Categories
Compliance Tip of the Day

Compliance Tip of the Day: Compliance Culture at The Bottom

Welcome to “Compliance Tip of the Day,” the podcast where we bring you daily insights and practical advice on navigating the ever-evolving landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements.

Whether you’re a seasoned compliance professional or just starting your journey, our aim is to provide you with bite-sized, actionable tips to help you stay on top of your compliance game.

Join us as we explore the latest industry trends, share best practices, and demystify complex compliance issues to keep your organization on the right side of the law.

Tune in daily for your dose of compliance wisdom, and let’s make compliance a little less daunting, one tip at a time.

Today we consider how to operationalize compliance down to and at the bottom of your organization and the benefits of doing so.

For more information on the Ethico ROI Calculator and a free White Paper on the ROI of Compliance, click here.

To check out The Compliance Handbook, 5th edition, click here.

Categories
Popcorn and Compliance

Popcorn and Compliance: Season 4 – Beverly Hills Cop vs. Axel F: A Deep Dive into Legacy and Evolution

Tom Fox and Jay Rosen are back with a new season of Popcorn and Compliance. Get ready for a ton of fun, insights, and all things Hollywood and the movies.

In this episode of Popcorn and Compliance, Jay and Tom delve into the original ‘Beverly Hills Cop’ and its sequel, ‘Axel F.’

They explore Eddie Murphy’s transformative role, the evolution of filmmaking, and the impact of star power and storytelling on cinematic success. They also discuss the role of Netflix in the modern film landscape and how intellectual property influences sequels and audience engagement. A particular focus is given to the thematic growth of characters over 40 years and the emerging trends in film distribution and streaming.

Key Highlights:

  • Casting Changes and Eddie Murphy’s Rise
  • Eddie Murphy’s Early Career and SNL Impact
  • Comparing Axel F and Beverly Hills Cop
  • Intellectual Property and Storytelling
  • The Role of Streaming Platforms
  • Economic Models and the Future of Film

Resources:

Jay Rosen

Connect with Jay Rosen on LinkedIn

Tom Fox

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: August 2, 2024 – The Meta Pays Texas Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee and listen to the Daily Compliance News. All from the Compliance Podcast Network.

Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • Meta agrees to pay the state of Texas a $1.4 billion fine.  (Texas Tribune)
  • Glencore trader criminally charged by SFO for bribery. (FT)
  • Menendez loses his school’s name. (The Guardian)
  • CrowdStrike for causing outage. (Reuters)

For more information on the Ethico ROI Calculator and a free White Paper on the ROI of Compliance, click here.

Categories
Blog

The Boeing Monitorship: Memo to Attorney General Garland and Kelly Ortberg

To: Attorney General Merrick Garland and Boeing CEO Robert ‘Kelly’ Ortberg

From: Tom Fox

Re: The Boeing Monitorship

===============================================================

Gentlemen

I have written blog posts and articles about the proposed Plea Agreement negotiated between Boeing and the Department of Justice (DOJ). As the leaders of both organizations, I wanted to address you both directly.

To General Garland, this is the most important monitorship in the history of the DOJ.

To CEO, Ortberg-Boeing has to turn around its culture completely.

To both of you, business as usual will not suffice.

The DOJ must start with full transparency in the process, for sunshine in the light of day is always the best disinfectant. There must be full transparency in the selection process and the oversight of the Monitorship itself, with a party outside the DOJ and Boeing overseeing this process. In other words, it cannot simply be a process where the DOJ decides who will be the monitor, tells the court its selection, and then the DOJ goes off to oversee the process and, in three years, tells us whether Boeing has met the terms of the Monitorship.

First, completing the Plea Agreement by fulfilling the terms laid out must be a condition of the Probation, which the Court must approve. Second, this process must be overseen by the District Court. The Monitor should report to the Court or a court-appointed Special Master to determine whether Boeing has met the requirement to “create and foster a culture of ethics and compliance with the law in its day-to-day operations.” Both parties must realize that Boeing’s culture is broken and must be fixed. This is beyond policies and procedures and a best practices compliance program. This is fixing Boeing’s DNA.

The DOJ recognized that it is more than compliance at Boeing, which is broken; it starts with culture and moves to safety, QA/QC, and even down to record and document keeping. It is far beyond the current mandate of the Plea Agreement, which states that the Monitor should test “the effectiveness of the Company’s compliance program and internal controls, record-keeping, policies, and procedures as they relate to the Company’s current and ongoing compliance with U.S. fraud laws.”

At least this is a decent start, but there are so many other areas that Boeing, the DOJ, and the Monitor must fix. I urged the DOJ to ‘Think Big’ about this monitorship. It concerns not only fraud and record keeping but also culture, safety, QA/QC, compliance, Speak Up and Listen Up, Supply Chain, fraud, Export Control, Sanctions, and a wide variety of other areas not addressed in the Plea Agreement.

Put all of that responsibility on the Monitor but make sure the Monitor has the resources to oversee this work for all of the stakeholders involved: Boeing, its shareholders, the victims’ families, employees, third parties, the U.S. government, Boeing’s customers and the U.S. and global flying public. It all starts at the top of the organization. The Monitor must not simply assess the Board of Directors and senior management’s commitment to and effective implementation of the corporate compliance program “as necessary to address and reduce the risk of any recurrence of the Company’s misconduct”; both the Board and senior management must lead this effort by example.

Finally, the DOJ must get this right. Everyone knows the DOJ’s failures from the 2008 financial crisis to prosecute any bank meaningfully. The phrase ‘too big to fail’ has entered the Lexicon as a byword for corporate malfeasance that gets off with ZERO consequences. This matter is much more important than those banks. It concerns the U.S.’s flagship airline manufacturer and whether it can be turned around through government oversight. If the DOJ does not get this Monitorship right, it will demonstrate once and for a time the failure of this program as a tool to fix a broken business that violates the law multiple times.

But this is not all on the backs of the DOJ or the Monitor. Boeing has an equally key role in this Monitorship. That is why the role of the new CEO is so important. Kelly Ortberg must fully embrace this monitorship and all it will entail to the company as the last and best way to turn it around. He comes from but is outside the organization, so he is not tainted with the company’s prior cultural miasma. Further, he comes from a former supplier to Boeing, Rockwell International. This means he knows the business, and he knows Boeing.

His main focus will be to turn around the company’s manufacturing side and create a culture where employees have enough trust in their employer to raise their hands and speak up when they see something wrong. They also know that the company will not harass or terminate them for doing so. In short, he must set the correct cultural tone and go into the weeds to fix how the company builds planes.

This focus requires Ortberg to fully embrace the Monitorship and a Monitor selected with full transparency and oversight by the Court. Ortberg should welcome the opportunity to turn Boeing around literally with all the help he can garner, not do as his predecessors did with so much opaqueness, where they clearly did not accept their responsibility to fix the company’s broken culture.

Finally, Ortberg must reach out to the victims’ families of the two 737 MAX crashes and listen to their concerns. The victims’ families’ interests are aligned with Boeing on one key point: They do not want any family to go through what they had to go through. Ortberg’s meeting with and listening to the victims’ families can go a long way toward their healing.

Boeing is a key component in U.S. national security. Boeing provides advanced missile defense systems, including the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, which protects the United States from ballistic missile attacks. The company also offers solutions for tracking and monitoring space objects, which is vital for maintaining the safety and security of space operations. Boeing is also involved in the Internal Space Station (ISS), orbital test vehicles, and deep space exploration.

In short, no single institution is as important to the U.S. in manufacturing as Boeing. Nearly 200 million Americans who fly in Boeing planes depend on Boeing to get it right. The U.S. (and the world) economy needs the drive that Boeing provides. The U.S. national security depends on a well-functioning Boeing to lead the technological drive to protect the U.S. for the rest of the 21st century and beyond. Boeing needs to continue its work as one of the leading companies in space exploration. Lastly, and indeed not least, the families of the victims of the two 737 MAX crashes should receive some justice for all they have been through and then seeing Boeing not live up to its agreement in the original DPA or worse for there to be more failures under this Plea Agreement.

So one final plea to General Garland and CEO Ortberg-Get it Right This Time

Categories
Career Can D0

Navigating Compliance and Podcasting with Tom Fox

Is compliance solely about adhering to legal standards, or does it also play a role in driving business efficiency?

This question is central to the latest episode of the Career Can Do podcast, where host Mary Ann Faremouth engages with Tom Fox, the innovative founder of the Compliance Podcast Network. Their conversation explores the evolving world of compliance programs and the transformative impact of podcasting.

Tom Fox, a leading authority in anti-corruption and anti-bribery compliance, shares his valuable insights into why businesses must continuously update their compliance strategies. The shift to remote work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, exposes the inadequacies of compliance programs designed a decade ago. Tom emphasizes that today’s fast-changing risk environment requires a proactive and adaptive approach to compliance.

A major focus of their discussion is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a crucial tool in combating global bribery and corruption. Tom underscores the importance of strong compliance frameworks, especially in high-risk sectors like energy, where effective risk management is essential.

Tom’s personal journey is equally inspiring. After a severe bike accident, he transforms this challenge into an opportunity for growth, using his resilience to build a successful global practice from home. His story illustrates how adversity can become a powerful catalyst for professional success.

Podcasting also plays a significant role in Tom’s career, providing a platform to enhance his brand and open new business opportunities. Both Tom and Mary Ann champion the power of podcasting, highlighting its potential to establish thought leadership, build professional brands, and create meaningful connections within the industry. They encourage professionals and businesses to use podcasting as a strategic career and business growth tool.

For those interested in tapping into Tom’s expertise or exploring podcasting for their ventures, he offers multiple ways to connect, including email, LinkedIn, and his website. This episode of Career Can Do is essential listening for anyone looking to navigate the complexities of compliance and leverage the transformative power of podcasting.

Resources:

Faremouth

Categories
Trekking Through Compliance

Trekking Through Compliance – Episode 61 – Using Technology in Compliance Investigation found in Spectre of the Gun

In this episode of Trekking Through Compliance, we consider the episode Spectre of the Gun, which aired on October 25, 1968, with a Star Date of 4385.3.

On a mission to establish contact with the reclusive Melcotians, Kirk ignores the message of a space probe. The landing party encounters a Melcotian who informs them they are an outside disease that must be destroyed. Their trespassing is to be punished by death, and the pattern of their death will be taken from Kirk’s memories. As Kirk’s ancestors pioneered the West, the landing party was teleported to Tombstone, Arizona, on October 26, 1881.

Desperately, Bones and Spock cooperate to build a tranquilizer bomb that will incapacitate the Earps. Scotty volunteers to test the potion Bones has cooked up. Despite Bones’ careful preparation, something else is needed. Spock is the only one who understands the significance of this fact, saying, “You do not seem to understand. It did not function. But it must function.” Spock realizes that nothing around them is real; the whole scenario occurs in their minds.

They end up at the OK Corral, and the Melcotians, impressed that Kirk did not kill, then extend an invitation to establish relations with the Federation.

Commentary

Tom recounts the storyline where Kirk and his team face an illusionary recreation of the historic gunfight at the O.K. Corral. The discussion extends to how technology can aid compliance officers in investigations, covering seven key areas: data analytics and visualization, automated monitoring systems, digital forensics, collaboration platforms, predictive analytics and machine learning, robotic process automation, and regulatory compliance management platforms. Through these techniques, compliance officers can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their compliance processes.

Key Highlights

  • Key Moments and Analysis
  • Technology in Compliance Investigations
  • Conclusion and Next Episode Preview

Resources

Excruciatingly Detailed Plot Summary by Eric W. Weisstein

MissionLogPodcast.com

Memory Alpha

Categories
Blog

The Boeing Plea Agreement – A Major Disconnect

In its proposed Plea Agreement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) lays out Boeing’s abject failures, which led the DOJ to conclude that the underlying Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) from 2021 has been breached. The DOJ stated

  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to “create and foster a culture of ethics and compliance with the law in its day-to-day operations”;
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to implement “compliance policies and procedures designed to reduce the prospect of violations of U.S. fraud laws and the Company’s compliance code”;
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to implement “compliance policies and procedures designed to reduce the prospect of violations of U.S. fraud laws and the Company’s compliance code”;
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to implement “compliance policies and procedures designed to reduce the prospect of violations of U.S. fraud laws and the Company’s compliance code” and
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to appropriately develop and adjust “compliance policies and procedures based on a periodic risk assessment addressing the individual circumstances of the Company” [citations omitted]

As the victims’ families noted in their Objections to the Plea Agreement, “The Government told the Court that the Justice Department was “best positioned to implement the DPA and evaluate Boeing’s compliance with these rigorous requirements. The Fraud Section has compliance experts who routinely evaluate compliance programs and oversee corporate monitorships and self-reporting.” And Boeing chimed in with a similar tale, recounting that “DOJ has been vigilant and thorough. They’re professional, they probe, and they make suggestions, and as you would imagine, Boeing accepts those suggestions. Boeing has been vigilant and thorough, too. We sincerely believe the system is working and that any further monitor or examiner, reporting, would be duplicative to DOJ oversight and counterproductive to the processes that are operative now.” [citations omitted]

There was a major disconnect between what Boeing agreed to in the DPA, meeting its obligations under the DPA, and the DOJ oversight. The DOJ and Boeing want the district court to approve the same process for a Compliance Monitor in this Plea Agreement. The Plea Agreement states

Probation Condition – Retention of Independent Compliance Monitor. A condition of probation shall be that the Defendant retain an Independent Compliance Monitor, as provided in Paragraph 7(j). However, the probation condition is limited to the retention of the Independent Compliance Monitor—not oversight of the Independent Compliance Monitor or the Company’s compliance with the Independent Compliance Monitor’s recommendations. Instead, the Independent Compliance Monitor will report to and be overseen by the Offices. The Independent Compliance Monitor’s selection process, mandate, duties, review, and certification as described in Paragraphs 29-37 and Attachment D, and the Defendant’s compliance obligations as described in Paragraphs 7(k), 8 and 9 and Attachment C, are not conditions of probation. [emphasis supplied]

This means Boeing agrees to retain a Compliance Monitor only under this Plea Agreement. The DOJ is asking the court to allow it to fully oversee the monitor selection process and the ongoing work of the Compliance Monitor, with no other involvement or oversight, just as the DOJ did under the original DPA, when, at least according to the DOJ, the original oversight was such an utter failure it leads to this guilty plea.

According to the Plea Agreement,  “the Independent Compliance Monitor will evaluate, in the manner set forth below, the effectiveness of the Company’s compliance program and internal controls, record-keeping, policies, and procedures as they relate to the Company’s current and ongoing compliance with U.S. fraud laws, particularly in connection with interactions with any domestic or foreign government agency, with a focus on the integration of its compliance program with its safety and quality programs as necessary to detect and deter violations of anti-fraud laws or policies, and take such reasonable steps as, in his or her view, may be necessary to fulfill the foregoing mandate (the “Mandate”). This mandate shall include an assessment of the Board of Directors and senior management’s commitment to, and effective implementation of, the corporate compliance program described in Attachment C of the Agreement as necessary to address and reduce the risk of any recurrence of the Company’s misconduct,”. Note that the Monitor will only ‘assess’ whether the Board and senior management are committed to such a program, not make it so.

What does this mean for the Monitor? This means that the Monitor will oversee Boeing’s integration of its ethics and compliance program with its safety and quality programs into a single system that treats safety and quality issues as defects in the corporate culture. This will occur while the Monitor oversees Boeing, creating and fostering a culture of ethics and compliance with the law in its day-to-day operations. Yet again, it will only happen with DOJ oversight of the entire process.

What is needed here is transparency. Unfortunately for the victims’ families and all other stakeholders in getting Boeing uprighted, this Plea Agreement does not bring the most effective disinfectant that can be brought to bear on corporate misconduct to the light of day.

Categories
FCPA Survival Guide

FCPA Survival Guide – Step 9 – Internal Controls

How can you survive an FCPA enforcement action? In this special podcast series, Tom Fox and Nick Gallo outline the Top 10 things you can do to reduce your overall fine and penalty, perhaps down to a complete declination. All of the actions you can take come from recent DOJ prosecutions under the FCPA and speeches from DOJ representatives. This podcast, sponsored by Ethico, is the companion series to the book The FCPA Survival Guide: Surviving and Thriving a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action. Today, we discuss lesson number nine: internal controls.

Tom and Nick delve into the importance of internal controls in compliance, emphasizing the pivotal role they play in business operations. After studying the COSO Framework, Tom shares his transformation into a firm believer in internal controls, underscoring that robust financial controls can cover a significant portion of compliance requirements. They discuss real-world examples, including SAP’s lack of payment process controls and ABB’s successful avoidance of a monitor through proactive measures. The episode highlights the necessity of continuous improvement and collaboration between legal, financial, and business units to ensure the effectiveness of internal controls and the appropriate handling of overrides. The session concludes with a nod to the upcoming episode on speak-up, triage, and internal investigation.

Key Highlights and Issues

  • The Importance of Internal Controls
  • Financial Controls and Compliance
  • Continuous Improvement in Internal Controls
  • Effective Collaboration and Overrides

Resources:

Nick Gallo on LinkedIn

Ethico

The FCPA Survival Guide: Surviving and Thriving a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
The Corruption Files

The Corruption Files: The Savings and Loan Crisis: A Deep Dive into Deregulation and its Consequences

What is stranger than fiction? The stories of worldwide corruption.

In this podcast series, co-hosts Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance and Mike DeBernardis, partner at Hughes Hubbard, discuss some of the most audacious corruption cases in anti-corruption enforcement. More importantly, they will discuss the lessons learned on what your organization can do to prevent running afoul of international anti-bribery laws.

In this episode of Season 2, Tom and Mike take a deep dive into the Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis of the 1980s.

This scandal, which cost the U.S. between $150 and $200 billion, serves as a powerful case study on the consequences of deregulation. Factors like legislative changes, poor management, fraud, and economic pressures all contributed to the collapse of over a thousand S&Ls. Notable cases, such as the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal involving Charles Keating, highlight the systemic issues that plagued the industry. The episode emphasizes the importance of regulatory oversight, ethical leadership, and strong internal controls to prevent future financial crises.

Key Highlights:

  • Overview of the SNL Crisis
  • Factors Leading to the Crisis
  • Major Scandals and Key Players
  • Lessons Learned and Regulatory Changes
  • Comparisons to Other Financial Crises

Resources:

Mike DeBernardis on Linkedin

HughesHubbardReed

Tom Fox

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: August 1, 2024 – The New Boeing CEO Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee and listen to the Daily Compliance News. All from the Compliance Podcast Network.

Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • Boeing hires a new CEO.  (WSJ)
  • The US aviation company is accused of bribery in South Africa. (CH Aviation)
  • FirstEnergy loses the privilege ruling. (Reuters)
  • The EU investigates Chinese corruption in Cyprus.  (FT)

For more information on the Ethico ROI Calculator and a free White Paper on the ROI of Compliance, click here.