United States of America v. John Blondek, Vernon R. Tull, Donald Castle, and Darrell W.T. Lowry (1990) - Importance and Analysis

The case of United States of America v. John Blondek, Vernon R. Tull, Donald Castle, and Darrell W.T. Lowry (1990) is important in controlling dishonest foreign officials who accept bribes for indecent business benefits. The wider strategy of the DOJ is to target the demand region of the foreign bribery instead of concentrating on the individuals paying bribes. The decision of the Congress to pass by such prosecutions was supported by the facts of this case, because foreign countries are required to prosecute their own officials for taking bribes. The case also includes an analysis of the legislative history of the FCPA and the decision of the Supreme Court in Gebardi found in the Mann Act as in accord with the legislative policy to leave a distinct group of individuals without any punishment, even if they are found involved in the violation of the applicable law.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. JOHN
BLONDEK, VERNON R. TULL, DONALD
CASTLE, AND DARRELL W.T. LOWRY (1990)

IMPORTANCE OF CASE
To control dishonest foreign officials who accept bribes for
indecent business benefits.
Wider strategy of the DOJ is to target the demand region of
the foreign bribery instead of concentrating on the
individuals paying bribes
Decisions of the courts, included an broad analysis of the
legislative history of the FCPA

CONTD..
The decision of Supreme Court in Gebardi found in the
Mann Act as in accord with the legislative policy to leave
a distinct group of individuals without any punishment,
even if they are found involved in the violation of the
applicable law
In the 5th Circuit Opinion, the court held that foreign
officials might not be impeached under 18 USC 371 for
the conspiracy, to disobey the FCPA

CONTD..
Foreign officials
accepting the bribe
were not taken for
the trial for the
applicable crime
(FCPA Professor ,
2017)
Congress might
have affirmatively
opted to exempt
the foreign officials
from prosecution
Payments which
are considered as
illegal or unethical
within the US, if not
considered
similarly in foreign
countries, such
payments cannot
be outlawed
(Dearington, 2017)

CONCLUSION
Foreign officials
involved in
plotting of
infringing the
anti-bribery
provisions of the
FCPA, might not
be prosecuted
The decision of
the Congress to
pass by such
prosecutions was
supported by the
facts of this case,
because foreign
countries are
required to
prosecute their
own officials for
taking bribes.

REFERENCES
• Dearington, M.F., 2017. Ocasio v. United States: The Supreme
Court’ Sudden Expansion of Conspiracy Liability (And Why
Bribe-Taking Foreign Officials Should Take Note). Washington
and Lee Law Review Online, 74(1), pp.204-10.
• FCPA Professor, 2017. How The Supreme Court’s Hobbs Act
Decision In Ocasio v. United States Could Expand The Bounds
Of Conspiracy Law And Mean Trouble For Bribe-Taking Foreign
Officials. [Online] Available at:
http://fcpaprofessor.com/category/demand-for-bribes/
[Accessed 21 September 2018].
• Stanford University, 2018. United States of America v. John
Blondek, et al. [Online] Available at:
http://fcpa.stanford.edu/enforcement-action.html?id=8
[Accessed 20 September 2018].