SHOT BY: KENDALL KARSON DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN SPOKE AT THE TRACE 15TH ANNUAL FORUM ON ANTI-BRIBERY COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS

00:00:00:00 Lee Thomas (EPA Admin) introduction/ other experts and EPA guys at briefing or p c on Soviet nuclear accident (0:00)/

The Natural Resources Defense Council leads a legal battle against the EPA. They contend that the Food Quality Protection Act doesn’t go far enough to protect children from harmful pesticides used on fruit.

Justice Department Press Conference Subject: Resolution of a Foreign Bribery Case Participants: Deputy Attorney General James Cole; Michael Gustafson, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut; Robert Anderson, Executive Assistant Director, FBI Location: The Justice Department, Washington, D.C. JAMES COLE: Good morning. I'm joined today by Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell of the Justice Department's Criminal Division; First Assistant United States Attorney Mike Gustafson of the District of Connecticut; and Executive Assistant Director Robert Anderson, Jr., of the FBI. And we're here to announce a historic law enforcement action that marks the end of a decade-long transnational bribery scheme -- a scheme that was both concocted and concealed by Alstom, a multinational French company and its subsidiaries in Switzerland, Connecticut and New Jersey. Today, those companies admit that from at least 2000 to 2011, they bribed government officials and falsified accounting records in connection with lucrative power and transportation projects for state-owned entities across the globe. They used bribes to secure contracts in Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Bahamas. All together, Alstom paid tens of millions of dollars in bribes to win $4 billion in projects and to secure approximately $300 million in profits for themselves. Such rampant and flagrant wrongdoing demands an appropriately strong law enforcement response. Today, I can announce that the Justice Department has filed a two count criminal information in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, charging Alstom with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act buy falsifying its books and records and failing to implement adequate internal controls. Alstom has agreed to plead guilty to these charges, to admit its criminal conduct, and to pay a criminal penalty of more than $772 million. If approved by the court next year, this will be the largest foreign bribery penalty in the history of the United States Department of Justice. In addition, I can announce that Alstom's Swiss subsidiary is pleading guilty to conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. And the company's two American subsidiaries have entered into deferred prosecution agreements and admitted that they conspired to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Alstom's corruption scheme was sustained over more than a decade and across several continents. It was astounding in its breadth, its brazenness, and its worldwide consequences. And it is both my expectation and my intention that the comprehensive resolution we are announcing today will send an unmistakable message to other companies around the world that this Department of Justice will be relentless in rooting out and punishing corruption to the fullest extent of the law, no matter how sweeping its scale or how daunting its prosecution. Let me be very clear: Corruption has no place in the global marketplace, and today's resolution signals that the United States will continue to play a leading role in its eradication. The investigation and prosecution of Alstom and its subsidiaries have been exceedingly complex, and they have required the utmost still and tenacity on the part of a wide consortium of law enforcement officials throughout the country and, indeed, across the globe. I want to thank the Criminal Division's Fraud Section and Office of International Affairs, the United States Attorney's Office for the district of Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey, the FBI's Washington Field Office, and its resident agency in Meriden, Connecticut, the Corruption Eradication Commission in Indonesia, the Office of the Attorney General in Switzerland, the Serious Fraud Office in the United Kingdom, as well as authorities in Germany, Italy, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus and Taiwan, for their tireless efforts to advance this matter. The remarkable cross-border collaboration that these agencies made possible has led directly to today's historic resolution. This outcome demonstrates our unwavering commitment to ending corruption and ending bribery in the corporate sense, and international corruption. Our hope is that this announcement will serve as an inspiration and, in fact, a model for future efforts. At this time, I'd like to introduce Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who will provide additional remarks about today's announcement. LESLIE CALDWELL: Thank you, Jim. Today truly represents a significant milestone in the global fight against corruption. It demonstrates the department's commitment to fighting foreign bribery and ensuring that both companies and individuals are held accountable when they violate the FCPA. The resolutions announced today also highlight -- and this is very important -- what can happen when corporations first refuse to disclose wrongdoing and then refuse to cooperate with the department's efforts to identify and prosecute culpable individuals. Like many FCPA schemes, this investigation involved the use of consultants. Alstom funneled bribes through third-party consultants who really did little more than serve as conduits for payments. Alstom then dummied up its books and records to make it look like there were legitimate payments and to hide the fact that it was making bribe payments. Alstom's corruptions spanned the globe and was really its way of winning business. For example, in Indonesia, Alstom and certain of its subsidiaries used consultants to bribe government officials, including high-ranking members of the Indonesian Parliament and state-owned and state-controlled electricity companies. They did that to win several very lucrative multi-million dollar contracts in the power -- in the power-related services industry, and the documentations showing that what they were doing and the extent to which they were aware that what they were doing was inappropriate was astonishing. There are internal documents showing that when Indonesian officials were dissatisfied with the amount of money they were getting, calling it "pocket money," Alstom took immediate steps to increase the amount of money through the use of additional consultants. In Saudi Arabia, Alstom hired at least six consultants, including two members -- two close family members of high-ranking government officials to bribe officials at a state-owned and state-controlled electricity company, to win projects valued at approximately $3 billion. Again, the evidence showed that Alstom employees were fully aware that their conduct was criminal. Internal documents refer to the consultants as -- by code names like "Mr. Geneva, Mr. Paris." Alstom similarly used consultants to bribe officials in Egypt and in the Bahamas. Again, the evidence showed that Alstom employees clearly knew that they were violating the law. For example, in connection with a project in Egypt, a member of Alstom's internal finance department sent an e-mail questioning an invoice for consultant services. In response, she was advised, "Your inquiry quote could several people put in jail," and she was further instructed to delete all prior e-mails regarding the consultant. If approved by the court, as Deputy Attorney General Cole said, the criminal penalty of $772 million will represent the largest FCPA penalty ever assessed in a -- in a DOJ-FCPA case. Through Alstom's parent-level guilty plea and record-breaking criminal penalty, Alstom is paying a historic price, as it should, for its criminal conduct and for its efforts to insulate culpable corporate employees and other corporate entities. Alstom did not voluntarily disclose the conduct, and Alstom did not agree to cooperate with the government and, in fact, deliberately did not cooperate with the government for some time. Indeed, it was only after the department publicly charged several individual executives that Alstom finally and reluctantly began cooperating. One important of this message -- one important message of this case is while we hope that companies that find themselves in this situations -- in situations like this will cooperate with the Department of Justice, we are not going to wait for them to do so. We are not going to depend on that cooperation. When Alstom refused to cooperate, we persisted in our investigation. We built cases against various individual corporate executives and various culpable corporate entities. To date, the department has publicly charged four Alstom corporate executives in connection with a corrupt scheme in Indonesia and also another company's corrupt executive in connection with a scheme in Egypt. Four of these individuals have already pleaded guilty. In addition, another company called Marubeni Corporation, a Japanese trading company, which pioneered with Alstom in Indonesia has plead guilty to conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA and substantive -- excuse me -- and has paid $80 million in criminal penalty. Another important message of this case is that the United States is increasingly fighting the fight against international corruption with a growing array of international partners. Earlier this year, Indonesia's Corruption Eradication Commission, known as the KPK, assisted the department in the investigation, and in turn, the department assisted the KPK by sharing information that we obtained in the course of our investigation, which the KPK in turn used to prosecute a former member of the Indonesian parliament in Indonesia for accepting bribes from Alstom-paid consultants. This past spring, that official was convicted in Indonesia, and he's now serving three years in an Indonesian jail. Our partnership with Indonesian law enforcement authorities in this case means that both bribe payers and bribe takers are increasingly being held responsible, and our investigation of this case is not over yet. This case is emblematic of how going forward, I think, in the future, the Department of Justice will increasingly investigate and prosecute major FCPA cases. We encourage companies to maintain robust compliance programs. We encourage them to voluntarily and fully disclose misconduct. We encourage companies to voluntarily and fully cooperate in our investigations. But we will not wait for companies to do that. We will not wait for companies to act responsibly, with cooperation or without out it. The Department will identify criminal activity and investigate the conduct ourselves, using all of our resources, employing every law enforcement tool and considering all possible actions, including actions against individuals and corporations. This has been a team effort. I very much would like to thank the prosecutors from the Criminal Division's Fraud Section, the Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs, United States Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut, the talented agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for all of your extraordinary work in this very important matter. I also would like to thank the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland for their work on very important related cases. And as the Deputy Attorney General alluded to, I also would like to thank our international counterparts: Indonesia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Singapore, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Cyprus and Germany. Every new FCPA case, we are likely to be working with yet another new potential international partner and that is a trend that I expect will continue going forward. We're grateful for the assistance of our international partners and we look forward to working with them in the future. Thank you. MICHAEL GUSTAFSON: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Mike Gustafson. I'm the first assistant United States Attorney from the District of Connecticut. Government works best when it operates transparently and with the public interest as its sole aim. Because of that, fighting corruption has long been a top priority for federal prosecutors in Connecticut and across the Department of Justice. Today's historic resolution is an important reminder that our mandate to stamp out corruption does not stop at any border, be it state or national. For years, Alstom has operated in the shadows, secretly lining the pockets of government officials around the globe, in order to secure millions of dollars in public contracts. They ensured the contracts would not necessarily go to the most qualified bidder or the best products, but instead, to whomever was willing to pay off the right decisionmakers. And they covered up those payments in some time-honored ways, by using so-called consultants whose sole value was access to corrupt officials and by recording bribes on their books and records as commissions and consultant fees. Unfortunately, a significant part of the illicit work was carried out from Alstom Power's office in Windsor, Connecticut. Alstom Power and its predecessor companies has been an important part of the fabric of our state since the 1950s, an employer of hundreds of Connecticut residents. Yet, as this case makes clear, executives and employees from Windsor worked hand-in-hand with co-conspirators across the globe to bribe officials in places such as Indonesia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I'm hopeful that this resolution today, in particular, the deferred prosecution agreement with Alstom Power, will provide the company an opportunity to reshape its culture and restore its place as a respected corporate citizen. I applaud Mr. Cole and Ms. Caldwell, the prosecutors, the department's fraud section, the FBI and prosecutors