REALATED ARTICLES

Click on a word or phrase in our Tag Cloud and see all related articles listed below.

 

Current tag:

Biomet: Charged with Foreign Bribery

Biomet 3I do Brasil26-03-2012. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today charged Warsaw, Indiana-based medical device company Biomet Inc. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) when its subsidiaries and agents bribed public doctors in Argentina, Brazil, and China for nearly a decade to win business. Biomet, which primarily sells products used by orthopedic surgeons, agreed to pay more than $22 million to settle the SEC’s charges as well as parallel criminal charges announced by the U.S. Department of Justice today. The charges arise from the SEC and DOJ’s ongoing proactive global investigation into medical device companies bribing publicly-employed physicians.


The SEC alleges that Biomet and its four subsidiaries paid bribes from 2000 to August 2008, and employees and managers at all levels of the parent company and the subsidiaries were involved along with the distributors who sold Biomet’s products. Biomet’s compliance and internal audit functions failed to stop the payments to doctors even after learning about the illegal practices. “Biomet’s misconduct came to light because of the government’s proactive investigation of bribery within the medical device industry,” said Kara Novaco Brockmeyer, Chief of the Enforcement Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit. “A company’s compliance and internal audit should be the first line of defense against corruption, not part of the problem.” According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Washington D.C., employees of Biomet Argentina SA paid kickbacks as high as 15 to 20 percent of each sale to publicly-employed doctors in Argentina. Phony invoices were used to justify the payments, and the bribes were falsely recorded as “consulting fees” or “commissions” in Biomet’s books and records. Executives and internal auditors at Biomet’s Indiana headquarters were aware of the payments as early as 2000, but failed to stop it.

Biomet3I do Brasil Centro Profissional
The SEC alleges that Biomet’s U.S. subsidiary Biomet International used a distributor to bribe publicly-employed doctors in Brazil by paying them as much as 10 to 20 percent of the value of their medical device purchases. Payments were openly discussed in communications between the distributor, Biomet International employees, and Biomet’s executives and internal auditors in the U.S. For example, a February 2002 internal Biomet memorandum about a limited audit of the distributor’s books stated:


Brazilian Distributor makes payments to surgeons that may be considered as a kickback. These payments are made in cash that allows the surgeon to receive income tax free. …The accounting entry is to increase a prepaid expense account. In the consolidated financials sent to Biomet, these payments were reclassified to expense in the income statement.


According to the SEC’s complaint, two additional subsidiaries – Biomet China and Scandimed AB – sold medical devices through a distributor in China who provided publicly-employed doctors with money and travel in exchange for their purchases of Biomet products. Beginning as early as 2001, the distributor exchanged e-mails with Biomet employees that explicitly described the bribes he was arranging on the company’s behalf. For example, one e-mail stated:


[Doctor] is the department head of [public hospital]. [Doctor] uses about 10 hips and knees a month and it’s on an uptrend, as he told us over dinner a week ago. …Many key surgeons in Shanghai are buddies of his. A kind word on Biomet from him goes a long way for us. Dinner has been set for the evening of the 24th. It will be nice. But dinner aside, I’ve got to send him to Switzerland to visit his daughter.


The SEC alleges that some e-mails described the way that vendors would deliver cash to surgeons upon completion of surgery, and others discussed the amount of payments. The distributor explained in one e-mail that 25 percent in cash would be delivered to a surgeon upon completion of surgery. Biomet sponsored travel for 20 Chinese surgeons in 2007 to Spain, where a substantial part of the trip was devoted to sightseeing and other entertainment.


Biomet consented to the entry of a court order requiring payment of $4,432,998 in disgorgement and $1,142,733 in prejudgment interest. Biomet also is ordered to retain an independent compliance consultant for 18 months to review its FCPA compliance program, and is permanently enjoined from future violations of Sections 30A, 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Biomet agreed to pay a $17.28 million fine to settle the criminal charges.

