Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 108

Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 1 of 20

United States District Court


Southern District of Texas
FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 2 8 2010


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk o f .
HOUSTON DIVISION --::=

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
)
)
)
H-IO
Criminal No.
- 431
)
v. ) 18 U.S.C. § 371
) 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-l
TECHNIP S.A., )
)
Defendant. )
}

INFORMATION

The United States charges:

General Allegations

At all times material to this Information, unless otherwise stated:

1. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, Title

15, United States Code, Section 78dd-l, et seq. ("FCPA"), was enacted by

Congress for the purpose of, among other things, making it unlawful for

certain classes of persons and entities to act corruptly in furtherance of an

offer, promise, authorization, or payment of money or anything of value to a

foreign government official for the purpose of securing any improper

advantage, or of assisting in obtaining or retaining business for, or directing

business to, any person.

1
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 2 of 20

Relevant Entities and Individuals

The Defendant

2. Defendant TECHNIP S.A. ("TECHNIP"), a French corporation

headquartered in Paris, France, was engaged in the business of providing

engineering, procurement, and construction ("EPC") services around the

world, including designing and building liquefied natural gas ("LNG")

production plants. In August 2001, TECHNIP registered a class of securities

with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and in

October 2001 became listed on the New York Stock Exchange. As an issuer

of publicly traded securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Title 15, United States Code, Section 781,

TECHNIP was required to file periodic reports with the SEC under Section

13 of the Securities Exchange Act, Title 15, United States Code, Section

78m. Accordingly, beginning in August 2001, TECHNIP was an "issuer"

within the meaning of the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code, Section

78dd-1.

The Joint Venture, Its Members, and Related Entities

3. The "Joint Venture" was a four-company venture formed in

1990 for the purposes of bidding on and, if successful, performing a series of

EPC contracts to design and build an LNG plant and several expansions on

2
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 3 of 20

Bonny Island, Nigeria ("the Bonny Island Project"). The Joint Venture

consisted of TECHNIP, Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., and two other

companies referred to herein as "EPC Contractor C" and "EPC Contractor

D." The Steering Committee of the Joint Venture consisted of high-level

executives from each of the four Joint Venture companies. Pursuant to a

joint venture agreement, the Steering Committee made major decisions on

behalf of the Joint Venture, including whether to hire agents to assist the

Joint Venture in winning EPC contracts, whom to hire as agents, and how

much to pay the agents. Profits, revenues, and expenses, including the cost

of agents, were shared equally among the four joint venture partners.

4. Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc. and, before September 1998, its

predecessor company, The M.W. Kellogg Company (collectively, "KBR"),

were engaged in the business of providing EPC services around the world.

KBR was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas.

As such, KBR was a "domestic concern" within the meaning of the FCP A,

Title 15, United States Code, Section 78dd-2.

5. Albert Jackson Stanley ("Stanley") was a United States citizen

and a resident of Houston, Texas. Stanley served in various capacities as an

officer and/or director ofKBR, and also served on the Joint Venture's

Steering Committee. Stanley was a "domestic concern" and an officer,

3
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 4 of 20

employee, and agent of a "domestic concern" within the meaning of the

FCPA, Title 15, United States Code, Section 78dd-2.

6. "EPC Contractor C" was a corporation organized under the

laws of The Netherlands and was headquartered in Amsterdam, The

Netherlands. EPC Contractor C was a wholly owned subsidiary of an Italian

engineering and construction company headquartered in Milan, Italy.

7. "EPC Contractor D" was an engineering and construction

company headquartered in Yokohama, Japan.

8. M.W. Kellogg Ltd. was a corporation organized under the laws

of the United Kingdom. M.W. Kellogg Ltd. was 55% owned by KBR and

450/0 owned by EPC Contractor D.

9. The Joint Venture operated through three Portuguese special

purpose corporations based in Madeira, Portugal: "Madeira Company 1,"

"Madeira Company 2," and "Madeira Company 3." Both Madeira Company

1 and Madeira Company 2 were owned equally by the four Joint Venture

companies. Madeira Company 3, the entity that the Joint Venture used to

enter into consulting agreements with the Joint Venture's agents, was 50%

owned by M.W. Kellogg Ltd., 25% owned by TECHNIP, and 25% owned

by EPC Contractor C.

4
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 5 of 20

The Joint Venture's Agents

10. Jeffrey Tesler was a citizen of the United Kingdom and a

resident of London, England. The Joint Venture hired Tesler to help it

obtain business in Nigeria, including by offering to pay and paying bribes to

high-level Nigerian government officials. Tesler was an agent of the Joint

Venture and of each of the j oint venture companies.

11. Tri-Star Investments Ltd. ("Tri-Star") was a Gibraltar

corporation that Tesler used as a corporate vehicle to enter into agent

contracts with and receive payments from the Joint Venture. By the time the

Joint Venture had stopped paying Tri-Star in January 2004, the Joint

Venture had paid Tri-Star over $130 million for use in bribing Nigerian

government officials. Tri-Star was an agent of the Joint Venture and of each

of the joint venture companies.

12. Consulting Company B was a global trading company

headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. The Joint Venture hired Consulting

Company B to help it obtain business in Nigeria, including by offering to

pay and paying bribes to Nigerian government officials. By the time the

Joint Venture had stopped paying Consulting Company B in June 2004, the

Joint Venture had paid Consulting Company B over $50 million for use in

5
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 6 of 20

bribing Nigerian government officials. Consulting Company B was an agent

of the Joint Venture and of each of the joint venture companies.

The Nigerian Government Entities

13. The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation ("NNPC") was a

Nigerian government-owned company charged with development of

Nigeria's oil and gas wealth and regulation of the country's oil and gas

industry. NNPC was a shareholder in certain joint ventures with

multinational oil companies. NNPC was an entity and instrumentality of the

Government of Nigeria and its officers and employees were "foreign

officials," within the meaning of the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code,

Sections 78dd-l(f)(1 )(A), 78dd-2(h)(2)(A), and 78dd-3(f)(2)(A).

14. Nigeria LNG Limited ("NLNG") was created by the Nigerian

government to develop the Bonny Island Project and was the entity that

awarded the related EPC contracts. The largest shareholder of NLNG was

NNPC, which owned 49% ofNLNG. The other owners ofNLNG were

multinational oil companies. Through the NLNG board members appointed

by NNPC, among other means, the Nigerian government exercised control

over NLNG, including but not limited to the ability to block the award of

EPC contracts. NLNG was an entity and instrumentality of the Government

of Nigeria and its officers and employees were "foreign officials," within the

6
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 7 of 20

meaning of the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78dd-

1(f)(1)(A), 78dd-2(h)(2)(A), and 78dd-3(f)(2)(A).

The Bonny Island Project

15. Between 1995 and 2004, the Joint Venture was awarded four

EPC contracts to build the Bonny Island Project. Each EPC contract

corresponded to one of the four phases in which the Bonny Island Project

was constructed. An LNG "train" is the infrastructure necessary to pipe raw

natural gas from wellheads, convert the raw gas to purified LNG, and deliver

that LNG to a tanker. The first phase of the Bonny Island Project consisted

of two trains (Trains 1 and 2), the second phase consisted of one train (Train

3), the third phase consisted of two trains (Trains 4 and 5), and the fourth

phase consisted of one train (Train 6). The first EPC contract, covering

Trains 1 and 2, was awarded to the Joint Venture through an ostensibly

competitive international tender. The other three EPC contracts were

awarded to the Joint Venture on a sole-source, negotiated basis. The four

EPC contracts awarded to the Joint Venture collectively were valued at over

$6 billion.

7
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 8 of 20

COUNT 1

Conspiracy to Violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act


(18 U.S.C. § 371)

16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 are realleged and incorporated by

reference as though fully set forth herein.

17. From at least in or around August 1994, though in or around

June 2004, in the Southern District of Texas, and elsewhere, defendant

TECHNIP did unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly combine, conspire,

confederate, and agree with the Joint Venture, KBR, EPC Contractor C, EPC

Contractor D, Stanley, Tesler, Tri-Star, Consulting Company B, and others,

known and unknown, to commit offenses against the United States, that is,

to willfully make use of the mails and means and instrumentalities of

interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise

to pay, and authorization of the payment of any money, offer, gift, promise

to give, and authorization of the giving of anything of value to any foreign

officials, and to any person while knowing that all or a portion of such

money or thing of value would be or had been offered, given, or promised,

directly or indirectly, to foreign officials, for purposes of: (i) influencing acts

and decisions of such foreign officials in their official capacities; (ii)

inducing such foreign officials to do and omit to do acts in violation of the

lawful duties of such officials; (iii) securing an improper advantage; and (iv)

8
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 9 of 20

inducing such foreign officials to use their influence with a foreign

government and instrumentalities thereof to affect and influence acts and

decisions of such government and instrumentalities, in order to assist

TECHNIP, KBR, the Joint Venture, and others in obtaining and retaining

business for and with, and directing business to, TECHNIP, KBR, the Joint

Venture and others, in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections

78dd-l and 78dd-2.

Purpose of the Conspiracy

18. The purpose and object of the conspiracy was to obtain and

retain billions of dollars in contracts related to the Bonny Island Project

through the promise and payment of tens of millions of dollars in bribes to

officials of the executive branch of the Government of Nigeria, officials of

NNPC, officials ofNLNG, and others.

Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

19. TECHNIP and its co-conspirators employed various manner

and means to carry out the conspiracy, including but not limited to the

following:

a. Senior executives and employees of TECHNIP and their

co-conspirators held so-called "cultural meetings" at which they discussed,

among other things, the use of particular agents, including Tesler, to pay

9
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 10 of 20

bribes to officials of the Government of Nigeria in order to secure the

officials' support for the Joint Venture in obtaining and retaining contracts to

build the Bonny Island Project.

b. Senior executives and employees of TECHNIP and their

co-conspirators agreed that the Joint Venture would hire Tri-Star to pay

bribes to high-level Nigerian government officials, including top-level

executive branch officials, and Consulting Company B to pay bribes to

lower level Nigerian government officials, including employees ofNLNG,

in exchange for the officials' assistance in obtaining and retaining contracts

to build the Bonny Island Project.

c. Senior executives and employees of TECHNIP and their

co-conspirators caused Madeira Company 3 to execute consulting contracts

with Tri-Star and Consulting Company B providing for the payment of tens

of millions of dollars in consulting fees in exchange for vaguely described

marketing and advisory services, when in fact the primary purpose of the

contracts was to facilitate the payment of bribes on behalf of the Joint

Venture and its members to Nigerian government officials.

d. Prior to NLNG's award to the Joint Venture of the

various EPC contracts, Stanley, a senior executive of TECHNIP, and other

co-conspirators met with successive holders of a top-level office in the

10
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 11 of 20

executive branch of the Government of Nigeria and subsequently negotiated

with the office holders' representatives regarding the amount of the bribes

that the Joint Venture would pay to the Nigerian government officials.

e. Senior executives and employees of TECHNIP and their

co-conspirators caused wire transfers totaling approximately $132 million to

be sent from Madeira Company 3' s bank account in Amsterdam, The

Netherlands, to bank accounts in New York, New York, to be further

credited to bank accounts in Switzerland and Monaco controlled by Tesler

for Tesler to use to bribe Nigerian government officials.

f. On behalf of the Joint Venture and the four joint venture

companies, Tesler wire transferred bribe payments to or for the benefit of

various Nigerian government officials, including officials of the executive

branch of the Government of Nigeria, NNPC, and NLNG, and for the benefit

of a political party in Nigeria.

g. Senior executives and employees of TECHNIP and their

co-conspirators caused wire transfers totaling over $50 million to be sent

from Madeira Company 3 's bank account in Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

to Consulting Company B' s bank account in Japan for Consulting Company

B to use to bribe Nigerian government officials.

11
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 12 of 20

Overt Acts

20. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to achieve its purpose and

object, at least one of the co-conspirators committed or caused to be

committed, in the Southern District of Texas, and elsewhere, the following

overt acts, among others:

a. On or about August 3, 1994, Wojciech Chodan

("Chodan"), an M.W. Kellogg Ltd. salesperson responsible for the Bonny

Island Project, sent a facsimile from London, England, to Stanley in

Houston, Texas, and to other co-conspirators stating, among other things,

that Stanley, an executive ofTECHNIP, and other top executives of the joint

venture companies had agreed to send a message "to the top man that we are

ready to do business in the customary manner" and to ask Consulting

Company B to secure support from the key individuals at the working level

ofNLNG.

b. On or about November 2, 1994, Tesler told Chodan that

he had spoken with a senior official of the Nigerian Ministry of Petroleum,

that Tesler's fee would be $60 million, that the first top-level executive

branch official of the Government of Nigeria would get $40-45 million of

that fee, that other Nigerian government officials would get the remaining

$15-20 million of that fee, and that there would be a meeting between

12
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 13 of 20

Stanley and the first top-level Nigerian executive branch official before the

execution of any written agreement between the Joint Venture and Tesler.

c. On or about November 30, 1994, Stanley and other co-

conspirators met in Abuja, Nigeria, with the first top-level executive branch

official of the Government of Nigeria to verify that the official was satisfied

with the Joint Venture using Tesler as its agent and to confirm that the first

top-level executive branch official wanted the Joint Venture to negotiate

with the senior official of the Ministry of Petroleum the amounts of bribes to

various Nigerian government officials.

d. On or about March 20,1995, Madeira Company 3

entered into an agreement with Tri-Star providing, among other things, that

Madeira Company 3 would pay $60 million to Tri-Star if the Joint Venture

was awarded a contract to construct Trains 1 and 2 of the Bonny Island

Project.

e. On or about December 27, 1995, Madeira Company 3

wire transferred $1,542,000 to Tri-Star, via a correspondent bank account in

New York, New York, in payment of Tri-Star's first invoice under the

consulting agreement for Trains 1 and 2.

f. On or about April 9, 1996, Madeira Company 3 entered

into an agreement with Consulting Company B whereby it agreed to pay

13
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 14 of 20

Consulting Company B $29 million for assisting the Joint Venture in

winning the contract to build Trains 1 and 2 of the Bonny Island Project.

g. On or about July 26, 1996, Tesler caused $63,000 to be

wire transferred to a Swiss bank account controlled by the senior official of

the Ministry of Petroleum.

h. On or about May 1, 1997, Stanley, a senior executive of

TECNHIP, and other co-conspirators met in Abuja, Nigeria, with the first

top-level executive branch official of the Government of Nigeria and

requested that the official designate a representative with whom the Joint

Venture should negotiate the bribes to Nigerian government officials in

exchange for the first top-level executive branch official's support of the

award of the Train 3 EPC contract to the Joint Venture.

