Federal Criminal Defense Blog : Georgia Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Gillen Withers & Lake Law Firm : White Collar Crime, RICO, Trial : Atlanta, Savannah, GA

On June 24, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling. The majority in U.S. v. Skilling, No. 08-2349, in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (which may be read in its 114 page entirety here), held that the "honest services" mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1346, applies to bribery and kickback schemes, and not to mere "undisclosed self-dealing by a public official or private employee," alone. The majority held that Skilling did not violate §1346 since, although the Government charged Skilling with conspiring to de-fraud Enron’s shareholders by misrepresenting the company’s financial health and therefore profiting, the government never alleged that Skilling solicited or accepted any payments from third parties in exchange for making the misrepresentations.

The recent Skilling decision is already having an impact on federal prosecutions. As reported by Law.com, this week, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told the parties in the prosecution of Kevin Ring, a former associate of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, that the Court would grant Ring more time to file a motion for judgment of acquittal in light of Skilling. Ring was charged with bribery and tried last year, however the trial ended in a hung jury. The Court intentionally delayed Ring's retrial to await the Supreme Court's decision in Skilling and the cases of Black v. U.S. and Weyhrauch v. U.S. The prosecution has announced its intent to push forward with a second trial of Ring.

In Georgia news, attorney M. Dewey Bain, of Sugar Hill, Georgia, was sentenced to 5 years and 3 months imprisonment today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for defrauding clients--including a 97 year-old woman--out of $4.3 million, as reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Bain entered into trust agreements with clients in which Bain falsely promised he would invest their monies in safe accounts, but instead fraudulently diverted the monies to his own personal use.

In Southeastern news, Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V.--yes, that Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V.--has agreed to pay $240 million in penalties to the government for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for allegedly bribing officials in Nigeria to obtain engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities on Bonny Island, Nigeria, according to an FBI press release. Snamprogetti is a Dutch corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Snamprogetti S.p.A., an Italian corporation. Snamprogetti was alleged, along with Kellogg Brown & Root Inc. (KBR), Technip S.A. (Technip), and a Japanese engineering and construction company to have engaged in a joint venture that was awarded four EPC contracts by Nigeria LNG Ltd. (NLNG), between 1995 and 2004 to build LNG facilities on Bonny Island. Snamprogetti allegedly caused the venture to hire two agents, Jeffrey Tesler and a Japanese trading company, to pay approximately $172 million in bribes to Nigerian officials. The deferred prosecution agreement was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Snamprogetti also reached a settlement of a related civil action by the SEC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ashby Jones of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog writes today that Firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The company disclosed the investigation and potential future criminal indictments of the company and its officers and employees to investors in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Smith & Wesson also acknowledged that it could face debarment by the U.S. State Department. The investigation is related to an FCPA sting operation which resulted in the indictment of 22 individuals in the arms industry.

According to Law.com, Stuart Rosenfeldt, of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler--as in Scott Rothstein, the convicted $1.2 billion Ponzi schemer--was deposed last week by the law firm's bankruptcy trustee concerning his law firm's finances and political contributions. Rosenfeldt repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to many of the questions. Rosenfeldt stated that he never looked at the firm's books. Also, when asked about groups which he made donations to, such as Common Sense Coalition and Broward Coalition for Truth, Rosenfeldt denied being familiar with the groups or what they stood for. Rosenfeldt's attorney has stated the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is investigating Rosenfeldt's contributions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog also notes the rise in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions by the government. In the latest instance, Jones cites U.S. and British authorities' investigation of Alcoa, the third largest producer of aluminum in the world, based in Pittsburgh, for alleged bribery in negotiating contracts in the Middle East and elsewhere. The authorities are also investigating Victor Dahdaleh, a Canadian citizen and businessman who resides in London, for alleged bribery and money laundering. The allegations center on possible bribes to officials in Bahrain. Specifically, between 2001 and 2005, a company controlled by Dahdaleh allegedly made several million dollars in payments to the bank account of an executive for Alba, a Bahrain government-owned manufacturing company.

The investigation of Alcoa and Dahdaleh began in 2008 after Alba filed suit against Alcoa and Dahdaleh in the U.S. for allegedly conspiring to overcharge Alba for the purchase of thousands of tons of alumina, which is used to make aluminum. Representatives of Alcoa and Alba have issued statements stating that they are cooperating with authorities. Alcoa and a spokesperson for Dahdaleh have also stated that they will "vigorously" defend themselves.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Federal government has massively ramped up enforcement against domestic and foreign corporations for violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), essentially an anti-bribery or kickback statute applicable to overseas transactions. The latest target to fall to FCPA allegations, according to an SEC press release, is German automotive giant Daimler AG. The Securities and Exchange Commission had alleged that Daimler allegedly paid bribes to foreign government officials to secure business in Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. Last Thursday, the SEC announced that Daimler had entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC in which Daimler agreed to pay $91.4 million in disgorgement. Daimler also agreed to pay $93.6 million in fines to settle alleged criminal charges which were announced by the Department of Justice last week.

The SEC complaint, filed on March 22, charges that Daimler allegedly paid $56 million in improper payments, involving more than 200 transactions in 22 countries, over a period of 10 years. The government contends that Daimler allegedly earned $1.9 billion in revenue and at least $90 million in illegal profits as a result of the payments. Included in the government's allegations are allegations that Daimler paid kickbacks to Iraqi officials in relation to sales of vehicles and spare parts to Iraq under the United Nations Oil for Food Program. The complaint also alleges that Daimler kept ledger accounts of credit balances for the benefit of foreign government officials.

Daimler allegedly made bribes or kickbacks through several methods. Amounts of alleged discounts or rebates on sales contracts were allegedly kicked back to foreign officials. Daimler also alleged used false sales intermediaries, corrupt business partners and cash desks to funnel bribes to officials. The government alleges that Daimler's management sanctioned the practices.

Daimler has issued a press release relating to the settlement. The company notes that it cooperated with SEC and DOJ during their investigations, entering into a consent agreement with the SEC and a deferred prosecution agreement with DOJ. The release also notes that Daimler North East Asia Ltd., also entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with DOJ and Mercedes-Benz Russia SAO and Daimler Export und Trade Finance GmbH pled guilty to charges of violations of the FCPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Daimler also states that it has taken steps to ensure that its future conduct will comply with all applicable laws and Daimler's "Integrity Code." Daimler states that under its deferred prosecution agreements, it must maintain a comprehensive compliance program and not commit any further violations of the FCPA for two years. If Daimler successfully complies with these terms, the charges against the corporation and its subsidiaries will be dismissed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday, BAE Systems PLC, a United Kingdom-based, multinational defense contractor, pled guilty in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia to charges of allegedly conspiring to defraud the United States by impairing and impeding its lawful functions, allegedly making false statements about its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance program, and allegedly violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), according to PR Newswire. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered BAE Systems to pay a $400 million criminal fine. The fine is one of the largest ever imposed in a foreign corrupt practices/export control case. BAE Systems also agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor.

BAE Systems, the prime military contractor in the UK, was alleged to have represented to various U.S. government agencies from 2000 to 2002 that it would would create and implement policies and procedures to ensure its compliance with anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), but failed to implement the policies and procedures. BAE Systems was alleged to have saved approximately $200 million in failing to implement the policies and procedures.

The government also alleged that BAE Systems made payments to shell corporations and third party intermediaries which were not subject to the scrutiny required by the U.S. government. BAE Systems is alleged to have retained "marketing advisors" to secure defense contracts and to have allegedly concealed its relationship with these advisors from the U.S. government and made undisclosed payments to them, encouraging them to set up offshore shell corporations to receive payments. The company is alleged to have created one company in the British Virgin Islands in order to allegedly conceal its marketing advisor relationships, the identities of the advisors and how much they were paid; to help the advisors avoid tax liability, and  to obstruct investigating authorities and circumvent laws of countries which prohibit such relationships. BAE Systems is alleged to have made more than £135 million in payments through the shell entity.

BAE Systems was also alleged to have given benefits to an official of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in order to influence sales of fighter jets and other armaments to the country without properly reviewing or verifying the benefits pursuant to U.S. law. BAE Systems is alleged to have transferred millions through a bank account in Switzerland controlled by an intermediary in relation to the deal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The culture of corruption of some foreign nations may heavily influence to U.S. companies doing business abroad to play along in order to be competitive. Regardless of the competitive disadvantages, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) stands as a serious deterrent to engaging in bribery or kickbacks in business transactions abroad. The force of the FCPA was demonstrated once again on Thursday, when two former executives of Willbros International, a subsidiary of Willbros Group, an engineering-construction firm headquartered in Houston, were sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for participating in a $6 million bribe of Nigerian officials to secure a contract for a major natural gas pipeline. As reported by the Houston Chronicle, Jason Edward Steph and Jim Bob Brown had pled guilty to violating the FCPA. U.S. District Judge Sim Lake sentenced Steph to 15 months imprisonment and Brown to a year and a day. Willbros Group has also agreed to pay $32.3 million under a deferred adjudication settlement.

The bribe was made in relation to a $387 million natural gas pipeline project in the Niger Delta known as the Eastern Gas Gathering System. Steph and Brown gave bribes to Nigerian officials to ensure that Willbros was awarded the contract, at one point keeping $1 million in a suitcase.

The prosecution requested consideration for Steph and Brown based on their cooperation with and assistance to the government. Steph told the court that he was doing what his superiors had told him to do.

Brown's attorney pointed out at the sentencing hearing that Brown had been threatened, kidnapped, beaten and shot at while in Nigeria. The court noted the corrupt conditions in Nigeria, observing that one of the Nigerian officials bribed is currently running for office. However, the court stated that it wanted to send a message to the business community in sentencing Steph and Brown.

Another former executive, Kenneth Tillery, remains a fugitive in the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by the Wall Street Journal and DOJ, UTStarcom Inc., a California-based global communications corporation which designs, manufactures and sells network equipment and handsets has agreed to pay $1.5 million in penalties to the government for alleged acts of bribery in the People’s Republic of China in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The company simultaneously reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the same conduct in which it agreed to pay an additional $1.5 million.

UTStarcom entered an agreement with the government--in which UTStarcom neither admitted nor denied the allegations--which states that, between 2002 and 2007, the company's employees and agents allegedly arranged and paid for employees of Chinese state-owned telecommunications companies and UTStarcom customers to travel to popular tourist destinations in the U.S., including New York City, Las Vegas and Hawaii, purportedly to participate in training at UTStarcom facilities. However, UTStarcom purportedly had no facilities in the locations and conducted no training. UTStarcom recorded the trips as alleged "training" expenses. The government charged that the trips were for the alleged purpose of securing telecommunications contracts in China. The value of the trips and other gifts to foreign employees was alleged to be approximately $7 million.

The SEC has also alleged that UTStarcom obtained work visas for employees of its foreign customers to work in the U.S. and paid the individuals salaries and benefits although the individuals allegedly did no work. It claims that UTStarcom allegedly falsely accounted for payments to the individuals as employee compensation and created false annual performance reviews for personnel files of the individuals.

In addition to paying penalties, the agreement requires UTStarcom to implement various internal controls and to cooperate fully with the Department of Justice. The agreement also recognizes UTStarcom's voluntary disclosures to, and cooperation with, the government, and the company's efforts to correct the conduct. DOJ has agreed not to prosecute UTStarcom or its subsidiaries in exchange for its cooperation and its compliance with the agreement.

UTStarcom's focus has been Asian markets, in particular China. The company does business in China through UTStarcom China Co. Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to Law.com, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found Gerald and Patricia Green guilty of conspiracy, money laundering and violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

The Greens were film producers based in Beverly Hills. They were charged and found guilty of conspiring to bribe a government official of Thailand in exchange for being awarded contracts, including for control of the annual Bangkok International Film Festival. The Government alleged that the Greens paid approximately $1.8 million in bribes to Juthamas Siriwan, the former Governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand, between 2002 and 2007, in exchange for contracts. The kickbacks were paid to Siriwan's daughter through banks in the United Kingdom and SIngapore. The Greens used different business names, with false addresses and telephone numbers, to conceal the payments. It alleged that the Greens' businesses earned approximately $13.5 million from the contracts.

The Greens' trial was the first involving the FCPA and the film industry, and lasted nearly three weeks. They will be sentenced in December. Mr. Green is 77 and Mrs. Green is 52. They face a maximum of up to 20 years in prison.

The Green case once again raises the dilemma of the interplay of U.S. laws and corrupt foreign customs and practices in some cases. Bribery, corruption and graft can be deeply ingrained in some foreign countries (fully recognizing that some areas of the U.S. suffer from the same!) and U.S. nationals and businesses operating in those countries may be expected or required to play along. For industries such as the U.S. film industry which frequently operates abroad, these situations can carry serious consequences under U.S. law. Individuals and businesses operating overseas which are confronted with such situations should consult counsel before determining how to act or respond.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We did not weigh in yesterday, but the biggest federal criminal defense news was clearly the conviction of U.S. Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana in his criminal trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, as reported by the New Orleans Times-Picayune. The jury of eight women and four men returned a verdict of guilty against Jefferson on 11 of 16 counts, including 2 counts of conspiracy to solicit bribes to a public official in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 2 counts of soliciting bribes, 3 counts of honest services fraud, 3 counts of money laundering, and one count of racketeer influenced and corrupt organization (RICO) violations. As a testament to Jefferson's defense, the jury did not find Jefferson guilty on three of the honest services charges as well as a charge for obstruction of justice and a count for violation of the FCPA.

