Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Business Crimes Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
April 26, 2013

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOJ Antitrust Division Announces Change to Carve-Out Practice for Individuals

On April 12, Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, announced two significant changes to the Department's handling of corporate disposition via plea agreements.

Previously, as part of plea agreements with corporations, the Antitrust Division had carved out those employees whom it believed had culpability from those who were afforded non-prosecution protection by the plea agreement. Further, additional carve-outs were also created for three other categories of individuals: 1) Employees against whom the Antitrust Division was continuing to develop evidence; 2) Employees who had refused to cooperate with the Antitrust Division's investigation; and 3) Employees with potentially relevant information whom the Antitrust Division had not been able to locate. As part of the carve-out process, the names of the employees within these four categories were written into the corporate plea agreement that was publicly filed in the corresponding federal district court.

The newly announced prospective practice of the Antitrust Division is twofold. First, going forward, only employees believed to be part of the criminal conduct will continue to be carved out of corporate plea agreements. Second, names of carved-out employees will now be listed in an appendix that the Antitrust Division will ask for leave to file under seal, rather than in the publicly filed plea agreement.

In announcing the policy shift that was arrived at after conducting a “thorough review of the division's approach to corporate dispositions,” Assistant Attorney General Baer summarized the Antitrust Division's rationale succinctly, as follows: “Absent some significant justification, it is ordinarily not appropriate to publicly identify uncharged third-party wrongdoers.”

'

NEW YORK

Ongoing FCPA Investigation Leads to Charges Against French Citizen

On April 15, the DOJ announced that it had filed obstruction charges against 50-year-old French citizen Frederic Cilins, in connection with an ongoing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation into an alleged bribery scheme involving mining rights in the Republic of Guinea.

In addition to the charge of obstructing a criminal investigation, the Complaint filed in the Southern District of New York after Cilins' arrest a day earlier in Jacksonville, FL, includes two additional counts: 1) tampering with a witness, victim, or informant; and 2) altering or falsifying records in a federal investigation.

According to the Complaint, Cilins attempted to bribe a witness to turn over documents to him for destruction. The attempts by Cilins ' made during face-to-face meetings with the witness, as well as during telephone conversations ' were either recorded or monitored by the Government. The documents, which included original copies of a contract between the company of a former wife of a since-deceased Guinean government official and the mining company and its affiliates for whom Cilins worked, were to be produced before the federal grand jury that has been convened for the case.

According to the Government, the deceased Guinean government official's position enabled him to influence mining concessions within the country, and the contract signed with the company established by his wife provided for $2 million to go to the company, as well as for additional funds “to be distributed among persons of good will who may have contributed to facilitating the granting of” rights. Further, the Complaint also accuses Cilins of attempting to induce a witness to sign a false affidavit addressing the subject matter of the grand jury's investigation.

While the obstruction charge carries a maximum five-year term of imprisonment, the remaining charges both carry 25-year maximum terms of imprisonment.

'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOJ Antitrust Division Announces Change to Carve-Out Practice for Individuals

On April 12, Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, announced two significant changes to the Department's handling of corporate disposition via plea agreements.

Previously, as part of plea agreements with corporations, the Antitrust Division had carved out those employees whom it believed had culpability from those who were afforded non-prosecution protection by the plea agreement. Further, additional carve-outs were also created for three other categories of individuals: 1) Employees against whom the Antitrust Division was continuing to develop evidence; 2) Employees who had refused to cooperate with the Antitrust Division's investigation; and 3) Employees with potentially relevant information whom the Antitrust Division had not been able to locate. As part of the carve-out process, the names of the employees within these four categories were written into the corporate plea agreement that was publicly filed in the corresponding federal district court.

The newly announced prospective practice of the Antitrust Division is twofold. First, going forward, only employees believed to be part of the criminal conduct will continue to be carved out of corporate plea agreements. Second, names of carved-out employees will now be listed in an appendix that the Antitrust Division will ask for leave to file under seal, rather than in the publicly filed plea agreement.

In announcing the policy shift that was arrived at after conducting a “thorough review of the division's approach to corporate dispositions,” Assistant Attorney General Baer summarized the Antitrust Division's rationale succinctly, as follows: “Absent some significant justification, it is ordinarily not appropriate to publicly identify uncharged third-party wrongdoers.”

'

NEW YORK

Ongoing FCPA Investigation Leads to Charges Against French Citizen

On April 15, the DOJ announced that it had filed obstruction charges against 50-year-old French citizen Frederic Cilins, in connection with an ongoing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation into an alleged bribery scheme involving mining rights in the Republic of Guinea.

In addition to the charge of obstructing a criminal investigation, the Complaint filed in the Southern District of New York after Cilins' arrest a day earlier in Jacksonville, FL, includes two additional counts: 1) tampering with a witness, victim, or informant; and 2) altering or falsifying records in a federal investigation.

According to the Complaint, Cilins attempted to bribe a witness to turn over documents to him for destruction. The attempts by Cilins ' made during face-to-face meetings with the witness, as well as during telephone conversations ' were either recorded or monitored by the Government. The documents, which included original copies of a contract between the company of a former wife of a since-deceased Guinean government official and the mining company and its affiliates for whom Cilins worked, were to be produced before the federal grand jury that has been convened for the case.

According to the Government, the deceased Guinean government official's position enabled him to influence mining concessions within the country, and the contract signed with the company established by his wife provided for $2 million to go to the company, as well as for additional funds “to be distributed among persons of good will who may have contributed to facilitating the granting of” rights. Further, the Complaint also accuses Cilins of attempting to induce a witness to sign a false affidavit addressing the subject matter of the grand jury's investigation.

While the obstruction charge carries a maximum five-year term of imprisonment, the remaining charges both carry 25-year maximum terms of imprisonment.

'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?