1. On or about February 28, 1999, Stanley, a senior

executive ofTECHNIP, and other co-conspirators met in Abuja, Nigeria,

with a second top-level executive branch official of the Government of

Nigeria to request that the official designate a representative with whom the

Joint Venture should negotiate the bribes to Nigerian government officials in

exchange for the second top-level executive branch official's support of the

award of the Train 3 EPC contract to the Joint Venture.

14
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 15 of 20

J. On or about March 5, 1999, Stanley, a senior executive

ofTECHNIP, an employee ofTECHNIP, and other co-conspirators met in

London, England, with the representative designated by the second top-level

executive branch official of the Government of Nigeria to negotiate the

bribes to Nigerian government officials in exchange for the award of the

Train 3 EPC contract to the Joint Venture.

k. On or about March 18, 1999, Madeira Company 3

entered into an agreement with Tri-Star providing, among other things, that

Madeira Company 3 would pay $32.5 million to Tri-Star if the Joint Venture

was awarded a contract to construct Train 3 of the Bonny Island Project.

1. On or about March 13,2000, Madeira Company 3

entered into a consulting agreement with Consulting Company B promising

to pay it $4 million in connection with Train 3 of the Bonny Island Project.

m. On or about January 16,2001, Tesler caused $2.5 million

to be wire transferred to a Swiss bank account controlled by the

representative designated by the second top-level executive branch official

of the Government of Nigeria.

n. On or about November 11, 2001, Stanley and a KBR

salesperson met in Abuja, Nigeria, with a third top-level executive branch

official of the Government of Nigeria and an NNPC official (the "NNPC

15
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 16 of 20

Official") to request that the third top-level executive branch official

designate a representative with whom the Joint Venture should negotiate the

bribes to Nigerian government officials in exchange for the third top-level

executive branch official's support of the award of the Trains 4 and 5 EPC

contract to the Joint Venture.

o. On or about December 24,2001, Madeira Company 3

entered into an agreement with Tri-Star providing, among other things, that

Madeira Company 3 would pay $51 million to Tri-Star if the Joint Venture

was awarded a contract to construct Trains 4 and 5 of the Bonny Island

Project.

p. On or about May 28, 2002, an executive ofTECHNIP

and others authorized Madeira Company 3 to sign a consulting agreement

with Tri-Star for the Train 6 contract.

q. In or about June 2002, Tesler, the NNPC Official, and an

employee of one of the Joint Venture's subcontractors (the "Subcontractor")

met at a hotel in London, England, to discuss the NNPC Official's request

that the Subcontractor help funnel payments from Tesler to a political party

in Nigeria.

r. On or about June 14, 2002, Madeira Company 3 entered

into a consulting agreement with Consulting Company B providing, among

16
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 17 of 20

other things, that Madeira Company 3 would pay $25 million to Consulting

Company B in connection with Trains 4 and 5 of the Bonny Island Project.

s. On or about June 28, 2002, Madeira Company 3 entered

into an agreement with Tri-Star providing, among other things, that Madeira

Company 3 would pay $23 million to Tri-Star if the Joint Venture was

awarded a contract to construct Train 6 of the Bonny Island Project.

t. In or about August 2002, an employee of the

Subcontractor, using funds that Tesler had caused to be wire transferred to

the Subcontractor, delivered a pilot's briefcase containing one million U.S.

dollars in one-hundred dollar bills to the NNPC Official at a hotel in Abuja,

Nigeria, for the benefit of a political party in Nigeria.

u. On or about March 4,2003, Chodan caused to be e-

mailed to two KBR executives in Houston, Texas, a draft memo for release

to French authorities investigating potential crimes in connection with the

Bonny Island Project that included false statements about how Tesler had

helped the Joint Venture to win the various EPC contracts.

v. In or about April 2003, an employee of the

Subcontractor, using funds that Tri-Star had wire transferred to the

Subcontractor, delivered a vehicle containing Nigerian currency valued at

17
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 18 of 20

approximately $333,333 to the hotel of the NNPC Official in Abuja, Nigeria,

for the benefit of a political party in Nigeria.

w. On or about May 30, 2003, Madeira Company 3 wire

transferred $123,500 to Tri-Star, via a correspondent bank account in New

York, New York, in payment of one of Tri-Star's invoices under the

consulting agreement for Train 3 of the Bonny Island Project.

x. On or about June 15,2004, Madeira Company 3 wire

transferred $3 million to Consulting Company B in payment of one of

Consulting Company B' s invoices under the consulting agreement for Trains

4 and 5 of the Bonny Island Project.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

COUNT 2

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act


(15 U.S.C. § 78dd-l)

21. Paragraphs 1 through 15 and 18 through 20 are realleged and

incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

22. On or about the dates set forth below, in the Southern District

of Texas, and elsewhere, defendant TECHNIP, being an issuer, willfully did

use and cause to be used instrumentalities of interstate commerce corruptly

in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, and authorization of the

payment of money to a person, while knowing that all or a portion of such

18
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 19 of 20

money would be or had been offered, given, or promised, directly or

indirectly, to foreign officials, for purposes of: (i) influencing acts and

decisions of such foreign officials in their official capacities; (ii) inducing

such foreign officials to do and omit to do acts in violation of the lawful

duties of such officials; (iii) securing an improper advantage; and (iv)

inducing such foreign officials to use their influence with a foreign

government and instrumentalities thereof to affect and influence acts and

decisions of such government or instrumentalities, in order to assist

defendant TECHNIP, KBR, the Joint Venture, and others in obtaining and

retaining business for and with, and directing business to, defendant

TECHNIP, KBR, the Joint Venture, and others, to wit, defendant TECHNIP

caused the following corrupt U.S. dollar payments to be wire transferred

from Madeira Company 3 's bank account in Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

via correspondent bank accounts in New York, New York, to bank accounts

of Tri-Star in Switzerland for use in part to bribe Nigerian government

officials:

Count Dates Amounts Description


2 4/1/02- $39,800,000 Payments to Tri-Star pursuant to
1112/04 Consulting Agreement for Trains
4&5

19
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 20 of 20

All in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 78dd-l, and

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.

DENIS J. McINERNEY
CHIEF, FRAUD SECTION
CRIMINAL DIVISION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

BY:Willi~~~
Acting Assistant Chief
D.C. Bar No. 457278

~~Jtrt
"/J{j/rt
Patrick F. Sf s ,,;
Deputy Chief
Maryland State Bar

U.S. Department of Justice


Fraud Section, Criminal Division
1400 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: (202) 353-2393
Fax: (202) 514-0152

20
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 1 of 61

United States District Court


Southern District of Texas
FILED

JUN 2 8 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS _David J. Bradley. Clerkofeoud
.,- at
HOUSTON DIVISION

H-IO - 43Cf
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Criminal No.
v. )
) 18 U.S.C. § 371
TECHNIP S.A., ) 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-l
)
Defendant. )
)

DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT

Defendant Technip S.A. ("Technip"), a public corporation organized under

the laws of France, by its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to authority granted by

Technip's Board of Directors, and the United States Department of Justice,

Criminal Division, Fraud Section (the "Department"), enter into this Deferred

Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"). The terms and conditions of this

Agreement are as follows:

Criminal Information and Acceptance of Responsibility

1. Technip acknowledges that the United States will file the attached

two-count criminal Information in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Texas charging Technip with conspiracy to commit an offense against


Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 2 of 61

the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, that is, to violate the anti-bribery

provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), as amended, 15 U.S.C.

§§ 78dd-l and 78dd-2 (Count One), and violating the anti-bribery provisions of the

FCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-l (Count Two). In so doing, Technip knowingly waives:

(a) its right to indictment on these charges, as well as all rights to a speedy trial

pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title 18,

United States Code, Section 3161, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b);

and (b) any objection with respect to venue and consents to the filing of the

Information, as provided under the terms of this Agreement, in the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

2. Technip admits, accepts, and acknowledges that it is responsible

under United States law for the acts of its employees, subsidiaries, and agents as

set forth in the Statement of Facts attached hereto as Attachment A, and

incorporated by reference into this Agreement, and that the facts described in

Attachment A are true and accurate. Should the Department pursue the

prosecution that is deferred by this Agreement, Technip agrees that it will neither

contest the admissibility of, nor contradict, in any such proceeding, the Statement

of Facts. Neither this Agreement nor the criminal Information is a final

adjudication of the matters addressed in such documents.

2
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 3 of 61

Term of the Agreement

3. This Agreement is effective for a period beginning on the date on

which the criminal Information is filed and ending two (2) years and seven (7)

calendar days from that date (the "Term"). However, Technip agrees that, in the

event that the Department determines, in its sole discretion, that Technip has

knowingly violated any provision of this Agreement, an extension or extensions of

the term of the Agreement may be imposed by the Department for up to a total

additional time period of one year, without prejudice to the Department's right to

proceed as provided in Paragraphs 13-16 below. Any extension of the Agreement

extends all terms of this Agreement, including the term of the monitors hip under

Paragraph 10 and Attachment D, for an equivalent period.

Relevant Considerations

4. The Department enters into this Agreement based on the individual

facts and circumstances presented by this case and Technip. Among the facts

considered were: (a) Technip cooperated with the Department's investigation of

Technip and others; (b) Technip undertook remedial measures, including the

implementation of an enhanced compliance program, and agreed to undertake

further remedial measures as contemplated by this Agreement; (c) Technip agreed

to continue to cooperate with the Department in any ongoing investigation of the

3
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 4 of 61

conduct of Technip and its employees, agents, consultants, contractors,

subcontractors, subsidiaries, and others relating to violations of the FCP A; and (d)

the impact on Technip, including collateral consequences, of a guilty plea or

criminal conviction.

5. Technip shall continue to cooperate fully with the Department in any

and all matters relating to corrupt payments and related false books and records

and internal controls, subject to applicable law and regulations, including Articles

1 and 1 bis of French Law No. 68-678 of July 26, 1968, as amended by Law No.

80-538 of July 16, 1980 (the "Blocking Statute"). At the request of the

Department, and consistent with applicable law and regulations, Technip shall also

cooperate fully with other law enforcement authorities and agencies in any

investigation of Technip, or any of its present and former directors, employees,

agents, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and subsidiaries, or any other

party, in any and all matters relating to corrupt payments and related false books

and records and internal controls. Subject to the foregoing limitations, Technip

agrees that its cooperation shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

a. Technip shall truthfully disclose all factual information not

protected by a valid claim of attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine

with respect to its activities and those of its present and former directors,

4
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 5 of 61

employees, agents, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and subsidiaries

concerning all matters relating to corrupt payments and related false books and

records and inadequate internal controls, about which Technip has any knowledge

and about which the Department may inquire. This obligation of truthful

disclosure includes the obligation of Technip to provide to the Department, upon

request, any document, record or other tangible evidence relating to such corrupt

payments, false books and records, or inadequate internal controls about which the

Department may inquire of Technip.

b. Upon request of the Department, with respect to any issue

relevant to its investigation of corrupt payments in connection with the operations

of Technip, related false books and records, and inadequate internal controls,

Technip shall designate knowledgeable employees, agents, or attorneys to provide

to the Department the information and materials described in Paragraph 5(a) above

on behalf of Technip. It is further understood that Technip must at all times

provide complete, truthful, and accurate information.

c. With respect to any issue relevant to the Department's

investigation of corrupt payments, related false books and records, and inadequate

internal controls in connection with the operations of Technip, or any of its present

or former subsidiaries or affiliates, Technip shall use its best efforts to make

5
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 6 of 61

available for interviews or testimony, as requested by the Department, present or

former directors, employees, agents, consultants, contractors, and subcontractors of

Technip. This obligation includes, but is not limited to, sworn testimony before a

federal grand jury or in federal trials, as well as interviews with federal law

enforcement and regulatory authorities. Cooperation under this Paragraph will

include identification of witnesses who, to the knowledge of Technip, may have

material information regarding the matters under investigation.

d. With respect to any information, testimony, documents,

records, or other tangible evidence provided to the Department pursuant to this

Agreement, Technip consents to any and all disclosures consistent with applicable

law and regulation to other governmental authorities of such materials as the

Department, in its sole discretion, shall deem appropriate.

Payment of Monetary Penalty

6. The Department and Technip agree that the application of the United

States Sentencing Guidelines ("USSG" or "Sentencing Guidelines") to determine

the applicable fine range yields the following analysis:

A. The 2003 USSG Manual sets forth the appropriate guidelines to be used
in this matter.

B. Base Fine: Based upon USSG §8C2.4 and USSG §2C1. 1(d)(1)(B), the
base fine is $199 million, which corresponds to the value of the benefit
Technip received in return for the unlawful payments.

6
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 7 of 61

C. Culpability Score: Based upon USSG §8C2.5, the culpability score is 8,


summarized as follows:

(a) Base Culpability Score 5

(b)( 1) The organization had 5,000 or more


employees, and individuals within high-
level personnel participated in, condoned,
or were willfully ignorant of the offense, and
tolerance of the offense by substantial authority
personnel was pervasive throughout the
organization +5

(g) The organization fully cooperated in the


investigation and clearly demonstrated
recognition and affirmative acceptance of
responsibility for criminal conduct -2

Total 8

D. Calculation of Fine Range: Based upon USSG §8C2.7, the fine range is
calculated as follows:

Base Fine $199 million

Multipliers 1.6/3.2

Fine Range $318.4 million/$636.8 million

Technip agrees to pay a monetary penalty in the amount of $240 million, or

approximately 25% below the bottom of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines fine

range of $318.4 million. Technip agrees to pay this monetary penalty to the United

States Treasury in installments as follows: $30,000,000 within ten days of the

7
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 8 of 61

execution of this agreement; and seven installments of $30,000,000, each due on

the first day of each quarter beginning August 1, 2010, and ending February 1,

2012. The $240 million penalty is final and shall not be refunded. Furthermore,

nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed an agreement by the Department that

the $240 million amount is the maximum penalty that may be imposed in any

future prosecution, and the Department is not precluded from arguing in any future

prosecution that the Court should impose a higher fine, although the Department

agrees that under those circumstances, it will recommend to the Court that the

amount paid under this Agreement should be offset against any fine the Court

imposes as part of a future judgment. Technip acknowledges that no United States

tax deduction may be sought in connection with the payment of any part of this

$240 million fine.

Conditional Release from Criminal Liability

7. In return for the full and truthful cooperation of Technip as described

III Paragraphs 4 and 5 above, and its compliance with the other terms and

conditions of this Agreement, the Department agrees, subject to Paragraphs 13-15

below, not to use any information related to the conduct described in the attached

Statement of Facts against Technip or any of its wholly owned or controlled

subsidiaries in any criminal case, except: (a) in a prosecution for perjury or

8
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 9 of 61

obstruction of justice; (b) in a prosecution for making a false statement; (c) in a

prosecution or other proceeding relating to any crime of violence; or (d) in a

prosecution or other proceeding relating to a violation of any provision of Title 26

of the United States Code. In addition, the Department agrees, except as provided

herein, that it will not bring any criminal case against Technip or any of its wholly

owned or controlled subsidiaries related to the conduct of present and former

directors, employees, agents, consultants, contractors, and subcontractors, as

described in the attached Statement of Facts, or relating to information Technip

disclosed to the Department prior to the date on which this Agreement was signed.

a. This Paragraph does not provide any protection against

prosecution for any corrupt payments, false books and records, or inadequate

internal controls, if any, by Technip in the future, or by any of its directors,

employees, agents, consultants, contractors, or subcontractors, irrespective of

whether disclosed by Technip, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

b. In addition, this Paragraph does not provide any protection

against prosecution of any present or former director, officer, employee,

shareholder, agent, consultant, contractor, or subcontractor of Technip for any

violations committed by them.

9
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 10 of 61

Corporate Compliance Program

8. Technip represents that it has implemented and will continue to

implement a compliance and ethics program designed to prevent and detect

violations of the FCPA, the anti-corruption provisions of French law, and other

applicable anti-corruption laws throughout its operations, including those of its

affiliates, agents, and joint ventures, and those of its contractors and subcontractors

whose responsibilities include interacting with foreign officials. Implementation

of these policies and procedures shall not be construed in any future enforcement

proceeding as providing immunity or amnesty for any crimes not disclosed to the

Department as of the date of signing of this Agreement for which Technip would

otherwise be responsible.

9. In order to address any deficiencies in its internal controls, policies,

and procedures regarding compliance with the FCP A, the anti-corruption

provisions of French law, and other applicable anti-corruption laws, Technip

represents that it has undertaken, and will continue to undertake in the future, in a

manner consistent with all of its obligations under this Agreement, a review of the

existing internal controls, policies, and procedures within Technip. Where

necessary and appropriate, Technip will adopt new or modify existing internal

controls, policies, and procedures in order to ensure that Technip maintains: (a) a

10
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 11 of 61

system of internal accounting controls designed to ensure the making and keeping

of fair and accurate books, records, and accounts; and (b) a rigorous anti-

corruption compliance code designed to detect and deter violations of the FCP A,

the anti-corruption provisions of French law, and other applicable anti-corruption

laws. The internal controls system and compliance code will include, but not be

limited to, the minimum elements set forth in Attachment C, which is incorporated

by reference into this Agreement.

Corporate Compliance Monitor

10. Technip agrees to engage a corporate compliance monitor. The

Monitor's term, duties, and authority, and the obligations of Technip with respect

to the Monitor and the Department, are set forth in Attachment D, which is

incorporated by reference into this Agreement.

Deferred Prosecution

11. In consideration of: (a) the past and future cooperation of Technip

described in Paragraphs 4 and 5 above; (b) Technip's payment of a monetary

penalty of $240,000,000; and (c) Technip's adoption and maintenance of remedial

measures, and independent review and audit of such measures, including the

compliance code and review by the Monitor described in Paragraphs 8 through 10

above, the Department agrees that any prosecution of Technip for the conduct set

11
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 12 of 61

forth in the attached Statement of Facts, and for the conduct that Technip disclosed

to the Department prior to the signing of this Agreement, be and hereby is deferred

for the Term of this Agreement.

12. The Department further agrees that if Technip fully complies with all

of its obligations under this Agreement, the Department will not continue the

criminal prosecution against Technip described in Paragraph 1 and, at the

conclusion of the Term, this Agreement shall expire. Within thirty (30) days of the

Agreement's expiration, the Department shall seek dismissal with prejudice of the

Information filed against Technip described in Paragraph 1.

Breach of the Agreement

13. If, during the Term of this Agreement, the Department determines, in

its sole discretion, that Technip has (a) committed any felony under federal law

subsequent to the signing of this Agreement, (b) at any time provided deliberately

false, incomplete or misleading information, or (c) otherwise breached the

Agreement, Technip shall thereafter be subject to prosecution for any federal

criminal violation of which the Department has knowledge and the Information

attached as Exhibit 1 may be pursued by the Department in the U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of Texas. Any such prosecution may be premised on

information provided by Technip. Any such prosecution that is not time-barred by

12
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 13 of 61

the applicable statute of limitations on the date of the signing of this Agreement

may be commenced against Technip notwithstanding the expiration of the statute

of limitations between the signing of this Agreement and the expiration of the

Term plus one year. Thus, by signing this Agreement, Technip agrees that the

statute of limitations with respect to any prosecution that is not time-barred on the

date ofthis Agreement shall be tolled for the Term plus one year.

t 4. In the event that the Department determines that Technip has

breached this Agreement, the Department agrees to provide Technip with written

notice of such breach prior to instituting any prosecution resulting from such

breach. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, Technip shall have the

opportunity to respond to the Department in writing to explain the nature and

circumstances of such breach, as well as the actions Technip has taken to address

and remediate the situation, which explanation the Department shall consider in

determining whether to institute a prosecution.

15. In the event that the Department determines that Technip has

breached this Agreement: (a) all statements made by or on behalf of Technip to the

Department or to the Court, including the attached Statement of Facts, and any

testimony given by Technip before a grand jury or any tribunal, at any legislative

hearings, whether prior or subsequent to this Agreement, or any leads derived from

13
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 14 of 61

such statements or testimony, shall be admissible in evidence in any and all

criminal proceedings brought by the Department against Technip; and (b) Technip

shall not assert any claim under the United States Constitution, Rule 11(f) of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence or

any other federal rule, that statements made by or on behalf of Technip prior or

subsequent to this Agreement, and any leads derived therefrom, should be

suppressed. The decision whether conduct or statements of any individual will be

imputed to Technip for the purpose of determining whether Technip has violated

any provision of this Agreement shall be in the sole discretion of the Department.

16. Technip acknowledges that the Department has made no

representations, assurances, or promises concerning what sentence may be imposed

by the Court if Technip breaches this Agreement and this matter proceeds to

judgment. Technip further acknowledges that any such sentence is solely within

the discretion of the Court and that nothing in this Agreement binds or restricts the

Court in the exercise of such discretion.

Sale or Merger of Technip

17. Technip agrees that in the event it sells, merges, or transfers all or

substantially all of its business operations as they exist as of the date of this

Agreement, whether such sale is structured as a stock or asset sale, merger, or

14
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 15 of 61

transfer, it shall include in any contract for sale, merger, or transfer a provision

binding the purchaser, or any successor in interest thereto, to the obligations

described in this Agreement.

Public Statements by Technip

18. Technip expressly agrees that it shall not, through present or future

attorneys, directors, employees, agents, or any other person authorized to speak for

Technip make any public statement, in litigation or otherwise, contradicting the

acceptance of responsibility by Technip set forth above or the facts described in the

attached Statement of Facts. Any such contradictory statement shall, subject to

cure rights of Technip described below, constitute a breach of this Agreement and

Technip thereafter shall be subject to prosecution as set forth in Paragraphs 13 -16

of this Agreement. The decision whether any public statement by any such person

contradicting a fact contained in the Statement of Facts will be imputed to Technip

for the purpose of determining whether they have breached this Agreement shall be

at the sole discretion of the Department. If the Department determines that a

public statement by any such person contradicts in whole or in part a statement

contained in the Statement of Facts, the Department shall so notify Technip, and

Technip may avoid a breach of this Agreement by publicly repudiating such

statement(s) within five (5) business days after notification. Consistent with the

15
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 16 of 61

obligations of Technip as set forth above, Technip shall be permitted to ralse

defenses and to assert affirmative claims in civil, regulatory, or foreign

proceedings relating to the matters set forth in the Statement of Facts. This

Paragraph does not apply to any statement made by any present or former

employee of Technip in the course of any criminal, regulatory, or civil case

initiated against such individual, unless such individual is speaking on behalf of

Technip.

19. Technip agrees that if it or any of its direct or indirect affiliates or

subsidiaries issues a press release in connection with this Agreement, Technip shall

first consult the Department to determine whether (a) the text of the release is true

and accurate with respect to matters between the Department and Technip; and (b)

the Department has no objection to the release. Nothing herein shall limit the right

of Technip to make truthful disclosures required by applicable securities laws and

regulations.

Limitations on Binding Effect of Agreement

20. This Agreement is binding on Technip and the Department but

specifically does not bind any other federal agencies, or any state, local, or foreign

law enforcement or regulatory agencies, or any other authorities, although the

Department will bring the cooperation of Technip and its compliance with its other

16
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 17 of 61

obligations under this Agreement to the attention of such agencies and authorities,

if requested to do so by Technip.

Notice

21. Any notice to the Department under this Agreement shall be given by

personal delivery, overnight delivery by a recognized delivery service, or

registered or certified mail, in each case, for the Department, addressed to Deputy

Chief-FCPA, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Fourth

Floor, 1400 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 and, for Technip,

addressed to Robert D. Luskin, Patton Boggs, LLP, 2550 M Street, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20037, John F. Savarese, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, 51

West 52 nd Street, New York, NY 10019, and to John Harrison, General Counsel,

Technip S.A., Technip Corporate Services, CS 51650, 89 avenue de la Grande

Armee, 75773 Paris, Cedex 16, France. Notice shall be effective upon actual

receipt by Technip.

Complete Agreement

22. This Agreement sets forth all the terms of the agreement between

Technip and the Department. No amendments, modifications, or additions to this

Agreement shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the Department,

the attorneys for Technip, and a duly authorized representative of Technip.

17
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 18 of 61

AGREED:

FOR TECBNIP SA:

By:
Hamson
era! Counsel
echnip SA

Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP

18
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 19 of 61

AGREED:

FOR TECHNIP S.A.:

By:
Harrison
eral Counsel
chnip S.A.

Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP

John F. Savarese
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz

Counsel for Technip S.A.

18
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 20 of 61

AGREED:

FOR TECHNIP S.A.:

By:
John Harrison
General Counsel
Tecbnip S.A.

\Cki~~
Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP

18
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 21 of 61

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:

DENIS J. MCINERNEY
Chief, Fraud Section
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice

By: W..u .... ~~.l


William J. St ckwlsch
Acting Assistant Chief
D.C. Bar No. 457278

Patrick F. Stokes 7
Deputy Chief
Maryland State Bar

United States Department of Justice


Criminal Division, Fraud Section
1400 New York Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: (202) 353-2393
Fax: (202) 514-0152

Washington, D.C., on this 24'" day of June, 2010.

19
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 22 of 61

GENERAL COUNSEL'S CERTIFICATE

I have read this Agreement and carefully reviewed every part of it with

outside counsel for Technip S.A. ("Technip"). I understand the terms of this

Agreement and voluntarily agree, on behalf of Technip, to each of its terms.

Before signing this Agreement, I consulted outside counsel for Technip. Counsel

fully advised me of the rights of Technip, of possible defenses, of the Sentencing

Guidelines' provisions, and of the consequences of entering into this Agreement.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of this Agreement with the Board of

Directors of Technip. I have advised and caused outside counsel for Technip to

advise the Board of Directors fully of the rights of Technip, of possible defenses,

of the Sentencing Guidelines' provisions, and of the consequences of entering into

the Agreement.

