Tag: DOJ

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program: Day 5 – Kenneth Polite on Clawbacks

Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. began his speech on clawback policy developed by the DOJ to promote “innovative approaches to compensation,” which would “shift the burden of corporate malfeasance away from uninvolved shareholders onto those more directly responsible.” She believes “Companies should ensure that executives and employees are personally invested in promoting compliance,” as “nothing grabs attention or demands personal investment like having skin in the game, through direct and tangible financial incentives.” This led the Criminal Division to “develop guidance, guidance on how to reward corporations with compliance-promoting compensation programs.”

The clawback initiative has two parts. “First, every corporate resolution involving the Criminal Division will now include a requirement that the resolving company develop compliance-promoting criteria within its compensation and bonus system. Second is the creation of a 3-year pilot program under which the “Criminal Division will provide fine reductions to companies who seek to claw back compensation from corporate wrongdoers.”

Three key takeaways:

1. The clawback policy was developed to promote “innovative approaches to compensation.

2. Clawbacks will include those who had supervisory authority over the employees or business area engaged in the misconduct and knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct.

3. How far will the DOJ push companies to move for clawbacks, and how far down the chain will it go?

Categories
Blog

Key Compliance Speeches from 2023-Kenneth Polite on Incentives and Consequence Management

Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. began his speech with an interesting aside. It is about the clear tie between poverty and corruption. This is why it is important to prosecute corrupt government officials because their actions keep the people of in such dire economic straits. He stated, “Just as crime recognizes no borders, our efforts to combat it must be equally boundless. We need our partners – both domestic and international – to solve community problems. That is where the Criminal Division thrives.” In the Diaz case there was international cooperation at various levels. Think about that for a moment, the US and Venezuelan governments cooperating on anything, yet they apparently did cooperate on this matter. Polite added that several recent FCPA corporate enforcement matters, “Glencore, ABB, Danske, and Stericycle, among many others, underscore the successes that we’ve shared with our colleagues abroad.”

To be truly effective community problem-solvers, prosecutors must broaden our sense of community by literally ‘spanning the globe’ to fight crime, including bribery and corruption. Polite stated, “Crime does not limit itself by country or region. Corruption’s corrosive effects are global, with the world’s poor often bearing the brunt. Bribery threatens our collective security by undermining the rule of law and providing a breeding ground for other crime and authoritarian rule.”

Clawbacks

The clawback policy was developed to promote “innovative approaches to compensation” which would “shift the burden of corporate malfeasance away from uninvolved shareholders onto those more directly responsible.” She believes “Companies should ensure that executives and employees are personally invested in promoting compliance” as “nothing grabs attention or demands personal investment like having skin in the game, through direct and tangible financial incentives.” This led the Criminal Division to “develop guidance, guidance on how to reward corporations with compliance-promoting compensation programs.”

The clawback Initiative has two parts. “First, every corporate resolution involving the Criminal Division will now include a requirement that the resolving company develop compliance-promoting criteria within its compensation and bonus system. Second is the creation of a 3-year pilot program under which the “Criminal Division will provide fine reductions to companies who seek to claw back compensation from corporate wrongdoers.”

Finally, the DOJ has added some real benefits for companies which follow these prescripts. First is that any company which resolves a FCPA violation will “pay the applicable fine, minus a reserved credit equaling the amount of compensation the company is attempting to claw back from culpable executives and employees.” Additionally, “If the company succeeds and recoups compensation from a responsible employee, the company gets to keep that clawback money — and also doesn’t have to pay the amount it recovered.” Finally, if the company’s efforts at clawbacks are not successful or completed during the pendency of the investigation up to the settlement “the pilot program will also ensure that those who pursue clawbacks in good faith but are unsuccessful are still eligible to receive a fine reduction.” All of these efforts are designed to “shift the burden of corporate wrongdoing away from shareholders, who frequently play no role in the misconduct, onto those directly responsible.” This new emphasis is clearly designed to encourage companies who do not already factor compliance into compensation to retool their programs and get ahead of the curve.

Polite provided more detail on the new clawback initiative. He said, “As to clawbacks: for companies that fully cooperate with our investigation and timely and appropriately remediate the misconduct, they may receive an additional fine reduction if the company has implemented a program to recoup compensation and uses that program. We expect companies that use these programs to address not only employees who engaged in wrongdoing in connection with the conduct under investigation, but also those who had supervisory authority over the employees or business area engaged in the misconduct, and knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct.” (emphasis mine)

Expanding on the benefits for an organization, he stated, “If the company meets these factors and – in good faith – has initiated the process to recover such compensation at the time of resolution, our prosecutors will accord an additional fine reduction equal to the amount of any compensation that is recouped within the resolution term.” Finally, “if a company’s good faith effort is unsuccessful by the time the resolution term ends, our prosecutors will have discretion to accord a fine reduction of up to 25% of the amount of compensation that has been sought.”

Polite did leave room for companies to weigh a variety of factors in bringing a clawback claim. He noted, “We are not trying to incentivize waste. To the contrary, companies should make an assessment about the potential cost to shareholders and prospect of success of clawback litigation, given any applicable laws, and weigh it against the value of recoupment – and proceed in accordance with their stated corporate policies on executive compensation. This Pilot Program will be in effect for three years, allowing us to gather data and assess its effectiveness and also aid other components and offices in considering this important issue.”

Any litigation is always fraught with unknowns, both known and unknown. Given the imbroglio involving the DOJ and Cognizant Technologies Solutions over the DOJ prosecution of former executives, the road to any successful clawback will be fraught with peril. Additionally, it is not clear how far companies or the DOJ will push for clawbacks from “those who had supervisory authority over the employees or business area engaged in the misconduct.” If scope creep comes in it could be a wide group.

Categories
Blog

Key Compliance Speeches from 2023 – DAG Monaco on a Culture of Compliance

In March 2023 there were two days of speeches from the DOJ which added to the compliance complexity.  The speeches were made by Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. (Polite Speech) and they discussed a number of initiatives by the DOJ which every compliance professional needs to study in some detail. Today we will review the 2023: (1) The Criminal Division’s Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks; (2) Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs; and (3) Revised Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters.

In the fall 2021, Monaco announced the “Corporate Crime Advisory Group to recommend more advances, based on input, and this is important, input from outside as well as inside the department.” This led to the September 2022 announcement of the Monaco Doctrine as laid out in the Monaco Memo where the DOJ changed its focus to “promoting cultures of corporate compliance, while also ensuring consistency and predictability in the way the government treats corporate crime.” Her goal was to “empower companies to do the right thing, by investing in compliance, in culture and in good corporate citizenship — while at the same time empowering our prosecutors to hold accountable those who don’t follow the law.”

At the end of the day, perhaps the most significant pronouncement from Monaco was the following “in today’s complex and uncertain geopolitical – very uncertain quite frankly – geopolitical environment, corporate crime and national security are overlapping to a degree never seen before, and the department is retooling to meet that challenge.” This fits with the Biden Administration’s Strategy on Combatting Corruption, which elevated the fight against bribery and corruption through enforcement of laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) to a National Security Issue. Of course, the Biden DOJ has said several times in the past that “Sanctions are the new FCPA” and Monaco reiterated that in her speech last week.

Monaco set the tone for the week by identifying five general areas of DOJ focus. (1) Inspiring a Culture of Compliance; (2) Voluntary Self-Disclosure Programs; (3) Promoting Compliance through Compensation and Clawback Programs; (4) Resource Commitments to Corporate Criminal Enforcement; and (5 ) Individual Accountability.

A Culture of Compliance

The Monaco Memo “emphasized the department’s commitment to finding the right incentives to promote and support a culture of corporate compliance.” Monaco hoped to do so by creating two new areas of focus in addition to those laid out in the FCPA Resource Guide,  the 2017 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program and its 2020 Update and Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) certification requirement. In the 2023 Monaco Speech, she stated, “I noted two new areas of particular focus: a cross-department approach to promoting voluntary self-disclosure and how compensation structures can foster responsible corporate behavior. We want companies to step up and own up when they discover misconduct and to use compensation systems to align their executives’ financial interests with the company’s interest in good corporate citizenship.”

What is interesting about these two components is that they previously existed but were made more important in the Monaco Memo. Clear rewards for self-disclosure have been a part of FCPA enforcement since 2016 with the initiation of the Pilot Program around self-disclosure. Financial incentives and penalties (carrots and sticks) have been a part of best practices compliance programs since at least 2004 and were included in the original 2012 FCPA Resource Guide. But now a company must engage in both actions to demonstrate a “culture of compliance” to obtain the presumption of a declination under the Corporate Enforcement Policy.

Voluntary Self-Disclosure

Seemingly buried in the speech is perhaps the most significant statement about white collar criminal enforcement. Monaco said, “Now, with respect to voluntary self-disclosure, I am pleased to report that, for the first time, every U.S. Attorney’s Office now has, and every component I should say, that prosecutes corporate crime, now has in place an operative, predictable and transparent voluntary self-disclosure program. These policies share a common principle: absent aggravating factors, no department component will seek a guilty plea where a company has voluntarily self-disclosed, cooperated and remediated the misconduct.” She went on to add, “Let me be very clear. I want every general counsel, every executive and board member to take this message to heart: where your company discovers criminal misconduct, the pathway to the best resolution will involve prompt voluntary self-disclosure to the Department of Justice.” Her example was an excellent one: the ABB FCPA enforcement action.

Compensation and Clawbacks

Once again Monaco emphasized a part of every best practices compliance program over the past 20 years, financial incentives for doing business ethically and in compliance. However, in her 2023 Speech, she emphasized the disincentives or clawbacks. She stated, “First, every corporate resolution involving the Criminal Division will now include a requirement that the resolving company develop compliance-promoting criteria within its compensation and bonus system…Second, under the pilot program, the Criminal Division will provide fine reductions to companies who seek to claw back compensation from corporate wrongdoers.”

Monaco said the goal is “to shift the burden of corporate wrongdoing away from shareholders, who frequently play no role in the misconduct, onto those directly responsible.” The DOJ will incentivize such behavior in the following manner. “At the outset of a criminal resolution, the resolving company will pay the applicable fine, minus a reserved credit equaling the amount of compensation the company is attempting to claw back from culpable executives and employees. If the company succeeds and recoups compensation from a responsible employee, the company gets to keep that clawback money — and also doesn’t have to pay the amount it recovered.  And because we heard from stakeholders about how challenging and how expensive the pursuit of clawbacks can be, the pilot program will also ensure that those who pursue clawbacks in good faith but are unsuccessful are still eligible to receive a fine reduction.”

Resource Commitments

This section of the speech deals with DOJ resource commitments but it is still significant. Here Monaco emphasized the intersection of corruption, money-laundering, sanctions and National Security. This continues the Biden Administration trend on this score. There are new and additional resources the DOJ is bringing to bear in all of these areas. This includes the international arena as well. But a huge part of this commitment is that companies are now seen in many ways as the front line of criminal enforcement through self-disclosure of illegal conduct. If the DOJ continues down this path, both the incentives for self-disclosure and cooperation as well as the pain the DOJ will bring for companies which do self-disclose will be significant.  Monaco closed her speech with the following, “Investing now in a robust compliance program is good for business, and it is good for our collective economic and national security.”

Individual Accountability

As far back as 2015, in the Yates Memo, the DOJ has said they will emphasize individual accountability, through individual, as opposed to corporate, enforcement actions. In her speech, Monaco pointed to charges brought against two of the current most prominent alleged fraudsters, Sam Bankman-Fried and Carlos Watson and the convictions out of Theranos; Elizabeth Homes and Sunny Balwani. She also stated, “The Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, for example, secured more individual convictions at trial last year than in any of the previous five years.  So, our message is clear: the department will zealously pursue corporate crime in any industry, and we will hold wrongdoers accountable, no matter how prominent or powerful they are.” While this has yet not been seen in FCPA enforcement, perhaps it will be this year and beyond.

Tomorrow we will review the Polite Speech.

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance Into The Weeds: Key Compliance Issues for 2024

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 more fully explore a subject. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on sanctions compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode, Tom and Matt take a deep dive into issues Matt has on his radar for compliance professionals in 2024.

Matt Kelly is well known for zigging when everyone else is zagging. At the start of each year, he publishes a column that looks at key issues for compliance professionals in the year ahead. This podcast takes a deep dive into these issues. The rapidly evolving landscape of AI, cybersecurity, and governance is increasingly shaped by regulatory and compliance trends. In this context, industry experts Tom Fox and Matt Kelly offer insightful perspectives. We consider governmental oversight of AI, with more specific AI regulations in 2024, while also highlighting the potential of AI integration into compliance products and platforms. We also look at issues with the SEC, PCAOB, and DOJ.  Join Tom Fox and Matt Kelly as they delve deeper into these topics in this episode of the award-winning Compliance into the Weeds.

Key Highlights:

  • FEPA and its enforcement
  • NOCLAR and the PCAOB
  • SEC v. Solar Winds and its CISO
  • AI-Regulation and Business Use
  • SEC right to disgorgement 

Resources:

Matt Kelly on LinkedIn

Matt on Radical Compliance

Tom 

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program: Day 1 – What 2023 Brought to Compliance

2023 was a very significant year for every compliance practitioner and compliance program. While there was a paucity of corporate enforcement actions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), there were significant announcements from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that directly impacted compliance professionals and compliance programs.

The first came in January, and it was an update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (2023 ECCP). Next, we heard speeches about the increased focus on clawbacks and other areas of consequence management. In October, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco introduced a new Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy in October. Finally, in late November, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri Delivered remarks at the 39th International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) on the use of data analytics in a compliance program and DOJ expectations going forward.

The 2023 ECCP brought forward several new initiatives laid out in the 2020 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, including additions and deletions.

In October 2023, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced a new policy regarding M&A. It is a Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor policy that encourages companies to self-disclose criminal misconduct discovered by an acquiring company during the acquisition of a target company.

In November, Nicole Argentieri, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, speaking at the ACI National FCPA, reported that the DOJ is stepping up its own use of data analytics to identify instances of corporate misconduct and will boost its cooperation with overseas law enforcement to bring more anti-corruption cases as well. The DOJ and SEC are increasingly focusing on data analytics for corporate compliance, signaling higher expectations for larger companies. Both agencies have successfully utilized data analytics in various areas, such as securities and healthcare fraud, and are actively improving their own capabilities in this field. She made several important points for all compliance professionals, which will be significant going forward into 2024 and beyond.

Three key takeaways:

1. 2023 was a key year for the DOJ’s evolution in its views on compliance programs.

2. Clawbacks, incentives, and consequence management have become more important.

3. The new DOJ safe harbor initiative for M&A raises many questions.

Categories
Blog

What 2023 Brought to Compliance

2023 was a very significant year for every compliance practitioner and compliance program. While there was a paucity of corporate enforcement actions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), there were significant announcements from the Department of Justice (DOJ) which directly impact compliance professionals and compliance programs.

The first came in January and it was update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (2023 ECCP). Next we heard speeches about the increased focus on clawbacks and other areas of consequence management. In October, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco introduced a new Mergers & Acquisition Safe Harbor Policy in October. Finally, in late November Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri Delivered remarksat the 39th International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) on the use of data analytics in a compliance program and DOJ expectations going forward.

The 2023 ECCP brought forward several new initiatives laid out in the 2020 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, include additions and deletions. It also incorporated many of the concepts from the 2022 Monaco Memo. We begin with a review of the new incentives, both financial and non-financial; consequence management; messaging apps and provide a summary for the compliance professional.

In March there were two days of speeches from the DOJ which added to the compliance complexity for 2023 and beyond.  The speeches were made by Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. (Polite Speech) and they previewed a number of initiatives by the DOJ which every compliance professional needs to study in some detail. These new initiatives included: (1) The Criminal Division’s Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks; (2) Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs; and (3) Revised Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters.

In October 2023, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced a new policy regarding M&A. It is a Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor policy that encourages companies to self-disclose criminal misconduct discovered by an acquiring company during the acquisition of a target company. Under the policy, the acquiring party will receive a presumption of criminal declination if it promptly and voluntarily discloses criminal misconduct, cooperates with any ensuing investigation, and engages in appropriate remediation, restitution and disgorgement.

The Safe Harbor policy is a clear continuation of the DOJ’s push for corporate voluntary self-disclosure. Monaco outlined efforts by DOJ to increase the benefits to companies that voluntary disclose corporate misconduct rather than those companies that decide not to disclose misconduct. The key for the acquirer company to  obtain the “carrot” DOJ is dangling and poses questions as to the “stick” the DOJ might wield if a self-disclosure does not achieve safe harbor, or more broadly, if an acquirer fails to identify criminal misconduct in the acquisition process, either pre or post-closing. This new Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy clearly demonstrates the DOJ’s interest is to avoid discouraging companies with strong compliance programs from acquiring companies with ineffective compliance programs and/or a history of misconduct. To the contrary, DOJ is seeking to incentivize an acquiring company to timely disclose misconduct uncovered during the M&A process.

In November, Nicole Argentieri, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, speaking at the ACI National FCPA reported that the DOJ is stepping up its own use of data analytics to identify instances of corporate misconduct, and will boost its cooperation with overseas law enforcement to bring more anti-corruption cases as well. The DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are increasingly focusing on data analytics for corporate compliance, signaling higher expectations for larger companies. Both agencies have successfully utilized data analytics in various areas, such as securities and healthcare fraud, and are actively improving their own capabilities in this field. She made several important points for all compliance professionals which will be significant going forward into 2024 and beyond.

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance Into The Weeds: Congress Fills a Gap – FEPA

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 more fully explore a subject. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on sanctions compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode, Tom and Matt take a deep dive into the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), a groundbreaking law that aims to combat corruption by criminalizing foreign government officials who solicit or accept bribes from US entities.

This law complements the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which penalizes companies for offering bribes, and introduces new challenges and implications for anti-corruption measures. Tom views FEPA as a long-overdue measure that fills a gap in anti-corruption efforts. He agrees with Matt emphasizes that FEPA addresses a long-standing concern of anti-corruption advocates. Both Fox and Kelly anticipate further guidance from the Department of Justice on how this new law will interact with existing measures under the FCPA. Join Tom Fox and Matt Kelly as they delve deeper into this topic in the latest episode of the Compliance into the Weeds podcast.

 

Key Highlights:

  • Combating Foreign Corruption: FIFA’s Powerful Impact
  • Implications of FIFA Cooperation on FCPA Prosecution
  • Extradition Challenges in FIFA Corruption Cases
  • The Impact of the Name and Shame List

Resources:

Matt Kelly on LinkedIn

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

Congress Fills a Corruption Hole: The Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA)

The compliance community has long recognized the gaping hole in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). As a supply side law, it criminalizes the payment of bribes, not the demand to pay a bribe or extortion. The gap was recently filled by the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) which extended crucial protections to Americans working abroad and provides the Department of Justice (DOJ) with a potent new tool. By criminalizing both the giving and demanding of foreign bribes, FEPA seeks to level the playing field for American workers while fostering ethical business practices globally. FEPA represents a promising solution to protect Americans working overseas, promote fair business competition, and combat corruption on a global scale. With its potential to bring about meaningful change, FEPA is a vital step in safeguarding American values and interests in the international arena. Sam Rubenfeld, cited to Scott Greytak, the director of advocacy for Transparency International US, for the following, “FEPA is a landmark, bipartisan law that holds the potential to help root out foreign corruption at its source. It is arguably the most sweeping and consequential foreign bribery law in nearly half a century.”

This legislation fills a significant gap in anti-corruption measures and raises important questions about its implications for the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the cooperation expected from companies involved in bribery schemes. FEPA, part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), addresses a long-standing concern among anti-corruption advocates. While the FCPA has been effective in penalizing US companies for offering bribes to foreign officials, there has been a lack of legal mechanisms to hold foreign government officials accountable for accepting these bribes. FEPA now provides prosecutors with the means to pursue such officials.

One of the key aspects of FEPA is that it criminalizes the solicitation or acceptance of bribes by foreign government officials from US entities. This complements the FCPA, which focuses on the offering of bribes by US companies. By targeting both sides of the bribery equation, FEPA aims to create a more comprehensive and effective framework for combating corruption.

However, the implementation of FEPA is not without its challenges. One of the main challenges is the extradition of foreign officials for prosecution, particularly from countries like Russia or China. Extradition processes can be complex and time-consuming, and cooperation from foreign governments may not always be forthcoming. This poses a significant hurdle in holding foreign officials accountable under FEPA.

Another notable feature of FEPA is the introduction of a “name and shame” list. This list is intended to publicly identify, and shame foreign government officials involved in bribery schemes. While this may serve as a deterrent, it could also have unintended consequences. For instance, it may impact Transparency International’s corruption perception indexes, potentially affecting the rankings of countries and their relations with the US. Additionally, it could have implications for US companies operating in those countries, potentially straining foreign relations.

The passage of FEPA raises important considerations for compliance officers and companies. They need to assess how this new law may impact their existing controls and policies. The arrival of FEPA as a tool to combat corruption is undoubtedly a positive development. However, it is crucial to carefully evaluate the potential implications for FCPA prosecutions and the cooperation expected from companies involved in bribery cases.

Compliance officers should also consider the potential changes in the calculus for prosecutors. With FEPA in place, prosecutors may now have the legal means to pursue foreign government officials complicit in bribery schemes. This raises questions about the extent to which companies will be required to assist the DOJ in pursuing FEPA cases alongside FCPA cases. Companies may need to provide testimony and cooperate in the prosecution of foreign officials, potentially impacting the resolution of FCPA violations.

Looking ahead, it is essential for the DOJ to provide clarity on how FEPA will be utilized and what expectations companies should have when caught up in FEPA-related investigations. Transparency and guidance from the Department of Justice will help companies navigate the potential challenges and ensure compliance with the law.

The bottom line is that FEPA represents a significant step in the fight against corruption. By criminalizing the solicitation or acceptance of bribes by foreign government officials from US entities, FEPA fills a crucial gap in anti-corruption measures. However, challenges remain in extraditing foreign officials for prosecution and managing the potential consequences of the “name and shame” list. Compliance officers and companies must carefully consider the implications of FEPA on their operations and update their controls and policies accordingly. With proper guidance and cooperation, FEPA can be a powerful tool in combating corruption and promoting ethical business practices.

Penalties under FEPA include (from Transparency International)

  1. Expanding Legal Protections: FEPA amendment U.S. bribery law (18 U.S.C. § 201) to make it illegal for foreign officials to corruptly demand, seek, receive, or accept bribes under two crucial circumstances:
  • From U.S. individuals or companies.
  • From any person while within the United States, in connection with obtaining or retaining business.
  1. Stringent Penalties: Those found guilty of violating FEPA could face severe consequences, including:
  • Criminal fines of up to $250,000 or three times the value of the bribe, whichever is greater.
  • Prison sentences of up to 15 years.
  1. Transparency and Accountability: FEPA introduces a vital accountability mechanism by requiring the DOJ to publish an annual report. It will include the following:
  • It examines the scale and nature of foreign bribe demands against American companies, shedding light on the extent of the issue.
  • It evaluates the effectiveness of U.S. diplomatic efforts aimed at safeguarding American businesses from foreign bribe demands.
  • It assesses the efforts of foreign governments to prosecute individuals involved in corrupt practices against American interests.

Matt Kelly and I take a deep dive into FEPA on this week’s Compliance into the Weeds. To listen, click here.

Categories
Blog

The DOJ on the Need for Compliance Program Data Analytics

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is increasingly utilizing data analytics for proactive enforcement, signaling a significant shift in their approach to combating white-collar crime. This move reflects the recognition of data analytics as a crucial component of compliance programs, extending beyond historical reporting to transactional details and third-party interactions.

Recently, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri Delivered remarks at the 39th International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). She stated, “the Criminal Division has long been an innovator in using data to enhance its investigations and prosecutions. I am proud to announce that we are taking that experience and expertise with data analysis and applying these tools to our FCPA investigations. Through investments in personnel, we have improved our ability to harness and analyze available data — both public and non-public — to identify potential wrongdoing involving foreign corruption. This approach has already generated successful FCPA investigations and prosecutions.” 

In this week’s episode of “Data Driven Compliance,” host Tom Fox and Vince Walden, discussed the importance of data analytics in the DOJ’s enforcement efforts was discussed. Matt Galvin, an expert leading the DOJ’s data analytics initiative, highlighted the proactive use of data to generate cases related to the FCPA and emphasized that this is just the beginning.

The DOJ expects companies to adopt a similar data-driven approach to compliance. Vince Walden, cited to the Argentieri speech where she stated, “just as we are upping our game when it comes to data analytics, we expect companies to do the same.” This expectation extends beyond simply tracking trainings, policies, and investigations. The DOJ’s focus is on monitoring third parties throughout the lifespan of the relationship, not just during the onboarding process.

Walden emphasized that while due diligence and background checks are essential, the real risk of fraud occurs during the actual business transactions with third parties. Therefore, companies need to go beyond initial checks and continuously monitor high-risk vendors, contract terms, and other relevant data sources. By mapping risks to data sources and implementing effective tests, companies can identify and prioritize risky transactions.

The increasing accessibility and cost-effectiveness of data analytics have made it a viable option for companies of all sizes. It can help companies demonstrate effective compliance programs, uncover hidden financial irregularities, and improve overall efficiency. The importance of continuous data analysis in compliance programs was highlighted by the Bank of America enforcement action by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The DOJ’s use of data analytics is not limited to public data available from public companies. They are also leveraging private information, which could potentially include information obtained during investigations within specific industries. The DOJ has made significant investments in technology and resources to enhance their enforcement capabilities, taking inspiration from techniques used in the healthcare division to combat fraud.

However, implementing a data-driven compliance program comes with its own set of challenges. There is still confusion among the compliance community regarding what data analytics entails and how it should be applied. Walden stressed the need for a process-oriented approach rather than treating it as a one-time project. Data analytics should be integrated into the compliance program as a continuous business process, similar to third-party due diligence.

The DOJ’s increasing use of data analytics for proactive enforcement has far-reaching implications. Companies must recognize the importance of adopting a data-driven approach to compliance and invest in the necessary resources and technology. By doing so, they can not only meet the DOJ’s expectations but also improve the effectiveness of their compliance programs and mitigate the risk of fraud.

The DOJ’s increasing use of data analytics for proactive enforcement signifies a significant shift in their approach to combating white-collar crime. Companies must embrace this data-driven approach to compliance, continuously monitor high-risk transactions, and invest in the necessary resources and technology. By doing so, they can demonstrate effective compliance programs, uncover hidden financial irregularities, and improve overall efficiency.

For the full podcast episode, click here.

Categories
Data Driven Compliance

Data Driven Compliance: Vince Walden on DOJ Remarks on Data-Driven Compliance

Are you struggling to keep up with the ever-changing compliance programs in your business? Look no further than the award-winning Data Driven Compliance podcast, hosted by Tom Fox. This podcast features an in-depth conversation around the uses of data and data analytics in compliance programs. Data-Driven Compliance is back with another exciting episode. Today, I visited with Vince Walden, CEO of KonaAI, on the recent remarks by the DOJ on data-driven analytics and compliance.

Vince Walden, an expert in data-driven compliance and fraud examination, has made significant strides in the industry as the CEO of Kona AI. His perspective on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) increasing use of data analytics for proactive enforcement is that it marks a significant shift in the DOJ’s approach to enforcement. Walden notes that the DOJ is now actively using data analytics to proactively identify risks and cases, rather than relying solely on self-reporting or anomalies. He believes that data analytics is no longer considered cutting-edge but rather an expected part of a best practices compliance program. His extensive experience in white-collar crime and FCPA cases, as well as his participation in events such as the annual FCPA conference, have shaped this perspective. Join Tom Fox and Vince Walden as they delve deeper into this topic on the next episode of the Data Driven Compliance podcast. 

Resources:

Vince Walden on LinkedIn

KonaAI

Tom Fox 

Connect with me on the following sites:

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn