Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (USA).

1. 1
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
PRIVILEDGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT
Memorandum
To: Mary Holland, Partner
From: Kumar Pallav, Attorney
Date: September 28, 2009
Re: Cydia Inc. – China Mobile Matter under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 1977
(“FCPA”).
Question Presented
1. Applicability of the FCPA- A non-US citizen, Mr. Wang Zhang made three cash payments
under the direct order of two senior Vice-Presidents of Cydia based in China. Three cash
payments were made to “completely obtain and guarantee” the Cydia-CML deal. Do such cash
payments to “foreign officials” meet the legal elements of the offence under the anti-bribery
provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 1977 (“FCPA”) and impose civil and criminal
liability on Cydia or Mr. Wang Zhang?
Short answer: Probably yes. The FCPA prohibits
bribery to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. After the

2. 2
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
examinations of the alleged three payments, a court probably would rule that these
payments do fall within the ambit of FCPA. With respect to the first and the second
payments, it is made to the “foreign officials” with the knowledge that it was a corrupt
practice; hence the FCPA will apply here for these two cash payments as it is made to
CEO of CMCC and Squaresoft China Ltd., which currently run by his wife as she is the
chief managing officer in Squaresoft. Because CMCC is a 50% state-owned enterprise,
this makes it under government control as an agency in China. The second payment was
made with the corrupt intent to individual A, which is sufficient to constitute the offence
under the FCPA. The examination of the third payment to the foreign government
warrants no defense because the concern here is the motivation and intention behind the
act of charity. This is bribe to foreign officials by several payments to “completely obtain
and guarantee” for Cydia-CML deal. .
Facts
Our long- time corporate client, Mr. Paul Jones, is CEO of Cydia, Inc. (Cydia, NASDAQ: CYD).
In 2006, Cydia entered the mobile phone market and adopted a profit sharing business model .It
is to grant the exclusive rights to become the only seller of the e-phone .In exchange, wireless
carrier would share a portion of all revenue shared by e-Phones sales, subscriptions and monthly
fees. In 2008, Cydia tried to enter into the Chinese mobile phone market by reaching with an
agreement with Chine Mobile Limited (hereinafter “CML”), which is the world’s largest
wireless carrier. China mobile communication corporation ( hereinafter “ CMCC”) owes a 50%
share in CML .But CML disliked the profit sharing business model, so CML and Cydia did not
come to an agreement.

3. 3
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
In May, 2008 negotiations led companies to reach an agreement that allowed Cydia to provide
the ePhone to Chinese costumers at an extremely low price. Afterwards agreement leads to the
most profitable to both the companies and exceeded $500 million .A few days before, our client
Mr. Jones found that such agreement between the companies was not the result of “clean
negotiations”. Cydia’s corporate officer based in China, Li Wang Zhang, was acting under direct
orders of the two vice presidents and made several payments to “ completely obtain and
guarantee” the Cydia-CML deal.
Mr. Wang Zhang made three cash payments on April 15, 2008.First cash payment of $ 500,000
was made to an individual A, president and CEO of CMCC .Individual A agreed to do
everything to obtain and secure the Cydia and CML deal in exchange of the payment.
Additionally, Second payment of $ 150,000 was made to Squaresoft China Ltd. (a videogame
software company), which currently run by individual B, the wife of individual A. A was willing
to work with Cydia only if it entered into a transaction with Squaresoft for the iFinal X project,
developed exclusively for the ePhone.
Mr. Wang Zhang had made the third cash payment of $300,000 as a charity to China Children
and Teenagers’ Fund. In exchange of this, the Minister of the information Industry ministry
agreed to exempt Cydia – CML deal from certain telecom tariffs and to “expedite” regulatory
permission for the deal.
Our client Mr. Jones also noted that Cydia has an educational program against corrupt corporate
behavior. Before taking any administrative decisions, Mr. Jones asked us to investigate this
matter on behalf of the corporation and to find applicability of anti-bribery provisions of the
FCPA in this case. Furthermore, he wants to know if there is any criminal liability of Cydia or

