
Most Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Practitioners
are aware that the greater the contacts with a foreign governmental official
and the greater amount of money involved, the greater the FCPA risk for a
company if a third party is involved. This is more particularly so if the
foreign business representative involved does nothing more than simply make an introduction
or uses his (or her) connections to get your company in front of "right
people."
This posting will discuss three Red Flags which a company
should review regarding a foreign business partner. Many businesses look to the
value obtained in the use of a foreign business representative. This simple
economic analysis is not sufficient in the FCPA context. There should be a
separate analysis on whether the foreign business representative has the
substantive skills to perform the services requested. Finally, if the services
performed by the foreign business representative are too far out of line with
those performed by competitors, this can also present a Red Flag requiring
additional scrutiny.
In his recent book entitled, "Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act - A Practical Resource for Managers and Executives" noted
FCPA specialist Aaron Murphy discussed this issue. Murphy had been in
situations where the decision to retain a foreign business representative was
based solely upon an economic analysis, with no substantive discussion within
the company of whether the proposed foreign business representative had the
requisite skills to provide substantive services. He observed that such a
decision making process is a "dangerous mentality to adopt when doing business
with foreign governments or state owned entities."
Why
He goes on to discuss the situation where a foreign
business representative is recommended by the entity with which your company is
attempting to secure a contract. As a threshold issue, Murphy makes the inquiry
as to whether such a "recommendation" is really a "requirement". If your
company is informed that the retention of such a foreign business
representative would make things go more smoothly, this is clear evidence of a
Red Flag on the proposed foreign business representative. Murphy recommends
several inquiries which include the following:
- With
whom is the proposed foreign business representative related or
affiliated?
- What
services does the foreign business representative bring to the table which
our company cannot provide?
- Was
the need for the foreign business representative always contemplated as a
part of the transaction?
Murphy focuses on the final question as particularly
important. If the "recommendation" for the proposed foreign business representative
appeared out of the blue and was not a part of any original bid requirement or
tender package, a company should be particularly suspicious. Such a request has
the indicia that the proposed foreign business partner is really just a sham
and potential conduit for the transfer of money to a foreign governmental
official.
What Happened?
A separate issue arises when the services of a foreign
business representative is unexplained or vaguely understood. Usually a foreign
business representative will perform some service(s) but just exactly what the
service(s) are is unclear to your company. Murphy poses this situation as the "What
Happened" scenario where a company may have a FCPA internal controls/books
and records violation because it simply cannot explain what the service(s)
foreign business representative provided. This situation can arise where a
service was performed quickly, and apparently efficiently, by a foreign
business representative but with little understanding by your company of just how
such service(s) were delivered.
Too Good to be True?
Another Red Flag which should be evaluated is where the
foreign business representative performs services which are far above that of
any competitor or demonstrable success rate. James Min, Vice President, Int'l
Trade Law & Corporate Compliance at DHL Americas - Legal Department, has
developed a risk matrix model which evaluates the performance of companies in
the freight forwarders/express delivery industry. In this matrix, Min analyzes
risks by multiplying factors noted herein and thus scoring. The model shows
that location should not be the sole criteria for risk. The factors in the Min
Model are the performance of your company's customers clearance brokers and how
far that performance varies from the norm your company normally receives. In
the below chart, +1.00 equals average clearance time. >1.0 equals faster
than average and <1 means slower than average.
The Min Model
|
Country
|
TI CPI
|
Customs
Clearance
Performance
|
Variance from
Average Performance
|
Risk Score
|
Risk Rank
|
|
A
|
55
|
.93
|
1.21
|
61.9
|
1
|
|
B
|
20
|
.76
|
0.89
|
13.5
|
3
|
|
C
|
54
|
.29
|
1.00
|
15.6
|
2
|
|
D
|
88
|
.12
|
0.7.
|
7.39
|
4
|
Min presented his model at the recent ACI FCPA Bootcamp.
The key in this approach is how often the Customs Broker/Express Delivery
Service varies above the average for customs clearance times. If the percentage
of customs clearance performance is so great that your vendors variance is
above 100% most of the time, this could be a Red Flag that bribery or
corruption is involved. This should lead to further investigation, due
diligence, or asking of questions of your vendor.
Most companies understand the need for and perform due
diligence on foreign business partners. Many companies follow this up with a
contract, with the foreign business partner, which requires FCPA compliance
terms and conditions. However, there should be additional monitoring and review
of the services provided to your company during the term of the agreement. The
Red Flags listed in this article are not a complete list or dispositive, as
each review will be determined by the facts involved in the transaction.
Visit the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog,
hosted by Thomas Fox, for more commentary on FCPA compliance, indemnities and
other forms of risk management for a worldwide energy practice, tax issues
faced by multi-national US companies, insurance coverage issues and protection
of trade secrets.
This publication contains general information
only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is
not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other
professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such
legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or
action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any
action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal
advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be
responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this
publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or
reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to
the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.
© Thomas R. Fox, 2011
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.