Largest FCPA Settlements: Where the Civil Money Actually Goes

The largest FCPA settlements include civil obligations that companies can satisfy through payments to foreign authorities or investors instead of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Goldman Sachs, Petrobras and Telia show how much the destination matters in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act resolutions. If you work with contracts, payment approvals or company accounts, the same documents also show what the money bought before anyone announced a settlement.

This comparison follows historical civil amounts and their payment terms in major FCPA cases and settlements. Our page on what money counts toward a whistleblower award addresses the separate reward question. Here, the issue is what the company agreed to pay, where that obligation could be satisfied and what the underlying transactions reveal.

Civil Amounts in the Largest FCPA Settlements

A large disgorgement obligation can be satisfied by money paid somewhere other than the Commission. The distinction between penalties and disgorgement matters: disgorgement addresses gains from the conduct, while a civil penalty is a separate payment. The historical examples below show those civil amounts and where the money was due.

How Do Foreign Credits Change the U.S. Amount?

In the largest FCPA settlements, the amount payable to U.S. authorities can differ from the global total because of credits written into the resolution. A credit lets an identified payment satisfy an obligation to another authority. The agreement’s conditions determine where the money must go.

Goldman’s order says an earlier payment to the Malaysian government and 1MDB satisfied its disgorgement obligation under the August 18, 2020 settlement agreement. It separately directs the civil penalty to the Commission for transfer to the Treasury.

ABB provides another concrete example of parallel foreign enforcement. Its Commission order says the company had already paid $107 million under a December 2020 civil settlement in South Africa, including reimbursement for overpayments on the Kusile project and interest. The later order recognized that earlier payment when satisfying its disgorgement and interest requirements.

Petrobras’s order instead allowed payments into an investor settlement fund to satisfy its disgorgement and interest obligation. If those payments fell short, the company owed the balance to the Commission.

Petrobras’s Alleged Kickbacks Became Reported Assets

The Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that Petrobras executives helped contractors win inflated contracts and that the overpayments funded kickbacks. According to the order, Petrobras recorded the contractor payments as spending to acquire and improve assets. The alleged corruption therefore reached the value of the assets reported to investors, beyond the cash paid to the executives.

The order shows how the alleged kickbacks reached the balance sheet:

According to the order, Petrobras later wrote off $2.527 billion in capitalized costs representing estimated overpayments attributable to the kickbacks. We see an alleged kickback dressed as an asset improvement. The books gave it a useful life.

The procurement details matter to someone who worked on the contracts. The Commission alleged that executives supplied a cartel with inside information, influenced who could bid and helped selected contractors win. At the Abreu e Lima refinery, an executive allegedly shared the confidential list of invited contractors before the invitations went out. Someone who handled the bid list, contract approval or construction account may recognize how procurement bribery reaches the books.

Goldman Sachs’s Conditional Bond Approvals

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Goldman order describes alleged bribery connected to bond offerings for 1MDB, a Malaysian government investment fund created to finance projects for Malaysia and its people. The Commission alleged that senior employees participated in a scheme that diverted proceeds and paid officials in Malaysia and Abu Dhabi. It said Goldman earned approximately $600 million from the bond deals, close to the disgorgement obligation it deemed satisfied by the earlier Malaysian payment.

The order connects that money to a control an insider could recognize: conditional approval. According to the order, Goldman’s capital committee reviewed the bond transactions in stages and required further work on outstanding concerns before approval became effective. The order says the debt underwriting group was responsible for confirming completion before closing. The Commission described weaknesses in that process and said the follow-up results were not documented consistently with the committee’s control function.

For an employee who worked on an approval, the committee’s condition, the deal team’s response and the closing record connect the concern to the decision to proceed. Those are the business records behind the order’s account of failed internal accounting controls.

Telia’s Alleged Bribe Financed the Official’s Stake

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Telia order ties the alleged payments to the licenses, frequencies and telephone numbers needed to operate in Uzbekistan. The regulator issued those assets, and private parties could not buy and sell them under the rules described in the order. The Commission said Telia nevertheless arranged to obtain them through Takilant, a company controlled by an Uzbek official.

The Commission alleged that Telia paid $80 million through Takilant in connection with acquiring regulated assets for its mobile network. According to the order, the official then used part of that money to buy an ownership interest in the business. The alleged bribe supplied the buyer’s investment capital.

This went beyond an expense labeled consulting. The Commission described licenses first issued to a Takilant subsidiary, then surrendered so that they could be issued to Telia’s operator, COSCOM. It also said Telia managers knew the licenses could be obtained directly from the regulator without an upfront payment. An employee working on the acquisition or regulatory approvals could know what the supposed partner actually contributed.

The Commission’s allegations against VimpelCom show the same dependence on government permissions in the same market. The agency alleged payments to an official while the company sought licenses, frequencies, channels and number blocks in Uzbekistan. That comparison gives an insider a recognizable business question: who controlled the permission, and what did the company provide in return?

What the Settlement Amount Leaves Out of the Business Story

A resolution amount cannot describe whether staff saw a warning, raised it and watched the payments continue. The 2022 Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting paper Fresenius Medical Care: A Case Study on the FCPA draws that lesson from a business supplying dialysis products and services. Its conclusion emphasizes how managers and employees bypassed controls despite flagged transactions:

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Fresenius allegations give that finding a concrete commercial form. The company allegedly paid an Angolan distributor owned by an official’s sons for storage that the distributor never provided, while already leasing storage elsewhere. In Turkey, publicly employed doctors allegedly received joint venture shares without contributing capital in exchange for directing patients to company clinics. A warehouse contract and a shareholder agreement could each conceal a payment for public business.

That is why we read the transaction behind the resolution. A finance employee may know that the storage never happened. A sales employee may know what the ownership arrangement was meant to secure.

What Money Counts Toward an FCPA Whistleblower Reward?

FCPA whistleblower rewards depend on the applicable program and qualifying collections. Under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s program, eligible whistleblowers can receive an aggregate 10% to 30% of qualifying collected sanctions. The company obligation, the payment destination and the whistleblower’s contribution all matter when we assess the opportunity with you.

The False Claims Act has its own reward framework. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. Reporting under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act follows separate agency programs, and our whistleblower experts assess which program fits the conduct and information you know.

You Know What the Payment Was For

If a license purchase, inflated contract or unexplained payment resembles the business you know, speak with our FCPA whistleblower experts about the transaction. We develop the case strategy with you and bring in FCPA whistleblower lawyers who understand foreign payments, company accounts and the relevant reward programs. We stay with you as partners, building your strongest FCPA whistleblower case from the business evidence you know.