Skip to main content

Helmerich & Payne Agrees to Pay $1 Million Penalty to Resolve Allegations of Foreign Bribery in South America

Helmerich & Payne Inc. (H&P) has entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice to resolve improper payments by H&P to government officials in Argentina and Venezuela in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

H&P, a Delaware corporation, is headquartered in Tulsa, Okla., and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The company provides oil drilling rigs, equipment and personnel on a contract basis, primarily in the United States and South America, with subsidiaries in both Argentina and Venezuela.

As described in the agreement, H&P has acknowledged responsibility for the actions of its subsidiaries, employees and agents who made various improper payments to officials of the Argentine and Venezuelan customs services, both government agencies. These payments were made in order to import and export goods that were not within regulations, to import goods that could not lawfully be imported, and to evade higher duties and taxes on the goods.

The agreement requires that H&P pay a $1 million penalty, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department. The agreement recognizes H&P’s voluntary disclosure and thorough self-investigation of the underlying conduct, the cooperation provided by the company to the Department, and the extensive remedial efforts undertaken by the company.

As a result of these mitigating factors, the Department has agreed not to prosecute H&P or its subsidiaries for the making of improper payments, provided that H&P satisfies its obligations under the agreement for a period of two years. Those obligations include ongoing cooperation, payment of the $1 million penalty and further remedial steps.

In a related matter, H&P reached a settlement today with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under which it agreed to pay more than $375,000 in disgorgement of profits, including pre-judgment interest.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Kathleen M. Hamann of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...