Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Business Crimes Hotline
Head of International NGO Convicted of Bribery, Money Laundering Crimes
On Dec. 5, 2018, Chi Ping Patrick Ho, aka Patrick C.P. Ho, the 69 year old former head of the China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC NGO), a Chinese nongovernmental organization based in Hong Kong and Arlington, Virginia, was convicted by a federal jury in New York City in connection with alleged bribes offered to officials in Chad and Uganda. The jury found Ho guilty of one count of conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), four counts of violating the FCPA, one count of conspiring to commit international money laundering and one count of committing international money laundering.
At the week-long trial, federal prosecutors presented evidence that Ho participated in separate schemes to bribe officials in Chad and Uganda in order to advantage CEFC China Energy, a multi-billion dollar Chinese energy conglomerate that backed his CEFC NGO. Ho's NGO, which held “Special Consultative Status” with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, allegedly offered bribes of $2 million and $1 million to officials in Chad and Uganda, respectively.
According to the evidence presented at trial, around September 2014, during the annual UN General Assembly, Ho worked with a Senegalese official to arrange a meeting with President Idriss Déby of Chad to discuss CEFC China Energy's acquisition of Chadian oil rights. After an initial meeting with President Déby in November 2014, Ho flew back to Chad in December 2014 with $2 million in cash, which he concealed in gift boxes presented to President Déby. After discovering the money, President Déby rejected the bribe. Ho attempted to explain the cash away as a “donation” to Chad, but was ultimately unable to obtain any unfair advantage in the country.
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?