Case Detail

United States v. Statoil ASA (S.D.N.Y. 2006)


Case Details

  • Case Name
  • United States v. Statoil ASA (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
  • Date Filed
  • 10/12/2006
  • Enforcement Agency
  • DOJ
  • Countries
  • Iran
  • Foreign Official
  • Head of a Subsidiary Organization of the National Oil Company.
  • Date of Conduct
  • 2001 to 2002
  • Nature of Business
  • Procurement of oil and gas business in Iran by Statoil, Norway’s largest oil and gas company, which is a foreign issuer listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
  • Influence to be Obtained
  • From 2000, Statoil sought to expand its international operations with a focus on Iran.  In 2001, high-level Statoil officials met with the head of the Iranian Fuel Consumption Optimizing Organization, a subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Company.  The Iranian official, the son of a former President of Iran, was determined to be highly influential in the award of oil and gas business in Iran.  In 2002, Statoil entered into a $15.2 million contract with Horton Investments, Ltd. (“Horton”), a small consulting firm in Turks & Caicos and owned by a third-party in London, England, to provide payments to the Iranian official, of which $200,000 was paid in June 2002.  The Iranian official used his influence to secure a contract for Statoil in October 2002 to develop the South Pars oil and gas field (one of the largest in the world), a contract which would yield “millions of dollars in profit.”  In December 2002, Statoil paid an additional $5 million to the official.
     
    In 2004, Statoil’s internal audit department uncovered and reported the existence of the consulting contract and the $5.2 million payments to the company’s CFO, who ordered an investigation.  Statoil’s security group and internal audit group prepared a report concluding that the company may have violated U.S. and Norwegian bribery laws and recommended that the contract be terminated immediately.  Nevertheless, Statoil’s CEO and the Chairman of its Board took no corrective action.  
     
    Three senior executives at Statoil have resigned:  its chairman Leif Terje Loeddesoel, chief executive officer Olav Fjell, and executive vice president Richard Hubbard.
     
  • Enforcement
  • Statoil entered a three-year deferred prosecution agreement and has admitted to having violated the anti-bribery and accounting provisions of the FCPA.  It has also agreed to pay a $10.5 million penalty.  In the SEC proceeding, it has agreed to pay $10.5 million in disgorgement and retain a monitor.  Statoil has already paid a NOK 20 million ($3.045 million USD) fine to the Norway National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic Crime, without admitting or denying any liability, which will be deducted from the U.S. fines.  Statoil satisfactorily completed its period of supervision under the deferred prosecution agreement on November 12, 2009.  On November 24, 2009, the court entered an order of nolle prosequi disposing of the case against Statoil.  
  • Amount of the Value
  • $5.2 million.
  • Amount of Business Related to Payment
  • Not Stated.
  • Intermediary
  • Offshore Intermediary Company Consultant.
  • Total Sanction
  • $ 10,500,000
  • Compliance Monitor
  • No
  • Reporting Requirements
  • No
  • Case is Pending?
  • No
  • Total Combined Monetary Sanction
  • $ 21,000,000

Defendants

Statoil ASA 

  • Citation
  • United States v. Statoil ASA, No. 06-cr-00960 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
  • Date Filed
  • 10/12/2006
  • Filed Under Seal
  • No
  • FCPA Statutory Provision
    • Anti-Bribery
    • Books-and-Records
  • Other Statutory Provision
  • None
  • Disposition
  • Deferred Prosecution Agreement
  • Defendant Jurisdictional Basis
  • Issuer
  • Defendant's Citizenship
  • Norway
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