in my office -- particularly, David Novick -- who, for years, have spent seeing justice -- sought tirelessly (ph) pursuing justice in this case. And their successful collaboration is a mile (ph) for effective this department can be. I echo all the thanks given by Ms. Caldwell and Mr. Cole. I also want to single out the special agents of the FBI and the Merited (ph) Office, who have provided significant support during the course of this investigation. Thank you. ROBERT ANDERSON (?): Good morning. The record $772 million fine we are announcing today should serve as a wake-up call to all the companies who do business internationally. Bribery may once have been considered a time-honored method of gaining competitive advantage, but I'm here to tell you that the FBI is working tirelessly with our Department of Justice colleagues and international law enforcement partners to root out corruption in every corner of the globe. It is incumbent on us and companies to perform due diligence, create a culture of compliance, and to use internal auditing authorities aggressively to ensure that this type of corruption is not occurring in their operations. In today's case, Alstom's misconduct spanned many years and multiple continents and employed a wide range of sophisticated schemes to bribe foreign officials. After receiving credible allegations from the Department of Justice fraud section that Alstom had made improper payments to government officials in numerous countries, the agents from the FBI's Washington field office and New Haven field offices traveled around the world, conducting interviews and collecting evidence on this investigation. We received great cooperation from many of our international law enforcement partners. In this case especially, I'd like to thank the Indonesian Corruption and Eradication Commission for all their work. Their determined efforts led the Indonesian government to charge a high-level member of the Indonesian parliament for accepting bribes. As stated before, he's now serving a three year prison term. It's important to note, not only has Alstom agreed to pay nearly an $800 million penalty, but also that four of the company's executives have been charged. The record dollar amount of this fine is a clear deterrent to companies who would engage in foreign bribery. But even a better deterrent is sending the executives who committed these crimes to prison. It's also critical to challenge the culture in the companies who too often have turned a blind eye to payments and bribes to secure their next contract. And as added deterrent, we have received funds to staff internal corruption squads and international corruption squads in three of our major field offices this coming year: the Washington field office, the New York field office, and the Los Angeles field office. So companies should know, if you're operating overseas, you should be aware, we will be taking an ever-closer look at allegations on foreign bribery this coming new year. International corruption increases the cost of doing business globally. It disadvantages honest companies that do not pay bribes. It also slows the growth of developing countries when officials are lining their pockets with funds intended for their citizens. We cannot let it go unchecked, and we won't. I want to thank our partners on the stage. All of them who have already spoken before me, and around the world for the collaboration to bring Alstom's misconduct to light and to justice. The FBI has committed, with our partners on this stage and around the world, to continue working together to combat this insidious threat. Thank you. MR. COLE (?): Thank you very much. We'll take a few questions. Q: Yes, Alstom is in the process of selling its energy business to General Electric. How did that sale factor into today's resolution? MR. : From the government's perspective, the sale really was not particularly important to the government's resolution. Obviously, we were aware of the transaction. The fine that's being paid by the entities that are being acquired by G.E. is being paid by Alstom. And that was something that we insisted upon. So that's something that I think was very important. Otherwise, the relationship between G.E. and Alstom is something that we were not really in the middle of. Q: And, going forward, in terms of what's required by the court, is that gonna be required with G.E. picking up these subsidiaries? MS. CALDWELL: So, G.E. has a very robust compliance program, and one of the requirements of the transaction imposed by G.E. is that Alstom must immediately come under G.E.'s very robust compliance program. Because it will be -- those two entities will be under a deferred prosecution agreement, if for some reason that does not happen, they can still be subject to having some prosecution or have a monitor imposed on them. But -- so we will be relying, at least in the first instance, on G.E.'s compliance program to police the behavior of the Alstom subsidiaries. Q: How concerned are you about these police shootings? And would you recommend that they do anything differently? MR. COLE (?): Well, the shootings that happened over the weekend were heinous and cowardly acts. Our sympathies, our prayers are going out to those families. We have officers, men and women, in law enforcement throughout the country who put their lives on the line every day to protect us all. Some of them are required and called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice, like these two brave officers did. And there's just no reason that we should have to be dealing with this. One of the main focuses that we've had in the Department of Justice is officer safety and making sure that we have procedures in place and training in place to encourage that. And as we -- as we go forward, that's going to continue to be a huge emphasis for the Department of Justice. People need to make sure that when law -- they go into law enforcement, they can depend on all of us to make what is inherently an unsafe job as safe as possible. Q: Mr. Cole, do you believe at all that the -- that some of the violence against officers is a result of the Justice Department's efforts to try to address police tactics around the country? MR. COLE: I do not. I think that what you have to be able to do is have a conversation about isolated instances where we see profiling or we see excessive force, and, at the same time, we have to make sure that our officers are safe and that we do everything we can to make sure that the brave men and women who are part of law enforcement are protected as much as we can. Those are conversations that we have to have at the same time, and we can have at the same time. And I don't subscribe to the view that you can't do one or the other, and they cancel each other out. Q: China has hopefully asked for some help from the U.S. government and other governments in its anti-corruption campaign. I wonder are there any -- are you working, the DOJ and FBI, working with the Chinese government in cases like today's? And also, are there discussions for future cooperation? MR. COLE (?): Certainly we're in discussions with many countries throughout the world in trying to level the playing field in dealing with international corruption and foreign corruption. We welcome any country that wants to work with us in trying to make sure that those kinds of rules and regulations and controls are in place so that you have a free marketplace throughout the world and free competition throughout the world. Q: Can you or the FBI give us an update on the Sony investigation? MR. COLE: That's a matter under investigation right now. Can't really talk about that. Q: Yes, sir. Local police departments across the country say the Department of Justice is not doing enough to help keep them safe, specifically by rejecting requests to help pay for bullet-proof vests through the Federal Bullet-proof Vest Partnership. How do you respond to this? MR. COLE: We've put an enormous amount of resources and money into officer safety. We have pioneered the protective equipment and the use of it, and getting it out to officers throughout many of our programs. We've pioneered training and put that out to many, many different officers and law enforcement agencies. This has been a huge priority for the Department of Justice since the day I got here and before. And it's going to continue to be a huge priority for the Department of Justice. Q: Will you be stepping up -- (inaudible) -- (Cross talk.) Q: Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that Mayor de Blasio, President Obama and Attorney General Holder have, quote, "contributed to an atmosphere of hate towards police." Did Mayor de Blasio undercut his cops? And what do you think he should do going forward? Do you think he should meet with the families of the slain officers? MR. COLE: I'm not going to speak for Mayor de Blasio. I'm going to repeat what I have said earlier. We have to be able to have a conversation about both of these topics going forward. It's not undercutting the cops. We've supported our police officers and our law enforcement personnel from the time I've gotten here, for years and years and decades going in the past. We need to make sure that we can have conversations about how policing can be done effectively, how we can have community policing going forward. But we also need to at the same time protect our law enforcement personnel. And I think having the conversation about one is not undercutting the other. We have to have them both. Q: You have a record -- a record fine that these people -- (inaudible) -- Alstom is paying. But how about the focus on the executives? Is that a new trend that you're doing? I mean, by putting executives in jail? MR. COLE: It's not a new trend. We've done this in any number of other cases. It's more difficult to make a case against an individual than it is against a corporation. But we are always looking to make sure that we bring cases against individuals where we can find the evidence to do so. Because as Assistant Attorney General Caldwell said, that's the most effective deterrent. They are harder cases to make, but we are always, always looking to make those and we have done so in the past on numerous occasions. Q: The president is about to announce your successor. Whoever she turns out to be, what are the big challenges that she'll be facing? MR. COLE: An incredible schedule; an incredible number of meetings all day long; an incredible number of decisions that you have to make all day long. This is a very challenging job. It has also been, frankly, from my point of view, the most interesting job I've ever had. It involves virtually every issue that comes into the United States government. So to try and identify a particular challenge that he or she might have when they come and succeed me would be difficult. Everything is a priority in this job. Q: Mr. Cole, if I could ask, you talked about the decisions you have to make as deputy attorney general. One of those, obviously, is whether to issue a subpoena to a reporter. Guidelines talk about the balance that needs to be struck -- that prosecutors should strike a balance -- a proper balance between press interest and law enforcement interest. How should prosecutors moving forward make that balance -- (inaudible) -- in deciding whether to issue a subpoena? MR. COLE: We have set this out very clearly in the new regulations that we've issued under 50-10, that really have changed the way we look at things. We have always treated subpoenas to the media very differently and very carefully because of the media's important role in our society. We have made those requirements and those regulations even stronger and they really set out in a very, very detailed way the kinds of balancing and the kinds of issues that our prosecutors need to look at. In addition, we've put into place a news media review committee that will be another layer of review before it even gets to the deputy attorney general or the attorney general. So that there will be a full and complete review before any subpoena issues in that regard. Q: True, though do the guidelines talk about how prosecutors should decide to issue a subpoena to a reporter directly? Don't the guidelines talk more about documents and how they should decide to go after documents? MR. COLE: No, it covers reporters directly as well. And those are all covered, and there's a whole process you have to go through before you can do that, and that will be through those regulations a very formalized process. Q: (Inaudible) -- Castro regime return the fugitive wanted for killing law enforcement personnel in the past. MR. COLE: Certainly, we're working with that country and every country to get back fugitives who we have charges against. I think the fact that we're going to be having better relationships with Cuba will increase our likelihood of being successful and getting those people back. Thank you very much. END

1250 BARR SEC CONFERENCE REMARX FS6 80 U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Criminal Coordination Conference Washington, DC ~ Thursday, October 3, 2019 Remarks As Prepared for Delivery Good afternoon. I appreciate the kind introduction. Thank you to Chairman Clayton and the Commission for extending the invitation to speak at today's conference. I would also like to thank the SEC's Co-Directors of Enforcement, Steven Peikin and Stephanie Avakian, for putting this conference together. I am honored to be here representing the dedicated men and women of the Department of Justice. Like the SEC's Enforcement staff, many of our prosecutors are tasked with investigating financial fraud and corporate crime. They are assigned to the Department's 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices and the Criminal Division's Fraud Section or its Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section. The theme of today's conference is cooperation and coordination between our two agencies. In speaking with you today, it is my aim to underscore why it is so critical that the Department's prosecutors work closely with you. As you well know, uncovering, investigating, and prosecuting financial fraud and corporate malfeasance in a globalized economy is already a difficult task - and fraudulent schemes are only growing more sophisticated by the day. The DOJ has considerable expertise in this area, and so do our partners here at the SEC. For example, the SEC staff's ability to detect complex insider trading and market-manipulation activity using its ARTEMIS system is, I believe, unparalleled. The Department often depends on the SEC's staff to flag these abusive schemes for further investigation and potential prosecution by our respective agencies. For these reasons, it is imperative that the DOJ and the SEC continue their partnership in ensuring sound and reliable markets, which have been the engine of economic growth over our nation's history. Speaking of history, financial fraud is certainly not a new phenomenon in America. One of the first widely-known acts of financial fraud in our country was committed just a few years after the ratification of the Constitution. In April 1792, Alexander Hamilton - then serving as the first Secretary of the Treasury - wrote that there "should be a line of separation between honest Men & knaves; between respectable stockholders and dealers in the funds, and mere unprincipled Gamblers."[1] In penning these words, Hamilton was surely thinking about William Duer, who had served as his first Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton and Duer's Treasury Department had bought up outstanding bonds held by the former colonies. It was widely expected that, once acquired by the federal government, those bonds would benefit from enhanced credibility and, thus, an increase in value. But Duer crossed the line and betrayed the trust of the American people. As a high-ranking Treasury official, Duer knew precisely which bonds were going to be purchased by the government. He used this privileged knowledge to enrich himself and others. Like so many frauds, Duer's scheme appeared successful at first, though it eventually unraveled as he miscalculated and incurred steep losses, landing himself in debtor's prison and sparking a credit crisis. Now, our nation's history may have its record of knaves and unprincipled gamblers. But it is also full of men and women like yourselves - people who have devoted their careers to ensuring that our markets remain a reliable and fair playing field for American investors. The cooperation between our two agencies is not new. The DOJ has long considered the SEC an indispensable partner in protecting markets and investors, promoting lawful commerce around the world, and deterring misconduct. Our two agencies have closely coordinated on a wide range of matters, and our cooperation has only grown as financial matters have become increasingly complex and globalized. Today, I'd like to take time to highlight three points about the deepening and increasingly productive relationship between the SEC and the DOJ - points we all can be proud of. The first is our impressive record of joint enforcement. The second is our agencies' joint efforts to ensure that we avoid creating arbitrary and unnecessary barriers to economic growth through our enforcement activities. And the third point is the importance of the DOJ and the SEC's work in promoting ethical business practices and sound corporate governance and compliance policies. I. I'll begin with our coordination to punish wrongdoers and to protect investors. As I have mentioned, the white-collar crime, financial fraud, and corruption cases that our agencies handle are some of the most complex and difficult cases to uncover, investigate, and prosecute. Together, however, through information sharing and open dialogue, we are able to overcome those challenges. Take, for example, our work together on FCPA cases. These matters often involve complicated financial transactions, significant sums of money, sophisticated parties, and voluminous evidence scattered throughout the world. But by working together in close coordination, the SEC and the DOJ are often able to focus our work, and succeed in vindicating the law. Earlier this year, the DOJ and the SEC announced a joint resolution with Mobile TeleSystems - the largest telecommunications company in Russia - for bribing officials in Uzbekistan.[2] The company agreed to pay over 850 million dollars to resolve the case, including a 100-million-dollar civil penalty to the SEC. The matter first came to the DOJ as a referral from the SEC, and our two agencies were able to work closely together to investigate and resolve the matter. Another recent example of our partnership is the "Power Traders Press" case out of the Eastern District of New York.[3] In this case, sixteen defendants were charged in connection with their involvement in a 147-million-dollar scheme to defraud hundreds of investors, many of whom were in their 70s, 80s, and 90s. From 2014 to 2017, the defendants engaged in a boiler-room scheme to steal investors' life savings. Among other predatory tactics, they encouraged elderly victims to purchase shares in companies that the fraudsters were manipulating. And, after the victims incurred substantial losses, the defendants further persuaded them to double down and continue purchasing shares on the promise that prices would rise again. Of course, prices didn't rise again, and these victims suffered further losses. Operating in parallel on the investigation, the SEC ultimately brought civil cases against many of the same defendants who were also charged criminally by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York. In the criminal matter, 12 of the 16 defendants have pleaded guilty, and those who have been sentenced have received substantial prison sentences were ordered to forfeit ill-gotten gains and to pay restitution to their victims. I wish to relay special gratitude to the SEC for its work in this particular case. Chairman Clayton has rightly emphasized the need to look out for the interests of Main Street investors - the ordinary folks who depend on our markets to save money for school, homes, and retirement. Protecting everyday American investors, especially those who comprise vulnerable segments of our population, is one of this Administration's highest priorities, and it should be a special focus of our work at the DOJ and the SEC. I frequently tell the leadership of our Criminal Division that the objective of our criminal enforcement efforts in the white-collar arena is not to secure big headlines by taking down large companies or high-profile defendants. Rather, the objective should be to do the right thing for investors and markets. Cases like Power Traders Press are just as important as cases like Mobile TeleSystems. In my view, our best cases are those that yield tangible results for everyday people. II. While the DOJ and the SEC must be vigilant in investigating and prosecuting white-collar misconduct, we must also ensure that we are acting fairly and prudently. This leads to my second point. During parallel investigations, our agencies should ensure that we remain mindful of - and properly account for - the collateral consequences that our matters can sometimes have. These potential consequences include the cost to defend against an investigation, the cost associated with resolving the matter, and the intangible effects that a case can have on a company's reputation and its ability to do business going forward. In many cases, these costs are borne not just by the wrongdoers, but also by others who were not involved in the misconduct, such as shareholders. And these costs are often amplified in our increasingly complex regulatory environment when multiple criminal and regulatory enforcement agencies seek to investigate the same or overlapping conduct. The DOJ is mindful of these issues. That's why, in May 2018, the Department issued the "Policy on Coordination of Corporate Resolution Penalties," known colloquially as "the policy against piling-on." It can be found both online and in our Justice Manual. This policy emphasizes that, to achieve an equitable outcome, the DOJ "should consider the totality of fines, penalties, and/or forfeiture imposed by all Department components as well as other law enforcement agencies and regulators."[4] It's been almost a year and a half since this common-sense policy was issued, and the DOJ's prosecutors have continued to execute it with my full support. The Mobile TeleSystems case that I discussed earlier provides an excellent example. There, the Department credited the 100 million dollars that the company paid to resolve the parallel SEC matter against the 850 million dollars the company agreed to pay to the DOJ. As another example, in April, the Celadon Group - a publicly-traded transportation company - entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department to resolve an investigation into a complex accounting and securities fraud scheme. This scheme was conceived by former executives who falsified transactions in order to mislead investors. The Celadon Group agreed to pay over 42 million dollars in restitution to investors, to implement rigorous internal controls, and to cooperate with the Department's related individual investigations. The company simultaneously reached a 7-million-dollar civil settlement with the SEC to resolve parallel allegations, which reflected the disgorgement of ill-gotten profits. This figure was set in recognition of the DOJ's existing provision for restitution to the victims of this fraud.[5] I have been pleased to see that the SEC is also very mindful of the collateral impact that our work can have. In July of this year, for instance, Chairman Clayton issued a "Statement Regarding Offers of Settlement" that aligns the SEC's waiver application process with the final approval and announcement of a resolution.[6] The Commission's new policy streamlines the resolution process and provides companies with much-needed transparency about the effects a settlement may have on their operations. Speaking of streamlining, I believe that both of our agencies also must be mindful of the significant time that our investigations can take and the limited resources we have to pursue them. One way to address this is to ensure that we move efficiently in our investigations. But we also should ensure that we employ a discriminating eye on the front end when deciding which cases to pursue, making better choices about the use of our limited time and resources. By focusing on high-quality matters in the first instance, we can ensure that each case gets the attention it deserves and that our investigations move forward expeditiously. And by cutting down the time that proverbial clouds hang over companies and, as just mentioned, by encouraging companies to resolve matters at an earlier stage, we can get money back to harmed investors more quickly and more efficiently. I think we can all agree that this is a worthwhile goal. III. That all being said, protecting investors isn't just about punishment and restitution - it's also about promoting ethical business practices. Hence, the third facet of the DOJ and the SEC's relationship that I'd like to address today: incentivizing companies to adopt sound corporate practices and policies by providing them with appropriate credit for good behavior and cooperation. On this front, the DOJ and the SEC have co-chaired the Financial Fraud Working Group and jointly-published the Resource Guide to the FCPA.[7] The Justice Department, of course, recently announced revisions to its FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy.[8] The new iteration of the Policy incentivizes good corporate behavior, expands transparency for companies seeking corporate resolutions, and increases the effectiveness of related individual prosecutions. The Policy achieves these goals by encouraging companies to voluntarily bring misconduct to our attention at an earlier stage and to fully cooperate with investigations. This way, the Justice Department can take more investigative steps and gather more evidence without having to go through as many formal processes, including Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requests. Critically, this Policy also makes it clear that, if a company meets the benchmarks of good corporate behavior, the DOJ can use its discretion to act in deference to an SEC parallel resolution. For example, Cognizant, a technology-solutions company, authorized a third-party construction firm to pay approximately 2 million dollars in bribes to government officials in India. Yet in light of the company's voluntary self-disclosure, internal reforms, full cooperation, active remediation, and a simultaneous SEC resolution - the DOJ declined prosecution. We disgorged approximately 19 million dollars in profits and credited the company for the amount already paid to the Commission.[9] In another instance, the Justice Department declined to prosecute the commercial and data analytics firm Dun & Bradstreet over bribery in China under an almost identical set of criteria.[10] I would also note that the cooperation between the SEC and the DOJ in this area extends beyond resolving cases and issuing complementary policies. For example, when the DOJ's Criminal Division recently trained its prosecutors on its new Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs guidance, a sizable group from the SEC's Enforcement Division also participated. This is exactly the type of cooperation and coordination we need to ensure we are pursuing financial fraud on behalf of the American people. *** To conclude, the three points I've touched upon characterize the great relationship between the DOJ and the SEC - a relationship that well serves the American people. Thanks to its enduring nature, we're better prepared today to pursue the Hamiltonian desire to distinguish between "knaves," and on the other hand, "honest Men." The principles and the goals of the Department and the Commission are aligned. As such, I'm certain our efforts will positively and lastingly benefit both Wall Street and Main Street. On behalf of the Justice Department, we look forward to many more years of working alongside the SEC. Thank you for your time, and I hope you enjoy the remainder of this conference.

SHOT BY LUKE BARR Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at Compliance Week's 2018 Annual Conference for Compliance and Risk Professionals Washington, DC ~ Monday, May 21, 2018 Good morning. Thank you, Dave, for that gracious introduction. I want to thank Compliance Week for organizing this event and for inviting me to take part in it. The Mayflower Hotel has a storied history. Many famous public figures have frequented this hotel. J. Edgar Hoover was known for lunching regularly here while he served as FBI Director. Sometimes onlookers recognized Hoover and gathered to watch him, so hotel staff would usher him through the kitchen and out the back door. When I got this job, I remember being grateful that I would never need to experience that. Almost nobody knows the lawyers who serve as Deputy Attorney General. If they are remembered, it is usually for the memos they wrote - about corporate fraud. Earlier this month, I attended two conferences in New York to speak about white collar crime, corporate compliance, and the rule of law. On Wednesday, I return to New York for another speech of the same sort. And, I am here with you today at a major event for compliance and risk professionals. These issues are very important to the Department of Justice. Improving the business environment is a top priority of the Trump Administration. I am honored to be here, but I wish there were more Senate-confirmed officials in the Department of Justice to give these speeches and carry out our important work. A few months ago, I received invitations to several conferences this spring and summer that focused on the Department's efforts regarding corporate enforcement. I expected to delegate some of these events to the highly-qualified Assistant Attorney General nominees who are awaiting confirmation in the United States Senate. Drawing on their highly qualified backgrounds and experiences, they would help implement and spread our message about deterring corporate fraud and promoting the rule of law. Unfortunately, only two of the seven litigating components in Main Justice have Senate-confirmed nominees. Four nominees await a final confirmation vote, including Brian Benczkowski, for the Criminal Division; Jeffrey Clark, for the Environment and Natural Resources Division; Eric Dreiband, for the Civil Rights Division; and Jody Hunt, for the Civil Division. Most of them have been waiting an entire year to get a vote for an executive branch job that most people hold for just a few years. It is an odd way to run a government. Fortunately, we assembled a superb team to serve as acting leaders of the Justice Department's key components, and we will keep moving forward. Lawyers, compliance officers, and other risk professionals are at the forefront of advising companies to ensure that businesses operate legally and honestly. When I look out at this room filled with successful private-sector leaders, I am reminded of a book by Dr. Seuss. The book is called Oh, the Places You'll Go. It includes this advice: You'll look up and down streets. Look 'em over with care. About some you will say, "I don't choose to go there." With your head full of brains and your shoes full of feet, You're too smart to go down any not-so-good street. Many of you advise companies and business leaders through difficult corporate decisions. You probably convey the same basic advice, perhaps without the rhyming couplets. Events like this one gives you an opportunity to learn not only from the presenters, but also from one another. You discuss what works and what doesn't. You identify new compliance risks and best practices. Of course, the best practice is to comply with the law. J. Edgar Hoover is not the only famous Department of Justice official who visited the Mayflower Hotel. Attorney General Robert Jackson spoke here shortly after he was sworn in as Attorney General in January 1940. In that speech, Jackson described Washington as - and I quote - a "weird city, where so many are making speeches and so few are listening to them." More importantly for our purposes, Jackson spoke about the fiduciary duties of lawyers. He said that "most of the mistakes and major faults of our time are to be ascribed to a failure to observe the fiduciary principle, old in equity and recognized by law - the principle of trusteeship, without which our kind of society cannot permanently endure." The Department of Justice recognizes that respecting fiduciary duties and upholding the law is a two-way street. We ask companies to act in accordance with laws and regulations, even when doing so may be difficult or burdensome. Strong compliance programs and risk assessments are critical tools in that effort. We in law enforcement reciprocate by defending the rule of law and protecting the integrity of the marketplace. Thomas Jefferson said that "[t]he most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." We must endeavor to enforce the law fairly and consistently. When a company creates and fosters a culture of compliance, it creates value. Compliance is an investment. Ethical, law-abiding companies can better attract investors and partners. People want to do business with companies that they perceive as honest and reliable. Compliance mitigates risk, making companies more valuable and less likely to encounter unanticipated costs that may result from protracted investigations and penalties. Compliance should not be treated as separate and distinct from other business goals. A culture of compliance must be fully integrated into corporate culture. Employees should be trained and encouraged to think about compliance issues in making business decisions. In a company with an adequate and effective compliance program, the legal, compliance, and audit departments are not the only repositories of professionals monitoring and evaluating what the business side does. Some of you deal with managers who are skeptical of the lawyer's role in helping them succeed. Lawyers sometimes elicit ill will because we tend to nitpick. People generally do not like nitpickers. But the law demands precision and requires close reading. We are the dotters of I's and the crossers of T's. Small details like commas and semicolons matter to us. In discussing the attributes of a lawyer, the great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explained that "[o]ne of the distinctive skills of our profession is to discern ambiguities, inaccuracies, and insufficiencies that would not occur to the ordinary" person. To non-lawyers, it sometimes appears as if our job is to find loopholes, argue about technicalities, and elevate form over substance. Compliance officers, accountants, auditors, and other important advisers may evoke the same response. But we know that the future of a business may turn on a seemingly minor detail. Obsessing over details is part of our job. In Shakespeare's play about Henry VI, a character named Dick the Butcher proclaims: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." That quotation is widely misunderstood. Shakespeare was not poking fun at lawyers. Dick the butcher is not a businessman upset about overregulation. He is a villain scheming to take over the government. Shakespeare's point is that without lawyers, nobody would need to follow the law. That would be good for criminals. But it would be very bad for business! Capital markets operate best when reasonable rules are promulgated and enforced by lawyers and government officials. The Department of Justice faces some of the same issues encountered by companies. We work to instill a culture of compliance from the first day a new attorney takes the oath as a federal employee - an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and to bear true faith and allegiance, and to well and faithfully execute the duties of the office. We stress the need to act ethically and do justice. We expect prosecutors, enforcement attorneys, agents, and other personnel to be thinking about their ethical obligations with every decision they make. Newly hired attorneys undergo significant training, including training about professionalism and ethics. We impose other mandatory professional responsibility and ethics training programs that require annual compliance. We have a Professional Responsibility Advisory Office (PRAO), which provides guidance to Department attorneys about their ethical responsibilities. We also have an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and an Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which serve as internal affairs watchdogs. Like the compliance departments sprouting up across corporate America, the Department's internal watchdogs have not always existed within our organization. The Office of the Attorney General was created in 1789 as a one-person, part-time position. In 1870, Congress established the Department of Justice with the Attorney General as its head. Thereafter, as the country grew, so did the Department, along with its United States Attorneys and law enforcement agencies. Today, we have more than 115,000 employees. It took more than 100 years after the founding of the Department for the Department to create the Office of Professional Responsibility, in 1975. That office was created in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Today, OPR is staffed by a Deputy Counsel, three Associate Counsels, and more than 20 Assistant Counsels. In 1989, our compliance function expanded again with the establishment of the Office of the Inspector General. The Inspector General's mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct involving Department programs and personnel, and to promote efficiency. The Inspector General has both criminal and administrative authority. It investigates violations by Department employees and crimes perpetrated against the Department. It also conducts audits and inspects Department programs. The Department established the Professional Responsibility Officer program in 1994 and formally created the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office in 1999, to provide expert ethical advice for our attorneys. The role of Deputy Attorney General involves helping to manage all components of our $30 billion Department. It is similar in many respects to the role of a Chief Operating Officer. In an organization the size of the Department, we rely on professionals to ensure compliance with the myriad ethical rules, court rules, regulations and statutes that affect our employees. When any one of our 115,000 employees makes a mistake, it can affect the entire organization. So, I can empathize with many of you. When companies come under investigation, we ask two principal questions about the company's compliance function: First, what was the state of the compliance program at the time of the improper conduct? Second, what is the current state of the compliance function, after remediation to address any lessons learned? The first question focuses on whether there was an adequate compliance function. The 2008 revisions to the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations are known as the "Filip Factors" - after a former Deputy Attorney General. The Department directed prosecutors to determine "whether a corporation's compliance program is merely a 'paper program' or whether it was designed, implemented, reviewed, and revised, as appropriate, in an effective manner." That same year, the Department resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation of a German conglomerate with combined civil and criminal penalties of $800 million. The Department pointed out the inadequacies of what it described as a "paper program" in place at the time of the misconduct. Failure to act has consequences. At the same time, we recognize that even the best compliance program may not stop individual bad actors. Corporate compliance programs are sometimes compared to preventative medicine. It's a good analogy. Getting an annual physical doesn't mean you won't get sick. But those screenings - just like a robust compliance program - help to ensure that issues will be detected and addressed at an early stage. We do not only look at a company's past conduct and compliance lapses. We are also focused on the business's health going forward. That concept is reflected in the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy that we announced in November 2017. The Policy incentivizes companies to promptly report misconduct and fully cooperate, as well as to enact effective remedial measures. Companies that lack adequate compliance measures are less likely to uncover a problem at an early stage. They are less likely to be able to make a voluntary disclosure that qualifies them for the most significant benefits under the Corporate Enforcement Policy. And they are less likely to stop the conduct before it becomes pervasive. Companies without adequate compliance programs need to undertake more dramatic efforts to remediate damage and change their culture. Compliance is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. If a small private business consists of a founder, a general counsel, and a handful of employees, the risk profile of the company may be different from that of a large complex business. But as companies grow, risk profiles change. For example, a company that decides to raise funds by going public faces an entirely new set of risks. It needs to concern itself with all the laws that govern public companies, including making appropriate securities disclosures. Companies that venture into foreign markets face risks under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Even blue-chip, multinational corporations with strong preexisting programs must continuously evaluate their risk profiles and adapt to new circumstances. If a company uncovers misconduct that occurred despite an otherwise effective compliance program, the FCPA Policy tells prosecutors to consider whether the company subsequently analyzed the underlying cause of the problem. A company that properly manages its risks through a robust and appropriate compliance function - one that grows along with the rest of the company - will remain ahead of the curve. Our Department does not use a rigid formula to assess the effectiveness of corporate compliance. Each company's risk profile and solutions to reduce its risks warrant consideration. We make an individualized determination in each case. Two weeks ago, we announced another corporate enforcement policy designed to ensure fairness and consistency in our corporate resolutions. The policy addresses the coordination of corporate resolution penalties across multiple enforcement authorities. It seeks to avoid what the business and legal communities refer to as "piling on." In football, the term "piling on" refers to a player jumping on a pile of other players after the opponent is already tackled. It is important for law enforcement to be aggressive in pursuing corporate wrongdoers. But we should discourage disproportionate and duplicative penalties imposed by multiple authorities. Our new policy discourages "piling on" by instructing Department components to appropriately coordinate with one another and with other enforcement agencies to attempt to seek an equitable outcome in joint and parallel investigations of the same misconduct. We incorporated this policy, like the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, directly into the United States Attorneys' Manual. We hope that your companies and your clients will never have to confront our policies and enforcement actions. I know most business executives, most employees, and most companies try to do the right thing. A company with a robust compliance program can prevent misconduct. That frees our investigators and attorneys to focus on corporate criminals who post the most dangerous and imminent threats to the American people - terrorists, drug traffickers, transnational cyber criminals. Those groups do not have compliance programs. They do not make voluntary disclosures. They are not our partners in keeping the American economy healthy and prosperous. We want you to work with us as we face today's challenges. We need you to help us uphold the rule of law. We are eager to hear from you and other stakeholders. If there are ways you think we can improve, let us know. One of my goals for the Department is to improve upon the policies we have now and eliminate policies that are not working. I hope you will use opportunities such as this event to interact with Department officials and with law-abiding corporate leaders who share our goals. It is your Department of Justice, and I am honored to serve in it. Thank you very much.