Tag Archives: Brazil

CCC’s: Antitrust Division DAAG Delivers Remarks at International Conference

Posted on by

 by  Leave a Comment

The Antitrust Division’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for International Affairs, Roger Alford delivered a speech on October 3, 2017 in San Paolo, Brazil. (here).  There were no groundbreaking announcements in the speech, but since it was the first delivered since Makan Delrahim took over as head of the Antitrust Division, I thought it might be of interest.

There were two aspects of the talk worth noting.  First, Mr. Alford highlighted the Division’s longstanding focus on holding individuals accountable:

As my colleagues at the Antitrust Division have explained before, “[h]olding companies accountable and assessing large fines, alone, are not the only means, or even the most effective way, to accomplish our goal of deterring and ending cartels. Individuals commit the crimes for which corporate offenders pay. Every corporate crime involves individual wrongdoing.” For that reason, we at the Antitrust Division have a long history of holding individuals accountable for antitrust crimes, and we have consistently touted prison time for individuals as the single most effective deterrent to criminal collusion.

The other item that caught my eye in the speech was the Mr. Alford’s reference to two Antitrust Division recent prosecutions:

  • In June of this year, Yuval Marshak was sentenced to 30 months in prison for participating in a scheme to defraud the U.S. Department of Defense.
  • In 2016, we tried and obtained the conviction of John Bennett for fraud against the United States as a result of a kickback scheme in the procurement of environmental clean-up services. He was ultimately sentenced to five years in prison.

These examples of “fraud prosecutions” are interesting because there is sometimes an internal debate in the Antitrust Division about whether only Sherman Act, (i.e. price fixing or bid rigging) charges should be brought or whether the Division has a broader mandate to prosecute what is sometimes called “corruption of the bidding process.” A “corruption of the bidding process” example would be bribing a procurement official to tailor bid specifications to favor one company.  In a hybrid case, there may be both a bribe of a procurement official and collusion among the favored bidders.

At times, investigation and prosecution of collusion on public contracts such as defense, roads, and schools has been a priority for the Division.  Public contracts are typically where collusion and bribery turn up–and jail sentences tend to be long.  The Division has limited resources, however, so when international cartels dominate, there may be few resources left to devote to public contracts.

The interesting thing about public contract investigations, is that the Division has some ability to be proactive in generating new investigations (as opposed to being reactive to leads/leniencies that come into the Division.)  When resources are available, the Division will often beat the bushes talking to federal agents and procurement officials looking for tips on possible worthwhile investigations.  It will be worth watching to see if there is any noticeable shift in emphasis under the new Antitrust Division leadership.

Thanks for reading.

Telecom Executive Pleads Guilty to FCPA Charge in Connection With Haitian Bribery Scheme

Posted on by

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

The former general manager of a Miami-based telecommunications company pleaded guilty today for his role in a scheme to pay $3 million in bribes to various Haitian officials to secure a lucrative contract with Telecommunications D’Haiti (Haiti Teleco), the state-owned and state-controlled telecommunications company in Haiti.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Acting U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg of the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge Kelly R. Jackson of Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation’s (IRS-CI) Miami Field Office made the announcement.

Amadeus Richers, 66, of Brazil, pleaded guilty in federal court in Miami to count one of a second superseding indictment charging him with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).  According to admissions in the plea documents, beginning in 2001 and lasting until 2004, Richers and his co-conspirators paid roughly $3 million in bribes directly and indirectly to foreign officials employed by Haiti Teleco and to a foreign official in the executive branch of the Haitian government in order to secure a favorable contract and favorable treatment in connection with that contract from Haiti Teleco.  The co-conspirators funneled some of the money through third-party intermediaries and paid other money directly to officials or relatives of officials, Richers admitted.

