Friday, December 13, 2019
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
    • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Industry News
  • Jobs
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
    • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Industry News
  • Jobs
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights

FCPA Enforcement: Corporate Crime and Punishment

by Michael Volkov
November 20, 2015
in Uncategorized
FCPA Enforcement: Corporate Crime and Punishment

This article was republished with permission from Michael Volkov’s blog, Corruption, Crime & Compliance.

The Justice Department’s re-examination of corporate incentives to disclose violations appears to be in reaction to the steady escalation of cooperation requirements. In response to these extra burdens, the DOJ could be concerned that FCPA voluntary disclosures will dwindle.  For years, voluntary disclosures have fueled the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement program.

In the context of a voluntary disclosure program, I have consistently written that the DOJ has failed to define a critical element: what is the benefit the company will receive?

The answer to that question cannot be trust us, given the examples in which companies have benefited. In many cases, a company earned a reduction of 25 percent from the bottom of the sentencing guideline range. Companies need to know in advance what to expect and then balance that against other factors – potential reputation or earnings decline, risk of detection and cost of remediation.

The dialogue surrounding this issue can be very troublesome, however, when simplistic solutions are offered. For example, it is easy to say that no company should be fined because it is unfair to punish shareholders of a company. Such an approach, while facially appealing, ignores several factors. First, the cost of a corporate fine or penalty is not just the amount of money involved, but the reputational damage. Second, if there is some notion of corporate democracy, Board members and shareholders should hold accountable those senior executives who failed to follow or ensure FCPA compliance.

Corporate penalties are an important way to trigger corporate governance reforms and should not be ignored as a tool in the punishment and deterrence of corporations.

The FCPA enforcement history is replete with instances in which companies systematically, from top to bottom, were involved in active bribery schemes. Siemens, Alstom, Avon, Daimler and others all engaged in bribery with the active participation of senior executives. A systemic breakdown requires a punishing fine and overhaul of corporate governance. Prosecuting individual executives may or may not lead to that needed response.

On the other hand, in the balancing process, it is clear that active prosecutions of individual actors, particularly in the systemic cases, should be part of DOJ enforcement actions. The Yates Memorandum has now changed the equation so that individuals who are culpable and prosecutable will be charged. As a consequence, company internal investigations that are conducted as part of a DOJ investigation will require more comprehensive analysis of individual liability. The burden of such an analysis will depend on the circumstances; in some cases, it could be significant.

There has to be a proper balance between corporate and individual enforcement. The Antitrust Division has a long record of criminal prosecutions of cartel members with a proper balancing of individual and corporate defendants. On average, the Antitrust Division charges three individuals for every company that pleads guilty. Of course, the Antitrust Division’s Leniency Program offers immunity to the first company to report a cartel. That system of encouraging companies to report each other does not readily apply in the FCPA context, where bribery typically occurs within one company and does not require illegal anti-competitive agreements among multiple companies.

As the DOJ wrestles with these considerations, it is a welcome development to have the DOJ define the benefits of corporate cooperation and to inject a needed stimulus to corporate incentives to self-report, so long as the DOJ properly reserves the right to prosecute companies in appropriate cases and increase individual prosecutions.


Tags: tone at the top
Previous Post

Know Your Risks: 3 Scenarios Where Enhanced Due Diligence Was the Right Choice

Next Post

How to Draft an FLSA-Compliant Settlement Agreement, Part 3

Michael Volkov

Michael-Volkov-leclairryan

Michael Volkov is the CEO of The Volkov Law Group LLC, where he provides compliance, internal investigation and white collar defense services.  He can be reached at [email protected].

Michael has extensive experience representing clients on matters involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the UK Bribery Act, money laundering, Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), export controls, sanctions and International Traffic in Arms, False Claims Act, Congressional investigations, online gambling and regulatory enforcement issues. Michael served for more than 17 years as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia; for five years as the Chief Crime and Terrorism Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Chief Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Counsel for the Senate and House Judiciary Committees; and as a Trial Attorney in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Michael also maintains a well-known blog: Corruption Crime & Compliance, which is frequently cited by anti-corruption professionals and professionals in the compliance industry.

Related Posts

change is coming text on city background at sunset

Future-Proofing the Compliance Professional

December 13, 2019
futuristic technology projecting 2020 in white text

The Future of Data Privacy Regulation

December 12, 2019
illustration of businessmen shaking hands through smartphone screens

FINRA Reveals Top Areas of Interest: Supervision and Digital Communications Compliance Programs

December 12, 2019
new york city skyline at sunset

The Early Days: The Birth of the Independent Monitoring Concept

December 11, 2019
Next Post
How to Draft an FLSA-Compliant Settlement Agreement, Part 3

How to Draft an FLSA-Compliant Settlement Agreement, Part 3

Free Downloads

OFAC whitepaper cover
Compliance Job Interview Q&A
Reputation Risk Management Research

RSS SEC Litigation News

  • John Special, Defendant, and Michael Murphy, Relief Defendant, John Kenneth Davidson December 12, 2019
    SEC Obtains $3 Million Settlement in Insider Trading Action
  • Palm Beach Atlantic Financial Group, LLC and William A. Smith December 11, 2019
    SEC Charges Florida Resident and His Corporate Entity for Fraudulent Securities Offerings
  • Nanotech Engineering, Inc., Michael James Sweaney (also known as Michael Hatton), David Sweaney, and Jeffery Gange December 11, 2019
    SEC Obtains Asset Freeze to Halt Alleged Offering Fraud

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks Big Data blockchain board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management corporate culture corporate governance culture of ethics cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making Dodd-Frank DOJ due diligence fcpa enforcement actions GDPR GRC HIPAA information security internal audit internet of things (IoT) KYC/know your customer machine learning monitoring regtech reputation risk risk assessment Sanctions SEC social media risk technology third party risk management tone at the top training whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS Feed

Category

  • Audit
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • HR Compliance
  • Leadership and Career
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Whitepapers

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Whitepapers
  • eBooks
  • Events
  • Jobs
  • Subscribe

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights