More than two years after announcing the first round of settlements in the ongoing “off-channel communications” probe, the SEC recently announced another round of settlements with 26 financial firms, totaling $390 million in fines. These most recent settlements are notable for two reasons: (1) they include the SEC’s second settlement with an entity operating solely as a registered investment adviser (“RIA”) with no associated broker-dealer, and (2) the SEC has again explicitly noted that companies that self-reported obtained lower fines.Continue Reading Latest Round of SEC “Off-Channel” Communications Settlements Highlights Risks for Investment Advisers and Benefits of Self-Reporting

On August 22, 2024, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Complaint-In-Intervention (the “Complaint”) against the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) and Georgia Tech Research Corp. (GTRC). The 99-page DOJ Complaint alleges the defendants knowingly failed to meet contractual cybersecurity requirements in connection with various Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The suit raises claims under the False Claims Act and federal common law (including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and payment by mistake). This is the latest DOJ activity relating to its Civil Cyber Fraud Initiative (announced in October 2021), which we previously have written about here, here, and here.Continue Reading DOJ Sues Georgia Tech Entities for Cybersecurity Failures in the Latest Civil Cyber Fraud Initiative (CCFI) Activity

In December 2023, President Biden signed the new Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), closing a gap in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by criminalizing the “demand side” of foreign bribery. While the FCPA prohibits offering or paying bribes to foreign government officials, the FEPA made it illegal for foreign officials to solicit or accept bribes from U.S. entities or individuals. Less than a year after its enactment, Congress has quietly passed significant amendments to the new law, with the stated goal of removing “inconsistencies between the language of the FCPA and the FEPA [b]ecause these statutes are intended to be complementary, with parts of them addressing the same problem.” See 170 Cong. Rec. H4656-02, H4657.Continue Reading Congress’s Recent “Technical” Amendments to the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act Change Key Aspects of the New Law

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859, 2024 WL 3187811 (U.S. June 27, 2024), the United Stated Supreme Court (Roberts, C.J.) held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles the defendant to a trial by jury. This decision was based upon the Court’s interpretation that the SEC’s antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud, and thus actions for violations of these provisions implicate the Seventh Amendment right. The Court determined that the “public rights” exception, which allows certain matters to be resolved outside of Article III courts without a jury, does not apply in this context because the action does not fall within the distinctive areas involving governmental prerogatives traditionally resolved without Article III adjudication. This ruling curtails the SEC’s authority to impose penalties for fraud, and could potentially affect the enforcement capabilities of agencies enforcing federal law.Continue Reading Supreme Court Limits SEC’s Enforcement Power to Penalize Fraud

A recent Ninth Circuit opinion instills the importance of raising an often overlooked defense in federal fraud cases: that the defendant’s misrepresentation did not affect the “nature of the bargain.” In United States v. Milheiser, the panel recently vacated six defendants’ convictions for mail fraud, holding that merely lying to influence a transaction does not rise to the level of fraud. Instead, a “lie must go to the nature of the bargain” to support a conviction.Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Holds That a Lie Must Go to the Nature of the Bargain to Support Fraud Conviction

Over the last several years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has been laser-focused on the use of so-called “off-channel communications” in the financial services industry. On the theory that employees’ use of personal devices and platforms (such as WhatsApp) to communicate about business violates the “books and records” requirements applicable to financial institutions, the regulator has conducted intrusive and extensive investigations. To respond to the SEC, many companies have required employees to have their personal cell phones copied and reviewed. Continue Reading What Private Equity Firms Need to Know About the Ongoing SEC Investigation of “Off-Channel” Communications

Just one day after Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s” or “Department’s”) whistleblower pilot program on March 8, 2024, the DOJ’s Criminal Division highlighted its plans to apply the program in its fight against global corruption. Specifically, the Criminal Division described its plan to apply the new whistleblower initiatives to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) cases as part of its overarching priority of targeting the “most complex financial crimes and having the greatest possible impact on corporate conduct.”[1]Continue Reading DOJ Plans to Apply the New Whistleblower Rewards Pilot Program to FCPA Cases

While most legal conferences may not be newsworthy, the American Bar Association’s National Institute on White Collar Crime is an exception. Indeed, the federal government’s chief law enforcers seem to treat this particular conference like tech companies treat industry conventions or product launches: a one-stop press tour/coming-out party held to unveil their next big initiative or program in the presence of hundreds of eager and invested onlookers. In this case, though, the onlookers just happen to be members of the national white collar defense bar.Continue Reading DOJ Pilot Program for Whistleblower Rewards: The Latest Unveiling from the ABA’s National Institute on White Collar Crime

In a landmark unanimous ruling late last week, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al. 601 U. S. ____ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Instead, all whistleblower plaintiffs need to prove is that their protected activity was a “contributing factor” in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action. Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Endorses Low Burden of Proof for Whistleblowers

In 2019, the Department of Justice created the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF or Strike Force), a joint law enforcement effort to combat antitrust crimes and related fraudulent schemes that impact government procurement, grant, and program funding at all levels of government—federal, state and local. The PCSF is a constellation of partnerships among the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, multiple U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Inspectors General for multiple federal agencies working together to crack down on unlawful anticompetitive activities in the public procurement process. As we have previously discussed,[i] the PCSF has been steadily growing its footprint and focus since its inception in November 2019. Now four years in, the Strike Force continues to add new partners at the Federal, State and global level, boasting of more than 30,000 government officials trained in detection and prosecution of procurement offenses. The Strike Force touts its growing ranks of trained eyes and ears on the ground anywhere government funds are spent. The PCSF is sending an increasingly aggressive enforcement message that should put those engaged with government contracts, federal funds, and procurement officials on high alert.Continue Reading Aggressive Procurement Collusion Enforcement Risk Remains High for 2024

The United States Department of the Treasury has announced that it is working to address what it perceives as money laundering risks associated with investment advisers. Specifically, the agency asserts that absent consistent and comprehensive anti-money laundering (“AML”) and countering the financing of terrorism (“CFT”) obligations, corrupt officials and other illicit actors may invest ill-gotten gains in the U.S. financial system through hedge funds and private equity firms. Treasury indicated its intention to issue a proposal in the first quarter of 2024 that would apply Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) AML/CFT requirements, including suspicious activity report obligations, to certain investment advisers. Continue Reading Treasury Announces Renewed Push for Investment Adviser AML Rules in Q1 2024