we have tried to place the enrollees at the center of the system. as they come in, they have a set of maybe four or five very clear choices of health plan with different service packages. we tried to create a session where they compete for business based on benefits they provide, based on the customer service they provide, based on the networks they have put together and various other times the plans compete based on price as we make decisions around bringing them in. but that's what we -- we're trying to set up a system where the consumer is at the center of it and plans competing based on price and quality and consumer satisfaction and they are competing for enrollees. enrollees at the center of the system. i think providers have a place there, too. we still encourage providers to develop these systems either as subcontractors to our plans or to develop their own plan and to eventually become fully at risk and to innovate. ultimately, it has to be about the patient and has to be about the consumer and they have to come in and feel like they are in an understandable system that is going to successfully meet

their health care needs. >> all right. i'm happy to end on that note with apologies to the panel because i had not vetted that question before hand. you did that remarkably well. join me in thanking ian, justin and jody. ; fort knox was chosen because it was the most impenetrable. there had been lots of gold already transferred there. so the secretary of the treasury gives permission to use a portion of the depository. tonight, the decision to move america's most important historical documents to fort knox on december 26, 1941.

>> first, he has to make the decision, what documents would be there. so he makes this decision very methodically on what is going to go to fort knox. these are considered the most valuable documents in the country. and the magna carta is the document that he has been asked to preserve for the britt -- for the brits. >> tonight on q&a. >> next, a look at trying to .top her option we open our phone lines and take a look at the headlines on "washington journal." now a look at with the justice

department is doing to investigate international corruption and fraud. you will hear from assistant attorney general whose unit is responsible for enforcing law that prohibits u.s. corporations from bribing foreign officials. from george washington university law school, this is one hour and a half. >> good afternoon. i will hand over the podium momentarily to my colleague, who will formally introduce our distinguished panelists. first, let me say how thrilled this discussion of the foreign corrupt practices act, one of the most significant lawes confronting criminal practitioners today. among our full-time and part-time faculty are many who, like myself, have served as federal prosecutors, who are --

entities.efended we have a rich curriculum in the areas of criminal law here at gw all -- gw law. is ther graduate assistant attorney general for the criminal division, leslie falwell. we are excited to welcome her back to her alma mater this afternoon. and although our other distinguished guests is not a gw law graduate, she, too, has a strong connection to the university. i learned just this week that her father once coached football george washington university. had a football team. by all accounts, he was a phenomenal coach. go away go

i will hand over the program to my wonderful colleagues. thank you again and welcome. thank you so much, dean fairfax, for that kind introduction. roger fairfax was a former department of justice lawyer. we are fortunate to have him come along with other prosecutors, defense lawyers on no -- ulty take the assistant attorney general caldwell who heads the criminal division of the united states and susan toustice

.omanian thank you so much for all of your help in making this possible. states, the united enacted the corruption practices act to minimize corruption of foreign officials by certain personal -- persons and entities. it has been amended answer occasions as well to expand its region. the foreign corrupt practices act raises a whole host of issues, such as the extraterritorial reach of u.s. law, the relationship between practices in foreign countries

and standards in the united states, the appropriate penalty to be given for violations of the act, and the consideration that should begin to companies and individuals who have adopted policies and practices. today, we are going to have a conversation about these and many other topics. we are honored to have with us our colleague leslie colwell who was confirmed as the assistant attorney general to the criminal division of the united states department of justice. she works withy, more than 600 lawyers prosecute criminal cases across the country. she also has worked closely with 93 u.s. attorneys that are involved in investigations and prosecutions of criminal matters in districts around the united states.

her entire career is largely dedicated to handling federal criminal cases, both as a prosecutor and as defense counsel. she is not particularly for her ,ork on the enron task force which she was director of from the year 2002 to 2004. she worked at the u.s. attorneys office, the northern district of california. she served as the chief of the criminal division, chief of the securities fraud section. worked for 11 years in the united states attorney's office for the eastern district of new york. serving as senior trial counsel for the businesses and securities fraud section. and the criminal -- the violent criminal enterprises section. she received the attorney general award for exceptional service. she is also the recipient of the attorney general's john marshall award for trial litigation and the attorney general's award for

fraud prevention. , before joining the criminal division, the position as a partner. she was cochair of corporate investigations in white-collar practice group. ms. caldwell, it is great to welcome you back to your alma mater. you are here at your school again. we are delighted that she is here. she is also graduate of another football powerhouse, pennsylvania state university. she will first provide opening remarks. karen popp will give her response as well. she leads the firm's white-collar government investigation grew.

