Categories
Blog

Day 12 of One Month to More Effective Internal Controls-Board Oversight as an Internal Control

Best practices compliance program. The first in Hallmark No. 1 states, “Within a business organization, compliance begins with the board of directors and senior executives setting the proper tone for the rest of the company.” The second is found under Hallmark No. 3, entitled “Oversight, Autonomy and Resources,” which says the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) should have “direct access to an organization’s governing authority, such as the board of directors and committees of the board of directors (e.g., the audit committee).” Further, under the US Sentencing Guidelines, the Board must exercise reasonable oversight of the effectiveness of a company’s compliance program. The DOJ Prosecution Standards posed the following queries: (1) Do the Directors exercise independent review of a company’s compliance program? and (2) Are Directors provided sufficient information to enable independent judgment?

The DOJ’s remarks drove home to me the absolute requirement for Board participation in any best practices or even effective anti-corruption compliance program. I believe that a Board must have a corporate compliance program in place and actively oversee that function.

Further, if a company’s business plan includes a high-risk proposition, there should be additional oversight. In other words, there is an affirmative duty to ask tough questions. But it is more than simply having a compliance program in place. The Board must exercise appropriate oversight of the compliance program and the compliance function. The Board must ask hard questions and be fully informed of the company’s overall compliance strategy. Lawyers often speak to and advise Boards on their legal obligations and duties. If a Board’s oversight is part of effective financial controls under Sarbanes Oxley (SOX), that includes effective compliance controls. Failure to do either may result in something far worse than bad governance. It may directly lead to an FCPA violation and could even form the basis of an independent FCPA violation. A company must have a corporate compliance program in place and actively oversee that function. A failure to perform these functions may lead to independent liability of a Board for its failure to perform its allotted tasks in an effective compliance program. Internal controls work together with compliance policies and procedures and are interrelated control mechanisms. There are five general compliance internal controls for a Board or Board subcommittee role for compliance:

  1. Risk Assessment – A Board should assess the compliance risks associated with its business.
  2. Corporate Compliance Policy and Code of Conduct – A Board should have an overall governance document informing the company, its employees, stakeholders, and third parties of the conduct the company expects from an employee. If the company is global/multi-national, this document should be translated into the relevant languages as appropriate.
  3. Implementing Procedures – A Board should determine if the company has a written set of procedures that instructs employees on how to comply with the company’s compliance policy.
  4. Training – There are two levels of Board training. The first should be that the Board has a general understanding of what the FCPA is, and it should also understand its role in an effective compliance program.
  5. Monitor Compliance – A Board should independently test, assess and audit to determine if its compliance policies and procedures are a ‘living and breathing program’ and not just a paper tiger.
  6. There have been recent FCPA enforcement actions where the DOJ and SEC discussed the failure of internal controls as a basis for FCPA liability. With the questions about the Wal-Mart Board of Directors and their failure to act in the face of allegations of bribery and corruption in the company’s Mexico subsidiary, or contrasting failing even to be aware of the allegations, there may soon be an independent basis for an FCPA violation for a Board’s failure to perform its internal controls function in a best practices compliance program. 

Three Key Takeaways:

  1. GTE compliance internal controls are low-hanging fruit. Pick them.
  2. Compliance with internal controls can be both detected and prevented controls.
  3. Good compliance with internal controls is good for business.

Board oversight of your compliance program can act as an internal control if properly documented. For more information on improving your internal controls management process, visit this month’s sponsor Workiva at workiva.com.

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

FCPA Compliance Report – Episode 337 – James Gellert on Assessing 3rd Party Financial Health for Compliance

In this episode, I visit with James Gellert, CEO of RapidRatings, a company that uses a financial dialogue to determine third-party supplier health and viability. Gellert explains what supply chain resilience is and how examining your suppliers’ financial health can lead to a more financially efficient supply chain. We then discuss the company’s third-party risk management tools. We consider how a company might evaluate a potential purchaser, partner, or someone buying a part of a business. Finally, we have a lengthy discussion of how a corporate compliance function uses the health of a third party as a tool to determine third-party compliance risk. 

For more information on RapidRatings, check out their website by clicking here.

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds – Episode 43 – The Linde Declination

On June 16, 2017, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a Declination to Linde North American Inc. and Linde Gas North America LLC (collectively “Linde”). This is the first Declination issued by the DOJ in the era of the Trump Administration. For that reason alone, it was instructive and should be studied by the compliance profession. However, the case presented several interesting factors which merit consideration, so we are discussing in depth to present lessons to be learned for the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner.

Lessons Learned

This was yet another Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) action where a company performed insufficient due diligence in the acquisition phase. The timing of the Linde purchase of Spectra Gases and Spectra Gases’ purchase of the income-producing assets is too close in time to be a coincidence. It would certainly appear that Linde purchased Spectra Gases to facilitate its acquisition of the boron column and other assets. If your company is going to make such a multi-step acquisition, you must perform due diligence on all the actors and the assets involved.

The Byzantine corporate structure created for the ownership of the boron column, its operation, and its management contract are clear red flags that any CCO should sniff out immediately. While I am sure the internal corporate excuse for this clear ruse was the ubiquitous ‘tax considerations,’ every such transaction should also be reviewed by compliance. Anytime there is more than one entity to accomplish one task, there is the possibility of fraud. Further, it is unclear how Linde could not have been aware of the company’s ownership interests that it ultimately controlled. It would seem that the company did not even make any inquiries.

Even in 2006, the Republic of Georgia’s reputation for bribery and corruption was quite high. The 2006 Transparency International-Corrupt Perceptions Index (TI-CPI) listed Georgia at 99 out of 176 countries, which warranted red flag scrutiny. Extra care is warranted if you are purchasing an entity in a country with such a well-known affinity for corruption. Perhaps in 2006, Linde did not view the FCPA as something it would deal with in such a situation.

Yet even with all the apparent miss-steps and non-steps of compliance, the company was able to secure a declination from the DOJ. While there may be some additional penalties or sanctions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the failures of internal controls, the result obtained by Linde was certainly superior. The company has met the four pillars under the FCPA Pilot Program through (a) self-disclosure, (b) extraordinary cooperation, (3) full remediation, and (d) profit disgorgement. Interestingly, in this case, the profit disgorgement would have been beyond the five-year limitations for profit disgorgement under the recent Supreme Court decision in Kokesh. If the SEC brings an FCPA enforcement action, additional facts may be recited in any resolution documents.

Nevertheless, kudos are due to Linde and its counsel for obtaining this declination. Every CCO should study it for both the superior result received and underlying facts to see if you face anything similar in the Republic of Georgia or elsewhere.

For a full copy of the Linde Declination, click here

Categories
This Week in FCPA

This Week in FCPA-Episode 56

  • The Kokesh case at the US Supreme Court is significant for SEC enforcement of the FCPA around profit disgorgement. For what it means to the compliance practitioner, see Tom’s piece in the FCPA Compliance & Ethics Blog. For a legal review of the decision, see Miller & Chevalier client alert authored by Saskia Zandieh. Marc Bohn considered the case in the FCPA Blog. Marc and I discuss the case on the FCPA Compliance Report, Episode 332.
  • Trevor McFadden to leave the DOJ for federal bench. See article by Matt Kelly in Radical Compliance. Hui Chen’s contract not to be renewed, her position is posted for job applicants. Apply for the position here. Andrew Weissman leaves as head of the Fraud Section to go Special Prosecutor’s staff.
  • Former PetroTiger General Counsel Gregory Weismann is banned from SEC practice. See article in the FCPA Blog.
  • Matthew Stephenson considers what a Wal-Mart settlement might look like. See his article in the Global Anti-Corruption Blog.
  • The federal judge who sentenced Samuel Mebiame, the bag man for Och-Ziff; criticized the DOJ for its lack of prosecution of any individuals from the company. See article by Sam Rubenfeld in WSJ Risk and Compliance Report.
  • Jay previews his weekend report.
  • Tom continues to talk about the release of his new book 2016 – The Year in Corporate FCPA Enforcement. For more information and to purchase, click here.
  •  
    [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-3kx” float=”none”]
    When do Mike & Mike agree on anything? Find out on This Week in FCPA. [/tweet_box]
    Jay Rosen can be reached:
    Mobile (310) 729-6746
    Toll Free (866)-201-0903
    JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
    Tom Fox can be reached:
    Phone: 832-744-0264
    Email: tfox@tfoxlaw.com]]>

    Categories
    Everything Compliance

    Everything Compliance-Episode 10, first 100 day of the Trump Administration

    This episode is dedicated to the chaotic (at best) first 100 days of the Trump administration related to compliance.

    1. Jonathan Armstrong leads a discussion of the Trump administration’s devolution of Privacy Shield, GDPR, and what they mean for American companies doing business in the UK and EU. He discusses the key differences in the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in an FCPA analysis and under the Bribery Act, differences in the EU approach to conflict minerals, and under the Trump Administration, and concludes by giving us his thoughts on what Brexit means for compliance.

    For the Cordery Compliance client alerts, see the following:
    EU conflicts minerals compliance legislation 
    DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance: how does it compare to UK Bribery Act 2010?
    BREXIT Glossary

    1. Jay Rosen considers what companies the intersection of business and politics under the Trump administration, the business response he has observed to Trump administrations steps and miss-steps, the comments made by DOJ representatives at Q1 conferences, and the vibe of compliance conference attendees.

    For Jay’s posts, see,
     Still in the Enforcement Business and Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs
    “It Was the Best of Times, It was the Worst of Times,” or “Ignorance is Strength”
     Matt Kelly opens with a discussion of regulatory enforcement under the Trump administration, how the ‘Trump Effect’ is negatively impacting corporations, and industry responses to deregulation issues and lays down some markers around compliance issues under the new administration.
    For Matt Kelly’s posts, see:
    Compliance in the Trump Era: More Markers Placed
    Trump Administration Whacks Telco Firm for $892 Million
    Drone Industry Pan Trump’s Regulatory
    Trump Risk Disclosures Start Rolling In
    First SEC Whistleblower Award of the Trump Era
    Sessions Dodges, Weaves, Promises on FCPA

    1. Mike Volkov rounds out the discussion with a review of where the DOJ is currently under AG Sessions, remarks by DOJ officials on FCPA enforcement, the future of the Pilot Program, and DOJ Compliance Counsel Hui Chen.

    For Mike Volkov’s posts, see the following:
    Yates, AG Sessions and Individual Criminal Prosecutions
    New E-Book — Moving the Goalposts: The Justice Department Redefines Effective Compliance
    FCPA Remediation Focus on Supervisory Personnel
    FPCA Pilot Program Motors On
    For Tom Fox’s posts on the Trump administration’s first 100 days, see the following:
    The Trump Administration-Kaos is Bad for Business
    The Trump Administration-Failures in Leadership and Management
    The Trump Administration-Preparing for a Catastrophe
    The Trump Administration-the Business Response
    DOJ Enforcement of the FCPA and the International Fight against Corruption in the Trump Administration
    The members of the Everything Compliance panel include:

    • Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
    • Mike Volkov – One of the top FCPA commentators and practitioners around and the Chief Executive Officer of The Volkov Law Group, LLC. Volkov can be reached at mvolkov@volkovlawgroup.com.
    • Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance, is the former Editor of Compliance Week. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com
    • Jonathan Armstrong – Rounding out the panel is our UK colleague, who is an experienced lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.com

    [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-3eF” float=”none”]What has the Trump effect meant for FCPA? The experts weigh in.[/tweet_box]]]>

    Categories
    Everything Compliance

    Everything Compliance – Episode 10, first 100 days of the Trump Administration

    • Jonathan Armstrong discusses the Trump administration’s devolution of Privacy Shield, GDPR, and what they mean for American companies doing business in the UK and EU. He discusses the key differences in the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in an FCPA analysis, under the Bribery Act, in the EU approach to conflict minerals, and under the Trump Administration. He concludes by giving us his thoughts on what Brexit means for compliance.

    For the Cordery Compliance client, alerts see the following: EU conflicts minerals compliance legislation  DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance: how does it compare to UK Bribery Act 2010? BREXIT Glossary

    1. Jay Rosen considers what companies the intersection of business and politics under the Trump administration, the business response he has observed to Trump administrations steps and miss-steps, the comments made by DOJ representatives at Q1 conferences, and the vibe of compliance conference attendees.

    For Jay’s posts, see,  Still, in the Enforcement Business and Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs “It Was the Best of Times, It was the Worst of Times,” or “Ignorance is StrengthMatt Kelly opens with a discussion of regulatory enforcement; under the Trump administration, how the ‘Trump Effect’ is negatively impacting corporations, industry responses to deregulation issues and lays down some markers around compliance issues under the new administration. For Matt Kelly’s posts, see Compliance in the Trump Era: More Markers Placed Trump Administration Whacks Telco Firm for $892 Million Drone Industry Pan Trump’s Regulatory Trump Risk Disclosures Start Rolling In First SEC Whistleblower Award of Trump Era Sessions Dodges, Weaves, Promises on FCPA.

    1. Mike Volkov rounds out the discussion with a review of where the DOJ is currently under AG Sessions, remarks by DOJ officials on FCPA enforcement, the future of the Pilot Program, and DOJ Compliance Counsel Hui Chen.

    For Mike Volkov’s posts, see the following: Yates, AG Sessions and Individual Criminal Prosecutions New E-Book — Moving the Goalposts: The Justice Department Redefines Effective Compliance FCPA Remediation Focus on Supervisory Personnel FPCA Pilot Program Motors On For Tom Fox’s posts on the Trump administration’s first 100 days see the following: The Trump Administration-Kaos is Bad for Business The Trump Administration-Failures in Leadership and Management The Trump Administration-Preparing for a Catastrophe The Trump Administration-the Business Response DOJ Enforcement of the FCPA and the International Fight against Corruption in the Trump Administration The members of the Everything Compliance panel include:

    • Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com.
    • Mike Volkov – One of the top FCPA commentators and practitioners and the Chief Executive Officer of The Volkov Law Group, LLC. Volkov can be reached at mvolkov@volkovlawgroup.com.
    • Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance, is the former Editor of Compliance Week. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com.
    • Jonathan Armstrong – Rounding out the panel is our UK colleague, an experienced lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.com.
    Categories
    This Week in FCPA

    This Week in FCPA-Episode 46, the On the Rode to Prague Edition

  • Why powerful people fail to stop bad behavior by their underlings. Click here for the article.
  • Some policy management lesson, courtesy United Airlines. Click here for Matt Kelly’s article on Radical Compliance.
  • Why you shouldn’t linger too long in the wrong compliance position. See Julie DiMauro’s blog post on the FCPA Blog.
  • Bribe recipient in the Gerald and Patricia Green FCPA case gets 50 years in prison. See article in the FCPA Blog.
  • Using data to operationalize your compliance program. Read Tom’s blog post, by clicking here.
  • What the New York state Department of Financial Services new regulation on cybersecurity for financial services companies means for compliance officers. See Tom’s blog post by clicking here.
  • Jay previews his weekend report.
  • Jay Rosen new contact information:
    Jay Rosen, CCEP
    Vice President, Business Development
    Monitoring Specialist
    Affiliated Monitors, Inc.
    Mobile (310) 729-6746
    Toll Free (866)-201-0903
    JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
    [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-3aD” float=”none”]How can the use of data help to operationalize your compliance program?[/tweet_box]]]>

    Categories
    Compliance Into the Weeds

    Compliance into the Weeds-Episode 33, enhancing culture

    Great Speech About Improving Corporate Culture“.]]>

    Categories
    Compliance Into the Weeds

    Day 18 of One Month to Operationalizing Your Compliance Program-Through Management of Third Party Relationships

    Management of Relationships – How has the company considered and analyzed the third party’s incentive model against compliance risks? How has the company monitored the third parties in question? How has the company trained the relationship managers about what the compliance risks are and how to manage them? How has the company incentivized compliance and ethical behavior by third parties?
    If you do not manage the relationship it can all go downhill very quickly and you might find yourself with a potential FCPA violation. Now the DOJ has explicitly adopted this approach as a key determination of whether you have operationalized your compliance program. There are several different ways that you should manage your post-contract relationship.
    Relationship Manager
    There should be a Relationship Manager for every third party which the company does business with through the sales chain. The Relationship Manager should be a business unit employee who is responsible for monitoring, maintaining and continuously evaluating the relationship between your company and the third party. Some of the duties of the Relationship Manager may include:

    • Point of contact with the Third Party for all compliance issues;
    • Maintaining periodic contact with the Third Party;
    • Meeting annually with the Third Party to review its satisfaction of all company compliance obligations;
    • Submitting annual reports summarizing services provided by the Third Party;
    • Assisting the company’s compliance function with any issues with respect to the Third Party.

    The Relationship Manager can be the Business Sponsor who prepared the Business Rationale discussed on Day 17. By using the Business Sponsor as the Relationship Manager, your company will further operationalize compliance by continuing to have the business unit lead the front-line relationship, communications and contact with the third party. As noted compliance commentator Scott Moritz has said, “This puts the onus on each stakeholder.”
    Compliance Professional
    Just as a company needs a subject matter expert (SME) in anti-bribery compliance to be able to work with the business folks and answer the usual questions that come up in the day-to-day routine of doing business internationally, third parties also need such a resource. A third party may not be large enough to have its own compliance staff so any company using third party representatives should provide a dedicated resource to third parties. This will not create a conflict of interest nor are other legal impediments to providing such services. They can also include anti-corruption training for the third party, either through onsite or remote mechanisms. The compliance practitioner should work closely with the relationship manager to provide advice, training and communications to the third party.
    Third Party Oversight Committee
    A Third Party Oversight Committee further operationalizes compliance. It review all documents relating the full panoply of a third party’s relationship with a company. It can be a formal structure or some other type of group but the key is to have the senior management put a ‘second set of eyes’ on any third party who might represent a company on the sales side. In addition to the basic concept of process validation of your management of third parties, as third parties are recognized as the highest risk in anti-corruption compliance, this is a manner to deliver additional management of that risk.
    After the commercial relationship has begun the Third Party Oversight Committee should monitor the third party relationship on no less than an annual basis.  This annual audit should include a review of remedial due diligence investigations and evaluation of any new or supplement risk associated with any negative information discovered from a review of financial audit reports on the third party. The Third Party Oversight Committee should review any reports of any material breach of contract including any breach of the requirements of the Company Code of Ethics and Compliance.  In addition to the above remedial review, the Third Party Oversight Committee should review all payments requested by the third party to assure such payment are within the company guidelines and are warranted by the contractual relationship with the third party. Lastly, the Third Party Oversight Committee should review any request to provide the third party any type of non-monetary compensation.
    Audit
    A key tool in operationalizing the relationship with a third party post-contract is auditing the relationship. You should secured audit rights, as that is an important clause in any compliance terms and conditions. Your audit should be a systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which your compliance terms and conditions are followed. Noted fraud examiner expert Tracy Coenen described the process as one to (1) capture the data; (2) analyze the data; and (3) report on the data, which is also appropriate for a compliance audit. As a base line, any audit of a third party include, at a minimum, a review of the following:

