Tag Archives: Joon H. Kim

U.S. District Court Tosses FIFA Bribery Convictions, Finding Honest Services Statute Does Not Reach Foreign Commercial Bribery

 by Victor L. Hou, Joon H. Kim, Jonathan S. Kolodner, Rahul Mukhi, Hannah Rogge, Lisa Vicens, David A. Last, Matthew C. Solomon, and Jennifer Kennedy Park.

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Victor L. Hou, Joon H. Kim, Jonathan S. Kolodner, Rahul Mukhi, and Hannah Rogge.
Bottom left to right: Lisa Vicens, David A. Last, Matthew C. Solomon, and Jennifer Kennedy Park.
(Photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP).

On September 1, 2023, U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen of the Eastern District of New York granted a judgment of acquittal in the latest FIFA bribery prosecution, holding that the federal honest services statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, does not cover foreign commercial bribery in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.

The decision comes after a jury convicted two defendants of honest services wire fraud and money laundering arising from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”)’s multi-year pursuit of alleged corruption in FIFA and the international soccer media industry.  Judge Chen based her ruling on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Ciminelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States, which cabined the reach of honest services mail and wire fraud in domestic corruption prosecutions.  Applying the principles articulated by these two decisions—which were issued by the Supreme Court two months after the verdict in the latest FIFA trial—Judge Chen held that honest services did not cover the foreign commercial bribery that was the object of the charged conspiracy.  The DOJ may appeal, and U.S. prosecutors may still reach similar conduct under different federal statutes, like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), the federal programs bribery statute, anti-money laundering laws, and the Travel Act, albeit with some limitations.  However, the decision continues a trend of U.S. courts rejecting an overly broad reading of federal fraud and corruption statutes. 

Continue reading →

U.S. Attorney’s Offices Issue Nationwide Corporate Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy

by Joon H. Kim, Lev L. Dassin, Jonathan S. Kolodner, Lisa Vicens, Andrés Felipe Sáenz, and Roberta Mayerle

From left to right: Joon H. Kim, Lev L. Dassin, Jonathan S. Kolodner, Lisa Vicens, Andrés Felipe Sáenz, and Roberta Mayerle (Photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton)

On February 22, 2023, the Department of Justice announced a new corporate Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy for U.S. Attorney’s Offices nationwide (the “USAO Policy”).[1]  The USAO Policy sets forth clearer and concrete benefits for companies that voluntarily and timely self-report misconduct as had been directed by the September 15, 2022 memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (the “Monaco Memorandum”).[2]  The USAO Policy also follows the significant revisions to the DOJ Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy recently announced on January 17, 2023 (the “Corporate Enforcement Policy”).[3] 

The USAO Policy applies to all U.S. Attorney’s Offices and is effective immediately.  As such, it standardizes what was previously a patchwork of different practices across U.S. Attorney’s Offices and fills a gap where no comprehensive voluntary self-disclosure policy previously existed. 

Continue reading →

Accelerated Pace and Increased Regulatory Expectations in Enforcement and Compliance Investigations

by Joon H. Kim, Lisa Vicens, Matthew C. Solomon, Samuel Levander, and Andres Felipe Saenz

Photos of the authors

From left to right: Joon H. Kim, Lisa Vicens, Matthew C. Solomon, Samuel Levander, and Andres Felipe Saenz

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) ramped up their enforcement efforts in 2022, often in highly coordinated actions, including with other regulatory agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The DOJ also announced major policy changes regarding corporate criminal enforcement and took steps to convey its seriousness in pursuing actions against individual wrongdoers, recidivists and companies that fail to maintain effective compliance programs. The SEC was particularly active, setting its record for civil penalties and continuing its enforcement focus on insider trading, digital assets and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosures.

Continue reading →

Priorities, Trends and Developments in Enforcement and Compliance

by Joon H. Kim, Matthew C. Solomon, Victor L. Hou, Lisa Vicens, and Samuel Levander

2021 was a year of transition for white-collar criminal and regulatory enforcement. As courthouses reopened and trials resumed, newly-installed heads of law enforcement authorities looked to reset priorities and ramp up enforcement in the first year of the Biden administration. Policy priorities shifted toward enforcement against sophisticated financial institutions, corporates and their executives, in contrast to the previous administration’s focus on retail investors and schemes with identifiable victims. While the shift at the SEC was more immediately visible with major new enforcement priorities, investigations and resolutions, the DOJ adopted policies and announced new initiatives that will likely only find expression in 2022.

