The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), also known as the Bribery Act, is a federal law that:
The law is jointly enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, as both agencies serve to protect consumers and investors and maintain a fair marketplace. Whistleblowers play an important role in assisting with the enforcement of FCPA provisions. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, whistleblowers may receive a reward of between 10 and 30 percent of the amount recovered in FCPA claims.
The FCPA prohibits offers and payments, promises to pay, the authorization of the payment of any money, or offer, gift, or promise to give, or the authorization of the giving of anything of value to any foreign officials, political parties, party officials, or candidates for political office in another country, for the purpose of influencing their acts and decisions in order to assist the issuer or business entity “in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.”
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act also prohibits any citizen, resident, national, partnership, joint-stock company, unincorporated organization, business trust, or sole proprietorship that makes the United States its home base for business (also known as a “domestic concern”) from engaging any of these forms of corrupt conduct.
Intermediaries or third parties are not permitted to make corrupt payments on behalf of “issuers” or “domestic concerns” with the knowledge that the payment will go directly or indirectly to a foreign official since this is simply a cloaked attempt to bribe a foreign official. In addition, the FCPA prohibits foreign companies from making corrupt payments to a government official while in the United States.
In order to accomplish its anti-bribery goal, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act also requires companies with registered securities in the U.S. to keep accurate records of all company transactions and maintain an accurate accounting system. Issuers are required to make and keep books, records, and accounts that accurately “reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the issuer.” Accounting transparency rules operate to prevent companies from concealing payments from required public disclosure.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act also contains several exceptions to its record keeping and bribery provisions:
Affirmative Defenses” – It can be argued that no violation of the FCPA has occurred when the payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of value that was made was “lawful under the written laws and regulations of the foreign official’s, political party’s, party official’s or candidate’s country”, or the payments, gifts, offers and promises made were “reasonable and bona fide expenditures” and were directly related to a) the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services or b) the execution or performance of a contract with a foreign government or agency. The act mentions travel and lodging expenses as one example.
Violations of Anti-Bribery Provisions
Criminal Fines | Civil Penalties | |
---|---|---|
Businesses | up to $2 million | up to $10,000 |
Individuals | up to $250,000; 5 years imprisonment | up to $10,000 |
Violations of Accounting Provisions
Criminal Fines | Civil Penalties | |
---|---|---|
Businesses | up to $25 million | up to $500,000 |
Individuals | up to $5 million; 20 years imprisonment | up to $100,000 |
Businesses that violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA can be punished with criminal fines up to $2 million and civil penalties up to ten thousand dollars. Individuals who violate the law may receive criminal fines up to $250K and/or imprisonment up to 5 years, and civil penalties up to ten thousand dollars. Businesses that violate the accounting provisions of the FCPA can be fined up to $25 million and receive civil penalties up to a half a million. Individuals who violate accounting provisions may receive criminal fines up to $5 million and/or imprisonment up to 20 years, as well as civil penalties up to $100,000. Under the Alternative Fines Act, criminal fines may be increased to twice the financial gain resulting from the anti-bribery or accounting violation.
Call (310) 207-3233 or fill out our online form to get in touch with our whistleblower attorneys.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act law does not directly address the rewards and protections available to FCPA whistleblowers. However, under Dodd-Frank, the Securities and Exchange Commission is required to pay eligible whistleblowers who provide the agency with “original information” (derived from the whistleblower’s independent knowledge or analysis and not known by the Commission from any other source) with between 10 percent and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions imposed by the SEC following the successful enforcement of a judicial or administrative action, provided those penalties exceed $1 million. Given the potential size of fines that can be imposed on FCPA violators, in large cases the awards can be substantial.
The Dodd-Frank Act also includes protection for whistleblowers. The law prohibits employers from discharging, suspending, threatening, harassing, directly or indirectly, or discriminating against a whistleblower in any manner as a result of lawful whistleblower acts in providing information to the SEC or assisting an SEC investigation related to their information.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also contains provisions that prohibit employers from retaliating against whistleblowers. Under the law, an employee who is the target of retaliation may file a complaint with the Department of Labor and is eligible for reinstatement, back pay and other compensation.
The SEC has created rules that govern the administration of its whistleblower program. Two are particularly important for whistleblowers.
In the mid 1970’s investigations by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed that more than 400 American companies admitted making over $300 million in corrupt payments and bribes to foreign officials in government and politics.
A 1977 report prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce revealed that those companies included many of the largest in the U.S., with at least 117 ranking among Fortune magazine’s top 500 U.S. corporations.
According to the report, high foreign officials were bribed to secure favorable action by foreign governments and “facilitating payments” were made to ensure that government functionaries completed certain ministerial or clerical duties.
Among the adverse consequences of such payments were anticompetitive effects on domestic companies, lawsuits, the seizure of valuable assets overseas, and “severe foreign policy problems for the United States.” In Italy, alleged payments by Lockheed, Exxon, Mobil Oil and other corporations to officials of the Italian government jeopardized U.S. foreign policy in that nation and the entire NATO alliance.
Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FPCA) in 1977 in an effort to stop these corrupt practices and restore the integrity of American businesses at home and abroad. The FCPA was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on December 19, 1977. The law addressed two principal areas of concern – the bribing of foreign officials to achieve or maintain business, and the need for transparent accounting systems.
The FCPA was amended in 1988 in response to several criticisms of the original bill. The amendments were signed into law as Title V of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. One goal of the changes was to ensure that only deliberate “knowing” falsification of records or evasions of internal accounting controls– not unintentional or unwitting conduct – would be punished.
Other amendments addressed the fact that in some nations it was customary and lawful for a government official to accept a fee or payments in the course of doing business with the government. The 1988 amendments made facilitating such payments permissible if the purpose “is to expedite or to secure the performance of a routine governmental action.” Exceptions to the anti-bribery provisions were also created for payments or expenditures that were made to promote products and services.
It was widely viewed that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act put U.S. companies at a disadvantage when competing with foreign companies in nations that did not have similar anti-bribery laws. This was addressed in 1997 when member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) signed the “Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.” OECD members agreed to make it a criminal offense for any person to bribe a foreign official to “obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.”
The following year, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was amended to conform to the OECD Convention. An anti-bribery provision regarding foreign companies was added to the FCPA law, which made it illegal for foreign companies or persons to pay such bribes while conducting business in the United States. The amendments also broadened the law’s jurisdiction to include FCPA violations that take place outside the United States and expanded the definition of prohibited acts to include those made to secure “any improper advantage.”
Call (310) 207-3233 to schedule a consultation and learn about your options.
"Wisner Baum gave exceptional attention to all aspects of the case, detailed inquiry, and tenacious overview of all the information submitted. The paralegals are efficient and diligent. I was completely surprised to find an empathic personal message to take care of my own health during the challenging time of being a full-time caretaker.*"
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case.
The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.
$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial
Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million.
Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.
In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.