Cognizant to pay $25 million to SEC on grounds of bribery

Coginzant, the U.S multinational is going to pay $25 million to the U.S Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) to help settle bribery charges. This comes after the Department of Justice filed criminal cases against two of its former executives.

These former executives have allegedly been initiating payments of millions of dollars as bribe to an Indian government official, according to the Security and Exchange Commission.

Cognizant has said that it would pay $25 million as a settlement against the violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, SEC has said.

The complain reads that in 2014, a top Tamil Nadu official had asked for a $2 million bribe from the firm for constructing Cognizant’s 2. 7 million square foot campus in Chennai.

In the complaint, President of Cognizant Gordon Coburn and Chief Legal Officer Steven E Schwartz had told the contractor’s to pay the bribe and directed its subordinates to conceal it. They then doctored the contractor’s change orders  to cover up the bribe.

The SEC also states that the construction firm was authorized by Cognizant for two more bribes. It was totaling to $1.6 million. Complaints also states that Cognizant changed the figures to conceal the payment made to repay the firm.

The SEC has also charged Coburn and Shwartz with violating anti-bribery, books and records and internal accounts. The SEC is also seeking permanent injunctions, monetary penalties, and officer-director bars against Coburn and Schwartz.

In a statement, Department of Justice has mentioned that Coburn and Schwartz are in a 12-count indictment with a count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, three counts of violating the FCPA, seven counts for falsifying books and records and one count for failing to implement accounting controls.

In April 2014, according to an indictment Coburn and Shwartz authorized an unlawful payment of $2 million to obtain more campuses in India. To conceal Cognizant’s involvement,  Coburn, Shwartz and others agreed that a third party construction company could obtain permission and they agreed to make fake payments with false invoices to the latter.

 

 

Recommended For You

About the Author: Team Finance Intellect