Case Detail

In re RAE Systems Inc. (2010)


Case Details

  • Case Name
  • In re RAE Systems Inc. (2010)
  • Date Filed
  • 12/10/2010
  • Enforcement Agency
  • DOJ
  • Countries
  • China
  • Foreign Official
  • Employees of Chinese state-owned entities including employees of the Dagang Oil Field.
  • Date of Conduct
  • 2004 to 2008
  • Nature of Business
  • RAE Systems Inc. (“RAE”) is a Delaware corporation based in San Jose, California that develops and manufactures chemical and radiation detection monitors and networks.  Between 2005 and 2008, it operated in China through two second-tier subsidiaries organized as joint ventures:  RAE-KLH (Beijing) Co., Limited (“RAE-KLH”), which is 96% owned by RAE, and RAE Coal Mine Safety Instruments (Fushun) Co., Ltd. (“RAE-Fushun”), which is 70% owned by RAE.
  • Influence to be Obtained
  • In 2004, RAE carried out due diligence prior to the formation of the RAE-KLH joint venture, through which it uncovered evidence of bribery.  According to an RAE due diligence report, the KLH sales structure lacked internal controls, allowing salespeople to pay cash commissions that were in turn reported in a way that distorted the company’s financial statements.  Another due diligence report predicted that it would “be a challenge to change [KLH’s] business operational mode”—that relied on a “commission/incentive structure [of] under table greasing to get deals”—to “be more transparent.”  The report concluded that correcting the sales practices through an effective compliance program could hurt sales.  RAE did not perform due diligence prior to entering the RAE-Fushun joint venture in 2006, although multiple factors indicated due diligence concerning corruption risks was warranted.
     
    After acquiring its interest in KLH in 2004, RAE instructed RAE-KLH personnel to stop paying bribes, but it did not institute sufficient internal controls or discontinue the system of cash-advance reimbursements which facilitated the bribery practices into 2008 at both RAE-KLH and RAE-Fushun.  The joint ventures improperly recorded cash advances connected to bribes as business fees and travel and entertainment expenses, false information that was integrated into RAE’s consolidated financials.
     
    In addition to cash bribes, both companies provided luxury gifts to employees of state-owned entities, such as notebook computers, jade, fur coats, appliances, suits, and expensive liquor.  In 2006 and 2007, RAE-KLH made two improper payments totaling nearly $350,000 to a consultant who funneled money to employees of the state-owned Dagang Oil Field and other government officials in exchange for business contracts.
     
  • Enforcement
  • On December 10, 2010, RAE entered a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ.  According to the terms of the agreement, RAE will pay a monetary penalty of $1,700,000; strengthen its compliance, bookkeeping, and internal control standards and procedures; and report periodically to the DOJ on its compliance with the agreement over the course of its three-year term.  
  • Amount of the Value
  • Not Stated
  • Amount of Business Related to Payment
  • Not Stated
  • Intermediary
  • Joint-Venture Entities; Third-Party Agent.
  • Total Sanction
  • $ 1,700,000
  • Compliance Monitor
  • No
  • Reporting Requirements
  • No
  • Case is Pending?
  • No
  • Total Combined Monetary Sanction
  • $ 4,214,024

Defendants

RAE Systems Inc. 

  • Citation
  • In re RAE Systems Inc. (2010).
  • Date Filed
  • 12/10/2010
  • Filed Under Seal
  • No
  • FCPA Statutory Provision
    • Books-and-Records
    • Internal Controls
  • Other Statutory Provision
  • None
  • Disposition
  • Non-Prosecution Agreement
  • Defendant Jurisdictional Basis
  • Issuer
  • Defendant's Citizenship
  • United States
You may share a link to this page on any of the sites listed below:
Material on www.aoshearman.com is general information and should not be construed as legal advice. Contacting us by email does not create a lawyer-client relationship unless and until we have agreed to handle a particular matter. Please do not convey to us any information you regard as confidential unless and until a formal lawyer-client relationship has been established, as any information we receive from you prior to such time will not be confidential.
Accept Cancel