Azerbaijan and Georgia:

• Executives of Willi Betz GmbH & Co.KG., an international trucking company, allegedly paid more than EUR 4 million in bribes to senior public officials in Azerbaijan and Georgia. In return, the company allegedly received permission for transborder truck transport of cargo.The accused executives are being prosecuted at Stuttgart County Court, Germany.Source: Report by Dr. Michael H. Wiehen and Dr. Jan Christoph Richter on Foreign Bribery Prosecutions, 2 March 2006

Cambodia:

• Thales Engineering and Consulting SA (THEC), has been debarred from receiving World Bank-financed contracts for a year as a result of fraudulent practices in relation to the Cambodia Demobilization and Reintegration Project, which aimed to assist Cambodia in its military demobilisation efforts of 30,000 soldiers.
  http://www.againstcorruption.org/CorruptionCase.asp?id=833
  Source: Africa News [Publication date: 17/3/2005] 'South Africa; Speculations in the Shadows of Shaik Case'

China:

• U.S.-based corporation Diagnostic Products Corporation’s (DPC) Chinese subsidiary, DPC Co. Ltd., formerly Tianjin Depu Biotechnological and Medical Products, Inc. (Tianjin), are alleged to have made payments to senior hospital officials in China in exchange for contracts to retain Tianjin’s products and services.The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) charged DPC for criminal violation of the anti-bribery provision of the FCPA. In August 2005, DPC Tianjin reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and DOJ in which it agreed to pay US$4.8 million in fines, including a criminal penalty of US$2 million to the DOJ, a disgorgement of US$2.04 million to the SEC, and US$750,000 in prejudgment interest to the SEC. DPC also agreed to hire a compliance monitor. DPC Tianjin agreed to retain an Independent Consultant to review DPC Tianjin’s compliance with its agreements with DOJ and SEC.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006. For more information see United States v. DPC (Tianjin) Ltd. (C.D. Cal. 2005).
• Alltel Corporation’s subsidiary, Alltel Information Services (“AIS”), is alleged to have made possible violations of the FCPA in connection with contracts to sell software products to the China Construction Bank and its (now former) president, Mr. Zhang Enzhao. In addition, AIS is alleged to have disguised the illegal payments in the form of travel expenses, lump sums disguised as consulting fees, and other miscellaneous expenses. Alltel conducted an internal investigation in response to allegations made by Grace & Digital Information, a Chinese consulting firm, in a lawsuit filed in California in December 2004 against Fidelity National Financial, the U.S.-based company that bought Alltel in 2003. The SEC and DOJ began investigations into Alltel’s activities in China after Alltel disclosed the results of its findings to them.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions and Investigations, 5 May 2006 and Grace & Digital Information Technology, Ltd. V. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., et. al.
• Lucent Technologies, after an internal investigation, said it had found “internal control deficiencies” in China that may have led to FCPA violations. The company disclosed the information to the SEC and the Department of Justice. In August 2004, Lucent fired four executives, including the president of Lucent’s China operations and its chief operating officer. In its February 2006 10-Q filing, Lucent stated that SEC investigations regarding China and Saudi Arabia were ongoing.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions and Investigations, 5 May 2006. Lucent 10-Q filing (February 28, 2006); Financial Times (April 7, 2004); Financial Times (April 7, 2)

India:

• In March 2006, Indian newspapers carried reports that a French defence firm, Aramis, had allegedly paid bribes using agents to win a contract to sell six Scorpene submarines to the Indian Government. The anti-corruption watchdog, the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), alleged that the 2.4 billion-euro Scorpene submarine contract involved payments to agents. Since the Bofors scandal, the use of agents is banned in defence contracts in India.
  In April 2006, the Delhi High Court Chief Judge, Vijender Jain, gave the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) three weeks to answer the charges. Earlier, in March 2006, India's defence minister month had denied bribery allegations in response to allegations made by the right-wing opposition party.The French company Aramis is 50% owned by the French state shipbuilder, Direction des Constructions Navales (DCN), and defence and engineering giant Thales.In September 2005, a former Thales executive accused the firm of organising a centralised slush fund to bribe and corrupt officials to win contracts. Thales denied the story stressing the executive had been sacked for his involvement in 'irregularities'.
  In 2005, India cancelled all its contracts with the South African defence company, Denel, following allegations that it used agents to secure a defence contract in violation of the ban.
  http://www.againstcorruption.org/CorruptionCase.asp?id=881
  Source:The Nation [Publication date: 7/10/2005] 'India, France ink Scorpene sub deal worth $3 billion'
  Daily Times [Publication date: 29/4/2006] 'Indian court demands answers on submarine kickback charge'
• Xerox Corp. (“Xerox”)’s subsidiary in India, Xerox ModiCorp, Ltd., now Xerox India, Ltd., is alleged to have made improper payments in connection with sales to government customers. Status: An Indian government probe in January 2005 found that Xerox India’s actions amounted to a violationof Indian law, prompting the government to form an inter-agency group to determine proper remedial action. Xerox reported in June 2005 that a private Indian investigator engaged by the Indian Ministry of Company Affairs had investigated the matter and issued a report asserting that Xerox senior officials had been aware of certain improper payments, suggesting possible further investigation of criminal liability. Xerox has reported these developments to the SEC and DOJ.
  Source: by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006. For more information see Xerox 10-Q (July 29, 2005).

• Monsanto allegedly hired an Indonesian consulting company to assist it in obtaining various Indonesian governmental approvals and licenses necessary to sell its products in Indonesia. At the time, the Indonesian government required an environmental impact study before authorizing the cultivation of genetically modified crops. Monsanto sought, unsuccessfully, to have the new Indonesian government amend or repeal the requirement for the environmental study. Having failed to obtain a senior environmental official's agreement to amend or repeal this requirement, in 2002 a Monsanto employee allegedly authorized and directed the Indonesian consulting firm to make an illegal payment totaling US$50,000 to the official to “incentivize” him to agree to do so. The Monsanto employee also allegedly directed representatives of the Indonesian consulting company to submit false invoices to Monsanto for “consultant fees” to obtain reimbursement for the bribe. The U.S. Department of Justice prosecuted Monsanto for violations of the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA. Monsanto entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in which it agreed to accept responsibility for the conduct of its employees, pay a monetary penalty of $1 million, adopt internal compliance measures, cooperate with ongoing criminal and SEC civil investigations, and hire an independent compliance expert to audit the Company's compliance program and monitor its implementation of and compliance with new internal policies and procedures.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006. For more information see United States v. Monsanto Company (Docket No. 1:05cr8) (D.D.C. 2005).

• Baker Hughes Incorporated (“BHI”), a Texas oilfield services company, allegedly paid $75,000 to an Indonesian tax official to reduce the tax assessment on an Indonesian company beneficially owned by BHI. KPMG-SSH was BHI’s accountant and facilitated the payment to the tax official.Harsono was a partner at KPMG-SSH who was directly involved in the payment. The charges brought wee violation of the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA and the books and records and accounting control provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act. Defendants consented to a final judgment that permanently enjoins them from further violations of the antibribery provisions of the FCPA and aiding and abetting violations of the FCPA, as well as the internal control provisions of the Exchange Act.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006. For more information see United States & SEC v. KPMG-SSH and Sonny Harsono (Civil Action No. H-01-3105) (S.D. Tex. 2001)

Kazakhstan:

• Baker Hughes is alleged to have made improper payments in Indonesia, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Angola, and Kazakhstan. In March 2002, the company announced hat it had been advised that the SEC and DOJ were conducting investigations into possible violations of the FCPA’s antibribery, books and records, and internal control provisions for improper payments in Nigeria, Angola and Kazakhstan.The SEC has issued subpoenas seeking information about the company’s operations in Angola and Kazakhstan in August 2003 and April 2005 respectively.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006and Baker Hughes 10-K (March 1, 2006).
• ABB Vetco Gray and ABB Vetco Gray UK allegedly offered and made illicit payments of over $1.1 million to government officials in Nigeria, Angola, and Kazakhstan. ABB Vetco Gray and ABB Vetco Gray UK each agreed to plead guilty to the FCPA violations and pay criminal fines between them of $10.5 million.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006. United States v. ABB Vetco Gray, Inc. and ABB Vetco Gray UK, Ltd. (Case No. 04-CV-279-01) (S.D. Tex. July 2004); and SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 2049 (July 6, 2004); ABB Press Release (Feb. 8, 2006)
• James Giffen, chairman of a New York-based merchant bank, allegedly made payments to senior Kazakh officials through the accounts of foreign shell organizations. Giffen was indicted in March 2003 and the case is currently pending.
  'Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006. See also, United States v. Giffen (Cr. No. 03-663) (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
• James Giffen, head of the Mercator Corporation and well-known advisor to Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, is alleged to have arranged for illegal payoffs to Kazakh officials on behalf of ExxonMobil, BP Amoco, and Phillips Petroleum. Federal authorities in New York launched an investigation after Swiss authorities advised that private accounts in Switzerland controlled by Nazarbayev may be in violation ofthe FCPA. DOJ sent Swiss chief prosecutor Daniel Devaud a confidential memorandum naming Giffen and his public-relations company as targets of a formal federal criminal investigation in July of 2000. During the arraignment of Giffen, who is accused of multiple violations of the FCPA, an assistant U.S. attorney acknowledged that the Department of Justice was investigating Mobil, now part of ExxonMobil, as part U.S. inquiry into millions of dollars in bribes allegedly paid in connection with oil concessions in Kazakhstan. Spokespersons for ExxonMobil, BP Amoco, and Phillips Petroleum have denied any wrongdoing.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006 and Associated Press Story (July 3, 2000).