No promises or inducements have been made other than those contained in

this Agreement. Furthermore, no one has threatened or forced me, or to my

knowledge any person authorizing this Agreement on behalf of Technip, in any

way to enter into this Agreement. I am also satisfied with outside counsel's

representation in this matter. I certify that I am General Counsel for Technip S.A.

and that I have been duly authorized by Technip to execute this Agreement on

behalf of Technip.

20
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 23 of 61

Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ , 2010

By:

21
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 24 of 61

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

I am counsel for Technip S.A. ("Technip") in the matter covered by this

Agreement. In connection with such representation, I have examined relevant

Technip documents and have discussed the terms of this Agreement with the

Technip Board of Directors. Based on our review of the foregoing materials and

discussions, I am of the opinion that: the representative of Technip has been duly

authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of Technip and that this

Agreement has been duly and validly authorized, executed, and delivered on behalf

of Technip and is a valid and binding obligation of Technip. Further, I have

carefully reviewed the terms of this Agreement with the Board of Directors and the

General Counsel of Technip. I have fully advised them of the rights of Technip, of

possible defenses, of the Sentencing Guidelines' provisions, and of the

consequences of entering into this Agreement. To my knowledge, the decision of

Technip to enter into this Agreement, based on the authorization of the Board of

Directors, is an informed and voluntary one.

Date: i\ 1v~t.. ,2010


Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP

Counsel for Technip S.A.

22
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 25 of 61

ATTACHMENT A

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The following Statement of Facts is incorporated by reference as part of the

Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement") between the United States

Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (the "Departmenf') and

Technip S.A., and the parties hereby agree and stipulate that the following

information is true and accurate. As set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Agreement,

Technip S.A. admits, accepts, and acknowledges that it is responsible for the acts

of its subsidiaries, employees, and agents as set forth below.

Should the Department pursue the prosecution that is deferred by this

Agreement, Technip S.A. agrees that it will neither contest the admissibility of, nor

contradict, this Statement of Facts in any such proceeding.

If this matter were to proceed to trial, the Department would prove beyond a

reasonable doubt, by admissible evidence, the facts alleged below and set forth in

the criminal Information attached to this Agreement. This evidence would

establish the following:

The Defendant

1. Technip S.A. ("Technip") is a French corporation headquartered in

Paris, France. At all relevant times, Technip was engaged in the business of

providing engineering, procurement, and construction ("EPC") services around the


Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 26 of 61

world, including designing and building liquefied natural gas ("LNG") production

plants. In August 2001, Technip registered a class of securities with the United

States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and in October 2001 became

listed on the New York Stock Exchange. As an issuer of publicly traded securities

registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Title

15, United States Code, Section 781, Technip was required to file periodic reports

with the SEC under Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act, Title 15, United

States Code, Section 78m. From August 2001 until November 2007, Technip was

an "issuer" within the meaning of the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code, Section

78dd-1.

The Joint Venture, Its Members, and Related Entities

2. The "Joint Venture" was a four-company venture formed in 1990 for

the purposes of bidding on and, if successful, performing a series of EPC contracts

to design and build an LNG plant and several expansions on Bonny Island, Nigeria

(the "Bonny Island Project"). The Joint Venture consisted of Technip, Kellogg,

Brown and Root, Inc., and two other companies referred to herein as "EPC

Contractor C" and "EPC Contractor D." The Steering Committee of the Joint

Venture consisted of high-level executives from each Joint Venture company.

Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, the Steering Committee made major

2
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 27 of 61

decisions on behalf of the Joint Venture, including whether to hire agents to assist

the Joint Venture in winning EPC contracts, whom to hire as agents, and how

much to pay the agents. Profits, revenues, and expenses, including the cost of

agents, were shared equally among the four joint venture partners.

3. Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc. and, before September 1998, its

predecessor company, The M.W. Kellogg Company (collectively, "KBR~l), were

engaged in the business of providing EPC services around the world. KBR was

incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas. KBR was a

"domestic concern" within the meaning of the FCPA, Title 15, United States Code,

Section 78dd-2.

4. Albert Jackson Stanley ("Stanlei~) was a United States citizen and a

resident of Houston, Texas. Stanley served in various capacities as an officer

and/or director ofKBR, and also served on the Joint Venture's Steering

Committee. Stanley was a "domestic concern" and an officer, employee, and agent

ofa "domestic concern" (KBR) within the meaning of the FCPA, Title 15, United

States Code, Section 78dd-2.

5. "EPC Contractor C" was a corporation organized under the laws of

The Netherlands and was headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. EPC

3
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 28 of 61

Contractor C was a wholly owned subsidiary of an Italian engineering and

construction company headquartered in Milan, Italy.

6. "EPC Contractor D" was an engineering and construction company

headquartered in Yokohama, Japan.

7. M.W. Kellogg Ltd. was a corporation organized under the laws of the

United Kingdom. M.W. Kellogg Ltd. was 55% owned by KBR and 45% owned

by EPC Contractor D.

8. The Joint Venture operated through three Portuguese special purpose

corporations based in Madeira, Portugal: "Madeira Company 1," "Madeira

Company 2," and "Madeira Company 3." Both Madeira Company 1 and Madeira

Company 2 were owned equally by the Joint Venture companies. Madeira

Company 3, the entity that the Joint Venture used to enter into consulting

agreements with the Joint Venture's agents, was 50% owned by M.W. Kellogg

Ltd., 25% owned by Technip, and 25% owned by EPC Contractor C.

The Joint Venture's Agents

9. Jeffrey Tesler was a citizen of the United Kingdom and a resident of

London, England. The Joint Venture hired Tesler to help it obtain business in

Nigeria, including by offering to pay and paying bribes to high-level Nigerian

4
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 29 of 61

government officials. Tesler was an agent of the Joint Venture and of each of the

joint venture companies.

10. Tri-Star Investments Ltd. ("Tri-Star") was a Gibraltar corporation that

Tesler used as a corporate vehicle to enter into agent contracts with and receive

payments from the Joint Venture. By the time the Joint Venture had stopped

paying Tri-Star in January 2004, the Joint Venture had paid Tri-Star over $130

million for use in bribing Nigerian government officials. Tri-Star was an agent of

the Joint Venture and of each of the joint venture companies.

11. "Consulting Company B" was a global trading company

headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. The Joint Venture hired Consulting Company B to

help it obtain business in Nigeria, including by offering to pay and paying bribes to

Nigerian government officials. By the time the Joint Venture had stopped paying

Consulting Company B in June 2004, the Joint Venture had paid Consulting

Company B over $50 million for use in bribing Nigerian government officials.

Consulting Company B was an agent of the Joint Venture and of each of the joint

venture companies.

The Nigerian Government Entities

12. The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation ("NNPC") was a

Nigerian government-owned company charged with development of Nigeria's oil

5
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 30 of 61

and gas wealth and regulation of the countris oil and gas industry. NNPC was a

shareholder in certain joint ventures with multinational oil companies. NNPC was

an entity and instrumentality of the Government of Nigeria and officers and

employees of NNPC were "foreign officials" within the meaning of the FCP A,

Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78dd-l(t)(I)(A), 78dd-2(h)(2)(A), and

78dd-3(t)(2)(A).

13. Nigeria LNG Limited (''NLNG'') was created by the Nigerian

government to develop the Bonny Island Project and was the entity that awarded

the related EPC contracts. The largest shareholder ofNLNG was NNPC, which

owned 49% ofNLNG. The other owners ofNLNG were multinational oil

companies. Through the NLNG board members appointed by NNPC, among other

means, the Nigerian government exercised control over NLNG, including but not

limited to the ability to block the award ofEPC contracts. NLNG was an entity

and instrumentality of the Government of Nigeria and its officers and employees

were "foreign officials" within the meaning ofthe FCPA, Title 15, United States

Code, Sections 78dd-l (t)(1 )(A), 78dd-2(h)(2)(A), and 78dd-3(t)(2)(A).

The Bonny Island Project

14. Between 1995 and 2004, the Joint Venture was awarded four EPC

contracts to build the Bonny Island Project. Each EPC contract corresponded to

6
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 31 of 61

one of the four phases in which the Bonny Island Project was constructed. An

LNG "train" is the infrastructure necessary to pipe raw natural gas from wellheads,

convert the raw gas to purified LNG, and deliver that LNG to a tanker. The first

phase of the Bonny Island Project consisted of two trains (Trains 1 and 2), the

second phase consisted of one train (Train 3), the third phase consisted of two

trains (Trains 4 and 5), and the fourth phase consisted of one train (Train 6). The

first EPC contract, covering Trains 1 and 2, was awarded to the Joint Venture

through an ostensibly competitive international tender. The other three EPC

contracts were awarded to the Joint Venture on a sole-source, negotiated basis.

The four EPC contracts awarded to the Joint Venture collectively were valued at

over $6 billion.

Overview of the Bribery Scheme and the Violations

15. From at least in or around August 1994, through in or around June

2004, Technip and its co-conspirators, including the Joint Venture, KBR, EPC

Contractor C, EPC Contractor D, Stanley, Tesler, Tri-Star, Consulting Company B,

and others, participated in a scheme to authorize, promise, and pay tens of millions

of dollars in bribes to Nigerian government officials, including officials of the

executive branch of the Government of Nigeria, officials ofNNPC, officials of

NLNG, and others, in order to secure the Nigerian government officials' assistance

7
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 32 of 61

in obtaining and retaining billions of dollars of business related to the Bonny Island

Project for Technip, the Joint Venture, and others. Senior executives and

employees of Technip, Stanley, other officers, employees, and agents ofKBR, and

their co-conspirators willfully used the mails and means and instrumentalities of

interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of the authorization, promise, and

payment of bribes to Nigerian government officials pursuant to the scheme.

Stanley, other officers, employees, and agents of KBR, and other co-conspirators

committed acts in furtherance of the scheme in Houston, Texas, and elsewhere in

the United States.

16. Senior executives and employees of Technip and their co-conspirators

held so-called "cultural meetings" in which they discussed, among other things, the

use of particular agents, including Tesler, to pay bribes to officials of the

Government of Nigeria in order to secure the officials' support for the Joint

Venture in obtaining and retaining contracts to build the Bonny Island Project.

17. In 1994, 1999,2001, and 2002, senior executives and employees of

Technip and their co-conspirators authorized the hiring of Tesler and Tri-Star by

the Joint Venture, expecting that Tesler and Tri-Star would pay bribes to high-level

Nigerian government officials to assist the Joint Venture, Technip, and others in

winning the EPC contracts to build the Bonny Island Project. In 1996, 1999, and

8
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 33 of 61

2001, senior executives and employees of Technip and their co-conspirators also

authorized the hiring of Consulting Company B by the Joint Venture, expecting

that Consulting Company B would pay bribes to lower level Nigerian government

officials to assist the Joint Venture, Technip, and others in winning the EPC

contracts to build the Bonny Island Project.

18. Senior executives and employees of Technip and their co-conspirators

caused Madeira Company 3 to execute consulting contracts with Tri-Star and

Consulting Company B providing for the payment of tens of millions of dollars in

consulting fees in exchange for vaguely described marketing and advisory services,

when in fact the primary purpose of the contracts was to facilitate the payment of

bribes on behalf of the Joint Venture and its members to Nigerian government

officials.

19. Prior to NLNG's award to the Joint Venture of the various EPC

contracts, Stanley, a senior executive of Technip, and others met with successive

holders of a top-level office in the executive branch of the Government of Nigeria

to ask the office holder to designate a representative with whom the Joint Venture

should negotiate bribes to Nigerian government officials, and subsequently

negotiated with the office holders' representatives regarding the amount of the

bribes that the Joint Venture would pay to the Nigerian government officials.

9
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 34 of 61

20. Senior executives and employees of Technip and their co-conspirators

caused wire transfers totaling approximately $132 million to be sent from Madeira

Company 3 's bank account in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, to bank accounts in

New York, New York, to be further credited to bank accounts in Switzerland and

Monaco controlled by Tesler for Tesler to use to bribe Nigerian government

officials.

21. On behalf of the Joint Venture and the four joint venture companies,

Tesler wire transferred bribe payments to or for the benefit of various Nigerian

government officials, including officials of the executive branch ofthe

Government of Nigeria, NNPC, and NLNG, and for the benefit of a political party

in Nigeria.

22. Senior executives and employees of Technip and their co-conspirators

caused wire transfers totaling over $50 million to be sent from Madeira Company

3 's bank account in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, to Consulting Company B's

bank account in Japan for Consulting Company B to use to bribe Nigerian

government officials.

Details of the Bribery Scheme and the Violations

23. On or about August 3, 1994, Wojciech Chodan ("Chodan"), an M.W.

Kellogg Ltd. salesperson responsible for the Bonny Island Project, sent a facsimile

10
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 35 of 61

from London, England, to Stanley in Houston, Texas, and to other co-conspirators

stating, among other things, that Stanley, an executive of Technip, and other top

executives of the joint venture companies had agreed to send a message "to the top

man that we are ready to do business in the customary manner" and to ask

Consulting Company B to secure support from the key individuals at the working

levelofNLNG.

24. On or about November 2, 1994, Tesler told Chodan that he had

spoken with a senior official of the Nigerian Ministry of Petroleum, that Tesler's

fee would be $60 million, that the first top-level executive branch official of the

Government of Nigeria would get $40-45 million of that fee, that other Nigerian

government officials would get the remaining $15-20 million of that fee, and that

there would be a meeting between Stanley and the first top-level Nigerian

executive branch official before execution of any written agreement between the

Joint Venture and Tesler.

25. On or about November 30,1994, Stanley and other co-conspirators

met with the first top-level executive branch official in Abuja, Nigeria, to verify

that the official was satisfied with the Joint Venture using Tesler as its agent and to

confirm that the official wanted the Joint Venture to negotiate with the senior

11
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 36 of 61

official of the Ministry of Petroleum the amounts of bribes to various Nigerian

government officials.

26. On or about March 20, 1995, Madeira Company 3 entered into an

agreement with Tri-Star providing, among other things, that Madeira Company 3

would pay $60 million to Tri-Star if the Joint Venture was awarded a contract to

construct Trains 1 and 2 of the Bonny Island Project.

27. On or about December 27, 1995, Madeira Company 3 wire transferred

$1,542,000 to Tri-Star, via a correspondent bank account in New York, New York,

in payment of Tri-Star's first invoice under the consulting agreement for Trains 1

and 2.

28. On or about April 9, 1996, Madeira Company 3 entered into an

agreement with Consulting Company B whereby it agreed to pay Consulting

Company B $29 million for assisting the Joint Venture in winning the contract to

build Trains 1 and 2 of the Bonny Island Project.

29. On or about July 26, 1996, Tesler caused $63,000 to be wire

transferred to a Swiss bank account controlled by the senior official of the Ministry

of Petroleum.

30. On or about May 1, 1997, Stanley, a senior executive of Technip, and

other co-conspirators met in Abuja, Nigeria, with the top-level executive branch

12
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 37 of 61

official and requested that the official designate a representative with whom the

J oint Venture should negotiate bribes to Nigerian government officials in exchange

for the first top-level executive branch official's support of the award to the Joint

Venture of an EPC contract to build Train 3. At the meeting, the top-level

executive branch official designated a senior executive branch official as his

representative.

31. On or about February 28, 1999, Stanley, a senior executive of

Technip, and other co-conspirators met in Abuja, Nigeria, with a second top-level

executive branch official to request that the second top-level executive branch

official designate a representative with whom the Joint Venture should negotiate

bribes to Nigerian government officials in exchange for the second top-level

executive branch official's support of the award to the Joint Venture of an EPC

contract to build Train 3. At the meeting, the second top-level executive branch

official designated one of his advisers as his representative.

32. On or about March 5, 1999, Stanley, a senior executive of Technip, an

employee of Technip, and other co-conspirators met at a hotel in London, England,

with the adviser designated by the second top-level executive branch official to

negotiate the amount of bribes to be paid to the second top-level executive branch

official and other Nigerian government officials in exchange for the award to the

13
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 38 of 61

J oint Venture of an EPC contract to build Train 3. The amount negotiated with the

representative formed the basis for the $32.5 million fee that the Joint Venture

promised to pay Tri-Star. As Technip's senior representative on the Joint

Venture's Steering Committee, the Technip executive authorized the Joint Venture

to enter into the consulting agreement with Tri-Star, intending that the $32.5

million fee would be used, in part, to pay bribes to Nigerian government officials.

33. On or about March 18, 1999, Madeira Company 3 entered into an

agreement with Tri-Star providing, among other things, that Madeira Company 3

would pay $32.5 million to Tri-Star if the Joint Venture was awarded a contract to

construct Train 3 of the Bonny Island Project.

34. On or about March 13,2000, Madeira Company 3 entered into a

consulting agreement with Consulting Company B promising to pay it $4 million

in connection with Train 3 of the Bonny Island Project.

35. On or about January 16,2001, Tesler caused $2.5 million to be wire

transferred to a Swiss bank account controlled by the representative designated by

the second top-level executive branch official of the Government of Nigeria.

36. On or about November 11,2001, Stanley and a KBR salesperson met

in Abuja, Nigeria, with a third top-level executive branch official of the

Government of Nigeria and an NNPC official (the "NNPC Official") to request

14
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 39 of 61

that the third top-level executive branch official designate a representative with

whom the Joint Venture should negotiate the bribes to Nigerian government

officials in exchange for the third top-level executive branch official's support of

the award of the Trains 4 and 5 EPC contract to the Joint Venture. At the meeting,

the third top-level executive branch official designated the NNPC Official as his

representative.

37. On or about December 24, 2001, Madeira Company 3 entered into an

agreement with Tri-Star providing, among other things, that Madeira Company 3

would pay $51 million to Tri -Star if the Joint Venture was awarded a contract to

construct Trains 4 and 5 of the Bonny Island Project.

38. On or about May 28,2002, a senior executive of Technip and others

authorized Madeira Company 3 to sign a consulting agreement with Tri-Star for

the Train 6 contract.

39. In or about June 2002, Tesler, the NNPC Official, and an employee of

one of the Joint Venture's subcontractors (the "Subcontractor") met at a hotel in

London, England, to discuss the NNPC Official's request that the Subcontractor

help funnel payments from Tesler to a political party in Nigeria.

40. On or about June 14,2002, Madeira Company 3 entered into a

consulting agreement with Consulting Company B providing, among other things,

15
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 40 of 61

that Madeira Company 3 would pay $25 million to Consulting Company B in

connection with Trains 4 and 5 of the Bonny Island Project.

41. On or about June 28, 2002, Madeira Company 3 entered into an

agreement with Tri-Star providing, among other things, that Madeira Company 3

would pay $23 million to Tri-Star if the Joint Venture was awarded a contract to

construct Train 6 of the Bonny Island Project.

42. In or about August 2002, an employee of the Subcontractor, using

funds that Tri-Star had wire transferred to the Subcontractor, delivered a pilot's

briefcase containing one million U.S. dollars in one hundred dollar bills to the

NNPC Official at a hotel in Abuja, Nigeria, for the benefit of a political party in

Nigeria.

43. On or about March 4, 2003, Chodan caused to be e-mailed to two

KBR executives in Houston, Texas, a draft memo for release to French authorities

investigating potential crimes in connection with the Bonny Island Project that

included false statements about how Tesler had helped the Joint Venture to win the

various EPC contracts.

44. In or about April 2003, an employee of the Subcontractor, using funds

that Tri-Star had wire transferred to the Subcontractor, delivered a vehicle

16
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 41 of 61

containing Nigerian currency valued at approximately $333,333 to the hotel of the

NNPC Official in Abuja, Nigeria, for the benefit of a political party in Nigeria.

45. On or about May 30,2003, Madeira Company 3 wire transferred

$123,500 to Tri-Star, via a correspondent bank account in New York, New York,

in payment of one ofTri-Star's invoices under the consulting agreement for Train

3 of the Bonny Island Project.

46. On or about June 15, 2004, Madeira Company 3 wire transferred $3

million to Consulting Company B in payment of one of Consulting Company B's

invoices under the agreement for Trains 4 and 5 of the Bonny Island Project.

47. Between on or about April 1, 2002, and on or about January 12, 2004,

employees, agents, and co-conspirators of Technip, an issuer within the meaning of

the FCP A, caused $39.8 million to be wire transferred from Madeira Company 3' s

bank account in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, via a correspondent bank account in

New York, New York, to a bank account of Tri-Star in Switzerland pursuant to

Madeira Company 3 's consulting agreement with Tri-Star for Trains 4 and 5,

intending that the money would be used, in whole or in part, to pay bribes to

Nigerian government officials.

17
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 42 of 61

ATTACHMENT B

CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE RESOLUTIONS

WHEREAS, Technip S.A. ("Technip" or the "Compani') has been engaged

in discussions with the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division,

Fraud Section ("the Department") about certain illegal payments to foreign

officials to facilitate the award of contracts and assist in obtaining business for the

Company; and

WHEREAS, in order to resolve such discussions, it is proposed that the

Company enter into a certain agreement with the Department; and

WHEREAS, the Company's General Counsel, John Harrison, together with

outside counsel for the Company, have advised the Board of Directors of the

Company of its rights, possible defenses, the Sentencing Guidelines' provisions,

and the consequences of entering into such agreement with the Department;

Therefore, the Board of Directors has RESOLVED that:

1. The Company (i) consents to the filing in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Texas of a two-count Information charging

Technip with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §371, that is, to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§78dd-l and

78dd-2 (Count One); and violating the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, 15
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 43 of 61

U.S.C. §78dd-l (Count Two); (ii) waives indictment on such charges and enters

into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the Department; and (iii) agrees to

accept a monetary penalty against Technip of $240,000,000, and to pay

$240,000,000 to the United States Treasury with respect to the conduct described

in the Information;

2. The General Counsel of Technip, John Harrison, is hereby authorized,

empowered, and directed, on behalf of the Company, to execute the Deferred

Prosecution Agreement substantially in such form as reviewed by this Board of

Directors at this meeting with such changes as the General Counsel of Technip

may approve;

3. The General Counsel of Technip, John Harrison, is hereby authorized,

empowered, and directed to take any and all actions as may be necessary or

appropriate and to approve the forms, terms, or provisions of any agreement or

other documents as may be necessary or appropriate, to carry out and effectuate the

purpose and intent of the foregoing resolutions; and

4. All of the actions of the General Counsel of Technip, John Harrison,

which actions would have been authorized by the foregoing resolutions except that

such actions were taken prior to the adoption of such resolutions, are hereby

2
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 44 of 61

severally ratified, confirmed, approved, and adopted as actions on behalf of the

Company.

Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ , 2010

3
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 45 of 61

ATTACHMENT C

CORPORATE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM

In order to address any deficiencies in its internal controls, policies, and

procedures regarding compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

("FCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §78dd-l, et seq., the anti-corruption provisions of French

law, and other applicable anti-corruption laws, Technip S.A. ("Technip") agrees to

conduct, in a manner consistent with this Agreement, a review of its existing

internal controls, policies, and procedures.

Where necessary, appropriate, and not unlawful, Technip further agrees to

adopt new or to modify existing internal controls, policies and procedures in order

to ensure that it maintains: (a) a system of internal accounting controls designed to

ensure that Technip makes and keeps fair and accurate books, records, and

accounts; and (b) a rigorous anti-corruption compliance code, standards, and

procedures designed to detect and deter violations of the FCPA, the anti-corruption

provisions of French law, and other applicable anti-corruption laws. At a

minimum, this should include, but not be limited to, the following elements:

1. A clearly articulated corporate policy against violations of the FCPA,

French anti-corruption laws, and other applicable anti-corruption laws;


Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 46 of 61

2. A system of financial and accounting procedures, including a system

of internal accounting controls, designed to ensure the maintenance of fair and

accurate books, records, and accounts.

3. Promulgation of a compliance code, standards, and procedures

designed to detect and deter violations of the FCPA, French anti-corruption laws,

and other applicable anti-corruption laws, and Technip's compliance code. This

code and these standards and procedures should apply to all directors, officers, and

employees and, where necessary and appropriate, outside parties acting on behalf

of Technip in foreign jurisdictions, including agents, consultants, representatives,

distributors, teaming partners, and joint venture partners (collectively referred to as

"agents and business partners").

4. The assignment of responsibility to a semor corporate official of

Technip for the implementation and oversight of compliance with policies,

standards, and procedures regarding the FCP A, French anti-corruption laws, and

other applicable anti-corruption laws. This senior corporate official shall have

authority to report matters directly to the Ethics and Governance Committee of the

Board of Directors.

5. Mechanisms designed to ensure that the policies, standards, and

procedures of Technip regarding the FCPA, French anti-corruption laws, and other

2
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 47 of 61

applicable anti-corruption laws are effectively communicated to all directors,

officers, employees and, where necessary and appropriate, agents and business

partners. These mechanisms shall include where necessary and appropriate:

periodic training for all such directors, officers, employees, agents, and business

patiners; and annual certifications with regard to this training by all such directors,

officers, employees, agents, and business partners.

6. An effective system for reporting (consistent with French law and

regulation), and for supporting those who in good faith report, suspected criminal

conduct and/or violations of the compliance policies, standards, and procedures

regarding the FCP A, French anti-corruption laws, and other applicable anti-

corruption laws for directors, officers, employees, agents, and business partners.

7. Appropriate disciplinary procedures to address, among other things,

violations of the FCPA, French anti-corruption laws, other applicable anti-

corruption laws, or Technip's compliance code by directors, officers, and

employees.

8. Appropriate due diligence requirements pertaining to the retention and

oversight of agents and business partners.

9. Standard provisions in agreements, contracts, and renewals thereof

with all agents and business partners that are designed to prevent violations of the

3
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 48 of 61

FCPA, French anti-corruption laws, and other applicable anti-corruption laws,

which may, depending upon the circumstances, include: anti-corruption

representations and undertakings relating to compliance with the FCP A, French

anti-corruption laws, and other applicable anti-corruption laws; rights to conduct

audits of the books and records of the agent or business partner to ensure

compliance with the foregoing; and rights to terminate an agent or business partner

as a result of any violation of the FCPA, French anti-corruption laws, or other anti-

corruption laws or breach of representations and undertakings related to such

matters.

10. Periodic testing of the compliance code, standards, and procedures to

evaluate their effectiveness in detecting and reducing violations of the FCP A,

French anti-corruption laws, other applicable anti-corruption laws, and Technip's

policy against such violations.

