Tag: compliance

Categories
Blog

Day 20 of One Month to More Effective Internal Controls – Assessing Compliance Internal Controls Under COSO

Internal Controls – Integrated Framework, Illustrative Tools for Assessing Effectiveness of a System of Internal Controls” (herein ‘the Illustrative Guide’), COSO laid out its views on “how to assess the effectiveness of its internal controls.” It went on to note, “An effective system of internal controls provides reasonable assurance of achievement of the entity’s objectives, relating to operations, reporting, and compliance.” Moreover, two over-arching requirements can only be met through such a structured post. First, each of the five components is present and functioning. Second, are the five components “operating together in an integrated approach.” One of the most critical components of the COSO Framework is that it sets internal control standards against those you can audit to assess the strength of your compliance with internal control. As the COSO 2013 Framework is designed to apply to a wider variety of corporate entities, your audit should be designed to test your internal controls. If you have a multi-country or business unit organization, you must determine how your internal compliance controls are interrelated up and down the organization. The Illustrative Guide also realizes that smaller companies may have less formal structures in place throughout the organization. Your auditing can and should reflect this business reality. Finally, if your company relies heavily on technology for your compliance function, you can leverage that technology to “support the ongoing assessment and evaluation” program going forward. The Illustrative Guide suggests using a four-pronged approach in your assessment. (1) Make an overall assessment of your company’s system of internal controls. This should include an analysis of “whether each of the components and relevant principles is present and functioning and the components are operating together in an integrated manner.” (2). There should be a component evaluation. Here you need to evaluate any deficiencies you may have more deeply and whether there are any compensating internal controls. (3) Assess whether each principle is present and functioning. As the COSO 2013 Framework does not prescribe “specific controls that must be selected, developed and deployed,” your task here is to look at the main characteristics of each principle, as further defined in the points of focus, and then determine if a deficiency exists and it so what is the severity of the deficiency. (4) Finally, you should summarize all your internal control deficiencies in a log, so they are addressed on a structured basis. Another way to think through the approach could be to consider “the controls to effect the principle” and would allow internal control deficiencies to be “identified along with an initial severity determination.” A Component Evaluation would “roll up the results of the component’s principal evaluations” and would allow a re-evaluation of the severity of any deficiency in the context of compensating controls. Lastly, an overall Effectiveness Assessment would examine whether the controls were “operating together in an integrated manner by evaluating any internal control deficiencies aggregate to a major deficiency.” This process would then lend itself to an ongoing evaluation. If business models, laws, regulations, or other situations changed, you could assess if your internal controls were up to the new situations or needed adjustment. The Illustrative Guide spent a fair amount of time discussing deficiencies. Initially, it defined ‘internal control deficiency’ as a “shortcoming in a component or components and relevant principle(s) that reduces the likelihood of an entity achieving its objectives.” It defined‘ major deficiency’ as an “internal control deficiency or combination of deficiencies that severely reduces the likelihood that an entity can achieve its objectives.” A major deficiency is a significant issue because “When a major deficiency exists, the organization cannot conclude that it has met the requirements for an effective internal control system.” Moreover, unlike deficiencies, “a major deficiency in one component cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level by the presence and functioning of another component.” Under a compliance regime, you may be faced with known or relevant criteria to classify any deficiency. For example, if written policies do not have, at a minimum, the categories of policies laid out in the FCPA 2012 Guidance, which states “the nature and extent of transactions with foreign governments, including payments to foreign officials; use of third parties; gifts, travel, and entertainment expenses; charitable and political donations; and facilitating and expediting payments,” also formulated in the Illustrative Guide, such a finding would preclude management from “concluding that the entity has met the requirements for effective internal controls by the Framework.”  However, what steps should you take if there are no objective criteria, as laid out in the FCPA 2012 Guidance, evaluate your company’s compliance with internal controls? The Illustrative Guide says that a business’ senior management, with appropriate board oversight, “may establish objective criteria for evaluating internal control deficiencies and for how deficiencies should be reported to those responsible for achieving those objectives.” Together with appropriate auditing boundaries set by either established law, regulation, or standard, or through management exercising its judgment, you can then make a full determination of “whether each of the components and relevant principles is present and functioning and components are operating together, and ultimately in concluding on the effectiveness of the entity’s system of internal control.” The Illustrative Guide has a useful set of templates that can serve as the basis for your reporting results. They are specifically designed to “support an assessment of the effectiveness of a system of internal control and help document such an assessment.” The Document, Document, and Document feature are critical in any best practices anti-corruption or anti-bribery compliance program, whether based upon the FCPA, UK Bribery Act, or some other regulation. With the Illustrative Guide, COSO has given the compliance practitioner a handy road map to begin an analysis of your company’s internal compliance controls. When the SEC comes knocking, they will look for this type of evidence to evaluate if your company has met its obligations under the FCPA’s internal controls provisions. First are some general definitions that you need to consider in your evaluation. An internal compliance control must be both present and functioning. A control is present if the “components and relevant principles exist in the design and implementation of the system of [compliance] internal control to achieve the specified objective.”  An internal compliance control functions if the “components and relevant principles continue to exist in the conduct of the system of [compliance] internal controls to achieve specified objectives.”

