Saturday, April 17, 2021
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • On-Demand Webinars
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • On-Demand Webinars
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Featured

The Convergence Between the FCPA and Suspension and Debarment

Suspension and Debarment in Monitoring, Part 3

by Jay Rosen
July 24, 2019
in Featured
white hard hat on american flag signifying government contractor

Jay Rosen, “Mr. Monitor,” continues a series on suspension and debarment, discussing where these actions meet with FCPA enforcement.

Debarment may be based on actions so serious or compelling that it affects the present responsibility of the contractor or subcontractor. There is some fairly broad language as to what the basis for a suspension and debarment can be. This means that in the context of anti-corruption laws, it can be the basis of a suspension or debarment.

Under the FCPA, the conduct to incur a violation does not require actual bribery or corruption.

It can be bad recordkeeping associated with or the context of engagements with foreign officials – activity that would generally fall outside the realm of a public contract or subcontract. From the suspension and debarment perspective, it is critical to recognize here that the standard definition for contractor issues from the rule does not require that the entity actually have a contract in place.

In the context of suspension and debarment, they may have a contract or compete at some point for a contract to become a contractor – essentially any business activity that provides goods or services the federal government may be interested in acquiring potentially could fall within the definition of “contract.”

When one considers the FCPA, practically any business would fall within the definition of “contractor.”

These sanctions are not limited to contractors with existing contracts, and they are not limited to misconduct occurring in the context of a federal contract. My colleagues at Affiliated Monitors have dealt with several matters involving FCPA violations – activity that was clearly outside the scope of a federal contract or subcontract, but where the conduct was committed by very large federal contractors.

Another angle to the convergence of FCPA and suspension and debarment was raised by two authors, then South Texas College of Law student Nicholas J. Wagoner and Professor Drury D. Stevenson in a piece titled “FCPA Sanctions: Too Big to Debar?”, in which they posited the question:

“Are certain private contractors too big to debar?” Their conclusion: “It appears so.”

The authors stated, “The federal government is too dependent on a particular set of large, private-sector corporations for equipment and services.”

In addition to the virtual immunity from debarment enjoyed by these firms when they violate the FCPA, the fines imposed for engaging in foreign corrupt practices comprise a tiny fraction of the potential revenue generated by lucrative contracts with the U.S. and foreign states. When discounted by the low probability of detection, these sanctions are far too low to deter unlawful activity.

One solution for the issues regarding fines and penalties for FCPA violators is debarment and suspension. They urge that debarment would be a significant deterrent for U.S. government contractors and would “increase compliance with the FCPA.”

The authors also suggest that the threat of debarment as a penalty would increase self-disclosure without any increased enforcement efforts if companies received the “meaningful reward” of a lesser penalty through self-disclosure.

A wide variety of conduct can form the basis of a suspension or debarment. It can be any fraud or criminal offense in the context of obtaining, attempting to attain or forming a public contract or subcontract within the scope of antitrust statutes or violations, whether federal or state embezzlement, theft forgery, ossification or destruction of records, false statements or tax evasion, violating basically any federal law.

The concept of present responsibility is not defined anywhere on the regulatory structure; it is left to the discretion of the agency suspending or debarring and, in most cases, that official is going to look back at it. The basic question asked will be “is there a reason to be concerned about the integrity of that contractor?”

And that gets us into a fairly deep dive of the ethics and compliance program.


In case you missed the earlier installments of this ongoing series, please see the links below.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Monitors But Were Afraid to Ask

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5

Potential Issues in Corporate Monitorships

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5

Suspension and Debarment in Monitoring

Part 1, Part 2


Tags: anti-corruptionbriberyfcpa enforcement actionsmonitoring
Previous Post

Assessing the Risks Associated with Cannabis-Based Businesses in the U.S. and Canada

Next Post

Refinitiv Unwraps Beneficial Ownership and Vessel Data to Support Improved Risk Management

Jay Rosen

Jay Rosen is Vice President, Business Development and Monitoring Specialist at Affiliated Monitors, Inc., the first company in the U.S. to focus on providing independent integrity monitoring and assessment services across a wide range of regulated industries and professions. Jay previously headed up Merrill Brink’s FCPA Investigations and Ethics and Compliance translation group. He has over eight years of experience assisting clients on cross-border investigations, as well as helping them localize their code of conduct and other mission-critical English documents for their global colleagues. For almost three years, Jay has co-hosted the #1 weekly FCPA podcast, “This Week in FCPA,” with Tom Fox. Tom and Jay recently launched a second podcast, “Popcorn and Compliance,” and Jay is also a commentator on the biweekly podcast, “Everything Compliance,” with Jonathan Armstrong, Tom Fox, Sarah Hadden, Matt Kelly and Mike Volkov.

Related Posts

Business professionals stand in silhouette in a conference room.

How Far Will You Go?

April 16, 2021
allustration of a man looking at a moon through a telescope

Periodic Reporting for Public Companies in 2021: What Lies Ahead

April 14, 2021
A view of the Veriff mobile app

Estonian Identity Verification Service Veriff Raises $69M in Series B Led by IVP and Accel

April 13, 2021
President Joe Biden.

The Biden Administration Is Ramping Up Numerous Cross-Border Enforcements. Compliance Teams Should Take Note.

April 13, 2021
Next Post

Refinitiv Unwraps Beneficial Ownership and Vessel Data to Support Improved Risk Management

2Behavox and CCI webinar: Power of Ai in F
OneTrust offers download to demonstrate privacy management leadership
Top 10 Risk and Compliance Trends

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management Coronavirus/COVID-19 corporate culture crisis management culture of ethics cyber crime cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making diversity DOJ due diligence ESG fcpa enforcement actions financial crime GDPR GRC HIPAA information security KYC 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

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks
  • 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
  • Whitepapers

© 2021 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • On-Demand Webinars
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2021 Corporate Compliance Insights