Categories
Blog

Aly McDevitt Week: Part 2 – VW, Dieselgate, and the Long Road from Fear to Integrity

This week, I want to pay tribute to my former Compliance Week colleague, Aly McDevitt, who announced on LinkedIn that she was retiring from CW to become a full-time mother. I wrote a tribute to Aly, which appeared in CW last week. To prepare to write that piece, I re-read her long-form case studies, which she wrote over the years for CW. They are as compelling today as when she wrote them. This week, I will be paying tribute to Aly by reviewing five of her pieces. The schedule for this week is:

Monday: A Tale of Two Storms

Tuesday: Coming Clean

Wednesday: Inside a Dark Pact

Thursday: Reaching Into the Value Chain

Friday: Ransomware Attack: An immersive case study of a cyber event based on real-life scenarios

In this story, Aly’s reporting did what the best compliance journalism always does: it moved beyond the headline scandal to examine the operating mechanics of cultural repair. McDevitt did not simply retell Dieselgate. She walked through how Volkswagen tried to recover from one of the great corporate compliance failures of modern times through a U.S. monitorship, structural reform, and a sustained effort to replace fear with integrity.

For the corporate compliance professional,  Coming Clean is more than a case study about emissions cheating. It is a case study on whether a company permeated by misconduct can rebuild trust in a credible, measurable, and durable way.

McDevitt begins with the plain truth. Dieselgate was not the act of a single rogue employee or a single bad executive. The defeat device was developed, installed, and concealed by many. Volkswagen’s diesel vehicles used software that sensed when emissions testing was underway and shifted performance to produce compliant results; during normal operations, emissions controls underperformed, resulting in nitrogen oxide pollution up to 40 times above permitted levels, according to U.S. officials. In total, Volkswagen sold approximately 590,000 such vehicles in the United States and roughly 11 million worldwide.

That alone would have made this a historic scandal. But the deeper compliance failure was cultural. McDevitt reports that the company did not come clean voluntarily. It admitted wrongdoing only after regulatory pressure forced the issue. As she recounts, former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman alleged that hundreds of senior executives and engineers knew what was happening and that no one was willing to say, “Maybe we should not do this” or “This is against the law,” a devastating indictment of the company’s ethical environment.

That is the first lesson for compliance officers. Compliance breakdowns at this scale are rarely caused by one missing policy. They come from pressure, silence, and a culture that normalizes rationalization.

Volkswagen’s business ambition played a central role. McDevitt notes that the company’s push to become the world’s most successful automaker was accompanied by an integrity deficit, unrealistic goals, and a culture of fear. Later in the case study, she connects this to Strategy 2018, a corporate objective that sought market dominance and, in many observers’ view, created unbearable pressure to deliver results. This is an old lesson, but it remains evergreen. When growth goals are decoupled from ethics, misconduct begins to look like problem-solving.

Volkswagen’s 2017 guilty plea resulted in $4.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties and a three-year U.S. monitorship. McDevitt rightly focuses on the monitorship not as a humiliation ritual, but as an instrument of recovery. Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson was appointed independent compliance monitor and auditor, and Hiltrud Werner became the executive on the Volkswagen side responsible for integrity, legal affairs, and much of the internal reform effort.

One of McDevitt’s great strengths in this piece is her attention to the relationship between monitor and company. Too often, practitioners think of monitorships as adversarial. Volkswagen’s experience suggests something more nuanced. Werner explicitly framed the monitor as an investment in Volkswagen’s future, not merely a punishment for its past, and she stressed that having someone on-site who knew the required standard was a positive element of reform. That is a practical insight. External oversight works best when the organization treats it as a pathway to transformation rather than a box-checking burden.

McDevitt also highlights the mechanics of making that relationship work. Volkswagen held a pre-monitorship “boot camp” in May 2017 to accelerate understanding, create transparency, and build human relationships between the monitor team and company personnel. Werner’s takeaway was one every compliance professional should write down: do not focus only on process; focus on people, too. I find that insight especially powerful because compliance functions often overinvest in control language and underinvest in trust architecture.

