FROM: U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Sends Refunds to Consumers Victimized by Automated Electronic Checking Inc.
Thousands of consumers scammed out of their money will get some of it back, thanks to a lawsuit and settlement secured by the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC is mailing 34,859 refund checks to consumers whose bank accounts were debited, allegedly without their consent, by Nevada-based payment processor Automated Electronic Checking Inc. (AEC).
The average amount of redress will be about $25 and will be based on the amount each person lost. A total of more than $870,000 is being returned to consumers. Those who receive the checks from the FTC’s refund administrator should cash them within 60 days of the mailing date. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or to provide information before refund checks can be cashed. Those with questions should call the refund administrator, Analytics Consulting LLC, at 1-855-529-6824, or visit www.FTC.gov/refunds for more general information.
Using a relatively new payment method called “remotely created payment orders” to give merchants access to consumer bank accounts, AEC debited many consumers who had never heard of AEC or its client merchants, some of whom included online discount shopping clubs and payday loan sites. Under a settlement, AEC was banned from payment processing and required to pay a monetary judgment.
The FTC’s case against AEC is part of efforts by the Consumer Protection Working Group of President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
GOVERNMENT JOINT RELEASE BY AGENCIES IMPLEMENTING THE VOLCKER RULE
FROM: COMMODITIES FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Joint Release:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Securities and Exchange Commission
Release: 6790-13
For Release: December 10, 2013
Agencies Issue Final Rules Implementing the Volcker Rule
Five federal agencies on Tuesday issued final rules developed jointly to implement section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Volcker Rule”).
The final rules prohibit insured depository institutions and companies affiliated with insured depository institutions (“banking entities”) from engaging in short-term proprietary trading of certain securities, derivatives, commodity futures and options on these instruments, for their own account. The final rules also impose limits on banking entities’ investments in, and other relationships with, hedge funds or private equity funds.
Like the Dodd-Frank Act, the final rules provide exemptions for certain activities, including market making, underwriting, hedging, trading in government obligations, insurance company activities, and organizing and offering hedge funds or private equity funds. The final rules also clarify that certain activities are not prohibited, including acting as agent, broker, or custodian.
The compliance requirements under the final rules vary based on the size of the banking entity and the scope of activities conducted. Banking entities with significant trading operations will be required to establish a detailed compliance program and their CEOs will be required to attest that the program is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the final rule. Independent testing and analysis of an institution’s compliance program will also be required. The final rules reduce the burden on smaller, less-complex institutions by limiting their compliance and reporting requirements. Additionally, a banking entity that does not engage in covered trading activities will not need to establish a compliance program.
The Federal Reserve Board announced on Tuesday that banking organizations covered by section 619 will be required to fully conform their activities and investments by July 21, 2015.
Joint Release:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Securities and Exchange Commission
Release: 6790-13
For Release: December 10, 2013
Agencies Issue Final Rules Implementing the Volcker Rule
Five federal agencies on Tuesday issued final rules developed jointly to implement section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Volcker Rule”).
The final rules prohibit insured depository institutions and companies affiliated with insured depository institutions (“banking entities”) from engaging in short-term proprietary trading of certain securities, derivatives, commodity futures and options on these instruments, for their own account. The final rules also impose limits on banking entities’ investments in, and other relationships with, hedge funds or private equity funds.
Like the Dodd-Frank Act, the final rules provide exemptions for certain activities, including market making, underwriting, hedging, trading in government obligations, insurance company activities, and organizing and offering hedge funds or private equity funds. The final rules also clarify that certain activities are not prohibited, including acting as agent, broker, or custodian.
The compliance requirements under the final rules vary based on the size of the banking entity and the scope of activities conducted. Banking entities with significant trading operations will be required to establish a detailed compliance program and their CEOs will be required to attest that the program is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the final rule. Independent testing and analysis of an institution’s compliance program will also be required. The final rules reduce the burden on smaller, less-complex institutions by limiting their compliance and reporting requirements. Additionally, a banking entity that does not engage in covered trading activities will not need to establish a compliance program.
The Federal Reserve Board announced on Tuesday that banking organizations covered by section 619 will be required to fully conform their activities and investments by July 21, 2015.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
DOL SAYS WHISTLEBLOWERS CAN FILE COMPLAINTS WITH OSHA ONLINE
FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
Whistleblowers can now file complaints online with OSHA
Agency launches online form to provide workers a new way to file retaliation complaints
WASHINGTON — Whistleblowers covered by one of 22 statutes administered by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration will now be able to file complaints online. The online form will provide workers who have been retaliated against an additional way to reach out for OSHA assistance online.