Sources: SEC; Photos: Biomet 3i do Brasil;

Related Articles

No Mercy with Violators of Corporate Compliance

Dr Rüdiger Scheitza, Member of the Board Bayer CropScience, and Labour Director, including example of Brazilian operations

OECD: Brazil needs to improve systems to promote greater integrity in public service

Improving the IP System on a global scale: A view from Japan

Prof. Sadao Nagaoka, Institute of Innovation Research, and Chief Policy Adviser to the Japanese Government

(C) Wolf G Kroner 2012February 2012. Prof. Sadao Nagoka dedicates his academic work to the effects of intellectual property (IP) rights on R&D policy as well as the design of competition and trade policies. His work is influential in shaping the political framework for innovation in Japan. In the exclusive interview with B2Bioworld he describes barriers to innovation with examples from Japan’s life science sector. He outlines his role as Member of EPO’s advisory board, and offers insights about how and what the world’s major IP systems of Japan, Europe and the United States might learn from each other. Trends for biotech start-ups in Japan, an overview on its examination request system (including fast track) and expected impact of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on bio-prospecting.

 

Related Articles

Teeth for the Convention on Biological Diversity

Christian Wichard, Deputy Director General of WIPO

Patenting Stem Cells – Behind the Front Stage

The Global Dimension of EU Health and Food Policies

Paola Testori-Coggi, Director-General for Health and Consumers, European Commission

Prospects of Enzyme Engineering and Biofuels Markets in Russia

Vladimir O. Popov, Director Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Moscow

Plants are Nature’s Best Chemists

On application fields from tyres, functional food, to platform chemicals

Resolving the Innovation Paradox

Dr. Günter von Au, Designated Board Member Clariant AG and CEO Süd-Chemie AG

Customs Sequencing Markets

Worldwide evolution of the market and upcoming business opportunities (including Asia)

European Patent Office: Patent filings 2011



If you would like to read more, please proceed to the download section.

Important: After pressing "Buy this article (PayPal)" below you will be taken to the PaypPal checkout page. There you must press the orange "Return To BioBusinessMedia" button in order to download your article.
In buying this article you agree with our Terms & Conditions which you can consult here.

8 pages, illustrated,ad free,

WHO ECEH taps major donation and streamlines European operations

(C) WHO / Nicoletta Di Tanno 201214-02-2012. Budget squeeze of member countries is pushing inter-governmental organisations to streamline their operations while looking to provide greater returns to major donors. A report about the welcome ceremony of the WHO European Centre for Environment and Health (ECEH) at Bonn, Germany.

 

 

 

 

 

Related Articles

The Global Dimension of EU Health and Food Policies

Paola Testori-Coggi, Director-General for Health and Consumers, European Commission

FAO: Major shifts expected in operations

Roche Ethiopia: Build-up of an emerging market



If you would like to read more, please proceed to the download section.

Important: After pressing "Buy this article (PayPal)" below you will be taken to the PaypPal checkout page. There you must press the orange "Return To BioBusinessMedia" button in order to download your article.
In buying this article you agree with our Terms & Conditions which you can consult here.

1 page, advert free

OECD Bribery Follow-up Report on Switzerland

12.01.2012. OECD recognises Switzerland’s commitment to the fight against foreign bribery and recommends further improvements. The OECD Working Group on Bribery congratulates Switzerland on its first conviction of a company for foreign bribery and recommends that it continue its enforcement efforts. However, the OECD is concerned that there has been only one other conviction, of an individual, for foreign bribery since Switzerland enacted the offence in 2000. The report notes that Switzerland is particularly exposed to the risks of bribery of foreign public officials due to its important financial sector and the large number of multinational enterprises based there.


The OECD Working Group on Bribery has just completed its evaluation of Switzerland’s implementation of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and related instruments.


The Working Group recommends that Switzerland:


·    Better equip law enforcement authorities by way of specialised training on the enforcement of corporate criminal liability; 
·    Establish systematic mechanisms allowing for the exclusion of companies convicted of corruption from public procurement and official development assistance contracts;
·    Review its policy concerning small facilitation payments to foreign public officials;
·    Undertake awareness raising on the risks of foreign bribery that is even more targeted towards Swiss SMEs that are active in foreign markets; 
·    Adopt a regulatory framework to protect whistleblowers in the private sector that report in good faith and on reasonable grounds suspected acts of foreign bribery.


The report also highlights positive aspects of Switzerland’s efforts to combat foreign bribery, and notes in particular its proactive policy on the confiscation of the bribe and proceeds of foreign bribery, as well as the restitution of illicit assets that are held in Switzerland. The Working Group congratulates Switzerland for its effort to respond to requests for mutual legal assistance and considers that these efforts provide a significant contribution to enforcement actions against foreign bribery in other jurisdictions. The Group also welcomes the recent introduction of measures to facilitate detection of suspected foreign bribery cases by law enforcement authorities, such as the introduction of a general obligation for most federal officials to report allegations of foreign bribery, as well as a framework to protect federal officials who report in good faith.

