Department of Justice

FCPA Prosecution: Where Enforcement Borders on Extortion

Ross Andersen, J.D. Candidate

On September 15^th, Tokyo's Bridgestone Corporation pled guilty to conspiracy to bribe government officials, a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA for short).  The Department of Justice had charged Bridgestone with authorizing its local sales agents to bribe employees of state-owned entities in Latin America.  As a part of its plea bargain, which also covered an antitrust violation under the Sherman Act, Bridgestone agreed to pay a fine of $28 million, a bargain by FCPA standards.  Of course that figure doesn't begin to capture the considerable legal costs that attend FCPA cases.  That's because FCPA prosecutions typically require companies to perform an extensive internal investigation in addition to the normal fees associated with a large-scale litigation against the Department of Justice. Bridgestone's case is hardly out of the ordinary. A quick web search will turn up scores of similar settlements, on account of a surge in FCPA prosecutions over the past decade.  In fact, prosecutions have become so commonplace that several years ago a major Hollywood film followed the cat and mouse game between the Department of Justice and a law firm defending and investigating an FCPA charge.  Needless to say, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is not the sort of statute that usually makes it to the silver screen.  So why is FCPA prosecution suddenly so fashionable?  As any skilled investigator knows, it's wise to follow the money.

SAP Pays $20 Million Fine to Settle Criminal Charges in an Unusual Copyright Case

Christopher J. Kim, J.D. Candidate

German software company SAP AG, the global market leader in business software, has agreed to pay over $20 million in fines to settle a criminal case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against its defunct Texas subsidiary, TomorrowNow. On September 14, SAP executive Mark White pled guilty on behalf of TomorrowNow to charges of criminal copyright infringement against SAP’s chief competitor, Oracle.[1]

The John Edwards Trial: Just Temporarily Delayed or Time to Dismiss?

Adam Dulberg, J.D. Candidate 

Beleaguered former North Carolina Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards received welcome news regarding his impending criminal trial. On Thursday, September 8, 2011, Chief Judge James Beatty for the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of North Carolina delayed proceedings until January 2012. Edwards, who was indicted in June by the United States Department of Justice for conspiracy, issuing false statements, and violating campaign contribution laws, had earlier requested additional time to prepare his legal defense in light of the passing of his ex-wife, Elizabeth, which has made Edwards the sole caretaker of his two youngest children, ages 11 and 13. While the Edwards legal team prepares to defend against the prosecution’s assertion that campaign contributions were used to support Edward’s mistress during the 2008 presidential race--a claim his lawyers characterize as a “novel legal theory”--it may be even more prudent for federal prosecutors to use the delay to reconsider the merits of their seemingly weak case.