Are Commercial Bribes the "Broken Windows" of the FCPA?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.25.15
The Department of Justice has a long history of prosecuting commercial bribery uncovered in FCPA cases under the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. § 1952), which prohibits the use of interstate commerce in furtherance of any "unlawful activity" such as commercial bribery in violation of state law. See United States v. Control Components Inc. (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2009). Similarly, the UK Bribery Act prohibits both commercial bribery and bribery of foreign government officials.
By contrast, the SEC traditionally has been reluctant to pursue purely commercial bribes. The SEC's position first shifted some 18 months, and is now confirmed again with Goodyear Tire & Rubber's $16 million settlement with the SEC on Tuesday, which resolved allegations that Goodyear subsidiaries in Kenya and Angola paid more than $3.2 million in bribes, and "falsely recorded [the bribery payments] as legitimate business expenses in [their] books and records." Highlighting the agency's renewed interest in pursuing liability based on commercial bribery, Scott W. Friestad, Associate Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division said in a press release that "[t]his settlement ensures that Goodyear must forfeit all of the illicit profits from business obtained through bribes to foreign officials as well as employees at commercial companies in Angola and Kenya." Notably, the Goodyear case was settled without any civil monetary penalty as Goodyear was required only to disgorge ill-gotten gains and pay pre-judgment interest.
In light of the apparent trend, Tuesday's settlement raises some key questions: Are the books and records provisions the SEC equivalent of the Travel Act? Do commercial bribes portend bribes to government officials such that they are the "broken windows" of SEC FCPA enforcement?
We certainly now have a good sense of how the SEC would answer these questions.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
