Tag: DOJ

Categories
Everything Compliance

Episode 101, the Glencore Edition


Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance as we celebrate our second century of shows. In 2021, Everything Compliance was honored by W3 as a top talk show in podcasting. In this episode, we have the quintet of Jonathan Marks, Karen Woody, Jonathan Armstrong, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly. In this episode, we take up the Glencore FCPA settlement. We conclude with our fan favorite Shout Outs and Rants.

1. Karen Woody takes a deep dive into the history of Glencore, from its founding by Marc Rich in the 1980s through the allegations of bribery, corruption and market manipulation which led to the FCPA and CFTC settlements.  Woody shouts out the US National and state parks systems which provide much needed green spaces for Americans.

2. Matt Kelly takes a deep dive into CCO certification issue and what it might mean for individual CCO criminal liability going forward.  Kelly has a dual shout out and rant. He shouts out to the Boston Celtics for having the greatest NBA Finals-Game 1 comeback to win the game. He rants about the DOJ failing to post the speech by AAG Kenneth Polite where he announced the new requirement for CCO certification.

3. Jonathan Marks explores the role of internal audit in contributing to the compliance failures and what IA can do to facilitate a culture change at the company. Marks also has a dual shout out and rant. He shouts out to the Philadelphia Phillies for firing manager Joe Girardi and rants about Glencore’s Press Release about their updated compliance which he rants “says nothing”.

4. Tom Fox considers the dual monitor aspect of the resolution and the requirements of the monitorships. Fox reads out the names of the students and teachers who were killed in the recent massacre in Uvalde,  TX.

5. Jonathan Armstrong explores the settlement from the UK perspective and considers, what if any charges against individuals that the UK-Serious Fraud Office might bring. Armstrong shouts out to the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee and Sir Andy Murray for speaking out against the murder of school children. Murray is a survivor of a similar event in Scotland.

The members of the Everything Compliance are:
•       Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
•       Karen Woody – One of the top academic experts on the SEC. Woody can be reached at kwoody@wlu.edu
•       Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com
•       Jonathan Armstrong –is our UK colleague, who is an experienced data privacy/data protection lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at jonathan.armstrong@corderycompliance.com
•       Jonathan Marks is Partner, Firm Practice Leader – Global Forensic, Compliance & Integrity Services at Baker Tilly. Marks can be reached at jonathan.marks@bakertilly.com

The host and producer, ranter (and sometime panelist) of Everything Compliance is Tom Fox the Voice of Compliance. He can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com. Everything Compliance is a part of the Compliance Podcast Network.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

June 9, 2022 the FBI Sued Edition


In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • DOJ hires HP CCO to run Fraud Section. (WSJ)
  • Hui Chen moves to R&G Insights Lab. (WSJ)
  • Gymnasts sue FBI for $1bn. (WSJ)
  • New SEC rules on equity trades. (WSJ)
Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

Scott Schneider on Your Code of Conduct

In this episode of the FCPA Compliance Report I visit with Scott Schneider, Head of Content Development at Traliant. Scott has been in the compliance space for over 15 years and is passionate about the building blocks of a best practices compliance program, including Codes of Conduct. This week we take a deep dive into the foundational backbone of every compliance program, the Code of Conduct.  Some of the highlights include:

·      Importance of  Code of Conduct training.

·      Types of Code training.

·      Why have a Code of Conduct?

·      How does a Code of Conduct help establish culture?

·      Key areas the Code should cover?

·      How should a company develop its Code of Conduct?

·      When should a Code be revisited or reassessed?

·      The roles of Codes of Conduct and training down the road into 2025 and beyond?

Resources

Scott Schneider on LinkedIn
Traliant website

Categories
Blog

Glencore Resolution: Part IV – The Resolution

Last week, the Attorney General and a host of other Department of Justice (DOJ) officials announced the settlement of a massive Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and market manipulation case against Glencore plc (Glencore). Over this blog series, I have been reviewing the matter and mining it for lessons learned for the compliance community. Today, in Part IV, we take a dive into the settlement itself.
According to the DOJ Press Release, Glencore pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, agreed to a criminal fine of $428,521,173, and acknowledged criminal forfeiture liability in the amount of $272,185,792. Glencore also had charges brought against it by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and reached separate parallel resolutions with the Brazilian Ministério Público Federal (MPF). The DOJ agreed to credit the company over $256 million in payments that it makes to the CFTC, to the Court in the UK as well as to authorities in Switzerland, in the event that the company reaches a resolution with Swiss authorities within one year.
In a Market Manipulation case, separate and apart from the FCPA enforcement action, Glencore admitted to a muti-year scheme to manipulate fuel oil prices at two of the busiest commercial shipping ports in the United States. Under the terms of the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) resolution, the company will pay a criminal fine of $341,221,682 and criminal forfeiture of $144,417,203. Under the terms of the Plea Agreement, the DOJ will credit over $242 million in payments that the company makes to the CFTC.
In other words, there was some serious misconduct going on here, for multiple years, in multiple countries with multiple schemes. Yet Glencore received a reduction of 15% based upon the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy and a 2-point reduction in the overall penalty calculation under the US Sentencing Guidelines. Both of these discounts led to a not-insignificant reduction from the overall penalty assessed.
First let us take up the areas that did not avail itself of under the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. Glencore did not receive voluntary disclosure credit because it failed to self-disclose its legal violations to the DOJ. Although Glencore received partial cooperation credit, it did not receive full credit because it did not always “demonstrate a full commitment” to cooperation, was slow in providing documents and other evidence and was slow in its remediation. Additionally, it did not timely and appropriately remediate with respect to disciplining certain employees involved in the misconduct.
Moreover, Glencore did not have adequate internal controls in place at the time of the underlying incidents took place. Since that time, Glencore has taken remedial measures, certain of the compliance enhancements are new and have not been fully implemented or tested to demonstrate that they would prevent and detect similar misconduct in the future, mandating the imposition of an independent compliance monitor for a term of three years.
Even with these failures, Glencore received a substantial reduction of what it could have been required to pay. Based upon the calculations in the Plea Agreement, I estimate the total discount was in the range of $100 million.
Glencore agreed to continue to cooperate with the DOJ in ongoing investigations and prosecutions relating to the underlying misconduct, to modify its compliance program where necessary. The DOJ cited several additional factors crediting Glencore’s compliance remediation efforts, including (a) Glencore’s implementation of a centralized compliance function, hiring of a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), and significantly increasing the compliance staff; (b) enhancing its business partner management, reducing the number of third-party representatives, adopting payment controls and post-engagement monitoring controls; and (c) investing in increased compliance headcount and data analytics.
Glencore itself, in a Press Release issued the day of the announced settlements, touted new additions to its compliance program. The company said that it has “bolstered its compliance structures and controls through a comprehensive programme built around risk assessment, policies, procedures, standards and guidelines based on international best practice, associated training and awareness initiatives as well as monitoring systems.” These initiatives included:

  • Strengthening the Group’s Code of Conduct and launching a comprehensive global awareness and training campaign designed to embed Glencore’s Values throughout its business, set expectations and ensure accountability for all employees;
  • Establishing a centralized, independent and empowered compliance function and, in 2020, appointing a new dedicated Head of Compliance;
  • Making a significant investment in compliance systems and resources, as well as experienced personnel;
  • Significantly enhancing and expanding the Group’s ethics and compliance training programs;
  • Instituting a comprehensive business partner management programme, including significantly reducing the Company’s use of third-party business generating intermediaries and employing end-to-end controls to oversee their engagement;
  • Implementing extensive monitoring and testing mechanisms, including through the use of data analytics, to assess whether our controls are entrenched and effective across the Group and ensure continuous improvement; and
  • Engaging leading external advisors to review Glencore’s systems and verify that controls are working as intended.

It appears quite a bit of work went into not simply cleaning up Glencore but in improving its overall culture. Of course, there is quite a bit of work do and that will no doubt turn in large part on the effectiveness of the monitor. More on that and final thoughts in our next post.

Categories
Blog

Glencore Resolution: Part III – The Commodity Price Manipulation Case

Last week, the Attorney General and a host of other Department of Justice (DOJ) officials announced the settlement of a massive Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and market manipulation case against Glencore plc (Glencore). Over the next several blog posts, I will be reviewing the matter and mining it for lessons learned for the compliance community. Today, in Part III, we take a detour into the Commodity Price Manipulation Case and see how this matter should be studied by compliance professional.
In this case separate and apart from the FCPA enforcement action, Glencore admitted to a muti-year scheme to manipulate fuel oil prices at two of the busiest commercial shipping ports in the United States. Under the terms of the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) resolution, the company will pay a criminal fine of $341,221,682 and criminal forfeiture of $144,417,203. Under the terms of the Plea Agreement, the DOJ will credit over $242 million in payments that the company makes to the CFTC.
According to the CFTC Press Release, Glencore’s manipulative and fraudulent conduct—including conduct relating to foreign corruption—defrauded its counterparties, harmed other market participants, and undermined the integrity of the US and global physical and derivatives oil markets. Platts physical oil benchmarks, including those that were the subject of Glencore’s manipulative conduct, serve as price benchmarks for end-users and market participants, and are incorporated as reference prices for the settlement of numerous derivatives. (For a copy of the CFTC Order, see link in the CFTC Press Release.)
According to the CFTC Order, Glencore had a global commodity trading business, which included trading in fuel oil. Between approximately January 2011 and August 2019, Glencore conspired to manipulate two benchmark price assessments published by S&P Global Platts (Platts) for fuel oil products, specifically intermediate fuel oil 380 CST at the Port of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Fuel) and RMG 380 fuel oil at the Port of Houston (US Gulf Coast Fuel Oil). The Port of Los Angeles is the busiest shipping port in the US by container volume. The Port of Houston is the largest US port on the Gulf Coast and the busiest port in the US by foreign waterborne tonnage.
As part of the conspiracy, Glencore employees sought to unlawfully enrich themselves and the company, by increasing profits and reducing costs on contracts to buy and sell physical fuel oil, as well as certain derivative positions the company held. The price terms of the physical contracts and derivative positions were set by reference to daily benchmark price assessments published by Platts—either Los Angeles Fuel or US Gulf Coast Fuel Oil—on a certain day or days plus or minus a fixed premium. On these pricing days, Glencore employees submitted orders to buy and sell (bids and offers) to Platts during the daily trading “window” for the Platts price assessments with the intent to artificially push the price assessment up or down.
In an example from the CFTC Order, if Glencore had a contract to buy fuel oil, employees submitted offers during the Platts “window” for the express purpose of pushing down the price assessment and hence the price of the fuel oil that Glencore purchased. The bids and offers were not submitted to Platts for any legitimate economic reason by company employees, but rather for the purpose of artificially affecting the relevant Platts price assessment so that the benchmark price, and hence the price of fuel oil that the company bought from, and sold to, another party, did not reflect legitimate forces of supply and demand.
Between approximately September 2012 and August 2016, Glencore Ltd employees conspired to manipulate the price of fuel oil bought from, and sold to, a corrupt counterparty (Company A) through private, bilateral contracts, by manipulating the Platts price assessment for Los Angeles Fuel. Between approximately January 2014 and February 2016, Glencore engaged in a “joint venture” with Company A, which involved buying fuel oil from Company A at prices artificially depressed by Glencore’s manipulation of the Platts Los Angeles Fuel benchmark. Finally, between approximately January 2011 and August 2019, company employees conspired to manipulate the price of fuel oil bought and sold through private, bilateral contracts, as well as derivative positions, by manipulating the Platts price assessment for US Gulf Coast Fuel Oil.
The CFTC also noted Glencore was involved in market manipulation through illegally obtaining confidential information by improperly obtained nonpublic information from employees and agents of the state-owned enterprises (SOEs), including Pemex in Mexico. This information was material to Glencore’s business and trading. Pemex agents who had access to confidential information and owed a duty to Pemex under Mexican law and Pemex internal policies to keep the information confidential—disclosed nonpublic information, “including information material to Glencore’s transactions with the SOE or to related physical and derivatives trading, to Glencore. Glencore traders in knowing possession of the confidential information then entered into related physical transactions and derivatives transactions.”
Finally, as we noted in yesterday’s recitation of the FCPA allegations, Glencore made corrupt payments to employees and agents working at SOEs in Brazil, Cameroon, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Glencore or its affiliates made the corrupt payments in exchange for improper preferential treatment and access to trades with the SOEs. Glencore’s conduct was designed to increase Glencore’s profits from certain physical and derivatives trading in oil markets around the world, including US physical and derivatives markets. Glencore also engaged in this corrupt conduct in connection with derivatives such as swaps and futures contracts subject to the rules of Commission-registered entities.
Tomorrow we will consider the settlement.