Richers is the ninth defendant to have pled guilty or to have been convicted at trial in this case.  On April 27, 2009, Antonio Perez, a former controller at one of the Miami-based telecommunications companies, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and money laundering.  On May 15, 2009, Juan Diaz, the president of J.D. Locator Services, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and money laundering.  On Feb. 19, 2010, Jean Fourcand, the president and director of Fourcand Enterprises Inc., pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering for receiving and transmitting bribe monies in the scheme.  On March 12, 2010, Robert Antoine, a former director of international affairs for Haiti Teleco, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.  On Aug. 4, 2011, Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez, who were the former president and vice-president, respectively, of one of the telecommunications companies, were convicted by a federal jury of one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and wire fraud, seven counts of FCPA violations, one count of money laundering conspiracy and 12 counts of money laundering.  On Feb. 8, 2012, Patrick Joseph, a former executive director of Haiti Teleco, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.  On March 12, 2012, Jean Rene Duperval, a former director of international relations for Haiti Teleco, was convicted by a federal jury of two counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering and 19 counts of money laundering.

Richers was indicted on July 12, 2011, but remained a fugitive until his arrest and ultimately his extradition from Panama on February 23. Richers will be sentenced on September 20.

The Department of Justice is grateful to the government of Haiti for continuing to provide substantial assistance in gathering evidence during this investigation.  In particular, Haiti’s financial intelligence unit, the Unité Centrale de Renseignements Financiers (UCREF), the Bureau des Affaires Financières et Economiques (BAFE), which is a specialized component of the Haitian National Police, and the Ministry of Justice and Public Security provided significant cooperation and coordination in this ongoing investigation.

The Department of Justice also thanks Panama for its significant assistance in this matter.

IRS-CI is conducting the investigation.  Senior Litigation Counsel Nicola Mrazek and Trial Attorney Vanessa Snyder of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section are prosecuting the case.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs provided assistance.

The Fraud Section is responsible for investigating and prosecuting all FCPA matters.  Additional information about the Justice Department’s FCPA enforcement efforts can be found at www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act.

ANTITRUST GUIDANCE IN BRAZIL

Posted on by

ANTITRUST GUIDANCE IN BRAZIL

by Leave a Comment

Today we have an update from Brazil by Mauro Grinberg, a former Commissioner of CADE, a former Attorney of the National Treasury and senior partner of Grinberg Cordovil.

****************************************

A Resolution issued by Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE), dated March 11, 2015, made a comeback of the procedure for antitrust guidance to be requested to CADE. This request for guidance can be used in all competition cases, including cartels.

The first article of such Resolution says that any interested party can forward a request for guidance to CADE, related to specific situations, which may be real or potential. Interested parties can also be trade associations which have, as their goals, representation of the involved sector and can demonstrate that at least one of the represented companies is legitimately interested in such guidance.

There are some requirements for such request for guidance and, although it is pointless, for the purpose of this note, to go through all of them, it is interesting to mention that the party must declare all CADE´s precedents related to the object. So, no request for guidance can be asked before a thorough research through CADE´s jurisprudence. However, any research may have its problems and it is not clear what will happen if a certain research does not present a decision that CADE may understand as fundamental.

Another point that must be reported says that the request for guidance cannot refer to a purely hypothetical issue. This may be a somewhat tricky question because CADE may understand that a question that is not under practice is hypothetical (which, in a way, it may be). It is not clear what can happen if, e.g., a party asks whether it is legitimate to have certain contacts with competitors and, if the conduct is approved by CADE and the party does not perform it due to a further strategic and/or commercial decision, could the party can be punished for having submitted a request for guidance that CADE may consider hypothetical?.

The answer to the request for guidance is binding for CADE and the parties for five years, although the Resolution states that CADE can reconsider its decision, if based on new facts. So, in practice, the Resolution is really binding only for the parties submitting the request for guidance.

A last problematic article states that, if CADE understands that an already existing conduct, which is the object of the request for guidance, has the possibility of being illegal, an administrative file will be opened in order to prosecute the interested party. If the conduct is a possible cartel, a criminal file may also be opened. So, it is fundamental that, in case a party wants to make such request related to a conduct that is under way, it is advisable to stop such conduct before requesting the guidance.

Consequently, a request for guidance, in order to be in the safe side, must be related to conducts that are not being performed but are to be performed and depend on the guidance, with the additional task of demonstrating to the authorities that the request for guidance is not hypothetical.

Mauro Grinberg is a former Commissioner of CADE, a former Attorney of the National Treasury and senior partner of Grinberg Cordovil.