United States v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (D.D.C 2008)
United States v. Siemens S.A. (Argentina) (D.D.C 2008)
United States v. Siemens Bangladesh Ltd. (D.D.C 2008)
United States v. Siemens S.A. (Venezuela) (D.D.C 2008)

• Case Name
• United States v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (D.D.C 2008)
  United States v. Siemens S.A. (Argentina) (D.D.C 2008)
  United States v. Siemens Bangladesh Ltd. (D.D.C 2008)
  United States v. Siemens S.A. (Venezuela) (D.D.C 2008)

• Date Filed
• 12/12/2008

• Enforcement Agency
• DOJ

• Foreign Official
• Unspecified Argentine government officials; The Minister and other officials of the Bangladesh Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications; The Director of Procurement and other officials of the state-owned Bangladesh Telegraph & Telephone Board; Unspecified Venezuelan government officials.

• Date of Conduct
• 2000 to 2007

• Nature of Business
• Sale of power and electrical equipment and gas turbines to the Iraqi Ministries of Electricity and Oil under the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program (Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, “Siemens AG”); development of a new national identity card (Siemens Argentina); creation of a nationwide digital cellular telephone network (Siemens Bangladesh); design and construction of mass transit systems (Siemens Venezuela).  

• Influence to be Obtained
• Siemens AG and several of its subsidiaries paid more than $1.7 million in kickbacks to the Iraqi government to procure 42 contracts worth more than $80 million under the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program.  Additionally, Siemens AG engaged in systematic efforts to falsify books-and-records and circumvent internal controls to permit this and other corrupt payments to occur.  For example, Siemens AG used off-book accounts to make corrupt payments, entered into purported business consulting agreements with no basis, hired former Siemens employees as purported business consultants to make corrupt payments, used false invoices to justify payments to business consultants, mischaracterized corrupt payments as legitimate expenses, and limited the quality and scope of audits of payments to business consultants.  Additionally, Siemens AG lacked sufficient anti-corruption compliance controls and its senior management failed to take action even after they were informed of significant control weaknesses.
   
  Siemens Argentina paid approximately $105 million, directly or indirectly through a sham consultant and other intermediaries, to officials in the Argentine government in connection with the company’s bid for a project worth more than $1 billion involving the development of a national identification card in Argentina.  Between 1997 and 2007, Siemens Argentina made or directed payments of more than $15 million to entities controlled by members of the government of Argentina.  During this period, Siemens Argentina also made nearly $35 million in payments to a consultant that acted as a conduit for further payments to Argentine government officials responsible for the identity card project and paid almost $55 million to other third parties in connection with the project.
   
  Siemens Bangladesh made more than $5.3 million in corrupt payments between 2001 and 2006 to Bangladeshi government officials and senior employees of the state-owned Bangladesh Telegraph & Telephone Board (“BTTB”).  Siemens Bangladesh made payments through business consultants that it retained pursuant to “sham agreements” that purportedly involved rendering services in connection with a mobile telephone contract worth approximately $40.9 million.  In reality, Siemens Bangladesh used the business consultants to channel bribes to the son of the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh, the Minister of Posts & Telecommunications (“MoPT”), and the Director of Procurement at BTTB.  Siemens Bangladesh also made direct payments to Bangladeshi government officials (or their relatives) with responsibility for awarding the BTTB project.  Additionally, Siemens Bangladesh hired relatives of two other BTTB and MoPT officials, although Siemens Bangladesh did not need the relatives’ services for its business.
   
  Siemens Venezuela paid almost $19 million in bribes to Venezuelan government officials in connection with mass transit systems in the Venezuelan cities of Valencia and Maracaibo.  As with the FCPA violations by other Siemens entities, Siemens Venezuela admitted that it paid money to sham agents and business consultants, who had no substantive role on the projects, with the understanding that they would pass on some or all of the funds to relevant government officials.  Siemens Venezuela’s underlying FCPA violations involved falsification of the company’s books, records, and accounts, as payments were labeled as involving nonexistent studies, sham supply contracts, and off-the-books or improperly recorded bank accounts, all of which Siemens Venezuela used to conceal corrupt payments to Venezuelan government officials. 
   

• Enforcement
• On December 15, 2008, Siemens AG pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the FCPA’s internal controls and books and records provisions.  Siemens Argentina pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the FCPA’s books-and-records provisions, and Siemens Bangladesh and Siemens Venezuela each pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books-and-records provisions.  This is the first time that the DOJ has charged a company with a criminal violation of the FCPA’s internal controls or books and records provisions.  Siemens AG and its subsidiaries agreed to pay criminal fines totaling $450 million.  
   
  In connection with a parallel enforcement action by the SEC, Siemens AG also agreed to disgorge more than $350 million in ill-gotten profits.  On the same day, Siemens also entered into a settlement with German authorities, agreeing to pay penalties of €395 million in addition to the €201 million in penalties that it previously paid in an earlier settlement.  Siemens AG also agreed to the imposition of an independent monitor for a period of up to four years.  Theo Wiegle, a former German finance minister, will serve as the Monitor, and will be assisted by a U.S. law firm, marking the first time that a non-U.S. Monitor has been appointed in an FCPA case.  
  In addition, the DOJ brought a forfeiture action against more than $3 million contained in several bank accounts held by or for the benefit of the son of the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh and two of the intermediaries involved in the bribery scheme involving Siemens Bangladesh.  On April 7, 2010, the district court granted an unopposed motion for default judgment as to approximately $3 million, no party having challenged the forfeiture claim.
   
  In July 2009, Siemens reached a settlement with the World Bank over bribery allegations.  The Bank’s investigation focused specifically on an urban-transport project the Bank financed in Moscow, Russia.  Siemens agreed to pay $100 million over 15 years to help anticorruption efforts and also agreed to forgo bidding on any of the Bank’s projects for two years.  The settlement means that Siemens and its subsidiaries will not face additional sanctions from the World Bank. 
   
  Separately, on August 12, 2009, Siemens AG stated that it would drop a case against Argentina’s government in the World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which had demanded $200 million related to the cancellation of a contract to make identity cards.  Proceedings were discontinued in September 2009.  Siemens had been accused of paying bribes to win the contract.  Siemens stated that it would continue to cooperate with investigations by Argentine authorities. 
   
  On December 6, 2009, Siemens AG reached a settlement with nine of the eleven former Supervisory Board members.  On January 25, 2010, Siemens AG filed a lawsuit with the Munich District Court I against the two former board members who were not willing to settle.
   

• Amount of the Value
• Over $800 million.

• Amount of Business Related to Payment
• More than $1.4 billion.

• Intermediary
• Business Consultants; Agents; Other Payment Intermediaries.

• Total Sanction
• $ 450,001,200

• Compliance Monitor
• Yes

• Reporting Requirements
• No

• Case is Pending?
• No

• Total Combined Monetary Sanction
• $ 800,002,000

• Related Enforcement Actions
• United States v. Uriel Sharef, Herbert Steffen, Andres Truppel, Ulrich Bock, Eberhard Reichert, Stephan Signer, Carlos Sergi, and Miguel Czysch (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
  SEC v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (D.D.C. 2008)
  SEC v. Uriel Sharef, Ulrich Bock, Carlos Sergi, Stephan Signer, Herbert Steffen, Andres Truppel, and Bernd Regendantz (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
  

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft 

• Citation
• United States v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, No. 08-CR-367 (D.D.C. 2008); 

• Date Filed
• 12/12/2008

• Filed Under Seal
• No

• FCPA Statutory Provision
• • Books-and-Records
  • Internal Controls

• Other Statutory Provision
• None

• Disposition
• Plea Agreement

• Defendant Jurisdictional Basis
• Issuer

• Defendant's Citizenship
• Germany

Siemens S.A. (Argentina) 

• Citation
• United States v. Siemens S.A. (Argentina), No. 08-CR-368 (D.D.C 2008);

• Date Filed
• 12/12/2008

• Filed Under Seal
• No

• FCPA Statutory Provision
• • Conspiracy

• Other Statutory Provision
• None

• Disposition
• Plea Agreement

• Defendant Jurisdictional Basis
• Territorial Jurisdiction

• Defendant's Citizenship
• Argentina

Siemens Bangladesh Ltd.

• Citation
• United States v. Siemens Bangladesh Ltd., No. 08-CR-369 (D.D.C 2008); 

• Date Filed
• 12/12/2008

• Filed Under Seal
• No

• FCPA Statutory Provision
• • Conspiracy

• Other Statutory Provision
• None

• Disposition
• Plea Agreement

• Defendant Jurisdictional Basis
• Territorial Jurisdiction

• Defendant's Citizenship
• Bangladesh

Siemens S.A. (Venezuela) 

• Citation
• United States v. Siemens S.A. (Venezuela), No. 08-CR-370 (D.D.C 2008).

• Date Filed
• 12/12/2008

• Filed Under Seal
• No

• FCPA Statutory Provision
• • Conspiracy

• Other Statutory Provision
• None

• Disposition
• Plea Agreement

• Defendant Jurisdictional Basis
• Territorial Jurisdiction

• Defendant's Citizenship
• Venezuela