2014
in GRC Vendor News
Esquenazi, Part 2: the Test for Determining an Instrumentality Under the FCPA

This article was republished with permission from Tom Fox’s FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog.

In Part 1 of my review of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Esquenazi case, I reviewed the Court of Appeals opinion. Today, in Part 2, I want to drill down further and examine the test developed by the Court of Appeals to use in determining whether an entity is an instrumentality under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and compare it with the two prior formulations developed by District Courts in the Carson and Lindsey cases. The chart below consolidates the factors raised by the courts.

Key Inquiry Lindsey Carson Esquenazi
  1. Characterization of Services
Entity provides services to citizens, in many cases all in country Foreign states’ characterization of the entity and its employees Function Test – Does the entity provide services to the public at large in the foreign Country? Control Test – the foreign government’s formal designation of the entity.
  1. Hiring and Firing
Are key officers/ directors government employees or appointed by government employees? Foreign state’s control over the entity Control Test – the government’s ability to hire and fire the entity’s principals.
  1. Financial Control/ Funding
Is the entity financed, or in large measure financed, by government appropriations or through government mandates? The foreign state’s extent of ownership of the entity, including the level of financial support by the state Function Test – Does the foreign government subsidize the costs associated with the entity providing the services? Control Test – the extent to which the government funds the entity if it fails to break even.
  1. Foreign Government Control of Administrative Functions
Is the entity vested with or does it exercise exclusive/controlling power to administer its designated functions? The entity’s obligations and privileges under country’s laws, including whether it exercises exclusive/ controlling power to administer its designated functions
  1. Perception as Governmental Entity
Is the entity widely perceived and understood to be providing official functions? Purpose of the entity’s activities Function Test – Does the foreign government generally perceive the entity to be performing a governmental function? Control Test – Whether the foreign government has an interest in the entity
  1. Creation
Circumstances around the entity’s creation
  1. Length of Time
Control Test – the length of time the indicia have existed.
  1. Monopoly over Market
Function Test – Does the entity have a monopoly over the function it exists to carry out?

The Esquenazi decision separates the analysis into two basic questions (a) does a foreign government control an entity and (b) does the entity perform a function the foreign government treats as its own? The Court of Appeals then breaks the analysis of these two questions into a series of inquiries. The prior District Court opinions in Lindsey and Carson did not have such an initial dichotomy; nevertheless the 11th Circuit’s analysis has clear overlap with the prior District Court formulations. (Please note that I have not discussed the district court formulation at the Esquenazi trial level as that analysis has been superseded by the Court of Appeals decision.) Between the Lindsey, Carson and Esquenazi factors, we see the following:

Identical – Does the government appoint the officers/directors and is the entity understood to be owned by or an agency of the government in the home country? In Lindsey and Esquenazi (control prong), the courts agree on Inquiry 2 above, the “Hiring and Firing” inquiry, while Carson says the inquiry is simply over foreign government control of the entity. Inquiry 5 in both Lindsey and Esquenazi (control and function prongs) is the “Perception” inquiry, while the Carson court denominates this inquiry as the “Purpose” inquiry. Finally, in Inquiry 3, all Courts consider the financial support provided to the entity by the foreign government, with the Esquenazi Court (control and function prongs) adding the analysis around the “Extent of obligations and privileges under its country’s laws.”

Similar – Inquiry 1 – Are the services provided by the entity available to all citizens of the home country? and Inquiry 4 – Does it exercise exclusive/controlling power to administer its designated functions and the extent of obligations and privileges under its country’s laws? In Lindsey and Carson, the similar factors are in Inquiry 1, the characterization of the services provided. The Esquenazi opinion has this Inquiry 1 in both the function and control prong analysis. Under the function prong analysis, it asks “Does the entity provide services to the public at large in the foreign country?” and under the control test, it inquires what the foreign government’s formal designation of the entity is.  In Inquiry 4, both the Lindsey and Carson Court said that a foreign government’s control over the administrative functions of the entity was a key inquiry, but interestingly, this factor was not present in the Esquenazi analysis, under the analysis of either the control or function prong. In Inquiry 6, the Carson Court looked into the creation of the entity and the Esquenazi opinion (control prong) inquired about the foreign government’s designation of the entity.

Standalones – Interestingly, Esquenazi has two factors for analysis not found in either of the District Court opinions. The first, Inquiry 7, is from the control prong and asks about the length of time the various factors listed have existed. The second, Inquiry 8, is from the function prong and asks whether the entity has a monopoly in the foreign country. Carson also has a standalone inquiry, which is found at Inquiry 6 and inquires into the facts and circumstances surrounding the creation of the entity. While I believe this could well be the last factor in your analysis, it can be one easily ascertained. Most government entities will disclose how they were formed; this information can be found on their website or within their company history. If you cannot determine how a business was formed, perhaps you need to think hard about doing business with them.

Comparison of Approaches

At first blush, it may appear that the Esquenazi court took a slightly different approach by dividing the two initial prongs of inquiry into “control” and “function.” If one examines the individual Esquenazi factors in detail, they are not significantly different from Lindsey and Carson, with the exception noted above of the two standalone inquiries. One clear factor that Esquenazi has in common with Lindsey and Carson is the factor of the entity’s obligations and privileges under its country’s laws, including whether it exercises exclusive/controlling power to administer its designated functions. Carson combines two of the Esquenazi factors: the extent of government ownership and financial support by the foreign government. While Carson does not speak to financial ownership, it does have the factor of government financing and government appointment of officers and directors. Carson speaks to the entity’s purpose while Lindsey and Esquenazi list the factor of providing services to the country’s citizens. Indeed, the only factor included in Carson and not found in Lindsey and Esquenazi is the following: the circumstances around the entity’s creation. It is incumbent to note that both the Lindsey and Carson Court opinions and the Esquenazi 11th Circuit opinion all have language that indicates these factors are not exclusive, and no single factor will determine whether an entity is an instrumentality of a foreign government.