That same lesson appears in Volkswagen’s Project Management Office. McDevitt reports that the company created a neutral PMO to coordinate the monitorship across departments, manage over 1 million pages of documents and more than 8,000 meetings, and connect the monitor team to knowledgeable personnel across the enterprise. The PMO was not clerical support. It was organizational muscle. It mirrored the monitor’s work streams, established clear lines of contact, and brought together 80 staff from the first, second, and third lines of defense. That is another lesson worth underlining. In a major remediation project, project management is not ancillary to compliance. It is compliance.

McDevitt then turned to one of the most significant reforms: a single Code of Conduct for all employees across all 12 brands and companies, the first such common code in Volkswagen’s history. Hiltrud Werner described it as the company’s first stable anchor for culture. The Code was not meant to be an abstract statement. It included case studies and examples, and the training was updated to include “Dieselgate Lessons Learned” on compliance, integrity, culture, realism, personal responsibility, and speak-up expectations. Every employee and all board members received training on those lessons. For compliance professionals, this is exactly right. If your code cannot explain what went wrong in your own organization, then it is not yet a living document.

McDevitt’s reporting on Together4Integrity (T4I) is especially useful for practitioners. T4I emerged from the ashes of the failed growth-at-all-costs model and was built on two pillars: designing processes and positively influencing them, and inspiring employees to do the right thing out of conviction. It was not a one-size-fits-all rollout. Volkswagen recognized that a global organization with strong local identities needed both centralized standards and local ownership.

I particularly appreciated how McDevitt showed the practical texture of this effort. Local managers were empowered to choose engagement formats, from discussion breakfasts to integrity activities designed to reduce the distance between managers and employees and support a more open speak-up culture. Stephanie Davis, Volkswagen Group of America’s CECO, put it plainly: serious topics cannot be so scary that employees refuse to engage with them. Demystifying the work is part of the work.

The company also understood that culture had to be measured. This is perhaps the most practical part of McDevitt’s analysis. Volkswagen used perception workshops and its annual Stimmungs barometer survey to assess whether employees believed integrity was possible within their organizational units, identify weak areas, and build risk-based action plans. Werner reported that these measures showed year-over-year improvement, and the company used them to target workshops and resources where risk was greatest.

This is where many companies still fall short. They conduct training and communications, but they do not build a credible measurement framework for whether culture is actually changing. Volkswagen’s approach, as McDevitt presents it, offers a more mature model.

She also addresses the root causes of silence. Volkswagen identified “chimney careers,” or promotion paths entirely within one silo, as a structural factor that discouraged speaking up, as employees became too dependent on a single chain of command. That diagnosis is remarkably important. Speak-up culture is not only about hotline posters or anti-retaliation language. It is also about mobility, organizational design, and whether employees believe dissent will end their careers.

Finally, McDevitt looks at trust. Internally, Volkswagen viewed the increase in non-anonymous whistleblower reports as evidence that fear had begun to recede. In 2020, the company received 2,800 whistleblower tips, 90 percent of which were non-anonymous, a figure Werner said was unusually high and a signal that employees no longer felt the same degree of fear. Externally, regaining customer trust was slower and more difficult. Volkswagen repositioned around electric vehicles, carbon neutrality, and Electrify America, but Werner candidly admitted that rebuilding credibility was still a long process.

That candor may be the final lesson. After a scandal of this magnitude, a campaign cannot restore trust. It is restored by years of disciplined conduct, transparent accountability, and evidence that the company has truly understood what went wrong. Aly McDevitt’s Coming Clean is therefore not simply a story about Volkswagen. It is a guide to the difficult middle stage of compliance work: what happens after the plea, after the headlines, after the first promises. That is where the real labor begins.

Join us tomorrow, where we review Aly’s piece on Lafarge in Syria. I am a columnist for Compliance Week.

Categories
Blog

Aly McDevitt Week: Part 1 – Carnival and the Hard Truth About Crisis-Tested Compliance

This week, I want to pay tribute to my former Compliance Week colleague, Aly McDevitt, who announced on LinkedIn that she was retiring from CW to become a full-time mother. I wrote a tribute to Aly, which appeared in CW last week. To prepare to write that piece, I re-read her long-form case studies, which she wrote over the years for CW. They are as compelling today as when she wrote them. This week, I will be paying tribute to Aly by reviewing five of her pieces. The schedule for this week is:

Monday: A Tale of Two Storms

Tuesday: Coming Clean

Wednesday: Inside a Dark Pact

Thursday: Reaching Into the Value Chain

Friday: Ransomware Attack: An immersive case study of a cyber event based on real-life scenarios

Please note that I will leave her seminal (in my opinion) piece, The Banks Behind the Epstein Enterprise, for a later piece.

In A Tale of Two Storms, it is worth noting at the outset that McDevitt did more than recount a corporate crisis. She captured a company trying to rebuild itself under the eye of a court-appointed monitor just as COVID-19 exploded into a global emergency. As Compliance Week explained, what began as a long-form examination of Carnival’s environmental misconduct and attempted compliance redemption became a far bigger story when one of its ships became an early incubator of the virus outside China.

For the compliance professional, that pivot is the first lesson. A program is not truly tested in the conference room. It is tested when an old crisis collides with a new one.

McDevitt opens at a moment of eerie transition. On February 20, 2020, Carnival was already dealing with a COVID-19 outbreak aboard the Diamond Princess, even as Compliance Week toured the company’s new ethics and compliance function in Miami. That juxtaposition framed the whole case study. Carnival was not simply managing a public health disaster. It was doing so while still carrying the baggage of a long, embarrassing, and very expensive history of environmental misconduct.

That history mattered. Carnival had pleaded guilty in federal court in both 2002 and 2017 to illegal discharges of oily waste and to falsification of records, and the Department of Justice viewed the pattern as evidence of a systemic problem in ethics and culture. This was not a one-off control failure. It was a story of repeated misconduct, insufficient structural reform, and an organization that had not yet fully learned how to turn compliance into culture.

McDevitt shows that the real inflection point came in 2019, after Carnival paid another $20 million for violating the terms of its probation and was ordered to implement corporate structural changes under a tight deadline, with a possible $10 million-per-day late penalty. That is when Carnival hired Peter Anderson as its first chief ethics and compliance officer and began to centralize what had long been fragmented compliance functions.

The importance of that move cannot be overstated. A common problem in large organizations is that compliance is spread across subject-matter silos, each with its own language, priorities, and reporting lines. McDevitt reports that before August 2019, Carnival did not have a centralized ethics and compliance department; environmental, general compliance, and health and safety functions worked independently across its operating companies. That fragmentation is often sold internally as efficiency or business autonomy. In practice, it can become a breeding ground for inconsistent controls, weak escalation, and cultural drift.

Anderson’s mandate was broader than legal remediation. He was brought in to unite the program, strengthen trust, improve information flow, and build a sustainable culture of compliance. McDevitt’s reporting around Anderson is especially valuable because she does not present him as a silver-bullet hero. Rather, she portrays him as an architect trying to build structure, process, and cultural credibility simultaneously.

His four pillars, as reported by McDevitt, were prevention, detection, response, and correction. That framework remains highly useful for any chief compliance officer. It reminds us that compliance is not just about policies or investigations. It is about understanding risk, identifying issues early, responding quickly, and then conducting real root cause analysis so the same failure does not recur. This became critically important once COVID hit.

One of the sharpest observations in McDevitt’s reporting comes from Carnival’s Gerry Ellis, who described the pandemic not as a pure compliance issue but as “compliance with the regulatory aspect of health” in a rapidly shifting battlefield of contradictory requirements across jurisdictions. That is a familiar challenge to modern compliance teams. Whether the issue is sanctions, AI governance, cyber, ESG, or public health, the hardest problems often come when the rules are changing in real time, across borders, with high operational stakes.

The brutal optics of timing also complicated Carnival’s crisis response. McDevitt details how the company faced allegations that it had sufficient warning signs yet continued operating for too long, even as infections spread across multiple vessels. Carnival defended its timing, noting that public health guidance was still evolving and that government advisories had not yet been fully escalated. That explanation may be understandable, but for compliance officers, the point is not merely whether management can defend its judgment after the fact. The point is whether the organization had the governance structure to make fast, documented, risk-based decisions while conditions changed by the hour.

McDevitt’s deeper contribution is to connect the pandemic response to the compliance rebuild already underway. She reports that Carnival’s pre-pandemic investments in a centralized program, better risk assessment, improved training, stronger communications, and closer engagement with the monitor helped the company absorb the shock of COVID more effectively than it otherwise could have. In other words, compliance did not solve the pandemic. But it provided muscle memory. That may be the most important lesson in the entire case study.

The company also understands that the tone at the top must be reinforced through resource allocation. Even amid severe financial pressure, Carnival preserved a larger share of its ethics and compliance team than many other departments, continued environmental investments, and developed a Pause Priorities Plan to sustain compliance momentum during the shutdown. Compliance officers should take note. A company reveals its real priorities not by slogans but by budget, staffing, visibility, and follow-through.

There are other practical insights here as well. McDevitt recounts how Carnival moved from a blame-oriented investigative mindset to “incident analysis” and learning, with Anderson explicitly stating that incidents should be viewed as assets for improvement. She also reports the company’s emphasis on “speak up,” leadership engagement, culture measurements, and the need to make captains and shipboard leaders receptive to challenge from below. That is a direct answer to one of the oldest compliance questions: how do you build trust in high-hierarchy environments where people fear speaking up?

Yet McDevitt does not let Carnival off the hook. The court-appointed monitor remained skeptical, top leadership had to be pushed to engage more deeply, environmental violations persisted, and Judge Patricia Seitz openly questioned whether Carnival was building a robust system that could function without the court’s “training wheels”. That skepticism is healthy. It underscores a hard truth every compliance professional knows: a redesigned program is not the same thing as an effective one. The real test is whether the organization behaves differently over time.

In the end, A Tale of Two Storms is not simply a cruise industry story. Aly McDevitt uses Carnival to show what happens when compliance reform is forced to mature in public, under enforcement pressure, and amid operational chaos. Her reporting demonstrates that while a crisis can expose weakness, it can also accelerate the transition from paper program to operational discipline.

For compliance leaders, that is the heart of the matter. You do not get to choose when your second storm arrives. You only get to choose whether your program is strong enough to meet it.

Join us tomorrow as we move to Aly’s piece on Volkswagen and its journey regarding its corporate soul after its emissions testing scandal. I am a columnist for Compliance Week.

Categories
Blog

AI Compliance as a Competitive Advantage: Turning Governance Into ROI

In too many organizations, “AI compliance” is treated like a speed bump. Something to route around, manage after launch, or outsource to a vendor deck and a policy that nobody reads. That mindset is not only outdated but also expensive. In 2026, mature AI governance is becoming a commercial differentiator because customers, regulators, employees, and business partners increasingly ask the same question: Can you prove your system is trustworthy?

The most underappreciated truth is that AI risk is not “an AI team problem.” It is a business-process problem, expressed through data, decisions, third parties, and change control. The Department of Justice Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) has never been about perfect paperwork; it has been about whether a program is designed, implemented, resourced, tested, and improved. If you can translate that posture into AI, you can convert “compliance cost” into “credibility capital.”

A cautionary backdrop shows why. The EEOC’s 2023 settlement with iTutorGroup serves as a cautionary tale: automated hiring screening that disadvantages older workers can lead to legal exposure, remediation costs, and reputational damage. The details matter less than the pattern; when algorithmic decisions are not governed, the business eventually pays the bill. The compliance professional should see the pivot clearly; governance is the mechanism that lets you move fast without becoming reckless.