    1. the effectiveness of existing compliance programs and codes of conduct;
    2. the origin and legitimacy of any funds paid to Company;
    3. books, records and accounts, or those of any of its subsidiaries, joint ventures or affiliates, related to work performed for, or services or equipment provided to, Company;
    4. all disbursements made for or on behalf of Company; and
    5. all funds received from Company in connection with work performed for, or services or equipment provided to, Company.

    If you want to engage in a deeper dive you might consider evaluation of some of the following areas:

    • Review of contracts with third parties to confirm that the appropriate FCPA compliance terms and conditions are in place.
    • Determine that actual due diligence took place on the third party.
    • Review FCPA compliance training program; both the substance of the program and attendance records.
    • Does the third party have a hotline or any other reporting mechanism for allegations of compliance violations? If so how are such reports maintained? Review any reports of compliance violations or issues that arose through anonymous reporting, hotline or any other reporting mechanism.
    • Does the third party have written employee discipline procedures? If so have any employees been disciplined for any compliance violations? If yes review all relevant files relating to any such violations to determine the process used and the outcome reached.
    • Review employee expense reports for employees in high-risk positions or high-risk countries.
    • Testing for gifts, travel and entertainment that were provided to, or for, foreign governmental officials.
    • Review the overall structure of the third party’s compliance program. If the company has a designated compliance officer to whom, and how, does that compliance officer report? How is the third party’s compliance program designed to identify risks and what has been the result of any so identified?
    • Review a sample of employee commission payments and determine if they follow the internal policy and procedure of the third party.
    • With regard to any petty cash activity in foreign locations, review a sample of activity and apply analytical procedures and testing. Analyze the general ledger for high-risk transactions and cash advances.

    Three Key Takeaways

    1. Management of the third party relationship is the key step in determining the effectiveness of your compliance program in this risk area.
    2. By using non-compliance functions, such as the Business Sponsor or Relationship Manager you more fully operationalize your compliance program.
    3. Never forget to put a second set of eyes on all third party relationships.

    This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Oversight Systems, Inc. Oversight’s automated transaction monitoring solution, Insights On Demand for FCPA, operationalizes your compliance program. For more information, go to OversightSystems.com.
    [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-37H” float=”none”]Management of 3rd parties is where the rubber meets the road in operationalizing your compliance program.[/tweet_box]]]>

    Categories
    Compliance Into the Weeds

    Compliance into the Weeds-Episode 29


    In this episode, Matt Kelly and myself take a deep dive into the Department of Justice (DOJ) recent release, entitled “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” (Evaluation), which went up on the Fraud Section website on February 8.
    The document is an 11-part list of questions which encapsulates the DOJ’s most current thinking on what constitutes a best practices compliance program. Within the list are some 46 different questions that a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner can use to benchmark a compliance program. In short, it is an incredibly valuable and most significantly useful resource for every compliance practitioner.
    The Evaluation, most generally, follows the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) seminal Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, released in the 2012 FCPA Guidance. If there is one over-riding theme in the Evaluation, it is the DOJ’s emphasis on doing compliance as the questions posed are designed to test how far down your compliance program is incorporated into the fabric of your organization. The Evaluation is not simply a restatement of the Ten Hallmarks, as it clearly incorporates the DOJ’s evolution in what constitutes a best practices compliance program, and it certainly builds upon the information put forward in the DOJ’s FCPA Pilot Program regarding effective compliance programs, most particularly found in Prong 3 Remediation.
    [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-33Q” float=”none”]What does the DOJ Evaluation mean for compliance programs?[/tweet_box]]]>