Jefferson, who is 62, faced a maximum of 235 years in prison if convicted on all counts. He has been allowed to remain released pending his sentencing on October 30. A forfeiture hearing will be held regarding his assets.

Jefferson was the first African-American congressman from Louisiana since Reconstruction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Judge T.S. Ellis, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia read instructions to the jury yesterday which lasted over 2 & 1/2 hours, and the jury retired for its deliberations in the case against former U.S. Representative William Jefferson. The jury deliberated for about four hours and will re-convene to continue deliberations this morning.

The jury weighing the evidence in the six week long trial of Jefferson on 16 criminal counts, including racketeering, honest services fraud and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, consists of two white males, six white females, two black males and two black females. Jefferson's case is the first time the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has been applied to a public official. The Court sent three alternate jurors home yesterday, instructing them to remain "pristine" with regard to their exposure to information regarding the case.Jefferson's lead attorney, Robert Trout, told reporters that Jefferson intends to be present at Court each morning when the jury arrives.

Closing arguments were heard earlier in the week, with numerous media outlets and journalists from Louisiana in attendance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The trial of former Representative William Jefferson, which has gone on for six weeks in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, will come to an end today. As reported by Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog and UPI, both sides gave their closing arguments yesterday. Judge T.S. Ellis will give jury instructions and likely send the case to the jury this morning.

The case is best known for the infamous discovery of $90,000 in cash stuffed in boxes for burgers and pie crusts in the freezer at Jefferson's home by federal agents. Jefferson was indicted in 2007 on 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The government charged Jefferson with using his position to promote business ventures in West Africa in exchange for cash payments for his family.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Bellows argued during the govenrment's closing that Jefferson allegedly schemed to give at least $100,000 in cash (the "freezer money") to the Vice President of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, as a bribe in exchange for granting rights to a telecommunications company with ties to Jefferson's family. The government also played video and audio tapes of meetings between Jefferson and Virginia businesswoman Lori Mody, who was working for the government as an informant. In one video, Jefferson supposedly informed Mody that the cash would be "doled out" to "make sure the hook is in there," and on another tape Jefferson allegedly referred to the bribe as "a goodwill present."

The defense maintained during trial that Jefferson's conduct was stupid or unethical, but not criminal. Defense attorney Robert Trout told the jury during his closing arguments that the government wanted to make Jefferson's actions a crime when it was really a "gray area." He told the jury that Jefferson only agreed to give the money to Abubaker in order to please Ms. Mody.

Prior to closing arguments, Judge Ellis refused to dismiss an obstruction of justice count against Jefferson. Jefferson faces a lengthy prison sentence if convicted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

    In rare circumstances, United States citizens are the victims, or even the perpetrators, of crimes in foreign nations. It is a basic premise—one that some Americans overlook—that while in a foreign county an American citizen is subject to that country’s laws, which in some cases can carry far harsher penalties that similar violations in the U.S. When charged with a crime in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen must go through that country’s criminal justice system and—as memorably attested to by films such as Midnight Express, Return to Paradise, Brokedown Palace and the National Geographic Channel’s series Locked Up Abroad—stay in that country’s prisons, sometimes under far worse conditions than American prisons.

    The United States Department of State protects the rights of American citizens abroad, provides a wide array of service to citizens who are detained abroad, works to ensure that citizens are afforded due process under local laws and are treated consistent with internationally recognized standards of human rights, and monitors conditions in foreign prisons. When a U.S. citizen is convicted of a crime in a foreign country, he or she, in some cases, may apply to be transferred to the United States to serve out the remainder of his or her foreign sentence if the foreign country has a “prisoner transfer treaty” with the U.S. See 18 U.S.C. § 4100 et seq. (In contrast, prosecutors who wish to prosecute individuals located in a foreign country utilize “mutual legal assistance treaties,” which the U.S. currently possesses with over 50 other nations, including the European Union as a whole). The U.S. is a party to two multilateral prisoner transfer treaties, the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, or COE Convention, and the Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad, or OAS Convention, and, in addition, has bilateral prisoner transfer treaties in effect with approximately thirteen countries.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link