The decision by Requestor to pay for or not to pay for this medical treatment will have no impact on any current or future decisions of the OAG in deciding on the hiring of international legal counsel.
In the opinion of the Attorney General, the payment of medical expenses for Foreign Official’s daughter under these circumstances would not violate any provision of the laws of Foreign Country A. The Attorney General further confirms that while Foreign Official handles aspects of the cases on which the Law Firm and Requestor work, Foreign Official has not taken part in any decisions regarding the Firm’s retention for any matter, nor would Foreign Official have such a role in any possible future decision regarding contracting outside counsel, as such decisions are outside of Foreign Official’s responsibilities. Finally, Foreign Official has represented and warranted in writing that he has not had, does not have, and will not have any influence in the contracting of international lawyers to represent Foreign Country A; he will not attempt to assist Requestor or the Law Firm in the award of future work; and he would not get involved in any decision that the OAG might make in the future in this regard. Analysis Based upon all of the facts and circumstances, as represented by Requestor, the Attorney General, and Foreign Official, the Department does not presently intend to take any enforcement action with respect to the proposed payment of approximately $13,500 to $20,500 described in the Request. A person may violate the FCPA by making a payment or gift to a foreign official’s family member as an indirect way of corruptly influencing that foreign official.
United States v. Liebo
, 923 F.2d 1308, 1311 (8th Cir. 1991). However, “the FCPA does not
prohibit business relationships with, or payments to, foreign officials.” FCPA Opinion Release 10-03 at 3 (Sept. 1, 2010). Rather “the Department typically looks to determine whether there are any indicia of corrupt intent, whether the arrangement is transparent to the foreign government and the general public, whether the arrangement is in conformity with local law, and whether there are safeguards to prevent the foreign official from improperly using his or her position to steer business to or otherwise assist the company, for example through a policy of recusal.”
Although no previous opinion release addresses the precise facts at issue here, the Department has previously expressed its lack of enforcement intent in matters where the requestor provided adequate assurances that the proposed benefit to the foreign official would have no impact on the requestor’s present or future business operations.
FCPA Opinion Release 10-03 (Sept. 1, 2010) (indicating lack of enforcement intent regarding requestor’s proposed hiring of third-party consultant who also performed work for a foreign government where consultant had no ability to bind the foreign government in future contracts and could not “act on behalf of the foreign government” in working with the requestor); FCPA Opinion Release 01-02 (July 18, 2001) (indicating lack of enforcement intent regarding planned