U.S. Judge OKs Settlement in Daimler Bribery Case |
Publication |
Reuters |
Date | 2010-04-01 |
Reporter | Jeremy Pelofsky |
Web Link | www.reuters.com |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Daimler AG's $185
million settlement of allegations the luxury car
and truck maker violated U.S. anti-bribery laws
by showering foreign government officials with
money and gifts to win contracts was approved by
a federal judge on Thursday.
Daimler settled charges by the Justice
Department and the Securities and Exchange
Commission, but remains subject to a two-year
deferred prosecution agreement and oversight by
an independent monitor.
Daimler's German and Russian units each agreed
to plead guilty to two counts of violating U.S.
anti-bribery laws. Its China subsidiary will be
subject to the two-year deferred prosecution
agreement as well.
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh will serve as
the independent monitor to oversee Daimler's
compliance with anti-bribery laws.
The settlement is the latest example of a
widening crackdown by the U.S. government on
alleged violators of U.S. anti-bribery laws and
represents one of the most wide-ranging cases
brought so far against a foreign corporation.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon approved the
plea agreement and settlement, calling it a
"just resolution" and said that the company was
taking the right steps to solve the problems of
the past.
In the SEC case, Daimler was accused of making
some $56 million in bribes related to more than
200 transactions in 22 countries that
earned the
company $1.9 billion in revenue and at least
$91.4 million in allegedly illegal profits.
The alleged bribes were frequently made by
over-invoicing customers and paying the excess
back to top government officials or their
proxies, according to the charges.
"Using offshore bank accounts, third-party
agents and deceptive pricing practices, these
companies saw foreign bribery as a way of doing
business," said Mythili Raman, a principal
deputy in the Justice Department's criminal
division.
The alleged bribes also took the form of luxury
European vacations, armored Mercedes vehicles
for high-ranking government officials and a
birthday gift to a senior Turkmenistan official
including a golden box and 10,000 copies of the
official's personal manifesto translated into
German.
Further, Daimler was accused of violating the
terms of the United Nations' Oil for Food
Program with Iraq by including kickbacks 10
percent of the contract values to the Iraqi
government. The SEC said the company earned more
than $4 million from the sale of vehicles and
spare parts.
"We have learned a lot from past experience,"
Dieter Zetsche, chairman of Daimler's board,
said in a statement. "Today, we are a better and
stronger company, and we will continue to do
everything we can to maintain the highest
compliance standards."
The case emerged after David Bazzetta, an
auditor at DaimlerChrysler Corp, filed a
whistleblower complaint.
Bazzetta alleged that he learned in a July 2001
corporate audit executive committee meeting in
Stuttgart that business units "continued to
maintain secret bank accounts to bribe foreign
government officials," though the company know
the practice violated U.S. laws.
Daimler sold its Chrysler business to private
equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP in
2007. Chrysler is now controlled by Fiat SpA.
The primary case is USA v. Daimler AG, U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, No.
10-00063.
(Additional reporting by Dan Margolies; Editing
by
Bernard Orr and
Tim Dobbyn)
Related Video
With acknowledgements to Jeremy Pelofsky and Reuters.
These settlements
are just money.
The aggregate gross profits are so huge that
they easily cover the risk and the magnitude of
the fines.
There need to be some civil claims from
competitors and other losing parties amounting
to billions of euros that will bring these
corrupt companies like BAE Systems, Daimler, MAN
Ferrostaal, Thyssen and Siemens to their
financial knees.
The problem is that these corrupt companies have
suh deep pockets that an op;posing litigant just
does not have the financial legs to sustain the
litigation.
Even the UK's SFO was over-awed in taking on BAE
Systems in a clutch of corruption cases that are
so clear and so winnable that it brings up
vomit.
In the case of BAE's corruption case in the SA
Arms Deal, the SFO became too fearful to even
talk about it, let alone pursue it. So they
dropped it without even bringing it into the in
any case pathetic settlement arrangement.
I think I'm going to trade in my English and
Scottish genes.