Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

• Pages: 12-13

12 Volume 18, January–March 2012 international law update

© 2012 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com

FOREIGN CORRUPT

PRACTICES ACT

T F C   

’     U.S.

   F

C P A (FCPA) 

    

  U S  

    

  N 

His district rst elected former Louisiana

Congressman, William J. Jeerson, in 1991;

he served on several House committees and he

maintained oces in both Washington, DC,

and Louisiana. In March of 2005, the FBI and

the Department of Justice launched a corruption

investigation of Jeerson’s activities abroad.

On June 4, 2007, the federal grand jury in

Alexandria, Virginia, returned a sixteen-count

indictment against Jeerson. It alleges, inter

alia, that Jeerson successfully solicited bribes

from Vernon Jackson, the President of iGate, a

Louisville, Kentucky telecommunications rm, in

exchange for Jeerson’s help in promoting iGate’s

telecommunications technology in Africa. In

return for money and the delivery of iGate shares

to ANJ Group, a Louisiana company controlled

by Jeerson’s wife, the congressman sent letters

on ocial congressional letterhead, conducted

ocial travel, and met with domestic and foreign

government ocials to promote iGate’s technology.

To advance the iGate ventures, Jeerson also

solicited bribes from a Nigerian company called

Netlink Digital Television (NDTV). NDTV was

pursuing a telecommunications venture with iGate

in Africa. In return for a portion of their revenue,

stocks, and fees, Jeerson performed several ocial

acts. ese involved meetings with Nigerian ocials

to promote NDTV’s venture with iGate.

iGate’s business focused on the development of

technology that enabled the delivery of cheap, high

speed broadband services over existing telephonic

infrastructures. iGate’s goals were to market its

technology to the military, to targeted African

telecommunications and cable companies, and to

Historically Black Institutions located throughout

the United States.

After Vernon Jackson got favorable results from

Jeerson’s work in promoting iGate to the Army,

Jeerson asked Jackson and iGate to hire ANJ, the

Jeerson family consulting rm, to market iGate’s

products. In 2003, Jeerson began to promote

iGate’s technology abroad, often travelling to West

Africa to meet with high-ranking foreign ocials.

During 2003 and 2004, Jeerson made multiple

trips to Africa to meet with foreign ocials and to

promote the iGate-NDTV venture.

In August 2007, Jeerson moved to dismiss

for several grounds, including improper venue,

and sought a transfer to the District of Columbia.

e district court, however, denied the motion in

November 2007,. On September 7, 2007, Jeerson

had also moved to dismiss the bribery-related

charges, arguing that they failed to allege an ocial

act under the bribery statute. e district court had

denied his motion.

On March 20, 2009, Jeerson moved for

reconsideration of the denied motion and the

court issued a follow-up opinion conrming its

earlier ruling. On June 9, 2009, Jeerson’s jury

trial commenced in Alexandria. e jury convicted

Jeerson of eleven oenses, including conspiracy,

wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, and

racketeering arising from his involvement in several

bribery and fraud schemes. Jeerson appeals his

convictions on several grounds.

e U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

arms all of the convictions on the their merits but

vacates one conviction for improper venue. Count

1 of the indictment included conspiracy to violate

the FPCA through iGate Incorporated with several

people in the U.S., e.g. Jeerson’s family, and in

Nigeria.

Jeerson argues that he did not commit any

“ocial” act. Citing precedents, the Court states,

“An act may be ocial even if it was not taken

pursuant to responsibilities explicitly assigned by

law. Rather, ocial acts include those activities that

have been clearly established by settled practice as

part [of] a public ocial’s position.” [Slip op. 36].

“Put simply, we agree with [United States v.

Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S.

398 (1999)] and [Valdes v. United States, 475 F.3d

1319 (D.C. Cir. 2007)] that the bribery statute does

not encompass every action taken in one’s ocial

capacity, and we also agree with Valdes that [United