Categories
Compliance and AI

Compliance and AI: Navigating the Challenges and Opportunities of Agentic AI in Compliance

What is the intersection of AI and 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. Today, the Everything Compliance gang, led by Dr. Hemma Lomax, is considering how to navigate the challenges and opportunities of agentic AI in compliance.

In this episode, we explore the rapidly evolving landscape of Agentic AI and its implications for compliance professionals. Agentic AI, defined as AI that acts autonomously rather than just responding to prompts, presents both significant opportunities and challenges. The technology can optimize risk management and compliance workflows, but it also introduces complexities around accountability, transparency, and oversight. We discuss recent real-world examples of Agentic AI in use, such as in banks and tax agencies, and highlight potential risks, including autonomous collusion and AI agents making unethical decisions. The episode emphasizes the need for compliance teams to shift from monitoring human activities to overseeing intelligent systems, ensuring the establishment of proper guardrails. We also delve into new roles emerging in this landscape, such as AI ethics coaches and agent supervisors, and the importance of human intervention to verify AI decisions. Join the discussion to understand how to navigate this transformative technology responsibly and effectively.

Key highlights:

  • Defining Agent AI
  • Implications for Compliance and Ethics
  • Challenges and Risks of Agent AI
  • Real-Time Compliance and Risk Management
  • Human Oversight and AI Governance

Resources:

Tom Fox

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Compliance Tip of the Day

Compliance Tip of the Day – M&A-Pre-Acquisition: Reviewing Financial and Operational Data

Welcome to “Compliance Tip of the Day,” the podcast that brings you daily insights and practical advice for navigating the ever-evolving landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements. Whether you’re a seasoned compliance professional or just starting your journey, we aim 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.

We continue our look at the role of compliance in the pre-acquisition phase of a merger and acquisition. Today, we consider how to look for red flags in financial and operational data.

For more on this topic, check out The Compliance Handbook: A Guide to Operationalizing your Compliance Program, 6th edition, which LexisNexis recently released. It is available here.

Categories
Blog

Millicom Cellular, Part 2: Lessons Learned on Cartels, Cash, and Control Failures

The Millicom Cellular FCPA enforcement action is not just another FCPA case. It is a case that signals a new frontier for compliance risk. It blends classic corrupt-payment schemes with organized crime, narcotrafficking proceeds, obstructed governance, and aggressive legislative capture. It is a wake-up call for compliance officers that the threat landscape is expanding in ways that require deeper operational controls, broader due diligence frameworks, and more sophisticated cross-functional collaboration.

In Part 1, we considered the underlying facts and FCPA violations of this matter. In Part 2, we examine what compliance professionals must take away from the case.

Lesson 1: Joint-Venture Governance Failures Are Not a Defense

Millicom Cellular held a 55 percent ownership stake in TIGO Guatemala, but the local partner exercised operational control and blocked Millicom Cellular from information and cooperation. The DOJ notes that Millicom Cellular voluntarily disclosed early concerns in 2015 but was unable to compel cooperation from local executives or obtain complete data. The result is a clear message:

Ownership without operational control equals enormous FCPA exposure.

Compliance professionals must:

  • Implement JV governance protocols that require access rights, audit rights, and cooperation language in shareholder agreements. Try to place your company’s representative as the CFO of the joint venture.
  • Establish escalation pathways if a partner obstructs investigations.
  • Treat “majority ownership without control” as a high-risk structure in compliance risk assessments.

Yet notwithstanding the foregoing, DOJ has made clear it will not accept a lack of control as an excuse for failing to detect corruption, especially when red flags are visible.

Lesson 2: Cash-Based Bribery Ecosystems Require a Different Kind of Monitoring

The bribery scheme ran almost entirely on cash: cash in duffel bags delivered by helicopter, cash laundered through drug traffickers, cash moved through shell companies, and cash withdrawn from banks in plastic bags. Traditional financial controls are almost useless in the face of an off-books cash economy. Compliance must be enhanced:

  • Controls around cash withdrawals
  • Monitoring of cash-intensive vendors
  • Patterns of invoicing irregularities
  • Real-time analytics on deviations in expense and procurement behavior

This is not a theoretical exercise. It is an operational reality for companies in high-risk jurisdictions.

Lesson 3: Cartel Exposure Is Emerging as a Corporate Compliance Obligation

This case represents one of the most explicit linkages between FCPA violations and narco-trafficking cash flows. The scheme not only involved bribes; it also involved bribes financed by organized crime. Compliance officers must now assume that criminal networks may view legitimate multinationals as conduits for illicit financial flows. This demands:

  • Enhanced beneficial-ownership checks
  • Screening for cartel-linked financial intermediaries
  • Deeper diligence on bankers, lawyers, and consultants
  • Country-level threat mapping that includes cartel and organized crime indicators

The DOJ has increasingly emphasized convergence risk between corruption, money laundering, and organized crime. The Millicom Cellular enforcement action is a prime example.

Lesson 4: “Influencing Legislation” Is a Red Flag, Not a Business Strategy

TIGO Guatemala sought legislative outcomes that would alter the national telecom law. That in itself is not illegal. What is unlawful is tying legislative outcomes to cash bribes, helicopter deliveries, and cartel-funded transactions. Compliance teams must scrutinize:

  • Payments to lobbyists, political consultants, and intermediaries
  • Relationships with legislators and political parties
  • Sponsorships, charitable donations, and community programs with political beneficiaries

Any effort to “shape legislation” must come with strict controls.

Lesson 5: Data Gaps Are Compliance Gaps

Millicom’s inability to obtain information access within its own joint venture delayed detection and undermined the credibility of its initial self-disclosure. Compliance professionals must demand:

  • Rights to data
  • Rights to conduct investigations
  • Rights to interview employees
  • The right to require cooperation from partners

A partner who denies access creates liability.

Lesson 6: Remediation Must Be Conducted Like a Corporate Transformation

Millicom’s remediation was extensive. It included:

  • Replacing senior personnel
  • Centralizing compliance oversight
  • Enhancing third-party onboarding and continuous monitoring
  • Adding data analytics
  • Conducting control testing across more than 250 transactions
  • Creating an ephemeral-messaging retention policy
  • Increasing compliance headcount by 800 percent (pages 5–6)

The DOJ’s description reads less like remediation and more like organizational reinvention. That is the expectation now. Compliance must treat remediation as a fully integrated operational overhaul.

Lesson 7: The DOJ Will Reopen Cases When New Evidence Emerges

The DOJ initially closed the investigation in 2018. It reopened the case in 2020 after uncovering new evidence from outside sources, including cartel-linked transactions. The message is clear:

  • Self-disclosure is not a shield when the company lacks visibility into misconduct.
  • Failure to detect ongoing wrongdoing can undermine trust and credit for cooperation.
  • Compliance must ensure continuous monitoring even after perceived risk has been reduced.

Conclusion: The New Compliance Mandate

The Millicom Cellular enforcement action demonstrates that compliance risk is no longer confined to corrupt payments. It now involves organized crime, cash-based bribery systems, cross-border laundering, political capture, and governance obstructions. Compliance professionals must operate with a broader risk lens, encompassing cartel risk, cash-economy vulnerabilities, high-risk political interactions, and joint-venture control structures. This is a key enforcement effort of the Trump Administration.

The future of compliance is not about preventing bribery alone. It is about defending the corporation from becoming an unwitting partner in a criminal enterprise.

Categories
Compliance Tip of the Day

Compliance Tip of the Day – M&A-Pre-Acquisition: Evaluating Compliance Program and Culture

Welcome to “Compliance Tip of the Day,” the podcast that brings you daily insights and practical advice for navigating the ever-evolving landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements. Whether you’re a seasoned compliance professional or just starting your journey, we aim 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.

We continue our look at the role of compliance in the pre-acquisition phase of a merger and acquisition. Today, we consider why and how to evaluate a target’s program and culture.

For more on this topic, check out The Compliance Handbook: A Guide to Operationalizing your Compliance Program, 6th edition, which LexisNexis recently released. It is available here.

Categories
Compliance Tip of the Day

Compliance Tip of the Day – M&A-Pre-Acquisition: Conducting a Corruption Risk Assessment

Welcome to “Compliance Tip of the Day,” the podcast that brings you daily insights and practical advice for navigating the ever-evolving landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements. Whether you’re a seasoned compliance professional or just starting your journey, we aim 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.

We continue our look at the role of compliance in the pre-acquisition phase of a merger and acquisition. Today, we consider the need for a corruption risk assessment.

For more on this topic, check out The Compliance Handbook: A Guide to Operationalizing your Compliance Program, 6th edition, which LexisNexis recently released. It is available here.

Categories
Innovation in Compliance

Innovation in Compliance – Steph Holmes on Blending AI and Human Oversight for Effective Compliance

Innovation spans many areas, and compliance professionals need not only to be ready for it but also to embrace it. Join Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, as he visits with top innovative minds, thinkers, and creators in the award-winning Innovation in Compliance podcast. In this episode, host Tom welcomes Steph Holmes, long-time friend and Director of Ethics and Compliance Strategy at the EQS Group, who looks at the current Intersection of AI and compliance.

Steph Holmes and EQS are both at the forefront of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into compliance programs to enhance their efficiency and effectiveness. With a focus on practical applications, Holmes views AI as a crucial tool for expanding resources, especially as organizations face increasing regulatory changes and economic pressures. She advocates for the responsible, sustainable, and explainable adoption of AI, emphasizing that compliance professionals should embrace it rather than fear it. Holmes discusses the importance of blending AI capabilities with human oversight to ensure compliance tasks are managed accurately and risks are mitigated effectively.

Key highlights:

  • Digitizing Compliance: AI Tools and Programs
  • Navigating Compliance Challenges with Human Judgment
  • Enhancing AI Reliability Through Human Oversight
  • Enhancing Compliance through Responsible AI Implementation
  • Implementing AI Pilot Programs in Compliance Workflows

Resources:

Steph Holmes on LinkedIn

EQS Group LinkedIn

Where in the Loop: Corporate Compliance Insights

EQS Website

EQS Benchmark Report: AI Performance in Compliance & Ethics

Innovation in Compliance was recently ranked 4th among Risk Management podcasts by 1,000,000 Podcasts.

Categories
Blog

Why AI Demands a New Breed of Leaders: A Compliance Perspective

Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant future state for compliance teams. It is here, operating inside financial crime platforms, powering third-party due diligence tools, driving monitoring engines, and influencing the everyday judgments that regulators scrutinize. Yet too many companies still approach AI as if it were simply another IT project. In a recent Sloan Management Review article, Why AI Demands a New Breed of Leader,” the authors, Faisal Hoque, Thomas H. Davenport, and Erik Nelson, argue that successful AI transformation is far more about people, culture, and leadership than about code.

For compliance professionals, that should sound familiar. Every major enforcement action of the last decade has shown that failure rarely begins with a faulty system. Failure begins with leadership that misunderstands risk, a culture that resists change, and governance frameworks that cannot keep pace with new technologies.

The authors argue that modern organizations require a new category of leader to guide AI adoption, a role that blends technical capability with cultural stewardship, ethical understanding, and organizational change management. They call this the Chief Innovation and Transformation Officer (CITO) or an equivalent title. Whether companies formally adopt the title or not, the message is unmistakable: AI changes the leadership equation, and compliance has a front-row seat.

Why Traditional Technology Leadership Is No Longer Enough

While CIOs are increasingly viewed as changemakers, they often lack the time and mandate to address the organizational disruption AI brings. Compliance officers understand this problem intuitively. You can have the most sophisticated tools in the world, but if the culture is not ready for them, the result will be chaos or even misconduct. The authors cite survey data showing that 91 percent of large-company data leaders believe cultural issues, not technical ones, are blocking progress. That finding mirrors what compliance sees in every DOJ corporate enforcement action. Misconduct thrives not because technology fails, but because people and processes fail.

The article also includes examples of organizations that stumbled by treating AI as a purely technical deployment. The Zillow pricing model collapsed. The swift employee backlash at California State University. The Air Canada chatbot that mishandled bereavement fare guidance. Each case reveals the same lesson: AI without governance becomes a liability. For compliance professionals evaluating AI adoption, these examples should resonate. AI raises questions about transparency, fairness, documentation, accountability, and the human impact of automation. Those are governance issues, not engineering puzzles.

The New Leadership Model AI Demands

The authors describe several competencies required for effective AI leadership, all of which map directly into compliance priorities:

Navigating ethical considerations.

AI introduces bias, harm, and fairness risks, all of which are central concerns for regulators. Leaders must weigh efficiency gains against ethical boundaries.

Driving cultural transformation.

AI adoption changes workflows, reporting lines, incentives, and human-machine collaboration. Leadership must prepare the workforce for new models of decision-making.

Managing human-AI partnerships.

The near-future compliance program will rely on co-decision systems that combine algorithmic outputs with human judgment. Leaders must understand how to balance the two.

Breaking down silos.

AI implementation touches HR, legal, IT, operations, procurement, and compliance. Leadership must connect these functions rather than allow fragmented approaches.

Overseeing citizen development.

Employees across the business can now build AI models without IT involvement. That democratization requires governance and guardrails.

These competencies go far beyond traditional CIO responsibilities. They lean toward behavior, judgment, and organizational change, the same strengths compliance brings to the table.

Emerging Executive Roles Around AI

The article documents the rapid rise of AI-focused executive roles such as Chief Innovation Officer, Chief AI Officer, and Chief Transformation Officer. Compensation is rising, hiring is accelerating, and responsibilities increasingly blend technology, ethics, culture, and strategy.

The authors highlight examples:

  • PepsiCo’s Chief Strategy and Transformation Officer is overseeing enterprise-wide digitization.
  • Standard Chartered’s Chief Transformation, Technology, and Operations Officer.
  • JPMorgan Chase’s governance model for IndexGPT and AI-driven investment analysis.

These roles share a common trait: they embed ethics, cultural change, and strategic alignment directly into AI governance. This direction should reassure compliance officers. Regulators have signaled that they expect AI oversight to be integrated, accountable, and verifiable. A dedicated AI leadership role can help unify these obligations.

AI Persona Management: The Next Frontier of Governance

One of the most intriguing sections of the article describes “AI persona management,” the oversight of digital agents with defined personalities, roles, and decision-making authority. As AI becomes more autonomous, these personas may behave like digital employees. That raises profound governance questions.

Compliance professionals should begin considering:

  • What decision rights will AI personas have?
  • How will we document their logic?
  • How will we audit their behavior?
  • How will we ensure ethical consistency across different personas?

The authors note that Salesforce already uses AI personas internally to guide product decisions. That should serve as a signal: AI agents are not a theoretical concept; they are entering the enterprise now. A compliance professional will need to treat AI personas with the same seriousness as human employees, subject to monitoring, training, policies, escalation channels, and accountability structures.

What This Means for Corporate Compliance Leaders

The article argues that companies must rethink how they manage technology change. AI’s impact is too broad to remain confined to the IT organization. Talent, culture, ethics, governance, and risk management all intersect. The authors present the CITO role as the logical solution for a leader who integrates technical fluency with organizational psychology and ethical judgment.

From a compliance standpoint, this represents both an opportunity and a responsibility. The opportunity is clear: compliance brings exactly the kind of cross-functional, ethics-driven perspective AI leadership requires. The compliance function knows how to document decisions, manage cultural change, develop defensible processes, and build controls around complex risks.

The responsibility is equally clear: AI will soon permeate every corner of the enterprise. If compliance does not assert its role in governance, the organization will drift toward risk. This article provides a roadmap for what strong governance must look like. It tells companies that AI success demands a leader capable of bridging technical, ethical, and cultural domains, the very domains compliance has long mastered.

Now is the moment for compliance to claim its seat at the AI leadership table, helping shape the systems that will define operational and ethical performance for years to come.

Categories
ACI FCPA Conference 2025

ACI-FCPA Conference Speaker Preview Series – Doing Business (and Compliance) in India with Joseph Azam

In this episode of the ACI-FCPA and Global Anti-Corruption Conference Speaker Podcasts series, Joseph Azam discusses the panel at the event. Their presentation is entitled “On the Ground in India: Special Considerations for Compliance, Risk Management, and Third-Party Oversight—Practical Takeaways from Real-World Experiences.

Some of the issues the panel will discuss are:

  • Corruption risk specific to India.
  • Long-term strategies for effective due diligence in India and
  • Aligning global expectations with local realities.

I hope you can join me at the ACI–FCPA Conference. This year’s event will take place on December 3-4 at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, near Washington, D.C. The lineup of this year’s event is simply first-rate, featuring some of the top FCPA professionals, white-collar attorneys, and compliance practitioners in the field.

The 2025 program is being completely redesigned to help your organization stay agile, responsive, and ahead of the curve. Expect a dynamic agenda shaped by real-world priorities, practical takeaways, and the most cutting-edge thinking in compliance—led by a faculty of global practitioners with boots-on-the-ground experience encountering the high risks that come across your desk.

Please join me at the event. For information on the event, click here. Listeners of this podcast will receive a discount by using the code D10-999-CPN26.

Categories
Blog

The SFO’s New Compliance Program Guidance: Compliance is a Verb

The Serious Fraud Office’s 2025 Guidance on Evaluating a Corporate Compliance Program is more than another regulatory document. It is a bright line in the sand. It says, with unmistakable clarity, that compliance must move beyond paper, policies, and PowerPoints. The era of check-the-box compliance is over. The SFO wants to know whether your program works, whether it is embedded, and whether it actually shapes employee behavior at the moment of risk.

For corporate compliance professionals, this should be welcome news. For years, I have advocated that compliance is effective only when it is operationalized, when it is woven into business processes, incentives, controls, communications, and culture. Indeed, it is the subtitle of my seminal work, The Compliance Handbook: A Guide to Operationalizing Your Compliance Program. The SFO has now said the quiet part out loud: if your program does not function in practice, it will not be credited, and it will not protect the organization in the moments that matter most.

The SFO Is Not Evaluating Paper. It Is Evaluating Performance.

The SFO identifies six scenarios in which it evaluates a company’s compliance program, including charging decisions, DPAs, monitorships, and statutory defenses under the Bribery Act and the ECCTA failure-to-prevent fraud offence. In each scenario, the question is the same: did the program work at the time of the misconduct, and does it work today?

The guidance explicitly flags that a company with an ineffective program at the time of the offence faces a public-interest factor in favor of prosecution. Conversely, proactive remediation and an already-effective program weigh against prosecution. This is a radical shift in emphasis. A policy framework will not suffice. A training slide deck will not suffice. A risk assessment performed once every three years will not suffice.

The SFO wants evidence of operational behavior:

  • Were approvals actually checked, or were they just required?
  • Were red flags escalated in practice, not just in policy?
  • Were third-party risks managed through real due diligence, not just questionnaires?
  • Did employees feel empowered to speak up?
  • Did managers respond appropriately when they did?

The guidance says it plainly: “A key feature of any compliance program is that it needs to be effective and not simply a ‘paper exercise.’” That sentence should be printed above every compliance officer’s door.

Adequate vs. Reasonable vs. Effective: The SFO’s Focus Is on Reality

The legal standards differ across regimes: “adequate procedures” for the Bribery Act and “reasonable procedures” for ECCTA failure to prevent fraud, but the SFO’s approach is consistent across all of them. The prosecutor will examine whether the program operated as designed. A beautifully written policy that sits untouched in a shared drive does nothing for your defense. Under both frameworks, the principles are clear:

  • Top-level commitment must be visible and sustained.
  • Tone-from-the-top is no longer a slogan. Executives must demonstrate operational ownership through resources, messaging, and decisions.
  • Risk assessments must be dynamic and documented.
  • Periodic reviews are insufficient. Companies must revisit risks as business models, markets, and products evolve.
  • Due diligence must be risk-based and enforced.
  • The SFO will look for evidence of follow-through: actual reviews, remediation steps, and periodic refreshes, not just questionnaires.
  • Training must reach the right people, at the right depth, at the right time.
  • If frontline staff cannot articulate how policies apply to real situations, the program is not embedded.
  • Monitoring and review must capture failures and lead to improvements.
  • The SFO expects companies to learn from investigations, whistleblowing incidents, and near misses.

These principles have one common trait: they require action, not intention. Indeed, it is clear that “compliance” is a verb.

