Archive for the ‘FCPA’ Category

Businessman Pleads Guilty to Illegal Bribes

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 by Danielle McClellan

Joseph T. Lukas, a partner in Nexus Technologies Inc., has pled guilty in connection with a conspiracy to bribe Vietnamese government officials. Nexus was a privately owned export company that found US vendors for Vietnamese government contracts that involved underwater mapping equipment, bomb containment equipment, helicopter parts, chemical detectors, satellite communication parts and air tracking systems. Lukas was in charge of the negotiations of these contracts with US suppliers. The Vietnamese officials included the commercial branches of Vietnam’s Ministries of Transport, Industry and Public Safety. (more…)

Lucent Agrees to $1 Million Fine for FCPA Violations

Friday, December 21st, 2007 by Danielle McClellan

Lucent Technologies Inc., a global communications solutions provider has entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice to resolve allegations that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The company provided travel and other items of value to Chinese government officials and included it as expenses in company books and records. (more…)

Titan Pays for ITAR Failure to Report Commissions and FCPA Illegal Payments

Wednesday, November 29th, 2006 by John Black

So, you always get to the end of your license application and its time to check the box related to whether your company or its agents have paid reportable commissions, fees or political contributions. You never really know if anybody has paid it, and you actually have no information that tells you that they have, so you check “No” like you have for every application for the past five years.

Now, we’ve got an enforcement case that might encourage your company to put in place a reporting network to notify you if it has paid commissions, political contributions or fees related to an ITAR license/agreement application.

In March, 2005, Titan Corporation pled guilty to 3 violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997. The violations resulted from bribes paid in the form of contributions to the election campaign of the then-incumbent President of the Republic of Benin. Over $2,000,000 in bribes were given in an attempt to maintain a business relationship with Benin , in which Titan would build and operate a wireless telephone network in their county. At Titan’s request, an agent of Benin submitted false invoices to Titan to facilitate the payment of these bribes. Payments were made under the false pretenses of the “betterment of the people of Benin.”

Following Titan’s guilty plea, it was required to pay over $15 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, and $13 million in criminal fines, in addition to 3 years of probation. (I’m not sure what a disgorgement is, but I surely wouldn’t want to be involved in one.)

Titan has now decided to settle additional charges that it neglected to report certain commissions in its ITAR export applications. On the applications in question, Titan allegedly made false statements that there were no reportable commissions paid to third parties. According to the DDTC charging letter, on three separate occasions between 2000 and 2003, Titan paid a combined $2,267,000 in commissions with respect to the sales or exports of defense articles to Access International Ltd., SurCom International BV , and AstroDesign, Inc.

If there is good news for L-3 and Titan in all this, it is that the DDTC did not impose the ITAR section 120.1(b) penalty making L-3 ineligible for export licenses due to its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act conviction. Debarment, as a penalty for the commissions charges, could also have been imposed, but was not. The settlement for the commissions charges was in the amount of $1.5 million. That breaks down to a $1 million cash payment and $500,000 to go toward the costs of a compliance program that L-3 will implement as a condition of the Consent Order.

The good news for you is that you now have an enforcement case that gives you a tangible basis for arguing your company needs to put in place communication channels.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA): Another Compliance Headache?

Thursday, June 30th, 2005 by Guest Author

Everyone has probably heard of the FCPA. As a result of SEC investigations in the mid-1970′s, over 400 U.S. companies admitted making questionable or illegal payments in excess of $300 million to foreign officials to secure some type of favorable action by a foreign government. Congress enacted the FCPA to bring a halt to the bribery of foreign officials and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American business system. Several firms that paid bribes to foreign officials have been the subject of criminal and civil enforcement actions, resulting in large fines and suspension and debarment from federal procurement contracting, and their employees and officers have gone to jail.

It is my experience that most U.S. companies’ compliance to the FCPA is no more than “lip service.” The CEO issues a policy that instructs all employees to comply with the FCPA and that bribes of foreign government officials will not be tolerated. Then he/she and other members of the company’s senior management wrap themselves in this cozy “policy security blanket” and they are confident the company is in compliance. After all, everyone knows you can’t bribe government officials. Yeah, right!

On February 22, Titan Corporation (Titan) plead guilty to criminal charges of violating the FCPA, falsifying books and records of Titan, and willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation or presentation of a false or fraudulent tax return for Titan.

Does the case against Titan signal a heightened FCPA enforcement effort on the part of the Justice Department?

(more…)

The Skinny on Political Contributions & Fees

Sunday, February 25th, 2001 by Maarten Sengers

Each year, thousands of license applications enter the processing queue at the Office of Defense Trade Controls (ODTC). Each application, from DSP-5s to Agreements, all require a certification that the application is in compliance with Part 130 of the ITAR regarding payment of political contributions, fees and commissions (hereinafter collectively referred to as “PCFs”). Almost as a matter of routine, companies assert “Neither the applicant nor its vendors have paid, or offered or agreed to pay, in respect of any sale for which a license approval is requested, political contributions, fees or commission in amounts as specified in 22 CFR 130.9(a).” Given that you have to include a painstaking report if you did in fact pay PCFs, rubber stamping this “no payments” box is certainly a tempting thing to do.

But considering the wide net cast by Part 130, this may not be a safe practice.

(more…)