The Working Group notes with interest the extension of external auditing requirements to a larger number of categories of legal entities and also notes the efforts to consult and train auditors and accountants on the issue of the detection of fraud associated with bribery. In general, the Group notes that Switzerland has made significant efforts, in partnership with professional associations and civil society, to raise awareness in the business, accounting and auditing sectors. In this regard, the Working Group encourages Switzerland to undertake even more focused awareness raising with SMEs, on internal control mechanisms to prevent the payment of bribes to foreign public officials. In relation to external audit, the Group also recommends that Switzerland require external auditors to report allegations of foreign bribery to competent authorities outside of the company. In addition, the Group considers that, given the importance of the country in the international economy and the number of influential Swiss companies, Switzerland should undertake a regular review of its policy in relation to small facilitation payments.


The report and its recommendations reflect findings of experts from Austria and Hungary and were adopted by the Working Group on Bribery. Switzerland will submit a written report on the implementation of all recommendations within two years. The Phase 3 report is based on legislation and other materials provided by Switzerland, as well as the information obtained by the evaluation team during the three-day on-site visit to Bern from 28 to 30 June 2011, during which the evaluation team met representatives from the federal and cantonal administrations, the private sector and civil society.

Source: OECD Anti-Corruption Division

References

OECD (2011): Phase 3 Report on Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in Switzerland. Working Group on Bribery. December. Paris, published January 12, 2012.

 

Related Articles

No Mercy with Violators of Corporate Compliance

Dr Rüdiger Scheitza, Member of the Board Bayer CropScience, and Labour Director

The Global Dimension of EU Health and Food Policies

Paola Testori-Coggi, Director-General for Health and Consumers, European Commission

Ukraine has to put anti-corruption declarations into actions requires OECD


FAO: Major shifts expected in operations

(C) FAO / Alessandra Benedetti 201203-01-2012. FAO’s new chief is striving for sensible changes in operations. This will have significant repercussions for the organisation, its present partners, and the fight against hunger. Opportunities and constraints. A report by João F. Santos Pessoa and Wolf G Kroner on the inaugural press conference of FAO’s incoming Director-General at Rome.

 

 

Related Articles

Roche Ethiopia: Build-up of an emerging market

The Global Dimension of EU Health and Food Policies

Paola Testori-Coggi, Director-General for Health and Consumers, European Commission

Teeth for the Convention on Biological Diversity

Christian Wichard, Deputy Director General of WIPO

Plant Genetic Engineering: ”It’s not as simple as Yes or No !”

Nobel Prize winner Prof. Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard Warns of GMO-populism and researchers not standing up

Brazil needs to improve systems to promote greater integrity in public service

Plants are Nature’s Best Chemists

Jimmy Smith moves from World Bank to ILRI Kenya



If you would like to read more, please proceed to the download section.

Important: After pressing "Buy this article (PayPal)" below you will be taken to the PaypPal checkout page. There you must press the orange "Return To BioBusinessMedia" button in order to download your article.
In buying this article you agree with our Terms & Conditions which you can consult here.

4 pages, advert-free

Brazil needs to improve systems to promote greater integrity in public service

27-10-2011. Brazil has made strong progress over the past decade in the fight against misconduct in the public sector, but there is still room to improve procedures to detect and prevent improper acts by officials, according to a new OECD report. The OECD Integrity Review of Brazil praises the federal government’s efforts to develop institutions and  practices that enhance integrity across the public administration. The report - presented in Brasilia by OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria and Jorge Hage, Comptroller General of the Union (Controladoria-Geral da União) - marks the first time that the integrity framework of a G20 country is reviewed by the OECD. “Integrity cannot depend only on the commitment of leaders. It has to be supported by systems, processes and the organisation of public administration at all levels”. Mr. Gurria said. “Brazil has demonstrated that it is serious about reforming the public sector to prevent corruption. There is still much to do, but this should not overshadow the enormous progress that has already been made. Brazil’s willingness to be reviewed by its peers on an important systemic issue like public integrity also highlights its growing role and profile in international debates and decision-making processes.”

