Tag: DOJ

Categories
Blog

Institutional Justice and Fairness in Compliance: Lessons from Star Trek’s ‘The Cloud Minders’

Institutional justice and institutional fairness are not abstract ideals; they are operational requirements in a corporate compliance program. They define how policies are enforced, how decisions are made, and how employees perceive the integrity of their workplace. One of the most vivid illustrations of the dangers of systemic injustice and perceived unfairness comes from Star Trek: The Original Series in “The Cloud Minders.”

The DOJ’s 2024 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) reinforces this point: for a compliance program to be effective, it must not only exist on paper but also operate fairly in practice. The DOJ expects companies to show that they apply compliance processes consistently across the organization, regardless of seniority, revenue generation, or personal connections.

Why the DOJ Cares About Justice and Fairness in Compliance

In the ECCP, the DOJ focused on institutional justice and institutional fairness as key mandates for the compliance function. Why? It was rooted in practicality: a compliance program that is seen as biased or inconsistent will fail. Employees will not report misconduct, will hide mistakes, and will disengage from ethics initiatives.

Prosecutors know that when misconduct occurs in such an environment, it’s often a symptom of deeper cultural problems. That’s why, during investigations, they ask:

  • Are policies applied equally to all levels of the organization?
  • Is discipline consistent and documented?
  • Do employees believe the process is fair?
  • Has the company addressed the underlying causes of misconduct?

If the answers to these questions are unsatisfactory, the DOJ is more likely to view the compliance program as ineffective, regardless of its written policies.

The Tale 

The Enterprise is sent to the planet Ardana to collect zenite, a mineral needed to stop a plague on another world. Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock beam down to Stratos, a floating city inhabited by the planet’s elite, only to discover a deep societal divide. The surface of Ardana is worked by “Troglytes,” a laborer class forced to mine zenite under hazardous conditions, denied access to the comforts and education of Stratos.

The elites justify this arrangement as necessary for stability, while the Troglytes see it as systemic exploitation. The episode becomes a study in the consequences of entrenched inequality, distrust, and the refusal to address legitimate grievances, exactly the kinds of dynamics that can erode trust in a corporate compliance program if not addressed.

From this story, we can extract five compliance lessons on institutional justice and institutional fairness.

Lesson 1: Consistency in Standards Is Non-Negotiable

Illustrated by: Stratos leaders apply rules differently depending on social status. The elite enjoy cultural and political freedoms, while Troglytes face restrictions and harsher punishments for similar conduct.

Compliance Lesson. The DOJ has repeatedly emphasized that policies and disciplinary measures must be applied consistently. If employees perceive that “rainmakers” or executives receive lighter sanctions, or none at all, for policy violations, trust in the compliance function evaporates. In The Cloud Minders, the double standard deepens resentment and drives conflict, precisely what can happen inside a company when justice is selective.

Why It Matters to DOJ: Prosecutors evaluate whether discipline is enforced “consistently across the organization, regardless of position or power.” Inconsistency is a red flag that the program is a paper exercise rather than a living system.

What should you do?

  • Establish clear, documented disciplinary protocols.
  • Apply them uniformly, with oversight from the compliance function.
  • Communicate to the workforce that no one is above the rules.

Lesson 2: Address Root Causes, Not Just Symptoms

Illustrated by: The Troglytes’ performance and health are impaired because mining zenite exposes them to toxic vapors. The elites interpret this as proof of inferiority, ignoring the environmental cause.

Compliance Lesson. Organizations sometimes treat compliance failures as isolated misconduct rather than symptoms of deeper issues, such as inadequate training, unrealistic sales targets, or flawed incentive structures. In Ardana, fixing the air quality in the mines would have solved much of the productivity gap, just as fixing systemic drivers of noncompliance prevents repeat issues.

Why It Matters to DOJ: The DOJ looks for root cause analysis after misconduct. They want to see whether the company took corrective action to address systemic issues, not just discipline the individuals involved.

What should you do?

  • Investigate not only “who” did something wrong, but “why” it happened.
  • Use findings to improve processes, incentives, and controls.
  • Share non-confidential lessons learned with the workforce to demonstrate fairness and transparency.

Lesson 3: Perceived Fairness Matters as Much as Actual Fairness

Illustrated by: Even when Kirk offers protective gear to the Troglytes, they are slow to trust his intentions. Years of mistreatment have convinced them that promises from the elites are empty.

Compliance Parallel: Employees judge compliance programs not only by their design but by how fair they feel in practice. If people believe investigations are biased or that whistleblowers will be punished, they will avoid reporting, even if the official policy says otherwise. On Ardana, the lack of trust kept both sides from pursuing good-faith solutions—something corporate leaders must avoid at all costs.

Why It Matters to DOJ: Prosecutors assess whether employees trust the compliance program enough to use it. A hotline no one calls is not evidence of a healthy culture—it may be proof of fear or cynicism.

What should you do?

  • Publicize examples where issues were raised and resolved fairly.
  • Protect whistleblowers from retaliation and make that protection visible.
  • Use employee surveys to measure trust in compliance processes.

Lesson 4: Leadership Must Model Ethical Behavior

Illustrated by: Stratos’s leaders speak about justice and stability, but are unwilling to live under the same risks or hardships as the Troglytes. Their detachment from the reality of mining life fuels the unrest.

Compliance Lesson. Leaders who preach ethics but cut corners for themselves undermine institutional fairness. Employees take cues from the top; if executives are exempt from rules, the rest of the organization will follow suit. In The Cloud Minders, the Stratos elite’s credibility collapses because they refuse to share the burdens of those they govern, a mistake no corporate leadership team should make.

Why It Matters to DOJ: The DOJ examines “tone at the top” and “conduct at the middle.” They want to see that leadership’s actions match their words and that managers reinforce the message through daily decisions.

What should you do?

  • Ensure executives participate in the same training and certifications as all employees.
  • Make leadership accountable for compliance metrics.
  • Publicly acknowledge when senior leaders are held to account for violations.

Lesson 5: Dialogue and Inclusion Are Tools for Justice

Illustrated by: Spock approaches the Troglytes with genuine respect, listening to their grievances and acknowledging their intelligence. His willingness to engage earns him credibility that Stratos leaders lack.

Compliance Parallel: Institutional fairness is strengthened when employees feel heard and included in shaping solutions. This doesn’t mean every request can be granted, but listening and considering input builds trust. Just as Spock bridged the divide on Ardana, compliance leaders can bridge trust gaps by treating all stakeholders with respect and dignity.

Why It Matters to DOJ: A compliance program is stronger when it incorporates feedback from the workforce. The DOJ favors companies that regularly assess the program’s effectiveness through interviews, surveys, and focus groups.

What should you do?

  • Include employee representatives in policy review committees.
  • Hold listening sessions for employees and other stakeholders after major incidents or policy changes.
  • Act on feasible suggestions and explain when ideas can’t be implemented.

Practical Compliance Takeaways from The Cloud Minders

  1. Apply Rules Equally: Avoid double standards by holding everyone—from the C-suite to front-line staff—to the exact requirements.
  2. Investigate Root Causes: Fix systemic issues, not just individual mistakes.
  3. Build Trust in the Process: Ensure employees perceive the program as fair and protective.
  4. Lead by Example: Leadership must model the ethical behavior expected of all.
  5. Listen and Include: Use dialogue to bridge divides and strengthen buy-in.

Final ComplianceLog Reflections

The Cloud Minders is more than a parable about class division; it is a warning for any institution that neglects fairness and justice. In Ardana, injustice created resentment, distrust, and rebellion. In a corporation, those same dynamics can lead to silent disengagement, hidden misconduct, and public scandal.

The DOJ’s message is clear: fairness and justice are not optional add-ons to compliance; they are the foundation of a program that works. As compliance leaders, our role is to be the “Spock” in the room, listening, respecting, and bridging divides while ensuring that the rules are fair, transparent, and consistently applied.

When we do that, we do not just comply with the DOJ’s expectations; we build organizations where people trust the system enough to make it work.

Resources:

⁠⁠Excruciatingly Detailed Plot Summary by Eric W. Weisstein⁠⁠

⁠⁠MissionLogPodcast.com⁠⁠

⁠⁠Memory Alpha

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: August 14, 2026, The Shell Companies Welcome in US 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 blueprint for investigations. (Bloomberg)
  • FinCEN revokes corporate disclosure law. (Law360)
  • Misconduct complaints soar at DOJ. (Reuters)
  • OpenAI Ethics Chief resigns. (FT)

To learn about the intersection of Sherlock Holmes and the modern compliance professional, check out Tom’s latest book, The Game is Afoot-What Sherlock Holmes Teaches About Risk, Ethics and Investigations on Amazon.com.

Categories
2 Gurus Talk Compliance

2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 81 – The Having Way Too Much Fun Edition

What happens when two top compliance commentators get together? They talk compliance, of course. Join Tom Fox and Kristy Grant-Hart in 2 Gurus Talk Compliance as they discuss the latest compliance issues in this week’s episode!

Stories This Week Include:

  • Asante Berko guilty verdict—attached.
  • New ESPN 30 for 30 pod reviews the corruption case of Ohtani’s translator. (ESPN)
  • CapOne fired Trump Organization for AML deficiencies. (Reuters)
  • Victims of LaFarge terrorist funding want a piece of the settlement. (WSJ)
  • FBI agent apparently misses the tutorial on corruption. (Gizmodo)
  • For Some Workers, AI Resistance Is a Matter of Faith (Corporate Compliance Insights)
  • How OpenAI Agents Plotted and Breached Hugging Face (Cybermagazine)
  • Russia’s Hottest Startup Is a State-Backed Sanctions Evasion Network (WSJ)
  • UBS Nailed on Repeated AML Failures (Radical Compliance)
  • Polk Sheriff Grady Judd’s picture stolen from substation; Florida man arrested: ‘He stole my picture ‘ (FOX13 News)

Resources:

Kristy

Kristy Grant-Hart on LinkedIn

Order Kristy’s updated, 10-year new edition of How to Be a Wildly Effective Compliance Officer by clicking here.

Tom

Check out the top compliance handbook, The Compliance Handbook, 7th edition, published by LexisNexis. Visit the LexisNexis® Store at https://lexisnexis.com/fox20

To save 20% on The Compliance Handbook: A Guide to Operationalizing Your Compliance Program, please reference or enter promotion code: FOX20.

Offer expires December 31, 2026. Offer applies to new orders only, before shipping and taxes are calculated and shipped to a U.S. address. A discount will be applied to each applicable product after the code FOX20 is entered. Discount does not apply to current subscriptions, renewals, or updates. Certain exclusions and other restrictions may apply. Void where prohibited. View full terms here.

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

THE BERKO TRIAL – PART 5: From Case Study to Control Test: A Berko Compliance Playbook for CCOs and Boards

Today we conclude our 5-part deep dive into the Asante Berko trial and guilty verdict, using the trial not simply as a case study but as a mechanism to pressure-test your compliance regime.

A compliance program is not effective because the company eventually exits a troubled transaction. It is effective when leaders can show how quickly the system identified the risk, who had authority to act, whether related conduct was contained, what the investigation established, and how the organization changed afterward.

That is the governance test presented by the Berko trial. Prosecutors built their case from emails, payment patterns, personal communications, compliance questions, recorded statements, and financial evidence. The defense attacked the missing last mile. The jury convicted Asante Berko on all three counts in just over three hours. For CCOs and boards, the final lesson is not to retry the case. It is to determine whether their own program could identify the same pattern, develop reliable facts, impose accountability, and respond at the speed enforcement policy now demands.

Start With the Three Questions That Matter

The DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) organizes program effectiveness around three questions. (1) Is the program well designed? (2) Is it applied earnestly and in good faith, with adequate resources and authority? (3) Does it work in practice? Those questions should frame the board’s review of the Berko fact pattern.

A written third-party policy answers the first question only in part. The second asks whether compliance can pause a revenue-producing transaction, obtain records, challenge senior employees, and reach the board without management filtering. The third asks for outcomes: when the warning signs appeared, did the organization find them, act on them, preserve the evidence, and fix the control weakness?

The governance failure is often not the absence of a rule. It is the gap between ownership and authority. Management owns business conduct and risk decisions. The CCO advises, challenges, monitors, and escalates. Internal audit provides independent assurance. The board oversees the system and management’s response. If every party assumes another function owns the hard decision, the control exists on paper but fails in operation.

Align Incentives, Conflicts, and Consequences

High-risk transactions require a clear view of personal incentives. Employees should disclose and pre-clear outside interests, referral compensation, client-paid benefits, expected success fees, and post-employment opportunities connected to current transactions. Offboarding should preserve relevant data, review pending payments, close access, identify continuing client contacts, and obtain certifications concerning outside interests and retained information.

Compensation deserves the same scrutiny as third-party payments. A bonus plan that rewards closing without measuring risk quality invites employees to treat compliance as a cost of delay. Risk-adjusted incentives should account for diligence completion, control compliance, escalation quality, and the durability of the business outcome. The ECCP asks whether companies use incentives for ethical conduct and apply discipline consistently across seniority, geography, and business unit. It also asks whether compensation can be deferred, reduced, canceled, or recouped when misconduct is established, subject to applicable law.

Consequence management must reach more than the direct actor. A credible process examines supervisory failure, tolerated red flags, obstruction, and failure to install or use safeguards. It applies the same decision framework to rainmakers and junior employees. The board should receive trend information showing investigation cycle times, substantiation rates, disciplinary consistency, repeat issues, and whether managers were held accountable for control failures.

Build Investigation and Speak-Up Readiness

The defense’s attack on the Berko evidence offers an investigation lesson. A source may have motives. A recording may require translation. Emails may lack a witness who can explain context. Payments may be traceable to an intermediary but not to an ultimate recipient. Those are reasons to investigate carefully, not reasons to dismiss an allegation.

Separate source credibility from objective proof. Preserve native emails, attachments, metadata, messaging records, payment instructions, approval histories, and device data. Trace funds beyond the first recipient. Document translation choices, dialect issues, investigative prompting, and competing interpretations. Interview witnesses who can explain both the transaction and the communications. Record what was established, what remained disputed, and why each conclusion was reached.

Design the process before the crisis. Define triage criteria, independence, privilege, preservation, scope approval, board escalation, investigation timing, root-cause analysis, and remediation ownership. Provide reporting channels that employees and third parties know, trust, and can use without retaliation. DOJ treats a trusted reporting mechanism and timely, properly scoped, objective, and documented investigations as hallmarks of an effective program.

Prepare the Disclosure Decision Before the Clock Starts

Voluntary disclosure should not be improvised during a board emergency. The company needs a protocol that identifies decision owners, the role of counsel, the facts required, preservation steps, the escalation path, and the method for assessing seriousness, pervasiveness, seniority, ongoing harm, and potential collateral consequences.

The March 2026 Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (VSD) makes speed commercially significant. It provides a declination path when a company voluntarily self-discloses to the appropriate DOJ component, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately remediates, and lacks disqualifying aggravating circumstances, although prosecutorial discretion and the policy’s definitions still control. The policy also contains an exception for a whistleblower who reports both internally and to DOJ. A company may remain eligible if it reports as soon as reasonably practicable, no later than 120 days after the internal report, and satisfies the other requirements.

That is not a 120-day permission slip to wait. The operating standard is speed with discipline. The company must stop continuing harm, preserve evidence, protect privilege, develop facts, and keep decision-makers informed. A tabletop exercise should test whether the organization can do all five while the disclosure window is running.

Give the Board Evidence, Not Activity Counts

Boards do not need every hotline allegation or third-party file. They need a risk-based view of whether the system works. Reporting should cover high-risk transactions proceeding with incomplete diligence, unresolved politically exposed person relationships, payment holds, management overrides, aged investigations, remediation slippage, repeat control failures, off-channel communication exceptions, and risk acceptances by senior leaders.

Metrics should show speed, quality, and outcomes. Track time from red flag to triage, triage to transaction pause, allegation to investigation plan, finding to discipline, and remediation commitment to validated closure. Measure whether the company can match high-risk payments to legitimate services, verified beneficial owners, approved accounts, and evidence of performance. Show whether control testing changed behavior, not simply whether employees completed training.

The CCO should have regular direct access to the board or responsible committee, including private sessions when appropriate. The board should understand the CCO’s authority, resources, data access, and unresolved requests. DOJ asks what information directors examined, whether compliance concerns stopped or changed transactions, and whether compliance has the stature and autonomy to function effectively.

Run a 30/60/90-Day Berko Stress Test

Days 1 to 30: Replay one recent high-risk public-sector transaction against the Berko pattern. Inventory intermediaries, beneficial owners, politically exposed person relationships, success fees, conflicts, personal-email exceptions, cash exposure, payment destinations, incomplete diligence, and overrides. Identify which facts the current systems can retrieve and which depend on manual reconstruction.

Days 31 to 60: Close the most important design gaps. Add hard stops, fee benchmarking, conflict attestations, off-channel controls, evidence-preservation rules, payment analytics, investigation protocols, and an escalation matrix giving compliance documented pause authority. Assign one accountable owner and a deadline to each remediation item.

Days 61 to 90: Test the program. Sample transactions, trace selected payments end to end, test the hotline from intake through closure, and conduct an investigation and voluntary-disclosure tabletop. Present the results to senior management and the board, including accepted risks, overdue actions, resource needs, and evidence that completed remediation operates in practice.

The board should ask, “Which Berko warning signs would we detect today?” How quickly could we freeze a payment? Who may override compliance, and what evidence is required? Can investigators collect personal-device communications lawfully and preserve multilingual evidence? Which repeated control failures have affected compensation or promotion?

The CCO should ask one final question: Would our program find this pattern because the controls work, or only because an external source eventually brings it to us?

This Berko FCPA trial blog post series began with the prosecution’s evidentiary mosaic and the defense’s missing-last-mile challenge. It ends with a practical conclusion. Compliance evidence becomes trial evidence. A defensible program must create that evidence through authority, trusted reporting, disciplined investigations, consistent accountability, measurable remediation, and active board oversight. That is how a case study becomes a control test and how a control test becomes proof that the program works.

Resources:

United States v. Berko, No. 1:20-cr-00328-DG, Indictment, ECF No. 3 (E.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 26, 2020)

Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Jury Sees Cash Talk in Energy Deal Email Deluge,” Law360, Aug. 1, 2026; Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Exec Was Linchpin to Ghana Bribery Ploy, Jury Told,” Law360, Aug. 5, 2026.

Stewart Bishop, “Ex-Goldman Exec Convicted of Ghana Bribery Plot,” Law360, Aug. 6, 2026. Supplied trial reporting.

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, “Former Goldman Sachs Investment Banker Convicted of Foreign Bribery and Money Laundering,” Aug. 6, 2026, DOJ Press Release.

Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Jury Sees Undercover Video as Bribe Trial Nears End,” Law360, Aug. 4, 2026. Supplied trial reporting.

Stewart Bishop, “Shady Power Deal Used in Goldman Compliance Prep, Jury Told,” Law360, July 29, 2026

Stewart Bishop, “Like Milli Vanilli, Goldman FCPA Case Is a Ruse, Jury Told,” Law360, July 28, 2026.

SEC Final Judgment against Asante Berko

SEC Complaint against Asante Berko

DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs

DOJ Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy

Categories
Blog

Business Ethics Lessons from Star Trek’s Requiem for Methuselah

In corporate life, ethical decision-making is not only a question of right and wrong. It is also a test of leadership, trust, and long-term vision. Missteps in ethics erode corporate culture, destroy reputations, and invite regulatory and shareholder scrutiny.

