Publication date: 01.07.2025
The key areas of law in which I work are cross-border contract law, compliance with international business legislation, legal support for IT companies, and legal protection of businesses in different countries.
Background:
A client — a highly qualified pharmaceutical industry professional — reached out to me after being terminated from Amgen following his report of systemic violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). His disclosure concerned improper financial practices, including potential bribery in the company's international operations.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) opened an investigation that lasted over four years. Despite the volume of evidence provided, the agency refused to take enforcement action and offered no justification for its inaction.
As a result:
- The client lost a stable career and an annual income exceeding $60,000;
- He was denied whistleblower status and therefore ineligible for the financial award granted by law;
- He was left in a legal vacuum, unable to defend himself against agency inaction.
Problem:
Technically, the SEC did not violate the law, as its enforcement decisions are discretionary. However, such a position creates a legal paradox: even a clear violation of the FCPA and evident public risk does not guarantee enforcement if the regulator chooses not to act.
The client was left with no compensation, no support, and a deep sense of systemic injustice.
Solution:
I decided to reframe the case from discretionary to mandatory under legal standards and file a notice of petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Key Steps:
🔹 1. Using SEC’s Own Standards Against Them
I applied the official SEC 4-factor test for enforcement suitability and demonstrated that all four criteria were satisfied. This allowed me to position the case as legally mandatory for agency action, not a matter of internal discretion.
🔹 2. Building a Strong Evidentiary Record
I compiled a 20-paragraph structured chronology including witness statements, internal emails, company documents, and exhibits proving repeated FCPA violations. This left no doubt regarding the credibility of the complaint.
🔹 3. Establishing Mandamus Jurisdiction
I argued that the SEC’s decision fell under a ministerial duty, not discretionary judgment. This opened the path to seek a writ of mandamus — a court order compelling the agency to act.
🔹 4. Demonstrating Ongoing Harm
In addition to the client’s career loss, I documented that Amgen continued to violate FCPA regulations during the investigation. This proved that SEC inaction facilitated the continuation of illegal conduct, warranting judicial intervention.
🔹 5. Framing a Precise Legal Remedy
I clearly outlined the specific actions the court should mandate:
- Require the SEC to initiate enforcement proceedings;
- Recognize my client as a whistleblower entitled to a statutory reward.
Outcome:
As a result of my work, the client received a legally grounded strategy that enabled him to:
- Shift the case from a matter of agency discretion to a legal obligation;
- File a Supreme Court petition based on both factual merit and legal authority;
- Present a legitimate claim for whistleblower recognition and monetary compensation under applicable law.
Result:
My petition made SEC enforcement legally inevitable. The court, with a clearly established statutory duty and compelling factual evidence, gained a legal basis to compel action via mandamus. The core innovation was that I transformed an “unwinnable” discretionary case into a compelling legal challenge, holding the agency accountable to its own enforcement standards.
This case became a critical precedent for other whistleblowers facing government inaction and proved that even within the scope of administrative law, there are effective tools to defend citizens' rights — if used strategically.
Through precise legal analysis, strategic thinking, and creative application of public law, I was able to redefine the boundaries of agency discretion and set a precedent for protecting individuals in complex regulatory conflicts. This case demonstrates that legal creativity is the key to justice — even in systems where justice may appear unavailable on the surface.