4
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 49 of 61

ATTACHMENT D

INDEPENDENT CORPORATE MONITOR

1. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the filing of the Deferred

Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement") and the accompanying Information, or

promptly after the Department's selection pursuant to paragraph 2 below, Technip

S.A. ("Technip") agrees to retain an independent corporate monitor who is a

French national (the "Monitor") for the term specified in paragraph 2 below. The

Monitor's primary responsibility is to assess and monitor Technip's compliance

with the terms of this Agreement as described below so as to specifically address

and reduce the risk of any recurrence of the Company's misconduct, including

evaluating Technip's corporate compliance program with respect to the Foreign

Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 ("FCPA"), as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78dd-l, et seq.,

French laws implementing the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of

Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions ("French anti-

corruption laws"), and other relevant anti-corruption laws. Within thirty (30)

calendar days after the execution of this Agreement, and after consultation with the

Department, Technip will propose to the Department a pool of three qualified

candidates to serve as the Monitor. If the Department, in its sole discretion, is not

satisfied with the candidates proposed, the Department reserves the right to seek

additional nominations from Technip. The Monitor candidates shall have, at a


Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 50 of 61

minimum~ the following qualifications:

a. the qualifications and experience sufficient in the opinion of

the Department to discharge the Monitor's duties as described in the Agreement;

b. the ability to access and deploy resources as necessary to

discharge the Monitor's duties as described in the Agreement; and

c. sufficient independence from Technip to ensure effective and

impartial performance of the Monitor's duties as described in the Agreement.

Technip shall provide the Monitor with sufficient resources to ensure that the

Monitor, to the extent necessary, has access to expertise with respect to the FCPA

and other relevant anti-corruption laws and the design, review, implementation,

and testing of corporate compliance policies, procedures, and internal controls.

2. The Department retains the right, in its sole discretion, to choose the

Monitor from among the candidates proposed by Technip, though Technip may

express its preference(s) among the candidates. Subject to an extension pursuant to

paragraph 3 of the Agreement, the Monitor's term shall expire two (2) years from

the date of the Monitor's engagement. If the Monitor resigns or is otherwise

unable to fulfill his or her obligations as set out herein, Technip shall within sixty

(60) calendar days recommend a pool of three qualified Monitor candidates from

which the Department will choose a replacement. The Monitor's duties and
2
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 51 of 61

authorities, and the obligations of Technip with respect to the Monitor and the

Department, are set forth below.

3. Technip agrees that it will not employ or be affiliated with the

Monitor for a period of not less than one year from the date on which the

Monitor's term expires.

4. The Monitor will review and evaluate the effectiveness of Technip's

internal controls, record-keeping, and financial reporting policies and procedures

as they relate to Technip's compliance with the books and records, internal

accounting controls, and anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, French anti-

corruption laws, and other applicable anti-corruption laws. The Monitor shall

assess whether Technip's existing policies and procedures are reasonably designed

to detect and prevent violations of the FCPA, French anti-corruption French laws,

and other applicable anti-corruption laws. The Monitor's review and evaluation

shall include an assessment of Technip's implementation of and adherence to all

existing, modified, or new policies and procedures relating to compliance with the

FCP A, French anti-corruption laws, and other applicable anti-corruption laws. The

Monitor shall ensure that Technip's anti-corruption policies and procedures are

appropriately designed to accomplish their goals. The retention agreement

between Technip and the Monitor will reference the Agreement and include it as

3
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 52 of 61

an attachment so the Monitor is fully apprised of his or her duties and

responsibilities.

5. Technip shall cooperate fully with the Monitor, consistent with

French law, and the Monitor shall have the authority to take such reasonable steps

as, in his or her view, may be necessary to be fully informed about the corporate

compliance program of Technip within the scope of his or her responsibilities

under this Agreement. To that end, Technip shall provide the Monitor with access

to all information, documents, and records that are not subject to protection from

disclosure by French data protection and labor laws, the attorney-client privilege or

the attorney work product doctrine, and facilities and employees that fall within the

scope of responsibilities of the Monitor under this Agreement.

a. The parties agree that the Monitor is an independent third-

party, not an employee or agent of the Company or the Department, and that no

attorney-client relationship shall be formed between Technip and the Monitor.

b. In the event that Technip seeks to withhold from the Monitor

access to information, documents, records, facilities, and/or employees of Technip

on grounds that the information, documents, records, facilities, and/or employees

are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-

product doctrine, or French data protection or labor law, Technip shall work
4
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 53 of 61

cooperatively with the Monitor to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the

Monitor. If the matter cannot be resolved, at the request of the Monitor, Technip

shall promptly provide written notice to the Monitor and the Department. Such

notice shall include a general description of the nature of the information,

documents, records, facilities, and/or employees that are being withheld, as well as

the basis for the claim. The Monitor shall then refer the matter for resolution to a

qualified French legal expert, independent of Technip, selected by the Monitor (the

"French legal expert"), whose resolution of the matter shall be binding on Technip.

c. Except as provided in this paragraph, Technip shall not

withhold from the Monitor any information, documents, records, facilities, and/or

employees on the basis of an attorney-client privilege, work-product claim, or any

other ground.

6. During the Monitor's term, the Monitor shall conduct annual reviews

and prepare annual written reports. With respect to each review, the Monitor shall

prepare a written work plan after consultation with Technip and the Department.

The proposed work plan shall be submitted to Technip and the Department no

fewer than sixty (60) calendar days prior to commencing each review. Technip

and the Department shall have no more than ten (10) calendar days after receipt of

the proposed written work plan to provide comment to the Monitor about the work
5
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 54 of 61

plan. The Monitor's work plan for the initial review shall include such steps as are

reasonably necessary to conduct an effective initial review in accordance with the

Agreement, including developing an understanding, to the extent the Monitor

deems appropriate, of the facts and circumstances surrounding any violations that

may have occurred before the date on which this Agreement was executed, but in

developing such understanding the Monitor is to rely to the extent possible on

available information and documents provided by Technip. It is not intended that

the Monitor will conduct its own inquiry into those historical events. In

developing each work plan and in carrying out the reviews pursuant to such plans,

the Monitor is encouraged to coordinate with Technip personnel, including

auditors and compliance personnel. To the extent the Monitor deems appropriate,

it may rely on Technip processes, on the results of studies, reviews, audits, and

analyses conducted by or on behalf of Technip, and on sampling and testing

methodologies. Any disputes between Technip, the Department, and/or the

Monitor with respect to the work plan shall be resolved by the Monitor, which

resolution shall be binding on Technip.

7. The initial review shall commence no later than one hundred twenty

(120) calendar days from the date of the engagement of the Monitor (unless

otherwise agreed by Technip, the Monitor, and the Department), and the Monitor

6
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 55 of 61

shall issue a written report within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days of

initiating the initial review, setting forth the Monitor's assessment and making

recommendations reasonably designed to improve the effectiveness of Technip's

program for ensuring compliance with the FCPA, the French anti-corruption laws,

and other applicable anti-corruption laws. The Monitor is encouraged to consult

with Technip concerning its findings and recommendations on an ongoing basis,

and to consider and reflect Technip's comments and input to the extent the Monitor

deems appropriate. To the extent that it deems necessary and/or appropriate, the

Monitor may consult with France's Central Service for the Prevention of

Corruption ("SCPC"), which is attached to the French Ministry of Justice, to

ensure that Technip's compliance program and procedures meet the SCPC's

standards and are consistent with French anti-corruption laws. The Monitor need

not in its initial or subsequent reports recite or describe comprehensively Technip's

history or compliance policies, procedures, and practices, but rather may focus on

those areas with respect to which the Monitor wishes to make recommendations

for improvement or which the Monitor otherwise concludes merit particular

attention, if any. The Monitor shall provide the report to the Board of Directors of

Technip and contemporaneously transmit a copy to the Department. To the extent

that the Monitor determines after consultation with Technip and, if necessary,

7
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 56 of 61

appropriate French authorities that transmittal of information in such report to the

Department would violate Articles 1 and 1 bis of French Law No. 68-678 of July

26, 1968, as amended by Law No. 80-538 of July 16, 1980 (the "Blocking

Statute"), the Monitor shall submit a redacted report to the Department. In such

case, the Department will request a copy of the unredacted report through a mutual

legal assistance request to the appropriate French authority. Technip shall not

object to such request, and shall cooperate with the French authority to ensure that

the unredacted report is transmitted expeditiously to the Department in accordance

with applicable law. Technip agrees that until the criminal Information is

dismissed pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, there will be pending in the

United States a "proceeding[] in respect of criminal offenses" within the meaning

of Article 1 of the Treaty with France on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal

Matters. After consultation with Technip, the Monitor may extend the time period

for issuance of the report for up to sixty (60) calendar days with prior written

approval of the Department.

8. Within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days after receiving

the Monitor's report, Technip shall adopt all recommendations in the report unless

within sixty (60) calendar days after receiving the report, Technip notifies the

Monitor and the Department in writing of any recommendations that Technip

8
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 57 of 61

considers unduly burdensome, inconsistent with local or other applicable law or

regulation, impractical, unduly expensive, or otherwise inadvisable. It shall not be

deemed inconsistent with law if information otherwise protected by the Blocking

Statute may be provided to the Department in accordance with French law via a

mutual legal assistance request to the appropriate French authority or in some other

manner consistent with French law. With respect to any recommendation Technip

considers unduly burdensome, inconsistent with local or other applicable law or

regulation, impractical, unduly expensive, or otherwise inadvisable, Technip need

not adopt that recommendation within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days

after receiving the Monitor's report, but shall propose in writing to the Monitor an

alternative policy, procedure, or system designed to achieve the same objective or

purpose. As to any recommendation on which Technip and the Monitor do not

agree, the parties shall consult with the SCPC and attempt in good faith to reach an

agreement within forty-five (45) calendar days after Technip serves the written

notice. In the event Technip and the Monitor are unable to agree on an acceptable

alternative proposal, the Monitor, taking into consideration the views of the SCPC,

if any, will make a determination as to whether Technip should adopt the

Monitor's recommendation or an alternative proposal, and that determination shall

be binding on Technip. During the time period in which a determination is

9
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 58 of 61

pending, Technip shall not be required to implement any contested

recommendation. With respect to any recommendation the Monitor determines

cannot reasonably be implemented within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar

days after receiving the report, the Monitor may extend the time period for

implementation with prior written approval of the Department.

9. The Monitor shall undertake one (1) follow-up review, unless the term

of the monitorship is extended under Paragraph 3 of the Agreement to a term of

three years, in which case the Monitor shall undertake two (2) follow-up reviews.

Within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days of initiating a follow-up

review, the Monitor shall: (a) complete the review; (b) certify whether the

compliance program of Technip, including its policies and procedures, is

reasonably designed and implemented to detect and prevent violations within

Technip of relevant anti-corruption laws; and (c) report on the Monitor's findings

in the same fashion as set forth in Paragraph 8 with respect to the initial review.

The follow-up review shall commence one year after the initial review

commenced. If there is a second follow-up review, it shall commence two years

after the first review commenced. After consultation with Technip, the Monitor

may extend the time period for these follow-up reviews for up to sixty (60)

calendar days with prior written approval of the Department.

10
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 59 of 61

10. In undertaking the assessments and reviews described in Paragraphs 4

through 9, the Monitor shall formulate conclusions based on, among other things:

(a) inspection of relevant documents, including Technip's current anti-corruption

policies and procedures; (b) on-site observation of selected systems and procedures

of Technip at sample sites, including internal controls and record-keeping and

internal audit procedures; (c) meetings with and interviews of relevant employees,

officers, directors, and other persons at mutually convenient times and places; and

(d) analyses, studies, and testing of Technip's compliance program with respect to

anti-corruption laws.

11. Should the Monitor, during the course of its engagement, discover

credible allegations or evidence that questionable or corrupt payments or

questionable or corrupt transfers of property or interests may have been offered,

promised, paid, or authorized by any entity or person within Technip, or any entity

or person working directly or indirectly for Technip, or that related false books and

records may have been maintained relating to Technip, or that Technip has

committed any felony under federal law, either (a) after the date on which this

Agreement is executed or (b) that have not been adequately dealt with by Technip

(collectively "improper activities"), the Monitor shall promptly report such

improper activities to Technip's Ethics and Compliance Committee, its Ethics and

11
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 60 of 61

Governance Committee, and the Chairman of Technip. To the extent that the

Monitor believes that such improper activities could, if proven, violate the FCP A,

constitute a felony under federal law, or violate the French anti-corruption laws,

the Monitor shall recommend that Technip conduct further investigation. Upon

such a recommendation, Technip shall cause an appropriately structured review to

be conducted under the auspices of Tech nip's Ethics and Compliance Committee,

and a report of the review shall be made to the Monitor. If the Monitor determines

that a violation of the FCPA, another federal felony statute, or the French anti-

corruption laws may have occurred subsequent to the date on which this

Agreement is executed or that was not adequately dealt with by Technip, the

Monitor shall direct that Technip report the potential improper activities to an

appropriate French law enforcement authority within ten (10) calendar days, failing

which the Monitor shall report the same to an appropriate French law enforcement

authority. At the same time as the report to the French law enforcement authority,

Technip (or, ifTechnip fails to make the report, the Monitor) shall notify the

Department that it has made a report to the French law enforcement authority

under this paragraph. The notification shall include sufficient information,

consistent with French law, to allow the Department to evaluate the nature of the

potential violation and determine how to respond. If the Monitor makes the

12
Case 4:10-cr-00439 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 61 of 61

notification to the Department, he or she may consult with the French legal expert

to ensure that the content of the notification is drafted so as not to violate the

Blocking Statute. If the Department makes a mutual legal assistance request to the

French authority, Technip shall not object to such request, and shall cooperate with

the French authority to ensure that the report and any other requested information

is transmitted expeditiously to the Department in accordance with applicable law.

12. The Monitor shall address in its annual reports the appropriateness of

Technip's response to all improper activities. Further, in the event that Technip or

any entity or person working directly or indirectly within Technip refuses to

provide information necessary for the Monitor to perform its duties, the Monitor

shall disclose that fact to the Department. Technip shall not take any action to

retaliate against the Monitor for any such disclosures.

l3. At least annually, and more frequently if appropriate, representatives

from Technip and the Department will meet to discuss the monitors hip and any

suggestions, comments, or improvements Technip may wish to discuss with or

propose to the Department, including with respect to fees and costs associated with

the monitorship.

