A posting from the Program on Corporate compliance and Enforcement at New York University School of Law is concerned with the recent decision of a US federal court in the question of whether a non-resident foreign national can be held liable for violating the FCPA under a conspiracy theory, where the foreign national is not an officer, director, employee, shareholder or agent of a US issuer or domestic concern and has not committed an act in furtherance of an FCPA violation while in the US; saying no, he/she would, but that the same foreign national could be liable as a co-conspirator if he acted as an agent of a primary violator.  The posting suggests the ruling may be of limited impact, as well as only having limited binding precedent (i.e. only in the particular “circuit” itself – US federal judicial districts are organised into 12 regional circuits).  It says that further development in this and subsequent cases — especially with respect to the meaning of “agency” under the FCPA — will necessarily be required before the full impact of the ruling becomes clear; but that it nevertheless seemingly good news for foreign companies that enter into joint ventures with US companies and some other classes of potential defendants, as it may be harder for the US Government to charge them with FCPA violations.  The posting provides fuller background on the facts and issues in the case.

Author: raytodd2017

Chartered Legal Executive and former senior manager with Isle of Man Customs and Excise, where I was (amongst other things) Sanctions Officer (for UN/EU sanctions), Export Licensing Officer and Manager of the Legal-Library & Collectorate Support Section

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: