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
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: March 6, 2026, The Does ChatGPT Practice Law Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

  • Wells Fargo is free from the Consent Order. (WSJ)
  • Senator flags White House corruption for betting markets. (Decrypt)
  • OpenAI sued for practicing law. (Reuters)
  • The Trump Administration ordered a refund of illegal tariffs. (WSJ)
Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: March 5, 2026, The DOJ and State Bars Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

  • Regulators need to catch up on private credit risk. (WSJ)
  • DOJ wants authority over state bar discipline. (NYT)
  • Head of UK police union arrested for corruption. (TheGuardian)
  • When part of compliance moves to protection. (FT)
Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: March 3, 2026, The Law Firms Cleared Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

  • The Trump Administration gives up on illegal actions against law firms. (WSJ)
  • Trump, tariffs, and corruption. (NYT)
  • Getting complacent about the next financial meltdown. (FT)
  • Microsoft is cooperating with Japan’s anti-trust probe. (Bloomberg)
Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: March 2, 2026, The Texas Independence Day Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

  • GAGE loses US Olympic sanction. (Fox4)
  • Tariff payback time is here for the Trump Administration. (TicoTimes)
  • Former FirstEnergy CEO faces damning evidence of ‘brazen bribery’. (Cleveland.com)
  • The liquor minister in China is charged with corruption. (SCMP)
Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: February 27, 2026, The Tariff Payback Time Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

  • Goldstein convicted. (WSJ)
  • Tariff payback time is here for the Trump Administration. (FT)
  • Evolution of Caremark. (UC)
  • Ex-Nigerian oil minister jailed for 87 months for accepting bribes. (Vanguard)
Categories
Blog

The Hobson FCPA Trial: Five Operational Lessons for the Compliance Professional

If you want to see how an FCPA case gets built in real time, you could do a lot worse than studying what came out at trial in the Hobson matter. The evidence presented to the jury did not turn on a single suspicious invoice or an isolated payment. It was the aggregation of ordinary commercial mechanics (commissions, pricing pressure, contract awards) with extraordinary risk indicators (coded language, commission splits tied to named initials, informal transfer channels, and documentation gymnastics). That is exactly why the Hobson trial matters to in-house compliance professionals: it shows how day-to-day operational decisions can be reframed as corrupt intent when the surrounding facts align.

Today, we consider five lessons learned for the compliance professional, each grounded in trial evidence and framed as operational indicators you can use in your program tomorrow morning.

Lesson 1: High commissions are not a “commercial issue.” They are an anti-corruption control failure waiting to happen.

One of the most important themes in the testimony was the economics of commissions. One witness described the agent’s commission levels as unusually high in the industry, citing a long-term arrangement in the range of $7 to $7.50 per metric ton, in contrast to what he described as a far lower norm for international sales agents. That is not a mere “sales comp” debate. In a high-risk market, the commission structure becomes the channel through which influence can be purchased.

The operational problem is not simply that the commission is high. It is that the commission becomes hard to explain as legitimate, and easy to justify internally as “what it takes” to win. In the testimony, jurors heard about internal communications implying there were “a few” people the agent had to “take care of,” and the witness described being shocked at how openly the subject was discussed.

Operational indicators to take away

  • A third-party commission materially above benchmark, especially when defended as “market practice” without evidence.
  • Business rationales that drift from services rendered into “this is what it takes to get the deal.”
  • Commission tied to award timing, acceptance, or “sorting things out” with a committee-like body at the counterparty.

Program moves

  • Require commission benchmarking and documented justification for outliers, with Compliance signoff for deviations.
  • Treat commission letters and renewals as high-risk events: refresh due diligence, re-paper services scope, and re-evaluate the payment model.
  • Add a “commission-to-service” test: what services were delivered, how were they evidenced, and how do they map to the payment amount.

Lesson 2: The third party is not the risk. The relationship ownership model is the risk.

The defense narrative emphasized distance: the company hired the agent, the company paid the agent, and once the agent was paid, the payer did not control what happened next. Compliance people have heard this argument in conference rooms for twenty years, usually dressed up as “commercial reality.”

But what the trial evidence highlights is a different issue: relationship ownership. The cooperating witness testified that the defendant took the lead on the relationship because of his contact with the agent. That is a control issue. When a single commercial leader “owns” the third party informally, the organization often loses the ability to enforce discipline: who approves what, who monitors what, and who escalates what.

Operational indicators to take away

  • A relationship that is “owned” by one person, with limited transparency and limited cross-functional involvement.
  • Commission approvals and payment pressure are driven by a single commercial voice rather than by a documented governance process.
  • Escalations framed as “help me pay him so we do not lose the business,” rather than “help me validate services and risks.”

Program moves

  • Assign “relationship ownership” formally: business owner, finance owner, and compliance owner, each with defined decision rights.
  • Require periodic third-party business reviews that are not sales calls: services delivered, invoices, payment routes, red flags, and counterparty risk.
  • Put “single-threaded third-party management” on your audit plan. It is a quiet failure mode.

Lesson 3: Communications are evidence, and code words are a control signal you can detect.

The most operationally actionable evidence from the trial is the communications that Hobson used with Ahmed. Jurors heard about messages that mixed coal pricing negotiations with discussions of who would receive parts of a commission, including initials corresponding to individuals connected to the state-affiliated buyer. This is the classic compliance trap: people treat messaging as informal chatter, while prosecutors and juries treat it as evidence of intent.

Even more pointed, testimony described the use of coded language for money, including references to “Mr. Yen,” and urgency about when the money would be available and in what currency. Whether a company can see those messages at the time is a separate question. The compliance lesson is that coded language almost always sits atop a known risk: someone believes the underlying conduct would not survive daylight.

Operational indicators to take away

  • Pricing plus commission allocation discussed in the same thread, especially where there is talk of who “needs to be paid” to keep contracts.
  • Code words for money, urgency cues, and currency references.
  • Language that treats counterparty actors as extracting “shares” tied to deal economics.

Program moves

  • Train sales and trading teams on “what will read badly to a jury” without being melodramatic. Show examples of risky phrasing and rewrite them.
  • Build a targeted communications surveillance protocol for the highest-risk channels and roles, consistent with local law and internal policy.
  • Add “coded language and euphemisms” to your investigation playbook as an escalation trigger, not an afterthought.

Lesson 4: Money movement patterns are where the story crystallizes.

The government’s evidence leaned heavily on how money moved: informal transfer mechanisms, travel touchpoints, offshore entities, and a money trail that could be explained individually but looked incriminating when sequenced.

For in-house compliance, this is the heart of operational control. The trial coverage covered Western Union transfers, travel to Dubai, cash declarations, and an entity structure involving a Dubai company and a US affiliate sharing the same address. It also described an “invoice construction” episode: drafting an invoice for a substantial payment, struggling to reproduce an official seal, then sending a wire and having the funds transferred.

You do not need to be a prosecutor to see the compliance problem: if you cannot explain who is being paid, why they are being paid, what they did, and where the money went, you do not have controls in place. You have hope.

Operational indicators to take away

  • Use of informal transfer services, cash, or complex routing in connection with third-party compensation.
  • Offshore entities are introduced late in the process, especially where documentation is improvised.
  • Payment routes that create distance between the payer, the payee, and the ultimate beneficiary.

Program moves

  • Tighten payment controls for third parties: no payment without a validated contract scope, documented services evidence, and verified bank account ownership.
  • Require screening for beneficial ownership and “connected parties” among third-party entities, including affiliates and payment intermediaries.
  • Implement a red-flag workflow for travel-linked payments, cash, and informal transfers: automatic review by Compliance and Finance.

Lesson 5: Investigation readiness is not a crisis skill. It is a design choice.

Finally, the verdict and the path to it underscore a point compliance professionals sometimes miss: your program is being built for a future fact-finder. In this case, the prosecution presented an overall theory built from messages, financial records, and a cooperating witness; the jury returned guilty findings across FCPA-related counts and related conspiracy and laundering charges.

The operational compliance lesson is not about litigation tactics. It is about what your systems retain and what your systems can explain. If your third-party file includes evidence of benchmarking, due diligence, contract scope, and monitoring, you have a fighting chance of showing legitimate intent. If your file is thin and the communications are ugly, the story will be told for you, in the immortal words of the Compliance Evangelist-Document Document Document.

Operational indicators to take away

  • Repeated internal discomfort expressed without escalation or remediation; IE., the “we know this is strange, but we need the deal” pattern.
  • Documents created to facilitate payment rather than to evidence legitimate services.
  • Controls that rely on “we did not know” rather than “we can show what we did and why.”

Program moves

  • Update your investigations protocol to integrate commercial data: pricing, commissions, and contract award timing, not just payment logs.
  • Build a rapid response kit for third-party risk: document hold, device preservation process, and review checklist for messaging platforms.
  • Treat high-risk third-party relationships as living files: quarterly updates, not annual check-the-box refreshes.

The Hobson trial is a reminder that compliance does not fail in the abstract. It fails in the seams: a commission justified without evidence, a relationship owned by one person, a payment routed because “it is easier,” and a set of messages that people assumed would never be read out loud in a courtroom. If you want your program to prevent the next case, focus on those seams, because prosecutors, juries, and regulators will, too.

Resources:

Articles by Matthew Santoni in Law360

Coal Exec Knew Egyptian Broker Paid Bribes, Jury Told

Coal Exec’s Co-Worker Says Emails Hinted At Egypt Bribes

Egypt’s ‘Social Law’ Doesn’t Endorse Bribery, Jury Told

Coal Exec Used ‘Mr. Yen’ To Talk Kickbacks, FBI Testifies

Coal Exec ‘Had No Ability’ To OK Paying Bribes, Jury Told

Jury Finds Ex-Coal Exec Guilty Of Authorizing Bribes

 

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds: FCPA Trial Rarity: Charles Hobson Convicted

The award-winning Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to explore it more fully. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode of Compliance into the Weeds, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly look at the recent conviction of Charles ‘Hunter” Hobson for FCPA violations.

Former Corsa Coal senior sales executive Charles Hunter Hobson was found guilty in Pennsylvania of helping arrange roughly $4.8 million in bribes to officials tied to a state-owned Egyptian coal company, using an intermediary, to secure about $143 million in contracts. Also, Hobson allegedly pocketed about $200,000. Tom and Matt  Hobson’s unsuccessful “dog bite” defenses. They also discuss tensions between corporate and individual accountability, the practical reality that companies may cooperate and “turn on” individuals, and that individuals can also expose companies by cooperating with prosecutors. Finally, they speculate on why DOJ pursued trial amid shifting enforcement signals, referencing other recent FCPA matters (Millicom DPA, Smartmatic indictment) and past DOJ trial losses, and conclude that the best approach is to avoid bribery and avoid being the “last man standing.”

Key highlights:

  • Hobson Case Overview
  • Dog Bite Defense Breakdown
  • Payment Red Flags
  • Declinations and Individual Risk
  • Why Go to Trial?

Resources:

Matt in Radical Compliance

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

A multi-award-winning podcast, Compliance into the Weeds was most recently honored as one of the Top 25 Regulatory Compliance Podcasts, a Top 10 Business Law Podcast, and a Top 12 Risk Management Podcast. Compliance into the Weeds has been conferred a Davey, a Communicator Award, and a W3 Award, all for podcast excellence.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: February 25, 2026, The Reframing Business Risk Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

  • How the TI-CPI is reframing a business risk analysis. (WEF)
  • Senate opens inquiry into Binance over its transactions with Iran. (NYT)
  • Do you have to be a citizen to open a bank account? (WSJ)
  • Malaysian Minister wants the ABC commission investigated. (Bloomberg)
Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: February 18, 2026, The Stupid Is as Stupid Does Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

  • Just how big is Ukraine’s corruption problem? (TheIndependent)
  • HB-1 visas and GOP racial hatred. (NYT)
  • More energy investments in Venezuela. (WSJ)
  • The Trump Administration wants history and science removed from federal parks. (Reuters)