Economic Extortion and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Author Summary: The government's categorical refusal to recognize an economic extortion defense to liability under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) lacks legal support and is unsound policy, particularly after the passage of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) and the rise of foreign autocracies. Businesses faced with threats of serious economic harm abroad should develop a record supporting extortion claims. The federal government should recognize those claims to avoid punishing victims of illegal foreign corruption. It can do so without diminishing the FPCA's ability to combat foreign corruption's harms.
October 07, 2024 at 01:00 PM
10 minute read
The federal government categorically refuses to recognize an economic extortion defense to liability under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), even while it recognizes an FCPA defense based on physical extortion. The distinction is unsupported by law and policy and must change, particularly in view of the recent passage of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) and the growing power of autocrats to destroy U.S. businesses through economic as well as physical extortion.
|Legislative History and Interpretation of the FCPA's Extortion Defense
Payments made to foreign officials are punishable under the FCPA only if made "corruptly." The drafters of the FCPA recognized that extorted payments lack the requisite corrupt purpose, contrasting in the Senate Report accompanying the legislation (the "FCPA Senate Report") payments made as a price of "gaining entry into a market or to obtain a contract," which should not be shielded from FCPA liability because "at some point the U.S. company would make a conscious decision whether or not to pay a bribe," with payments made in "true extortion situations," which "should not be held to be made with the requisite corrupt purposes." S. Rep. 95-114 at 10. The drafters of the statute described "a payment to an official to keep an oil rig from being dynamited" as an example of an extorted payment that would not be corrupt. Id.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
- 2Obtaining Reimbursement from Medicaid
- 3NY Requiring Lawyers to Report Out-of-State Admissions, Public Discipline
- 4Man Hits Cow in Case That Tests 'Unrealistic Delivery Times'
- 5DC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright,' Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250