What to make of the two standalones found in Esquenazi (those being lengthy of time the entity has existed (function prong) and whether the entity has monopoly power (control prong))? I would have to opine that these are the two least important factors listed. I say this because if there are clear indicia that an entity is controlled by, financed in whole or in part by a foreign government or perceived to be run by a foreign government, with the entity providing services to the citizens of the foreign country, it really does not matter when if it was created yesterday or 50 years ago. It will be considered as an instrumentality under the FCPA. Similarly, even if there is no monopoly present, if these other factors are present, it will still be considered an instrumentality under the FCPA.

Lessons Learned

With all this information in mind, what inferences can a compliance practitioner for guidance draw on to determine whether a business is an instrumentality under the FCPA? Reviewing the foregoing, the factors can be distilled down to a manageable list, which I believe is as follows:

  1. Ownership/Financial Control – There is no percentage amount listed, but the inclusion of financial control would clearly indicate that anything over 50 percent would be a significant factor.
  2. Actual Control – This is key in all three Court decisions. In Lindsey and Esquenazi, it is characterized as the government’s right to appoint key officers and directors. In Carson, it is called government control. But this means that if actual control is exercised by the government in question, it may trump the 50 percent guidance stated above.
  3. Privileges and Obligations – These are also mentioned in all three. Does the entity have the right to control its own functions?
  4. Financing – Is the entity a for-profit entity, financed through its own revenues, or does it depend on financing by its government?
  5. Perception is Reality – Andre Agassi’s immortal words appear again. If it is widely perceived to be providing an official function, then it is an instrumentality under the FCPA.

The Esquenazi Court of Appeals decision is a very welcome addition to the dearth of case law interpretation of the FCPA. The 11th Circuit has seemingly put to rest the question of whether an instrumentality means only a government agency or something else. Clearly it means something else. The Esquenazi decision also provides significant guidance on what type of inquiry a company should use to determine if an entity is a part of a foreign government and, therefore, subject to FCPA scrutiny. Whatever specific facts or indicia that you are looking at, it now boils down to (1) does a foreign government control the entity? and (2) does the entity function as part of the part of the foreign government?

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business advice, legal advice or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The author gives his permission to link, post, distribute or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.


Tags: Tone at the Top
Previous Post

LRN305 – A Conversation with David Greenberg, Former Head of Ethics & Compliance at Altria

Next Post

Investment in Compliance Professionals Rising Too Slowly to Meet Increasing Compliance Risk: Deloitte/Compliance Week Survey

Thomas Fox

Thomas Fox

Thomas Fox has practiced law in Houston for 25 years. He is now assisting companies with FCPA compliance, risk management and international transactions. He was most recently the General Counsel at Drilling Controls, Inc., a worldwide oilfield manufacturing and service company. He was previously Division Counsel with Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. where he supported Halliburton’s software division and its downhole division, which included the logging, directional drilling and drill bit business units. Tom attended undergraduate school at the University of Texas, graduate school at Michigan State University and law school at the University of Michigan. Tom writes and speaks nationally and internationally on a wide variety of topics, ranging from FCPA compliance, indemnities and other forms of risk management for a worldwide energy practice, tax issues faced by multi-national US companies, insurance coverage issues and protection of trade secrets. Thomas Fox can be contacted via email at tfox@tfoxlaw.com or through his website www.tfoxlaw.com. Follow this link to see all of his articles.

Related Posts

farm silos

Siloed Thinking, Scattered Compliance: The Leadership Challenge in GRC

by Anna Muzalska
April 7, 2025

Strong leadership and integrated communication prove as critical to compliance success as policies and procedures alone

chess pieces

10 Questions That Separate Strategic Leaders From Spectators

by Jim DeLoach
February 19, 2025

From pattern recognition to emotional intelligence, key indicators reveal true boardroom influence

3d rendering representing inaccessible door

Why Your ‘Open Door’ Policy Could Be Nailing the Door Shut

by Roxanne Petraeus
November 6, 2024

When compliance training looks like it came from 1995, employees get the real message

hero as leader concept

UK Brewer’s Cultural Hangover Highlights the Perils of Hero Leadership

by Steve Hearsum
June 12, 2024

What do hotshot startups and cults often have in common? A charismatic leader. But what happens when the public face...

Next Post
Investment in Compliance Professionals Rising Too Slowly to Meet Increasing Compliance Risk: Deloitte/Compliance Week Survey

Investment in Compliance Professionals Rising Too Slowly to Meet Increasing Compliance Risk: Deloitte/Compliance Week Survey

No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy | AI 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
  • Research
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2025 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
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • CCI Magazine
    • Writing for CCI
    • Career Connection
    • 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
  • Library
    • Download Whitepapers & Reports
    • Download eBooks
    • New: Living Your Best Compliance Life by Mary Shirley
    • New: Ethics and Compliance for Humans by Adam Balfour
    • 2021: Raise Your Game, Not Your Voice by Lentini-Walker & Tschida
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
    • Great Women in Compliance
    • Unless: The Podcast (Hemma Lomax)
  • Research
  • Webinars
  • Events
  • Subscribe

© 2025 Corporate Compliance Insights