Tag: DOJ

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program: Day 10 – Leadership’s Conduct at The Top

The 2022 Monaco Memo emphasized the basic point that the key to every company is culture. The bottom line is that corporate culture matters, and corporate culture that fails to hold individuals accountable or fails to invest in compliance—or worse, that thumbs its nose at compliance—leads to bad results.

To assist companies in understanding this requirement, the 2023 ECCP sets out inquiries demonstrating that DOJ requirements are more than simply the ubiquitous “tone-at-the-top,” as they focus on the conduct of senior management. The DOJ wants to see a company’s senior leadership actually doing compliance. The DOJ asks if company leadership has, through their words and concrete actions, brought the right message of doing business ethically and in compliance to the organization. How does senior management model its behavior based on a company’s values and finally, how is such conduct monitored in an organization?

Three key takeaways:

1. Senior management must actually do compliance—not simply talk the talk of compliance but also walk the walk.

2. The DOJ is now actively assessing corporate culture during investigations.

3. Your CEO is a Compliance Ambassador.

 

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program: Day 9 – Continuous Monitoring and Continuous Improvement

Continuous monitoring and continuous improvement are two of the most important phrases for any compliance program. These twin concepts were further enshrined in the 2023 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (2023 ECCP). In 2023, all companies’ risks changed as we moved from Working From Home to Return To Office and, now, a hybrid model. In addition to this straight-forward change in risk due to working locations, new risks in the form of geopolitical, supply chain, and export control, as well as increased risk due to social media, continue to impact compliance programs.  Your compliance program must be ready to respond to whatever those risks might be going forward.

Continuous improvement runs the gamut in a best practices compliance program, from risk assessments to policies and procedures to periodic testing and review.

Three key takeaways:

1. How have your company’s risks changed over the past year, and how will they change in 2024?

2. What is your process for continuous monitoring and improvement?

3. What sources of information do you use that come from outside your organization?

Categories
Blog

Compliance Program Use of Data Analytics

Matt Galvin, Counsel, Compliance & Data Analytics at the DOJ and one of the experts leading the DOJ’s data analytics initiative, highlighted in another talk, 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. In her speech, 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.

This means that  while due diligence and background checks are essential, the real risk of fraud occurs during the actual business transactions with third parties. 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 CFPB enforcement action.

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. Data-analytics should be seen as 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 Bank of America CFPB enforcement action case serves as a reminder of the importance of the use of data analytics in corporate compliance. Bank of America had the necessary data and tools to build an analytics program, but they failed to effectively utilize it, leading to compliance issues. This case highlights the need for companies to not only have data analytics capabilities but also to ensure they are properly implemented and maintained.

While data analytics can be a powerful tool for corporate compliance, there are challenges associated with its use. Companies must navigate the tradeoffs involved in balancing different factors, such as the level of sophistication required, resource allocation, and the potential risks of self-disclosure. Additionally, companies must consider the potential criticism they may face if they fail to effectively utilize their analytics tools in the event of a major compliance violation.

The Argentieri speech highlighted the DOJ’s (and SEC’s) increasing focus on data analytics for corporate compliance highlights the importance of this tool in identifying and addressing corporate misconduct. Companies, especially larger ones, are expected to enhance their data analytics capabilities and may face increased pressure for voluntary self-disclosure. However, companies must also navigate the challenges and tradeoffs associated with data analytics to ensure effective compliance and mitigate risks.

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.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program: Day 8 – Operationalizing Compliance Through Payroll

One of the areas articulated in the 2023 ECCP was around payments and payroll. For both the compliance professional and the corporate payroll function, there is a significant role to play in the operationalization of a corporate compliance program. The 2023 ECCP was replete with references to payment and its critical nature to any best practices compliance program. This includes references to payments to foreign officials, payments to third parties, and hiding bribes in payments to distributors. The 2023 ECCP begins with an admonition to stop wasting time on low-hanging fruit when there are much higher risks in your business operations.

The role of payroll in compliance is not often considered in operationalizing your compliance program, yet the monies to fund bribes must come from somewhere. Unfortunately, one of those places is out of payroll. All CCOs need to sit down with their head of payroll, have them explain the role of payroll, and then review the internal controls in place to see how they facilitate compliance goals. From that review, you can then determine how to use payroll to help operationalize your compliance program.

The DOJ has now provided its clearest statement on how it expects a company to actually comply going forward. Long gone are the days where the DOJ simply considered the inputs of a written program as sufficient to protect companies from compliance violations. Yet the mandate to operationalize a corporate compliance program drives home the concept that compliance is a business process that should be administered by the appropriate business unit with the requisite SME. When it comes to following the money, payroll is the most well-suited corporate discipline to provide this first level of oversight and control.

Three key takeaways:

  1. Payroll can be a key to preventing and detecting control
  2. The 2020 Update specified the tie between the corporate compliance function and the corporate payroll function.
  3. Offshore payments remain a key indicator of a red flag.
Categories
Blog

New DOJ M&A Safe Harbor Policy

We continue our review of DOJ initiatives from 2023 and what they may portend for the compliance professional in 2024 and beyond. 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.

The Key Policy Takeaways are as follows:

  • The acquiring company must disclose criminal misconduct within six months of the transaction closing date.
  • The acquiring company has one year from the closing date to fully remediate the misconduct, including remediation, restitution and disgorgement, where appropriate.
  • Both deadlines are subject to reasonableness and may be extended by prosecutors due to deal complexity and other factors.
  • Misconduct that threatens national security or involves ongoing imminent harm must be immediately disclosed.
  • Misconduct disclosed under the policy will not factor into present or future recidivist analysis for the acquiring company.
  • The acquiring company’s eligibility for a criminal declination will not be impacted by the presence of aggravating factors at the acquired company.
  • The target company can also qualify for self-disclosure benefits, potentially including a declination, if there are no aggravating factors at the target company.
  • The policy does not impact civil merger enforcement.
  • The policy does not apply to misconduct that is otherwise required to be disclosed, already public or otherwise known to the DOJ.

Under this new Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor, which applies across the Department of Justice, companies that promptly and voluntarily disclose criminal misconduct with the Safe Harbor period, and then cooperate with the resulting investigation, engage in timely and appropriate remediation and pay applicable restitution and disgorgement, will receive a presumption of a declination. Once again, the key deadlines are as follows:

  • Companies must disclose misconduct discovered (whether pre-or post-acquisition) at the acquired entity within six (6) months from the date of closing.
  • Companies will then have one year from the date of closing to fully remediate the misconduct.

The 6 month and one-year deadlines are subject to modification depending on the specific circumstances and complexity of the transaction.  The acquired company can also qualify under the Mergers & Acquisition Safe Harbor Policy for voluntary self-disclosure benefits.  Interestingly, DOJ clarified that any misconduct disclosed under the Safe Harbor Policy will not implicate or be counted in any future potential recidivist analysis.

As with most new DOJ policy initiatives, these concepts have been around for some time. As far back as 2008, the DOJ in Opinion Release 08-02 laid out safe harbor concepts in mergers and acquisitions. This Opinion Release was followed by the FCPA Resource Guide, 1st edition, released in 2012 which brought these concepts forward. However, many defense counsel decried the lack of certainty in both of these initiatives. Now under this new Mergers & Acquisition Safe Harbor Policy, the benefits are laid out in black and white.

The DOJ has made clear that under this new Mergers & Acquisition Safe Harbor Policy organizations that do not perform effective due diligence or self-disclose misconduct at an acquired entity will be subject to full successor liability. DOJ’s objective is clear — they do not want to penalize companies with strong compliance programs from acquiring companies with weak compliance programs when they conduct proper due diligence and discover and self-disclose misconduct. With this new policy, the DOJ is encouraging companies to conduct robust pre-acquisition due diligence and post-acquisition integration. Compliance must have a prominent seat at the deal table if an acquiring company wishes to effectively de-risk a transaction.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program: Day 7 – Compliance Program Use of Data Analytics

Matt Galvin, Counsel, Compliance & Data Analytics at the DOJ and one of the experts leading the DOJ’s data analytics initiative, highlighted in another talk 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. In her speech, Argentieri 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.

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.

Three key takeaways:

1. This also means that data analytics in the compliance function has moved from cutting edge to best practice. It soon may simply mean table stakes for compliance.

2. The DOJ is seeking to incentivize an acquiring company to timely disclose misconduct uncovered during the M&A process.

3. The DOJ has made it clear that under this new Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy, organizations that do not perform effective due diligence or self-disclose misconduct at an acquired entity will be subject to full successor liability.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program: Day 6 – DOJ M&A Safe Harbor

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.

Under this new Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor, which applies across the Department of Justice, companies that promptly and voluntarily disclose criminal misconduct during the Safe Harbor period and then cooperate with the resulting investigation, engage in timely and appropriate remediation, and pay applicable restitution and disgorgement will receive a presumption of a declination. Once again, the key deadlines are as follows:

  • Companies must disclose misconduct discovered (whether pre-or post-acquisition) at the acquired entity within six (6) months from the date of closing.
  • Companies will then have one year from the date of closing to fully remediate the misconduct.

The 6 month and one-year deadlines are subject to modification depending on the specific circumstances and complexity of the transaction. The acquired company can also qualify under the Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy for voluntary self-disclosure benefits. Interestingly, the DOJ clarified that any misconduct disclosed under the Safe Harbor Policy will not implicate or be counted in any future potential recidivist analysis.

Three key takeaways:

1. The DOJ Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor policy encourages companies to self-disclose criminal misconduct discovered by an acquiring company during the acquisition of a target company.

2. The DOJ is seeking to incentivize an acquiring company to timely disclose misconduct uncovered during the M&A process.

3. The DOJ has made it clear that under this new Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy, organizations that do not perform effective due diligence or self-disclose misconduct at an acquired entity will be subject to full successor liability.

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.