The OECD review focuses on Brazilian action in four key areas: promoting transparency and citizen engagement, implementing risk-based internal control systems, embedding high standards of conduct among public officials and enhancing integrity in public procurement.
Three case studies – on Brazil's federal tax administration, on the Family Grant conditional cash transfer programme, and on the National STD/AIDS Programmes – highlight significant differences in the implementation of integrity measures within public organisations. The case studies show that integrity authorities should provide more practical “how to” guidance and tools to improve performance in individual public organisations, parallel to government-wide initiatives.


Looking ahead, the OECD says that Brazil should:


·    Make risk management a core responsibility of all public managers, rather than only a task for internal auditors. Managers should be empowered to identify and manage the risk of waste, fraud and corruption in their respective operations.
·    Ensure that institutions and officials are capable of meeting their respective objectives, notably by providing necessary resources and training, continual assessment and sharing of lessons learned.
·    Integrate currently fragmented assessment activities – now run by managers, inspectors, internal auditors, ombudsmen, ethics committees and others – into broad management frameworks to support performance and promote accountability.
·    Increase co-ordination to develop a collective commitment towards integrity reforms. Central integrity authorities could better work together when assessing and planning new initiatives to prevent waste, fraud and corruption or to modernise the public administration.


The OECD Integrity Review of Brazil is the fourth in a series of Public Governance Reviews in Brazil. It follows earlier OECD reviews on Public Budgeting, in 2003, Regulatory Reform, in 2008, and Human Resources Management in Government, in 2010. The OECD is currently conducting a peer review of Brazil’s Supreme Audit Institution (Tribunal de Contas da União), slated for publication in 2012. The new review supports Brazil’s longstanding international anti-corruption commitments. Brazil has been a signatory to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions since 2000. It was also one of the eight founding countries that launched the Open Government Partnership – a multilateral intiative to promote transparency, fight corruption and strengthen governance - in New York in September 2011.

Source: OECD

 

Related Articles

FAO: Major shifts expected in operations

José Graziano da Silva, new Director-General details his plans and unveils the approach to implementation


No Mercy with Violators of Corporate Compliance

 

Ukraine has to put anti-corruption declarations into actions requires OECD

 

 

Ukraine has to put anti-corruption declarations into actions requires OECD

January 13, 2011. Ukraine has made little progress in tackling corruption over the past four years, despite regular pledges from the country’s leaders to take action, according to a new OECD report.  Ukraine must urgently put in place anti-corruption laws to meet its international obligations and show greater political will to fight corruption, the OECD said.
 
The OECD has reviewed Ukraine’s efforts to fight corruption as part of its Eastern European and Central Asian initiative, called the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan.
 
The review recommends that Ukraine:
·    Adopt fundamental anti-corruption legislation to bring Ukraine in compliance with international standards and obligations;
·    Strengthen public institutions responsible for tackling corruption and establish a dedicated anti-corruption investigative body with specialist prosecutors;
·    Reform legislation relating to integrity of civil service and conflict of interest, and promote its implementation;
·    Review the system of control of political party financing to ensure its transparency;
·    Further develop public dialogue, particularly with business, in the fight against corruption.
 This report commends Ukraine on progress made in the following areas:
·    A new law on public procurement improved the institutional set-up but further measures are needed to prevent corruption and conflict of interest in public procurement;
·    The recently adopted law on judiciary improved the legal framework to guarantee independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
 The IAP is an initiative launched in 2003 to support anti-corruption reform efforts in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan as part of the OECD Working Group on Bribery outreach work in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. 


References

OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (2010): Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan. Second Round of Monitoring - Ukraine Monitoring Report. December 8.

OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (2010): Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan. Second Round of Monitoring - Tajikistan Monitoring Report. December 8.

OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (2010): Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan. Uzbekistan – Assessments and recommendations. December 7.

Source: OECD

 

 

Related Editorial Article

 

No Mercy with Violators of Corporate Compliance

- Dr Rüdiger Scheitza, Member of the Board Bayer CropScience, and Labour Director

 

 

Related Press Release

 

OECD Gets Strong Backing for Anti-corruption Efforts

 

No Mercy with Violators of Corporate Compliance

Dr Rüdiger Scheitza, Member of the Board Bayer CropScience, and Labour Director

(C) Wolf G Kroner 2010September 2010. Global companies operate in different jurisdictions with legal frameworks rooted in regional customs and traditions. Doing business in a correct manner or legally acceptable ways quickly becomes complex the wider the cultures are apart.

 

Corporate governance and compliance policies are means to ensure conformity with sometimes widely differing laws as well as providing for smooth flow of international transactions. While companies are eager to publish their guidelines, many of them remain rather secretive in public, how they implement these No wonder, that some regard such policies as waste paper or a front.B2Bioworld asked Dr Rüdiger Scheitza, Member of the Board Bayer CropScience, and Labour Director.

 

 

Related Articles

Roche Ethiopia: Build-up of an emerging market

The Global Dimension of EU Health and Food Policies 

Paola Testori-Coggi, Director-General for Health and Consumers, European Commission




If you would like to read more, please proceed to the download section.

Important: After pressing "Buy this article (PayPal)" below you will be taken to the PaypPal checkout page. There you must press the orange "Return To BioBusinessMedia" button in order to download your article.
In buying this article you agree with our Terms & Conditions which you can consult here.

enquiry, 3 pages

The Global Dimension of EU Health and Food Policies

Paola Testori-Coggi, Director-General for Health and Consumers, European Commission

Paola Testori-CoggiSeptember 2010. The EU needs to ensure that international trade corresponds to its level of standards, says Paola Testori-Coggi, Director-General for Health and Consumers in the European Commission. Broader responsibilities of the food and pharmaceuticals industries are concomitant with these efforts. In an exclusive interview with B2Bioworld Sig.ra Testori-Coggi outlines the directorate’s policy lines for development aid and international trade, supportive actions in developing countries, next funding priorities, as well as expectations for industry and NGOs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Articles

FAO: Major shifts expected in operations

José Graziano da Silva, new Director-General details his plans and unveils the approach to implementation

Roche Ethiopia: Build-up of an emerging market

No Mercy with Violators of Corporate Compliance

Dr Rüdiger Scheitza, Member of the Board Bayer CropScience, and Labour Director
on ensuring governance and compliance around the world - developing countries included.



If you would like to read more, please proceed to the download section.

Important: After pressing "Buy this article (PayPal)" below you will be taken to the PaypPal checkout page. There you must press the orange "Return To BioBusinessMedia" button in order to download your article.
In buying this article you agree with our Terms & Conditions which you can consult here.

exclusive interview, 3 pages

OECD Gets Strong Backing for Anti-corruption Efforts

US fully compliant with peer review by Working Group on Bribery

31-05-2010. During a preparation meeting for the third peer review of the US by the OECD Working Group on Bribery next week, Attorney General Holder Eric Holder underlined that the US government is fully compliant with OECD’s intentions and investigations. This means strong backing for the organisation's anti-corruption efforts in other parts of the world. Following is Mr.Holder’s speech at OECD’s Paris headquarters today:

 

Eric H Holder, Attorney General“Standing before you today is not only professionally but also personally meaningful to me. As some of you may know, I began my career as a prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department. The lessons I learned there, prosecuting official corruption cases, have informed my entire career.
I learned, for example, that the costs of corruption are immeasurable. I learned that corruption erodes, even destroys, the faith of citizens in their governments. And I learned that its effects are felt most severely not by the powerful, but by the powerless.
But you know all this. You also know something else I learned in the Public Integrity Section – that, with enough willpower and with the right partners, corruption can be defeated. The OECD has proven this. For years, the OECD has been at the forefront of efforts to combat corruption wherever and however it occurs. And under the masterful leadership of Secretary-General Gurría, it remains so today. I am grateful to each of you for your commitment to this work – especially my colleagues on the United States’ interagency delegation, including Ambassador Karen Kornbluh * and representatives of the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Thank you all for your service.
The struggle against corruption, as President Obama has put it, "is one of the great struggles of our time." As I speak, a corrupt official somewhere is enjoying undeserved and illegal proceeds. He may be driving a brand-new luxury car. She may be filling her off-shore bank account with tainted cash. They may be traveling first-class on all-expenses-paid holidays.
But what about the countless law-abiding citizens to whom these officials pledged their faithful and honest service? In many cases, they are struggling to survive, working to overcome the perils of poverty, disease, and malnutrition. It's ugly but true – and wrong.
But corruption is more than wrong. For the global economy, corruption is dangerous. Bribery in international business, for example, may center on shell companies and wire transfers, but no matter where – or how – it happens, the corrosive result is the same: stymied development, lost confidence, and distorted competition. The result is unfairness, not justice; the consequence is economic decay, not development.
The World Bank estimates that more than one trillion dollars in bribes are paid each year out of a world economy of 30 trillion dollars. That's a staggering three percent of the world's economy. And the impact is particularly severe on foreign investment. In fact, the World Bank estimates that corruption serves, essentially, as a 20-percent tax.
Put simply, corruption undermines the promise of democracy. It imperils development, stability, and faith in our markets. And it weakens the rule of law.
And, of course, this is true not for any one country or any one region. Corruption is a global problem that knows no borders. And that’s why corruption demands a truly global response – one that knows no limits on collaboration.
With these realities and principles as its guideposts, the OECD has led this response. In the face of critics who said it could not be done, the original parties to the Working Group on Bribery established the Anti-Bribery Convention more than a decade ago, gaining new signatories over the years, from South Africa to Israel.
And in the face of another chorus of critics – those who said that the Convention would not change how member countries and their corporations behaved – the OECD has shown otherwise. The OECD's peer review monitoring system has become, in the words of Transparency International, "the gold standard." And these patient, but persistent, efforts have played no small part in the recent increase in corruption enforcement by member countries.
In short, the OECD has redefined "business at usual." A little over a decade ago, foreign bribery was not only legal in many countries; it was tax deductible. That has changed. When there are simultaneous corporate criminal resolutions on both sides of the Atlantic – and press reports of coordinated corruption-related search warrants by law enforcement in different countries – the developments cannot be ignored by would-be criminals.
As Attorney General, I have made combating corruption one of the highest priorities of the Department of Justice. For decades – since the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 in the wake of the Watergate investigations – U.S. law enforcement has pursued bribe payers of all stripes: large corporations and small companies; powerful CEOs and low-level sales agents; U.S. companies and foreign issuers; citizens and foreign nationals; direct payers and intermediaries.
As we have become more sophisticated and aggressive in our pursuit – employing more undercover investigations and new technologies – the results have come to speak for themselves. Since 2004, we have prosecuted 37 different corporations for foreign bribery-related offenses, levying criminal penalties in excess of $1.5 billion.
But besides mere punishment, our FCPA prosecutions have resulted in remedial efforts by many companies, such as enhanced compliance programs to detect and deter foreign bribery. The way those companies do business has changed – permanently and for the better.
Also in this time period, we have criminally charged nearly 80 individuals. And the pace is accelerating. Let me be clear, prosecuting individuals is a cornerstone of our enforcement strategy because, as long as it remains a tactic, paying large monetary penalties cannot be viewed by the business community as merely "the cost of doing business." The risk of heading to prison for bribery is real, from the boardroom to the warehouse.
In addition to prosecuting bribe payers, the United States has also joined with 53 other jurisdictions, including most OECD Working Group members – as part of the No Safe Haven policy – in an effort to deny safe haven to the corrupt, those who corrupt them, and their assets. Since 2004, my country has repatriated more than $156 million in the proceeds of corruption to its victims abroad, and is in the process of repatriating an additional $68 million.
But that's not all. At the direction of President Obama, the Department of Justice and its partner agencies are working to fight back against financial fraud, another form of corruption, through the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force – the largest anti-fraud coalition in American history. Through this broad and unprecedented initiative, we're using every tool at our disposal to restore confidence in our housing, insurance, and financial markets, and to undo the damage done by fraud to our communities and economy. We're aggressively prosecuting perpetrators, sending a loud-and-clear message that they will be found, prosecuted, and punished.
Today, as we prepare to undertake the third and latest phase of peer review under the Working Group's monitoring process, we find ourselves at a threshold of our joint efforts to establish accountability.
