PGS, a subsidiary of the large security firm Securitas Security Services, was providing security services for a Department of Energy installation between 2001 and 2005. During that time, the company was reimbursed by the DOE for all costs, including the costs of providing health insurance to employees, according to a statement by the Department of Justice. PGS allegedly overcharged for those health care costs.

The case was brought to the attention of the DOJ by two whistleblowers who filed a qui tam suit against the company under the False Claims Act. The two whistleblowers will receive a total of $172,805 from the settlement, according to the DOJ.

One of the biggest changes brought about by the new bill is the reversal of the recent Supreme Court Decision in Allison Engine Co. v. United States. That decision created a loophole in which subcontractors receiving government money would not be liable under the False Claims Act, according to a statement released by the National Whistleblowers Center.

With the new legislation, a company can be charged under the FCA if an employee “knowingly makes a false claim to obtain money or property, any part of which is provided by the Government without regard to whether the wrongdoer deals directly with the Federal Government; with an agent acting on the Government’s behalf; or with a third party contractor, grantee, or other recipient of such money or property.”

Previously, government subcontractors could only be charged under the FCA if they knowingly and intentionally defrauded the government, not the primary contractor.

The bill was first introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Chuck Grassley of Iowa in February.

If you’re so inclined, you can read the full text of the bill here. Of course, the simplest way to protect yourself and keep this all straight is…just don’t defraud anyone.

According to the DOJ, no individual at the Department of Energy had approved his annual performance award.

Of course, if you forge your own performance review in a private company you will probably get fired. If you do this while working for the federal government, you will receive criminal charges. The man faces a maximum penalty of a $250,000 fine and five years in prison.

A portion of the money comes from Siemens Bangladesh, which admitted in December 2008 that it paid over $5 million in bribes to Bangladeshi officials over the period of May 2001 to August 2006. In return for the bribes, Siemens asked for favorable treatment during the bidding process of a mobile telephone project, according to a press release from the DOJ. Most of the money reportedly went to the former prime minister of Bangladesh’s son, Arafat “Koko” Rahman.

This story emphasizes how the Department of Justice continues to expand the international applications of the FCPA. This action certainly tops the punishment that the former French Alcatel executive received last year when the DOJ found that he was in violation of the FCPA after bribing authorities in Costa Rica. This is a good way to keep international companies on their toes as international law slowly works on catching up with the FCPA. Simply put, if you want to compete internationally, don’t bribe.

Christian Sapsizian, a French citizen and former executive of Alcatel, was sentenced to three years in prison, three years of supervised release and ordered to forfeit $261,500 after admitting that he paid over $2.5 million in bribes to officials in Costa Rica between February 2000 and September 2004.

The money was given to an official of the state run telecommunications authority in Costa Rica, who then shared the money with a “senior government official.” Those two then used their influence to allegedly create a favorable bidding process for Alcatel. During the period that the bribery took place, Alcatel was awarded a $149 million mobile telephone contract by the Costa Rican government.

The changes stem from a summer 2006 case in which Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan dismissed tax-shelter charges against 13 KPMG employees after determining that the government abused its influence and forced KPMG to cut off legal support to its employees. An appeals court upheld the decision today, leading to the rewriting of internal DOJ guidelines.

The reaction so far has been mixed. The New York Times quotes:

A defense lawyer, Mike Madigan, called the ruling a landmark.

“We’re all on cloud nine or a higher one if there is such a thing,” Mr. Madigan said. “It’s really just a great day for the criminal justice system in America.”

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal quotes:

A coalition that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement saying that despite improvements made by [Deputy Attorney General Mark] Filip’s revisions: “Federal legislation is still needed to ensure a permanent and lasting solution to the problem of government-enforced waivers of privilege. The Justice Department’s track record of five different policies in ten years cries out for a permanent legislative solution that cannot be revised at the whim of each new Deputy Attorney General.”

Others point out that, while this will save companies legal liability from the DOJ, it doesn’t protect them from the Securities and Exchange Commission and other departments that may come after them for similar charges.

The Securities and Exchange Commission alleged in the fall of 2007 that Willbros Group paid over $6.3 million to Nigerian government officials between 2003 and 2005 in order to earn a $387 million government contract, according to news reports. The SEC also alleged that a number of Willbros employees participated in a tax evasion scheme in Bolivia.

The Department of Justice agreed to defer prosecution of Willbros for three years, pending the company’s cooperation with its investigation. If Willbros maintains a strong FCPA compliance program and hires an independent monitor, among other conditions, the DOJ will drop the charges.

The new bill, proposed by Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), will force companies to notify their contracting agency’s inspector general in writing if they find evidence of illegal behavior or suspect they were overpaid for a contract. If the contractor fails to do so, it could be suspended or debarred, according to the article.

The article points out that regulators have also opened a new case to look into the current major exemptions in the FAR regulations right now: 1) contractors who have less than $5 million in government contracts; 2) contracts dealing with commercial items; and 3) contracts performed overseas. Welch (pictured) told a congressional hearing that the latter exemption sends the message to contractors: “if you’re going to commit fraud, go overseas and do it.”

Welch has also noted concerns about the lack of a commitment by federal regulators to create a timeline concerning these regulations.

It is almost unheard of for a person to sue his business partners for alleged FCPA violations – or any kind of violations for that matter – in order to not be implicated himself. As the FCPA blog points out, previous precedent was set when Alba sued Alcoa over alleged Bahrain bribery. The 76-year-old Grynberg says he had no knowledge of the alleged bribes and hopes to avoid DOJ prosecution by filing suit against the defendants. As he put it, “Unless I assert that I was an unwilling participant in this, my neck could be on the line. I’m too old to go to prison.”

This lawsuit comes only a couple weeks after Grynberg sued BP and Lord Browne for alleged bribery in Grenada. In fact, the Telegraph says Grynberg has brought over “73 separate lawsuits against rivals in his industry. Mr. Grynberg admits that he is litigious, but claims that he has a 98 percent success rate in court actions.”

Whether or not this subterfuge will keep Grynberg out of prison remains to be seen, but we do know he’ll be spending quite a bit of his remaining years in court.

Authorities discovered Jin was carrying about $30,000 in cash as well as over 1,000 confidential electronic and paper proprietary documents, all belonging to her former employer, known only in federal documents as “Company A.” According to the indictment against her, Jin was storing the information on a laptop, various hard drives, a thumb drive and a number of data CDs when her luggage was searched.

“We have to be vigilant in preserving the integrity of trade secrets to provide an honest playing field among business competitors, whether foreign or domestic. Trade secrets often are a business’s most valuable assets, and protecting them from theft and betrayal is a high priority for law enforcement,” Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, said in a statement released on Wednesday.

While an official release from the Department of Justice claims that Company A spent “hundreds of millions of dollars on research and development for the proprietary information” that Jin had in her possession, reports by the Chicago Tribune and Information Week both put that price tag at $600 million. If convicted, Jin faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each charge.

The SEC filing can be found here, however, if you don’t want to wade through that entire document, the relevant paragraph says:

In 2007 the Company disclosed that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has made an informal inquiry of the Company regarding possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the sale of medical devices in certain foreign countries. Subsequently, in 2008, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, requesting certain documents for the period January 1, 2000 through the present in connection with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry. In 2006 the Company announced that it received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, requesting documents for the period January 2001 through the present regarding possible violations of federal criminal law, including possible violation of the antitrust laws, relating to the manufacture and sale of orthopaedic implant devices. Stryker is fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding these matters.

Stryker came under DOJ scrutiny earlier for unusual payments “involving consulting contracts, trips and gifts to U.S. doctors.” And, just to add a little more drama to the story, Stryker was prosecuted for the unusual payments by U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie. You may recall Christie’s own little 15 minutes of fame in January after it was discovered he gave a no-bid contract to monitor a settlement between Zimmerman Holdings and the DOJ to his former boss, John Ashcroft.

As for Stryker’s possible FCPA violations, it remains to be seen what, if anything, will stem from the DOJ investigation.

Experts say that it is highly unusual for a foreign-owned company to file suit in a U.S. federal court. Although this brings down the wrath of the Justice Department on Alcoa, it also opens Alba up for further scrutiny. According to the Wall Street Journal:

The reason it’s rare for governments to accuse U.S. companies of corruption in American courts, said attorney Dan Newcomb of Shearman & Sterling, is that “once you raise a question of corruption, the sovereign runs the risk they will be embarrassed by the requests of discovery from the private party.” In this case, he added, “They have to be prepared to withstand Alcoa coming back to them and saying, ‘We want to look at every other corrupt transaction you have been involved in.’ ” Mr. Newcomb called Bahrain’s move an indication of the level of concern in the region that oil wealth will be lost to fraud and waste.

A law professor gave a similar opinion to Bloomberg media, arguing that this case will likely be settled out of court for the best interest of both parties:

“It’s unusual for another country to come into a U.S. federal court to pursue a U.S. private company,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. “When you subject yourself to the U.S. court system there could be discoveries that are embarrassing to the plaintiff. It’s hard to imagine this going to trial. A settlement could be worth it to both sides not to have a public dispute.”

Because of Flowserve’s “thorough review of the improper payments and the company’s implementation of enhanced compliance policies and procedures” the DOJ will delay prosecuting the company for three years, according to a DOJ press release. If Flowserve and its subsidiaries play nice during that time, the DOJ “will dismiss the Criminal Information.”

The penalty wasn’t a surprise for the company (it had predicted a fine of $11 million in its 2007 third quarter report with the SEC), and stock value hasn’t responded to the report. In fact, the day of the announcement, Flowserve shares closed 12 cents higher than it opened.

Siemens has been accused of bribing officials and executives across the planet, in countries from Italy to Nigeria to Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. Employees not in the upper echelons of management were given immunity from prosecution in exchange for speaking out, but many experts don’t think that will improve the enormous morale problems that the company now faces. One German banker, quoted in the UK’s Financial Times and familiar with Siemens, has gone so far as to suggest the company may “implode” from the management loss that will occur pending results of the investigation.

“It’s really important that the working relationship between this office and the monitors is very, very close,” he said. “I can’t tell you how much work we do with these monitors.” He said he had selected Mr. Ashcroft to work with Zimmer, the largest of five companies in the criminal investigation, because “I knew he was somebody who understands these issues and would be taken seriously by the company as an authority figure.”

This isn’t the first time that the New Jersey prosecutor assigned no-bid contracts to friends of his.

Mr. Christie directed similar contracts in settlements with other medical-supply companies to two other former Justice Department colleagues – David N. Kelley, the former United States attorney in Manhattan, and Debra Wong Yang, his counterpart in Los Angeles – and to David Samson, the former Republican attorney general in New Jersey.

The contract is an 18 month job, worth somewhere in the range of $28 million to $52 million. Needless to say, dozens of firms would have chomped at the bit if this contract was made public and put up for bid. And, naturally, with the increased competition the cost of the deal would have been reduced.

Some Democratic lawmakers have cried out on the overwhelming conflict of interest, but none have officially accused Mr. Christie of breaking the law (he himself disputes any allegations of conflict of interest and instead “referred those questions to the Justice Department in Washington”).

Although the DOJ admits the guidelines for hiring monitors for situations like this are few and far between, that might soon change. Thanks to the public exposure of this situation an internal investigation has been raised within the Justice Department, looking into their procedures for hiring outside monitors of large settlements.

The Ashcroft Group says they didn’t lobby for the multi-million dollar contract and, of course, they’re that much more thrilled about earning it. As Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the firm says:

“I know John Ashcroft, I know his capabilities. No matter what people think of his politics, he ran an unbelievably efficient operation at Justice as a manager. He understands the law. He understands how to manage an enormous organization.”