How the SFO Looks Behind the Curtain

The SFO’s FAQs section is an important reality check. The agency describes its evaluation process as holistic, evidence-based, and focused on operational activity (pages 10–12). It will use every investigative tool at its disposal.

This includes:

  • voluntary disclosures
  • compelled document production under section 2
  • witness interviews
  • suspect interviews
  • direct questions to the organization

Why is this important? Because the SFO is not taking the company’s word for anything. Assertions are not evidence. The agency will “dig behind generalities and challenge high-level assertions” to determine whether policies translate into conduct. In other words, if the program only exists in policy language, the SFO will know and quickly.

DPAs and Monitorships: Operationalized Compliance Determines Outcomes

When considering whether a DPA is appropriate, the SFO again focuses on whether the program works in practice. A DPA is less likely if the program was ineffective at the time of the offence and has not substantially improved since. If the program failed but is now demonstrably effective, a DPA becomes more viable. If a monitorship is imposed, the SFO expects the monitor to advise on “necessary compliance improvements” that reduce future risk. This language reinforces a core message: compliance must be operational, measurable, and continuously improving.

For companies negotiating a DPA, this means a surge of paper policy updates is not persuasive. What prosecutors want to see is changed behavior, improved controls, and evidence that new measures are taking hold across the organization.

The Shift from Compliance as Documentation to Compliance as a Business System

The guidance mirrors a shift seen globally from the DOJ’s “three questions” to the French AFA’s operational guidance and places the United Kingdom in alignment with international enforcement trends.

Across regimes, regulators are converging on the same model:

  1. A well-designed program.
  2. Adequate resources and authority to operate.
  3. Proof that the program works in practice.

The SFO’s guidance aligns directly with this structure. For compliance officers, that means your influence must go beyond policy drafting. Compliance must embed itself into:

  • procurement workflows
  • HR processes
  • incentives and compensation frameworks
  • approval systems
  • financial controls
  • business-development oversight
  • investigation protocols
  • continuous monitoring and data analytics
  • leadership behavior
  • cultural reinforcement mechanisms

This is what it means to operationalize compliance. A check-the-box program may look good in a binder. But it will not protect the company from enforcement, reputational harm, or sentencing penalties. A program that works in practice. This means real controls, real accountability, real culture, and a real will to do so.

The Message for Compliance Leaders

The SFO is telling companies something essential: The risk is not that you have a compliance failure. The risk is that your compliance program cannot prevent one. Your company can withstand a failure. It cannot withstand a failure in a system that does not exist.

The guidance signals a new enforcement reality: companies that invest in operationalized compliance, which is truly embedded into how people work, will be treated differently, prosecuted differently, and negotiated with differently. For compliance leaders, the priority is clear. This is the moment to shift your program from aspirational to operational. Because when regulators ask whether your program works, the only answer that matters now is evidence.

Categories
ACI FCPA Conference 2025

ACI-FCPA Conference Speaker Preview Series – From Value Protection to Value Creation with Rodrigo Cunha

In this episode of the ACI-FCPA and Global Anti-Corruption Conference Speaker Podcasts series, Rodrigo Cunha discusses his panel at the event, “Compliance in Motion: How to Retool Your Compliance Program for Speed, Flexibility, and Resilience to Meet the Demands of Today’s Rapidly Changing Risk Landscape.”

Some of the issues the panel will discuss are:

  • Why compliance needs to reinvent itself in 2026.
  • Moving at the speed of business, and
  • Improving compliance communications.

I hope you can join me at the ACI–FCPA Conference. This year’s event will take place on December 3-4 at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, near Washington, D.C. The lineup of this year’s event is simply first-rate, featuring some of the top FCPA professionals, white-collar attorneys, and compliance practitioners in the field.

The 2025 program is being completely redesigned to help your organization stay agile, responsive, and ahead of the curve. Expect a dynamic agenda shaped by real-world priorities, practical takeaways, and the most cutting-edge thinking in compliance—led by a faculty of global practitioners with boots on the ground, encountering the very risks that come across your desk.

Please join me at the event. For information on the event, click here. Listeners of this podcast will receive a discount by using the code D10-999-CPN26.