"The ability of workers to speak out and exercise their rights without fear of retaliation provides the backbone for some of American workers' most essential protections," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "Whistleblower laws protect not only workers, but also the public at large and now workers will have an additional avenue available to file a complaint with OSHA."
Currently, workers can make complaints to OSHA by filing a written complaint or by calling the agency's 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) number or an OSHA regional or area office. Workers will now be able to electronically submit a whistleblower complaint to OSHA by visiting www.osha.gov/whistleblower/WBComplaint.html.
The new online form prompts the worker to include basic whistleblower complaint information so they can be easily contacted for follow-up. Complaints are automatically routed to the appropriate regional whistleblower investigators. In addition, the complaint form can also be downloaded and submitted to the agency in hard-copy format by fax, mail or hand-delivery. The paper version is identical to the electronic version and requests the same information necessary to initiate a whistleblower investigation.
OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of 22 statutes protecting employees who report violations of various securities laws, trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, rail, public transportation, workplace safety and health, and consumer protection laws. Detailed information on employee whistleblower rights, including fact sheets and instructions on how to submit the form in hard-copy format, is available online at www.whistleblowers.gov.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.
Whistleblowers can now file complaints online with OSHA
Agency launches online form to provide workers a new way to file retaliation complaints
WASHINGTON — Whistleblowers covered by one of 22 statutes administered by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration will now be able to file complaints online. The online form will provide workers who have been retaliated against an additional way to reach out for OSHA assistance online.
"The ability of workers to speak out and exercise their rights without fear of retaliation provides the backbone for some of American workers' most essential protections," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "Whistleblower laws protect not only workers, but also the public at large and now workers will have an additional avenue available to file a complaint with OSHA."
Currently, workers can make complaints to OSHA by filing a written complaint or by calling the agency's 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) number or an OSHA regional or area office. Workers will now be able to electronically submit a whistleblower complaint to OSHA by visiting www.osha.gov/whistleblower/WBComplaint.html.
The new online form prompts the worker to include basic whistleblower complaint information so they can be easily contacted for follow-up. Complaints are automatically routed to the appropriate regional whistleblower investigators. In addition, the complaint form can also be downloaded and submitted to the agency in hard-copy format by fax, mail or hand-delivery. The paper version is identical to the electronic version and requests the same information necessary to initiate a whistleblower investigation.
OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of 22 statutes protecting employees who report violations of various securities laws, trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, rail, public transportation, workplace safety and health, and consumer protection laws. Detailed information on employee whistleblower rights, including fact sheets and instructions on how to submit the form in hard-copy format, is available online at www.whistleblowers.gov.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.
Friday, December 6, 2013
COMPANY AND OWNER SUED BY GOVERNMENT FOR DEFRAUDING BUSINESS ZONE PROGRAM
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Government Files Suit Against Canton, Ohio-based Tab Construction and Its Owner for Allegedly Defrauding the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Program
The government has filed a complaint against Canton, Ohio-based TAB Construction Co. Inc. (TAB) and its owner, William E. Richardson III, for allegedly making false statements to the Small Business Administration (SBA) to obtain certification as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) company, the Justice Department announced today.
“The HUBZone program is intended to create jobs in areas that historically have had trouble attracting business,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “The Justice Department will take strong enforcement action when companies obtain contracts to which they are not entitled.”
The government alleges that TAB used its fraudulently procured HUBZone certification to obtain four U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ construction contracts worth millions of dollars. Each of those contracts had been set aside for qualified HUBZone companies. The government’s complaint asserts claims against TAB and Richardson under the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989.
Allegedly, Richardson originally applied to the HUBZone program in 2000 by claiming that TAB’s principal office was located in a designated HUBZone when no TAB employees worked out of the HUBZone office, and TAB actually was located in a non-HUBZone. Even though Richardson told the SBA that TAB was located in a HUBZone, Richardson consistently used his non-HUBZone address in conducting TAB’s other business affairs, at one point even stating under oath in private litigation that TAB’s office was located in a non-HUBZone. In 2006, Richardson allegedly applied for re-certification to the HUBZone program, again falsely stating that eight employees worked in the designated HUBZone. The government alleges that just six weeks after Richardson re-certified its eligibility with the SBA, TAB completed an affidavit in an unrelated matter, which stated that TAB’s principal office was located in a non-HUBZone.