Few Star Trek episodes present an ethical crucible as layered as Requiem for Methuselah. In this episode, the Enterprise crew, seeking an urgently needed medical cure for a deadly illness sweeping the ship, beams down to a remote, seemingly uninhabited planet. There, they meet the enigmatic Flint, a man who turns out to be immortal, having lived for over 6,000 years under various identities, from Methuselah to Da Vinci. Flint lives with Rayna, a beautiful, brilliant young woman who, as the crew later learns, is not human but an android he has created.

The story unfolds into a complex web of secrecy, autonomy, manipulation, and unintended consequences, a rich territory for ethical reflection. From this episode, we can draw five business ethics lessons directly applicable to today’s corporate compliance environment.

Lesson 1: Transparency Is Essential to Trust

Illustrated by: Flint initially hides critical facts from Kirk, Spock, and McCoy: his true identity, the fact that Rayna is an android, and the location of the life-saving mineral Ryetalyn they came to obtain. His secrecy stems from a desire to control the situation, but it breeds mistrust and escalating tension.

Ethics Lesson. In business, withholding material information, even with ostensibly good intentions, undermines trust—stakeholders, whether employees, customers, or regulators, expect honesty. Concealing facts creates suspicion, damages credibility, and can lead to decisions made on false assumptions. A compliance culture grounded in transparency prevents misunderstandings and reinforces stakeholder confidence.

What should you do?

  • Communicate openly about relevant facts, especially those impacting health, safety, or financial stability.
  • Establish disclosure protocols for potential conflicts of interest.
  • Recognize that partial truths can be as damaging as outright falsehoods.

Lesson 2: Autonomy Must Be Respected, Even with Good Intentions

Illustrated by Flint, Rayna was designed to be his companion, controlling her environment and limiting her exposure to the outside world. He claims to be protecting her, but in doing so, denies her agency. When she begins to form independent thoughts and feelings, particularly toward Kirk, Flint’s inability to let go leads to tragedy.

Ethics Lesson. Corporations sometimes restrict employee autonomy under the guise of protection, micromanaging, withholding career opportunities, or blocking external engagement. Even if the motive is to “protect” the employee or company, the result can stifle growth and foster resentment. Ethical leadership means equipping people to act responsibly, not controlling every move they make.

What should you do?

  • Empower individuals to make informed choices within ethical boundaries.
  • Provide access to opportunities and resources without paternalistic gatekeeping.
  • Respect the right of employees to voice concerns and explore options.

Lesson 3: Ends Do Not Justify the Means

Illustrated by: Flint’s primary objective, immortality, has allowed him to amass vast knowledge and wealth. Yet to achieve his goals in this episode, he manipulates the Enterprise crew, withholds the cure they need until his conditions are met, and engineers circumstances to force emotional outcomes for Rayna.

Ethics Lesson. In business, leaders may justify cutting corners or bending rules to achieve short-term results, winning a contract, securing market share, or hitting quarterly targets. But compromising ethics for results can cause long-term damage far outweighing the immediate gain. A sustainable corporate culture is built on the principle that ethical processes matter as much as business goals.

What should you do?

  • Evaluate not just what you achieve, but how you achieve it.
  • Build decision-making frameworks that weigh both outcomes and methods.
  • Reinforce that compliance and ethics are integral to success, not obstacles to it.

Lesson 4: Emotional Intelligence Is Critical in Ethical Decision-Making

Illustrated by: Kirk’s growing attachment to Rayna closes his eyes to the urgency of his mission. McCoy warns him about becoming too emotionally involved, but Kirk underestimates the impact on his judgment. Flint, likewise, fails to foresee that forcing Rayna to choose between him and Kirk will overwhelm her, leading to her breakdown.

Ethics Lesson. In corporate environments, emotions, whether loyalty, rivalry, or fear, can cloud ethical judgment. Leaders may overlook red flags, delay action, or make decisions based on personal feelings rather than principles. Ethical clarity often requires stepping back and separating personal attachment from professional responsibility.

What should you do?

  • Train leaders to recognize when emotions may be influencing decisions.
  • Encourage second opinions and peer review in high-stakes decisions.
  • Create safe spaces for voicing concerns about potential bias.

Lesson 5: Ethical Leadership Includes Considering Long-Term Impact

Illustrated by: Flint’s immortality has given him a unique long view of history, but in this episode, he fails to account for the long-term consequences of his actions toward Rayna and the Enterprise crew. His choices have immediate, tragic outcomes and lasting emotional scars.

Ethics Lesson. Businesses that focus solely on short-term gains, without assessing long-term impacts, risk harming their reputation, eroding stakeholder trust, and creating systemic problems. Ethical leaders anticipate not just the next quarter, but the next decade. Considering long-term consequences ensures ethical decisions hold up under the scrutiny of time.

What should you do?

  • Incorporate long-term risk and ethical impact into strategic planning.
  • Assess how today’s decisions will be perceived by future employees, customers, and regulators.
  • Prioritize sustainability, both in environmental and cultural terms.

Why “Requiem for Methuselah” Matters for Business Ethics

The drama in Requiem for Methuselah is driven not by alien threats or galactic battles, but by human (and android) ethical dilemmas: secrecy, autonomy, manipulation, emotional entanglement, and shortsightedness. These are the same challenges corporate leaders face when navigating business ethics in the modern era.

An ethical corporate culture:

  • Practices transparency to build trust.
  • Respects the autonomy of individuals.
  • Rejects “ends justify the means” thinking.
  • Recognizes and manages the role of emotions in decision-making.
  • Considers the long-term legacy of choices made today.

The compliance department is not just a rules enforcer. According to the DOJ, it is the ethics steward of the organization, ensuring that decisions at every level meet both legal and moral standards.

Final ComplianceLog Reflections

Requiem for Methuselah is ultimately a cautionary tale about the cost of ethical missteps, even for someone with the wisdom of centuries. Flint’s intellect and resources could not compensate for a failure to act with transparency, respect, and foresight.

For today’s corporate leaders, the lesson is simple: ethical decision-making is not a luxury—it is the foundation of sustainable success. The compliance function’s role is to embed these values so deeply into the corporate DNA that they guide every choice, from the boardroom to the front line.

