U.S. Dept. of Justice (DoJ) loves plea deals, hates juries:
Since September 2011, federal prosecutors have taken only four FCPA [Foreign Corrupt Practices Act] cases to trial. All of them ended in “debacles for the government.”
But since DoJ knows that bully swagger almost always gets the desired results, it remains committed to cloaking its thuggery in due process:
FCPA cases, by their very nature, often require proof of criminal acts carried out in foreign countries. While obtaining foreign evidence—documents and witnesses—poses particular challenges in FCPA cases, the department remains committed to working with its domestic and foreign law enforcement partners to continue to bring successful prosecutions against the individuals who bribe foreign officials and the companies they work for.
Four in-court fails in four years means keep on with “successful prosecutions”? Shouldn’t the phrase be “successful intimidations”?
I have been following these FCPA cases professionally along with the fines/penalties and actions against the banks for sanctions and tax issues (e.g. UBS). The DoJ and the State of New York have been very aggressive in pushing the outer limits with few cases going to trial – which unfortunately, just makes the DoJ even more aggressive as it forces pleas, deferred prosecution agreements and similar settlements. The banks and other company defendants do not want to risk losing their banking licenses or being able to do business in the US if they lose at trial. If more defendants went all the way, the courts would hopefully rein in some of the more absurd basis for jurisdiction. For example, the simple use of US Dollars in a transaction, the simple passage of one or more emails through a US server, etc. The bottom line is that the US government is running basically unchecked at this point and with impunity.
They have little to lose when playing with taxpayers money.
This academic paper discusses double standards when applying the FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) abroad and US bribery laws domestically:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2681074&download=yes
Although unrelated to FCPA, this NY Times article shows how far US law can be stretched to claim territoriality and ends with this passage:
“The United States attorney’s office has a rich history of bringing international suspects to New York to face prosecution, particularly in terrorism, arms trafficking and drug dealing cases. The office’s reach is so broad that Preet Bharara, the United States attorney, said in a recent talk at New York University School of Law that someone once “made the mistake of asking me the question, ‘What again is your jurisdiction, exactly?’ ”
“And I said, ‘Are you familiar with Earth?’ ” he deadpanned.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/nyregion/fast-boat-tiny-flag-governments-high-flying-rationale-for-a-drug-seizure.html?