The trips typically lasted 14 days and cost between $25,000 and $55,000 each. The money came out of Lucent’s sales department and was falsely documented as “factory inspection” or “training” trips, but little to no time was actually spent in either regard. Although by 2001 Lucent had outsourced the vast majority of its work and had no factories for customers to tour, the company still paid for factory tours across the world to countries such as the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc.

The Justice Department will not prosecute Lucent should the company agree to all the terms of the agreement. This includes the aforementioned fine, as well as adding stronger internal controls, maintain fair and accurate books and records, implement a new FCPA compliance program and, most importantly, stop bribing customers. In a separate but related settlement with the SEC, Lucent agreed to pay $1.5 million but neither admitted nor denied guilt. These decisions come from alleged violations committed before Alcatel bought out Lucent in 2006.

Juthamas was running for a seat in parliament before all this was discovered, but withdrew from the race yesterday. She denies knowing anything about the bribes and says she only stepped down to save her political party from any associated fallout. She says if the U.S. Department of Justice finds her guilty of accepting the bribes, she will counter-sue, as she calls it “a case of mudslinging and a groundless accusation.”

Mr. Green, who produced “Rescue Dawn,” was arrested in the Los Angeles International Airport after arriving home on a flight from Thailand. He posted $500,000 bond and was released. His wife was arrested in Los Angeles as well, though it’s not immediately clear if she was arrested with her husband at the airport as well. She posted a $200,000 bond.

Originally, Stolt-Nielsen was given amnesty from prosecution for spilling the beans on a price fixing scheme between the three tanker companies and fully cooperating in the Department of Justice’s investigation. Later, “based on evidence from one of the others accused,” the DOJ revoked the amnesty and brought charges against the company. Stolt-Nielsen moved for dismissal, and Judge Bruce W. Kauffman from Pennsylvania agreed, saying:

“The [DOJ's antitrust] division has no reasonable basis upon which to void or revoke the agreement because it has not demonstrated any breach by Stolt-Nielsen or the individual defendants…Accordingly, the indictment will be dismissed.”

Mr. Stolt-Nielsen, obviously relieved, said in a statement, “We are pleased that justice has been served.” Now Stolt-Nielsen is not only the first company to have amnesty revoked by the DOJ, but it’s the first to have it reinstated as well.

As for the Department of Justice, they are fairly unhappy about the decision and plan to review their options. Whether or not they appeal this decision, their intent on hunting down and prosecuting cartels has been duly noted.

Many experts argued that the European Court of First Instance’s ruling against Microsoft this year would embolden the European Commission (and Neelie Kroes) to become much more aggressive in big-business litigation and, for the moment, it would seem they are right. For example, the EU gave Google “one of very few major business challenges” in the company’s history when competition authorities at the European Commission didn’t approve Google’s acquisition of online advertising company DoubleClick.

There is a method to her madness, however, as Kroes and the Commission’s actions are successfully putting the European Union’s antitrust authority into international celebrity as other countries around the world (such as South Korea) begin to model their own systems off the European style – and as their U.S. counterpart loses its influence.

For an amusing list of over-the-top purchases that Brooks bought with company money, see the official indictment brought against him. The purchases include, according to one report, an alleged $8 to $10 million to host his daughter’s bat mitzvah party, with special appearances by 50 Cent and Kenny G (a Google search of the event brought up a blog that posted pictures of the event).

DHB manufactures the Interceptor Vest, one of the most widely used pieces of body armer by U.S. Marines and other military personnel. During his reign over the company, Brooks allegedly spent over $200 million of company money for personal use. Stock prices were also artificially inflated to $20 per share in 2004, from $2 in 2003. In the ensuing fallout, the company’s reputation was obviously tarnished.

Although DHB had its share of problems over the past few years, including vest recalls and shareholder lawsuits, this must have been the last straw. The company recently relocated its headquarters from Westbury, NY to Pompano Beach, FL and changed its name to Point Blank Solutions. It also warned investors that previous financial statements could not be trusted.