she is recognized as one of the top high-profile white-collar attorneys in the united states. karen's is informed by a wealth of government in private sector experience, including serving as a federal prosecutor of new york, a lawyer in the office of legal counsel at the u.s. department of justice, and toociate white house counsel president clinton. she is a graduate of the university of north carolina, or she learned just she earned her bachelor's and her jd degrees. i look forward to your opening remarks. popp will, miss provide some comments. i have some questions. then we will open the floor to questions and comments. so let's welcome lori back to

her alma mater. [applause] lori: thank you, dean. when i was here, none of this was here. a lot of good memories here. for me, it was a great legal education. i've always valued it. as the dean said, two and a half years ago, i was prelude's to be named to become the assistant attorney general for the criminal division. many people do not know what the criminal division does. less people know about the u.s. s.torneys office they mostly focus on crime in a geographic areas. some go beyond the geographic areas, will run its -- one of which is the southern district of new york. we went the ontario, too.

but in the criminal division, we are not limited by geography. sections.17 they do all sorts of things. ranging from very sophisticated, really scary child expectation organizations that operate internationally in the dark --ernet seminary laundering to money laundering to the front section which does major international fraud cases. they are the ones who are looking at the vw investigation, the pentagon papers -- the panama papers. because we don't have geographic limits other than the limits of federal criminal jurisdiction. we have in international and national scope for which we look at everything and a different vantage point from the u.s. attorneys. i think that vantage point has enabled us to really focus on

emerging areas in white-collar crime. things were particularly important when i started as assistant attorney general. and share with you are those were important and try to addresses. i really wanted us to sharpen our focus on international corruption and international cases. everything that i really wanted to do you have in this was one of my experiences as a defense lawyer. i wanted there to be more transparency in our charging decisions, when we decide to charge a corporation.

and i'm talking on the corporate context. when we decide to charge a company, what factors do we consider? there are factors in guidelines that ariane justice department publications. but if you are an outside counsel, as i was, you would see what appeared to be inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary outcomes in what seemed to be similar fact situations. one of the goals was to try to increase transparency. i want to talk to about both of those things. one is international corruption. it's been a priority of the department. it's important because you can't measure the damage caused by international corruption by looking at numbers, although the numbers are staggering. trillion, according to world bank estimates, are paid out in bribes every year by corporations trying to get businesses and very sparse of the world. that's 3% of the entire world economy. that's a significant number.

we see theantly, corrosive effects of corruption, the anti-competitive effects of corruption on our companies who are trying to play by the rules and you can't compete against those who are willing to pay bribes. and there are u.s. companies that are willing to pay bribes as well. it undermines confidence in government and confidence in the markets. it destroys this is a fair play that undermines the rule of law. it especially true in emergent economies where sometimes people are getting rich and there no infrastructure and people are living on less than a dollar a day are less than $10 a day. and the fruits of corruption, you see it in the news, but we see it in our cases, can really regimes, up corrupt often in poor companies -- poor countries, but often in wealthier countries.

extreme examples where corrupt regimes have helped create safe havens for criminals and terrorists who can then fan out all of the world and commit their crimes and engage in the terrorist acts. these are some of the reasons why it is in a priority and he continues to be a priority. i'm sure it will be continued by whoever succeeds me. i hope they maintain the focus that we have had, which is to try to focus on the bigger cases , the cases that have a bigger impact. i will give you two examples from the alaska blood years. there was a french power and transportation company. in december 2014, they've paid penalties for attempting to bribe officials in 10 different countries. it was the highest fine ever paid. refused touse they corporate with law enforcement in any country they were investigation in several countries. they refused to cooperate.

they resisted every step of the way. the bribe a significant and directed at highly -- at fairly high levels in the country -- in the company. a dutch telecom company was paying bribes to an individual in uzbekistan who had control of the telecom industry in uzbekistan. they paid out more than $114 million to get access to the is becky telecom market. they resolved their investigation with an $800 million resolution that included resolution with us, the department of justice, with the sec and with authorities in the. that is another thing we are seeing increasingly. -- authorities in the netherlands. we are another thing seeing increasingly. sharing leads, witnesses, giving each other tips. some of these cases have come to

our law enforcement from overseas law enforcement. and we like to give information overseas. a good example of that is, just last week, we announced the resolution of an investigation into bribery by the brazilian aircraft manufacturer embraer. those of you that take the shuttle between new york or boston and ac, that is their jet. that is the case where we work jointly with brazil and with saudi arabia, the country that we have traditional e-work in this area. they prosecuted more than a dozen individuals in that bribery scandal. we also have something i'm really excited about in the criminal division that is relatively new. the assetd within forfeiture and money laundering section. i should've said before that the -- has worked with our fraud section. we have 140 lawyers in the front section. back ina big change

2004, there were about 50. so that is a dramatic change. we did a -- a year or so ago i involved athat former soviet republic and we were able to get our hands on a large amount of money and were with the ngo -- and worked with the ngo to find and see some youth activity programs in that country. that may seem a small thing. but rather than the u.s. keeping the money that we seized that was stolen from that country, we got back to that country for and we have as not a system to make sure that

the money is going to who we think it is instead of going back into the pockets. the work is painstaking. forfeit money, sees it, we have to identify improve the original crime, the original corruption, the original theft, the original bribery, whatever the underlying crime was. there would have to trace the money from the crime to an account that we can get our hands on. that's really hard to do. because these folks are very sophisticated. they put their money in -- is not in their name in an account at citibank. it is in offshore account a set offshore account be to offshore account ceased. it is really difficult to prove. papers of the pen of our -- lawyers of the panama papers, sophisticated accounts, a lot of people out there whose job it is to help people hide their money.

