#houseoversight022615
LightNews LightNews
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 5/5 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022615.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight022615
(hereinafter SEC v. Maxwell Technologies), available at heep://wwwesec. cease-and-desist order through the SEC’s administrative proceedings gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp21832.pdf; Criminal Information, upon any person who is violating, has violated, or is about to violate any United States v. Maxwell Technologies Inc, No. 1 1-cr-329 (.D. Cal. provision of the Exchange Act or any rule or regulation thereunder, and Jan. 31,2011), ECF No. 1, available at hetp://www.justice.gov/criminal/ upon any other person that is, was, or would be a cause of the violation, fraud /fepa/cases/maxwell/01-31-1 Imaxwell-tech-info.pdf; Complaint, due to an act or omission the person knew or should have known would SEC y. Transocean, Inc., No. 10-cv-1891 (D.D.C. Nov. 4, 2010), ECF contribute to such violation. Section 21C(a) of the Exchange Act,15 No. 1, available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/ USC. § 78u-3(a). comp21725.pdf; Criminal Information, United States y. Transocean, 2° See Complaint, SEC v. Panalpina, Inc., supra note 68. Inc., No. 10-cr-768 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2010), ECF No. 1, available at 27 18 US.C. § 3282(a) provides: “Except as otherwise expressly provided hetp://www.justice.gov/criminal /fraud /fepa/cases/transocean-ine/ 1 1- by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, 04-10transocean-info.pdf. 413 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022615
February 9, 2026 at 2:44 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 4/5 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022615.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight022615
See United States v, MacAlister, 160 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 26, 2012), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. Biomet], available at http:// 1998); United States v. Winter, 509 F.2d 975, 982 (5th Cir. 1975). www.sec.gov /litigation/complaints/2012/comp22306.pdf; Criminal °° See Criminal Information, United States v. Marubeni, supra note Information, United States v. Biomet, Inc., No. 12-cr-80 (D.D.C. Mar. 132; Criminal Information, United States v. JGC Corp., supra note 60; 26, 2012) [hereinafter United States v. Biomet], available at http://www. Criminal Information, United States v. Snamprogetti, supra note 60; see justice. gov/criminal/fraud/fepa/cases/biomet/2012-03-26-biomet- also Criminal Information, United States v. Technip, supra nove 132. information. pdf; Complaint, SEC v. Smith & Nephew Inc., No. 12-cv- 2 Section 20(c) of the Exchange Act, “Prosecution of Persons Who 187 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2012), ECF No. 1, available at heep://www.sec.gov/ Aid and Abet Violations,’ explicitly provides that, for purposes of a litigation/complaints/2012/comp22252.pdf; Criminal Information, civil action seeking injunctive relief or a civil penalty, “any person that United States v. Smith & Nephew ple., No. 12-cr-30 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person. 2012), ECF No. 1, available at hetp://wwwjustice.gov/criminal/fraud/ in violation of a provision of this chapter, or of any rule or regulation fepa/cases/smith-nephew/2012-02-06-s-n-information.pdf; Complaint, issued under this chapter, shall be deemed to be in violation of such SEC wv. Johnson & Johnson, supra note 131; Criminal Information, Provision to the same extent as the person to whom such assistance is United States v. DePuy, supra note 131; Complaint, SEC v. Maxwell provided,” Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 US.C. § 78t(c). ‘Technologies Inc., No. 11-cv-258 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2011), ECF No. 1 *5 Under Section 21C(a) of the Exchange Act, the SEC may impose a
February 9, 2026 at 2:44 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 3/5 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022615.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight022615
integrated Pfizer Inc’s internal controls system into §78m(b)(3). As Congress made clear, however, the exception is narrowly the former Wycth business entities. The department considered these tailored and intended to prevent the disclosure of classified information. extensive efforts and the SEC resolution in its determination not to HR. Rep. 94-831, at 11, available at htep://www,justice.gov/criminal/ pursue a criminal resolution for the pre-acquisition improper conduct of fraud /fepa/history/1977 /corruptrpt-94-831 pdf. Wyeth subsidiaries.”), available at hetp://www:justice gov/opa/pt/2012/ 216 Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 US.C. §78m(b)(2)(A). August/12-crm-980.html. 27 H.R, Rep, No, 94-831, at 10. ' 18 US.C.§2. oe 2 In enacting the FCPA in 1977, Congress explicitly noted that “[tJhe Section 13(b)(7) of the Exchange Act, 15 US.C. §78m(b)(7). concepts of aiding and abetting and joint participation would apply to a 9HLR, Rep. No. 100-576, at 917 (1988), available athttp://wu:justice. violation under this bill in the same manner in which those concepts have gov/criminal/fiaud/fepa/bistory/1988/tradeact-100-418,pdf. Congress always applied in both SEC civil actions and in implied private actions rejected the addition of proposed cost-benefit language to the definition brought under the securities laws generally.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-640, at 8. “in response to concerns that such a statutory provision might be abused 2°! Pinkerton held that a conspirator may be found guilty of a substantive and weaken the accounting provisions at a time of increasing concern offense committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy about audit failures and financial fraud and resultant recommendations if che co-conspirator’ acts were reasonably foreseeable. See Pinkerton v. by experts for stronger accounting practices and audit standards.” Id. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647-48 (1946). ! See, e.g, Complaint, SEC v. Biomet, Inc., No. 12-cv-454 (D.D.C. Mar. 2®
February 9, 2026 at 2:44 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/5 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022615.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight022615
In re InVision (Dee. 3, 2004), available at that “[t]aken together, the accounting requirements and criminal [anti- Attp://www,justice.gov/criminal/fraud /fepa/cases/invision-tech/12-03- bribery] prohibitions... should effectively deter corporate bribery of O4invisiontech-agree.pdf; Non-Pros. Agreement, In re General Elec. Co., foreign government officials”). (Dee. 3, 2004), available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud /fepa/ 22S, Rep. No. 95-114, at 7. cases/invision-tech/12-03-04invisiontech-agree-ge.pdf; Complaint, SEC 28 Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 US.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A). ¥. GE InVision, Inc,, f/k/a InVision Technologies, Inc., No. 05-cv-660, 24 Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 US.C. § 78m(b)(2)(B). (N.D. Cal. Feb, 14, 2005), ECF No. 1, available at htep://www.sec.gov/ 215"The accounting provisions contain a narrow exemption related to litigation/complaints/comp19078.pdf. national security and the protection of classified information. Under 18 See U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, FCPA Op. RELEASE 08-02 (June 13, this “national security” provision, “no duty or liability [under Section 2008), available at heep://wwwjustice.gov/criminal/fraud /fepa/ 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act] shall be imposed upon any person acting opinion/2008/0802.pdf; see also Press Release, US. Dept. of Justice, in cooperation with the head of any federal department or agency Pfizer H.C.P. Corp. Agrees to Pay $15 Million Penalty to Resolve Foreign responsible for such matters if such act in cooperation with such head of Bribery Investigation (Aug. 7, 2012) (“In the 18 months following its a department or agency was done upon the specific, written directive of acquisition of Wyeth, Pfizer Inc., in consultation with the department, the head of such department or agency pursuant to Presidential authority conducted a due diligence and investigative review of the Wyeth business to issue such directives.” Section 13(b)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 US.C. operations and
February 9, 2026 at 2:44 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/5 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022615.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight022615
Fla, Dec. 14,2010), ECF No. 3, available at hetp://www.justice.gov/ not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted criminal fraud fepa/cases/granados-jorge/12-21-10granados-indict.pdf. within five years next after such offense shall have been committed” ' See Deferred Pros. Agreement, United States v. Snamprogetti, supra *8 See Grunewald v. United States, 353 US. 391, 396-97 (1957) note 60, ECF No. 3, available at http://www.justice. gov/criminal/fraud/ (holding government must prove conspiracy still existed and at least fcpa/cases/snamprogetti/07-07-10snamprogetti-dpa.pdf. ‘one overt act was committed within the statute of limitations); Fiswick 5 Compare Criminal Information, United States v. Snamprogetti, supra v, United States, 329 US. 211, 216 (1946) (“The statute of limitations, note 60, with Deferred Pros. Agreement, United States v. Snamprogetti, unless suspended, runs from the last overt act during the existence of supra note 60, ECF No. 3. the conspiracy. The overt acts averred and proved may thus mark the % See Press Release, General Electric Co., General Electric Agrees to duration, as well as the scope, of the conspiracy.”) (citation omitted); see Acquire InVision (Mar. 15,2004), available at hetp://www.ge.com/files/ generally Julie N. Sarnoff, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 48 AM, CRIM. L. usa/company/investor/downloads/sharpeye_press_release.pdf; Press Rev. 663, 676 (Spring 2011). Release, US. Dept. of Justice, InVision Tech. Inc, Enters into Agreement #18 US.C. § 3292. with the United States (Dec. 6, 2004), available at http://www.justice. 21028 US.C. § 2462. gov/opa/pr/2004/December/04_crm_780.htm; Company News; G.E. 21, Rep, No. 95-114, at 3 (noting that, in the past, “corporate bribery Gets InVision, a Maker of Bomb Detectors, NY. TEs, Dec. 7, 2004, at has been concealed by the falsification of corporate books and records,” C4. that the accounting provisions “remove [] this avenue of coverup” and ' Non-Pros. Agreement,
February 9, 2026 at 2:44 AM