55 See International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998, Pub. official for the purpose of obtaining more favorable L. 105-366, 112 Stat. 3302 (1998); 15 US.C. § 78dd-3 (a); see also US. tax treatment. The term should not, however, be Dept. OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL RESOURCE MANUAL § 9-1018 (Nov. construed so broadly as to include lobbying or other 2000) (the Department “interprets [Section 78dd-3(a)] as conferring normal representations to government officials. jurisdiction whenever a foreign company or national causes an act to be H.R. Rep. No. 100-576, at 1951-52 (internal citations omitted). done within the territory of the United States by any person acting as 8 See, CLs Complaint, SEC v. Panalpina, Inc., No. 10-cv-4334 (S.D. Tex. that company’s or national’s agent.”). ‘This interpretation is consistent Noy. 4, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. Panalpina, Inc.|, available with US. treaty obligations. See S. Rep. No. 105-2177 (1998) (expressing at http ://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/20 10/comp2 1727.pdf; Congress’ intention that the 1998 amendments to the FCPA “conform Criminal Information, United States v. Panalpina, Inc., No. 10-cr- it to the requirements ofandto implement the OECD Convention.”); 765 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. Anti-Bribery Convention at art. 4.1, supra note 19 (“Each Party shall Panalpina, Inc.|, available at hetp:/ /www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over fepa/ cases/ panalpina-inc/ 11-04- 10panalpina-info.pdf; Criminal the bribery of a foreign public official when the offence is committed in Information, United States v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) whole or in part in its territory.’). Ltd., No. 10-cr-769 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2010), ECF No. 1, available 5615 US.C.§ 78dd-3(a); SCE, Lay Criminal Information, United States v. at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/panalpina- Alcatel-Lucent France, S.A., et a