it's difficult to penetrate that. witnesses are difficult to find. you're not can i get summary from the country who knows what happened to come to you if they are going to have to go back to the country. and give you actual evidence. a laws.ready sees we have seized over $3 billion in assets in alaska of years. most of those ads -- in the last couple of years. we don't want the united states to be safe haven for the stolen money. ofdon't want the dictator that country to be able to own the penthouse at the time warner center on columbus circle in new york or a huge mansion in money.ton with stolen we don't want to be a haven. so some of the assets we have seized have been mentions oliver malibu and apartments in new york, i hotel in beverly hills. seized impressionist art.

they malaysian sovereign wealth fund worth $3 billion were siphoned off and used for various things, including among other things buying impressionist paintings, monet's anets, including funding "the wealth of wall street." we now own it. so everybody go home and download "the wolf of wall street," and you will be putting money in your government's coffers. [laughter] when i was at my firm, i was frustrated because i felt that, when you're a client and the and theas a problem, client will have to deal with the department of justice, the client wants to know what's going to happen. you just -- we weren't in the position to tell the client with any and the

client will have to deal with the department of justice, the client wants to certainty, if yt this, this will happen. it is difficult to give a clear because everything is so fact-specific. we wanted to do everything we could to make decisions and our actions more transparent. transparency is important because it house companies understand what might happen. it helps the public see what we are doing and why we are doing it. i think it also deters future wrongdoers because being transparent about what will happen to a company if it does x is a good way to deter a company from doing x. we've done two things to try to make the corporate charging decisions more transparent. our chargingl of documents, except for indictments, which are not that many actual indictments of operations. they are either resolved as a guilty pre--- the guilty plea, a

deferred. we used to not say in those documents why. why is this company getting a deferred prosecution agreement and that company is getting an npa. we change that. we say a company fully ,ooperated, if they did things gave us access to documents, gave us evidence, did whatever. it is all facts pacific. website, youour will see resolutions and the kind of language that describes at the company did. maybe the company self-reported, remediated and did much better. the company that didn't cooperate until they switch council, which happens a lot, and then they cooperated. but they still don't get the full credit, the safe -- the same credit as the other debris. the second wave -- as the other company. the second way is we started a

pilot program. guidance to the fraud section prosecutors who are doing cpa case is about corporate resolutions. it provides benchmarks. so if the company voluntarily self-reports and cooperates and remediate's and disgorge his whatever profits it made from the contract that he got through bribery, even when there is a bride that we can prove, we made the client prosecution of that case. important that they don't discourse of profits. but in any event, the pilot program is something that is new. it's only six-month-old. we have seen it having an effect. we've seen an uptick in self reporting. it's true to say whether that is attributable to the pilot program rfid happens to be what is happening this year as opposed to next your last year.

but i think it's working and i some it's giving counsel -- at least something they can tell their clients, when their client say what is going to happen to me if i go in and deal with the government? >another thing that we did that is similar, that dovetailed with the pilot program is a voluntary disclosure that used to be an element of cooperation. we have nine factors that we consider in deciding whether to charge a corporation. website and in our u.s. attorneys manual. we added one and we separated out self-disclosure from cooperation. so it is its own factor. to all the other cooperations, self-disclosure is one of them. it tended to urge companies to self-report antennas separately and additionally report them if they did that. i'm skipping over some of these notes in the interest of time.

i think those are really the done inngs that we've alaska will of years that i think have at least been aimed improving our proper -- our corporate prosecutions against companies and individuals. the idea the pilot program in part is get the company to suffer poor by giving it some incentives. so when it comes in an self-reports, it will give us the information that it has because we have already commissioned an outside investigation. it will allow us to prosecute individuals. issecution of individuals the biggest deterrent, in my view. most people would agree that is the biggest deterrent to corporate wrongdoing and criminal wrongdoing. that's really one of the main goals. it is to -- it is too soon to tell whether it is actually working. but is headed in the right direction.

the sanden i the part, is claim my hourglass by the minute. honor to be the assistant attorney general. i am proud to represent gw in that space. hopefully someday one of you will be sitting in that chair. banks. [applause] -- thanks. [applause] susan: thank you for setting out clearly the focus of the department on international specificn and the angles the department is taking. the acid initiatives is very keen. and the benefits it can give beyond the enforcement of law here in the united states. secondly, to give us guidance on

transparency and insight into a pilot program -- a pilot program, which we will talk about in a few minutes. would you like to say a few words in response to ms. caldwell's observations? >> yeah. we will be talking about a lot today and that's the pilot program. said, i what leslie commend the department of justice for all the efforts being made to be more transparent. because i think that is extremely important to corporations and individuals, anyone that comes under investigation by the department is to have more transparency into what is going on. process by prosecutors. and it is extremely helpful for those out there who are attempting to have effective compliance programs and other

decision-making that goes on in corporate america. i also think the pilot program is a good idea and i know that is in large part based on comments today and prior comments from the department is to hold that care out and to make it also then be, have some transparency on the backside as to how those results were achieved. on the other hand, there are some concerns we still have in the private sector in the

defense bar and also amongst corporations and individuals and i know we are going to be exploring some of those but one of the concerns is the long arm reach of the us government out and throughout the world and because this practice and we are focused here today on the fcpa because the practice when you are representing corporations really is what i like to refer to as a conference room practice. you don't go to court. you don't have a judge arbitrating arguments that the government may make as opposed to the defense and jurisdiction is often one of those topics. that the government has a different view of its reach then the defense. so it is an area that is dependent on what prosecutors across the table , you may have a very aggressive view on what the evidence is as to whether jurisdiction exists. and i also , you know, it's difficult and leslie alluded to this , companies and we are a global economy today . many companies in this country are global, many companies outside of the us are global and are

doing business here. and it is, it can be very unlevel playing field throughout the world for corporations that are attempting to do business and i encourage our government to continue its efforts that i know it's been going on for some time now, to encourage other governments to enforce their own laws so that the companies in those countries have to abide by the same rules that us companies have to abide by so there is a level playing field area and then , you know, it's also music to my ears to hear the department of justice is emphasizing big cases. having big impact and you couple that with the pilot program and this is something i will put two leslie right now enough to answer it right away but it is a question that i know is being

asked and that is is there a threshold that accompanies a company should be considering whether to disclose? in other words, at what point should a company if it has an issue , at what point should it be bringing it to the attention of the department of justice under the pilot program ? because it is something that is often faced out there by companies that are doing business globally. and i expect the department of justice doesn't want every little thing brought to them under the pilot program and given their emphasis , i think that's a good thing for us to talk about today and i leave my other comments on my observations about the pilot program , prosecution of

i suggest we focus on the pilot program first and the challenge that was just raised by karen and i can't have a couple questions on that subject. >> so there's no threshold. we won tell a company if there's a bride for $40,000 at court ? we don't usually prosecute. we recognize that any big company can't control all the employees all the time. we recognize that if you are a company operating in certain geographies, you are going to be paying possibly small you will

be paying some kind of inappropriate tax, we recognize that. we recognize companies have rogue employees who don't follow company policy so even when there's a strong company policy, it may be the case that somebody in the company does something off the reservation, that happens all the time. i did work in this area when i was in private practice and i know it's impossible for a big global company to make sure all its employees are following the law at all times so there isn't any threshold but if i were a company and i were thinking about whether i wanted to sell support i would think about a couple things, i would think about if anyone, let's say it's a us company. was anyone in the us involved in this. somebody in the us was involved in this , was it somebody high in the company that was involved in this? somebody i in a foreign jurisdiction was involved in this? the higher you go, the more likely it is that somebody else is going to tell us about whatever happened so i think , i don't like to tell people don't self appoint unless you think you will get caught but there is an element of that so if you've got a serious problem that others are likely to know about

and we get reports from whistleblowers , disgruntled employees , competitors who didn't get the bid because they didn't pay the bribe , the chances of us finding out , and we've got it added to our repurchase both in terms of fbi resources and prosecutor resources, we are working with prosecutors and police agencies all over the world , i mentioned the americas with brazil and saudi arabia and the allsop case, we gave evidence to the indonesian authorities to prosecute the corrupt indonesian public officials so we are all talking to each other. we are sharing information so if you've got something that is a significant issue, you should seriously think about telling us about it and trying to get credit under the pilot program. we don't want to hear about the bride that was paid on the dock in argentina to get your package to leapfrog the other packages. we don't want to hear about the gift to the chinese government official that he was given a big box of cigars on chinese new year. we don't want to hear about those things. we also don't want to hear about things when you don't have a sense of what exactly happens. we want you to tell us soon enough but we don't expect you to tell us as soon as you get the hotline call or start your investigation because as i know from my own experience, a lot of these allegations turn out to be unfounded or turn out to be what somebody thought happened that

didn't actually happen. >> one of the things that happens in private practice, as you know, a client to call you. they got an allegation. they want you to hell. -- help them investigated. i call it what kind of alligator do you have by the tail. you get this pilot program out there that is giving you a carrot to rush in so that you get all the benefits of it. and i'm happy to address then be

asked what i think is benefits are and what they are not. is, for defense counsel, the company needs to take enough steps to figure out what type of issues. just like you said just now, you don't want to hear everything is a real judgment call how are found -- how far down the path you go. andre going down that path --ing investigated investigative steps. question, youold also did not have a definitive view as to what point in time

does a company need to come in, that you do expect us to take some steps. -- if you could enlighten us this is one of my concerns about the program the program is only as good as the individuals who implemented it. this question is really your perspective. that path of investigative steps, are you thinking though company better get in? do you think we should come to you? >> it depends and that is a typical lawyer answer, which you will all be giving for the rest of your careers. inyou know, if summary comes -- ahey say that the ceo remark stream example, we have a department in this company whose sole reason for existence is to pay bribes.

we have a whole set of books, the solar reason for existing is to keep track of the brides. to thate paid bribes soon hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. you don't need to know more than that. you want to make sure that some it is a crazy. but if there's even a shred of truth to that, if you're thinking you will self-report, you will want to do something before you do much on the investigative front. if you get an anonymous hotline even with some level of specificity, you will want to look at that in the whether it is true. ,hether you actually paid money whether the people who were supposedly involved in it even worked on the deal. we don't expect you to come in running into us. when you have a pretty good reason to think it is true, you's where we were expect

to raise the flag. those who sayy to the program is largely designed to assist corporations and that individuals may very well be left out there and not getting the benefit of it and then they bearing theps responsibility, when in fact, there was an enormous benefit as well to court -- to corporations. how do you address that concern? >> i think part of the purpose of the private procrit -- pilot programs. know about that. she knows what money was paid to what government entities or individuals. she knows who paid it. she knows who the company is

responsible. she is not telling us. we want that information because we want to be able to make cases against those individuals. -- but we don't have the program. give them some care to do that. a piloty, coming into program does a mean you walk in a prosecution. the pilot program has a lot of different gradations of things it can happen. but the ideas is to get that information that we know is out there about culpable individuals , so that we can make the cases against the culpable individual companies. companies can't go to jail, obviously. individuals can. i think the biggest deterrent is -- prosecute

individuals. they may have been in the thick of the wrongdoing and they come forward and tell us things just the same of any other kind of criminal conduct. that person may have been -- involved in. it's designed to get out the vast strobes. [laughter] >> does that put pressure on the judgment, to make a about culpability. there may be differences of perspective on an issue and good faith -- good-based businesses. >> i was going to address

someone of that. i think this is actually where there is a rub. reemphasizing a plan to place a process. of course, the pilot program, where we are seeing in the declination letters a reference in those letters that the companies must cooperate against individuals. companyis that, if a answer only by now, corporations out there in america know that you have to have a incentive and compliance. my experience is that most companies have very strong, robust programs. --the company in fact does

it comes to their attention. the company is set up to handle that. -- from nhr perspective and try to remediate it. is is the company so now they can go after that individual criminally. at first, the department hoped that that would happen. that is where the current ad is. one of the benefits to the pilot that it does inourage companies to come

-- to cooperate and to and hands or mediation that presumably they, too were missing. punishment, certainly termination, that's the thing. and make sure that this thing does not get dragon and get shareholders that will lose the money. findompanies may in fact for it is an important themselves as we gone to court wrote litigation. t every time do i think that it is necessary to go in where the company has taking the remediation steps.

what sometimes happens, and here is a criticism. what has historically happened at think with the prize shrine to address and i don't think it has been around long enough to see that is actually working. discloses incident and this team or this group of people engaged in at, y, z. i also wanted to look at block, blah, blah. every time she texts nine's, she gets interesting.

leslie and andrea wiseman and others have been very vocal about not wanting to boil the ocean. that i domething think is a common force effort in goal for the department. many companies from coming in and disclosing, believing that not only may we have to disgorge his pay fines, but we may have to paleo millions of dollars to .nvestigate its >> very few companies have a legal obligation to report things like an fcp a violation to the u.s. government. the only government -- only companies that may have such suggestions is the defense --

nine they are already in use they agreed going .orward, but other companies don't have the obligation to report to doj. .hey may have obligations to the type of investigation that .e expect i've seen over the years a lot of companies that did way too broad investigations. in my experience, that is not the result of what do .uagadougou -- the doj did you look in malaysia?

china,have a bribe in you better look at the entire world. i think companies do that. they did an investigation of the entire walls. entire world. they may have internal business reasons why they want to do that, but we are at the was telling him to do that. >> i do think that is a change because i know there have been we -- i do think that the effort and the stated objective, to really be more certain -- more surgical. ranks -- the bank

and the u.s. attorney's offices throughout the country. that you should not be boiling -- stay surgical on the >> there are some cases where you do have [indiscernible] >> can we shift the focus that blas well. on, ms. we have a couple of major treaties. dealing with anticorruption. what is the relationship between peace treaties and the department enforcement of the fet a? >> we work closely with -- we are a member of the idc working group on bribery. we go to their meetings.

