Draft Investigation Plan Memorandum

---
name: draft-fcpa-investigation-plan-memorandum
task_id: white-collar-defense-investigations/draft-investigation-plan-memorandum
description: Investigation plan memorandum for an internal FCPA investigation, covering scope definition, privilege protection, witness interview sequencing, document preservation with targeted IT preservation steps where warranted, voluntary self-disclosure assessment, and immediate remedial steps triggered by red flags in the record.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Draft Internal FCPA Investigation Plan Memorandum

## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Treat the assignment as a counsel-directed investigation plan for an Audit Committee, not a generic risk summary.
- Identify the suspected misconduct lane at the outset: anti-bribery exposure, books-and-records exposure, internal-controls failure, or all three.
- Separate confirmed facts from allegations, inference, and open questions; the plan should show what is known now and what must be tested next.
- If the materials show an evidence-destruction risk, immediate preservation steps take priority over deeper merits analysis.
- If the record contains an agent or intermediary tied by family, personal, or business relationship to a foreign official, treat that as a primary red flag and build tracing steps around it.
- If the facts suggest possible government awareness or parallel inquiry, the self-disclosure question becomes time-sensitive and must be addressed expressly.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- The memorandum stays at a high level and fails to convert red flags into concrete next steps, owners, and timing.
- Preservation recommendations are generic rather than tailored to the devices, accounts, custodians, or data sources implicated by the record.
- Interview sequencing is random or seniority-driven, instead of preserving fact development and minimizing contamination of testimony.
- Privilege protection is assumed rather than operationalized through counsel direction, distribution controls, and interview warnings.
- The self-disclosure discussion is treated as background instead of a live strategic decision with enforcement consequences.
- Books-and-records and internal-controls exposure are omitted or collapsed into the anti-bribery issue.
- Parallel proceedings, employee counsel concerns, and self-incrimination issues are not integrated into the plan.
- Recommendations are stated as observations rather than imperative actions tied to responsible roles and timing.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- FCPA anti-bribery analysis should be framed under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, 78dd-2, and 78dd-3, with attention to payment, foreign official status, corrupt intent, and business purpose.
- Books-and-records and internal-controls exposure should be analyzed under Exchange Act § 13(b)(2)(A) and § 13(b)(2)(B).
- Intermediary knowledge and wilful blindness can matter where payments move through agents, consultants, distributors, or other third parties.
- A state-owned enterprise employee or similar government-linked actor may qualify as a foreign official.
- Privilege and work product should be preserved by directing the investigation through counsel and using Upjohn warnings for employee interviews.
- Upjohn Corp. v. United States and the company’s own privilege policies should govern witness communications; do not assume individual representation.
- Voluntary self-disclosure analysis should be anchored in DOJ corporate enforcement policy concepts: timeliness, completeness, cooperation, and remediation.
- Document preservation should track ordinary preservation-duty principles and e-discovery best practices; where needed, favor targeted holds, access restrictions, device preservation, and forensic collection before routine systems changes.
- Where parallel regulator, civil, or employment proceedings are possible, the plan should account for privilege, confidentiality, and self-incrimination issues.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds
- Start with a short preliminary assessment: what prompted the review, what the core theory of misconduct is, and what risks appear most immediate.
- Define scope by entity, custodian, transaction type, geography, time period, and channel of payment or approval.
- For each suspected channel, ask:
  1. Who approved, processed, or concealed the transaction?
  2. What benefit was conferred or intended?
  3. Which records should reflect the transaction, and where might they be inaccurate?
  4. What third-party relationship or side arrangement could have moved value to a foreign official?
- Where an intermediary relationship with a foreign official is suspected, plan financial tracing from company payment to agent receipt to any onward transfer or related-person benefit.
- Where a device wipe, reformatting request, account deletion, or similar event appears, require immediate preservation before any routine IT activity or user access change.
- Where the record suggests a tailored concealment mechanism, align document review with source systems that could capture communications, approvals, invoices, wire data, expense support, travel, gifts, and retention exceptions.
- Sequence interviews to minimize contamination:
  1. custodians and operational personnel,
  2. finance, compliance, and IT custodians,
  3. intermediary-facing personnel,
  4. managers and approvers,
  5. senior personnel last unless facts require otherwise.
- Build every employee interview around an Upjohn warning, a confidentiality explanation, and a note that the company controls whether and how information is used.
- Assess books-and-records exposure separately from bribery intent; inaccurate coding, vague descriptions, side letters, or unsupported approvals can be violations even if a bribe is not yet proven.
- Evaluate self-disclosure by comparing the current factual posture against the government’s likely awareness, the strength of evidence, the ability to remediate promptly, and the cost of delay.
- Consider parallel proceedings for their effect on document production, witness availability, and whether a coordinated hold strategy is needed.
- Convert each identified risk into an action item with a specific owner, a short rationale, and a deadline or urgency trigger.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Organize the memo from urgent containment to deeper investigation:
  1. immediate preservation and access controls,
  2. scope and key fact questions,
  3. interview sequence,
  4. document/data review,
  5. legal assessment and reporting,
  6. self-disclosure decision points,
  7. remediation and follow-up.
- Distinguish present-tense containment steps from forward-looking investigative steps and from post-finding remediation.
- If multiple jurisdictions, business units, or transaction streams are implicated, treat them as separate investigative branches unless the evidence clearly shows a single common mechanism.
- If facts cross multiple time periods, explain why the earliest suspicious conduct matters for scoping, preservation, and limitations-sensitive review.
- If senior management may be involved, preserve independence by channeling facts through counsel and avoiding premature escalation that could compromise witness candor.
- If there is a risk of parallel internal, regulatory, or employment action, state how sequencing affects privilege and the order of interviews or notifications.

## 6. Output structure conventions
- Write as a formal memorandum to the Audit Committee with a restrained, executive tone and clear headings.
- Use conventional sections such as:
  - Background and preliminary assessment
  - Scope of investigation
  - Immediate preservation and IT action steps
  - Witness interview plan
  - Document and data review plan
  - Legal and regulatory assessment
  - Voluntary self-disclosure analysis
  - Parallel proceedings and privilege considerations
  - Recommended next steps and timeline
- Put urgent containment measures near the front and make them action-oriented.
- State specific next steps in imperative form and tie each to a responsible role, such as outside counsel, internal legal, compliance, IT, finance, or a business lead.
- Include the governing legal basis for each substantive proposition when you rely on a rule, doctrine, or enforcement standard.
- Keep the memorandum investigative and advisory; do not present unsupported conclusions as settled facts.
- If the record supports only a preliminary recommendation on self-disclosure, say so and identify the facts that must be confirmed before a final decision.
- Close with a concise action list that can be implemented immediately and a short timeline for follow-up reporting to the Audit Committee.