In late 2008, Siemens A.G. settled allegations of widespread international corruption with the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Munich Prosecutor’s Office and other German authorities for a record-breaking $1.6 billion in fines and penalties. Siemens A.G. Form 20-F, filed Nov. 30, 2011, at 38. While that settlement received extensive media coverage, what did not receive much press attention was the reported $900 million in expenses paid by the company to the outside attorneys and accountants involved in its internal investigation of the alleged corruption. The subsequent cost of Siemens’ corporate monitor, his required U.S. counsel, related disbarments with the World Bank Group and the United Nations, plus related civil litigation, have undoubtedly driven that expense much higher.
Some commentators have argued that the costs of Siemens-style cooperation, including self-reporting on an ongoing and extensive global internal investigation, can exceed the potential benefit to be gained from such cooperation. Few corporations would ever face the enormous extent of Siemens’ problem, which involved alleged payments over many years in many different countries in Asia, Africa and South America. But even for more modest-sized problems at smaller companies, the cost/benefit analysis often involved in making the determination of how to proceed when potential violations of applicable laws occur is complicated.
