Today we conclude our 5-part deep dive into the Asante Berko trial and guilty verdict, using the trial not simply as a case study but as a mechanism to pressure-test your compliance regime.
A compliance program is not effective because the company eventually exits a troubled transaction. It is effective when leaders can show how quickly the system identified the risk, who had authority to act, whether related conduct was contained, what the investigation established, and how the organization changed afterward.
That is the governance test presented by the Berko trial. Prosecutors built their case from emails, payment patterns, personal communications, compliance questions, recorded statements, and financial evidence. The defense attacked the missing last mile. The jury convicted Asante Berko on all three counts in just over three hours. For CCOs and boards, the final lesson is not to retry the case. It is to determine whether their own program could identify the same pattern, develop reliable facts, impose accountability, and respond at the speed enforcement policy now demands.
Start With the Three Questions That Matter
The DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) organizes program effectiveness around three questions. (1) Is the program well designed? (2) Is it applied earnestly and in good faith, with adequate resources and authority? (3) Does it work in practice? Those questions should frame the board’s review of the Berko fact pattern.
A written third-party policy answers the first question only in part. The second asks whether compliance can pause a revenue-producing transaction, obtain records, challenge senior employees, and reach the board without management filtering. The third asks for outcomes: when the warning signs appeared, did the organization find them, act on them, preserve the evidence, and fix the control weakness?
The governance failure is often not the absence of a rule. It is the gap between ownership and authority. Management owns business conduct and risk decisions. The CCO advises, challenges, monitors, and escalates. Internal audit provides independent assurance. The board oversees the system and management’s response. If every party assumes another function owns the hard decision, the control exists on paper but fails in operation.
Align Incentives, Conflicts, and Consequences
High-risk transactions require a clear view of personal incentives. Employees should disclose and pre-clear outside interests, referral compensation, client-paid benefits, expected success fees, and post-employment opportunities connected to current transactions. Offboarding should preserve relevant data, review pending payments, close access, identify continuing client contacts, and obtain certifications concerning outside interests and retained information.
Compensation deserves the same scrutiny as third-party payments. A bonus plan that rewards closing without measuring risk quality invites employees to treat compliance as a cost of delay. Risk-adjusted incentives should account for diligence completion, control compliance, escalation quality, and the durability of the business outcome. The ECCP asks whether companies use incentives for ethical conduct and apply discipline consistently across seniority, geography, and business unit. It also asks whether compensation can be deferred, reduced, canceled, or recouped when misconduct is established, subject to applicable law.
Consequence management must reach more than the direct actor. A credible process examines supervisory failure, tolerated red flags, obstruction, and failure to install or use safeguards. It applies the same decision framework to rainmakers and junior employees. The board should receive trend information showing investigation cycle times, substantiation rates, disciplinary consistency, repeat issues, and whether managers were held accountable for control failures.
Build Investigation and Speak-Up Readiness
The defense’s attack on the Berko evidence offers an investigation lesson. A source may have motives. A recording may require translation. Emails may lack a witness who can explain context. Payments may be traceable to an intermediary but not to an ultimate recipient. Those are reasons to investigate carefully, not reasons to dismiss an allegation.
Separate source credibility from objective proof. Preserve native emails, attachments, metadata, messaging records, payment instructions, approval histories, and device data. Trace funds beyond the first recipient. Document translation choices, dialect issues, investigative prompting, and competing interpretations. Interview witnesses who can explain both the transaction and the communications. Record what was established, what remained disputed, and why each conclusion was reached.
Design the process before the crisis. Define triage criteria, independence, privilege, preservation, scope approval, board escalation, investigation timing, root-cause analysis, and remediation ownership. Provide reporting channels that employees and third parties know, trust, and can use without retaliation. DOJ treats a trusted reporting mechanism and timely, properly scoped, objective, and documented investigations as hallmarks of an effective program.
Prepare the Disclosure Decision Before the Clock Starts
Voluntary disclosure should not be improvised during a board emergency. The company needs a protocol that identifies decision owners, the role of counsel, the facts required, preservation steps, the escalation path, and the method for assessing seriousness, pervasiveness, seniority, ongoing harm, and potential collateral consequences.
The March 2026 Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (VSD) makes speed commercially significant. It provides a declination path when a company voluntarily self-discloses to the appropriate DOJ component, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately remediates, and lacks disqualifying aggravating circumstances, although prosecutorial discretion and the policy’s definitions still control. The policy also contains an exception for a whistleblower who reports both internally and to DOJ. A company may remain eligible if it reports as soon as reasonably practicable, no later than 120 days after the internal report, and satisfies the other requirements.
That is not a 120-day permission slip to wait. The operating standard is speed with discipline. The company must stop continuing harm, preserve evidence, protect privilege, develop facts, and keep decision-makers informed. A tabletop exercise should test whether the organization can do all five while the disclosure window is running.
Give the Board Evidence, Not Activity Counts
Boards do not need every hotline allegation or third-party file. They need a risk-based view of whether the system works. Reporting should cover high-risk transactions proceeding with incomplete diligence, unresolved politically exposed person relationships, payment holds, management overrides, aged investigations, remediation slippage, repeat control failures, off-channel communication exceptions, and risk acceptances by senior leaders.
Metrics should show speed, quality, and outcomes. Track time from red flag to triage, triage to transaction pause, allegation to investigation plan, finding to discipline, and remediation commitment to validated closure. Measure whether the company can match high-risk payments to legitimate services, verified beneficial owners, approved accounts, and evidence of performance. Show whether control testing changed behavior, not simply whether employees completed training.
The CCO should have regular direct access to the board or responsible committee, including private sessions when appropriate. The board should understand the CCO’s authority, resources, data access, and unresolved requests. DOJ asks what information directors examined, whether compliance concerns stopped or changed transactions, and whether compliance has the stature and autonomy to function effectively.
Run a 30/60/90-Day Berko Stress Test
Days 1 to 30: Replay one recent high-risk public-sector transaction against the Berko pattern. Inventory intermediaries, beneficial owners, politically exposed person relationships, success fees, conflicts, personal-email exceptions, cash exposure, payment destinations, incomplete diligence, and overrides. Identify which facts the current systems can retrieve and which depend on manual reconstruction.
Days 31 to 60: Close the most important design gaps. Add hard stops, fee benchmarking, conflict attestations, off-channel controls, evidence-preservation rules, payment analytics, investigation protocols, and an escalation matrix giving compliance documented pause authority. Assign one accountable owner and a deadline to each remediation item.
Days 61 to 90: Test the program. Sample transactions, trace selected payments end to end, test the hotline from intake through closure, and conduct an investigation and voluntary-disclosure tabletop. Present the results to senior management and the board, including accepted risks, overdue actions, resource needs, and evidence that completed remediation operates in practice.
The board should ask, “Which Berko warning signs would we detect today?” How quickly could we freeze a payment? Who may override compliance, and what evidence is required? Can investigators collect personal-device communications lawfully and preserve multilingual evidence? Which repeated control failures have affected compensation or promotion?
The CCO should ask one final question: Would our program find this pattern because the controls work, or only because an external source eventually brings it to us?
This Berko FCPA trial blog post series began with the prosecution’s evidentiary mosaic and the defense’s missing-last-mile challenge. It ends with a practical conclusion. Compliance evidence becomes trial evidence. A defensible program must create that evidence through authority, trusted reporting, disciplined investigations, consistent accountability, measurable remediation, and active board oversight. That is how a case study becomes a control test and how a control test becomes proof that the program works.
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, “Former Goldman Sachs Investment Banker Convicted of Foreign Bribery and Money Laundering,” Aug. 6, 2026, DOJ Press Release.