Under the HUBZone program, companies that maintain their principal office in a designated HUBZone, and meet certain other requirements, can apply to the SBA for certification as a HUBZone small business company. HUBZone companies can then use this certification when bidding on government contracts. In certain cases, government agencies will restrict competition for a contract to HUBZone-certified companies.
“We will not tolerate fraud in the HUBZone or any other SBA program,” said SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson. “With our interagency partners, this office will continue to pursue those who defraud the government by lying to gain access to federal set-aside contracts.”
“SBA’s contracting programs, including the HUBZone program, provide small businesses with the opportunity to grow and create jobs,” said SBA General Counsel Sara D. Lipscomb. “SBA has no tolerance for waste, fraud or abuse in any government contracting program and is committed to working with our federal partners to ensure the benefits of these programs flow to the intended recipients.”
The government filed its complaint in two consolidated lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. Under the Act, a private citizen can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. The government also is entitled to intervene in the lawsuit, as it has done in this case.
This matter was handled by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division in conjunction with the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General and Office of General Counsel and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
The consolidated civil cases are U.S. ex rel. Roy. J. Fairbrother Jr. and Louis Petit v. TAB Construction Co. Inc., et al., No. 5:11-cv-1432 (N.D. Ohio) and U.S. ex rel. Patricia Hopson and Vince Pavkov v. TAB Construction Co. Inc., No. 5:12-cv-135 (N.D. Ohio). The claims asserted against TAB and Richardson are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Government Files Suit Against Canton, Ohio-based Tab Construction and Its Owner for Allegedly Defrauding the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Program
The government has filed a complaint against Canton, Ohio-based TAB Construction Co. Inc. (TAB) and its owner, William E. Richardson III, for allegedly making false statements to the Small Business Administration (SBA) to obtain certification as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) company, the Justice Department announced today.
“The HUBZone program is intended to create jobs in areas that historically have had trouble attracting business,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “The Justice Department will take strong enforcement action when companies obtain contracts to which they are not entitled.”
The government alleges that TAB used its fraudulently procured HUBZone certification to obtain four U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ construction contracts worth millions of dollars. Each of those contracts had been set aside for qualified HUBZone companies. The government’s complaint asserts claims against TAB and Richardson under the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989.
Allegedly, Richardson originally applied to the HUBZone program in 2000 by claiming that TAB’s principal office was located in a designated HUBZone when no TAB employees worked out of the HUBZone office, and TAB actually was located in a non-HUBZone. Even though Richardson told the SBA that TAB was located in a HUBZone, Richardson consistently used his non-HUBZone address in conducting TAB’s other business affairs, at one point even stating under oath in private litigation that TAB’s office was located in a non-HUBZone. In 2006, Richardson allegedly applied for re-certification to the HUBZone program, again falsely stating that eight employees worked in the designated HUBZone. The government alleges that just six weeks after Richardson re-certified its eligibility with the SBA, TAB completed an affidavit in an unrelated matter, which stated that TAB’s principal office was located in a non-HUBZone.
Under the HUBZone program, companies that maintain their principal office in a designated HUBZone, and meet certain other requirements, can apply to the SBA for certification as a HUBZone small business company. HUBZone companies can then use this certification when bidding on government contracts. In certain cases, government agencies will restrict competition for a contract to HUBZone-certified companies.
“We will not tolerate fraud in the HUBZone or any other SBA program,” said SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson. “With our interagency partners, this office will continue to pursue those who defraud the government by lying to gain access to federal set-aside contracts.”
“SBA’s contracting programs, including the HUBZone program, provide small businesses with the opportunity to grow and create jobs,” said SBA General Counsel Sara D. Lipscomb. “SBA has no tolerance for waste, fraud or abuse in any government contracting program and is committed to working with our federal partners to ensure the benefits of these programs flow to the intended recipients.”
The government filed its complaint in two consolidated lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. Under the Act, a private citizen can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. The government also is entitled to intervene in the lawsuit, as it has done in this case.
