Joseph Facciponti: Our first, you know, panelist here is going to be Rob Park, who is, who is a founder of our firm's White Collar Investigations and Compliance Counseling practice, which he started following 20 years of service as a federal prosecutor with the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division in the Department of Justice. During his tenure there, Rob received the department's highest award, the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service. He works with the white collar team to provide representation of corporations and individuals and global investigations, to conduct internal reviews, and to provide tailored compliance counseling. So, Rob, our first question for you is what are practitioners neglecting in their anti-bribery advisory work?
Rob Park: Thank you, Joe, and welcome everybody. Good afternoon. As the lead, I have two primary responsibilities. One is not to lose the audience, and the second is to keep us on time. Um, so I tried to think about what a few key points independent of the new administration that I think we need to be mindful of, or practitioners need to be mindful of. There's so much literature in this area, so much coverage, so I don't pretend that I'm having a unique viewpoint, but I think these are some sort of key takeaways that will inform the years to come and would have done so potentially independent of the new administration. The one, the first one is familiarity with multiple extra territorial ABC laws, and in subsequent slides we'll see what this means. Uh, the fact is that what was once, uh, basically a concern with U.S. jurisdictional reach and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has now become a multifaceted hydra. You really have to be thinking broadly, geographically with respect to advice provided to companies and corporations. So you need to be thinking about not just the U.S. but all the other touchpoints. Whether it's your manufacturing facilities, whether it's your distribution facilities, whether it's back office and more and more jurisdictions have become aggressive or interested in pursuing under their own anti-bribery laws, extra territorial application. You're going to see increased basically, an increased continually, increased transnational investigation landscape, and the growing spectre of what we refer to as copycat investigations. Now, I'm not necessarily referring there to the fact that you increasingly see multilateral and multi-, um, enforcement authority resolutions in cases. I'm talking, you know, you see the SEC, you see the DOJ, you see the, you know, the Serious Fraud Office. Obviously you have Sapin-II, and then you see the AFA in France. There are a number of jurisdictions that have taken an aggressive interest, but what I'm referring to even beyond that is the copycat investigation by maybe the home country that has taken little or no interest, and traditionally may have very little interest, in pursuing these investigations as a general matter, the specter of money, the specter of recovery, and sometimes local politics. So it's not just thinking about all the jurisdictions, which you must do in which you may have some risk or concern based on your geographic reach. But it's also contemplating the prospect of an entity or a country that may have been completely disinterested and seemingly off the radar may suddenly come on the radar at the conclusion of your investigation and show up days later carrying the very evidence and information that was provided as a basis for the resolution with other entities. I think the growth of deferred prosecution agreements, whether they're called that or something else, is going to become an increasing enforcement tool. It already is a standard enforcement tool in the U.S. It is available in the UK. It's available in France, and I believe it's going to be increasingly a part of the potential resolutions available both in the U.S. and internationally. And that's going to kind of grow the opportunity for that sort of middle ground between hopefully and potentially persuading an interview to walk away; company, a company, persuading an enforcement authority to walk away and facing charges. So I think there's going to be continued growth of deferred prosecution agreements. And finally, compliance professionalism, I think, is the main cause for why monitorships - they're not quite going the way of the dinosaur, but certainly in the anti-bribery field they are becoming less and less important. And Joe, if you can move to the next slide, please. So this is just a sampling. There's nothing unique about this, but this is just some of the core jurisdictions, the authority they have, um, and the likelihood that you need to consider the extra territorial reach of these countries with respect to their own anti-bribery laws. There's obviously the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. There's the UK Bribery Act. I just put in Unaoil because that's been one of the matters that has gone on at some length within the United Kingdom out of the Serious Fraud Office. In Germany of the German criminal code sections, Siemens, Fresnius was clearly a U.S. FCPA resolution, but with significant German collaboration. Most importantly, recently, Germany passed a new law which extends the reach and the scope of their sort of anti-bribery enforcement and extraterritorial enforcement, but most importantly, creates corporate criminal liability. And, increasingly, the jurisdictions in which corporate criminal liability does not attach to anti-bribery laws, there they are becoming the way of the dinosaur. In France, you have Sapin-II with Airbus and that multi jurisdictional settlement. Brazil Clean Company Act, you could list, uh, a laundry list of Clean Company Act carwash, Operation Carwash, Lava Jato. You can have a laundry list of companies. Netherlands, the Dutch criminal code, SBM. Italy, they have not been particularly active yet, but they certainly have a homegrown, aggressive prosecution authority, and they also have a strong history of challenging corruption and corruption within the borders of Italy. And I particularly like their recent, um, amendment to the anti corruption law, which literally translates as the Bribe Destroyer Act. These are not independent of other countries that are taking an interest, but there's, there's sort of a semblance of some of the most important jurisdictions that have shown an interest in pursuing anti-bribery cases. Joe, if you could move to the next slide, please. So, what I'm trying to suggest when I say you need to have a broad spectrum, you need to think broadly; you need to think geographically. There are 44 signatories, 37 member countries, 7 non-member countries to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. I believe there are 181 or 187 signatories to the U.N. convention against, against bribery. Uh, so you have a much broader landscape to be concerned with, and you need to be conscious of it. I used to think of it as the FCPA was a headache because you had to think whether the 30 people in the Department of Justice's abroad section have the resources and bandwidth to address - let's just say a pharma company's issues and transgressions in Vietnam. They don't necessarily have the bandwidth, but they certainly are going to stretch themselves as far as they can, but they now have a lot of partners. So the way I refer to it is the FCPA remains the 800lb gorilla in the room. But now the gorilla has a growing family, and everybody who's a practitioner needs to be thinking about that very comprehensively. Last slide, please. So I'm gonna - this is a quick summary, but this is my, my sort of initial crystal ball take away. Um, the new administration is almost certain to continue vigorous enforcement. Um, I, my experience both in the Section many years ago and since I've come out, the number of investigations that the Fraud Sections Group, or FCPA group, which has authority, principal and primary authority over foreign bribery investigations, um, has remained largely steady. There have obviously been bigger matters to get resolved, but it's not as if they've gone from having 50 matters pending to 250. They've had between 150 and 200 matters pending at any one time, pretty consistently throughout this period. So I think what is most important, and this is my takeaway, it's fairly clear - how do I put this? I do not want to get geopolitical and political, but the world is going to continue to get smaller, um, and that in the sense of transnational enforcement and collaboration between investigation, enforcement and political authorities, that is going to happen. And because this administration is determined that it's going to re-engage not just with the Paris Climate Accord, NATO and other things, they're going to re-engage, and that's very important. Um, but it's also relevant to multinational investigations and the collaboration of enforcement authorities. So I firmly believe that the improvement, and I know how to make it sound like I'm making a judgment, but the increased renewal of our international engagement and return to more conventional and collaborative multinational relationships will fundamentally support the effort to expand vigorous anti-bribery enforcement. You can expect multinational enforcement authority investigations and settlements, and they will grow. There are a number of bilateral arrangements and agreements between enforcement authorities. There are several multinational ones. There are sort of collaborative ones. There are a number of countries that have their sort of sister agencies on speed dial. You have IOSCO, which provides for sort of voluntary cooperation amongst the SEC and sister agencies across the country. The nature of the new administration and its decision to re-engage, um, I don't believe foreign bribery investigations went on a hiatus during the previous administration, but there certainly was not as much enthusiasm for them. I expect the enthusiasm level to tick up, and I think this will largely result in just increased collaborative investigations. I wouldn't anticipate a continued and growing deference to home authorities. By that I mean, if a company's principal place of business is in Country X and that, that's the United States, and that authority has a relevant and enforced ABC law, if they have a track record of pursuing investigations aggressively, if they're capable of being collaborative with other authorities, and they have enforcement credibility, that's one of the keys. Whether it's through the OECD and the ongoing reviews, they conducted the member nations and their laws and their enforcement, or just generally on the world stage. I don't believe that the U.S. desires to continue to be the only gorilla in the room. They would much rather, much rather that assertive home authorities handle investigations. SPM, which was a number of years ago in the Netherlands, is one of the first ones. Now, SPM got in trouble again, and the U.S. reopened what they had essentially declined. And ultimately, SPM had to settle with the United States authorities under FCPA. But initially, or yet the U.S. deferred and did not prosecute based on the aggressive resolution reached by the Dutch authorities. So, if there's a sort of a final admonition, know the full legal landscape, and that is not just knowing the FCPA and not just knowing the most recent FCPA resolutions. It's having an understanding based on your, the company you're advising. Where are they located? Where are their employees? Where do they distribute items? Where do they transfer items? Where do they build items? Where do they have sales staff? Where do they have local operations? It does not mean that you don't do a risk assessment to decide where your greatest risks are. It does not mean that you don't prioritize the distribution of compliance, but it does mean you need to know the full legal landscape. And with that I will ask my colleagues to move on to the next, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. I'll check the chat function, but look forward to hearing from any of you that have questions you'd like to ask.
Joseph Facciponti: Yeah, Rob. So, this is Joe. I, I actually have one question for you. Something you touched on earlier, uh, in your presentation you mentioned, you know, monitorships as sort of not being out of the picture, uh, do you have any sense of - I mean, we've certainly seen pull back on monitorships with the prior administration. Do you have any sense of whether there'll be some rollback of that guidance or will, will it continue? Or where do you see the, the view of the new administration on that?
Rob Park: Uh, I tend to believe that the decline in monitorships is not something which is going to reverse as a result of the new administration. And I think, I mentioned it as one of the sort of the key, the takeaways. Listen, uh, we serve our purpose. Lawyers serve our purpose, and we have value that we bring and can bring and do bring to institutions and individuals. But it is the professionalization of compliance and the increased, uh, robust use of compliance professionals with an institute within companies and the more intelligent deployment of compliance resources. It's not to be pejorative, but 15 years ago, um, compliance was HR. And now in most multinational and substantial and mid cap and low cap companies, whether they're in the financial industry, the extractive industry, pharma, they have compliance officers and personnel. And I think it's the role and capabilities of compliance and the understanding of compliance responsibilities that has kind of changed the view. That's not to say there might not be a little more skepticism in the new administration when they hear the presentations from companies about their revisions to the problems that existed that led them to the place where they're sitting in front of DOJ. But I still tend to think that the great, the great days well, not the great days, the difficult days for institutions, but the days in which, for lack of a better term, monitorships were sort of almost standard following a substantial investigation. I think they're going to continue to be the exception. I'm not, there still will be monitorships in the ABC space, but I don't believe that's going to reverse.
Joseph Facciponti: Great, thank you, Rob. So I saw a number of people joined while Rob was doing his presentation. So let me just, for the newcomers, um, let me just, uh, first of all, make sure you're all muted. Um, please keep your, uh, yourselves muted while the presentation is going on. Uh, this presentation is being recorded. Um, if you have questions, please put them in the chat feature. And if there's time, we'll get to them. Otherwise, we can answer them after the presentation. Uh, and for those of you seeking to claim CLE credit in New York and Virginia, I'm going to give you the first of four codes that we'll be giving out during this presentation. And the first code is very unoriginal. FCPA