## Facts

- Lawrence Hoskins, a British citizen working for Alstom entities in the United Kingdom and France, was alleged to have participated in a scheme to bribe Indonesian officials to help a U.S.-based Alstom subsidiary win a major power-project contract.
- The alleged conduct involved approving the retention and payment of consultants, with knowledge that portions of consultant payments would be used as bribes.
- The relevant U.S. entity was Alstom Power, Inc., headquartered in Connecticut, alleged to qualify as a “domestic concern” under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
- The Third Superseding Indictment alleged Hoskins performed functions for Alstom subsidiaries, including oversight of consultant hiring connected to the project, and asserted he acted as an “agent” of the U.S. subsidiary.
- Count One charged conspiracy with objects including violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and accounting-related provisions.
- The government also sought to proceed on the theory that Hoskins could be liable for FCPA conspiracy or aiding and abetting even if he was not an agent and committed no relevant acts while in the United States.

## Issues

1. Whether a non-resident foreign national, not proven to be an agent of a domestic concern and not acting in U.S. territory, may be prosecuted for conspiracy to violate or aiding and abetting violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
2. Whether the government may present an FCPA conspiracy/accomplice-liability theory that does not require the jury to find the defendant falls within the FCPA’s enumerated covered categories.

## Decision

- The court granted in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss Count One, barring the government from pursuing an FCPA conspiracy theory that did not require proof the defendant fell within an FCPA-covered category (as charged, agency of a domestic concern or territorial conduct).
- The court denied the government’s motion in limine, allowing the defense to argue the government must prove the defendant was an agent of a domestic concern (or otherwise directly covered by the FCPA) to obtain a conviction on the FCPA conspiracy charge.
- The court held the FCPA’s text and structure preclude using general conspiracy or aiding-and-abetting statutes to impose FCPA liability on foreign nationals whom the FCPA does not directly cover.

## Legal Principles

- The FCPA specifies with precision the categories of persons subject to its anti-bribery provisions (including issuers, domestic concerns, and their officers, directors, employees, and agents) and separately covers any person who commits relevant acts while in U.S. territory.
- When Congress delineates the scope of a substantive criminal statute and excludes certain persons or situations, the government may not use conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) or aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2) to circumvent those limits (the Gebardi principle).
- The FCPA’s extraterritorial provisions, including amendments expanding certain foreign-national coverage, do not authorize treating all foreign participants abroad as liable through general accomplice or conspiracy doctrines.
- For an FCPA conspiracy prosecution against a non-resident foreign national in these circumstances, the government must prove the defendant is within an enumerated FCPA-covered class (e.g., an agent of a domestic concern) or engaged in covered territorial conduct.

## Conclusion

The court restricted the FCPA conspiracy charge to the statute’s enumerated coverage, holding that general conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting theories cannot expand FCPA liability to a foreign national acting abroad unless the government proves the defendant fits within a category the FCPA itself makes directly chargeable.


United States v. Hoskins, 123 F. Supp. 3d 316 (D. Conn. 2015)