Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-33091House OversightOther

Excerpt from DOJ/FCPA sentencing guidelines outlining penalty calculations

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #022571
Pages
2
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage merely reproduces standard sentencing and civil penalty guidelines for FCPA violations. It contains no specific actors, transactions, or novel allegations that could be pursued as investig Describes how offense levels and fines are calculated for individuals and corporations under the FCP Mentions the role of DOJ and SEC in civil enforcement and the maximum civil penalties per violatio

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

dojsentencing-guidelinessechouse-oversightcorporate-penaltiesfcpa
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
69 to determine whether the Guidelines would recommend that incarceration is appropriate, the length of any term of incarceration, and the appropriate amount of any fine. For corporations, the offense level is modified by factors par- ticular to organizations as described in Chapter 8 to deter- mine the applicable organizational penalty. For example, violations of the anti-bribery provi- sions are calculated pursuant to § 2C1.1. The offense level is determined by first identifying the base offense level; adding additional levels based on specific offense charac- teristics, including whether the offense involved more than one bribe, the value of the bribe or the benefit that was con- ferred, and the level of the public official;®° adjusting the offense level based on the defendant's role in the offense;*! and using the total offense level as well as the defendant’s criminal history category to determine the advisory guide- line range.*” For violations of the accounting provisions assessed under § 2B1.1, the procedure is generally the same, except that the specific offense characteristics differ. For instance, for violations of the FCPA’s accounting pro- visions, the offense level may be increased if a substantial part of the scheme occurred outside the United States or if the defendant was an officer or director of a publicly traded company at the time of the offense.?? For companies, the offense level is calculated pur- suant to §§ 2C1.1 or 2B1.1 in the same way as for an individual—by starting with the base offense level and increasing it as warranted by any applicable specific offense characteristics. The organizational guidelines found in Chapter 8, however, provide the structure for determining the final advisory guideline fine range for organizations. The base fine consists of the greater of the amount corresponding to the total offense level, calcu- lated pursuant to the Guidelines, or the pecuniary gain or loss from the offense.>** This base fine is then multiplied by a culpability score that can either reduce the fine to as little as five percent of the base fine or increase the recom- mended fine to up to four times the amount of the base fine.’ As described in § 8C2.5, this culpability score is calculated by taking into account numerous factors such as the size of the organization committing the criminal acts; the involvement in or tolerance of criminal activ- ity by high-level personnel within the organization; and prior misconduct or obstructive behavior. The culpability score is reduced if the organization had an effective pre- existing compliance program to prevent violations and if the organization voluntarily disclosed the offense, cooper- ated in the investigation, and accepted responsibility for the criminal conduct.?*° Civil Penalties Although only DOJ has the authority to pursue crim- inal actions, both DOJ and SEC have civil enforcement authority under the FCPA. DOJ may pursue civil actions for anti-bribery violations by domestic concerns (and their officers, directors, employees, agents, or stockholders) and foreign nationals and companies for violations while in the United States, while SEC may pursue civil actions against issuers and their officers, directors, employees, agents, or stockholders for violations of the anti-bribery and the accounting provisions.**” For violations of the anti-bribery provisions, cor- porations and other business entities are subject to a civil penalty of up to $16,000 per violation.>* Individuals, including officers, directors, stockholders, and agents of companies, are similarly subject to a civil penalty of up to $16,000 per violation,**? which may not be paid by their employer or principal3® For violations of the accounting provisions, SEC may obtain a civil penalty not to exceed the greater of (a) the gross amount of the pecuniary gain to the defendant as a result of the violations or (b) a specified dollar limitation. The specified dollar limitations are based on the egregious- ness of the violation, ranging from $7,500 to $150,000 for an individual and $75,000 to $725,000 for a company.* SEC may obtain civil penalties both in actions filed in fed- eral court and in administrative proceedings3” Collateral Consequences In addition to the criminal and civil penalties described above, individuals and companies who violate the FCPA may face significant collateral consequences, including suspension

Related Documents (6)

OtherUnknown

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 1 U.S. Department ofJustiee United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Bullefing One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 August 19, 2019 VIA ECF The Honorable Richard M. Berman United States District Judge Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) Dear Judge Berman: As the Court is aware, on the morning of August 10, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein died while in custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. On August 16, 2019, and after conducting an autopsy, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York issued a statement identifying the cause of death as hanging, and the manner of death as suicide. In light of the death of the defendant prior to a conviction becoming final, the Government must request the Court approve the attached proposed or

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372172011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

CLAIM ID: 26H9-2VPP

CLAIM ID: 26H9-2VPP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAMOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. / PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF SERVING VERIFIED ANSWERS TO SECOND INTERROGATORIES COMES NOW the Plaintiff, , by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby gives notice that that Verified Answers to Second Interrogatories propounded by the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, on August 28, 2009, have been furnished to the attorney for the Defendant. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by e-mail this trday of November, 2009 to alt counsel ob the attached service list. Attorney tor minim 3505-038 Page I of 5 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00005262 EFTA00157825 CLAIM ID: 26H9-2VPP VS. EPSTEIN, et al Case No.: 08-CV-80811-Marra/Johnson Plaintiffs Verified Answers to Second Interrogatories SERVICE LIST Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldb

5p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' yt To: ' .111r)a.r>alSANYS)" )" Cc: ' (CRM)" czi Subject: RE: SDNY case Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:46:21 +0000 Dea I heard you defeated the bail proposal. Congrats! My meeting with the Paris Prosecutor's Office was pushed by a day, and is now set for January 7th. Can we pick a time for a call between now and then? Would Tuesday the 5th in the am (NY time) work for everyone? In the meantime, I am referring the French MLAT request to your IC ). I don't know if you have any privilege issues in your case...and I don't see anything in the request that would revealed any privileged info. But I wanted to mention, in case anyone needs to screen it before it comes to you. If not, I can send it to you directly as well. DOJ Attache/Magistrat de liaison anthicain U.S. Embassy, Paris From: Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 6:03 PM To: (USANYS) Cc: (CRM) < Subject: RE: SDNY case Hi all, (CRM) Maxwell's attorneys filed the attached supplemental report from their French

12p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Comprehensive Overview of U.S. AML Laws, Agencies, and Enforcement Actions

The document is a generic reference guide summarizing existing AML statutes, agency roles, and past enforcement actions. It contains no new allegations, specific transactions, or undisclosed relations Lists major U.S. AML statutes (BSA, USA PATRIOT Act, etc.) Identifies federal and non‑bank regulators and law‑enforcement agencies Describes typical enforcement tools (CMPs, DPA, consent orders)

29p
OtherUnknown

FRENCH REPUBLIC

FRENCH REPUBLIC MINISTRY OF JUSTICE APPEAL COURT OF PARIS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF PARIS COURT OF JUSTICE Paris, July 8, 2020 DIVISION Section P4 - Public Prosecution Service for Minors. The Public Prosecutor To Prosecutor-General at the Appeal Court of Paris. SUBJECT: Request for international legal assistance in criminal matter addressed to the United States authorities concerning the investigation related to Jean-Luc BRUNEI., and others, in connection with the "EPSTEIN case". N/REF : prosecution number : 19 235 449 V/REF : APPLICANT AUTHORITY The Public Prosecutor at the Paris Court of Justice. AUTHORITY ADDRESSED TO The competent authorities of the United States of America. Having regard to the accord between the European Union and the United States of America dated June 25, 2003 which entered into force on February 1, 2010 ; Having regard to the Article 14 of the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance between France and the United States dated December 10,

7p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.