Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: October 11, 2024 – The Breaking Up May Be Hard to Do 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 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.

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • Google to try and delay, deflect breakup. (FT)
  • For Ecuador, President and VP barred entry into the US. (Reuters)
  • TD Bank to pay $3bn in penalties. (WSJ)
  • Qantas apologizes for showing R-rated film on flight. (NYT)

Categories
Blog

Deere’s FCPA Enforcement Action: Performing a Root Cause Analysis to Inform Remediation

We recently had a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action that reminded me that everything old is new again in anti-corruption compliance. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) FCPA enforcement action involving Deere and Company (Deere) has bribery schemes torn literally from the first decade of the 21st century as they involved gifts, travel, and entertainment. In other words, it was about a low set of hanging fruit that any compliance officer would see. Today, I want to take a multipart look at the case and see what lessons the enforcement action can provide to the 2024 compliance professional.

Compliance Professionals all know the pressure to act swiftly when misconduct is discovered. It is often tempting to jump straight into remediation to address the problem, protect the company, and appease regulators. However, the case of Deere’s recent FCPA enforcement action reminds us that acting without first understanding the root cause of the misconduct can lead to superficial fixes that fail to prevent future violations.

In the Deere enforcement action, the company faced significant penalties due to bribes paid by subsidiaries of Wirtgen Group, which Deere acquired in 2017. Between 2011 and 2017, Wirtgen subsidiaries engaged in corrupt practices, paying bribes to government officials in several countries, including China and India. While Deere eventually addressed the misconduct post-acquisition, its failure to perform robust due diligence and root cause analysis before remediation exposed it to regulatory and reputational damage.

This case highlights the critical need for companies to conduct a thorough root cause analysis before embarking on remediation efforts. In this blog post, we will detail why a root cause analysis should always precede remediation, what the process entails, and how it can protect your company from future enforcement actions and compliance failures.

Understanding the True Nature of the Problem

The first and most obvious reason to conduct a root cause analysis before remediation is to ensure you address the correct problem. In the Deere case, the misconduct stemmed from bribery by Wirtgen subsidiaries, but the real issue wasn’t just the bribery itself—it was the company’s failure to identify and prevent this behavior in the first place. Simply punishing the employees involved or updating internal policies would have been insufficient without understanding why these bribes were paid.

Before designing an effective remediation plan, you must understand why the misconduct occurred. Was it due to weak internal controls? A culture that tolerated unethical behavior? Inadequate training? A failure to perform due diligence on third parties? Each of these potential causes requires a different remediation strategy. If you do not identify the true cause of the problem, your remediation efforts will be superficial and may not prevent future violations. Root cause analysis allows compliance officers to uncover the underlying reasons for misconduct, enabling them to design targeted solutions that address the actual problem—not just the symptoms.

Root Cause Analysis Helps Identify Systemic Issues

One of the biggest risks when dealing with FCPA violations or corporate misconduct is that the issue may not be isolated to one event or individual. Corruption or compliance failures are often systemic, indicating deeper issues within the company’s culture, policies, or risk management framework. If Deere had conducted a more thorough root cause analysis post-acquisition, it could have uncovered broader issues in Wirtgen’s compliance program and taken proactive steps to address those weaknesses company-wide.

Root cause analysis forces you to ask tough questions about your company’s broader compliance infrastructure. Are certain business units, regions, or third-party relationships more misconduct-prone? Are there patterns of behavior that suggest systemic problems? You can implement more effective, company-wide remediation efforts by identifying these systemic issues beyond addressing a single incident.

Regulators Expect a Root Cause Analysis

Regulators, including the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), expect companies to conduct thorough root-cause analyses when investigating FCPA violations. The DOJ’s 2024 ECCP explicitly states that prosecutors will consider whether a company has adequately identified and remediated the root causes of misconduct when determining penalties. Additionally, this was specifically called out in the SAP Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) earlier this year, where the DOJ stated, “5. Conducted a root cause analysis of the underlying conduct then remediating those root causes through enhancement of its compliance program;”.

In the Deere enforcement action, part of the company’s challenge was showing regulators that it had addressed the bribes themselves and the underlying reasons that allowed the misconduct to occur. Companies that skip the root cause analysis and rush into remediation without clearly understanding what went wrong will likely face harsher penalties.

Performing a root cause analysis is more than good practice; it has moved to a regulatory expectation. The more comprehensive your analysis, the more likely regulators (DOJ and SEC) are to view your remediation efforts as credible. A company that can demonstrate it understands the root cause of its compliance failures—and has taken meaningful steps to address those causes—is more likely to receive leniency during enforcement actions.

Preventing Recurrence: Moving Beyond Quick Fixes

One of the major pitfalls of jumping into remediation without a root cause analysis is the risk of implementing quick fixes that don’t address the root problem. For example, in the Deere case, if the company had updated its anti-corruption policy without addressing the broader cultural or systemic issues, it would have left the door open for future violations.

Root cause analysis ensures that your remediation efforts are comprehensive and designed to prevent future violations. Instead of focusing solely on policies or individuals, you’re addressing the broader systems and processes that allowed the misconduct to occur. This might involve rethinking your company’s approach to third-party due diligence, improving internal reporting mechanisms, or enhancing employee training programs to emphasize ethical behavior. A quick fix might resolve the immediate problem, but a comprehensive root cause analysis will prevent recurrence and protect your company long-term.

Improving Your Compliance Program Over Time

Root cause analysis is not a reactive tool; it is a mechanism to continuously improve your company’s compliance program. By regularly performing root cause analyses in response to compliance failures or near misses, you can identify trends, weaknesses, and gaps in your existing program. This allows you to make proactive adjustments and improvements, ensuring that your compliance program evolves to meet new risks and challenges.

Compliance is an ongoing process, and root cause analysis is key. By taking the time to understand why compliance failures happen, you can strengthen and improve your program over time. Don’t wait for a major enforcement action to identify weaknesses in your compliance program—use root cause analysis as a tool for continuous improvement.

Building a Culture of Accountability

Finally, one of the most important benefits of conducting a root cause analysis before remediation is that it fosters a culture of accountability. When employees see that the company is taking a thoughtful, thorough approach to addressing misconduct, they’re more likely to trust the compliance function and adhere to ethical standards.

In the Deere case, the company’s failure to identify and address the root causes of Wirtgen’s corrupt practices could have contributed to a culture where employees felt that bribery was tolerated or encouraged. By contrast, companies emphasizing accountability and transparency in their root cause analyses send a clear message: misconduct will be thoroughly investigated, and systemic issues will be addressed.

Building a strong culture of compliance starts with holding people—and processes—accountable. Root cause analysis helps you identify the individuals responsible for misconduct and the broader systems and structures that allowed it to happen. This accountability, in turn, strengthens your compliance culture and reinforces your company’s commitment to ethical behavior.

The Deere FCPA enforcement action powerfully reminds us of the importance of conducting a root cause analysis before proceeding with remediation. Companies need to understand why misconduct occurred before implementing superficial fixes. By taking the time to perform a thorough root cause analysis, compliance professionals can ensure that their remediation efforts are comprehensive, effective, and designed to prevent future violations.

Remember, root cause analysis isn’t just a best practice, as the DOJ has now noted several times in several places and through several different media; it is a regulatory expectation. It’s also a critical tool for improving your compliance program, building a culture of accountability, and protecting your company from future compliance failures. This means that before you rush to fix the problem, ensure you understand it first. Only then can you design a remediation plan that addresses the cause of misconduct and sets your company up for long-term success.

Categories
Compliance Tip of the Day

Compliance Tip of the Day: DOJ Whistleblower Financial Incentive Program

Welcome to “Compliance Tip of the Day,” the podcast where we bring you daily insights and practical advice on navigating the ever-evolving landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements.

Whether you’re a seasoned compliance professional or just starting your journey, our aim is to provide you with bite-sized, actionable tips to help you stay on top of your compliance game.

Join us as we explore the latest industry trends, share best practices, and demystify complex compliance issues to keep your organization on the right side of the law.

Tune in daily for your dose of compliance wisdom, and let’s make compliance a little less daunting, one tip at a time.

Today, we consider the remarks by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri on the DOJ Corporate Whistleblower Incentive Program and her review of its early results.

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds: The 2024 ECCP Update on Data Access

The award winning, Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to more fully explore a subject. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds!

In this episode, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly take a deep dive into the 2024 update to the Department of Justice’s guidelines for corporate compliance programs, focusing on data and data access.

Tom and Matt explore the significance of these updates and whether they stem from companies showing advancements in data analytics or the DOJ recognizing gaps in data access for compliance officers. The discussion highlights the challenges compliance officers face, especially with diverse ERP systems and data silos, and provides insights into how compliance officers can leverage these guidelines to advocate for better data access within their organizations. The episode also breaks down specific questions from the DOJ’s guidelines, offering practical advice on addressing obstacles to data, resources for data access, and data maintenance.

Key Highlights:

  • The Importance of Data Access in Compliance
  • Challenges in Data Access for Compliance Officers
  • DOJ’s Six Key Questions on Data Access
  • Addressing Data Access Impediments
  • Tools and Resources for Data Analytics
  • Communicating with the Board on Data Analytics

Resources:

Matt in Radical Compliance

Tom in the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

2024 ECCP on Accessing Data

In the recently released 2024 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (2024 ECCP), the Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought new challenges and opportunities for compliance professionals. One of the most significant changes revolves around data access and the role data plays in an effective compliance program. In this blog post, we’ll explore the key takeaways from the updated guidance and what compliance professionals must do to meet these new expectations, especially when gaining and maintaining access to the right data. This is no longer just about best practices; it is now table stakes. Matt Kelly and I explored this question in this week’s Compliance into the Weeds edition.

Now More Than Ever

One of the most notable aspects of the DOJ’s 2024 update is its focus on data access for compliance professionals. The DOJ has made it clear that if you do not have sufficient access to data, you cannot adequately monitor compliance, detect issues, or remediate problems. Compliance officers are no longer given a pass when they say, “I didn’t have access to the data.”

How did we get here? Part of this shift can be attributed to companies that have demonstrated excellence in leveraging data to bolster their compliance programs. Through the heat of DOJ investigations, these businesses have proven that with the right data, compliance officers can detect misconduct more quickly and prevent violations altogether. At the same time, the DOJ recognizes that many companies still struggle to provide their compliance teams with the data they need to do their jobs effectively.

Data Access: From Best Practice to Table Stakes

In prior years, having a robust data analytics program for compliance was considered a gold standard. It was an aspirational goal that companies could work toward. However, as the DOJ has seen companies implement highly effective data programs, what was once a best practice is now table stakes. If your compliance program can’t access the right data in real-time or near-real-time, you’re not just behind the curve—you’re putting your organization at risk.

Compliance officers can now point to this updated guidance and tell senior management: “This isn’t optional anymore.” You need the resources, tools, and support to access and analyze data effectively. The DOJ’s guidance clarifies that if your company faces an investigation, the inability to access relevant data won’t just be an inconvenience; it will be seen as a compliance failure.

The Six Key Questions: A Roadmap for Data Access

The 2024 ECCP includes six specific questions related to data access, which serve as a roadmap for what compliance officers need to ask within their organizations. While a DOJ prosecutor may not ask all six in any given case, companies should be prepared to answer them all. We will break down how compliance professionals should approach each of these questions.

Does Compliance Have Sufficient Access to Data?

The first question asks whether compliance and control personnel have direct or indirect access to relevant data sources for timely and effective monitoring or testing. In other words, can the compliance team get the information they need when they need it?

This can be a major hurdle for many companies, especially those with complex IT ecosystems. If you’ve gone through multiple mergers and acquisitions, chances are you’re dealing with a variety of legacy systems that don’t “talk” to each other. Compliance officers might find themselves chasing down data from various silos across different business units, which can delay their ability to spot red flags.

What You Should Do

  • Map out your data sources. Know where all relevant data resides, from ERP systems to HR software and procurement platforms.
  • Identify bottlenecks. If your compliance team encounters roadblocks when accessing data, document those challenges and bring them to senior management.
  • Collaborate with IT. Ensure that IT systems are integrated and compliance has the tools to pull and analyze data without delay.

Are There Impediments to Accessing Data?

The second question focuses on barriers preventing compliance from accessing data. These barriers could be structural, such as outdated or incompatible systems, or they could be cultural, such as senior management not prioritizing compliance’s data needs.

What You Should Do

  • Address structural and cultural issues: If your company uses disparate systems, work with IT to create a data lake or central repository for key compliance data. Culturally, ensure that leadership understands the importance of compliance’s access to data and empowers the team accordingly.

Does Compliance Have the Tools to Analyze Data?

Once you can access the data, do you have the tools to analyze it effectively? This question goes beyond simply having access to the data—it’s about whether you have the analytics capabilities to make sense of it.

What You Should Do

  • Invest in the right tools. Data access means nothing if you can’t analyze the information. Invest in data analytics platforms, allowing your compliance team to automate risk assessments, flag potential issues, and generate real-time reports.
  • Train your team. Ensure that compliance personnel are trained on how to use these tools effectively. Analytics without insight is just noise.

Is Data Maintained Properly?

The fourth question concerns data maintenance. Is data stored securely, and is it accurate and reliable? The DOJ wants to ensure that companies don’t just pull data from disparate sources without validating its accuracy.

What You Should Do

  • Validate your data. Work with IT to ensure that data is accurate and up-to-date. Compliance teams need to know that the information they are using is reliable.
  • Establish data governance protocols. Set clear guidelines for data maintenance, including how data should be stored, accessed, and updated.

Is the Company Leveraging Data Analytics to Improve Compliance?

This question is at the heart of the DOJ’s updated guidance. It asks whether companies are using data analytics to create efficiencies in compliance operations and to measure the effectiveness of their compliance programs.

What You Should Do

  • Integrate data analytics into your compliance program. Use data to identify risk patterns, monitor employee behavior, and assess the effectiveness of your compliance efforts.
  • Review your analytics strategy regularly to ensure that you’re continually improving how you use data analytics to enhance your compliance program.
  1. How Precise is Your Data?

Finally, the DOJ asks about the precision of your data. This question goes beyond accuracy—it’s about whether you’re getting the right data at the right level of detail.

What You Should Do

  • Refine your data collection efforts. Ensure you collect precise, relevant data that aligns with your compliance needs. Broad, imprecise data won’t help you detect or prevent misconduct.

Communicating the Importance of Data Access to Senior Management

One of the most important takeaways from the 2024 ECCP update is that compliance officers now have a concrete basis to advocate for better data access. This is no longer about wish lists or best practices—it’s a regulatory expectation. Compliance officers must have honest conversations with senior management and the board about the company’s current data capabilities and where improvements are needed.

Companies often invest in technology when a problem arises, only to pull back once the issue is resolved. This cycle leaves compliance teams under-resourced and needing help to keep pace with evolving risks. The 2024 ECCP gives compliance officers the leverage to push for sustained investments in data access and analytics.

The DOJ’s 2024 update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs underscores the critical importance of data access and analytics for modern compliance programs. It is no longer enough to have policies in place; compliance officers need the right data at the right time and the tools to analyze it effectively. The questions posed by the DOJ should serve as a guide for structuring your data access strategy and ensuring that your compliance program is up to the task.

By taking proactive steps to improve data access and analytics, compliance professionals can meet regulatory expectations and build stronger, more resilient programs that can detect and prevent misconduct before it escalates into a serious issue.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: October 1, 2024 – The Not a Bribe in NYC 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 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.

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • Eric Adams files for dismissal of bribery allegations. (Bloomberg)
  • Atlas Metric secures funding to simplify ESG reporting. (TechEU)
  • Creating business ethics in Guatamala. (Atlantic Council)
  • Hearing on Boeing/DOJ guilty plea set. (Reuters)

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: September 30, 2024 – The My Law Firm 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 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.

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • Trump plans to make DOJ his personal law firm. (WSJ)
  • CA wants carbon accounting. (WSJ)
  • Tim Brown wants tougher cyber laws. (FT)
  • Elliot affiliate wins Citgo auction. (Reuters)

Categories
10 For 10

10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For The Week Ending September 28, 2024

Welcome to 10 For 10, the podcast that brings you the week’s Top 10 compliance stories in one podcast each week. Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings to you, the compliance professional, the compliance stories you need to be aware of to end your busy week. Sit back, and in 10 minutes, hear about the stories every compliance professional should be aware of from the prior week.

Every Saturday, 10 For 10 highlights the most important news, insights, and analysis for the compliance professional, all curated by the Voice of Compliance, Tom Fox. Get your weekly filling of compliance stories with 10 for 10, a podcast produced by the Compliance Podcast Network.

  • DOJ releases a 2024 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. (FCPA Compliance & Ethics Blog)
  • China probes PVH. (Reuters)
  • Wells Fargo must face Caremark claim. (Reuters)
  • Wagner Group used HSBC and JPMorgan for payments. (FT)
  • Caroline Ellison sentenced to 2 years in prison and forfeits $11bn (NYT)
  • How Binance found that old time ‘compliance’ religion. (WSJ)
  • New York City Mayor Adams indicted on bribery and corruption charges. (NYT)
  • SEC fines 12 more firms for failures in messaging apps. (SEC Press Release)
  • S. Iswaran was convicted for corruption in Singapore. (BBC)
  • Ex-CEO of Skael faces criminal fraud charges. (WSJ)

Connect with Tom 

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

Argentieri Speech and 2024 ECCP: Argentieri on Navigating AI Risks

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri’s speech highlighted a critical shift in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) approach to evaluating corporate compliance programs. As outlined in the updated 2024 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (2024 ECCP), the emphasis on data access signals a new era where compliance professionals are expected to wield data with the same rigor and sophistication as their business counterparts. This week, I am reviewing the speech and 2024 ECCP. Over the next couple of blog posts, I will look at the most significant addition, that around AI. Today, I will review Argentieri’s remarks to see what she has said. Tomorrow, I will dive deeply into the new areas in the 2024 ECCP around new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI).

In her remarks, Argentieri said, “First, … Our updated ECCP includes an evaluation of how companies assess and manage risk related to using new technology such as artificial intelligence in their business and compliance programs. Under the ECCP, prosecutors will consider the technology that a company and its employees use to conduct business, whether the company has conducted a risk assessment of using that technology, and whether the company has taken appropriate steps to mitigate any associated risk. For example, prosecutors will consider whether the company is vulnerable to criminal schemes enabled by new technology, such as false approvals and documentation generated by AI. If so, we will consider whether compliance controls and tools are in place to identify and mitigate those risks, such as tools to confirm the accuracy or reliability of data the business uses. We also want to know whether the company monitors and tests its technology to evaluate its functioning as intended and consistent with its code of conduct.”

Argentieri emphasizes the importance of managing risks associated with disruptive technologies like AI. These updates signal a clear directive for compliance professionals: you must take a proactive stance on AI risk management. You can take the following steps to align your compliance program with the DOJ’s latest expectations.

Conduct a Comprehensive Risk Assessment of AI Technologies

The first step in meeting the DOJ is to thoroughly assess the risks that AI and other disruptive technologies pose to your organization.

  • Identify AI Use Cases. Start by mapping out where AI is being used across your business operations. This could include everything from automated decision-making processes to AI-driven data analytics. Understanding the scope of AI use is essential for identifying potential risk areas.
  • Evaluate Vulnerabilities. Once you have a clear picture of how AI is utilized, conduct a detailed risk assessment. Look for vulnerabilities, such as the potential for AI to generate false approvals or fraudulent documentation. Consider scenarios where AI could be manipulated or fail to perform as expected, leading to compliance breaches or unethical outcomes.
  • Prioritize Risks. Not all risks are created equal. Prioritize them based on their potential impact on your business and the likelihood of occurrence. This prioritization will guide the allocation of resources and the development of mitigation strategies.

Implement Robust Compliance Controls and Tools

Once risks have been identified, the next step is to ensure that your compliance program includes strong controls and tools specifically designed to manage AI-related risks.

  • Develop AI-Specific Controls. Traditional compliance controls may not be sufficient to address AI’s unique challenges. Develop or adapt controls to monitor AI-generated outputs, ensuring accuracy and consistency with company policies. This might include cross-referencing AI decisions with manual checks or implementing algorithms that flag unusual patterns for further review.
  • Invest in AI-Compliance Tools. Specialized tools are available that can help compliance teams monitor AI systems and detect potential issues. Invest in these tools to enhance your ability to identify and mitigate AI-related risks. These tools should be capable of real-time monitoring and provide insights into the functioning of AI systems, including the accuracy and reliability of the data they generate.
  • Regular Testing and Validation. AI systems should not be a set-it-and-forget-it solution. Regularly test and validate your AI tools to ensure they function as intended. This should include stress testing under different scenarios to identify any weaknesses or biases in the system. The DOJ expects your company to implement AI and rigorously monitor its performance and alignment with your compliance objectives.

Monitor, Evaluate, and Adapt

AI technology and its associated risks constantly evolve, so your compliance program must be flexible and responsive.

  • Ongoing Monitoring. Continuously monitor AI systems’ performance to ensure they align with your company’s code of conduct and compliance requirements. This involves technical monitoring and assessing the ethical implications of AI decisions.
  • Adapt to New Risks. As AI technology advances, new risks will emerge. Stay informed about the latest developments in AI and disruptive technologies, and be ready to adapt your compliance program accordingly. This may involve updating risk assessments, enhancing controls, or revising your company’s overall approach to AI.
  • Engage with Technology Experts. Compliance professionals should work closely with IT and AI experts to stay ahead of potential risks. This collaboration is crucial for understanding the technical nuances of AI and ensuring that compliance strategies are technically sound and effectively implemented.

Ensure Alignment with the Company’s Code of Conduct

Finally, all AI initiatives must follow your code of conduct and ethical standards.

  • Training and Awareness. Ensure that all employees, particularly those involved in AI development and deployment, are trained on the ethical implications of AI and the company’s code of conduct. This training should cover the importance of transparency, fairness, and accountability in AI operations.
  • Ethical AI Use. Embed ethical considerations into the AI development process. This means complying with the law and striving to use AI to reflect your company’s values. The DOJ will be looking to see if your company is avoiding harm and proactively promoting ethical AI use.

Argentieri’s remarks underscore the importance of managing the risks associated with AI and other disruptive technologies. Compliance professionals must take a proactive approach by conducting thorough risk assessments, implementing robust controls, and continuously monitoring AI systems to ensure they align with regulatory requirements and the company’s ethical standards. By taking these initial steps, you can meet the DOJ’s expectations and leverage AI to enhance your compliance program and overall business integrity. Join us tomorrow to take a deep dive into the new language of the 2024 ECCP and explore how to implement it.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: September 26, 2024 – The Legal Limbo 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 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.

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • Menendez sentencing was delayed. (NewsWeek)
  • Ex-CEO of Skael faces criminal fraud charges. (WSJ)
  • S Iswaran convicted for corruption in Singapore. (BBC)
  • Roadmap of major DOJ anti-trust cases. (NYT)