NEWARK, N.J. – A federal grand jury has indicted the former president and the former chief legal officer of Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., a publicly traded Fortune 200 technology services company based in Teaneck, New Jersey, in connection with a foreign bribery scheme.
U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito of the District of New Jersey, Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, and Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie of the FBI Newark Field Office made the announcement today.
“Corruption, bribery, and kickbacks have no rightful place in American business, and corporate officials who bribe foreign officials to gain a competitive advantage are breaking U.S. law,” U.S. Attorney Carpenito said. “As this indictment shows, we will investigate and prosecute those who would misuse their privileged positions as senior corporate executives to offer and pay bribes, and then conceal their misconduct from investors, so that we can help to restore public trust in a market that is fair and open for all.”
“The allegations in the indictment filed yesterday describe a sophisticated international bribery scheme authorized and concealed by C-suite executives of a publicly-traded multinational company,” Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski said. “The indictment of Gordon Coburn and Steven Schwartz demonstrates the Department’s commitment to relentlessly pursuing corporate fraud and corruption wherever it is found.”
“The FBI’s stance on corruption and fraud is that of zero tolerance and therefore one of our highest priorities,” Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie said. “In this time of international commerce, whether at home or overseas, the FBI is committed to fighting both corruption and fraud. Companies should have the opportunity to prosper through honest business practices, not the practice of bribery and backroom deals.”
Gordon Coburn, 55, of Beaver Creek, Colorado, and Steven Schwartz, 51, of Greenwich, Connecticut, were charged in a 12-count indictment with one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), three counts of violating the FCPA, seven counts of falsifying books and records, and one count of circumventing and failing to implement internal accounting controls. The charges stem from an alleged scheme to bribe one or more government officials in India to ensure the issuance of a construction permit necessary to complete the development of an office campus that would support thousands of employees and become one of Cognizant’s largest facilities in India.
The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty of the District of New Jersey. The defendants are scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Falk in Newark federal court.
According to the indictment:
In April 2014, Coburn and Schwartz authorized an unlawful payment of $2 million to one or more government officials in India to secure and obtain the necessary permits to open a new office campus. To conceal Cognizant’s involvement in the scheme, Coburn, Schwartz and others allegedly agreed that a third-party construction company would obtain the permit by making the illegal bribe payment and that Cognizant would reimburse the construction company through phony construction invoices at the end of the project. The indictment alleges that in late June 2014, after the conspirators had agreed that the construction company would make the bribe payment on behalf of Cognizant, the construction company secured the necessary government order for Cognizant to obtain the permit, allowing Cognizant to complete the development of the office campus and avoid millions of dollars in costs. Months later, the conspirators are alleged to have knowingly caused Cognizant to funnel over $2 million to the construction company disguised as payment for cost overruns on the office campus when they knew that the actual purpose of the payment was to reimburse the construction company for the bribe payment.
According to the indictment, as Coburn, Schwartz and others had previously agreed, they hid the bribe reimbursement payment within a series of line items in a construction change order request to be paid to the construction company, thereby concealing the true nature and purpose of the reimbursement, falsifying Cognizant’s books and records, and circumventing and failing to implement its internal controls.
The Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey also announced today that they have declined prosecution of Cognizant after considering the factors set forth in the Department of Justice’s Principles of Prosecution of Business Organizations and the Corporate Enforcement Policy, including Cognizant’s prompt voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation, as well as Cognizant’s disgorgement to the Department and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the cost savings that resulted from the bribery scheme.
In the related case with the SEC, Cognizant entered into a cease-and-desist order and agreed to pay the SEC a civil penalty, disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $25 million.
The Department appreciates the significant cooperation provided by the SEC in this case.
The case is being investigated by the FBI’s Newark Field Office.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Courtney A. Howard and Nicholas P. Grippo, Attorney in Charge of the Trenton Office of the District of New Jersey, and Assistant Chief David A. Last of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
The Fraud Section is responsible for investigating and prosecuting all FCPA matters. Additional information about the Justice Department’s FCPA enforcement efforts can be found at www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa.
The charges in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year