This matter was handled by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division in conjunction with the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General and Office of General Counsel and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
The consolidated civil cases are U.S. ex rel. Roy. J. Fairbrother Jr. and Louis Petit v. TAB Construction Co. Inc., et al., No. 5:11-cv-1432 (N.D. Ohio) and U.S. ex rel. Patricia Hopson and Vince Pavkov v. TAB Construction Co. Inc., No. 5:12-cv-135 (N.D. Ohio). The claims asserted against TAB and Richardson are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
OSHA CITES COMPANY FOR SAFETY VIOLATION RELATED TO WORKER'S HEAT STROKE DEATH
FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
Aldridge Electric cited by US Labor Department's OSHA
after heat-related death of worker in Chicago
Employee became ill on his first day on the job
CHICAGO — The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Aldridge Electric Inc. for one serious safety violation following the June 25 death of a 36-year-old worker who developed heat stroke at a job site in Chicago. The company was installing electrical conduit in an uncovered trench on the Chicago Transit Authority's Dan Ryan Red Line project when the worker became ill on his first day on the job.
"This worker died from heat stress on his first day on the job. This tragedy underscores the need for employers to ensure that new workers become acclimated and build a tolerance to working in excessive heat with a program of water, rest and shade," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. "A worker's first day on the job shouldn't be the last day of their life."
OSHA's investigation found that Aldridge Electric did not implement an adequate and effective heat stress program and failed to ensure a newly employed worker was acclimatized to effects of heat and physical exertion. The worker was carrying heavy electrical conduit piping in nonshaded conditions when he collapsed on the job site. He died from his illness the following day.
The serious violation was cited for failing to implement an adequate and effective heat stress program. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about, which the employer knew or should have known.
Proposed penalties total $7,000. Aldridge Electric, based in Libertyville, Ill., is a specialty electrical contractor that employs nearly 750 workers nationwide. The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Aldridge Electric cited by US Labor Department's OSHA
after heat-related death of worker in Chicago
Employee became ill on his first day on the job
CHICAGO — The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Aldridge Electric Inc. for one serious safety violation following the June 25 death of a 36-year-old worker who developed heat stroke at a job site in Chicago. The company was installing electrical conduit in an uncovered trench on the Chicago Transit Authority's Dan Ryan Red Line project when the worker became ill on his first day on the job.
"This worker died from heat stress on his first day on the job. This tragedy underscores the need for employers to ensure that new workers become acclimated and build a tolerance to working in excessive heat with a program of water, rest and shade," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. "A worker's first day on the job shouldn't be the last day of their life."
OSHA's investigation found that Aldridge Electric did not implement an adequate and effective heat stress program and failed to ensure a newly employed worker was acclimatized to effects of heat and physical exertion. The worker was carrying heavy electrical conduit piping in nonshaded conditions when he collapsed on the job site. He died from his illness the following day.
The serious violation was cited for failing to implement an adequate and effective heat stress program. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about, which the employer knew or should have known.
Proposed penalties total $7,000. Aldridge Electric, based in Libertyville, Ill., is a specialty electrical contractor that employs nearly 750 workers nationwide. The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
SEC ALLEGES WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL AUTHORIZED BRIBES TO FOREIGN OFFICIALS
FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Weatherford International with FCPA Violations
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged oilfield services company Weatherford International with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by authorizing bribes and improper travel and entertainment for foreign officials in the Middle East and Africa to win business, including kickbacks in Iraq to obtain United Nations Oil-for-Food contracts.
The SEC alleges that Weatherford and its subsidiaries falsified its books and records to conceal not only these illicit payments, but also commercial transactions with Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan that violated U.S. sanctions and export control laws. Weatherford failed to establish an effective system of internal accounting controls to monitor risks of improper payments and prevent or detect misconduct. The company reaped more than $59.3 million in profits from business obtained through improper payments, and more than $30 million in profits from its improper sales to sanctioned countries.
Swiss-based Weatherford, which has substantial operations in Houston, has agreed to pay more than $250 million to settle the SEC’s charges and parallel actions by the Department of Justice’s Fraud Section, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, and Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Houston, the misconduct occurred from at least 2002 to 2011. In Angola, for example, Weatherford’s legal department permitted its subsidiary to use an agent who insisted that an FCPA clause be omitted from the consultancy agreement. The company took no steps to determine whether the agent was paying bribes to foreign officials, and the agent used sham work orders and invoices to pay bribes that ensured the renewal of a lucrative oil services contract for Weatherford in Angola. The same agent made illicit payments to obtain commercial contracts for Weatherford in Congo. The company also allowed its subsidiary to enter into a joint venture agreement with companies whose beneficial owners included Angolan oil company officials and a relative of an Angolan Minister in order to win business. A Weatherford employee reported in a 2006 ethics questionnaire that Weatherford personnel were making payments to government officials in Angola and elsewhere, but the company failed to investigate.
The SEC’s complaint also alleges that Weatherford failed to perform due diligence on a distributor suggested by an official at a national oil company in the Middle East. From 2005 to 2011, Weatherford and its subsidiaries awarded more than $11.8 million in improper “volume discounts” to the distributor – money intended for the creation of a slush fund to pay foreign officials.
According to the SEC’s complaint, the misconduct went beyond the use of agents or other third parties. Weatherford provided improper travel and entertainment to officials of a state-owned company in Algeria with no legitimate business purpose. For example, Weatherford paid for a 2006 FIFA World Cup trip by two of the officials, the July 2006 honeymoon of an official’s daughter, and an October 2005 religious trip to Saudi Arabia by an official and his family that was improperly recorded as a donation in Weatherford’s books and records. Weatherford’s Middle East subsidiary also made more than $1.4 million in improper payments to obtain nine contracts under the Oil-for-Food program in 2002. Iraqi ministries demanded improper “inland transportation fees” in an effort to subvert the UN program. Weatherford’s subsidiary complied with the Iraqi demands and paid more than $115,000 in fees despite invoices that included charges inconsistent with the actual deliveries. Weatherford obtained more than $7 million in profits from the misconduct.
The SEC further alleges that managers at Weatherford’s subsidiary in Italy flouted the lack of internal controls and misappropriated more than $200,000 in company funds, some of which was improperly paid to Albanian tax auditors. The managers misreported cash advances, diverted payments on previously paid invoices, misappropriated government rebate checks, and received reimbursement for such purchases as golf equipment and perfume that did not relate to business activities.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Weatherford employees created false accounting and inventory records from 2002 to 2007 to hide the illegal commercial sales to Cuba, Syria, Sudan, and Iran. During this time period, exporting or re-exporting goods or services from the U.S. to these sanctioned countries was prohibited. The falsified financial statements and books and records of Weatherford subsidiaries involved in the misconduct were consolidated into the financial statements of the parent company.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Weatherford violated the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA, specifically Sections 30A, 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Weatherford agreed to pay $90,984,844 in disgorgement, $4,399,423.34 in pre-judgment interest, and a $1.875 million civil penalty assessed in part for lack of cooperation during the investigation. $31,646,907 of the payment to the SEC will be satisfied by Weatherford’s agreement to pay an equal amount to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Weatherford agreed to pay $87 million in criminal fines to the Department of Justice for the FCPA violations, and $100 million to the other three agencies for the sanctions violations. The company also must comply with certain undertakings, including the retention of an independent compliance monitor for 18 months and self-reporting to the SEC staff for an additional 18 months.
The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Tracy L. Price, Kelly G. Kilroy, and Stanley Cichinski of the FCPA Unit as well as Natalie Lentz and Robert Dodge. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Justice Department, Commerce Department, Treasury Department, and U.S. Attorney’s Office in Houston.
SEC Charges Weatherford International with FCPA Violations
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged oilfield services company Weatherford International with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by authorizing bribes and improper travel and entertainment for foreign officials in the Middle East and Africa to win business, including kickbacks in Iraq to obtain United Nations Oil-for-Food contracts.
The SEC alleges that Weatherford and its subsidiaries falsified its books and records to conceal not only these illicit payments, but also commercial transactions with Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan that violated U.S. sanctions and export control laws. Weatherford failed to establish an effective system of internal accounting controls to monitor risks of improper payments and prevent or detect misconduct. The company reaped more than $59.3 million in profits from business obtained through improper payments, and more than $30 million in profits from its improper sales to sanctioned countries.
Swiss-based Weatherford, which has substantial operations in Houston, has agreed to pay more than $250 million to settle the SEC’s charges and parallel actions by the Department of Justice’s Fraud Section, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, and Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Houston, the misconduct occurred from at least 2002 to 2011. In Angola, for example, Weatherford’s legal department permitted its subsidiary to use an agent who insisted that an FCPA clause be omitted from the consultancy agreement. The company took no steps to determine whether the agent was paying bribes to foreign officials, and the agent used sham work orders and invoices to pay bribes that ensured the renewal of a lucrative oil services contract for Weatherford in Angola. The same agent made illicit payments to obtain commercial contracts for Weatherford in Congo. The company also allowed its subsidiary to enter into a joint venture agreement with companies whose beneficial owners included Angolan oil company officials and a relative of an Angolan Minister in order to win business. A Weatherford employee reported in a 2006 ethics questionnaire that Weatherford personnel were making payments to government officials in Angola and elsewhere, but the company failed to investigate.
The SEC’s complaint also alleges that Weatherford failed to perform due diligence on a distributor suggested by an official at a national oil company in the Middle East. From 2005 to 2011, Weatherford and its subsidiaries awarded more than $11.8 million in improper “volume discounts” to the distributor – money intended for the creation of a slush fund to pay foreign officials.
According to the SEC’s complaint, the misconduct went beyond the use of agents or other third parties. Weatherford provided improper travel and entertainment to officials of a state-owned company in Algeria with no legitimate business purpose. For example, Weatherford paid for a 2006 FIFA World Cup trip by two of the officials, the July 2006 honeymoon of an official’s daughter, and an October 2005 religious trip to Saudi Arabia by an official and his family that was improperly recorded as a donation in Weatherford’s books and records. Weatherford’s Middle East subsidiary also made more than $1.4 million in improper payments to obtain nine contracts under the Oil-for-Food program in 2002. Iraqi ministries demanded improper “inland transportation fees” in an effort to subvert the UN program. Weatherford’s subsidiary complied with the Iraqi demands and paid more than $115,000 in fees despite invoices that included charges inconsistent with the actual deliveries. Weatherford obtained more than $7 million in profits from the misconduct.
The SEC further alleges that managers at Weatherford’s subsidiary in Italy flouted the lack of internal controls and misappropriated more than $200,000 in company funds, some of which was improperly paid to Albanian tax auditors. The managers misreported cash advances, diverted payments on previously paid invoices, misappropriated government rebate checks, and received reimbursement for such purchases as golf equipment and perfume that did not relate to business activities.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Weatherford employees created false accounting and inventory records from 2002 to 2007 to hide the illegal commercial sales to Cuba, Syria, Sudan, and Iran. During this time period, exporting or re-exporting goods or services from the U.S. to these sanctioned countries was prohibited. The falsified financial statements and books and records of Weatherford subsidiaries involved in the misconduct were consolidated into the financial statements of the parent company.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Weatherford violated the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA, specifically Sections 30A, 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Weatherford agreed to pay $90,984,844 in disgorgement, $4,399,423.34 in pre-judgment interest, and a $1.875 million civil penalty assessed in part for lack of cooperation during the investigation. $31,646,907 of the payment to the SEC will be satisfied by Weatherford’s agreement to pay an equal amount to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Weatherford agreed to pay $87 million in criminal fines to the Department of Justice for the FCPA violations, and $100 million to the other three agencies for the sanctions violations. The company also must comply with certain undertakings, including the retention of an independent compliance monitor for 18 months and self-reporting to the SEC staff for an additional 18 months.
The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Tracy L. Price, Kelly G. Kilroy, and Stanley Cichinski of the FCPA Unit as well as Natalie Lentz and Robert Dodge. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Justice Department, Commerce Department, Treasury Department, and U.S. Attorney’s Office in Houston.
Friday, November 29, 2013
JUSTICE TRIES TO INTERVENE IN TAX PREPARATION WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY LAWSUIT
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, November 25, 2013
Justice Department Seeks to Intervene in Lawsuit Alleging H&R Block’s Tax Preparation Website Is Inaccessible to Individuals with Disabilities
The Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz announced today that they have moved to intervene in National Federation of the Blind et al v. HRB Digital LLC et al, a private lawsuit alleging disability discrimination by HRB Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group Inc., subsidiaries of H&R Block Inc. In the memorandum and proffered complaint filed by the United States in support of its motion to intervene, the United States alleges that the H&R Block companies discriminate against individuals with disabilities and that their website, www.hrblock.com , is being operated in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), notwithstanding well-established and readily available guidelines for delivering web content in an accessible manner. The motion, attached complaint in intervention and supporting memorandum were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ Boston Division.