we also work with the countries involved in the u.n. effort. former different in formal relationships. the fc pa area has really helped us to across the board. the relationships that we formed with law enforcement and with regulators in a lot of other countries has really helped us to investigate other kinds of cases. hypocrisy is one example but an important example is when we see everyday. the relationships that we develop has translated into relationships with cyber .nvestigators like so these relationships really help. we have formal relationships through the treaties.

i think our example in the fc pa stays has left alone -- left the crimes to ber transparent. the international relations is critical. >> so leslie, if i could just follow up on a couple of our shins. counsel representing a company, you may have an issue in another country. the has outuestions isthat is always considered is the government going to find out about this issue?

let's say in this hot -- this hypothetical of the country, -- does haveas the a federal investigation going on. i know that even your predecessors emphasize collaboration with other governments. more -- is it .onsidering does it in fact happen that a prosecutor in another country will pick up a phone and call into the doj and say we've got this picture of october. >> yes, and probably more they come us or we call them. we recentlyin the

prosecuted several individuals in connection with i kay's. it happened in the amber case. i think it's probably pretty rare to say, when there is a big cpa kay's, that it is not multijurisdictional and that we are now working with and speaking to and reaching out to foreign officials. that's just going to keep getting more and more recent. other certain countries where the relationship between their back and forth are. we do a lot of back-and-forth .ith switzerland we do a lot of work with the u.k., the netherlands, with

.candinavian countries there are certain countries that we do not work too well with, such as russia and china. -- ough mr. .e actually have a map that >> in the same vein, i think i announcing in a speech sometime ago that there have been meetings that prosecutors from the bears countries have come together to share strategy, share techniques, that sort of thing. are those meetings still happening? >> yes.

one good example of that kind of the fifa is investigation of the world soccer governing body. that involved countries from all over the world and a lot of cooperation and discussion among prosecutors and investigators. another thing that we try to do is, when we are doing something where there are multiple jurisdictions involved, we tried .o help this time so they are not paying us 100% of the penalty. we tried to divided. we thought this was going to be a right size. we can't always control that, but we try. >> when we are trying to disclosure,express

if we are in another country, elements, theical growth of that line and call doj and fcc. prosecutors.s. often look at the newspapers and figure out where to start their road and can't -- i was in the district of new york. you might have been my chief. are you using a mechanism at the -- rtment of justice >> yes. we follow it is reporting, just like you if you had that much, too.

it identifies the owner of the .ail we learned last week that one of our poverty targets, who is the current vice president of equatorial -- hisave already received assets. is michaelfavorite jackson spends. it was there for about an hour and then off. he considers that's poll. it records the tail number. as part of geneva. vein, we offer a course on alien money

laundering. and they prepared on chasing for the next generation of lawyers. that is a wonderful revelation. are there situations on new -- ly just why we trust them to get this right and a vigorous in their prosecution. not allocate all of ours are slightly. we may not have confidence that anything was going to happen in the country.

in the amber case, the individuals were being prosecuted by south america. they did part of the case. they did part of the case. i have been reading the press just concerned about the -- legalnt of leo systems. this could be affecting activity in a profound way. the notion that the united states has become the world's police, how do you address that allegation? thee don't have time to be

world police. we focus on things that affect us. one example, when we were being a cozad being world police, when i first started, the department was negotiating a resolution with bnp paribas. they were very local to the degree of taking at these , about therticles fact that we're practicing the mtp. i believe there is some french .egislation germany may think they are doing the same thing. .i the volkswagen case the w sent cars to the united states knowing that they put them out on the road. should we be looking at that?

ideally -- dealing with iranian and these clients, they have a very large business line. and that we are not dealing with those'countries not just up high on the borders, but it -- compliance people would write e-mails. they saw opinions from two of .wo w and they decided it was to get that money from the business and .hey viewed as a political what it really does is it affects our system. we don't want our system to be used for dirty money, as a haven for dirty money.

we don't want our companies to be disparaged when other companies hang bribes alone the world. i don't think we are out there prosecuting things we barely have jurisdiction on. we kind of have to focus on the right thing of had it -- papers. the jurisdictional question is one that you really need to stay focused on whenever you are asked to assist a company. is conduct abroad, no u.s. forks are involved. very little touch to the u.s. defending. it has been my experience and my understanding, from others, that that kind of argument really, in today's group, really resonates. and it should.

especially when you are doing an internal investigation. it can be tedious, from -- in evidence.inding the you are basically trying to prove the negative. to build this practice from the very beginning, it can really make a huge difference. and the end result. .> we have about 25 minutes ample time for questions from the floor. i have additional questions as well. i say we have students from around the world who are here. we have unknown members of the press group.

government agencies and private law firms. just raise her hand and she will get the microphone to you. >> we weren't shy. so don't be shy. are you able to talk more about the cooperation with the china case? in terms of what's up of cases. could you talk a little bit more on of -- more on what those specific investigations keep going on. we have cooperation with china .-- that's why we have

it's funny. it's early. it is difficult to say whether this is a new clear world or if we are going to done -- going to dominate the way sandra has. interests. mutual we're sure he do more to do to remember some issue today. aggressive.more busted its head first recall death while college -- last anss fall will .our until falling light there is a lot of talk about how aggressive but only is the

government how but how they expect to continue to grow, which i do think means there will be more collaboration with u.s. authorities. companies areu.s. going there and are there, i certainly think it is prudent, as a member of the defense bar, accounts and clients, which includes retching it up issues after headquarters so they don't get addressed. where downituations rates can happen. >> are you talking in the context of international companies from china doing business around the world? >> yes. >> i have a question about the chinese --

>> introduce yourself, please, matt. [laughter] matt and i'm from china. international law program student here. -- the cooperation, the cpa. i know that not chinese governments have become more and more aggressive, even tightening those crappy shoes. are talking hand, about that chinese garden. to the campaign and it would make absolutely no difference.

so why do you -- how do you reveal that information. especially in their absence. so whether you use your charger .r same >> so not just in the kay's, but incorruption, we see other people ofaccusing corruption. sometimes people who live in the united states are accused of corruption in a country that they came from. whether there see may be a prosecution in that other country. and the country may be seeking action addition to be sent back to china or whatever.

a country where we have a lot of extraditions going on back and forth. and we have to see -- i will u.s.-mexico as an example. we have to figure out whether is this a political case or is this a real criminal case before we even extradite. so we definitely kick the tires when we hear an allegation that somebody's corrupt. i think we've seen an evolution in china in the last few years, from nonenforcement of --icorruption to arbitrating to where we see now even a more i'm not a next room on china are worker -- part of the reason we are seeing that. china wants to be leader of the global economy. very interesting.

it does raise the issue of having skills in your office deal with political issues in understanding the politics of the country, too. yes, sir. >> china is a country that people are tortured in detention, has political foes, a floridausly from justice system. how do you make sure that you are sharing authorities on corruption investigations, but it will not be used for types of activity that would prefer being a peer and be embarrassing for the first time.

an example where we shared information with china are in no other country but they used it to came to torture somebody. our relationships with their foreign counterparts, investigative counterparts to the girl with baby steps. it has to be a matter of trust. we had a very contentious with u.k.ip regulators. we didn't trust them and they did not trust us. we've developed a really good, working relationship with the u.k., to the point we are considering admitting one of our u.k.cutors in one of the law enforcement agencies to help

those relationships. so with these other countries were we don't have a long-standing relationship, we have to build confidence that whatever enforcement action you want to take, that it be a real one, an appropriate one and a fair one. we are not interested in feeding political dissidents in china or other countries where they can be used inappropriately. i think where, so that. we really want to understand what is going to happen and what the system is before we find yourselves providing evidence to another country. >> can i follow up with a question? is this an issue in your day-to-day practice? theing specific, but political ramifications reason some of the questions? companiesy think the

establishing and operating their compliance programs and dealing with allegations of wrongdoing and then making the kind of disclosure decisions that we were talking about earlier all need to factor in those issues. the issues that are swirling around that particular country and enforcement climate. i want to move off of china and go back to transparency you were talking about. haveecent film at peepers included the guideline lotulation, which i think a of people appreciate that aspect of transparency. discussion lack of a of [indiscernible] the same thing with calico leading disgorgement.

-- various case case. not a bigrgement is part of it. and many of the resolutions, you are looking at criminal findings and penalties in addition to whatever he made off of the contract. those depend on a variety of factors, all of which are enough of factors. how pervasive was the crime. there are some cases that are very specific. we reference the guidelines. we should be room isn't a regular application notes of the sidelines. say this one up to the ceo level , but we will reference the

notes. if you want to look them up, you can see if this is the real frank here. we are try to go as an -- ambitious as we can. >> can i make a comment about the transparency point? earlier, i said that i had some concerns with a pilot program and the detail that is in some of these declination fighters caused the stick -- it may actually deter from wanting to but i do think their arm is going to get adjusted by .he way for god is it part of the settlement discussions?

even if they say you don't have to agree, you expect it. i'm going to feel pressure? think that, i do that type of transparency that is public could be a deterrent. because you necessarily would ,ot see all of that detail especially, say, for example, if year company would help. any sece families have .isclosure obviously, transparency, when you are negotiating a settlement, is very important. him?that look like

so you get a fair settlement back. that is very important and very good. i see some good to that. it tells the rest of us have doj .as arrived at someone i would consider the department .f justice to consider publish the detail. publish the information as to what happened. -- finding the person .ho service -- who is still