Continue reading →

CFTC Division of Enforcement Releases Guidance on Evaluating Compliance Programs

by Joon H. Kim, Colin D. Lloyd, Breon S. Peace, Jennifer Kennedy Park, Rachel Lerner, Robin M. Bergen, and Nowell D. Bamberger

On September 10, 2020, the Division of Enforcement (“Division”) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) released guidance (“CFTC Guidance”) outlining factors the Division will consider when evaluating compliance programs in connection with enforcement actions.[1] The CFTC Guidance ties into guidance released by the Division in May directing staff to consider an entity’s compliance program when recommending a penalty or other resolution as part of an enforcement action.[2]

Continue reading →

DOJ Charges Former Uber Executive for Alleged Role in Attempted Cover-Up of 2016 Data Breach

by Rahul Mukhi, Joon H. Kim, Jonathan S. Kolodner, and Michael J. Phelan

On August 20, 2020, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had charged Joseph Sullivan, the former Chief Security Officer (“CSO”) of Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber”), with obstruction of justice and misprision of a felony for allegedly attempting to cover up Uber’s 2016 data incident during the course of an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). While the DOJ and federal law enforcement have generally treated corporate hacking targets as victims in connection with data breaches, the charges against Sullivan reinforce that they will actively pursue any violations of federal law that are committed by entities or individuals during the course of responding to such incidents.

Continue reading →

Accountability and Enforcement Under the CARES Act: What to Expect from the Act’s Oversight Provisions

by Joon H. Kim, Jonathan S. Kolodner, Elizabeth Vicens, and Natalie Noble

On Friday, March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (PDF: 472 KB) (“CARES Act”) became law, marking the third phase of government aid to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. This $2 trillion stimulus package, the largest in American history, will be accessed by wide swaths of the economy, with similarly widespread potential for fraud. Consequently, the accountability and oversight provisions built into the CARES Act, especially of the $500 billion corporate relief fund, warrants attention. Taking its cue from—and seemingly modeled after—the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”), the CARES Act establishes a three-part oversight structure, including a Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (“SIGPR”) with far-reaching authority to monitor the $500 billion fund. Based on the experience with TARP oversight and the enforcement actions taken by the Special Inspector General of TARP (“SIGTARP”) over the years, we can expect a high level of scrutiny by SIGPR and the other overseers, as well as potentially years of investigations into fraud and misuse of CARES Act funds resulting in substantial monetary penalties and criminal referrals. Continue reading →

Second Circuit Denies Gupta Appeal of Insider Trading Conviction—Continuing to Give Broad Meaning to “Personal Benefit” Requirement

by Joon H. Kim, Rahul Mukhi, Alex Janghorbani, Shannon Daugherty, and Destiny D. Dike

On January 11, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the appeal of Rajat Gupta, who was seeking to undo his insider trading conviction.  Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Newman, Gupta argued that—to satisfy the requirement that Gupta personally benefit from tipping inside information—the Government must show “a quid pro quo – in which [Gupta] receive[d] an ‘objective, consequential . . . gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.’”[1]  In other words—intangible benefits should not, standing alone, constitute a personal benefit sufficient to uphold a criminal conviction.  The Second Circuit rejected this argument, finding that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Dirks v. SEC and Salman v. United States foreclosed such a narrow definition of “benefit,” opting instead for a test that looked at “varying sets of circumstances”—including those that involve indirect, intangible, and nonquantifiable gains, such as an anticipated quid quo pro that can be inferred from an ongoing, business relationship—to satisfy the “personal benefit” test.[2]  This case is the latest in a line of decisions—in the Supreme Court, as well as the Second and Ninth Circuits—to reject defendants’ arguments for a narrow definition of the “personal benefit” element of insider trading law based on Newman. Continue reading →

Supreme Court Hears Argument to Determine Whether Mandatory Federal Restitution Statute Covers Professional Costs Incurred by Corporate Victims

by Joon H. Kim, Rahul Mukhi, Rusty Feldman, and Samantha Del Duca

On April 18, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lagos v. United States.[1]  On appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Lagos presents the important issue of whether a corporate victim’s professional costs—such as investigatory and legal expenses—incurred as a result of a criminal defendant’s offense conduct must be reimbursed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”).[2] 

The issue has been subject to a recurring circuit split and Lagos now offers the Supreme Court an opportunity to resolve the conflict.[3]  Moreover, as noted by the certiorari petition, the Court’s decision will necessarily have implications “every time corporations engage in internal investigations or audits at the suspicion of wrongdoing.”[4]  Continue reading →