In fact, right now in the United States, officials are busy preparing for next week's on-site review. And we intend to be fully forthcoming, providing examiners with a complete and transparent review of all the information they need, while welcoming candid discussion among the lead examiners and various stakeholders. We have also agreed to have all private sector, civil society, and media panels occur at the OECD's Washington, D.C. offices without any government representative present, and we will publicly release our responses to the questionnaires, as we have with all of our prior OECD reviews.
I am hopeful, and confident, that other members of the Working Group will show the same commitment to transparency and accountability by undertaking similar steps during these reviews – and by implementing the important recommendations from their prior reviews as soon as possible.
After all, none of the progress the United States has made would have been possible without the long-term cooperation of our law enforcement partners around the globe – cooperation fostered by relationships established through the OECD.
In the 2008 Siemens prosecutions, for example, the Department of Justice worked closely with the Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate and resolve Siemens's global corruption scheme, resulting in approximately $1.6 billion in penalties and fines in Germany and the United States. We remain deeply grateful to our German law enforcement counterparts for their extraordinary leadership and cooperation.
My Department has also worked closely with the United Kingdom's Serious Fraud Office in a number of cases, such as the BAE Systems plc case, which resulted in a guilty plea and more than $450 million in penalties.
This year also brought the first large-scale foreign bribery sting operation, involving more than 100 FBI agents; the execution of simultaneous search warrants in the United States and in London; and, in January, the arrest of 22 businessmen now awaiting trial in Washington, D.C.
These examples are part of a larger trend of increased global cooperation among law enforcement agencies. But still, we must do more. Put simply, the credibility of the Anti-Bribery Convention depends on it.
For all the progress, it is important to note that many of the 38 OECD member countries have no criminal convictions to date. This is not because bribes are not paid by companies in these OECD countries. It is because investigating and prosecuting corruption is difficult, requiring more will, resources, experience, and effort than most crimes. It also requires a sincere commitment. As you know, it involves gathering evidence from foreign jurisdictions, pursuing wealthy and powerful individuals, and enduring lengthy challenges in the courtrooms.
Still, despite these challenges, I urge the countries to which this statistic applies to deepen their commitment to this global effort by dedicating the appropriate resources, such as prosecutors and investigators focused exclusively on foreign bribery cases, and by prioritizing the prosecution of corruption, no matter where the evidence leads.
But frankly, every member of the Working Group, including the United States, can do more to engage in robust international cooperation. In particular, we welcome the OECD's pronouncement, in its most recent Council Recommendation related to the Anti-Bribery Convention, that it will host regular, voluntary meetings of prosecutors to promote the sharing of best practices and to foster greater cooperation.
I understand there is a prosecutors' meeting scheduled for June 14th to address mutual legal assistance, and I encourage all Working Group members to send prosecutors to this critical discussion. My Department will send three senior prosecutors, and I know the Securities and Exchange Commission will also send senior regulators, including the chief of the SEC's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Unit.
We would especially welcome the participation of China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Russia at future plenaries, including the one on June 14th. We've all been encouraged by the recent evidence of greater cooperation on the parts of these nations and by the concrete steps Russia has taken toward accession to the Anti-Bribery Convention.
All that said, prosecution is not, nor should it be, the only means of increasing our efforts to curb global corruption. We will continue to work with companies that pursue good-faith internal investigations and voluntarily reform their practices. Specifically, we call on businesses to change the tone at the top, to re-evaluate their compliance programs and internal controls, to find ways to encourage a culture of compliance, and to strongly consider voluntary disclosures of past violations of the law.
Here, too, not surprisingly, the OECD has taken the lead, with the Good Practice Guidance of the OECD Working Group on Bribery. The guide provides state-of-the-art guidance, backed by 38 countries, on many important issues facing companies daily. I commend the Working Group for this forward-thinking document, and I encourage companies to use it as a benchmark in their own compliance programs.
On all these fronts – investigation, prosecution, and, where possible, voluntary cooperation – partnership is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Only by working together, across borders and jurisdictions, can we ensure that the ideals set forth in the Anti-Bribery Convention more than a decade ago are realized today and in the future. And only by working together will the promise of democracy be fulfilled, and will the rule of law be respected, across the globe. We should not, and must not, settle for anything less.
I am grateful to each of you for your time today and, more importantly, for your partnership. And I am looking forward, more than ever before, to our many joint successes to come in the days, weeks, and months ahead.”

* Ambassador Karen Kornbluh is Permanent Representative of the United States to the OECD.


Eric H. Holder, Jr. was sworn in as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States on February 3, 2009 by Vice President Joe Biden. He graduated from Columbia Law School in 1976. While in law school, he clerked at the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund and the Department of Justice's Criminal Division. He was assigned to the newly formed Public Integrity Section in 1976 and was tasked to investigate and prosecute official corruption on the local, state and federal levels. Prior to becoming Attorney General, Mr. Holder was a litigation partner at Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.

 

 

Related Article

No Mercy with Violators of Corporate Compliance
Dr Rüdiger Scheitza, Member of the Board Bayer CropScience, and Labour Director


Top 10 Tags

All Tags (2094)