Resources:

⁠⁠Excruciatingly Detailed Plot Summary by Eric W. Weisstein⁠⁠

⁠⁠MissionLogPodcast.com⁠⁠

⁠⁠Memory Alpha

Categories
Blog

THE BERKO TRIAL – PART 4: When Red Flags Become Evidence: Transaction Controls from the Berko Trial

Today in Part 4, I want to focus on some of the compliance lessons from the Asante Berko FCPA trial. The compliance lesson from the Berko trial is not simply that employees should not pay bribes. Every code of conduct already says that. The harder question is whether the compliance program can interrupt the operating pattern: a politically connected intermediary, milestone-linked invoices, personal email, cash discussions, incomplete diligence answers, and a commercial team under pressure to close. These were some of the questions that Goldman Sachs faced and successfully answered.

That is where policy becomes performance. Trial reporting described a legitimate infrastructure project surrounded by evidence that prosecutors said showed corrupt intent and concealment. The same emails, diligence questions, payment records, and escalation decisions that once lived inside a transaction later became evidence before a jury. For compliance professionals, the case is a control map. It shows where a high-risk deal can be tested, paused, corrected, or stopped before red flags mature into criminal exposure.

Begin With the Business Model

Your business justification should begin with how the deal is expected to work, not with a standard questionnaire. In the Berko transaction, commercial urgency, a major public need, concentrated government discretion, substantial projected fees, and local intermediaries all increased the risk profile. None of those facts establishes bribery. Together, however, they demand a more disciplined control environment.

The deal team should be required to explain the legitimate path to success. Which officials control each approval? Which regulatory, legislative, and contractual milestones must occur? What service does every intermediary perform? How is that service connected to value rather than access? Where could commercial pressure tempt someone to bypass the process?

This is consistent with the DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP), which asks whether a company understands its business from a commercial perspective and devotes appropriate attention and resources to high-risk transactions. A generic country score is not enough. The risk assessment must reflect the transaction’s economics, approval structure, counterparties, compensation model, technology, and pressure points.

Make Third-Party Diligence Operational

Third-party diligence often fails because it is treated as an onboarding event. The questionnaire is completed, screening is run, a risk rating is assigned, and the business moves on. High-risk public-sector work requires continuous control.

Before engagement, the company should document the business rationale, beneficial ownership, politically exposed person and family links, qualifications, reputation, service scope, deliverables, compensation, payment terms, and proposed bank account. Compensation should be benchmarked against the actual work. Enhanced review should apply when fees are success-based, tied to government milestones, disproportionate to services, routed through unrelated entities or individuals, or connected to officials who control approvals.

After onboarding, controls must follow the intermediary into contracting, invoicing, payment, and monitoring. The DOJ guidance asks whether the company understands the business rationale, confirms that services were actually performed, assesses whether compensation is appropriate, tracks red flags, uses audit rights, and manages third parties throughout the relationship. The relevant question is not whether the intermediary passed diligence once. It is whether the relationship still makes sense when the invoice arrives.

Control the Channels Where Business Occurs

Personal email is not proof of bribery. The Berko facts were more specific. According to the trial reporting, sensitive payment discussions occurred through personal accounts. At the same time, routine deal work proceeded through corporate systems, and one exchange referred to the monitoring of a Goldman account. The control issue was the combination of channel separation, sensitive content, and knowledge of monitoring.

Companies need clear rules for personal email, messaging applications, approved mobile platforms, and bring-your-own-device arrangements. Those rules require technical support: approved-channel design, retention settings, monitoring consistent with law, exception approval, employee attestations, and escalation when business moves outside the system. The program should also test whether records can actually be collected and preserved across the jurisdictions where the company operates.

The ECCP asks how companies manage and preserve business communications on personal devices and messaging platforms. The DOJ Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (VSD) likewise identifies appropriate controls over personal and ephemeral communications as part of timely remediation. A policy that cannot preserve the evidence it covers is not an effective control.

Give Compliance Real Stop Authority

Escalation is not effective if compliance can ask questions but cannot pause the transaction. High-risk deals need defined hard stops. Examples include incomplete beneficial ownership, inconsistent diligence answers, refusal to identify service providers, unexplained compensation, undisclosed PEP relationships, requests for cash, payments to personal or nominee accounts, and destination changes without a credible business reason.

A hard stop does not require the company to abandon every transaction containing a red flag. It requires the risk to be resolved before money or value moves. The control framework should identify who may impose a pause, who may clear it, whether any override is permitted, what evidence supports an override, and which risk decisions require senior escalation.

Trial testimony reportedly described months of compliance questions about the Ghanaian intermediary and inconsistent or incomplete answers, followed by Goldman’s withdrawal from the contemplated financing. That sequence should not be converted into a claim that every control operated early enough or that the company was legally exonerated. The more useful lesson is that the decision trail mattered. It documented the questions, the resistance, the escalation, and the exit.

Connect Diligence, Invoices, and Money

Many programs distribute the relevant facts across separate systems. Procurement sees the contract. Compliance sees the screening. Accounts payable sees the invoice. Treasury sees the destination account. Investigations see the allegation. No one sees the complete pattern.

Payment controls should require proof of service, account-name matching, country and entity consistency, independent approval for destination changes, and tight restrictions on cash. Analytics should flag round-dollar invoices, duplicate invoice numbers, payment splitting, milestone-timed consulting fees, payments to employees or related parties, high-risk correspondent routes, and transfers followed by cash withdrawals.

The decisive step is integration. Due diligence, PEP screening, contracting, procurement, accounts payable, treasury, and case-management data should be capable of producing a transaction-level view. That view allows compliance to ask whether a payment is not only properly approved but also commercially credible.

Build an Evidence-Grade Record

The defense’s most forceful theme was the missing last mile: no downstream bank record showing money reaching a Ghanaian official, no alleged recipient on the witness stand, and no eyewitness to a bribe. The jury nevertheless convicted Berko on all three charged counts. For an internal investigation, the lesson cuts both ways. Suspicion is not proof, but weak tracing can leave the company unable to determine what happened.

Preserve native emails, attachments, metadata, messaging exports, payment records, approval histories, translations, and custodial provenance—record who made each factual determination and what evidence supported it. For multilingual material, preserve the original, use qualified translators, document dialect and ambiguity, and maintain a process for reviewing disputed language. Financial tracing should move from payer to intermediary to ultimate recipient, including related-party accounts and cash conversion.

The current FCPA enforcement guidelines emphasize individual misconduct and caution against attributing nonspecific malfeasance to corporate structures. That makes an evidence-grade corporate record especially important. It can help separate an individual’s conduct from the organization’s response while also showing whether the program was designed and implemented effectively.

Test the Controls Before the Crisis

An effective program does not promise that no misconduct will ever occur. DOJ recognizes that even a strong program may fail to prevent an offense. The question is whether the program is risk-based, detects concerns, responds promptly, and improves from experience.