4. 4
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
Mr. Wang Zhang in U.S. and seek our advice about what his next step should be in present
matter in hand.
Analysis
For now, our prime concern is to analyze the nature of three payments made to the foreign
officials and find the applicability of anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA which may impose
civil and criminal liability on Cydia or Mr. Wang Zhang.
Applicability of the FCPA
The FCPA prohibits payments to foreign officials for purposes of:
(i) influencing any act or decision of such foreign official in his official capacity,
(ii) inducing such foreign official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful
duty
of such official, or
(iii) securing any improper advantage...in order to assist [the company making the
payment]
in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.
15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a) (1).
The FCPA criminalizes these kinds of payments only if the result they are intended to produce or
will assist (or is intended to assist) the payor in efforts to get or keep some business for or with
such “foreign officials.” Adler v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 219 F.3d 869, 873 (9th Cir. 2000).

5. 5
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
Thus, the first question of statutory interpretation presented is whether all three payments made
to foreign officials to obtain Cydia-CML deal can ever fall within the scope of the FCPA, i.e.,
whether the illicit payments made to obtain a deal can constitute the kind of bribery that is
proscribed by the FCPA.
1. Nature of the first cash payment
The first payment of $ 500,000 was made to an individual A , president and CEO of CMCC .The
objective behind the payment was to make Individual A agree to do everything to obtain and
secure the Cydia and CML deal in exchange of the payment.
1.1 Foreign officials
In the present context, prime issue is to find whether individual “A” is a “foreign official” for the
purpose of the FCPA or not. Because this term is important for applicability of the FCPA, the
memo will discuss it first. In U.S. v. Bodmer, 342 F. Supp. 2d 176,179 (S.D. N.Y. 2004), the
elements of the crime are under the FCPA are summarized. The term “foreign official” under the
FCPA means any officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or
instrumentality. 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f) (1).With respect to the first payment, it is made to the
“foreign officials”; hence the FCPA will apply here for this payment as it is made to CEO of
CMCC. China Mobile Communications Corporation (CMCC), a 50% state-owned enterprise,
owns a 50% interest in CML. The government has the power to appoint the majority of CMCC’s
board of directors. This makes it under government control as an “agency”. Individual A, a CEO
is a “foreign official” as he is working for CMCC under the direct control of the government of
China. Court will believe that Individual A is a “foreign official” as an agent for the purpose of
the FCPA.

6. 6
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
1.2 Corrupt practice
Another prime issue is to analyze the nature of the first payment. “Corrupt practice” is the
important aspect for liability under the FCPA. The term "corruptly" should be interpreted in
order to determine the nature of the act of Cydia’s corporate officers based in China. Corporate
officer Li Wang Zhang was acting under direct orders of the two Vice presidents and made
several payments to “ completely obtain and guarantee” the Cydia-CML deal. The word
"corruptly" is used in order to make clear that the offer, payment, promise, or gift must be
intended to induce the recipient to misuse his official position in order to wrongfully direct
business to the payor or his client. The word "corruptly" connotes an evil motive or purpose,
intent to wrongfully influence the recipient. It does not require that the act be fully
consummated, or succeed in producing the desired outcome. S. Rep. No. at 114, (1977). Thus,
the payment must be intended to induce the wrongful exercise of official influence. This is the
clear case with respect to the first payment that the intention for the payment was corrupt and
wrongful.
1.3 Knowledge
A company will be held criminally liable for violation of the anti-bribery provisions if it makes
payments to third parties ''while knowing'' that the payments will be used by the third party as
bribes or for purposes contrary to the intent of the FCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 78dd (a) (3), 15 U.S.C.
§ 78dd-2(a) (3).
For purposes of this ''knowing'' standard, knowledge is imputed to a person if that person is
aware that he or she is engaging in such conduct or if that person is aware that a violation is

7. 7
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
''substantially certain to occur,'' or that person ''has a firm belief that such circumstance exists or
that such result is substantially certain to occur.'' 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f) (2) (A) 9, 15 U.S.C. §
78dd-2(b) (3) (A).
Hence, officers and CEO of Cydia were not aware of the payment transaction made by its
officials as they are the acting agents of the corporation and can make liable to the corporation
from their wrongful acts. Transactions of transferring funds to the foreign official itself constitute
the knowledge element to be liable under FCPA. L. Brown, The Extraterritorial Reach of the
U.S. Government’s Campaign against International Bribery, 22 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev.
407,522 (1999). The FCPA also require that (i) all transactions be authorized; (ii) all
transactions be recorded in such a way as to comply with generally accepted accounting
principles and to maintain accountability for assets; (iii) any access to assets be authorized; and
(iv) the books and records be periodically checked against existing assets to determine any
possible discrepancies. 15 U.S.C. § 78m (b) (2) (B) (i)-(iv) (1988). Thus, corporation will be
liable for the act of the officials as knowledge element of the transaction is present.
Similarly in United States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738,756 (5th Cir. 2004), the court concluded that the
FCPA's core of criminality was seen to be bribery of a foreign official to induce him to perform
an official duty in a corrupt manner. The indictment's paraphrasing the FCPA's business nexus
element passed the test for sufficiency, despite alleging no details regarding what business was
sought or how the results of the bribery were meant to assist. Therefore, with respect to the first
payment, a court could believe that the execution of the payment here would create liability for
Cydia under the FCPA.
2. Nature of the second cash payment

8. 8
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
Mr. Wang Zhang made the second payment of $150,000 to Squaresoft China Ltd., a videogame
software company currently run by Individual B, the wife of Individual A. The motive behind
this payment is amply clear that Individual A was willing to work with Cydia only if it entered
into a transaction with Squaresoft for its iFinal Fantasy X project, a role-playing game that
Squaresoft China Ltd. developed exclusively for the ePhone. We need to analyze that which
element under FCPA may inflict liability for the second payment.
The first element is to examine the applicability of the FCPA is to interpret the term “foreign
official”, because payment was made to Squaresoft. Squaresoft company currently run by
Individual B. Individual B, who is wife of individual A. we can take defense that individual B
will not fall within the ambit of the term “foreign officials” for the purpose of the FCPA because
she is not the agent or officer of the government. 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f) (1). But against our
argument, the most relevant case is on this issue affirmed that when evidence was sufficient to
sustain convictions of executive of business that sold military equipment and supplies, under 15
U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1 and 78dd-2, where in order to get foreign official to help in getting approval of
contracts, airline tickets were given to official's cousin ( close relative ) to be used on his
honeymoon; fact that cousin considered tickets to be "gift" is irrelevant to determination of
corrupt act. United States v Liebo, 923 F.2d 1308, 1313 (8 th. Cir. 1991).
In the present case, sufficient evidence existed from which a reasonable jury could find that the
airline tickets were given "corruptly." For example, Liebo (person who gave the bribe) gave the
airline tickets to Barke (person who was close relative of government official) shortly before the
third contract was approved. In addition, there was undisputed evidence concerning the close
relationship between Tiemogo (person who is the foreign official and bribe was given to him

