专业法律服务
Professional Solution
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged global beauty products company Avon Products Inc. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by failing to put controls in place to detect and prevent payments and gifts to Chinese government officials from employees and consultants at a subsidiary.
Avon entities agreed to pay a total of $135 million to settle the SEC’s charges and a parallel case announced today by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
The SEC alleges that Avon’s subsidiary in China made $8 million worth of payments in cash, gifts, travel, and entertainment to gain access to Chinese officials implementing and overseeing direct selling regulations in China. Avon sought to be among the first allowed to test the regulations, and eventually received the first direct selling business license in China in March 2006. The improper payments also were made to avoid fines or negative news articles that could have impacted Avon’s clean corporate image required to retain the license. Examples of improper payments alleged in the SEC’s complaint include paid travel for Chinese government officials within China or to the U.S. or Europe as well as such gifts as Louis Vuitton merchandise, Gucci bags, Tiffany pens, and corporate box tickets to the China Open tennis tournament.
“Avon’s subsidiary in China paid millions of dollars to government officials to obtain a direct selling license and gain an edge over their competitors, and the company reaped substantial financial benefits as a result,” said Scott W. Friestad, an Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Avon missed an opportunity to correct potential FCPA problems at its subsidiary, resulting in years of additional misconduct that could have been avoided.”
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the improper payments occurred from 2004 to 2008. Avon management learned about potential FCPA problems at the subsidiary through an internal audit report in late 2005. Avon management consulted an outside law firm, directed that reforms be instituted at the subsidiary, and sent an internal audit team to follow up. Ultimately, however, no such reforms were instituted at the Chinese subsidiary. Avon finally began a full-blown internal investigation in 2008 after its CEO received a letter from a whistleblower.
The SEC alleges that Avon’s books and records failed to accurately record the details and purpose of the payments. In some instances, payments were concealed by falsely recording the transactions as employee business expenses or as reimbursement of a third-party vendor. In other instances, the records for the payments set forth almost no detail at all. The resulting books and records did not allow a reviewer to ascertain the government official or state-owned entities that received the payments or the purpose for which the payments were made.
The SEC’s complaint charges Avon with violating Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Avon, which neither admitted nor denied the allegations, agreed to pay disgorgement of $52,850,000 in benefits resulting from the alleged misconduct plus prejudgment interest of $14,515,013.13 for a total of more than $67.36 million. In the parallel criminal matter, Avon entities agreed to pay $67,648,000 in penalties. Avon also is required to retain an independent compliance monitor to review its FCPA compliance program for a period of 18 months, followed by an 18-month period of self-reporting on its compliance efforts. Avon would be permanently enjoined from violating the books and records and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws. In reaching the proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval, the SEC considered Avon’s cooperation and significant remedial measures.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Paul W. Sharratt and Roger Paszamant and supervised by David Frohlich. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
法律之间冲突时的效力原则
正式的法的渊源的效力有时也被称为法律效力等级,或法律效力位阶。宪法(或根本法)属于第一层次,而民法、刑法、行政法、诉讼等基本法律属于第二层次,基本法律之下还可能有第三和第四层次的法律等等。不同位阶的法的渊源之间的冲突原则包括宪法至上原则、法律高于法规原则、法规高于规章原则、行政法规高于地方性法规原则等。
同一位阶的法的渊源之间的冲突原则,主要包括:(1)全国性法律优先原则。(2)特别法优先原则。(3)后法优先或新法优先原则。(4)实体法优先原则。(5)国际法优先原则。(6)省、自治区的人民政府制定的规章的效力高于本行政区域内的较大的市的人民政府制定的规章。
位阶出现交叉时的法的渊源之间的冲突原则,我国《立法法》主要规定:(1)自治条例和单行条例依法对法律、行政法规、地方性法规作变通规定的,在本自治地方适用自治条例和单行条例的规定。(2)经济特区法规根据授权对法律、行政法规、地方性法规作变通规定的,在本经济特区适用经济特区法规的规定。(3)地方性法规、规章之间不一致时,由有关机关依照各自的权限作出裁决。
Links: Ministry of Commerce Market Regulation IP Administration Ministry of Justice
重要链接:中央人民政府 司法部 法制办 法院网 商务部 市场监督管理局 商标局 知识产权局 版权局 公安部 发改委 外汇局
海关总署 财政部 税务局 自然资源部 证监会 金融监管局 民政部 人力资源和社保部 药监局 工信部
住房城乡建设部 文旅部 生态资源部 农业部 航天局 港澳办 侨办 卫生健康委员会 统计局 新闻办 新华网
Contact Us 聯系我們:18930220709 13818266096
Copyright © 2013-2015, www.bilawyers.com, All rights reserved. 版权所有 ©2013-2015, www.bilawyers.com 未经许可 严禁复制 沪ICP备13021809号-1
A professional legal service website for businesses and professionals! 法律咨询、诉讼代理、合同翻译,找中英双语律师网!