Case File

Moog’s Bribe Scheme in India

Author
Carla Martínez
Published on
May 12, 2026
Image
Moog Motion Controls Private Limited office located in Bengaluru (formerly Bangalore)
Moog Motion Controls Private Limited office located in Bengaluru (formerly Bangalore)

Contents

Contents

top

Introduction

Introduction

contents

In October 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission concluded that between 2020 and 2022, Moog Inc. had engaged in a bribery scheme that violated the accounting provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The misconduct centred on its Indian subsidiary, Moog Motion Controls Private Limited (MMCPL), where its employees were involved in a bribery scheme that generated at least $504,926 in illicit profits.

The “win business at any cost” bribery scheme relied on third-party intermediaries, including an agent and a distributor, to channel improper payments to officials at state-owned entities such as South Central Railway (SCR), before later being used in connection with a separate contract involving the Indian state-owned arms company, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). These entities are treated as government instrumentalities under the FCPA, meaning their employees qualify as “foreign officials.” To conceal the scheme, payments were routed through fabricated invoices, enabling MMCPL to generate cash while disguising bribes as ordinary business expenses connected to government contracts.

As the parent company, Moog was held responsible for failing to maintain accurate consolidated books and effective internal controls across its subsidiaries. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the company agreed to a cease-and-desist order and to pay nearly $600,000 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, along with a $1.1 million civil penalty.

Case Details

Case details

contents
Seller country
United States, India
Seller company
Moog Inc., Moog Motion Controls Private Limited
Buyer country
India
Buyer company
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Goods category
Other
Equipment sold
Aerospace Actuators
Deal value
At least $1,399,328
Sum involved in corruption
Illicit profits of $504,926
Start year
2020
End year
2024
Outcome status
Out of Court Settlement

Actors

Actors

contents

  • Moog Inc - US arms company founded in 1951; manufactures motion controls systems for defence, aerospace and other systems; failed to maintain accurate consolidated books and effective internal controls across its subsidiaries; headquartered in East Aurora, New York.

  • Moog Motions Control Private Limited (MMCPL) - subsidiary of Moog founded in 2003; responsible for Moog operation in India; facilitated bribes to officials in return for securing government contracts; headquartered in Bengaluru, India.

  • Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) - Indian state-owned arms company founded in 1940; part of the Department of Defense Production of the Ministry of Defense; its employees received bribes in exchange for manipulating the tender process; headquartered in Bengaluru, India.

Timeline

Timeline

contents
2020
  • South Central Railway
  • Moog Motions Control Private Limited (MMCPL) wanted to win a contract with South Central Railway (SCR). Yet, in order to bid on SCR projects, companies must first be approved by the Research Design and Standards Organization (RDSO), which advises SCR. A stumbling block, because in the past MMCPL had trouble getting onto RDSO’s approved supplier list. To get onto the list and secure a contract with SCR, MMCPL employees used a scheme involving an intermediary, known as a third-party agent (Agent A), to pay bribes to SCR officials.
  • MayAgent A was brought in after a discussion of ways to “start working in railways and will find some wayout [for SCR] to buy from Moog India”.
  • JulMMCPL signed an agreement with Agent A, who would help them win business from SCR in return for a 10% commission on any contracts secured.
  • AugShortly after Agent A was engaged, the Moog brand was added to the supplier list for an upcoming SCR tender. Agent A’s director reported that “[f]urther to our pursual [sic] with the [Railway Board] & SCR we are pleased to confirm that Moog brand has been added as an acceptable brand in upcoming SCR tender.” The tender named Moog and one other supplier for a specific part. MMCPL employees then discussed further misconduct to eliminate the competitor, with one stating that their “next target would be to remove them from railways”.
  • SepMMCPL won the SCR contract worth $34,323.
2022
  • JanDistributor B issued a fabricated invoice to MMCPL for INR 1,540,000, supposedly for building a “specialized table”. In reality, the invoice was used to generate funds to pay a promised bribe to a HAL official. MMCPL never ordered the table, and Distributor B neither built nor was capable of building it.
  • In an instant message, an MMCPL employee instructed the finance manager to “please close [Distributor B] offer … as he came upfront to help us when we needed it.”
  • MarMMCPL paid Distributor B approximately $18,614, which was used to fund the promised improper payment to the HAL official. The invoice was falsely recorded as a legitimate business expense and incorrectly booked as a cost under the HAL contract.
2021
  • Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
  • AprHindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) issued a public tender for aerospace actuators, with the contract valued at over $1.3 million.
  • MayBy this stage, MMCPL employees were discussing the amount and timing of a bribe to a HAL official in order to make sure their bid was successful. One MMCPL employee explained that the HAL official is “…asking for 2.5 percent to be given …or one percent to be given immediately…” They also talked about structuring the payments as a “maximum of 1.5% and then two 0.75% …they will promise that all the three people will be eliminated …” The employees noted they would “have to give by cash.”
  • According to the SEC report, internal discussions emphasised how important it was to win the HAL tender and to have a HAL official help disqualify other bidders. “By any means, we must take the order of HAL”, and in response, “We need to eliminate everybody other than [a Moog competitor]. For that, we need to make some commitment to [HAL official]”.
  • NovHAL awarded MMCPL a contract worth $1,399,328 for the parts and services listed in the April 2021 tender.
  • Various cash-generating methods were discussed to fund the bribe, including inflating and falsifying invoices and involving other entities. MMCPL’s finance manager was instructed to “Please inform [Distributor B] to raise an invoice on MOOG …. Sale value can be INR 10 lakhs.” Ten lakhs (INR 1,000,000) was the amount that matched the agreed bribe payment with the HAL official.

Outcomes

Investigation Outcomes

contents
2024
  • 11 OctThe US Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settlement of cease-and-desist proceedings against Moog as the parent company under Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
  • The books-and-records provisions of the FCPA, Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, require issuers to maintain accurate books, records, and accounts that fairly reflect all transactions and asset dispositions. In this case, Moog violated these requirements by falsely recording improper payments as legitimate business expenses and commissions in its accounting records.
  • Moog also violated Section 13(b)(2)(B) by failing to implement sufficient internal controls over third-party payments. This failure allowed bribery schemes to continue undetected over multiple years.
  • It was determined that returning the money to Moog would not be consistent with equitable principles. As a result, the disgorged funds will instead be paid to the US Treasury as the most appropriate alternative.
  • Moog was ordered to pay, within fourteen days of this Order, a disgorgement of $504,926, prejudgment interest of $78,889, and a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $1,100,000, for a total payment of $1,683,815, to the Securities and Exchange Commission for transfer to the general fund of the US Treasury.

References

References

contents