Replay a recent public-sector transaction against the Berko pattern. Could the company identify every approval-controlling official and intermediary? Would milestone-linked payments trigger review? Could compliance pause the deal? Would personal email activity be detected and preserved? Could investigators trace funds beyond the first intermediary? Measure time from red flag to pause, overdue enhanced diligence, unresolved PEP issues, payment exceptions, control overrides, and closure of remediation.

The practical takeaways are clear. Commercial urgency calls for greater discipline, not reduced scrutiny. Third-party diligence must remain connected to invoices, payments, monitoring, and escalation. Off-channel communications become an intent and preservation issue when combined with sensitive content and known monitoring. A deal exit matters, but an earlier hard stop may reduce exposure and preserve more business value.

Join us tomorrow as we conclude our 5-part series by moving the transaction to the enterprise. In it, we will explore such questions as who owns these controls, who funds and tests them, how accountability is imposed, and what your Board of Directors should demand as evidence that the program works in practice.

Resources:

United States v. Berko, No. 1:20-cr-00328-DG, Indictment, ECF No. 3 (E.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 26, 2020)

Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Jury Sees Cash Talk in Energy Deal Email Deluge,” Law360, Aug. 1, 2026; Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Exec Was Linchpin to Ghana Bribery Ploy, Jury Told,” Law360, Aug. 5, 2026.

Stewart Bishop, “Ex-Goldman Exec Convicted of Ghana Bribery Plot,” Law360, Aug. 6, 2026. Supplied trial reporting.

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, “Former Goldman Sachs Investment Banker Convicted of Foreign Bribery and Money Laundering,” Aug. 6, 2026, DOJ Press Release.

Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Jury Sees Undercover Video as Bribe Trial Nears End,” Law360, Aug. 4, 2026—supplied trial reporting.

Stewart Bishop, “Shady Power Deal Used in Goldman Compliance Prep, Jury Told,” Law360, July 29, 2026

Stewart Bishop, “Like Milli Vanilli, Goldman FCPA Case Is a Ruse, Jury Told,” Law360, July 28, 2026.

SEC Final Judgment against Asante Berko

SEC Complaint against Asante Berko

DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs

DOJ Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: August 12, 2026, The Judge Chastizes the DOJ (yet again) 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:

  • Heat, smoke, and fire as business risks. (NYT)
  • Adani case dismissed. (Reuters)
  • White House wants new charges brought on the reflecting pool. (WSJ)
  • Corruption crackdown in Thailand. (Bangkok Post)

To learn about the intersection of Sherlock Holmes and the modern compliance professional, check out Tom’s latest book, The Game is Afoot-What Sherlock Holmes Teaches About Risk, Ethics and Investigations on Amazon.com.

Categories
Blog

THE BERKO TRIAL – PART 3: What the Jury Decided: Reading the Berko Verdict Without Overreading It

We continue our deep dive into the Asante Berko FCPA conviction. Today we consider the jury’s verdict. The jury returned three guilty verdicts. That is the decisive legal result, but it is not a line-by-line adoption of the prosecution’s closing argument. For compliance professionals, the discipline is to hold both propositions at once. The government proved the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet the general verdict does not tell us which email the jurors found decisive, how they interpreted every payment, or whether they accepted every factual statement later included in the government’s announcement. That distinction is not lawyerly hedging. It is the foundation of a credible enforcement analysis.

Three Convictions, One Clear Result

After a nine-day trial, a federal jury convicted Asante Kwaku Berko of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a substantive FCPA violation, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Federal criminal verdicts must be unanimous. The jury therefore agreed that the government had proved the elements of each of the three counts submitted to it under the court’s instructions. Moreover, the jury convicted in just over three hours, which in a major criminal case is an extraordinarily short jury deliberation.

At a high level, the conspiracy verdict established Berko’s knowing participation in an agreement to violate the FCPA. The substantive verdict established criminal responsibility for the charged corrupt-payment offense. The money laundering conspiracy verdict established participation in an agreement to move funds internationally to promote FCPA violations. The indictment identifies the statutory theories and alleged conduct, but it remains a charging document. It is not a substitute for the jury instructions or the verdict itself.

The result also defeated the defense’s central trial position. The defense argued that the government had not proved the last mile between funds paid to intermediaries and funds received by Ghanaian officials. No alleged recipient testified. No Ghanaian witness took the stand. No downstream bank record showed a payment to an official. The jury nevertheless found the government’s complete proof sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what the verdict establishes. The boundaries are equally important.

A General Verdict Is Not a Set of Special Findings

A general verdict answers the ultimate question on each count: guilty or not guilty. It does not ordinarily explain the jury’s reasoning. It does not identify which witness the jurors credited, which inference they drew from a particular email, or what weight they assigned to the undercover recording.

That means we should not write that the jury separately found every alleged recipient, every alleged payment amount, or every characterization of an intermediary to be true. We can say that prosecutors presented those facts and argued those inferences. We can say that the defense disputed them. We can say that the jury convicted on all three counts. Those are distinct propositions, and sound compliance writing should keep them distinct.

The same rule applies to intent. The jury’s verdict necessarily reflects a finding of the criminal intent required by the instructions for each count. It does not disclose whether jurors inferred that intent primarily from off-channel communications, milestone-timed payments, cash withdrawals, the recorded lunch, Berko’s alleged personal compensation, the interaction with Goldman’s compliance process, or the cumulative force of all of them. The verdict is conclusive as to guilt at this stage. It is silent about the internal path the jury took to reach that result.

How the Mosaic Answered the Missing Last Mile

The government’s case did not depend on one witness producing a receipt for a bribe. It offered multiple streams of circumstantial evidence: more than 300 emails, separate personal and corporate communication channels, transfers to intermediaries, financial-flow charts, payments aligned with government approvals, compliance questions, cash discussions, and a secretly recorded lunch.

The defense tested each stream separately. Emails lacked testimony from their participants. Payments stopped short of the alleged officials. The confidential source had potential incentives. The recorded conversation involved prompting, translation, and hypothetical facts. Goldman’s withdrawal reflected a corporate risk judgment, not the criminal burden of proof.

The jury rejected reasonable doubt. The most supportable inference is that the combined evidence overcame the defense’s missing-link argument. That remains an inference because the jurors did not issue an explanation. Still, it offers an important proof lesson: independent evidence streams can corroborate one another even when no single item tells the whole story. For a compliance investigation, that lesson cuts both ways. A red flag is not a legal element, and a collection of suspicions does not automatically prove misconduct. But communications, transaction timing, money flows, control circumvention, and personal benefit can become mutually reinforcing. The analytical task is to test whether the pieces converge, conflict, or merely sit beside one another.

Three Dollar Figures, Three Source Regimes

The amounts associated with the case show why attribution matters. The 2020 indictment alleged that Berko and others caused more than $700,000 in bribes to be transferred to Ghanaian officials. DOJ stated after the verdict that the government proved more than $1 million in bribes at trial. The SEC’s civil complaint alleged that the Turkish energy company transferred at least $2.5 million to a Ghana-based intermediary, all or most of which was used for bribes. Those are not interchangeable totals. They arise from different documents, legal proceedings, time periods, and descriptions of the money flow. The $2.5 million figure concerns transfers to an intermediary. The other figures describe alleged or trial-proven bribes. Some sums may overlap, but the public sources do not support collapsing them into one number.

The SEC matter adds another essential qualifier. Berko consented to the 2021 final judgment without admitting or denying the complaint’s allegations, except as specifically provided for bankruptcy purposes. The judgment imposed an injunction and required $275,000 in disgorgement plus $54,163.92 in prejudgment interest. It did not convert every allegation in the SEC complaint into a generally admitted fact. This source discipline is central to compliance credibility. Indictments allege. Trial evidence supports arguments. Advocates characterize. Verdicts decide counts. Civil settlements may resolve claims without admissions. A strong analysis identifies the category before drawing the lesson.

The Verdict Is an Endpoint and a Starting Point

The trial reporting states that the jury deliberated for approximately three hours and that sentencing was scheduled for November 10, 2026. Berko was remanded pending sentencing. Post-trial motions, sentencing proceedings, and any appeal could add to the record, so the procedural status should be checked again before publication. Things do not bode well for Asante at this point.

For now, the legal conclusion is clear. Berko was convicted on all three counts submitted to the jury. The editorial conclusion should be equally clear. The verdict establishes criminal liability at trial, not a special finding on every email, payment, witness, amount, or corporate-control question in the surrounding narrative. That is not a limitation on the importance of the case. It is how serious compliance professionals preserve trust. They distinguish what is known, what was argued, what was disputed, what was decided, and what remains an inference.

Join us tomorrow for Part 4, as we will move from verdict discipline to transaction discipline: whether a functioning compliance program could have identified and interrupted the pattern earlier.

Resources:

United States v. Berko, No. 1:20-cr-00328-DG, Indictment, ECF No. 3 (E.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 26, 2020)

Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Jury Sees Cash Talk in Energy Deal Email Deluge,” Law360, Aug. 1, 2026; Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Exec Was Linchpin to Ghana Bribery Ploy, Jury Told,” Law360, Aug. 5, 2026.

Stewart Bishop, “Ex-Goldman Exec Convicted of Ghana Bribery Plot,” Law360, Aug. 6, 2026. Supplied trial reporting.

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, “Former Goldman Sachs Investment Banker Convicted of Foreign Bribery and Money Laundering,” Aug. 6, 2026, DOJ Press Release.

Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Jury Sees Undercover Video as Bribe Trial Nears End,” Law360, Aug. 4, 2026. Supplied trial reporting.

Stewart Bishop, “Shady Power Deal Used in Goldman Compliance Prep, Jury Told,” Law360, July 29, 2026

Stewart Bishop, “Like Milli Vanilli, Goldman FCPA Case Is a Ruse, Jury Told,” Law360, July 28, 2026.

SEC Final Judgment against Asante Berko

SEC Complaint against Asante Berko

Categories
Blog

THE BERKO TRIAL – PART 2: The Missing Last Mile: How the Defense Challenged the Berko Case

Yesterday in Part One of our series on the Asante Berko FCPA trial and conviction, we examined the prosecution’s mosaic. Today in Part 2, we ask the defense question that cut across every category of proof: Where was the bribe?

The Department of Justice (DOJ) had more than 300 emails, payments to intermediaries, financial-flow charts, compliance concerns, and a secretly recorded lunch. The defense argued that the case still lacked its last mile. No alleged recipient testified. No Ghanaian witness took the stand. No eyewitness described a bribe. No bank record showed money reaching a public official. None of the participants in the email chains explained their meaning to the jury.

That position did not prevail. Only after approximately three hours of deliberation did the jury convict Asante Kwaku Berko on conspiracy to violate the FCPA, a substantive FCPA violation, and a money laundering conspiracy. But a fair account of the trial requires more than repeating the result. It requires understanding why the defense believed suspicious conduct and compliance red flags did not add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Red Flags Are Not the Elements of a Crime

The defense began with the burden of proof. A high-risk intermediary, personal email, opaque invoices, and cash discussions may justify enhanced diligence, an internal investigation, or a decision to exit a transaction. They do not, standing alone, prove corrupt intent or participation in a bribery agreement. Defense attorney Robert Boone told jurors that the government had years to find a witness or record connecting the money to an official. The courtroom presentation, he argued, was impressive, but the underlying proof was missing. The government’s financial charts traced money from Aksa accounts in Turkey to Tricorp, Berko, and others. According to the defense, those charts stopped before showing a transfer to any alleged public-official recipient.

Prosecutors answered that cash completed the path and concealed the payments. The defense response was that an explanation for missing evidence is not the same as the evidence itself. The last-mile gap was not necessarily a claim that a bank receipt was required for every charged theory. It was an attack on the inferences the government asked the jury to draw about agreement, knowledge, purpose, and authorization.

A Scam, Not a Conspiracy

The defense supplied an alternative explanation for the intermediaries’ demands. Tricorp’s principals, Boone argued, saw outsiders pursuing a valuable project and used claims of political access and urgent payment needs to extract money. They were running a shakedown, not carrying out a bribery agreement.

The emails gave that theory something to work with. In one April 2015 message, a Tricorp principal demanded $500,000 immediately and insisted that unspecified necessities had to be handled. Other exchanges reflected disagreements over amounts, timing, and what had supposedly been promised. Boone characterized the demands as exaggerated and unreliable, comparing them to familiar advance-fee scams.

That distinction was critical. If an intermediary falsely claimed that officials had been or needed to be paid, an email repeating that claim might document the intermediary’s sales pitch rather than an actual bribe. Even the reported statement that Berko had paid Parliament came from a Tricorp principal. The defense asked the jury to consider whether the speaker was reporting a fact or using the language of a scam to justify another reimbursement.

The prosecution had a powerful answer: Berko was not merely copied on one stray message. His communications, payment negotiations, channel choices, and recorded statements appeared throughout the chronology. Still, the defense theory targeted an important evidentiary question. Before accepting an intermediary’s statement as proof, who made it, why, and with what first-hand knowledge?