>> we've had this conversation within the department on how much detail should be included under the pilot program. i think the cases you are talking about, we had to private companies. normally, we do the fcp a cases, most of the companies that we do something with their -- with our local company. then we do extra cases with the the fcc will file an action. it will be an action where the company will neither admit nor deny liability. but they will be able to disgorge -- -- how the buy company did. that is the public document. when the department gets disgorgement from a company, it they are not subject

to the jurisdiction of the sec. we can't let them keep the profits at the yacht through admitted bribery. we also don't want to have secret disclosure statements where the world doesn't know .hat company had centered -- from ourto have perspective, a big benefit of the pilot program is we can put out there in detail, much like steve held on the sec details. show thatgh detail to , thate was committed

thats were paid to and notwithstanding the fact that this company violated the fcp a by paying bribes, but they did everything they were supposed to do in the pilot program, they will get the benefit. they can decide whether they want to participate in the program. they can decide it is not worth it to them to have their name out there in two to two and a half page letter instead of a agreement. from our perspective, it is important to be transparent with the companies on the public about what we are doing and why money.disgorging many -- we've gotten quite a number of calls from companies because we laid out the facts. like $500,000 in bribes paid and we gave a declamation. and that resonated with a lot of companies. we think it is a good thing.

i understand why companies would net necessarily run it. but the benefits of the pilot program are worse. -- you have toe compared to what you know my get in the fcc. >> are you saying that it is in fact a requirement, that a company -- or do you even ask for the consent? >> our position is that resolutions and the pilot program should be made public. the company will be required to disgorge. do not wantthing we done in secret. we want that to be public. we hear all these different voices. we hear people saying are your -- all you're doing is storing money. people just pay money. if we just would keep quiet and go away. that's not how we operate.

we want to show there's a basis why this company is paying money. there's a basis, a bribe was paid. the law was violated, but the company made everything we asked them to do under the pilot program and now they're getting a benefit and here's why. we think it's important that they be public. and so i don't know enough about the dynamic in these cases to demand they do it again, we may have. because i think it's appropriate for them to be public. karen: what leslie just said from a defense counsel perspective, what's going to happen then is what happens anytime you are negotiating a deferred prosecution agreement, that they're going to be debating the language. so the declination letter is turning it into something between what we used to get to the declination when there wasn't disgorgement. the one thing the pilot program has brought to the table is the idea that there now has to be

disgorgement even for privately held companies, always. so previously we could get a declination without that. you get a short sweet letter, that would never be made public. and so now we've got -- the pilot program that's given us something between that, what it used to be like and the non- profit, where you've now got a letter that is, in fact, going to be made public, that has language about the conduct. and it's important as defense counsel that -- this is what you do with the doj and the nonprofit, is that you try to really address how the language is going to read, because the impact that you have on your brand, it can have a tremendous impact on your company, whether you are publicly held or not. so it is something that companies, when companies are trying to evaluate whether to

voluntarily disclose and participate in a pilot program or not, these are factors that they should consider and would consider. >> my name is dan dealer, and i'm a law student here. and my question is about disgorgement. and if there was a violation of the ftpa and then there was a profit and the company has paid taxes to the government on those profits, how are the taxes affected under the disgorgement and what's the rationale behind that? leslie: sadly, most companies don't pay taxes on income that they earn overseas. or they pay very little taxes, but we would not take that into account. we would require disgorgement of the entire profits. but i honestly have never seen that scenario because those companies operating overseas do not pay taxes, certainly not taxes attributable directly to that transaction.

>> the question i have related to disgorgement as well as the pilot program is that to what extent can we assume that the real historical declinations, following with the sweet and short letter nowadays will pretty much be cases where there's very little evidence of an actual bribe. and the reason i say that is because it seems to me that if you hear about a case and the company, let's say, refuses to purchase paid in the program and refuses to disgorge, you do not allow them to have a short letter of declination anymore, so i'm trying to see the line. leslie: i think we still do declinations in cases where, for whatever reason, we can't prove our case, so you may conclude that a bribe was made, but we

lack jurisdiction. so we may decline prosecution for that reason. we may think that the circumstances were very suspicious but we could not bribe at the end of the day, so my issue with declinations and those would be short declinations, the ones that we were talking about. it's only when we conclude that the company has violated the ftpa and are reaping the benefits of the pilot program that we feel, if we conclude they have violated the ftpa and they should disgorge. so for example, if we don't have jurisdiction, we are not going to ask for disgorgement. if we don't think we can prove there was a bribe -- if the money went missing and we don't know where it went -- it could be corrupt employees or embezzlement, we're not going to ask for disgorgement. but if we can prove there was a bribery and we are going to decline prosecution because the company did everything we asked in the program, we think it's important to lay out that there

was a crime and because of the company's conduct and the way they address the problem, we are going to decline prosecution, but they're going to give back their profits. susan: we have time for one more question. >> i have a question about restitution and ftpa cases. at the last conference of the unc 80 countries, in essence they were asking that the developed countries make available part of the proceeds in ftpa cases. and in particular, i believe some of those countries wanted to be able to participate in settlements as they were being negotiated. has that issue come to the fore in the department and what is the department's view on that? leslie: i haven't heard that exact issue in the ftpa context. we see that issue or a variation