On March 22, 2010, the Department of Justice charged Daimler AG (“Daimler”) with conspiracy and violations of the books and records provision of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. According to the criminal information, between 1998 and 2008, Daimler made hundreds of improper payments worth tens of millions of dollars to foreign officials in at least 22 countries, including: China, Croatia, Egypt, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Latvia, Nigeria, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. These improper payments assisted Daimler in securing contracts with government customers for the purchase of Daimler vehicles valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.
According to the information, Daimler engaged in a long-standing practice of paying bribes to foreign officials using a variety of mechanisms, including: corporate ledger accounts known as “third party accounts” or “TPAs,” corporate “cash desks,” offshore bank accounts, deceptive pricing arrangements, and third-party intermediaries. These payments were often recorded as “commissions,” “special discounts,” and/or “necessary payments,” which was understood to mean “official bribe.”
The information states that Daimler had an inadequate compliance structure and a corporate culture that tolerated and encouraged bribery. In fact, certain key executives and the head of internal auditing are alleged to have been involved in the bribery. The information states Daimler’s Board of Management was aware of the systematic bribery and held a meeting in response to Germany’s enactment of foreign anti-bribery legislation. In the meeting, the Board discussed their knowledge of past payments and discussed that adopting anti-bribery policies would result in losing business. At the meeting, an anti-bribery policy was adopted, but Daimler failed to make sufficient efforts to enforce the policy and to train employees on compliance.
The information further details the extensive and systematic bribery perpetrated by Daimler, including: violations of the U.N. Iraq Oil for Food program; commission payments to officials in Moscow; direct payments to family members of foreign officials; and, providing Mercedes passenger cars to the girlfriends of foreign officials in China. The information also alleges that Daimler provided, as a birthday gift to a high-level executive official of Turkmenistan’s government, an armored Mercedes Benz S-class passenger car valued at more than 300,000 Euros. In total, the information alleges the various bribery payments resulted in business that generated over $50 million pre-tax profits for Daimler.
This settlement will be subject to the court’s approval, and a hearing has been set for April 1, 2010, before Judge Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. It has been reported that Daimler has agreed to pay approximately $185 million in fines and that two of its subsidiaries will plead guilty to bribing foreign government officials in order to settle the corruption investigation with the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
According to the information, Daimler engaged in a long-standing practice of paying bribes to foreign officials using a variety of mechanisms, including: corporate ledger accounts known as “third party accounts” or “TPAs,” corporate “cash desks,” offshore bank accounts, deceptive pricing arrangements, and third-party intermediaries. These payments were often recorded as “commissions,” “special discounts,” and/or “necessary payments,” which was understood to mean “official bribe.”
The information states that Daimler had an inadequate compliance structure and a corporate culture that tolerated and encouraged bribery. In fact, certain key executives and the head of internal auditing are alleged to have been involved in the bribery. The information states Daimler’s Board of Management was aware of the systematic bribery and held a meeting in response to Germany’s enactment of foreign anti-bribery legislation. In the meeting, the Board discussed their knowledge of past payments and discussed that adopting anti-bribery policies would result in losing business. At the meeting, an anti-bribery policy was adopted, but Daimler failed to make sufficient efforts to enforce the policy and to train employees on compliance.
The information further details the extensive and systematic bribery perpetrated by Daimler, including: violations of the U.N. Iraq Oil for Food program; commission payments to officials in Moscow; direct payments to family members of foreign officials; and, providing Mercedes passenger cars to the girlfriends of foreign officials in China. The information also alleges that Daimler provided, as a birthday gift to a high-level executive official of Turkmenistan’s government, an armored Mercedes Benz S-class passenger car valued at more than 300,000 Euros. In total, the information alleges the various bribery payments resulted in business that generated over $50 million pre-tax profits for Daimler.
This settlement will be subject to the court’s approval, and a hearing has been set for April 1, 2010, before Judge Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. It has been reported that Daimler has agreed to pay approximately $185 million in fines and that two of its subsidiaries will plead guilty to bribing foreign government officials in order to settle the corruption investigation with the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Related Insights
May 1, 2026
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
A New DOL Joint Employment Rule? What Franchisors Need to Know
On April 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division published a proposed rule to establish a single, nationwide…
May 27, 2026
Events
ABA’s Qui Tam & Civil False Claims and Healthcare Fraud Institute 2026
Foley partner Lisa Noller, Chair of the Firm’s Litigation Department, will be speaking at the American Bar Association’s Qui Tam & Civil False Claims and Healthcare Fraud Institute in Washington, D.C. from May 27-28.
April 30, 2026
Foley Viewpoints
Sizing Up The 3-Way Battle For 'Iceman' IP Rights
Trademark rights in the U.S. arise from use in commerce, not from registration alone. The Lanham Act's first-to-use framework means that a party who can demonstrate earlier, continuous commercial use of a mark holds superior rights over a later filer. This principle is the backbone of Gervin's case against Williams.