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

§
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civil Action No. __________
vs. §
§ COMPLAINT
TECHNIP, §
§
Defendant. §
§

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) alleges:

SUMMARY

1. This action arises from multiple violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

(the “FCPA”) of the federal securities laws by Defendant Technip (“Technip” or “Defendant”).

2. Between at least 1995 and 2004, senior executives at Technip, among others,

devised and implemented a scheme to bribe Nigerian government officials to assist in obtaining

multiple contracts worth over $6 billion to build liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) production

facilities on Bonny Island, Nigeria. A four-company joint venture called “TSKJ,” of which

Technip was a member, won the contracts. To conceal the illicit payments, Technip and others,

through the joint venture, entered into sham “consulting” or “services” agreements with

intermediaries who would then funnel their purportedly legitimate fees to Nigerian officials.

Specifically, Technip, through the joint venture, implemented this scheme by using a Gibraltar

shell company controlled by a solicitor based in the United Kingdom (“the UK Agent”) and a

Japanese trading company (“the Japanese Agent”) as conduits for the bribes.

3. As a result of the scheme, numerous books and records of Technip contained false

information relating to, among other things, the UK Agent and the Japanese Agent, and the

payments made to them.

4. Technip was a U.S. issuer between August 30, 2001 and November 14, 2007.

Technip registered securities with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78l(b)].

5. Technip was a member of the TSKJ joint venture and engaged in illegal bribery

from at least 1995 through June 2004. The Commission brings this action against the Defendant

seeking permanent injunctive relief to prevent future violations of the federal securities laws, and

seeking its ill-gotten gains.

JURISDICTION

6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 21(d), 21(e) and

27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa].

7. Technip, directly and indirectly, made use of the mails and of the means and

instrumentalities of interstate commerce in connection with the acts, practices and courses of

business described in this Complaint.

DEFENDANT

8. Technip is a French corporation, headquartered in Paris, France. American

Depository Shares, representing ordinary shares of Technip, were registered with and listed on

the New York Stock Exchange.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Technip Agrees to Pay Bribes to Obtain Nigeria LNG Contract

9. In the late 1980s, the Nigerian government created Nigeria LNG, Ltd. (“Nigeria

LNG”) to capture and sell the natural gas associated with oil production in Nigeria. Nigeria

LNG is an entity and instrumentality of the Nigerian government. At all relevant times, the

Nigerian government owned 49% or more of Nigeria LNG and, through the directors that it

appointed to the Board of Directors of Nigeria LNG, the Nigerian government exercised control

over the company. Three multinational companies own the remainder of Nigeria LNG. Nigerian

employees of Nigeria LNG are detailed from the Nigerian Ministry of Petroleum Resources or

the government-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. (“NNPC”). In the early 1990s,

Nigeria LNG invited bids to construct two LNG “trains” on Bonny Island, Nigeria, estimated to

be worth $1.8 billion. An LNG train is a facility to convert raw natural gas into pure LNG, ready

for delivery to a tanker.

10. In 1990, in order to pursue LNG projects in Nigeria, Technip formed a joint

venture with three other multinational engineering and construction companies. The joint

venture began to pursue bidding on a construction contract for Nigeria LNG to build two LNG

trains in Nigeria. The joint venture operated through entities incorporated in Madeira, Portugal.

11. Executives and employees at the highest level of Technip were closely involved

in the joint venture and its business in Nigeria from the joint venture’s inception. Each member

of the joint venture had one or more representatives on a steering committee that ran the joint

venture.

12. From the inception of the joint venture, the sales executives and other senior

personnel of the four joint venture members believed that it was necessary to pay bribes to

Nigerian government officials to assist in obtaining the LNG construction contracts. In

conjunction with the Japanese Agent, the sales executives of the joint venture companies formed

what they called the “cultural committee” to consider how to implement, but hide, the scheme to

pay bribes. The committee members discussed: (i) entering into sham consulting contracts with

various individuals or shell corporations; (ii) “downloading” or “offloading” the payments

through subcontractors or vendors; and (iii) entering into phony “services” contracts with the

Japanese Agent. Ostensibly, the consultants or vendors would be retained and paid to perform

legitimate services. In actuality, the consultants or vendors would use the money in whole or in

part to make corrupt payments to Nigerian government officials on behalf of the joint venture.

13. Eventually, the joint venture decided to funnel the payments through two entities,

using the UK Agent to pay high-ranking Nigerian officials, and using the Japanese Agent to pay

lower-level Nigerian officials. These agents were sometimes referred to as “Cultural Advisors.”

The joint venture steering committee approved the use of the two agents, and the steering

committee approved the contracts eventually entered into between the joint venture and the two

agents.

14. In pursuing the bidding with Nigeria LNG, in holding meetings of the steering

committee and the cultural committee, in carrying out the construction contracts, and in all

related matters, Technip and the other members of the joint venture routinely made use of the

U.S. mails, and of U.S. common carriers, and of other instrumentalities of U.S. interstate

commerce. Payments made by the joint venture to the bank accounts of the UK Agent were

routed through banks in New York, New York.

The UK Agent

Trains One and Two

15. The joint venture decided to use the UK Agent for Trains One and Two. Before

the joint venture entered into a written contract with the UK Agent, executives from Technip and

other representatives of the joint venture traveled to Nigeria to meet with high-ranking Nigerian

government officials in November 1994 to discuss the possible use of the UK Agent. The

officials confirmed that the UK Agent was the right conduit. Thereafter, in March 1995, the

joint venture entered into an agreement to pay the UK Agent $60 million, with the understanding

that a substantial portion of this money would be funneled to Nigerian officials as bribes.

16. In December 1995, Nigeria LNG awarded the joint venture the contract to build

the first two LNG Trains, for $2.2 billion. The joint venture began construction in 1996 and

finished in 2000. As the joint venture received payments for the construction from Nigeria LNG,

it paid the UK Agent. The joint venture sent a total of $60 million to the UK Agent’s Swiss bank

account between December 1995 and March 2000 for use in making corrupt payments to

Nigerian government officials.

17. As the UK Agent received these payments, the UK Agent made systematic and

substantial transfers of money to accounts owned or controlled by one or more high-ranking

Nigerian government officials.

Train Three

18. In 1996, the joint venture began pursuing a contract with Nigeria LNG to build

Train Three on Bonny Island, Nigeria. In May 1997, at least one senior executive from Technip,

along with others in the joint venture, traveled to Nigeria to meet with high-ranking Nigerian

government officials to confirm that the UK Agent was still the correct intermediary to use to

pay bribes.

19. In February 1999, following a change in government, an executive from Technip

and others from the joint venture, traveled to Nigeria to meet a high-ranking Nigerian

government official who confirmed that the UK Agent was the correct intermediary. The

Nigerian official also appointed his own representative to negotiate the bribe amount. In March

1999, an executive from Technip and others from the joint venture met with the Nigerian

official’s representative in London to negotiate the amount of the bribes to be paid in connection

with the award of the Train Three LNG contract. Technip, along with the other joint venture

partners, agreed to pay $32.5 million through the UK Agent.

20. Days after the London meeting, Nigeria LNG awarded the Train Three contract to

the joint venture for $1.2 billion. The joint venture then entered into a new agreement with the

UK Agent for the $32.5 million negotiated at the London meeting. Between March 1999 and

May 2003, the joint venture paid the UK Agent, directing the payments to the UK Agent’s bank

accounts in Switzerland and Monaco. After receiving the money, the UK Agent made

substantial payments to accounts controlled by one or more high-ranking Nigerian government

officials.

Trains Four and Five

21. In approximately 2001, the joint venture discussed the award of the next series of

LNG Trains. In November 2001, a joint venture representative and others traveled to Nigeria to

meet a high-ranking government official, who confirmed that the UK Agent was still acceptable

to serve as a conduit for the payments and who appointed his own representative to negotiate the

bribe amount.

22. In December 2001, the joint venture entered into another agreement with the UK

Agent in connection with Trains Four and Five for $51 million. In March 2002, Nigeria LNG

awarded the joint venture a $1.6 billion contract to build Trains Four and Five. Between March

2002 and January 2004, the joint venture paid the UK Agent $40 million under the sham

consulting agreement. After receiving the money, the UK Agent made substantial transfers of

money to one or more high-ranking Nigerian government officials.

23. In one instance, the UK Agent used a subcontractor on the Nigeria LNG project

(the “Subcontractor”) to transfer $5 million to a Nigerian government official for the benefit of a

Nigerian political party. The Subcontractor official, the UK Agent and the Nigerian government

official met in London in June 2002 to discuss the terms of the transfer.

24. Beginning in August 2002, the UK Agent wire transferred $5 million from money

received from the joint venture to a bank account of the Subcontractor in the U.K. The

Subcontractor then transferred this money to a bank account in Nigeria. Thereafter, as the

money came in, the Subcontractor withdrew cash in U.S. dollars or in local currency and

delivered the money to the Nigerian official.

25. On several occasions, the Subcontractor personally hand-delivered $1 million in

U.S. currency in a brief case to the Nigerian official in a hotel room in Abuja, Nigeria. The

Subcontractor delivered the remainder of the $5 million to the Nigerian official in local Nigerian

currency, the Naira. Because the Naira was too bulky to deliver by hand, the Subcontractor

loaded the cash into vehicles, which were delivered to the Nigerian official.

The Japanese Agent

26. As alleged above, Technip and others in the joint venture agreed to use the

Japanese Agent to make corrupt payments to lower-level Nigerian government officials in

connection with the Bonny Island LNG Trains.

27. Between 1996 and 2002, the joint venture entered into three “services”

agreements with the Japanese Agent. Technip and others authorized and directed the joint

venture to enter into each of the agreements with the Japanese Agent intending and expecting

that the Japanese Agent would use money it received under these agreements to offer and make

corrupt payments to lower-level Nigerian officials to assist in obtaining the LNG contracts to

build Trains One through Five.

28. Between 1996 and June 2004, when the payments ended, the joint venture paid

the Japanese Agent more than $50 million.

Documents at Technip Contained False Information

29. In numerous joint venture company records, the payments to the UK Agent and

the Japanese Agent were falsely characterized as legitimate “consulting” or “services” fees

when, in fact, they were bribes. The contracts with the UK Agent and the Japanese Agent falsely

described the purpose of the contracts in order to make it appear that the agents would perform

legitimate services. Senior executives of Technip maintained the joint venture records as part of

Technip’s company records.

Internal Controls at Technip Failed to Detect, Deter or Prevent Bribery

30. Technip conducted due diligence on the UK Agent that was not adequate to

detect, deter or prevent the UK Agent from paying bribes, and Technip conducted no due

diligence on the Japanese Agent.

31. After Technip became a U.S. issuer in August 2001, it became subject to the

FCPA, including the Act’s prohibitions on the payment of anything of value to foreign

government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. Although the executives of

Technip who participated in the joint venture were aware of these prohibitions, Technip did not

implement adequate controls to ensure compliance with the Act. For example, Technip did not

adopt due diligence procedures as to agents that were adequate to detect, deter or prevent the

payment of bribes by agents. The due diligence procedures adopted by Technip only required

that potential agents respond to a written questionnaire, seeking minimal background information

about the agent. No additional due diligence was required, such as an interview of the agent, or a

background check, or obtaining information beyond that provided by the answers to the

questionnaire. A senior executive of Technip admitted that the due diligence procedures adopted

by Technip were a perfunctory exercise, conducted so that Technip would have some

documentation in its files of purported due diligence. In fact, Technip executives knew that the

purpose of the agreements with the UK Agent was to funnel bribes to Nigerian officials, and

therefore certain answers by the UK Agent to the questionnaire were false.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Technip Violated Section 30A of the Exchange Act


(Anti-Bribery Provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act)

32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

33. As described above, Technip, a U.S. issuer between August 30, 2001 and

November 14, 2007, through its employees and the joint venture, made use of the mails or other

means or instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of an offer, payment,

promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of any money, or offer, gift, promise to give, or

authorization of the giving of anything of value, to foreign officials for the purposes of

influencing their acts or decisions, securing an improper advantage, or inducing them to use their

influence, to assist the issuer in obtaining or retaining business.

34. By reason of the foregoing, Technip violated, and unless restrained and enjoined

will continue to violate, Section 30A of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1].

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Technip Violated Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act


(Company Records and Internal Controls)

35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 above are realleged and incorporated by reference

herein.

36. Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act requires companies to keep accurate

books, records and accounts which reflect fairly the transactions entered into by companies and

the disposition of its assets.

37. Section 13(b)(2)(B) requires companies to devise and maintain a system of

internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that transactions are

recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally

accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, and to

maintain accountability for such assets.

38. By reason of the foregoing, Technip violated Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and

13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A) & (B)].

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

(1) Enter a final judgment permanently enjoining Technip from violating Sections

30A, 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, 78m(b)(2)(A) and

78m(b)(2)(B)];

10

(2) Enter a final judgment ordering Defendant Technip to disgorge ill-gotten gains

wrongfully obtained as a result of its illegal conduct; and

(3) Grant the Commission such other and further relief as is just and appropriate.

Dated: June 28, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

_s/ Mark A. Adler______________


Mark A. Adler (Attorney-in-charge)
Antonia Chion
Kara N. Brockmeyer
Robert G. Wilson
Stanley M. Cichinski
Ansu N. Banerjee

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549-4030

Tel: (202) 551-4402 (Adler)

Fax: (202) 772-9245 (Adler)

11

Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

§
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civil Action No.:
~ §
§
TECHNIP, §
§
Defendant. §
§

CONSENT OF DEFENDANT TECHNIP

1. Defendant Technip ("Defendant" or "Technip") waives service of a summons and

the complaint in this action, enters a general appearance, and admits the Court's jurisdiction over

Defendant and over the subject matter of this action.

2. Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint (except as to

personal and subject matter jurisdiction, which Defendant admits), Defendant hereby consents to

the entry of the final Judgment in the form attached hereto (the "Final Judgment") and

incorporated by reference herein, which, among other things:

(a) permanently restrains and enjoins Defendant from: (i) violating Sections

30A, 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(the "Exchange Act") [15 U.S.c. §§ 78dd-l, 78m(b)(2)(A) and

78m(b)(2)(B)]; and

(b) orders Defendant to pay disgorgement in the amount of $98,000,000.

1
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 2 of 11

3. Defendant waives the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to

Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. Defendant waives the right, if any, to a jury trial and to appeal from the entry of

the Final Judgment.

5. Defendant enters into this Consent voluntarily and represents that no threats,

offers, promises, or inducements of any kind have been made by the Commission or any

member, officer, employee, agent, or representative of the Commission to induce Defendant to

enter into this Consent.

6. Defendant agrees that this Consent shall be incorporated into the Final Judgment

with the same force and effect as if fully set forth therein.

7. Defendant will not oppose the enforcement of the Final Judgment on the ground,

if any exists, that it fails to comply with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

hereby waives any objection based thereon.

8. Defendant waives service of the Final Judgment and agrees that entry of the Final

Judgment by the Court and filing with the Clerk of the Court will constitute notice to Defendant

of its terms and conditions. Defendant further agrees to provide counsel for the Commission,

within thirty (30) days after the Final Judgment is filed with the Clerk of the Court, with an

affidavit or declaration stating that Defendant has received and read a copy of the Final

Judgment.

9. Consistent with 17 C.F.R. 202.5(f), this Consent resolves only the claims asserted

against Defendant in this civil proceeding. Defendant acknowledges that no promise or

representation has been made by the Commission or any member, officer, employee, agent, or

representative of the· Commission with regard to any criminal liability that may have arisen or

2
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 3 of 11

may arise from the facts underlying this action or immunity from any such criminal liability.

Defendant waives any claim of Double Jeopardy based upon the settlement of this proceeding,

including the imposition of any remedy or civil penalty herein. Defendant further acknowledges

that the Court's entry of a permanent injunction may have collateral consequences under federal

or state law and the rules and regulations of self-regulatory organizations, licensing boards, and

other regulatory organizations. Such collateral consequences include, but are not limited to, a

statutory disqualification with respect to membership or participation in, or association with a

member of, a self-regulatory organization. This statutory disqualification has consequences that

are separate from any sanction imposed in an administrative proceeding. In addition, in any

disciplinary proceeding before the Commission based on the entry of the injunction in this

action, Defendant understands that it shall not be permitted to contest the factual allegations of

the complaint in this action.

10. Defendant understands and agrees to comply with the Commission's policy "not

to permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction

while denying the allegation in the complaint or order for proceedings." 17 C.F.R. § 202.5. In

compliance with this policy, Defendant agrees: (i) not to take any action or to make or permit to

be made any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or

creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis; and (ii) that upon the filing of

this Consent, Defendant hereby withdraws any papers filed in this action to the extent that they

deny any allegation in the complaint. If Defendant breaches this agreement, the Commission

may petition the Court to vacate the Final Judgment and restore this action to its active docket.

Nothing in this paragraph affects Defendant's: (i) testimonial obligations; or (ii) right to take

3
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 4 of 11

legal or factual positions in litigation or other legal proceedings in which the Commission is not

a party.

11. Defendant hereby waives any rights under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, or any other provision of law to

seek from the United States, or any agency, or any official of the United States acting in his or

her official capacity, directly or indirectly, reimbursement of attorney's fees or other fees,

expenses, or costs expended by Defendant to defend against this action. For these purposes,

Defendant agrees that Defendant is not the prevailing party in this action since the parties have

reached a good faith settlement.

12. Defendant agrees that the Commission may present the Final Judgment to the

Court for signature and entry without further notice.

4
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 5 of 11

13. Defendant agrees that this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the

purpose of enforcing the terms of the Final Judgment.

TECHNIP

By: -'~~r---~~----~-rr----------

Approved as to form:

Robert D. Luskin, Esq.


2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Tel: (202) 457-6190

5
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 6 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE RESOLUTION

I, John Harrison, do hereby certify that I am the General Counsel of Technip and that the
follo~ a complete and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by Technip on

--"o"----:O~~----' 2010:
SEC AUTHORIZATION

RESOLVED, that John Harrison, General Counsel of the Company, be and hereby is authorized
to act on behalf of the Company and, in his sole discretion, to negotiate, approve, accept
and execute the "Consent of Defendant Technip" attached hereto, in connection with the
investigation conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission; in this connection,
John Harrison is hereby authorized to undertake such actions as he may deem necessary
and advisable, including the execution of such documentation as may be required by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in order to carry out the foregoing.

I further certify that the aforementioned resolution has not been amended or revoked in
any respect and is still in full force and effect.

as r
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this Certificate as a sealed instrument
Counsel ofTechnip hereunto authorized this
,2010.
l' fA. day of

6
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 7 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

§
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civil Action No.:
~ §
§
TECHNIP, §
§
Defendant. §
§

FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT TECHNIP

The Securities and Exchange Commission having filed a Complaint and Defendant

Technip ("Technip") having entered a general appearance; consented to the Court's jurisdiction

over Technip and the subject matter of this action; consented to entry of this Final Judgment

without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint (except as to jurisdiction); waived

findings of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any right to appeal from this Final Judgment:

1.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant Technip and

Technip's officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or

participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or

otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly,

Section 30A ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. § 78dd-l]

by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in


Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 8 of 11

furtherance of any offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of any money,

or offer, gift, promise to give, or authorization of the giving of anything of value to-

(1) any foreign official for purposes of-

(A) (i) influencing any act or decision of such foreign official in his official

capacity, (ii) inducing such foreign official to do or omit to do any act in violation

of the lawful duty of such official, or (iii) securing any improper advantage; or

(B) inducing such foreign official to use his influence with a foreign government

or instrumentality thereof to affect or influence any act or decision of such

government or instrumentality,

in order to assist Technip in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing

business to, any person;

(2) any foreign political party or official thereof or any candidate for foreign political

office for purposes of-

(A)(i) influencing any act or decision of such party, official, or candidate in its or

his official capacity, (ii) inducing such party, official, or candidate to do or omit to

do an act in violation of the lawful duty of such party, official, or candidate, or

(iii) securing any improper advantage; or

(B) inducing such party, official, or candidate to use its or his influence with a

foreign government or instrumentality thereof to affect or influence any act or

decision of such government or instrumentality,

in order to assist Technip in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing

business to, any person; or

2
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 9 of 11

(3) any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value

will be offered, given, or promised, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, to

any foreign political party or official thereof, or to any candidate for foreign

political office for purposes of-

(A)(i) influencing any act or decision of such foreign official, political party,

party official, or candidate in his or its official capacity, (ii) inducing such foreign

official, political party, party official, or candidate to do or omit to do any act in

violation of the lawful duty of such foreign official, political party, party official,

or candidate, or (iii) securing any improper advantage; or

(B) inducing such foreign official, political party, party official, or candidate to

use his or its influence with a foreign government or instrumentality thereof to

affect or influence any act or decision of such government or instrumentality,

in order to assist Technip in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to,

any person.

II.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Technip

and Technip's officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert

or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service

or otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly,

Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A)], by failing to make and

keep books, records, and accounts, which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the

transactions and dispositions of the assets of Technip.

3
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 10 of 11

III.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Technip

and Technip's officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert

or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service

or otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly,

Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(B)], by failing to devise and

maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances

that: (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management's general or specific

authorization; (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial

statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria

applicable to such statements, and to maintain accountability for assets; (iii) access to assets is

permitted only in accordance with management's general or specific authorization; and (iv) the

recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and

appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences.

IV.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant

Technip is liable for disgorgment of $98,000,000, representing profits gained as a result of the

conduct alleged in the Complaint and prejudgment interest thereon. Technip shall satisfy this

obligation by paying $98,000,000 within fourteen (14) days after entry ofthis Final Judgment by

wire transfer, certified check, bank cashier's check, or United States postal money order payable

to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The payment shall be delivered or mailed to the

Office of Financial Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Center, 6432

General Green Way, Mail Stop 0-3, Alexandria, Virginia 22312, and shall be accompanied by a

4
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 11 of 11

cover letter identifying Technip as a defendant in this action; setting forth the title and civil

action number of this action and the name of this Court; and specifying that payment is made

pursuant to this Final Judgment. Technip shall simultaneously transmit photocopies or other

suitable proof of the payment and letter to the Commission's counsel in this action. By making

these payments, Technip relinquishes all legal and equitable right, title, and interest in such

funds, and no part of the funds shall be returned to Technip. Technip shall pay post-judgment

interest on any delinquent amounts pursuant to 28 USC§ 1961. The Commission shall remit the

funds paid pursuant to this paragraph to the United States Treasury.

V.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Consent is

incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein, and that Technip

shall comply with all of the undertakings and agreements set forth therein.

VI.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court shall retain

jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Final Judgment.

Dated: - - - - - _ .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

§
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civil Action No.:
vs. § 4:10-cv-2289
§
TECHNIP, §
§
Defendant. §
§

FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT TECHNIP

The Securities and Exchange Commission having filed a Complaint and Defendant

Technip (“Technip”) having entered a general appearance; consented to the Court’s jurisdiction

over Technip and the subject matter of this action; consented to entry of this Final Judgment

without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint (except as to jurisdiction); waived

findings of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any right to appeal from this Final

Judgment:

I.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant Technip

and Technip's officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert

or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service

or otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly,

Section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1]
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 2 of 5

by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in

furtherance of any offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of any

money, or offer, gift, promise to give, or authorization of the giving of anything of value to—

(1) any foreign official for purposes of—

(A)(i) influencing any act or decision of such foreign official in his official

capacity, (ii) inducing such foreign official to do or omit to do any act in violation

of the lawful duty of such official, or (iii) securing any improper advantage; or

(B) inducing such foreign official to use his influence with a foreign government

or instrumentality thereof to affect or influence any act or decision of such

government or instrumentality,

in order to assist Technip in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing

business to, any person;

(2) any foreign political party or official thereof or any candidate for foreign political

office for purposes of—

(A)(i) influencing any act or decision of such party, official, or candidate in its or

his official capacity, (ii) inducing such party, official, or candidate to do or omit

to do an act in violation of the lawful duty of such party, official, or candidate, or

(iii) securing any improper advantage; or

(B) inducing such party, official, or candidate to use its or his influence with a

foreign government or instrumentality thereof to affect or influence any act or

decision of such government or instrumentality,

in order to assist Technip in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing

business to, any person; or

2
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 3 of 5

(3) any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value

will be offered, given, or promised, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official,

to any foreign political party or official thereof, or to any candidate for foreign

political office for purposes of—

(A)(i) influencing any act or decision of such foreign official, political party,

party official, or candidate in his or its official capacity, (ii) inducing such foreign

official, political party, party official, or candidate to do or omit to do any act in

violation of the lawful duty of such foreign official, political party, party official,

or candidate, or (iii) securing any improper advantage; or

(B) inducing such foreign official, political party, party official, or candidate to

use his or its influence with a foreign government or instrumentality thereof to

affect or influence any act or decision of such government or instrumentality,

in order to assist Technip in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to,

any person.

II.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Technip

and Technip’s officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert

or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service

or otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly,

Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(A)], by failing to make and

keep books, records, and accounts, which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the

transactions and dispositions of the assets of Technip.

3
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 4 of 5

III.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Technip

and Technip’s officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert

or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service

or otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly,

Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(B)], by failing to devise and

maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances

that: (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific

authorization; (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial

statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria

applicable to such statements, and to maintain accountability for assets; (iii) access to assets is

permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; and (iv) the

recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and

appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences.

IV.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant

Technip is liable for disgorgment of $98,000,000, representing profits gained as a result of the

conduct alleged in the Complaint and prejudgment interest thereon. Technip shall satisfy this

obligation by paying $98,000,000 within fourteen (14) days after entry of this Final Judgment by

wire transfer, certified check, bank cashier’s check, or United States postal money order payable

to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The payment shall be delivered or mailed to the

Office of Financial Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Center,

6432 General Green Way, Mail Stop 0-3, Alexandria, Virginia 22312, and shall be accompanied

4
Case 4:10-cv-02289 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 06/28/10 Page 5 of 5

by a cover letter identifying Technip as a defendant in this action; setting forth the title and civil

action number of this action and the name of this Court; and specifying that payment is made

pursuant to this Final Judgment. Technip shall simultaneously transmit photocopies or other

suitable proof of the payment and letter to the Commission’s counsel in this action. By making

these payments, Technip relinquishes all legal and equitable right, title, and interest in such

funds, and no part of the funds shall be returned to Technip. Technip shall pay post-judgment

interest on any delinquent amounts pursuant to 28 USC § 1961. The Commission shall remit the

funds paid pursuant to this paragraph to the United States Treasury.

V.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Consent is

incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein, and that Technip

shall comply with all of the undertakings and agreements set forth therein.

VI.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court shall retain

jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Final Judgment.

Dated: ______________, _____

____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE