Best Practices to Avoid Common FCPA Violations: Third-Parties

14 December 2015 Dashboard Insights Blog

While the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) is an extremely complex act, there are two common FCPA violations of which automotive companies with international operations should be particularly sensitive. We recently discussed the challenges associated with providing gifts, meals, and entertainment to customers. In this post, we discuss another common issue: using third-parties abroad.

Third-Parties

FCPA violations are also frequently attributable to the practices of third-party agents. Accordingly, automotive companies should evaluate third-party contractors through a risk-based approach. In other words, an automotive company need not spend $200,000 on due diligence for a contract of the same value. Below are examples of the types of due diligence to consider when dealing with third-parties:

  • Conduct background checks;
  • Perform thorough investigations of the third-party and its principals;
  • Require the third-party to take FCPA training and certify they have taken such training;
  • Require the third-party to certify they will comply with anti-corruption laws and the FCPA;
  • Require the third-party to fill out questionnaires, requesting references and detailed information about their business, attached to an FCPA policy;
  • Incorporate contractual representations and warranties that (a) the foreign third-party agent is not owned or controlled by a foreign government and (b) no foreign official holds an ownership interest in the third-party agent; and
  • Require the third-party agent to annually certify compliance with the FCPA.

Under a risk-based approach, the automotive company should weigh the anticipated value of the contracts sought via a particular third-party versus the costs of due diligence and compliance efforts. So, when engaging a third-party agent to procure a $50,000 contract, background checks and contractual representations may be sufficient. However, if that same third-party agent procures a $1,000,000 contract, the automotive company’s contract with the third-party agent should require more elaborate due diligence, including a thorough background investigation, training, and annual certifications.

Even if an automotive company is unaware of a third-party’s wrongful conduct, that company could still face FCPA liability. The government may claim the automotive company turned a blind eye and therefore should be held accountable for the third-party’s actions. In past investigations and enforcement actions, prosecutors have pursued manufacturers that failed to identify “red flags,” such as the following:

  • Excessive commissions charged by the third-party;
  • Unreasonably large discounts promised by the third-party;
  • Vaguely-described services in third-party consulting agreements;
  • Third-party operating in different capacity than that for which it was engaged;
  • Third-party related to or closely tied to government officials;
  • Third-party became involved at the express request of the foreign official;
  • Third-party is a shell corporation incorporated in an offshore jurisdiction; and
  • Third-party requests payments to offshore bank accounts.

Regardless, relationships with third-parties should be memorialized in writing and explicitly address the FCPA-related requirements. In addition, payment mechanisms should be transparent and traceable, and commissions/payments should be reasonable and customary.

Of course, FCPA analyses depend on specific facts and circumstances, but automotive companies should be mindful of the foregoing guidelines. And automotive companies should contact counsel when dealing with potential FCPA problems or designing compliance programs and materials.

We hope you enjoyed Dashboard Insights’  FCPA series, and in case you missed any of our posts, check out the links below.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Pitfall in International Trade

The FCPA Mandate in a Nutshell

Making the FCPA “Reasonable”—Exceptions and Affirmative Defenses

The High Cost of an FCPA Violation

Best Practices to Avoid Common FCPA Violations: Gifts, Meals, and Entertainment

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.