Page 61 - U.S. FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Second Edition.

the CEP because it voluntarily self-disclosed, equaled $93,940; (5) the steps the company had
fully cooperated, and timely and appropriately taken to enhance its compliance program and its
remediated pursuant to the CEP. In addition, the internal accounting controls; (6) the company’s
company was the subject of a parallel investigation remediation, including but not limited to
by the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) terminating all of the executives and employees

for legal violations relating to the same conduct who were involved in the misconduct; and
and committed to accepting responsibility with (7) the fact that DOJ had been able to identify and
the SFO (the company subsequently entered into charge the culpable individuals.
a deferred prosecution with the SFO and agreed to
CEP Declination Example 3
pay approximately £2.07M of gross profits arising
In 2019, DOJ declined prosecution of a
from the payments to the director).
publicly traded technology services company.

CEP Declination Example 2 DOJ’s investigation found that the company,
In 2018, DOJ declined prosecution of through its employees, authorized its agents
an insurance company incorporated and to pay an approximately $2 million bribe to
headquartered in Barbados. DOJ’s investigation one or more government officials in India in
found that the company, through its employees exchange for securing and obtaining a statutorily
and agents, paid approximately $36,000 in bribes required planning permit in connection with the

to a Barbadian government official in exchange development of an office park, as well as other
for insurance contracts resulting in approximately improper payments in connection with other
$686,827 in total premiums for the contracts and projects in India. Despite the fact that certain
approximately $93,940 in net profits. Specifically, members of senior management participated in

in or around August 2015 and April 2016, high-level and directed the criminal conduct at issue, DOJ
employees of the company took part in a scheme to declined prosecution of the company based on an
pay approximately $36,000 in bribes to the Minister assessment of the factors set forth in the CEP and
of Industry in Barbados, and to launder the bribe the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business
payments into the United States. Organizations, including but not limited to: (1) the
Despite the high-level involvement of company’s voluntary self-disclosure within two

corporate officers in the misconduct, DOJ weeks of the Board learning of the criminal conduct;
declined prosecution based on a number of (2) the company’s thorough and comprehensive
factors, including but not limited to: (1) the investigation; (3) the company’s full and proactive
company’s timely, voluntary self-disclosure of cooperation in the matter (including its provision
the conduct; (2) the company’s thorough and of all known relevant facts about the misconduct)

comprehensive investigation; (3) the company’s and its agreement to continue to cooperate in
cooperation (including its provision of all known DOJ’s ongoing investigations and any prosecutions
relevant facts about the misconduct) and its that might result; (4) the nature and seriousness of
agreement to continue to cooperate in DOJ’s the offense; (5) the company’s lack of prior criminal
ongoing investigations and/or prosecutions; history; (6) the existence and effectiveness of the
(4) the company’s agreement to disgorge to DOJ company’s pre-existing compliance program,

all profits it made from the illegal conduct, which as well as steps that it had taken to enhance its
53