As alleged in the filings today, H&R Block is one of the largest tax return preparers in the United States. Its companies offer a wide range of services through www.hrblock.com , including professional and do-it-yourself tax preparation, instructional videos, office location information, interactive live video conference and chat with tax professionals, hybrid online and in-store services and electronic filing. Their website, however, is not accessible to many individuals with disabilities and prevents some people with disabilities from completing even the most basic activities on the site.
Today’s filings further state that many individuals with disabilities, including, among others, people who are blind, deaf or have physical disabilities with an impact on manual dexterity, use computers and the Internet with the help of assistive technologies. For example, screen reader software makes audible information that is otherwise presented visually on a computer screen; captioning translates video narration and sound into text; and keyboard navigation allows keyboard input rather than a mouse to navigate a website for individuals with visual, hearing or manual dexterity disabilities. Such technologies have been widely used for some time and there are readily available, well-established, consensus-based guidelines – the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 – for making web content accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The complaint in intervention seeks a court order that would ensure that tax services offered through www.hrblock.com are fully and equally accessible to individuals with disabilities. The department also seeks an award of monetary damages for aggrieved individuals, including the two named plaintiffs and a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest.
“The web revolutionizes our lives daily and maximizes our independence in many areas,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division. “Inaccessible websites of public accommodations are not simply an inconvenience to individuals with disabilities – they deny persons with disabilities access to basic goods and services that people without disabilities take advantage of every day. An inaccessible website can also mean a business loses a customer it never knew it had.”
“We are building an electronic world in which we ever-increasingly live,” said U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz for the District of Massachusetts. “All benefit when, as the ADA requires, we build our online businesses, schools and other public spaces in a manner equally accessible to all.”
Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations. It also requires public accommodations to take necessary steps to ensure individuals with disabilities are not excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, such as accurate captioning of audible materials and labeling of visual materials.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Justice Department Seeks to Intervene in Lawsuit Alleging H&R Block’s Tax Preparation Website Is Inaccessible to Individuals with Disabilities
The Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz announced today that they have moved to intervene in National Federation of the Blind et al v. HRB Digital LLC et al, a private lawsuit alleging disability discrimination by HRB Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group Inc., subsidiaries of H&R Block Inc. In the memorandum and proffered complaint filed by the United States in support of its motion to intervene, the United States alleges that the H&R Block companies discriminate against individuals with disabilities and that their website, www.hrblock.com , is being operated in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), notwithstanding well-established and readily available guidelines for delivering web content in an accessible manner. The motion, attached complaint in intervention and supporting memorandum were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ Boston Division.
As alleged in the filings today, H&R Block is one of the largest tax return preparers in the United States. Its companies offer a wide range of services through www.hrblock.com , including professional and do-it-yourself tax preparation, instructional videos, office location information, interactive live video conference and chat with tax professionals, hybrid online and in-store services and electronic filing. Their website, however, is not accessible to many individuals with disabilities and prevents some people with disabilities from completing even the most basic activities on the site.
Today’s filings further state that many individuals with disabilities, including, among others, people who are blind, deaf or have physical disabilities with an impact on manual dexterity, use computers and the Internet with the help of assistive technologies. For example, screen reader software makes audible information that is otherwise presented visually on a computer screen; captioning translates video narration and sound into text; and keyboard navigation allows keyboard input rather than a mouse to navigate a website for individuals with visual, hearing or manual dexterity disabilities. Such technologies have been widely used for some time and there are readily available, well-established, consensus-based guidelines – the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 – for making web content accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The complaint in intervention seeks a court order that would ensure that tax services offered through www.hrblock.com are fully and equally accessible to individuals with disabilities. The department also seeks an award of monetary damages for aggrieved individuals, including the two named plaintiffs and a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest.
“The web revolutionizes our lives daily and maximizes our independence in many areas,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division. “Inaccessible websites of public accommodations are not simply an inconvenience to individuals with disabilities – they deny persons with disabilities access to basic goods and services that people without disabilities take advantage of every day. An inaccessible website can also mean a business loses a customer it never knew it had.”
“We are building an electronic world in which we ever-increasingly live,” said U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz for the District of Massachusetts. “All benefit when, as the ADA requires, we build our online businesses, schools and other public spaces in a manner equally accessible to all.”
Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations. It also requires public accommodations to take necessary steps to ensure individuals with disabilities are not excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, such as accurate captioning of audible materials and labeling of visual materials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)