Economic Concerns Driving DOJ's Prosecutorial Discretion in Large Corporate Prosecutions; Government Files Civil Suit Against Deutsche Bank Over Alleged Massive Mortgage Fraud

Federal officials last week announced that Deutsche Bank and its mortgage division, MortgageIT, allegedly engaged in fraud on a massive scale as a civil complaint was filed against Deutsche Bank. The complaint alleges that the massive German bank allegedly defrauded the government of up to $1.2 billion through alleged reckless lending practices. The Federal Housing Administration has allegedly paid out approximately $386 million in wrongful insurance claims. The government is seeking three times this amount in fines and penalties. Among the government's allegations is a charge that documents which would have informed bank officials about high rates of default were hidden in a closet at MortgageIT. The civil complaint fails to disclose any incriminating documents which could be used to establish an intent to defraud the government.

However, according to an article by Fox Business News, the government is holding back in the Deutsche Bank case from bringing criminal charges in response to the alleged massive fraud. The author points to the case as illustrative of a trend by Federal officials to prosecute alleged wrongdoing by corporations through civil, rather than criminal, means.

The article speculates that Federal officials might have elected civil, rather than criminal, proceedings due to the lower burden of proof , as well as the more time and resource-consuming nature of criminal proceedings. It also acknowledges concerns by prosecutors over potential harm to corporations, investors and the economy and markets in general, illustrated by the demise of accounting giant Arthur Andersen in 2002 as a result of the federal prosecution in the wake of the Enron scandal. The article cites the fact that criminal, as opposed to civil, actions, are often accompanied or followed by de-licensing actions by regulatory bodies.

The article also cites the relatively few criminal prosecutions following the financial collapse of 2007. What criminal proceedings there have been have focused on individuals with various Wall Street firms--rather than the firms themselves. Furthermore, several of these prosecutions have ended in failure, as exemplified by the acquittal of former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin in 2009.

Department of Justice Targets Gulf Oil Spill Disaster and British Petroleum

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder informed the media yesterday that the federal government has opened criminal and civil investigations into the 44 day-old oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, as reported in the L.A. Daily News and elsewhere. Last month, U.S. President Barack Obama appointed an independent commission to investigate the causes of the disaster and to recommend measures to prevent a recurrence in the future. The commission is co-chaired by former Florida Governor Bob Graham and former head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, William K. Reilly.

The lack of procedures to handle the possibility of a deep undersea spill and the seeming lack of haste in staunching the spill by United Kingdom-based British Petroleum, which leases the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, and Switzerland-based Transocean, Ltd., which owns the rig, have justly opened the companies to public criticism and condemnation, civil suits and likely civil penalties and fines. The disaster is the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, and is on its way to becoming the largest spill in world history as the leak continues (the largest was the willful discharge of oil by the Iraqi military from the Sea Island Terminal in Iraq in January of 1991 during the Gulf War, which discharged 462 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf).

Some challenges facing any potential criminal investigation or prosecution include the fact that the spill is allegedly accidental, and that its source was some 52 miles southeast of Louisiana--outside U.S. territorial waters. However, some theories of prosecution may be available. For instance, Title 33 United States Code Section 1321, entitled "Oil and hazardous substance liability," applies to discharges from "offshore facilities." The statute provides, in part, that:

(3) The discharge of oil or hazardous substances (i) into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or (ii) in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [43 U.S.C.A. § 1331 et seq.] or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 [33 U.S.C.A. § 1501 et seq.], or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States (including resources under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [16 U.S.C.A. § 1801 et seq.] ), in such quantities as may be harmful as determined by the President under paragraph (4) of this subsection, is prohibited...

33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3). Persons in charge of a vessel or offshore facility and having knowledge of a discharge of oil must immediately notify the appropriate U.S. agency. Failure to do so can result in a fine and up to 5 years' imprisonment. The statute also provides for administrative and civil penalties for owners, operators or persons in charge of vessels or facilities from which there is a discharge, or who fail or refuse to comply with relevant regulations issued by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection agency, as well as any recovery costs by the government.

Undoubtedly, grounds for charges might be found in the U.S.' extensive environmental laws and regulations. One thing is certain--now that the Department of Justice has been mobilized to respond to the disaster, the corporate actors in relation to the spill will almost certainly not emerge without paying a steep criminal and civil settlement.

 

 

Pfizer Hit With 140 Million RICO Verdict Over Alleged Promotion of Off-Label Uses for Epilepsy Drug Neurontin

As reported in the National Law Journal, a federal jury in Massachusetts last week returned a $47 million verdict against pharmaceutical giant Pfizer for allegedly promoting Neurontin, an epilepsy drug manufactured by Pfizer, for off-label uses in alleged violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Since the RICO statute provides for treble (triple) damages, the amount of the verdict is actually $141 million.

The plaintiffs, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, alleged that Pfizer allegedly deceived the organizations into believing that Neurotin could be used to effectively treat conditions such as migraines and bipolar disorder. Neurontin has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1993 to treat epilepsy.

Pfizer officials have issued a statement stating that the company will appeal the verdict. Pfizer officials allege that Kaiser misled the jury during trial and that it continues to recommend Neurontin to its patients for the off-label uses. Officials claimed that Neurontin is safe and effective.

 

Civil Suit Alleges Fraud by Bear Stearns Execs

Bear Stearns' woes from the financial crisis continue to grow. We have noted the prosecution of former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin for alleged fraud. Now, as reported by Law.com, Bruce Sherman, CEO and Chief Investment Officer for Private Capital Management, L.P., which held approximately 5.9% of Bear Stearns' shares, has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Bear Stearns, former CEO James Cayne, co-president Warren Spector and accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP, the complaint for which can be viewed here.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Cayne and Mr. Spector allegedly repeatedly and directly assured Mr. Sherman that Bear Stearns' valuations and "book value "of its assets were accurate when they allegedly knew that the valuations and book value were materially inflated. Plaintiff alleges that, in July 2007, Mr. Cayne and Mr. Spector allegedly assured Mr. Sherman that the substantial overvaluation of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities owned by two failed hedge funds managed by Bear Stearns (the ones managed by Mr. Cioffi and Mr. Tannin ) did not reflect overvaluation of other Bear Stearns assets, which the Defendants allegedly knew to be false. The complaint alleges that Mr. Cayne and Mr. Spector repeatedly assured Mr. Sherman that Bear Stearns' risk-management policies protected his investments, which they allegedly knew to be false. The suit also alleges that Bear Stearns allegedly materially and falsely misrepresented the value of its assets in its financial statements, and that Deloitte & Touche allegedly certified the false  financial statements.

The complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and 20 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1394, as well as common law fraud. Mr. Sherman is represented by Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Potential Large Rewards for Tax Whistleblowers

False claims actions, or “qui tam” actions, are well known actions by a “whistleblower,” or relator, who has discovered fraud against the Government, pursuant to the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729. If the Government decides to intervene in their case, the whistleblower can share in any recovery by the Government.

In addition to the FCA, other government agencies have their own incentives for whistleblowers. The most notable example is the Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, which have long had a whistleblower program in place. However, on December 20, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 into law, which dramatically increased incentives under the IRS’s whistleblower program. Section 406 of the Act, codified at Section 7623 of Title 26 of the United States Code/ Section 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code, entitled “Expenses of detection of underpayments and fraud, etc.” provides in part that:

1.  The Secretary of Treasury is authorized, in cases where such expenses are not otherwise provided for by law, to make awards for (1) the detection of underpayments of taxes, or (2) the detection and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of violating, or conspiring to violate, the internal revenue laws. 26 U.S.C. § 7623(a).

2.  If the Secretary proceeds with any administrative or judicial action based upon information brought to the Secretary’s attention by an individual, the individual shall receive as an award at least 15 percent but not more than 30 percent of the collected proceeds (including penalties, interest, additions to tax, and additional amounts resulting from the action), or from any settlement in response to such action, subject to the exception in 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(2)(A), discussed below. The amount of the award shall be determined by the Whistleblower Office and shall depend on “upon the extent to which the individual substantially contributed to such action.” 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b). NOTE: All of Section 7623’s award provisions apply only if there is an action against a taxpayer (1) whose gross income exceeds $200,000 for any taxable year subject to the action, and (2) the tax, penalties, interest, additions to tax, and additional amounts in dispute exceed $2,000,000. 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(5). NOTE: No awards can be made under Section 7623 unless the information submitted to the Secretary is submitted under penalty of perjury. 26 U.S.C. § 7623(c).

Gillen Withers & Lake LLC, is headed by civil and criminal defense attorneys who are among the most distinguished in the Southeast, with a national reputation and excellent track record, who vigorously represent and make every effort on behalf of their clients. Contact us today by calling or e-mailing Craig Gillen in Atlanta at (404) 842-9700 or cgillen@gwllawfirm.com or Thomas Withers in Savannah at (912) 447-8400 or twithers@gwllawfirm.com.

3.  If the Whistleblower Office determines that the administrative or judicial action was “principally” based on disclosures other than those provided by the individual, including from a judicial or administrative hearing, from a governmental report, hearing, audit, or investigation or from the news media, the Whistleblower Office may still award the informant an award of not more than 10 percent of the collected proceeds from such action or any settlement resulting from such action, “taking into account the significance of the informant's information and the role of such individual and any legal representative of such individual in contributing to such action.” 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(2)(A). However, this provision does not apply where the information resulting in the initiation of the action was originally provided by the informant. 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(2)(B).

4. Naturally, if the Whistleblower Office determines that the informant was responsible for actions which led to the underpayment of tax, or if the informant is convicted for crimes relating to the underpayment of tax, the Whistleblower Office may reduce or deny any award. 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(3).

5.  An informant may appeal any determination relating to an award to the U.S. Tax Court within 30 days of the determination. 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4).

 

The IRS has also issued Section 301.7623-1 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled “Rewards for information relating to violations of internal revenue laws,” expands upon Section 7623 and provides that an award includes amounts collected prior to the time that the informant provided the information if the information leads to the denial of a claim for refund that otherwise would have been paid. 26 C.F.R. § 301.7623-1(a). Individuals who are federal employees at the time they provide information are not eligible to file a claim for a reward. 26 C.F.R. § 301.7623-1(b). However, claims for reward may be filed on behalf of deceased persons by an executor, administrator, or other legal representative, along with certified copies of documents showing authority of the representative to file the claim. 26 C.F.R. § 301.7623-1(b)(3). Payment of a reward will only be made after all taxes, penalties or fines have been collected, unless the informant waives any claim for reward with respect to an uncollected portion of the taxes, penalties, or fines involved. 26 C.F.R. § 301.7623-1(c).

 

      Most importantly, Section 301.7623-1 provides additional restrictions for making an award and the amount of the award:

 

All relevant factors, including the value of the information furnished in relation to the facts developed by the investigation of the violation, will be taken into account by a district or service center director in determining whether a reward will be paid, and, if so, the amount of the reward. The amount of a reward will represent what the district or service center director deems to be adequate compensation in the particular case, generally not to exceed fifteen percent of the amounts (other than interest) collected by reason of the information.

26 C.F.R. § 301.7623-1(c). Information under Section 7623 may be submitted in person to the office of a district director, preferably to a representative of the Criminal Investigation Division, or may be submitted in writing to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Attention: Assistant Commissioner (Criminal Investigation), 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, to any district director, Attention: Chief, Criminal Investigation Division, or to any service center director. 26 C.F.R. § 301.7623-1(d). An informant intending to file a claim for reward under Section 7623, as soon as practicable after the submission of the information, should notify the individual to whom he or she submitted his or her information, and the informant must file a formal claim on Form 211, Application for Reward for Original Information, signed by the informant in the informant's true name.

            Persons who are not current federal employees and who possess information concerning nonpayment or underpayment of large amounts of taxes or violations of internal revenue laws by other taxpayers should submit this information to the Department of Treasury and IRS according to the procedure set out in Section 301.7623-1 and should consider submitting a claim under these procedures. The submission of information and filing and enforcement of a claim under Section 7623 may be a detailed and complex process, and persons are advised to consult with an attorney.

Gillen Withers & Lake LLC, is headed by civil and criminal defense attorneys who are among the most distinguished in the Southeast, with a national reputation and excellent track record, who vigorously represent and make every effort on behalf of their clients. Contact us today by calling or e-mailing Craig Gillen in Atlanta at (404) 842-9700 or cgillen@gwllawfirm.com or Thomas Withers in Savannah at (912) 447-8400 or twithers@gwllawfirm.com.