b'FCPA. The settlement required JBS to pay $27 millionexisting registrations and licenses, facilitating the in disgorgement, and the Batistas agreed to each paydistribution of Beam products from its bottling facility a civil penalty of $550,000. JBS, J&F, and the Batistasto distribution facilities throughout the rest of India, and all agreed to comply with a three-year obligation toplacing orders for Beam products at government-run self-report on the status of their enhanced compliancestores. To conceal the bribes, the sales promoters and program, and all of the parties were also ordered todistributors submitted false and/or inflated invoices to cease and desist committing any violations of theBeam India. They then used the inflated funds to make FCPAs books and records and internal accountingthe bribery payments. controls provisions.The information alleges that, between 2006 and late 2012, Beam India overpaid the third party that promoted its products to Indias military more than $1.5 million. It Regulators noted that Pilgrim failed toalso overpaid its sales promoter in Delhi in excess of $550,000. The management of Beam India knew about enact a code of conduct until 2015, moreand authorized the bribes. In September 2011, a senior than five years after being acquired by theBeam India manager notified a high-ranking manager of Beams Asia Pacific/South America (APSA) business Batistas; never had a formal anti-briberyunit, which had oversight of Beam India, that a foreign and compliance program; and completelyofficial with authority to deny one of Beam Indias new label registrations had solicited a bribe of $18,000. The lacked compliance personnel. As a result,APSA manager discussed the matter with two high-the Batistas were able to successfullyranking APSA executives, including the possibility of concealing the bribe by having a third-party bottling conceal their bribery scheme from Pilgrimscompany pay the official and subsequently submit false management until May 2017. invoices to Beam India. Ultimately, the APSA executives approved the bribe and instructed the APSA manager to have the Beam India manager channel the bribe payments through the third-party bottler. The bottler paid the bribe and sent false invoices to Beam India, United States v. Beam Suntory, Inc., which Beam India subsequently paid. 20-cr-745 (N.D. Ill.)The information also alleges that Beam willfully failed On October 21, 2020, the DOJ filed a criminal to implement proper internal controls. For instance, information against Beam Suntory, Inc. (Beam), Beam failed to conduct sufficient due diligence before a publicly-traded U.S. corporation that produces andit acquired Beam India in 2006. Further, Beam ignored sells distilled beverages. The information chargedthe findings and recommendations of an accounting Beam with conspiracy to violate the FCPAs antibriberyfirm hired by Beam to review Beam Indias compliance and accounting provisions. The information allegedpolicies in 2011, despite the fact that the accounting a conspiracy involving bribes paid by Beam India, afirm identified several red flags, including the lack of wholly-owned subsidiary of Beam that imports andanti-corruption policies and anti-corruption training at distributes Beam products throughout India. IndiasBeam India; the belief among Beam Indias manage-alcohol industry is highly-regulated. As a result ofment that Beam India was not legally responsible for Indias extensive regulatory apparatus, Beam Indiaits sales promoters conduct and that doing business in and associated third parties acting on its behalf haveIndia required making grease/facilitation payments to frequent interactions with government officials involvedgovernment officials; that some of Beam Indias vendors in providing the regulatory inspections, licenses,were high risks for corruption; and that Beam Indias registrations, and approvals necessary to import andmonitoring was inadequate compared to its signifi-distribute Beam products.cant corruption risk. Moreover, when an Indian law firm evaluated Beam Indias compliance in early 2011, The information alleges that from Beams acquisitionAPSA executives expressed concern that the review of Beam India in 2006 to late 2012, Beam India andwould find improprieties with third-party promoters and associated third parties engaged in a wide-rangingdistributors, which would result in Beam Indias needing conspiracy to bribe Indian government officials. Beamto terminate its business relationship with those entities India channeled most of the bribes through third-partyto the detriment of Beam Indias business interests. sales promoters and distributors. These third partiesFurther, a Beam employee wrote in an email concerning paid government officials in exchange for grantingthe compliance review that Beams legal department Beam India new registrations and licenses, renewinghad determined that U.S. compliance practices should 20'