Three Key Takeaways:

  1. An effective internal controls system provides reasonable assurance of the entity’s objectives relating to operations, reporting, and compliance.
  2. There are two over-arching requirements for effective internal controls. First, each of the five components is present and functional. Second are the five components operating together in an integrated approach.
  3. You can use the Tem Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program for an anti-corruption compliance program as your guide to testing against.

For more information on improving your internal controls management process, visit this month’s sponsor Workiva at workiva.com. The COSO model can be used to structure your assessment of internal controls.

Categories
Everything Compliance

Everything Compliance-Episode 14

Show Notes for Everything Compliance-Episode 14 

Topics from Matt:

  1. Trump Administration & FCPA enforcement— we have two declinations now; maybe a compare-and-contrast and speculation on what a tough Trump Admin enforcement WOULD look like;
  2. EU’s GDPR— Do EU regulators know what they want to do with the enforcement of this law; if they follow the lead of the anti-competition people whacking Google, it could be a big deal;
  3. Hui Chen’s departure from the Justice Department, both her public rebuke of Trump and the substance of how she believes her guidance has been misinterpreted; and
  4. Ethical leadership and the lack thereof; the menace of abusing perks and privilege, connecting my posts about Uber’s leaders and Chris Christie vacationing on a closed beach.

Topics from Jay:

  1. How do the Campaign Finance Laws mirror/or differ from the FCPA?
  2. Will the Russian Collusion Investigation reveal the ultimate FCPA violation?
  3. Regarding Walter Shaub’s departure from the Office of Governmental Ethics (OGE), does it matter? What is OGE supposed to do, and why did it work for the past 40+ years but fall on deaf ears with the Trump administration?
  4. Dovetailing with Matt’s question about a slow H1 for FCPA enforcement and in light of the just-released Gibson Dunn FCPA Mid-Year Report, does the current climate (and lack of vigorous enforcement) provide a perfect storm for companies to look the other way if they fall off the E&C wagon, or do we think that companies are still being vigilant despite a perception of decreased enforcement?

Rants follow this week’s episode. What do the two declinations in 2017 mean? The Everything Compliance panel of experts weighs in.

Categories
Blog

Day 19 of One Month to More Effective Internal Controls – COSO Objective V: Monitoring Activities

Monitoring Activities. The Framework Volume says, “Ongoing evaluations, separate evaluations, or some combination of the two are used to ascertain whether each of the five components of internal control, including controls to effect the principles within each component, is present and functioning. Ongoing evaluations, built into business processes at different entity levels, provide timely information. Separate evaluations, conducted periodically, will vary in scope and fre­quency depending on the assessment of risks, effectiveness of ongoing evaluations, and other management considerations. Findings are evaluated against criteria established by regulators, recognized standard-setting bodies or management, and the board of directors. Deficiencies are communicated to management and the board of direc­tors as appropriate.” However, as with all other components of the COSO Cube, Monitoring Activities are part of an inter-related whole and cannot be taken singularly. Rittenberg states this objective “applies to all five components of internal control. The nature of monitoring should fit the organization, its dependence on IT, and the effectiveness of monitoring providing relevant feedback on the other components, including the effectiveness of control activities.” For the CCO or compliance practitioner, Monitoring Activities have been growing in importance over the past few years and will continue to do so in the future. The Five Principles of an Effective Compliance Program, Principle 5, includes ongoing monitoring, reinforced in the 2013 COSO Framework. In an article in Corporate Compliance Insights (CCI), entitled “Implementing COSO’s 2013 Framework: 10 Questions that Need to be Answered”, Ron Kral explained that it is essential to “ensure that adequate controls are ‘present’ in support of all relevant principles and the components before launching into efforts to prove that the controls are “functioning.” Remember that all relevant principles must be present and functioning for a company to conclude that its ICFR is effective safely. Aligning the design of controls to the 17 principles to see any gaps early in the implementation process will help ensure adequate time to remediate and test for operating effectiveness.” The same is equally, if not more so, true for your company’s compliance function.

