What happens when two top compliance commentators get together? They talk compliance, of course. Join Tom Fox and Kristy Grant-Hart in 2 Gurus Talk Compliance as they discuss the latest compliance issues in this week’s episode! Today, Tom and Kristy open 2025 with a rollicking episode starting with a tribute to Jimmy Carter, who signed the FCPA.
Stories this week include:
- Do a premortem on your compliance program this year? (WSJ)
- Is litigation financing justice? (WSJ)
- Lady MacBeth lives. (Greek Reporter)
- Is CFIUS Corrupt? (WSJ)
- Auditing firms call the value of metrics ‘speculative.’ (FT)
- On the Front Lines of the Trade War: How Customs Officers Screen for Prohibited Goods at U.S. Ports (WSJ)
- Ephemeral and Off-Channel Communications – Are we missing the serious questions? (Ideas and Answers)
- Businesses Preparing for Another Year of Geopolitical Tumult (WSJ)
- Will 2025 Be the Watershed Year for Return-to-Office Mandates? That Depends. (WSJ)
- The Florida Man Games Return on March 1, 2025 (thefloridamangames.com)
Resources:
Kristy Grant-Hart on LinkedIn
Tom
One reply on “2 Gurus Talk Compliance – Episode 43 – The Tribute to Jimmy Carter Edition”
There are so many points to consider in response to Tom’s comments; for comments like this, though, the space is limited.
There are many serious problems with DOJ’s position – this is spelled out on our website https://ideasandanswers.com/ephemeral-and-off-channel-communications/ . But, just for the 1st Amendment issue, shift the context a little, since Tom is applying this only in a limited area. Remember, as just one example, that universities also fall under the definition of organizations, and the impact of compliance programs also applies to them. Take an area where it can be relatively easy to commit a criminal violation – exports or deemed exports. A professor discusses her work in advanced technology with a visiting professor from China. This could be a crime. Are you comfortable with applying DOJ’s direction that communications should be recorded and preserved “to the greatest extent possible” in the context of universities? You don’t think that would chill speech? What about for unions? Political parties? Religious organizations? Freedom of speech doesn’t mean much if government can control how we communicate and require us to record it.
Remember, DOJ’s purpose here is to ensure it has evidence when it wants to prosecute organizations. There is considerably more that is problematic with DOJ’s approach, including the privacy impact, storage costs of all the data, and diverting and wasting compliance program resources. If Tom had written DOJ’s guidance it would make more sense and be appropriately targeted, but the current version is far too much and needs to be reconsidered.
I have been a strong supporter of DOJ providing guidance on and recognition for compliance programs. For me to oppose DOJ so strongly is quite unusual. I urge people to look more carefully at this issue.