In September 2008, Nexus Technologies Inc., along with four of its employees, were criminally indicted for making improper payments to Vietnamese foreign officials to obtain contracts to supply equipment and technology to Vietnamese government agencies in violation of the FCPA.
In September 2008, Nexus Technologies Inc., a company with offices in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Vietnam, along with four of its employees, were criminally indicted for making improper payments to Vietnamese foreign officials to obtain contracts to supply equipment and technology to Vietnamese government agencies in violation of the FCPA. The indicted individuals are Nam Quoc Nguyen (a U.S. citizen, and the founder and President of Nexus Technologies), Joseph Lukas (a U.S. citizen engaged in a joint venture with Nexus Technologies and with oversight of the New Jersey office of the company), Kim Anh Nguyen (a U.S. citizen employed by Nexus Technologies in the U.S.), and An Quoc Nguyen (a U.S. citizen, employed by Nexus Technologies in the U.S.).
According to the criminal indictment, which charges violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and conspiracy to violate the FCPA, between 1999 through 2008 the defendants paid at least $150,000 in bribes, disguised as “commissions,” to individuals employed by various commercial arms of Vietnam’s Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Industry, and Ministry of Public Safety (and thus considered “foreign officials” under the FCPA). The payments were allegedly made with the intent that they would cause the foreign officials to award business to Nexus Technologies. According to the indictment, Nexus Technologies made the payments from U.S. bank accounts to a Hong Kong company which was used by Nexus Technologies to facilitate the payments to the Vietnamese foreign officials. The indictment further alleges that the improper payments were mischaracterized and concealed in the books and records of the company to prevent detection. The indictment references several e-mail communications between the individual defendants in which the nature and purpose of the improper payments are discussed including e-mail communications in which various defendants suggest that payment of the requested commissions would guarantee business for the company and be good for the financial health of the company.