1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Record $44 Million Settlement for FCPA Violations

Record $44 Million Settlement for FCPA Violations

Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.27.07

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced yesterday that Baker Hughes, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Baker Hughes Services International Inc. (BHSI), agreed to pay a record $44 million in fines, penalties and disgorgement to settle criminal charges and a related civil complaint. The allegations include violations of the anti-bribery and books and records and internal control provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).


BHSI admitted to making $4.1 million in illegal payments to a “consulting firm” in exchange for the award of a $219.9 million contract with Kazakhoil, Kazakshstan’s national oil company. At Kazakhoil’s demand, BHSI agreed, in exchange for the contract, to pay a “commission” to the “consulting firm” consisting of 2-3 percent of revenue earned on the project and future projects .


BHSI agreed, as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ, to pay a criminal fine of $11 million, serve three years of organizational probation, and adopt a comprehensive anti-bribery compliance program. Baker Hughes further agreed to hire an independent compliance monitor for three years to oversee the establishment and maintenance of a “robust compliance program” and to report regularly to the DOJ. In the related SEC settlement, Baker Hughes agreed to pay $10 million in civil penalties and more than $24 million in disgorgement of profits. Baker Hughes already had been the subject of an SEC cease and desist order in 2001 based upon claims that it made payments to a KPMG affiliate in Indonesia knowing that some or all would be passed to an Indonesian tax official for the purpose of influencing him to reduce a tax assessment


In its announcement, the DOJ said that the resolution of the case reflected Baker Hughes’ voluntary cooperation, including self-reporting to the DOJ, conducting a thorough internal investigation, and taking “significant remedial steps.” The SEC also acknowledged Baker Hughes’ cooperation.


This case – and the record $44 million settlement – is the latest in a series of stark reminders that the DOJ and SEC are prioritizing FCPA enforcement efforts. Companies must be mindful of the significant civil and criminal exposure posed by the government’s multi-pronged approach to FCPA prosecutions. The Baker Hughes settlement reemphasizes the need for companies engaged in international business to exercise appropriate due diligence when retaining foreign intermediaries and to be vigilant in supervising their activities. In particular, companies must ensure that “consultants” serve a legitimate business function, that all payments are proportionate to the value received, and that all payments are accurately recorded on the company’s books.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights