Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Declaration of Clifton Johnson (State Dept)

Declaration of Clifton Johnson (State Dept)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 219 |Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Published by: Mike Koehler on Mar 21, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.United States AttorneyROBERT E. DUGDALEAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal DivisionDOUGLAS M. MILLER (SBN: 240398)Assistant United States AttorneyNICOLA J. MRAZEKJEFFREY A. GOLDBERGSenior Trial Attorneys1300 United States Courthouse312 North Spring StreetLos Angeles, California 90012Telephone: (213) 894-2216Facsimile: (213) 894-6436Email: douglas.m.miller@usdoj.govAttorneys for PlaintiffUNITED STATES OF AMERICAUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.ENRIQUE FAUSTINO AGUILARNORIEGA, ANGELA MARIAGOMEZ AGUILAR, KEITH E.LINDSEY, STEVE K. LEE, andLINDSEY MANUFACTURINGCOMPANY,Defendants.))))))))))))))CR No. 10-1031(A)-AHMSUPPLEMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT’SOPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS’MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRSTSUPERSEDING INDICTMENT; DECLARATIONOF CLIFTON M. JOHNSONHearing: March 24, 2011, 9:30 a.m.(Courtroom 14)Plaintiff United States of America, by and through itsattorneys of record, the United States Department of Justice,Criminal Division, Fraud Section, and the United States Attorneyfor the Central District of California (collectively, “thegovernment”), hereby supplements its opposition to thedefendants’ motion to dismiss the first superseding indictmentwith the declaration of Clifton M. Johnson. The government noted
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 296 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:6519
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728in its opposition that it would file this declaration if and whenit was received. (Opp’n #250 at 16 n.5).DATED: March 18, 2011Respectfully submitted,ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.United States AttorneyROBERT E. DUGDALEAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal Division/s/DOUGLAS M. MILLERAssistant United States AttorneyNICOLA J. MRAZEKJEFFREY A. GOLDBERGSenior Trial AttorneysCriminal Division, Fraud Section
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 296 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:6520
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADECLARATION OF CLIFTON M. JOHNSONI, Clifton M. Johnson, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare and say as follows:
1.I am the Assistant Legal Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence ("L/LEI") in the
Legal Adviser's Office of the United States Department of State, Washington D.C.
L/LEI is responsible for providing legal advice to the Department on matters of
international law enforcement and intelligence, and manages the Department's legal
responsibilities with respect to anti-corruption efforts, including those undertaken under
the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International
Business Transactions ("Convention"). Therefore, my responsibilities require that I befamiliar with international anti-corruption law and practice, including the interpretation
and application of the Convention
The United States was a driving force behind the negotiation and conclusion of theConvention, which was approved by the United States Senate on July 31, 1998 and
entered into force on February 15, 1999. By negotiating a multilateral Convention, the
United States sought to ensure that U.S. companies, who were subject to Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (FCPA) sanctions for bribing foreign public officials, would face a level
playing field in international business. The United States therefore pressed for the
Convention to include language ensuring that it would be applied broadly by States
3.The Convention requires each State party to "take such measures as may be necessary to
establish that it is a criminal offence under its law for any person intentionally to offer,
promise or give any undue pecuniary or other advantage, whether directly or throughintermediaries, to a foreign public official...." Convention on Combating Bribery of
Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions art. 1(1). "Foreign public
official" is defined to include "any person exercising a public function for a foreign
country, including for a public agency or public enterprise." Id. at art. 1(4)(a).
The Commentaries to the Convention, which were adopted by the Negotiating
Conference of the Convention on the same date as the text of the Convention itself and
therefore provide important guidance on the interpretation of the Convention, further
elucidate the coverage of the definition of "public enterprise" under Article 1. The
Commentaries state that the Convention is properly interpreted to prohibit the payment,
offer, or promise of a bribe to any official of "any enterprise, regardless of its legal form,
over which a government, or governments, may, directly or indirectly, exercise a
dominant influence. This is deemed to be the case, inter alia, when the government or
governments hold the majority of the enterprise's subscribed capital, control the majority
of votes attaching to shares issued by the enterprise or can appoint a majority of the
members of the enterprise's administrative or managerial body or supervisory board."
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 296-1 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:6521

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->