This week, Donald Trump offered a glimmer of hope to corrupt officials, dubious executives, and envelope manufacturers worldwide. On Monday, the President of the United States signed an executive order to halt the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a law that prohibits companies and individuals with ties to the U.S. from paying bribes to win business. The White House claims this move creates a “level playing field” for U.S. companies competing overseas.
Conducting business abroad can be a nightmare. Language barriers, regulations, and legal risks can become increasingly uncertain and expensive. For many corrupt officials and intermediaries, however, opportunities to line their pockets will always exist and won’t be far away. Yet, by extending the reach of U.S. anti-corruption laws globally—and incentivizing other nations to adopt similar standards—the FCPA has, at least, kept corruption in check worldwide.
In the past decade, the enforcement of this law by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission has resulted in penalties totaling $24 billion in hundreds of cases, according to the Stanford Law School’s FCPA Clearinghouse database. The cost of not enforcing the law could be substantial: the total fines have already surpassed $1.8 billion just in bribery cases. China, Brazil, and India rank among the countries with the highest number of cases.
Recent high-profile investigations have brought FCPA enforcement to the forefront. In October, U.S. defense contractor RTX agreed to pay over $950 million for claims stemming from a bribe to a Kuwaiti official to secure contracts. In November, executives in the U.S. power industry faced charges for conspiring to bribe an official in a case that allegedly involves one of Asia’s wealthiest men, Gautam Adani, accused of conspiring to violate the law. Adani’s group denies the allegations. A six-month suspension could provide them—and other pending cases—with an opportunity.
Over 40% of those charged in recent investigations are from abroad. In fact, some of the largest fines have been imposed on foreign companies. European aerospace giant Airbus agreed to pay nearly $3.6 billion in 2020 after an investigation revealed it had used a network of intermediaries to bribe officials in various countries. These actions protect honest companies from pressure from foreign authorities and eliminate unfair barriers for rivals. But revoking these measures could mean a return to “envelope diplomacy.” U.S. companies would not only risk losing out on international contracts but could also face a more uncertain legal landscape in their own countries.
For now, the FCPA remains in effect within the U.S. legal framework. However, if Trump were to weaken its enforcement, he should be cautious about what he wishes for. He may desire a world where U.S. companies can assert their dominance. But instead, international business could resemble the Wild West. And that benefits no one.
Corruption in Venezuela: Key Cases Under the FCPA
Some of the largest corruption cases from Venezuela have been prosecuted in the U.S. due to violations of FCPA provisions, ranging from bribery for contracts to money laundering schemes and public sector corruption.
Here are some highlighted cases related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) involving the regime, companies, or individuals from Venezuela:
1. Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) (2015-2017): Since 2015, a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into corruption at PDVSA has led to 12 guilty pleas related to a bribery scheme between PDVSA and its contractors. Those involved secured favorable treatment for suppliers in exchange for illegal commissions.
Venezuelan businessman to plead guilty to paying bribes to PDVSA executives
2. Alejandro Andrade (2018): Former Venezuelan national treasurer Alejandro Andrade pled guilty in 2017 to receiving over a billion dollars in bribes from businessmen, including Raúl Gorrín, in exchange for granting currency exchange transactions. In 2019, he was sentenced to ten years in prison for money laundering offenses.
Alejandro Andrade sentenced to 10 years in prison for money laundering in the United States
3. Raúl Gorrín (2018): Businessman and owner of Globovisión, was indicted in 2018 by the U.S. Department of Justice for conspiring to violate the FCPA and money laundering. He is accused of paying over a billion dollars in bribes to high-ranking Venezuelan officials to gain advantages in the currency market. This case also mentions Leonardo González Dellán.
4. Odebrecht in Venezuela (2017): According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 2006 and 2015, Odebrecht paid approximately $98 million in bribes to Venezuelan officials to obtain public works contracts. Many of these projects remained unfinished or were abandoned.
Odebrecht’s bribes in Venezuela | It was not $98 million, but over $350 million
5. Derwick Associates (2014): The Venezuelan company was subjected to preliminary investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and Manhattan prosecutors due to allegations of bribery and potential banking violations related to energy infrastructure contracts in Venezuela.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Derwick Associates is under investigation by U.S. authorities
6. CITGO Petroleum (2024): A U.S. court awarded CITGO Petroleum, a Venezuelan-owned oil refiner, over $340 million in damages and interest in a bribery case. Petroleum Logistics Service (PLS) and its founder, José Manuel González Testino, were found guilty of fraud and civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
José Manuel González Testino found dead in his apartment
7. Telefónica Venezolana (2024): The Venezuelan subsidiary of Telefónica agreed to pay over $85 million to settle a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into bribery of Venezuelan government officials in 2014. These bribes were made to gain preferential access to U.S. dollars in a currency auction.
Telefónica Venezolana to pay hefty fine in the U.S. for bribing officials in Venezuela
8. Siemens S.A. – Venezuela (2008): Siemens Venezuela pled guilty to a charge of conspiracy to violate anti-bribery provisions and FCPA books and records. The company agreed to pay a $500,000 fine as part of a global $450 million settlement related to corrupt practices in multiple countries.
¿What’s Next?
On February 10, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order temporarily suspending the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for an initial period of 180 days. This measure aims to review and modify the FCPA enforcement guidelines to align them with U.S. economic and national security interests.
Implications for Ongoing Cases
• Suspension of New Investigations: During this review period, the Department of Justice has been instructed to halt the initiation of new investigations or enforcement actions under the FCPA, except for exceptions determined by the Attorney General.
• Review of Existing Cases: Ongoing investigations and actions will be evaluated in detail to determine their continuity or modification, in order to “restore appropriate limits on the enforcement of the FCPA and preserve the prerogatives of presidential foreign policy.”
Implications for Closed Cases
• Maintenance of Prior Sanctions: The executive order does not explicitly address the reversal of sanctions imposed in already resolved cases. Therefore, it is likely that previously established fines and settlements will remain in effect.
• Possible Revisions: Depending on the outcomes of the FCPA review, a reevaluation of past cases could be considered, although this has not been specified in the current order.
Reactions and Perspectives
The suspension has drawn criticism from anti-corruption organizations and legal experts, who warn that this action could undermine global anti-corruption efforts and negatively impact the international reputation of the United States.
In summary, the temporary suspension of the FCPA implies a pause in new investigations and a review of ongoing cases, with the goal of adjusting the enforcement of the law to the current administration’s economic and national security priorities.