I. Objective-Monitoring Activities The Monitoring Activities objective consists of two principles. They are: Principle 16 – “The organization selects, develops and performs ongoing and/or separate evaluations to ascertain whether the components of internal control are present and functioning.” Principle 17 – “The organization evaluates and communicates internal control deficiencies timely to those parties responsible for taking corrective action, including senior management and the board of directors, as appropriate.”

Principle 16 – Ongoing Evaluation

Rittenberg stresses that this Principle requires that “Monitoring should include ongoing or ‘continuous monitoring’ whenever such monitoring is reliable, timely and cost-effective.” The reason is simple; they are complementary tools to test the effectiveness of your compliance regime. The same is true of internal controls. But this Principle expects your organization to oversee, monitor, and audit. For the CCO or compliance practitioner, you will need to consider several different areas and concepts going forward. A current risk assessment or other evaluation of business changes should be based on some baseline understanding of your underlying compliance risk. Whatever you select will need to be integrated with your ongoing business processes, adjusted as appropriate through ongoing risk assessments, and objectively evaluated.

Principle 17 – Evaluation And Communication Of Deficiencies

This final Principle speaks to deficiencies and their correction. Rittenberg notes it requires a determination of what might constitute a deficiency in your internal control, who in your company is responsible for “taking corrective action and whether there is evidence that the corrective action was taken.” If that does not sound like McNulty Maxim No. 3, What did you do when you found out about it? I do not know what it does. Therefore, under this Principle, the CCO will need to take timely and determined action to correct any deficiencies which might appear in your compliance regime. It will require you to assess results, communicate the weaknesses up the chain to the board or Compliance Committee, correct and then monitor the corrective action going forward. Adapting Kral, I urge that every key internal compliance control in support of the 17 Principles should “conclude upon by management in terms of their adequacy of design and operating efficiency.”

II. Discussion Monitoring Activities should bring together your entire compliance program and give you a sense of whether it is running correctly. Both ongoing monitoring and auditing are tools the CCO and compliance practitioner should use to support this objective. Near the end of his section on this objective, Rittenberg states, “Monitoring is a key component of the internal control framework because effective monitoring (a) recognizes the dynamics of change within an organization, and (b) provides the basis for corrective action on a timely basis.” I would add that it also allows you to evaluate the effectiveness of that corrective action. The most important thing is that all the controls need to be sustainable. You cannot just build one-off controls that allow you to do one period and not have a process in place that will help you through all the periods you need to cover. The controls cannot just be a one-and-done. Many companies will find that their initial approach is one-and-done. There must also be a mechanism for communicating controls that do not work or can be overridden. From there, you must be able to remediate your controls going forward. This will align with the compliance professional’s requirement to prevent, detect, and remediate.

Three Key Takeaways:

  1. Monitoring activities are interrelated with all other Principles and cannot be taken singularly.
  2. Monitoring activities helps to ensure that all controls are present and functioning.
  3. Monitoring Activities should bring together your entire compliance program and give you a sense of whether it is running correctly.

For more information on improving your internal controls management process, visit this month’s sponsor Workiva at workiva.com. Ongoing monitoring of your internal controls helps to endure they are sustainable and not overridden.

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
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
    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 28

    Microsoft Cybersecurity Tool May Prompt Compliance” as a starting point to consider the Big Brother implications, two-step security features, AI issues and all of this ties directly into the corporate compliance function.
    [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-33j” float=”none”]Microsoft’s Secure Score paves the way for better and more efficient compliance.[/tweet_box]]]>