Nurturing Corrupt Business Practices Across Africa? -US Justice Department Complicitly Silent Over Ivanhoe/HPX Overseas Fraudulent Transactions

Robert Friedland

By Insight Staff Writer 

For more than half a century, the United States has stood as a global exemplar of strong institutions, sound business practices, and rigorous enforcement of laws that underpin international commerce. Its reputation for integrity in multilateral transactions has long been considered second to none.

Yet in recent years, troubling questions have emerged. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have maintained a conspicuous silence regarding confidential enforcement inquiries tied to Ivanhoe/HPX’s overseas operations—transactions reportedly involving millions of dollars in fraudulent activity. The case of HPX/Ivanhoe Atlantic’s ventures in Liberia illustrates the stakes.

Over the past four years, publicly documented conduct has gone far beyond routine commercial disputes. Allegations of secret payments of millions of dollars to a former administration, coupled with concession agreements never ratified by law, paint a picture of a high-risk profile that squarely falls within the purview of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Despite this, no formal investigations have been launched, and no company officials have been held accountable.

This silence raises a fundamental question: are U.S. national interests truly served when a company with American ties is allowed to operate in ways that may erode democratic integrity and the rule of law in West Africa—or anywhere else in the world?

$37 Million Payment: A Flagrant FCPA Anti-Bribery Indicator

The alleged $37 million payment by Ivanhoe/HPX to Liberia’s Weah administration in 2022 raises serious concerns under U.S. anti-corruption law. Specifically, it implicates both the anti-bribery and books-and-records provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

Ivanhoe/HPX has yet to provide any credible explanation for its extraordinary $37 million transfer to the Weah administration. According to insiders, the payment was intended to block the ratification of ArcelorMittal Liberia’s (AML) third amendment. While these claims remain unverified, the most troubling fact is that the payment was made under a framework agreement that the Liberian Legislature never ratified—rendering the transaction constitutionally and procedurally irregular.

This is not a mere “red flag.” A secret, multimillion-dollar payment to a foreign administration outside the established procurement process is a textbook example of potential corruption. The structure of the deal—an alleged upfront inducement designed to secure control over a critical national asset—fits squarely within the FCPA’s anti-bribery provision, which prohibits U.S. companies and their agents from offering or giving anything of value to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. 

Even though, the current Trump Administration has suspended the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), these alleged corrupt practices occurred in 2020 and 2022 without the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) taking any actions as required by U.S. laws.  

Violations of U.S. Anti-Corruption Law

For instance, in DRC, South Africa, and Liberia, there were already many concerns about potential violations of a laundry list of anti-bribery Provisions, including (15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, 78dd-2, 78dd-3), which prohibit U.S. companies from making corrupt payments to foreign officials to gain or retain a business advantage. The alleged $37 million payments, if intended to influence Liberian officials, would fall directly under this prohibition.

For instance, the Books and Records Provision (15 U.S.C. § 78m(b) (2)) requires issuers to maintain accurate records and internal accounting controls. If Ivanhoe/HPX misrepresented or concealed the $37 million payment in its financial statements, this would constitute a violation. The SEC has repeatedly emphasized that improper recording of bribes or inducements is itself a prosecutable offense.

Broader Implications for America’s Anti-Corruption Reputation

The case raises a pressing dilemma: how can U.S. national interests be reconciled with corporate practices that appear to undermine democratic governance abroad? If left unexamined, transactions of this nature risk not only eroding Liberia’s institutional integrity but also diminishing America’s standing as a global champion of the rule of law.

Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) hold clear jurisdiction to investigate payments made by U.S.-linked companies to foreign officials. The statute’s anti-bribery provisions prohibit offering anything of value to influence foreign decision-makers, while its books-and-records provisions require companies to maintain transparent and accurate accounts of all transactions. A secret, multimillion-dollar payment to a foreign administration—particularly one never ratified by the host country’s legislature—falls squarely within the scope of these prohibitions.

Yet the continued silence of U.S. enforcement agencies raises troubling questions. Their inaction not only casts doubt on the consistency of American anti-corruption enforcement but also threatens to weaken the very framework the United States has promoted worldwide for nearly fifty years. If the FCPA is not applied in cases that so clearly demand scrutiny, the credibility of U.S. leadership in advancing transparency and accountability abroad may be irreparably compromised.

Failure of Corporate Due Diligence and Integrity

 Ivanhoe/HPX’s reported partnership with South African businessman Robert Gumede—long scrutinized for allegations of institutional corruption and state capture—demands urgent scrutiny of the company’s compliance framework. Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), U.S.-linked companies are held accountable not only for their own conduct but also for the corrupt acts of third-party agents and business partners. Aligning with a figure burdened by such serious allegations, particularly in a high-risk jurisdiction like Liberia, reflects a reckless disregard for due diligence. This exposes Ivanhoe/HPX to significant enforcement risk and raises questions about whether the company has deliberately ignored the safeguards designed to prevent corruption.

Equally troubling is the manner in which the concession agreement was reportedly executed. Sources indicate it was signed in secret on a Sunday and has yet to receive legislative ratification. This is not simply poor governance practice—it is a direct affront to Liberia’s sovereignty and constitutional order. By bypassing democratic oversight, Ivanhoe/HPX signals a willingness to prioritize commercial advantage over the integrity of national institutions.

Taken together, the alliance with Gumede and the opaque concession process paint a picture of a company aggressively pursuing strategic access while disregarding both U.S. compliance obligations and Liberia’s democratic safeguards. For regulators in Washington, this is more than a contractual dispute. It is a test case of whether U.S. authorities will enforce the very anti-corruption principles America has championed globally for decades—or allow a company with U.S. ties to undermine them in West Africa.

Coercion, Sanction Threats, and Media Manipulation

Credible sources within President Boakai’s administration suggest that senior officials have been unsettled by the re-emergence of the Ivanhoe/HPX deal, citing the reputation of Robert Friedland—long criticized as a “conman,” a label once echoed by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. Reports indicate that the company has employed veiled “sanction threats” against selected public officials, legal attrition against Liberian officials, and alleged media bribery and misinformation campaigns to push contract approval. These tactics raise risks that extend well beyond conventional bribery.

The alleged use of coercive pressure—leveraging the company’s U.S. ties to influence sovereign decision-making—amounts to an abuse of commercial advocacy. While not a direct violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which targets bribery rather than extortion, such conduct breaches fundamental standards of ethical business practice. It could also shape how the Department of Justice evaluates the company’s corporate culture and compliance record.

Equally troubling are reports of payments to media outlets and misinformation campaigns. If funds were directed to foreign media to sway the outcome of concession negotiations, they would fall under the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. Moreover, if such campaigns were aimed at shaping U.S. policy or public opinion, they could trigger obligations under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA)—raising serious compliance concerns.

Finally, these allegations portray a company aggressively prioritizing strategic access over lawful conduct. For U.S. regulators and international observers, the matter transcends a commercial dispute. It has become a case study in how a major infrastructure project may be advanced through corrupt inducements and coercive political pressure—posing a direct challenge to Liberia’s sovereignty and undermining the very anti-corruption principles the United States claims to uphold in Africa.

__________________________________

Get Involved

Do you have additional facts to add to this insight or an opinion you would like to express?

Email Us

analysis@insightsliberia.com