The claim described an earlier position that has since changed.
DOJ said in February 2016 that VimpelCom must retain a compliance monitor for three years.
retain a compliance monitor for a term of three years
- About
- VEON Ltd.
- Claim made by
- US Department of Justice, regulator statement
- Published
- 18 February 2016
- Evidence score
- 77 How it was scored
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026
Why this label
The 2016 release imposed a three year monitorS1. VEON filed a Form 6-K on 31 October 2019 saying the DPA had concluded, the monitor had certified its compliance programme and DOJ had moved in the Southern District of New York to dismiss the deferred chargesS2. A description of VEON as still under a DOJ monitor reflects the earlier position. The end of the monitorship and the dismissal motion are stated by the company. No DOJ record of the dismissal order was read for this review.
Current procedural position
Monitorship and DPA concluded per VEON on 31 October 2019, with a DOJ motion to dismiss the deferred chargesS2.
Record supporting the assessment
to dismiss the charges deferred by the DPA
successfully complete the DPA and monitorship in a timely manner
retain a compliance monitor for a term of three years
Conflicting or limiting record
No record located that conflicts with this assessment.
Evidence score: 77 of 100
The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of VEON Ltd.. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.
| Component | Points | Max | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition? | 21 | 30 | The end of the monitorship rests on a company filing with the SEC. |
| DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts? | 19 | 20 | The filing states the conclusion directly. |
| CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point? | 7 | 15 | No DOJ record of the dismissal was read. |
| Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes? | 12 | 15 | The term ended. The dismissal order itself was not seen. |
| CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments? | 8 | 10 | No later development was found. |
| ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment? | 10 | 10 | Both documents are public. |
| Total | 77 | 100 |
Timeline
Related cases
- United States v. VimpelCom Ltd. and United States v. Unitel LLCUS Department of Justice and US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Criminal. Not published.Stage: DPA concluded and motion to dismiss deferred charges filed, per VEONS2
Responses
- VEON Ltd., 31 October 2019: VEON's chair and CEO called the end of the DPA a significant milestone for the company.S2
Revision history
- Assessment first published with label Outdated.
Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.
Sources
- S2Tier B 2016 Deferred Prosecution Agreement concludes as monitor certifies VEON's compliance programmeVEON Ltd., Form 6-K filed with the SEC. Company filing. 31 October 2019.Company account of the end of the DPA and monitorship and of the DOJ dismissal motion.
- S1Tier A VimpelCom Limited and Unitel LLC Enter into Global Foreign Bribery Resolution of More Than $795 MillionUS Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. Regulator press release. 18 February 2016.Supports the DPA, the Unitel plea, the amounts, the admitted conduct and the monitor term. It gives no docket number.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
Other claims about VEON Ltd.
- Supported93The US Department of Justice said on 18 February 2016 that VimpelCom and Unitel would pay more than US$795 million in US and Dutch penalties over bribes paid in Uzbekistan.Regulator statement, 18 February 20164 records citedBribery
- Partly supported66VEON said in September 2023 that it had not been targeted by US, EU or UK sanctions at any point since February 2022.Company statement, 5 September 20234 records citedSanctions