b'Federal Court Opinionscharged as separate offenses the sending of three United States v. Coburn, 439 F. Supp. 3d 361 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2020) interstate emails, all of which were in furtherance of the same bribery scheme. The DOJ argued that On February 14, 2020, the U.S. District Court for thethis wasDistrict of New Jersey issued an opinion evaluatingpermissible as the relevant unit of prosecutionthe sufficiency of a 12-count FCPA indictment (thefor an FCPA chargethe precise act a defendantIndictment) against two former executives at a largeis prohibited from performingis to make use of technology company (the Company), Gordon J.interstate commerce facilities, such as email, toCoburn (Coburn) and Steven Schwartz (Schwartz).carry out a bribe. The Indictment arises from allegations that Coburn The appropriate unit of prosecution for an FCPA and Schwartz conspired to direct the Companyscharge was a matter of first impression in the Third construction firm to pay a $2 million bribe to an officialCircuit. To answer the question, the court examined with the Chennai Metro Development Authority in orderthe grammatical structure and language of the FCPA to secure permits necessary to build and operate ato ascertain legislative intent and drew analogies from remote campus for the Company. Coburn is furtherthe mail and wire fraud statutes. Ultimately, the court alleged to have authorized a payment of $500,000 toconcluded that interstate emails are permissible, if the construction company for its assistance in facili- not inevitable, units of prosecution. As such, Coburns tating the bribery.multiplicity claim was rejected. Coburn and Schwartz challenged the Indictment onBoth defendants also moved for a bill of particulars as several technical grounds:to certain facts and theories. The court granted this Schwartz, a former Executive Vice President andmotion only as to two categories of information: (i) theChief Legal and Corporate Affairs Officer at theidentities of the declarants of any statements the DOJ Company, moved to dismiss on the grounds thatplans to introduce in evidence; and (ii) records sufficient the Indictment failed to clearly identify the countsto identify the relevant payments.with which he was charged. Specifically, Schwartz pointed to a chart summarizing how the defendants used the means and instrumentalities of interstateUnited States v. Hoskins, No. 3:12-CR-238 and international commerce in their scheme and(JBA), 2020 WL 914302 (D. Conn. Feb. 26, noted the absence of his name in connection with2020)certain counts. The court rejected this argument, finding that against the relevant legal background,Lawrence Hoskins, a British citizen employed bythe allegations of the chart were clear enough.Alstom UK Limited, British subsidiary of Alstom S.A., Coburn, the former President and Chief Financialwas convicted in November 2019 of violating and conspiring to violate the FCPA under the theory that Officer of the Company, moved to dismiss twohe was an agent of Alstom Power Inc. (API.), Alstoms counts against him on the grounds of multiplicity.U.S. subsidiary, as well as money laundering charges.5 Coburn argued that the Indictment impermissiblyHoskins subsequently filed a motion for judgment of 5The DOJ undertook a multi-year investigation into an international bribery scheme by Alstom S.A. in numerous countries around the world. On December 22, 2014, Alstom S.A. pleaded guilty to violating the FCPA by falsifying its books and records and by failing to implement sufficient internal controls. Alstom S.A. agreed to pay a $772 million fine which, at the time, was the largest FCPA settlement in the history of the DOJ. 34'