9. 9
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
indirectly) and Barke and Tiemogo's important role in the contract approval process. There was
also testimony that Liebo classified the airline ticket for accounting purposes as a "commission
payment." This evidence could allow a reasonable jury to infer that Liebo gave the tickets to
Barke intending to influence the Niger government's contract approval process. Court concluded,
therefore, that a reasonable jury could find that Liebo's gift to Barke was given "corruptly."
Accordingly, sufficient evidence existed to support Liebo's conviction. On the facts we now
have, court would probably conclude that individual A and B are the close relative i.e. husband
and wife. The payment of $150,000 to Squaresoft China Ltd will also influence individual A.
However, a gift or mere a business deal to make payment of $150,000 to Squaresoft China Ltd.
Individual B is chief managing officer the Squaresoft China Ltd. The court under these
circumstances would not distinguish this kind of payment out of the scope of the FCPA. In
relevant cases, court reaffirmed that a gift or gratuity does not violate the Act unless it is given
"corruptly." United States v. Wagner, 884 F.2d 1090, 1096 (8th Cir. 1989); See also United
States v. Montgomery, 819 F.2d 847, 851-52 (8th Cir. 1987). Therefore a court’s ruling with
respect to the second payment would be close one. However, based on the applicable case law, a
court probably would find the second payment as a violation of the FCPA.
3. Nature of the third cash payment
Mr. Wang Zhang made a third payment of $300,000 to the China Children and Teenagers’ Fund.
In exchange for the contribution to this charity, the Minister of the Information Industry Ministry
agreed to exempt the Cydia – CML deal from certain telecom tariffs over a period of years and to
“expedite” regulatory permissions for the deal in key administrative agencies. This charity is the

10. 10
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
Minister’s personal “pet” project. Third payment was made with the motive to obtain favor from
the Information Industry Ministry in the Cydia-CML deal. Primarily, the third payment was not
made to the Minister directly but to the China Children and Teenagers’ Fund. However Minister
of the Information Industry Ministry is a “foreign official” for the purpose of the FCPA. 15
U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f) (1).
One significant fact here is to examine that the third payment was act of charity and not a direct
bribe to the foreign official. But in a high profile enforcement action under the FCPA, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) found that charitable contribution to a bona fide
charity affiliated with a government official violated the FCPA. In SEC v. Schering-Plough
Corp., No. 04-0945 (D.D.C. June 9, 2004), donations made by Schering-Plough’s Polish
subsidiary to a charitable foundation headed by a Polish government official. The SEC alleged
that these payments were made to induce the official to purchase Schering-Plough’s
pharmaceutical products for his region’s health fund. Although the donations were made without
the knowledge or approval of any employee in the United States, the SEC charged that the U.S.
parent company’s internal controls were inadequate to prevent or detect the improper payments.
It also charged the parent company with violations of the FCPA’s recordkeeping provisions for
the inaccurate records kept by its foreign subsidiary.
The case is significant in suggesting that payments to a bona fide charity could violate the FCPA
if made to influence the actions of a government official. Although the SEC did not state that
these payments were bribes within the meaning of the FCPA, in charging the FCPA accounting
violations for these payments, the SEC strongly signaled that it believes that charitable donations

11. 11
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
could violate the FCPA if made at the direction of a government employee to induce official
action.
In Kay, 359 F.3d at 738, the instant court concluded that the FCPA's core of criminality was seen
to be bribery of a foreign official to induce him to perform an official duty in a corrupt manner.
The indictment's paraphrasing of the FCPA's business nexus element passed the test for
sufficiency, despite alleging no details regarding what business was sought or how the results of
the bribery were meant to assist.
In exchange for the contribution to this charity, the Minister of the Information Industry Ministry
agreed to exempt the Cydia – CML deal from certain telecom tariffs. Therefore, with respect to
the third payment, a court may believe that the execution of the payment here would, in and of
itself, create FCPA liability for Cydia, even it was an act of charity.
After the examination of the alleged three payments, a court may rule that these acts of payments
do fall within the ambit of the applicability of the FCPA. Directors and officers who willfully
violate the anti-bribery provisions may be fined up to $100,000 each and imprisoned for up to
five years. Corporations may be liable for fines up to $2 million, subject to the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines. 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(g)(2) .When a corporation has foreign affiliates, such
as subsidiaries, venture partners, employees, the company may be held liable for the affiliate's
illegal conduct. Possibilities for liability arise if the company knowingly participates, authorizes
the activity, or if the affiliate can be considered the company's agent. Authorization occurs when
the company has knowledge and approves the conduct, either explicitly or implicitly. Eric M.
Pedersen, The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and its application to U.S. business operations in

12. 12
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
China, 7 J. Int'l Bus. & L. 13, 47 (2008). Furthermore, if the foreign affiliate could be considered
to be the company's agent, the company may be vicariously liable even without knowledge of the
conduct. Liability may result if the company exercises enough control over the affiliate so as to
be considered the action of one unit.
Additionally, if a company learns that a controlled affiliate has made an illegal payment, the
company has the same responsibility it would have in the situation were such activity performed
by its own employee. In one case, a court ruled that if a corporation learns of an unauthorized act
by someone undertaken on the company's behalf and does not repudiate it within a reasonable
time, the corporation becomes liable for the act. In Re R. Martin-Trigona, 760 F.2d 1334, 1341
(2d Cir. 1985).In the light of abovementioned discussion, court would conclude that Cydia shall
be liable for the act of its foreign officials under the FCPA.
Conclusion
Civil and criminal liability will arise if any of the three payments fall within the ambit of the
FCPA. The Act's anti-bribery provisions criminalize any payments that are “corruptly" made to
foreign officials, which are possibly done in all three payments. With respect to the first and the
second payment, they were made to the “foreign officials”. The FCPA will apply here for these
two payments as they were made to CEO of CMCC and Squaresoft China Ltd., which currently
run by his wife. Because CMCC is a 50% state-owned enterprise, this makes it under
government control as an agency in China. The examination of third payment to the foreign
government which this case requires is intrusive enough to warrant no defense because the
concern here is the motivation and intention behind the act of charity, which is bribe to foreign

13. 13
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
officials by several payments to “completely obtain and guarantee” for Cydia-CML deal. After
examinations of the alleged three payments, a court would conclude that these acts of payments
create civil and criminal liability under the FCPA.
Practical advice
Under all circumstances, Cydia should consider as next steps:
Cydia should consider non-Prosecution (or deferred Prosecution) agreements with the U.S.
Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission. It is recommended promoting
the recent settlement trend as there are many instances that U.S. based companies agreed to settle
the case with the settlement agreement.
We advice you to enter into a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and
follow the compliance plan. The DOJ has entered into several non-prosecution (or deferred
prosecution) agreements with the companies in the past. The DOJ agreed not to prosecute those
companies in exchange for, among other things, proof of continuing compliance. Non-
prosecution agreements contain elements similar to plea agreements, including fines and
monitoring. Cydia should adopt an FCPA compliance program and internal controls designed to
prevent future violations.

14. 14
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
In the present case, litigation may cause high cost of law suit. Cydia should voluntarily disclose
to the SEC or DOJ and follow the internal investigation under the guidelines of the SEC or DOJ.
Cydia should take care to implement a comprehensive FCPA compliance program that will
prevent FCPA violations by their foreign subsidiaries.
Appendix ‘A’
Compliance plan
Features of comprehensive FCPA compliance program:
• Implementing appropriate disciplinary mechanisms in Cydia for violations or failure to detect
violations;
• Adopting corporate procedures in Cydia, including a recorded due diligence inquiry, to ensure
that the Cydia forms business relationships with reputable agents, consultants, representatives,
and joint venture partners;
• Adopting corporate procedures to ensure that Cydia do not delegate substantial discretionary
authority to individuals with a propensity to engage in illegal activities;
• Including in all contracts with agents, consultants, joint venture partners, and other
representatives, warranties that no payments of money or anything of value will be offered,

15. 15
Kumar Pallav
Writing Sample: Attorney Client advice Memo
promised or paid, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, foreign political party, party
official, or candidate for foreign public or political office to induce such officials to use their
influence with a foreign government or instrumentality to obtain an improper business advantage
for the Cydia;
In addition, company review of potential charitable donations abroad should now include an
inquiry as to whether the donation is made at the suggestion or behest of any foreign government
official and whether the charity, even if bona fide, is connected in any way to any foreign
government official. Lisa H. Randall, Multilateralization of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 6
Minn. J. Global Trade 657, 659 (1997).
------------------