Money-5

Prosecuting the Foreign Official for Demand Side Bribery

by with No Comment Blog

PROSECUTING THE FOREIGN OFFICIAL TAKING THE BRIBE

Congress has proposed the passage of a law, the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), that would enable prosecutors to prosecute a foreign official, a foreign political candidate, instrumentalities of foreign governments, etc. who take bribes or “anything of value.”

The proposed law would become part of 18 U.S.C. Section 201 which criminalizes the “bribery of public officials and witnesses.” It would not, however, become part of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It is no mystery that the law is intended to fill a gap left open by the text of the FCPA and closed by federal courts of appeal which have consistently held that federal prosecutors cannot prosecute a foreign official for violations of the FCPA. See United States v. Castle, 925 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1991) (“In this case, we are called upon to consider the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (hereinafter referred to”FCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd- 1, 78dd-2, and determine whether “foreign officials,” who are excluded from prosecution under the FCPA itself, may nevertheless be prosecuted under the general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, for conspiring to violate the FCPA. We hold that foreign officials may not be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 371 for conspiring to violate the FCPA.”); United States v. Hoskins, 902 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2018) (reaching similar conclusions and barring prosecution of FCPA offenses under conspiracy and aiding and abetting theories where defendant is not in one of the three cognizable categories under 15 U.S.C. Section 78dd-1, 78dd-2, or 78dd-3).

The truth is, however, that this law – whether passed or not – is just another hammer for federal prosecutors for the same conduct they already prosecute using money laundering statutes. The government may prosecute a foreign official under the promotional prong of the money laundering statute. Indeed, the government has prosecuted multiple foreign officials under that prong by asserting that money which is sent from the U.S. to a foreign country (or vice-versa) was used to promote the carrying on of violations of the FCPA or, better yet, violations of foreign bribery laws pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1956(c)(7)(b)(iv).

The critical portions of the revised law would create a new Section 201 (a)(4)-(5) that would greatly expand the definition of what constitutes a public official under 201 by including a “foreign official.” It would also include “a public international organization” within the definition of a “foreign official.”

‘‘(4) the term ‘foreign official’ means—

(A)

(i) any official or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof; or

(ii) any senior foreign political figure, as defined in section 1010.605 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation;

(B) any official or employee of a public international organization;

(C) any person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of—

‘(i) a government, department, agency, or instrumentality described in sub20

paragraph (A)(i); or

(ii) a public international organization; or

(D) any person acting in an unofficial capacity for or on behalf of—

(i) a government, department, agency, or instrumentality described in sub3

paragraph (A)(i); or

(ii) a public international organization; and

‘‘(5) the term ‘public international organization’ means—‘‘(A) an organization that is designated by Executive order pursuant to section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (11 U.S.C. 288); or (B) any other international organization that is designated by the President by Executive order for the purposes of this section, effective as of the date of publication of such order  in the Federal Register.

The offense portion of the FEPA would be found at Section (f) which is set forth below. The language in the new prohibition would apply to foreign officials regardless of whether the conduct occurred “while in the territory of the U.S.” which is a departure from the plain text of the FCPA and language in 15 U.S.C. Section 78dd-3.

(f) PROHIBITION OF DEMAND FOR A BRIBE.—

(1) OFFENSE.—It shall be unlawful for any foreign official or person selected to be a foreign official to corruptly demand, seek, receive, accept, or agree to receive or accept, directly or indirectly, anything of value personally or for any other person or nongovernmental entity, by making use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, from any person (as defined in section 104A of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (15 U.S.C. 78dd–3), except that that definition shall be applied without regard to whether the person is an offender) while in the territory of the United States, from an issuer (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a))), or from a domestic concern (as defined in section 104 of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (15 U.S.C. 78dd–2)), in return for—

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

(B) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such foreign official or person; or

(C) conferring any improper advantage, in connection with obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.

The Firm defends foreign nationals and foreign officials in public corruption and FCPA investigations. The Firm also has experience representing foreign nationals from South America including Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela in FCPA and money laundering investigations. The Firm is also one of the few law firms in the U.S. to have tried an FCPA case before a jury.

Share this post
Book

Article Published by Health Care Fraud defense attorney Andrew Feldman

by with No Comment Blog

Health Care Fraud defense attorney, Andrew S. Feldman, published an article in the ABA Health Law’s monthly E-Source publication, A Cardiologist’s Recent Acquittal Should Send a Message With Respect to Future Medical Necessity Prosecutions. A link to the article is included here.

 

As reinforced throughout the article, the Government prosecuted a cardiologist for health care fraud related to a cardiologist’s decision to place heart stents in particular patients suffering from coronary heart disease. In such cases, a vigorous Health Care Fraud defense is critical. Indeed, the Government, in general, has increased the quantity and scope of medical necessity prosecutions. Simply put, a medical necessity prosecution is, simply put, a prosecution based on the theory that the service provided by the individual health care provider or physician (e.g. cardiologist, dermatologist, urologist, dentist, or spinal surgeon) was medically unnecessary. Whether or not a service or good is reasonable and necessary dictates whether the Government or a commercial payor will pay the physician’s tab. What the Government is saying is that you submitted your bill but we do not think we should pay because you are asking us to pay for services you say you performed but which we claim are unnecessary.

 

This is nothing new. What is new are prosecutions like the prosecution against Dr. Richard Paulus. A prosecution that, candidly, should have been declined at the investigative phase but instead prosecutors doubled down with a False Claims Act prosecution without a whistleblower on the exact same facts. The centerpiece of the Paulus indictment was that Dr. Paulus had performed cardiac stent procedures which were unnecessary to justify billing for these expensive cardiac procedures. In civil and criminal health care fraud land though, there must be a lie. What was the lie? According to the Government, it was the amount of blockage – the degree to which a heart valve is blocked and cannot circulate blood to the rest of the body – recorded by Dr. Paulus after his interpretation of patient angiograms.  One problem (and there were a few) with that theory in Paulus’ case was that “expert” opinions on the degree and percentage of that blockage were all over the map – 20%, 40%, 70%, 80%. The Government experts also disagreed with one another on this critical issue.  There was no clear financial motive, there was no evidence of destroying or concealing evidence, there was no evidence that Dr. Paulus recorded or directed others to record false patient symptoms to justify any of the cardiac stents. As the district court underscored in the Order entering a judgment of acquittal following trial – the health care fraud statute is “not intended to penalize a person who exercises a health care treatment choice or makes a medical or health care judgment in good faith simply because there is a difference of opinion regarding the form of diagnosis or treatment.” 

 

Hiring a Health Care Fraud defense attorney is an important decision. The Feldman Firm would welcome the opportunity to assist you if you are under investigation for or if you have been accused of a health care fraud offense. 

Share this post

Medicaid Fraud Control Unit FYE 2013 Report

by with No Comment Blog

Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Report for 2013 was released last week by the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Among the top 10 highlights were:

  1. There were 879 civil settlements totaling more than $2.5 billion dollars based on Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MCFU) investigations and prosecutions
  2. Virginia MCFU recovered almost half of the national total in connection with settlement with Abbot Laboratories for marketing  Dapokate for uses not approved by the FDA as safe and effective; illegal marketing to nursing homes; and illegal remuneration paid to long-term care pharmacies and facilities.
  3. MCFUs in Texas ($196 million), Louisiana ($187 million), New York ($134), Tennessee($78 million), California ($57 million), and Illinois ($60 million) all recovered more than $50 million dollars.
  4. MCFUs in Florida, Ohio, Texas, California, Indiana, New York, Mississippi, Massachusetts, and New York conducted the most investigations for FYE 2013.
  5. 74% of the total criminal convictions in 2013 were based on fraud.
  6. 26% of the total criminal convictions in 2013 were related to home health care aides
  7. Pharmaceutical manufacturers accounted for 62% of the total civil settlements and judgments with MCFUs.
  8. Pharmacies, Home Health Care Agencies, Hospitals, and Nursing facilities entered into a substantial amount of civil settlements and judgments with MCFUs.
  9. OIG excluded 1022 subjects as a result of MCFU investigations which is a substantial increase from 2012 (746 subjects).
  10. The Report expressed concerns about the lack of fraud referrals from managed care organizations and emphasized that MCO’s are critical fraud referral sources given the amount of Medicare beneficiaries covered under managed care arrangements.

The Firm has experience representing health care providers in Medicaid fraud prosecutions and investigations. It is critical to retain an attorney that understands the scope and direction of these investigations. Please feel free to contact the Firm if you suspect or receive notice of a Medicaid fraud investigation.

Share this post