Philippines:

• In December 2003 German prosecutors launched a probe into the former chief financial officer of Fraport in connection with the Frankfurt airport operator's project in Manila..In October 2004 it was reported that searches took place at offices of companies in Germany which participated, as service providers.
  Source: http://www.againstcorruption.org/CorruptionCase.asp?id=788
  Financial Times [Publication date: 10/12/2003] 'Former Fraport CFO investigated Philippines' by Roel Landingin and Hugh Williamson

Korea:

• Lockheed Martin allegedly bribed officials and offered sexual favors in order to win a South Korean contract for aircraft radar.A competitor, the Korea Supply Company, is suing Lockheed, saying that “a Canadian business it represented was denied the contract due to ‘wrongful conduct,’” according to the Daily Telegraph.California’s Supreme Court ruled that Lockheed could be sued.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006 and Korea Supply Company v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (Case No. S100136) (Ca. Sup. Ct. 2003); The Daily Telegraph (Mar. 6, 2003)

Taiwan:

• Syncor Taiwan made payments to physicians employed by state-owned hospitals in Taiwan in order to secure sales and obtain referrals of patients to medical imaging centers owned and operated by the company. The improper payments totalled $457,117 and were authorized by the chairman of the board. Parent company Syncor International voluntarily disclosed that it had found evidence of the improper payments in the course of due diligence for its planned merger with Cardinal Health. Syncor Taiwan pled guilty to one count of violation of the FCPA anti-bribery provision and agreed to pay a $2 million fine.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006. See also United States v. Syncor Taiwan, Inc. (Cr. No. 02-1244) (C.D. Cal. 2002)
• Alcatel’s Taiwanese subsidiary is alleged to have bribed officials in Taiwan in connection with railway contracts awarded in 2003.Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006.

Thailand / China / Philippines:

• InVision Technologies, Inc., which was acquired by General Electric Company in December 2004, is based in Silicon Valley, California, and is a maker of explosives detection products. The company stated in August 2004 that it was being investigated by the SEC and DOJ. InVision’s sales agents and/or distributors made payments to public officials in Thailand, China and the Philippines in an effort to secure business for the company. The DOJ found a “high probability” that senior InVision employees were aware of the payments, and took no action to determine the legality and scope of these payments. As result, the DOJ and InVision entered into a non-prosecution agreement in December 2004.Under the terms of the agreement, InVision agreed to certain conditions in exchange for the government’s assurance that InVision would not be prosecuted for its violations. If InVision does not comply with the terms of the agreement for a period of two years, the government can prosecute the company for the violations. Additionally, InVision agreed to pay a US$800,000 fine, accept responsibility for its misconduct, continue to cooperate with the DOJ, and adopt an FCPA compliance program and internal controls to prevent future misconduct. This is one of the few cases in the United States relating to distributors, rather than consultants or sales representatives. InVision also settled claims brought by the SEC on February 14, 2005 without admitting or denying the SEC’s claims.
  Source: Report by Lucinda Low on FCPA Prosecutions, 5 May 2006. For more information see DOJ-InVision Non-Prosecution Agreement (Dec. 2004).

Uzbekistan:

• In 2000, two, now former, Fraport employees admitted paying bribes of $195,000 to win the contract to modernise Tashkent airport.
  The employees maintained that the payments were made with the knowledge of senior management. The investigation in Germany initially covered only the two Fraport employees. It was then widened to include Fraport senior management, but this investigation was dropped in March 2005. The company Fraport is no longer under investigation in relation to this corruption case.
  Source: http://www.againstcorruption.org/CorruptionCase.asp?id=789
  Financial Times [Publication date: 13/1/2004] 'Fraport chiefs in bribe probe' by Hugh Williamson