Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Use of the Travel Act to Prosecute Foreign Commercial Bribery
On Sept. 20, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied another round of defense motions in United States v. Carson, a case arising out of alleged bribes paid or authorized by employees of Control Components Inc. (CCI), a California manufacturer of control valves that pleaded guilty to FCPA violations in 2009. See DOJ Press Rel. No. 09-754, Control Components Inc. Pleads Guilty to Foreign Bribery Charges and Agrees to Pay $18.2 Million Criminal Fine (July 31, 2009), www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/July/09-crm-754.html. The latest motions had challenged the government's indictments under the Travel Act. The court also denied motions that contended that California's commercial bribery statute does not reach defendants' conduct, that the relevant statutes invoked in the indictment are unconstitutionally vague, and that several of the government's counts are defective because they omitted allegations pertaining to essential elements of the Travel Act.
The Carson case, which is not scheduled to go to trial until mid-2012, has already featured several challenges to the U.S. government's prosecution of foreign bribery. The Travel Act motion comes on the heels of the defendants' objection to the government's interpretation of the term “foreign official” in the FCPA. Previously, the district court had rejected the defendants challenge based on the definition of “foreign official” that asserted that payments to employees of state instrumentalities that do not perform traditional government functions are not encompassed by the FCPA, and that specific individuals employed by a Mexican state-owned public utility Comisi'n Federal de Electricidad did not fall within the parameters of this definition. See Sean Hecker, Philip Rohlik & Michael A. Janson, Carson Ruling on Defendants' Challenge to the DOJ's Definition of “Foreign Official”: A Fact-Based Approach, FCPA Update, Vol. 2, No. 10 (May 2011). For further coverage on Carson, see Sean Hecker, Bruce E. Yannett & Michael A. Janson, Defendants Contest DOJ's Definition of “Foreign Official,” FCPA Update, Vol. 2, No. 9 (Apr. 2011).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.