Latin America Sees Increased Enforcement of U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The United States enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 1977 to criminalize the bribery of foreign government officials in exchange for new business or maintaining old business. The risk to Latin American companies is that the FCPA is applicable to not only U.S. citizens and companies, but also to foreign persons residing in the United States and foreign companies listed on U.S. exchanges. Moreover, the FCPA also applies to foreign firms and persons who have substantial contacts in the United States. Importantly, enforcement officials may hold U.S. companies liable for the actions of their foreign subsidiaries in cases where the subsidiary acts as an agent of the parent company.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

DOJ Announces an Enhanced Approach to Corporate Criminal Enforcement

On September 15, 2022, Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco of the Department of Justice (DOJ) delivered a speech at New York University addressing new guidance on corporate criminal enforcement. Her speech made it clear that DOJ is prioritizing investigations and prosecutions against corporate entities. DOJ’s approach in this area is fundamentally grounded in individual accountability and corporate responsibility. Building off those ideas, the new guidance provides for: (1) increased focus on individual liability; (2) consideration of the full criminal, civil and regulatory record of any company when deciding the appropriate resolution; (3) expanding voluntarily self-disclosure programs across DOJ; and (4) the consideration of compensation systems that reward or deter compliance when evaluating the strength of a company’s compliance program. Monaco also announced increased transparency and consistency by DOJ when determining issues related to monitors. DOJ intends these policies to communicate to corporate entities that it is “not accepting business as usual” and that personal liability and the specifics of a corporation’s cooperation and integration of compliance programs will be heavily scrutinized in criminal corporate prosecutions.

To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.

DOJ Implements 2018 Granston Memo on False Claims Act

In early 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a new policy encouraging prosecutors handling False Claims Act (FCA) cases to seek dismissal of qui tam complaints that threaten the government’s interests. However, it was unclear how and to what extent prosecutors would carry out that directive. Now a year later, federal prosecutors appear to be embracing the new policy—and it is already having an effect on one case involving a drug manufacturer.

The January 2018 Granston memorandum outlined the Department’s new approach to handling FCA prosecutions in “in light of the government’s limited resources.” Under the new policy, prosecutors are encouraged to move to dismiss qui tam claims as a way to “advance the government’s interests, preserve limited resources, and avoid adverse precedent.” This marked a departure from the Department’s previous policy of rarely exercising its statutory authority to dismiss such claims. To guide prosecutors, the memorandum offered a nonexhaustive list of factors as to when a motion to dismiss a qui tam claim is proper. Those factors include: (1) “curbing meritless qui tams”; (2) “preventing parasitic or opportunistic qui tam actions”; (3) “preventing interference with agency policies and programs”; (4) “controlling litigation brought on behalf of the United States”; (5) “safeguarding classified information and national security interests”; (6) “preserving government resources”; and (7) “addressing egregious procedural errors.” Overall, the memorandum instructed prosecutors to seek dismissal when the litigation does not serve the government’s interests.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress