Welcome to AI Today in 5, the newest edition to the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, Tom Fox will bring you 5 stories about AI, so start your day, sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the AI Today In 5, all from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest related to AI.
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 in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, including compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest, relevant to the compliance professional.
Top stories include:
Humana objects to being graded on disconnected calls. (FT)
I have long advocated that your ethics and compliance program should be embedded directly into your hiring process. However, let me be even more succinct: compliance begins with the hiring process. A recent article in the Sloan Management Review, by William Reed, entitled “Ten Expert Tips for Smarter Hiring,” reviewed the hiring process and noted that “Each hiring decision shapes not only who joins your team but also how your company defines itself .” This means that every employee you bring on shapes not just the culture but also the risk profile of your organization. The flip side is that a single poor hiring choice can have a lasting impact on a business for years, while a strong hire can reinforce integrity and resilience.
For compliance professionals, the hiring process is more than a human resources function. It is a frontline defense against misconduct, reputational damage, and regulatory scrutiny. This makes the “Ten Expert Tips for Smarter Hiring” directly relevant for us. I have adapted this article through a compliance lens to determine lessons we can apply to building a workforce that supports ethics, integrity, and accountability.
1. Ask the Right Questions: Digging Past the Facade
Candidates often arrive at interviews with polished, even AI-generated, answers. The key is not just asking what they have done, but probing how and why they did it. Questions designed to elicit authentic responses, what Harris calls “bank-shot” questions, reveal traits like self-awareness, accountability, and judgment. In compliance-sensitive roles such as procurement, finance, or third-party management, probing questions can help determine whether a candidate dares to speak up, navigate ethical dilemmas, and handle pressure effectively. Hiring managers should coordinate with compliance to build integrity-related questions into interviews.
2. Probe for Substance, Not Scripts
It is not enough for candidates to recite processes. Follow-up questions should push them to explain reasoning, trade-offs, and lessons learned. This exposes whether the candidate has merely memorized best practices or internalized critical thinking. The DOJ consistently emphasizes the importance of judgment and decision-making. This is a key theme of the 2024 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (2024 ECCP). Compliance officers can coach hiring teams to listen for signs of genuine ethical reasoning rather than canned responses.
3. Character Over Competence
Competence can be trained; character is more complex to teach. Research cited in the article emphasizes that while technical skills vary, core attributes such as honesty, resilience, and fairness are universal and should be given significant weight in hiring decisions. Compliance programs thrive in cultures of integrity. Hiring for character builds the foundation for a speak-up culture, ethical decision-making, and long-term trust. Compliance should partner with HR to design behavioral interview questions that test for integrity and moral alignment.
4. Highlight Meaningful Work
Top candidates want more than compensation; they want purpose. Cues from the recruiting process, as well asstories of meaningful work and culture, affect not just acceptance decisions but also long-term engagement. Compliance professionals can play a role in branding the organization as a place where doing the right thing is valued. When candidates see integrity celebrated, it strengthens your ethical brand and attracts talent that aligns with your compliance values.
5. Employer Branding as a Compliance Asset
Strong employer branding is not simply about market competitiveness. It communicates the company’s identity and priorities. A well-articulated employer brand can establish expectations for ethical conduct and compliance from the outset. Compliance messaging should be embedded in employer branding. For example, highlight your whistleblower program as a sign of transparency and fairness. Utilize recruitment materials to convey that ethical leadership is integral to the company’s culture.
6. Autonomy and Accountability
Flatter hierarchies and broader spans of control mean employees must self-manage more. The right employees thrive in autonomy, while others struggle to do so. With increased autonomy comes increased risk. Compliance should ensure that hiring processes screen for accountability and conscientiousness. Self-directed employees must be able to manage risks without constant oversight.
7. Don’t Overlook Internal Talent
Internal lateral moves can unlock untapped potential. They often produce better long-term outcomes because employees already understand the company’s values and systems. Promoting internal talent not only saves costs but also rewards employees who have demonstrated a commitment to compliance with company policies and culture. It signals that integrity and alignment with values are valued, thereby strengthening the culture.
8. Beware Over-Reliance on Vendor Tools
Pre-packaged talent management software may simplify hiring, but it risks overlooking the nuances of your organizational needs. Just as with third-party risk, outsourcing too much of hiring to generic tools can create blind spots. Compliance officers should advocate for custom criteria that reflect ethical considerations, industry-specific risks, and regulatory obligations.
9. Skills-Based Hiring Requires Culture Change
Skills-based hiring is valuable, but it is not a quick fix. It requires cultural change and consistency across hiring, promotion, and retention practices. The same applies to compliance. Hiring for skills like ethical reasoning, critical thinking, and cultural competence must be reinforced through training, promotion decisions, and leadership modeling. Otherwise, skills-based hiring risks being performative.
10. Deploy Your Best Interviewers
Data shows that some interviewers are consistently better at identifying strong hires. Yet few organizations systematically identify and deploy these interviewers. Compliance professionals should advocate for training interviewers to recognize the red flags of unethical behavior. Identifying your “compliance-savvy interviewers” and deploying them in critical hiring processes strengthens your ability to hire ethically aligned candidates.
Final Thoughts
Hiring is not just about filling positions; it is about shaping culture, building resilience, and protecting the enterprise. For compliance professionals, more innovative hiring means embedding compliance into the very first step of the employee lifecycle.
Harris tips provide a roadmap: ask the right questions, probe for substance, hire for character, highlight meaningful work, strengthen employer branding, embrace autonomy responsibly, value internal talent, customize tools, make cultural shifts for skills-based hiring, and deploy your best interviewers. When compliance is part of the hiring process, you don’t simply acquire talent; you utilize the entire process to help build a culture of integrity. That is the ultimate compliance win.
In the Sunday Book Review, Tom Fox considers books that interest compliance professionals, business executives, or anyone curious about the subject. It could be books about business, compliance, history, leadership, current events, or any other topic that might interest Tom. Today, we review the top four books for communication.
Made to Stick by Chip Heath and Dan Heath
Say it Well by Terry Szuplat
Brief by Joseph McCormack
Smart Brevity by Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen, and Roy Schwartz
Resources:
The Sunday Book Review was recently honored as one of the world’s Top 100 Book Podcasts.
Welcome to 10 For 10, the podcast that brings you the week’s Top 10 compliance stories in one podcast each week. Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings to you, the compliance professional, the compliance stories you need to be aware of to end your busy week. Sit back, and in 10 minutes, hear about the stories every compliance professional should be aware of from the prior week. Every Saturday, 10 For 10 highlights the most important news, insights, and analysis for the compliance professional, all curated by the Voice of Compliance, Tom Fox. Get your weekly filling of compliance stories with 10 for 10, a podcast produced by the Compliance Podcast Network.
Top stories include:
A former Navy No. 2 was sentenced to 6 years for corruption. (NBC)
BCG employees to take Humanitarian Principles training. (FT)
DOJ is about to cut loose the Binance monitor. (Bloomberg)
Trump calls for the end of quarterly reporting for public compliance. (NYT)
What is the role of Artificial Intelligence in compliance? What about Machine Learning? Are you using ChatGPT? These questions are just three of the many we will explore in this cutting-edge podcast series, Compliance and AI, hosted by Tom Fox, the award-winning Voice of Compliance. In this episode, Tom Fox speaks with Sheila Slick, an entrepreneur and founder of PodtoBook.ai, a groundbreaking tool that repurposes podcast content into books.
Sheila shares her professional journey, from teaching math to founding a mobile application company, and her passion for sharing stories. She explains how her frustration with manual transcription and content creation led her to develop PodtoBook.AI. Sheila discusses the simplicity of the tool, which converts podcast episodes into first-draft manuscripts in just a few hours. She explores various innovative applications, including creating pitch books, event summaries, and preserving family stories. The conversation highlights the vast opportunities that AI offers in content repurposing and encourages listeners to embrace technological shifts to explore new business opportunities.
Key highlights:
Sheila’s Professional Journey
Founding PodtoBook.AI
The Power of AI in Content Creation
Using Pod to Book for Business and Personal Stories
Welcome to “Compliance Tip of the Day,” the podcast that brings 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 goal is to provide you with bite-sized, actionable tips to help you stay ahead in your compliance efforts. 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 conclude our 5-part series and consider several questions about compliance officers working with or on the Board. We also consider what you need to do to be successful after joining your first Board as a member.
For more on this topic, check out The Compliance Handbook, a Guide to Operationalizing your Compliance Program, 6th edition, which was recently released by LexisNexis. It is available here.
Welcome to AI Today in 5, the newest edition to the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, Tom Fox will bring you 5 stories about AI, so start your day, sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the AI Today In 5, all from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest related to AI.
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 in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, including compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest, relevant to the compliance professional.
Top stories include:
A former Navy No. 2 was sentenced to 6 years for corruption. (NBC News)
SEC revokes arbitration prohibition for IPOs. (Reuters)
BCG employees to take Humanitarian Principles training. (FT)
In the initial spotlight segment of this episode, we speak with returning guest and regulatory compliance expert Oonagh van den Berg of Raw Compliance about an article she recently penned on LinkedIn titled “Rethinking AI Regulation: Why Current Approaches Are Falling Short” (check the links below).
Following that, we chat with anti-money laundering (AML) and financial crime scholars Dr. Mirko Nazzari and Prof. Peter Reuter about their new article in the Journal of Crime & Justice, published by the University of Chicago Press, entitled “How Well Does the Money Laundering Control System Work?”
Oonagh van den Berg is the founder of Raw Compliance, a compliance consultancy and training firm. Having grown up in Northern Ireland during the tumultuous 1980s, she is a compliance veteran.
A lawyer by training and an entrepreneur by vocation, she grew up during the dark chapter of her country – better known as “The Troubles”- and went on to achieve success after success: first as a lawyer, then as a compliance officer, a recruiter, and later, a consultant and educator. Having previously taken up roles in Asian financial hubs such as Singapore and Hong Kong, she is currently based in Braga, Portugal.
Dr. Mirko Nazzari is a postdoctoral research fellow in Political Science at Università degli Studi di Sassari, Italy. He holds a PhD in Criminology from Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Italy), where he also served as a Research Fellow at Transcrime – Joint Research Centre on Innovation and Crime.
His research focuses on assessing and enhancing public policies for crime prevention and control, with particular emphasis on money laundering, cybercrime, and the policy challenges posed by emerging technologies. He has published extensively in these areas and contributed to applied policy research at both national and international levels.
Dr. Peter Reuter is Distinguished University Professor in the School of Public Policy and Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland. In 2019, he was awarded the Stockholm Prize in Criminology, the most prestigious award in the field. He founded the International Society for the Study of Drug Policy and RAND’s Drug Policy Research Center.
Discussion:
The podcast begins with a brief conversation between Oonagh and Regulatory Ramblings host Ajay Shamdasani about her September 8, 2025, article on LinkedIn, entitled “Rethinking AI Regulation: Why Current Approaches Are Falling Short.”
Her key takeaway for listeners and her readers is that: “AI isn’t just a technology—it’s an ecosystem. Regulating it requires cooperation, adaptability, and vision. Anything less will fail.”
Oonagh goes on to say: “Artificial Intelligence is evolving faster than regulators can keep up. Around the world, governments are racing to design frameworks to govern AI use, but the struggle is evident: how do you regulate something so pervasive, adaptive, and borderless without stifling innovation or missing critical risks?”
She assesses Hong Kong’s present dilemma – highlighted in a recent South China Morning Post article – thatillustrates such challenges. The city faces obstacles in enforcing rules that would necessitate AI-created content to be labelled. Experts, she says, warn that the city’s market is “too small” for supporting “bespoke legislation, and without robust enforcement mechanisms, rules around watermarking and labelling may simply be ignored.”
“This isn’t just a Hong Kong problem. It’s a global one. And it’s a sign that we need to rethink how AI regulation is designed and enforced,” she writes.
As the former British colony crafts its own AI rules regime, she highlights the challenges the city faces:
1. Fragmented and reactive regulation: Hong Kong currently relies on piecemeal laws—privacy, IP, finance—to govern AI. The lack of a unified statute leaves gaps and inconsistencies. This mirrors the situation in many jurisdictions where regulators patch AI onto existing frameworks rather than building something purpose-built.
2. Enforcement complexity
Even when rules exist, implementation is shaky. For example, China mandates labelling and watermarking of AI content. But technical evasion is easy, watermarking can be stripped, and compliance varies across platforms. Enforcement lags behind innovation.
3. Scale and coordination problems
Small markets like Hong Kong can’t realistically create standalone AI regimes that diverge too far from global standards. With multiple regulators (PCPD, HKMA, SFC) touching AI issues, coordination becomes another hurdle.
4. Ethical and societal risks remain unaddressed
Labelling helps promote transparency, but it doesn’t address deeper concerns, such as misinformation, deepfakes, privacy breaches, biased algorithms, or liability for harm.
Ultimately, Oonagh notes the Special Administrative Region (SAR) needs to learn from other models.
For example, the EU AI Act is a superb piece of legislation. “The European Union has introduced the world’s most ambitious attempt at AI regulation,” she says. “Its risk-based approach divides AI systems into categories:
• Unacceptable risk (e.g., social scoring) – outright bans.
• High risk (e.g., biometrics, healthcare AI, financial services AI) – strict compliance, human oversight, mandatory audits.
• Low/minimal risk – lighter obligations.
“This is a principle-driven and comprehensive framework, but critics warn that its heavy compliance burden may stifle innovation in smaller companies. Enforcement capacity will also be tested—many national regulators are underfunded compared to the scope of responsibility,” she wrote.
Then there is the Singaporean model, which she acknowledges is “a more agile, industry-friendly approach with its Model AI Governance Framework.” Instead of rigid laws, it provides:
• Voluntary best practices (transparency, explainability, fairness).
• Industry sandboxes to experiment safely.
• A strong focus on multi-stakeholder collaboration between regulators, academia, and industry.
“This approach supports innovation while nudging companies toward responsible AI. But without legal force, it risks leaving gaps where bad actors can exploit weaknesses,” she says.
For Hong Kong to have a more workable approach, therefore, she recommends borrowing what works and is relevant to the local context. Namely:
Unified AI Regulation: Move beyond fragmented laws and adopt a dedicated AI framework, grounded in core principles: accountability, transparency, fairness, privacy, and safety.
Risk-Based Oversight: Like the EU Act, differentiate between high-risk and low-risk AI use, applying strict oversight only where harms could be severe.
Practical Enforcement Tools: Invest in watermarking and labelling standards that are technically robust, enforceable, and difficult to evade—while recognizing that labelling alone isn’t a silver bullet.
Dedicated Oversight Body: Create a central AI regulator to coordinate across sectors, avoid duplication, and respond quickly to emerging risks.
Public Engagement & Education: Foster societal trust by educating citizens on the risks, rights, and safeguards associated with AI, ensuring transparency in the decision-making process surrounding AI.
Global Alignment: For small markets like Hong Kong, aligning with global regimes—whether the EU Act’s structure or Singapore’s collaborative model—is key to avoiding regulatory isolation and easing compliance for international companies.
As Oonagh concludes, AI regulation cannot be built on ad hoc legal fixes or unenforceable guidelines. “Hong Kong’s struggles highlight the real-world limitations of trying to bolt rules onto outdated systems. The EU shows the power of principle-based, risk-tiered regulation, while Singapore demonstrates the agility of a collaborative, innovation-friendly approach,” she writes.
“The answer lies in combining these lessons: a unified, principle-driven law; proportionate, risk-based oversight; enforceable standards; and international harmonisation. Regulation must evolve as quickly as AI itself—not to slow it down, but to ensure that innovation happens safely, transparently, and for the benefit of society,” she says.
Moving into the lengthier discussion portion of the episode, Mirko and Peter discuss their article, published earlier this summer, entitled “How Well Does the Money Laundering Control System Work?”
The article takes a critical look at the global AML system and poses a simple yet fundamental question: Has it actually made money laundering more challenging or risky for criminals? The answer is more complicated— and less encouraging—than many might hope. And it’s a question for which there may be different answers at local, national, transnational, and global levels.
Mirko & Peter’s essay offers a critical and data-driven analysis of the global AML regime, highlighting:
▪️ The lack of empirical evidence that ML has become more difficult or less prevalent
▪️ The often symbolic nature of international evaluations, such as the Financial Action Task Force Mutual Evaluations
▪️ The high costs and unintended consequences of AML measures, including derisking, and
▪️ The central role of private entities in detecting suspicious activity, with significant operational implications. Although lengthy, it is highly recommended reading for anyone working in or interested in AML, financial crime, and public policy evaluation.
Simply put, Money laundering remains a significant concern worldwide, with substantial resources dedicated to preventing illicit funds from entering the financial system. Yet, despite decades of legislative and regulatory development, the effectiveness of AML frameworks remains dubious.
Again, the article is a sharp, data-informed critique of the current state of the international AML apparatus. The authors highlight seven key findings that challenge conventional wisdom:
Major banks regularly face hefty fines, but executives very rarely face criminal convictions
Money laundering is often no more complex or expensive today than it was in the late 1980s
Most laundering methods remain surprisingly basic
The system disproportionately benefits wealthy jurisdictions
AML measures yield valuable intelligence for law enforcement
But they also carry risks, including de-risking and data misuse
The real costs of AML compliance are never part of public debate. Only occasionally is there mention of the costs borne by banks.
The abstract to their piece states: “The continued globalization of finances has generated an ever-larger array of methods for making criminal earnings appear legitimate. The global regime to control money laundering has become more sophisticated and comprehensive (i.e., expensive and intrusive). There is no evidence that money laundering is declining or becoming more difficult or expensive. The system’s failure has many sources. Nations that pushed for its creation and development have been unwilling to implement critical elements. Major banks have repeatedly failed to meet their obligations, suggesting either insufficient commitment or a lack of the necessary skills and systems to comply. Regulatory oversight has been inadequate. There is, however, evidence that the system aids enforcement of laws against criminal enterprises. Despite the consensus that the system works poorly, there is almost no discussion of substantial reforms.”
Their key observations or conclusions are that simple laundering strategies remain pervasive, there has been, relatively speaking, limited adoption of sophisticated methods like crypto, and most launderers tend to launder their own funds rather than avail themselves of the “professional services” of more experienced financial criminals.
The challenges they cite include the limited policy debate over AML and financial crime compliance in general, a tendency for policymakers and regulators to focus on incremental improvements rather than comprehensive reforms, and whether the current system of ever-growing suspicious activity report (SAR) filings is sustainable in the long term.
As Mirko says, “SARs are contributing to investigations,” but it is unclear whether such a system is sustainable over time. He highlights a common practice among money laundering reporting officers (MLROs) of reporting everything to avoid fines, sanctions, or personal reprimands—a phenomenon known as “defensive filing.”
However, the example of the U.S. Treasury Department’s FinCEN shows that four million SARs are filed annually, which cannot be effectively managed. This places a significant strain on Financial Intelligence Units and law enforcement agencies, whose limited resources make it challenging to keep pace with the volume of reports.
Mirko added that not all money launderers are the same: the typologies of how a drug dealer, a kleptocrat, and a cryptocriminal launder funds may be very different.
When asked what policy choices they would advocate for regulators and law enforcement to adopt, both Mirko and Peter stressed the need to set realistic goals, develop alternative effectiveness metrics, and strike a balance between the competing yet compelling goals of AML controls and financial inclusion.
As the conversation concluded, Peter acknowledged that the White House’s statement earlier this year, indicating it would scale back AML enforcement, could lead to selective enforcement of such rules under the current Trump administration.
Regulatory Ramblings podcasts is brought to you by The University of Hong Kong – Reg/Tech Lab, HKU-SCF Fintech Academy, Asia Global Institute, and HKU-edX Professional Certificate in Fintech, with support from the HKU Faculty of Law.