Despite all the hardships, however, Point Blank spokespeople believe the company “remains the nation’s top armored vest manufacturer for the Iraq war.“

While it is not known how much oil was spilled into the ocean, or where exactly the spill took place, it has been reported that at one point the ship’s captain turned the vessel into the wind in order to clean the sludge from the side of the ship. He justified his actions by claiming it was a “man overboard” drill. He was fired, along with the ship’s chief engineer.

The crew member who blew the whistle on the Polar Tanker crime received half of the $500,000 fine as a reward. Not a bad way to encourage more employees to speak up about corporate bad guys. Although, as a story yesterday in the New York Times reminded all would-be whistle blowers: No, you don’t get anything for reporting your own crime.

The second fine this week was a tad heftier: $373 million dollars. The U.S. Department of Justice came down with a vengeance on BP (formerly British Petroleum) for a multitude of oil-related offenses, including two spills in Alaska in 2006. These spills accounted for $20 million of the total fine. Prosecutors argued that BP neglected corroding pipelines that resulted in the spills. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will get $4 million from this settlement.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that York employees paid $675,000 to the prewar Iraqi government in exchange for contracts to supply air conditioning devices to government buildings.

The DOJ also accused York of bribing officials in Bahrain, Egypt, India, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates over six years starting in 1999.

In addition to the financial penalty, the agreement also states “York admits, accepts and acknowledges that it is responsible for the acts of its officers, employees and its wholly owned subsidiaries, YAZR and FZE.”

First, he praised international anti-cartel enforcement. “Authorities around the world are united in a commitment to pursue hard core anticompetitive conduct,” Barnett said. “With more antitrust enforcement agencies on the beat, cartels run a greater risk of detection.”

Near the end of his speech, however, he discussed the “unduly restrictive standards” resulting from unilateral conduct on antitrust enforcement.

Barnett says these standards “can have the unfortunate consequence of harming consumers by chilling innovation and discouraging competition.”

This is an obvious reference to his remarks immediately following the Court of First Instance’s decision to throw out Microsoft’s appeal (which EU’s antitrust commissioner Neelie Kroes immediately rebuffed).

Barnett claimed after the symposium that his statements were not directly related to the EU’s Microsoft decision.

Philip Verveer, a former Justice Department official, finds that unlikely. “This is an issue that is very current and it is one where our antitrust authorities have increasingly taken the view that single-firm conduct, except in very unusual circumstances, is unlikely to be harmful to consumers,” he said.

The Department of Justice agreed not to press charges provided Paradigm complied with its obligations in the agreement. This includes ongoing cooperation with the DOJ, adopting rigorous internal controls and other remedial steps, retention of their outside compliance counsel and paying a $1 million fine.

Assistant Attorney General Fisher had this to say:

“Paradigm’s actions in this matter, including voluntary disclosure and remedial efforts, are consistent with our view of responsible corporate conduct when FCPA violations are uncovered. Accordingly, the Department has resolved this case to permit the company to move forward on sound footing, governed by ethical business practices.”

Paradigm discovered the violations through internal audits related to its initial public offering. The company is headquartered in The Netherlands but has used Houston as its principal place of business since 2005.

For those that haven’t been paying attention, in 2004 the European Commission handed Microsoft a $613 million fine for antitrust violations, particularly in regard to the bundling of Windows Media Player with Microsoft’s Windows Operating System. Microsoft appealed and, three years later, the EC’s decision became final.

M. J. Moltenbrey, a Washington based antitrust lawyer, had this to say:

“It is inevitable that global companies that want to have a consistent policy around the world will adapt to the regime that is the most restrictive as the relevant standard. Companies will worry about the agency that is the most interventionist, and at the moment, it is the European Commission that seems more willing to intervene in markets.”

Other opponents of the decision say that the decision will turn Europe into the “litigation capital of the world” and will create more lawsuits against other major companies such as Intel and Apple. However, European Commission officials claim the only company that will be affected by this ruling is Microsoft.

Read more on the story here.