FCA Emissions Fraud: Accountability or Accountancy?

FCA US LLC (FCA US), previously Chrysler Group, and now part of Stellantis, was sentenced this week in federal court in Detroit and ordered to pay a fine of $96,145,784; and a forfeiture money judgment of $203,572,892. The court also imposed a three-year term of organizational probation.* Stellantis previously said it had reached an agreement – subject to court approval. “As described in Stellantis N.V.’s 2021 financial disclosures, approximately €266 million ($301 million) was previously accrued related to this matter, which is sufficient to cover the forfeiture and penalty imposed by the plea agreement,” it said in a 3 June release.

“This case demonstrates the Criminal Division’s dedication to prosecuting companies that seek to place profits above full candor, good corporate governance, and timely remediation,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Today’s sentence shows that companies that engage in misleading U.S. regulators, or their own customers, will be held accountable.”

Whether this accountable enough or not is subject to debate. Critics say that this is just cash register justice whereby wealthy corporations buy their way out of criminal trouble and recover the costs through ongoing operations. Defenders point to the amount – a $300M criminal penalty – along with the organizational probation where FCA will be monitored for its regulatory behaviors. There are also outstanding individual criminal cases.**

Ken Zino of AutoInformed.com on FCA Emissions Fraud: Accountability or Accountancy?

Well… click to enlarge.

The conviction comes from the company’s conspiracy to defraud U.S. regulators and customers by making false and misleading representations about the design, calibration, and function of the emissions control systems on more than 100,000 Model Year 2014, 2015, and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 diesel vehicles, and about these vehicles’ emission of pollutants, fuel efficiency, and compliance with U.S. emissions standards.

According to the company’s admissions and court documents, beginning at least as early as 2010, FCA US developed a new 3.0-liter diesel engine for use in FCA US’s Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 vehicles that would be sold in the United States. FCA US designed a specific marketing campaign to market these vehicles to U.S. customers as “clean EcoDiesel” vehicles with best-in-class fuel efficiency.

Conversely, according to court documents, FCA US installed software applications in the and “engaged in other deceptive and fraudulent conduct intended to avoid regulatory scrutiny and to fraudulently help the Subject Vehicles meet the required emissions standards, while maintaining features that would make them more attractive to consumers, including with respect to fuel efficiency, service intervals, and performance.”

Justice Department Brief-ly

  • FCA US purposely calibrated the emissions control systems on the Subject Vehicles to produce less NOx emissions during the federal test procedures, or driving “cycles,” than when the Subject Vehicles were being driven by FCA US’s customers under normal driving conditions.
  • FCA US then engaged in deceptive and fraudulent conduct to conceal the emissions impact and function of the emissions control systems from its U.S. regulators and U.S. customers by:

(a) submitting false and misleading applications to U.S. regulators to receive authorization to sell the vehicles,

(b) making false and misleading representations to U.S. regulators both in person and in response to written requests for information, and

(c) making false and misleading representations to consumers about the Subject Vehicles in advertisements and in window labels, including that the Subject Vehicles complied with U.S. emissions requirements, had best-in-class fuel efficiency as measured by EPA testing, and were equipped with “clean EcoDiesel engine[s]” that reduced emissions.

“For example, FCA US referred to the manner in which it manipulated one method of emissions control as “cycle detection” and ‘cycle beating.’ Without the ‘cycle beating’ use of this emissions control software, the Subject Vehicles were unable to pass the emissions portions of the federal test procedures while also receiving a fuel efficiency rating that could be marketed to FCA US’s potential customers as ‘best-in-class,’ consistent with FCA US’s 3.0-liter diesel program’s goals, timing, and marketing strategy. Because FCA US knew that the decision to calibrate the emissions control system used on the Subject Vehicles to perform differently ‘on cycle’ versus ‘off cycle’ would be subjected to significant scrutiny by U.S. regulators, FCA US made false and misleading representations to regulators to ensure that it obtained regulatory approval to sell the Subject Vehicles in the United States,” DOJ said.

*Under the terms of FCA’s guilty plea, now approved by the Court, FCA has agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department of Justice in any ongoing or future criminal investigations relating to this conduct. In addition, FCA US has also agreed to continue to implement a compliance and ethics program designed to prevent and detect fraudulent conduct throughout its operations and will report to the department regarding remediation, implementation, and testing of its compliance program and internal controls.

The DOJ and the agencies working through DOJ arrived at “this agreement with FCA US based on several factors including, among others:

  • “the nature and seriousness of the offense conduct,
  • “the company’s failure to voluntarily and timely disclose the conduct that triggered the investigation,
  • “and its failure to conduct sufficient, timely, or appropriate remedial action.”

** In the related criminal prosecution, three FCA employees, Emanuele Palma, Sergio Pasini, and Gianluca Sabbioni were indicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate the Clean Air Act and six counts of violating the Clean Air Act. They await trial. The FBI and EPA’s Criminal Investigations Division are investigating the case.

Trial Attorney Michael P. McCarthy and Assistant Chief Michael T. O’Neill of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section; White Collar Unit Chief John K. Neal and Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy J. Wyse of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan; and Senior Trial Attorney Todd W. Gleason of the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Environmental Crimes Section are prosecuting the case.

AutoInformed on Emissions Cheating and Fraud

This entry was posted in environment, litigation and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *