Andy Spalding | Senior Editor
Andrew Brady Spalding is a senior editor of the FCPA Blog.
He’s a Professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.
A former Fulbright Senior Research Scholar and lawyer at a major international firm, Andy has lectured and conducted research on anti-corruption law throughout the developing world.
In addition to his frequent posts on the FCPA Blog, his work has appeared in the Wisconsin Law Review, the UCLA Law Review, and the Florida Law Review, among others.
Andy’s groundbreaking research about FCPA enforcement and its impact on developing countries has been discussed in leading publications, including the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, the Atlantic, and the New York Times.
Recent Posts
Andy Spalding: But what can I do before a violation occurs?
By almost any measure, the new FCPA enforcement policy is an important and positive development. Tom Fox, Bill Steinman, George Terwilliger, and others both here and beyond have noted as much, and I rise in concurrence.
Andy Spalding: Corruption isn’t someone else’s problem
The FCPA is both a confession, and a conviction. We confess that corruption is not somebody else’s problem; it’s our problem. We do not point a finger; we look in the mirror.
Andy Spalding: A plea to the DOJ — bring back pre-existing compliance
At a recent conference, I had the good fortune of asking a former high-ranking DOJ official, “how is it that pre-existing compliance is no part of the Pilot Program’s penalty reductions and declinations?”
Andy Spalding: The strange disappearance of pre-existing compliance
The word “disappearance” does not suggest that the thing has ceased to exist. It simply means we can’t see it. Maybe it still exists, maybe it does not. But because it’s no longer visible, we wonder.
Andy Spalding: The Pilot Program’s missing piece
I’ve argued in prior posts that above all else, the Pilot Program is our FCPA declination policy. We’ve been asking for this now for years, and thus it is an important step. But still, something is missing. Let’s figure that out.
Andy Spalding: The Pilot Program addresses three criticisms, but raises a new one
The Pilot Program is best understood as the DOJ’s response to three distinct lines of public commentary on FCPA enforcement. The Department should be commended for responding to this commentary — indeed, for even listening to it in the first place. And the responses have, in my view, largely been smart and fair. But it’s created a new difficulty. Fortunately, that difficulty is easily addressed.
Andy Spalding: ‘Constructive criticism’ actually has two elements
Law schools have not historically excelled at cultivating the art of constructive criticism. So many of us once were, and some still are, people who believe that success is a zero-sum game; that the only way to build oneself up is to tear another down; that doing good is far less important than doing well; that another’s contribution is inherently a threat to my own self-worth.
Andy Spalding: The Pilot Program as declination policy
We’ll spend a number of posts this month explaining what is good about the Pilot Program and what may be better. The last post explained the four (not three) requirements the Program establishes — voluntary disclosure, cooperation, remediation, and disgorgement — and how some of those terms have been carefully (re)defined. Here, let’s talk about what’s in it for the defendant.
Andy Spalding: How could we make the Pilot Program even better?
The fall is upon us, the academic year has begun, and the season is right for reflecting on all that is good and all that could be better. In the FCPA space, among the biggest stories of the last year has been the Pilot Program — an experimental enforcement policy first announced in April 2016.
Andy Spalding: The South Korea revolution continues
Samsung’s Lee Jae-yongFriday’s conviction of Lee Jae-yong, the de facto head of South Korea’s flagship Samsung conglomerate, marked yet another dramatic step in the country’s anti-corruption revolution.