b'acquittal, arguing that the government had failed to2020, Hoskins was sentenced to 15 months in prison prove that he was an agent of a domestic concernand a $300,000 fine on the money laundering charges.(i.e., API) and therefore subject to the FCPA. In February 2020, the district court agreed and granted Hoskins motion for acquittal on the FCPA counts.U.S. v. Baptiste et al., No. 17-cr-10305The underlying FCPA violations arose out of bribery(D. Mass. March 11, 2020)payments made by APIs foreign consultants toRetired U.S. Army colonel Joseph Baptiste and former Indonesian officials to secure a contract for a construc- lawyer and Haitian Ambassador-at-large Roger Richard tion project. The court found that Hoskins hadBoncy, convicted in June 2019 of FCPA and Travel controlled the hiring of consultants and had followedAct conspiracy and money laundering charges, were APIs instructions concerning the consultants agree- both granted a new trial based on the ineffective ments, but that this evidence was insufficient to find thatperformance of Baptistes trial attorney. Baptiste and Hoskins was acting as APIs agent. The court empha- Boncy had been convicted after a nine-day jury trial sized that the essential element of an agency relation- for allegedly soliciting bribes from two undercover FBI ship is the right of the principal to control the agentsagents who were posing as prospective investors in a actions. The court found that the evidence showed thatproposed $84 million port development project in Haiti.API had controlled the overall hiring of the consultants, but did not show that API retained any interim control over Hoskins efforts to achieve APIs objectives. The court rejected the governments argument that APIs general control over the hiring process made Hoskins APIs agent, instead finding that the government had failed to show that API had a right of interim control over Mr. Hoskins actions. While API had authority to dictate the terms of the consultants engagement and Hoskins assistance in hiring those consultants, API had no control over the actions Hoskins took to obtain those objectives. The court also rejected the governments argument that indicia of control were present. The court explained that while the principals authority to terminate the agency relationship is especially important, API had no authority to hire or fire Hoskins. Further, no one at API had the power to review Hoskins performance in connection with his hiring the consultants or to other-wise exert control over his actions. While the court vacated Hoskins FCPA convictions, it denied his motion for acquittal of the money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering counts. The DOJ and Hoskins have each appealed the unfavor-able portions of the Courts decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in March 35'