A Legitimate Project With Commercial Logic

The underlying project was real. Ghana was confronting serious electricity shortages and wanted to add 1,000 megawatts of generating capacity quickly. Aksa later obtained financing from Barclays and a Turkish bank after Goldman withdrew, and its 370-megawatt plant entered commercial operation.

The defense used those facts to challenge motive. Ghana needed available power, Aksa could supply it, and other financial institutions ultimately supported the project. Boone put the point bluntly: Why would a qualified company need to bribe a government that was desperate for electricity?

Commercial merit is not a defense to bribery. Legitimate projects can still be advanced through corrupt means. Yet the project’s reality gave the defense a noncriminal explanation for meetings, urgency, large fees, and intense communications. The government had to prove that the conduct crossed the line from hard-driving project execution into corrupt payment activity.

Hundreds of Emails, but No Voice From the Chain

The prosecution treated the emails as the scheme speaking for itself. The defense treated them as fragments without context. FBI Special Agent Ryan Collins introduced much of the correspondence, but Boone emphasized that Collins did not participate in the exchanges and did not know what the writers meant. No participant in the chains took the stand to explain the language.

That allowed the defense to challenge words such as “payment,” “millions,” “fees,” and “cash.” Depending on purpose and recipient, those terms can describe legitimate compensation, reimbursement, or financing. Similarly, using Gmail for business after acknowledging that a Goldman account was monitored could demonstrate poor judgment, policy evasion, or concealment. The defense argued that the criminal inference depended on what the communications concerned, not the platform alone. This was also the weakness in the defense position. The messages were numerous, contemporaneous, and aligned with transaction milestones. An alternative interpretation had to explain the full pattern, not merely establish that individual phrases were ambiguous.

Testing the Recorded Lunch

The recorded lunch carried the drama of a direct conversation, but the defense attacked its context and origin. The unnamed source first approached the SEC, later assisted the FBI, and was described at trial as the genesis of the investigation. The defense argued that possible eligibility for an SEC whistleblower award created a financial incentive. According to the reporting, the source did not testify, and defense filings asserted that the source had supplied false information to investigators.

The FBI also identified subjects for the source to raise before the November 2016 meeting. One was cash. The resulting video was grainy, the restaurant was noisy, and the conversation moved among English, Twi, and Ghanaian Pidgin English. Jurors relied in part on a translated transcript.

The defense emphasized that the cash exchange arose during an apparently hypothetical discussion involving investors, Ghanaian stock, and a botanical garden. Berko initially said paying the people under discussion was not a good thing. Only after the source asked for the best way to pay did Berko answer that cash could be used.

The government’s strongest response was Berko’s own reported language, including his statement that “KD got one million” and his assurance that he could obtain a large amount of cash.[4] Source motive did not erase those words. The defense attack went to whether the source’s prompting, translation, and hypothetical setup changed their meaning.

Corporate Withdrawal Was Not a Criminal Verdict

Goldman’s review produced genuine concerns. Amandine Martin testified that Aksa’s explanations for payments to Tricorp did not match earlier information and that months of questions did not produce satisfactory answers. Goldman withdrew and earned nothing from the contemplated financing. For the defense, that corporate decision showed a risk-control judgment, not proof of Berko’s guilt. Businesses act before uncertainty is resolved because they do not apply the criminal standard of proof. Other lenders later financed the project, reinforcing the defense position that the transaction had commercial substance.

The distinction matters. A company may properly stop a transaction when diligence cannot resolve serious red flags. A jury must decide whether the government proved the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are different decisions made for different purposes.

The Missing Link and the Complete Pattern

The jury rejected the defense position and returned guilty verdicts on all three counts. The general verdict does not disclose why. It does not tell us whether jurors found the emails decisive, credited the cash explanation, accepted the recorded statements at face value, or concluded that all of the evidence corroborated itself.

The defense nevertheless framed the trial’s central proof contest. The government had to turn red flags into criminal evidence. The defense had to offer an innocent explanation capable of accounting for the complete record: the emails, milestone timing, intermediary payments, off-channel communications, compliance interactions, financial flows, and recorded lunch. Identifying a missing link can create reasonable doubt. But the alternative theory must also explain why every other link appears to point in the same direction. In Berko, the jury concluded that the government carried its burden.

Join us tomorrow for Part 3, where we will consider what those three guilty verdicts legally established, what a general verdict leaves unresolved, and why compliance professionals should resist turning a verdict into factual findings the jury never made.

Resources:

United States v. Berko, No. 1:20-cr-00328-DG, Indictment, ECF No. 3 (E.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 26, 2020)

Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Jury Sees Cash Talk in Energy Deal Email Deluge,” Law360, Aug. 1, 2026; Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Exec Was Linchpin to Ghana Bribery Ploy, Jury Told,” Law360, Aug. 5, 2026.

Stewart Bishop, “Ex-Goldman Exec Convicted of Ghana Bribery Plot,” Law360, Aug. 6, 2026. Supplied trial reporting.

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, “Former Goldman Sachs Investment Banker Convicted of Foreign Bribery and Money Laundering,” Aug. 6, 2026, DOJ Press Release.

Stewart Bishop, “Goldman Jury Sees Undercover Video as Bribe Trial Nears End,” Law360, Aug. 4, 2026—supplied trial reporting.

Stewart Bishop, “Shady Power Deal Used in Goldman Compliance Prep, Jury Told,” Law360, July 29, 2026

Stewart Bishop, “Like Milli Vanilli, Goldman FCPA Case Is a Ruse, Jury Told,” Law360, July 28, 2026.

SEC Final Judgment against Asante Berko

SEC Complaint against Asante Berko

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

FCPA Compliance Report: The Berko Verdict with Mike Volkov

In this episode, Tom Fox welcomes back his good friend and colleague Mike Volkov and takes a deep dive into the Asante Berko FCPA guilty verdict.

They question why Berko went to trial given the strength of the case, discuss the power of recorded statements like requests to use private email, and highlight Goldman Sachs compliance personnel as corroborating witnesses after the firm stopped the transaction and disclosed it. They conclude with compliance lessons that include rigorous deal due diligence, escalation of red flags, sampling internal communications, and monitoring attempts to move discussions off-channel.

Key highlights:

  • Quick Jury Verdict
  • Recordings And Emails
  • Goldman Compliance Witness
  • Sentencing Trial Penalty
  • SEC Settlement Strategy
  • Compliance Lessons Red Flags

Resources:

Berko Trial Blog Post series on FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report

Mike Volkov on LinkedIn

Tom Fox

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

To learn about the intersection of Sherlock Holmes and the modern compliance professional, check out Tom’s latest book, The Game is Afoot-What Sherlock Holmes Teaches About Risk, Ethics and Investigations on Amazon.com.