From a build-from-scratch, low-to-medium maturity posture, the win is not sophistication. The win is repeatability. If you build an AI governance framework aligned to NIST AI RMF (govern, map, measure, manage), structured through ISO/IEC 42001’s management-system discipline, and cognizant of EU AI Act risk tiering, you get something the business loves: a predictable path from idea to deployment. Today, I will explore five ways mature AI compliance can become a competitive advantage, each with a practical view of how a compliance-focused GenAI assistant can support business processes.

1) Sales and Customer Trust

Trust is a sales feature now, even when marketing refuses to call it that. Customers increasingly ask about data use, model behavior, security controls, and human oversight, and they are doing it in procurement questionnaires and contract negotiations. A mature governance framework lets you answer quickly, consistently, and with evidence, thereby shortening sales cycles and reducing late-stage deal friction. A compliance GenAI can support this by drafting standardized responses from approved trust artifacts such as policies, model cards, DPIAs, and audit summaries; flagging gaps, and routing exceptions to Legal and Compliance before the business overpromises.

For compliance professionals, this lesson is even more stark, as the ‘customers’ of a corporate compliance program are your employees. Some key KPIs you can track are average time to complete AI security and compliance questionnaires; percentage of deals requiring AI-related contractual concessions; number of customer-facing AI disclosures issued with approved templates; and percentage of AI systems with current model documentation and ownership attestations.

2) Regulatory Credibility

Regulators are not impressed by ambition; controls persuade them. NIST AI RMF provides a common language to demonstrate that you mapped use cases, measured risks, and managed them over time, while ISO/IEC 42001 imposes discipline on accountability, documentation, and continual improvement. The EU AI Act’s risk-based approach adds an organizing principle: classify systems, apply controls proportionate to risk, and prove that you did it. A compliance GenAI can help by maintaining a living inventory, prompting owners to complete quarterly attestations, drafting control narratives aligned with the frameworks, and assembling regulator-ready “evidence packs” that demonstrate governance in operation rather than on paper.

For compliance professionals, this lesson is about your gap analysis. You have not aligned your current internal controls with GenAI, governance, or other controls. You should do so. Some key KPIs you can track are percentage of AI systems risk-tiered and documented; time to produce an evidence pack for a high-impact system; number of material control exceptions and time-to-remediation; and frequency of risk reviews for high-impact systems.

3) Faster Product Approvals and Safer Deployment

Speed comes from clarity, not from cutting corners. When decision rights, review thresholds, and required artifacts are defined up front, product teams stop guessing what Compliance will require at the end. That is the management-system advantage: ISO/IEC 42001 treats AI governance like a repeatable operational process with gates, owners, and records, rather than a series of one-off debates. A compliance GenAI can support the workflow by pre-screening new use-case intake forms, recommending the correct risk tier under EU AI Act concepts, suggesting required testing (bias, privacy, safety), and generating the first draft of a launch checklist that the product team can execute.

For compliance professionals, this lesson is that you must run compliance at the speed of your business operations. Some key KPIs you can track are: cycle time from AI intake to approval; percent of launches that pass on first review; number of post-launch “surprise” issues tied to missing pre-launch controls; and percentage of models with human-in-the-loop controls when required.

4) Talent, Recruiting, and Internal Confidence

Top performers do not want to work in a company that treats AI like a toy and compliance like a nuisance. Mature governance creates psychological safety inside the organization: employees know what is permitted, what is prohibited, and how to raise concerns. It also improves recruiting because candidates, especially in technical roles, ask about responsible AI practices, data governance, and ethical guardrails. A compliance GenAI can support internal confidence by serving as the first-line “policy concierge,” answering questions with approved guidance, directing employees to the correct procedures, and logging common questions so Compliance can improve training and communications.

For compliance professionals, this fits squarely within the DOJ mandate for compliance to lead efforts in institutional justice and fairness. Some key KPIs you can track include training completion and comprehension metrics for AI use; the number of AI-related helpline inquiries and their resolution times; employee survey results on comfort raising AI concerns; and the percentage of AI use cases with documented business-owner accountability.

5) Lower Cost of Incidents and More Resilient Operations

AI incidents are rarely just “bad outputs.” They are process failures: poor data lineage, uncontrolled model changes, vendor opacity, missing logs, weak access controls, or no escalation path when harm appears. NIST AI RMF’s “measure” and “manage” functions emphasize monitoring, drift detection, incident response, and continuous improvement, which is precisely how you reduce the frequency and severity of failures. A compliance GenAI can support incident resilience by guiding teams through an AI incident response playbook, helping triage severity, ensuring evidence is preserved (audit logs, prompts, outputs, approvals), and generating lessons-learned reports that connect root cause to control enhancements.

For compliance professionals, this lesson is even more stark, as the ‘customers’ of a corporate compliance program are your employees. Some key KPIs you can track include the number of AI incidents by severity tier; mean time to detect and mean time to remediate; the percentage of high-impact models with drift-monitoring and alert thresholds; and the percentage of third-party AI providers subject to change-control notification requirements.

What “Mature Governance” Looks Like When You Are Building From Scratch

Do not start with a 60-page policy. Start with a few non-negotiables that scale:

  • Inventory and classification: Create a single inventory of GenAI assistants, ML models, and automated decision systems. Classify them by impact using EU AI Act concepts (high-impact versus low-impact) and your own business context.
  • Accountability and decision rights: Assign an owner for each system and require periodic attestations for the highest-risk categories.
  • Standard artifacts: Use lightweight model documentation, data lineage notes, and disclosure templates. If it is not documented, it does not exist for governance.
  • Human oversight and logging: Define when human-in-the-loop is mandatory and ensure logs capture who approved what, when, and why.
  • Third-party AI controls: Contract for transparency, audit support, change notification, and security requirements. Vendor opacity is not a strategy.

This is where ECCP thinking helps. The question is not whether you have a policy. The question is whether the policy is operationalized, tested, and improved. That is the bridge from compliance to competitive advantage.

If you want AI compliance to be a competitive advantage, treat it like a management system that produces evidence, not like a policy library that produces comfort. When governance becomes repeatable, the business can move faster, regulators become more confident, and customers see the difference. That is not a cost center. That is credibility you can take to the bank.

Categories
AI Today in 5

AI Today in 5: March 5, 2026, The AI ‘s Biggest Test Edition

Welcome to AI Today in 5, the newest addition to the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, Tom Fox will bring you 5 stories about AI to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the AI Today In 5. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider five stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest about AI.

Top AI stories include:

  1. Ending compliance bottlenecks with AI. (FinTechGlobal)
  2. AI surge will reshape compliance. (FinTechGlobal)
  3. Compliance first AI. (Cyberscoop)
  4. Trump, AI Data Centers, and the midterms. (CNBC)
  5. Healthcare is AI’s biggest test. (Time)

For more information on the use of AI in Compliance programs, my new book, Upping Your Game, is available. You can purchase a copy of the book on Amazon.com.

Categories
Red Flags Rising

Red Flags Rising: S01 E38: “Fallen Chips” – GIR’s Estelle Atkinson on her Three-Part Report

Mike Huneke and Brent Carlson welcome Estelle Atkinson, a reporter with Global Investigations Review (GIR), to speak about her recent three-part series, “Fallen Chips,” published on January 26, 27, and 28, 2026 (linked in the show notes). They discuss how Estelle learned of the U.S. government investigation of Zenith Semiconductor in Chandler, Arizona (01:14); that company’s background (06:03); when employees started to realize that things were not quite right at the company and how that led to employees going to the FBI (08:19); how Estelle got to know the employees and why they were willing to help her with her story (10:30); how her experience illustrates more broadly the challenge companies have in responding to whistleblower reports or allegations (11:48); how diversion starts close to home, and is not always in some exotic “offshore” location (15:31); how U.S. administration policies to promote the export of the U.S. AI “stack” are not without controls or national security considerations (15:58); why success under America’s AI Action Plan and the American AI Export initiative will depend on effective, risk-based export controls compliance programs (16:21); the role of media in American life (19:14); why the standard PR or IR “playbook” of asserting “full compliance with the law” creates risks if companies aren’t expressly incorporating the full definition of “knowledge,” to include “an awareness of a high probability,” into export controls compliance (20:14); and what GIR readers can expect to see (or read) next from Estelle (20:49). Mike and Brent conclude with yet another installment of Brent Carlson’s “Managing Up” (22:39).

Resources:

GIR 

Fallen Chips Part I: Inside the FBI Raid that Rocked an Arizona Chip Start-Up (Jan. 26, 2026)

Fallen Chips Part II: Silicon Secrets and the Risks Hiding in Plain Sight (Jan. 27, 2026)

Fallen Chips Part III: The Fault Lines of the US-China Tech War (Jan. 28, 2026)

More about:

Estelle: https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/authors/estelle-atkinson

Contact Estelle: estelle.atkinson@globalinvestigationsreview.com

Contact Brent: brent@redflagsrising.com

Contact Mike: michael.huneke@morganlewis.com

Categories
AI Today in 5

AI Today in 5: March 4, 2026, The AI Content Explosion Edition

Welcome to AI Today in 5, the newest addition to the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, Tom Fox will bring you 5 stories about AI to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the AI Today In 5. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider five stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest about AI.

Top AI stories include:

  1. Symphony AI is helping Spanish banks with sanctions screening. (FinTechGlobal)
  2. Agentic AI for reg compliance. (Yahoo!Finance)
  3. Chatbots and Influence. (YaleNews)
  4. Managing your AI content explosion. (PlanAdviser)
  5. AI for data protection. (Bloomberg)

For more information on the use of AI in Compliance programs, my new book, Upping Your Game, is available. You can purchase a copy of the book on Amazon.com.

Categories
Great Women in Compliance

Great Women in Compliance: Resilience is a Muscle You Can Build

In this episode of Great Women in Compliance, Lisa Fine talks with Trish Ashman, Senior Director of Ethics & Compliance (AMEA & APAC) at Cushman & Wakefield, about resilience, integrity, and knowing when it’s time to move on.

Trish shares her journey from private practice in London to Singapore and into the Ethics and Compliance space. Trish was at Wirecard and then at Twitter, both of which had her working through two major corporate crises – the fraud at Wirecard and the ownership change at Twitter. Trish candidly shares her experiences and lessons learned from both of those roles.

At Wirecard, she stayed to support employees during the collapse, focused on fairness and doing what she could to make a difference. At Twitter, after the acquisition dramatically reshaped the company and its compliance function, she considered whether she could still meaningfully influence ethical decision-making and if this role aligned with her values.

This episode is an honest conversation about ethics and compliance as a calling, resilience as a muscle, and how these experiences shaped Trish and helped her become resilient and find a role where she would thrive.

Categories
The PfBCon Podcast

The PFBCon Podcast: Regulatory Ramblings Wins the 2025 Agora Award: Inside the Podcast Bringing Clarity to Global Financial Regulation

At a conference, the 2025 Agora Award for Excellence in Podcasting is formally presented to Regulatory Ramblings, recognizing its role in clarifying complex global financial regulation through expert, long-form dialogue and its contribution to transparency, accountability, and informed public discourse. Host Ajay Shamdasani (a veteran financial and legal journalist and senior research fellow at the University of Hong Kong) discusses the show’s origins—modeled on the idea of telling “the story of money” through the interconnections of law, regulation, finance, and capital—and how its scope has evolved to include ESG, sustainability, inclusion, and geopolitical risk alongside topics like money laundering, sanctions, fraud, crypto/Web3, cybercrime, anti-corruption, and human trafficking.

Ajay outlines the production team and roles (Professor Douglas Arner as team leader with editorial freedom; producer Prospero Laput as the technical backbone; admin support from Neo; research support, including Ying Man Chan) and explains a format change, adding a short topical segment before a longer interview to accommodate audience attention spans while keeping conversations authentic. The discussion also covers the podcast’s growing global reach through the Compliance Podcast Network, increased inbound guest and collaboration requests, listener feedback on episodes about U.S. regulatory shifts (including the FCPA, AML enforcement, and the GENIUS Act), and how the show anchors global issues back to Hong Kong and Asia-Pacific. Ajay reflects on the emotional impact of the human trafficking episode with Matt Friedman and comments on Hong Kong’s regulatory and fintech landscape versus Singapore and Dubai, the role and reputation of HKU Law, and broader themes of shifting global power centers, sanctions, and managed globalization. The episode closes with Ajay’s view that podcasting can be a public service that spreads ideas, builds awareness of institutions and research, and creates opportunities for collaboration.

Key highlights:

  • Agora Award Announcement: 2025 Excellence in Podcasting
  • Why They Won: “We’re Still Here” and Hong Kong’s Global Role
  • Origin Story & Mission: Telling the Story of Money (and Everything Connected)
  • Behind the Mic: Who Does What on the Show
  • Format Evolution: Spotlight Segments, Audience Attention, and Editorial Choices
  • Toughest Topics: Human Trafficking Episode and the Emotional Toll
  • HKU’s Role: Hong Kong’s Legal Education Powerhouse
  • Hong Kong Finance Today: FinTech, Crypto Rules, and Traditional Banking Reality
  • Growing the Audience: Compliance Podcast Network, Brand Awareness, and Listener Impact
  • Covering a Region (and the World): Balancing Local Hong Kong Anchors with Global News
  • US–China Thaw? Decoupling, Trade Realities, and What Comes Next
  • Why Professionals Should Podcast: Influence, Public Service, and Collaboration

Resources:

Follow Regulatory Ramblings on:

HKU FinTech Website

Apple Podcast

Spotify

YouTube

Amazon Music

Podcast Addict

Follow HKU FinTech on:

LinkedIn

Instagram

X

Facebook

Categories
AI Today in 5

AI Today in 5: March 2, 2026, The Silent Failure at Scale Edition

Welcome to AI Today in 5, the newest addition to the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, Tom Fox will bring you 5 stories about AI to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the AI Today In 5. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider five stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest about AI.

Top AI stories include:

  1. AI rewriting compliance governance. (FinTechGlobal)
  2. Where AI, Security, and Compliance Meet. (CyberMagazine)
  3. Limits of voluntary AI Bill of Rights. (SLS)
  4. The biggest risk for businesses and AI. (CNBC)
  5. New Spanish DPA. (GlobalComplianceNews)

For more information on the use of AI in Compliance programs, my new book, Upping Your Game, is available. You can purchase a copy of the book on Amazon.com.

Categories
All Things Investigations

ATI Podcast: Inhouse Insights – Building and Benefiting from a Culture of Compliance

Welcome to the inaugural episode of the newly rebranded ATI Podcast: Inhouse Insights—formerly known as All Things Investigations.

Presented by the Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group, this premiere episode sets the tone for a bold new chapter—bringing practical, in-house perspectives to today’s most pressing compliance challenges.

Host Michael DeBernardis welcomes Darryl Cyphers Jr., Senior Director of Legal Compliance at Klaviyo, for a candid and forward-looking conversation on how organizations can build—and sustain—a culture of compliance that actually works.

Together, they explore how compliance leaders can move beyond policies on paper to create real organizational impact—through measurable culture metrics, smarter use of AI to drive policy engagement, authentic tone at the top, and meaningful collaboration with HR and business partners. Darryl also shares practical guidance for navigating compliance gray areas and strengthening trust through continuous employee engagement and feedback.

Highlights include:

  • Defining a modern culture of compliance
  • Metrics and tools for measuring cultural effectiveness
  • Employee engagement and feedback that drive results
  • Building partnerships across HR and business teams
  • Innovative and engaging compliance training approaches
  • Navigating gray areas with confidence and credibility

Resources:

Hughes Hubbard & Reed Website

Klaviyo

Darryl Cyphers Jr. on LinkedIn