Categories
Blog

Glencore Resolution: Part II – The FCPA Action

Last week, the Attorney General and a host of other Department of Justice (DOJ) officials announced the settlement of a massive Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and market manipulation case against Glencore plc (Glencore). Over the next several blog posts, I will be reviewing the matter and mining it for lessons learned for the compliance community. Today, in Part II, we consider the bribes paid by Glencore in violation of the FCPA.
The case involved massive bribery and corruption perpetrated by Glencore in multiple countries by multiple subsidiaries, involving multiple executives at the highest levels of the company. The resolution with the DOJ imposed $429 million in criminal penalties and forfeiture of $272 million. According to the FCPA Blog (who as usual broke the story for the compliance community), “as part of the U.S. resolution, a subsidiary of Glencore also agreed to plead guilty and pay $485.6 million to resolve market manipulation investigations by the DOJ and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. After crediting about $166 million of that payment to amounts to be paid in the UK and possibly other countries, penalties assessed in the United States will be just over $1 billion.”
According to the Information,  Glencore engaged in a conspiracy for over a decade to pay more than $100 million to third-party intermediaries, while intending that a significant portion of these payments would be used to pay bribes to officials in several countries including Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, Brazil, Venezuela, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
According to the DOJ Press Release, “Between approximately 2007 and 2018, Glencore and its subsidiaries caused approximately $79.6 million in payments to be made to intermediary companies in order to secure improper advantages to obtain and retain business with state-owned and state-controlled entities in West Africa, including Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, and Equatorial Guinea. Glencore concealed the bribe payments by entering into sham consulting agreements, paying inflated invoices, and using intermediary companies to make corrupt payments to foreign officials.”
Nigeria
In Nigeria, Glencore and its UK subsidiaries entered into multiple agreements to purchase crude oil and refined petroleum products from Nigeria’s state-owned and state-controlled oil company. Glencore and its subsidiaries engaged two intermediaries to pursue business opportunities and other improper business advantages, including the award of crude oil contracts, while knowing that the intermediaries would make bribe payments to Nigerian government officials to obtain such business. In Nigeria alone, Glencore and its subsidiaries paid more than $52 million to the intermediaries, intending that those funds be used, at least in part, to pay bribes to Nigerian officials.
What is most striking about reading the Information is how mundane the actions of Glencore were in this massive bribery and corruption scheme. The scheme itself went on for over 10 years and was directly supported by executives at the highest levels of the company. The schemes involved the creation of sham third parties which used sham contracts to make sham payments that were designed to be paid as bribes to corrupt Nigerian officials. Although not clear from the Information, it appears that one entity, identified as ‘West African Intermediary Company’, was engaged to identify corruption Nigerian officials to bribe. They were called ‘business opportunities.’
Illegal payments were made to access oilfields and to purchase crude oil itself. Often the latter was done by undervaluing the pricing for a cargo of crude oil or outright bribery to get the crude oil itself. Bribe payments were called “newspapers or journals or pages”. Another scheme was called the ‘Swap Agreement’ where money was funneled to the West African Intermediary Company who would then resell the crude oil to Glencore UK subsidiaries for distribution throughout the UK and beyond. Payments were made though US banks (thereby creating US and FCPA jurisdiction) disguised as campaign contributions and hidden in Switzerland and Cyprus banks.
Cameroon, Ivory Coast and Equatorial Guinea
In Cameroon, Ivory Coast and Equatorial Guinea, Glencore paid over $27 million in bribes over a multi-year period. The same basic bribery schemes, sham third parties, contracts and payments, were used involving the West African Intermediary Company to pay bribes to corrupt government officials. However, there was an interesting wrinkle for bribes paid in these countries which was the maintenance of a “Cash Desk” in both London and Baar, Switzerland. From these offices cash payments were made to officials in these countries.
Democratic Republic of Congo
In the DRC, Glencore admitted that it conspired to corruptly offer and pay approximately $27.5 million to third parties, while intending for a portion of the payments to be used as bribes to DRC officials to secure improper business advantages. The improper business advantages were around audits required of Glencore’s mining operations in the country. When Glencore received an audit notice from the DRC government, the company would simply pay a bribe to have the audit notice quashed and no audit would occur. Additionally, Glencore paid a straight $500,000 to have a corrupt judge wrongfully dismiss a lawsuit against the company. The bribe was paid through a corrupt lawyer, who falsely billed the company for $500,000 worth of never-delivered legal services and then used the monies to pay the bribe.
Brazil and Venezuela
Glencore also admitted to bribery of officials in Brazil and Venezuela. In Brazil, the bribes were paid in the heyday of Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras) before Operation Car Wash blew the lid off the corrupt culture of Brazil’s national energy concern. The primary scheme in Brazil was to overpay for crude oil from Petrobras in terms of a “price that included a built-in delta” which represented the bribe amount. Here a corruption agent was used to facilitate this bribe and all communications were through personal email accounts that somehow eluded oversight or employer monitoring. Once again payments were made through US banks adding to the US jurisdiction. In Venezuela, the scheme was a bit different as the goal was not the obtaining of crude but late payments due Glencore from Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA) and demurrage fees as well. Bribes were paid to PdVSA officials to secure out of line payments.
Tomorrow we will consider the Commodity Price Manipulation Case.

Categories
Blog

Glencore FCPA Resolution, Part I-Introduction

“The rule of law requires that there not be one rule for the powerful and another for the powerless; one rule for the rich and another for the poor.  The Justice Department will continue to bring to bear its resources on these types of cases, no matter the company and no matter the individual.” That was Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, who announced the resolution of an enforcement action involving Glencore plc and related entities.
When Attorney General Merrick Garland has a Press Conference to announce a settlement you know it is significant. We were certainly treated to that last week when the AG and a host of other Department of Justice (DOJ) officials announced the settlement of a massive Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and market manipulation case against Glencore plc. (Glencore). Over the next several blog posts, I will be reviewing the matter and mining it for lessons learned for the compliance community. Today, in Part I, we review and announcement and basic facts of the matter.
The case involved massive bribery and corruption perpetrated by Glencore in multiple countries by multiple subsidiaries, involving multiple executives at the highest levels of the company. As stated in the DOJ Press Release, “Glencore, acting through its employees and agents, engaged in a conspiracy for over a decade to pay more than $100 million to third-party intermediaries, while intending that a significant portion of these payments would be used to pay bribes to officials in several countries, including Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, Brazil, Venezuela, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).”
The resolution with the DOJ imposed $429 million in criminal penalties and forfeiture of $272 million. According to the FCPA Blog (who as usually broke the story for the compliance community), “as part of the U.S. resolution, a subsidiary of Glencore also agreed to plead guilty and pay $485.6 million to resolve market manipulation investigations by the DOJ and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. After crediting about $166 million of that payment to amounts to be paid in the UK and possibly other countries, penalties assessed in the United States will be just over $1 billion.”
As was noted by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, “The scope of this criminal bribery scheme is staggering.  Glencore paid bribes to secure oil contracts.  Glencore paid bribes to avoid government audits.  Glencore bribed judges to make lawsuits disappear.  At bottom, Glencore paid bribes to make money—hundreds of millions of dollars.  And it did so with the approval, and even encouragement, of its top executives.  The criminal charges filed against Glencore in the Southern District of New York are another step in making clear that no one – not even multinational corporations—is above the law.”
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. said that “Glencore’s guilty pleas demonstrate the Department’s commitment to holding accountable those who profit by manipulating our financial markets and engaging in corrupt schemes around the world.  In the foreign bribery case, Glencore International A.G. and its subsidiaries bribed corrupt intermediaries and foreign officials in seven countries for over a decade. In the commodity price manipulation scheme, Glencore Ltd. undermined public confidence by creating the false appearance of supply and demand to manipulate oil prices.”
U.S. Attorney Vanessa Roberts Avery said: “Glencore’s market price manipulation threatened not just financial harm, but undermined participants’ faith in the commodities markets’ fair and efficient function that we all rely on.  This guilty plea, and the substantial financial penalty incurred, is an appropriate consequence for Glencore’s criminal conduct, and we are pleased that Glencore has agreed to cooperate in any ongoing investigations and prosecutions relating to their misconduct, and to strengthen its compliance program company-wide.  I thank both our partners at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for their hard work and dedication in investigating this sophisticated set of facts and unraveling this scheme, and the Fraud Section, with whom we look forward to continuing our fruitful partnership of prosecuting complex financial and corporate criminal cases.
FBI Assistant Director Luis Quesada added, the “guilty pleas by Glencore entities show that there is no place for corruption and fraud in international markets.  Glencore engaged in long-running bribery and price manipulation conspiracies, ultimately costing the company over a billion dollars in fines. The FBI and our law enforcement partners will continue to investigate criminal financial activities and work to restore the public’s trust in the marketplace.”
The matter also involved enforcement actions in multiple countries. In the UK, Glencore also had “charges brought against it by the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and reached separate parallel resolutions with the Brazilian Ministério Público Federal (MPF) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Under the terms of the plea agreement, the department has agreed to credit the company over $256 million in payments that it makes to the CFTC, to the Court in the U.K. as well as to authorities in Switzerland, in the event that the company reaches a resolution with Swiss authorities within one year.”
SFO Director Lisa Osofsky, said in a Press Release, “This significant investigation, which the Serious Fraud Office has brought to court in less than three years, is the result of our expertise, our tenacity and the strength of our partnership with the US and other jurisdictions. “We won’t stop fighting serious fraud, bribery and corruption, and we look forward to the next steps in this major prosecution.”
Interestingly, the plea agreement requires Glencore to retain two compliance monitors for three years. This is a very significant development, which ties to the DAG Lisa Monaco speech from October 2021. We will consider the implications as well in greater detail.
Tomorrow we will consider the bribery schemes.

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

DOJ Expectations for Compliance & CCOs


Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to more fully explore a subject. This week, Matt and Tom take a deep dive into the recent speech by Kenneth Polite, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. Every compliance professional needs to read his remarks in-depth as they give significant insight into what the DOJ expects in compliance programs and CCOs involved in enforcement actions. Highlights include:

  • It all starts with a risk assessment.
  • The importance of culture.
  • Continuous testing and continuous improvement.
  • The role of monitors.
  • CCO certification going forward.

Resources
Matt in Radical Compliance

Categories
Daily Compliance News

May 25, 2022 the $2,465 an Hour Edition


In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • Glencore settles for $15bn. (FCPABlog)
  • Bosses in the UK want ‘butts in seats. (FT)
  • BYN settles for lying about ESG. (Compliance Week)
  • J&J’s lawyer wants to charge $2465 per hour in bankruptcy. (Reuters)
Categories
Daily Compliance News

May 19, 2022 the Pressure Edition


In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • JPMorgan shareholders disapprove of CEO pay package. (Reuters)
  • Allianz pleads guilty. (NYT)
  • DOJ to require CCO certification. (Compliance Week)
  • Top Nigerian accountant arrested in $193MM theft. (Bloomberg)