Tag: DOJ

Categories
Blog

Phillips FCPA Enforcement Action: Lessons Learned – Part 3

We conclude our exploration of the Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action involving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for Phillips actions in China and its Chinese subsidiary, Phillips China. As set out in the SEC Order, Philips was order to “pay disgorgement of $41,126,170, prejudgment interest of $6,047,633, and a civil monetary penalty of $15,000,000” for a total fine and penalty of $62 million. Yesterday we considered the bribery schemes employed by Phillips China. After having reviewed the facts and Order we look at some lessons learned.

Distributors Under the FCPA

This is the third recent FCPA enforcement action involving distributors, following Oracle and Microsoft. Along with those cases, Phillips drives home the message that distributors are a risk under the FCPA. Oracle got into FCPA hot water regarding distributor discounts and marketing reimbursement. Microsoft came to OFAC grief as it did not know to whom its distributors were doing business as some distributors were selling to sanctioned entities. While distributors may not seem to be as high a risk commissioned sales agents, they do present a risk, which must be assessed and then managed with ongoing monitoring and improvements as appropriate. None of these steps were apparent from this FCPA enforcement action or found in the Order.

As noted yesterday, Philips in 2013 had agreed to “enhanced an anti-corruption training program that includes a certification process and a variety of training applications to ensure broad-based reach and effectiveness.” Whatever this training was, it does not seem to have reached China. Effective training is about communications, engagement and demonstrable implementation of the training messaging going forward. Once again Philips China did not seem as if that communications about not engaging in bribery and corruption was taken into its business operations.

Recidivist Behavior Under 2023 Corporate Enforcement Policy

As noted yesterday, in a May 10, 2023 Press Release,  Phillips announced that “The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has closed its parallel inquiry into these matters” and the company intoned that it “fully cooperated with the SEC and DOJ.” Philips also reported that the FCPA matter had “previously been disclosed in Philips’ Annual Reports 2019 through 2022.”

There has been no statement by the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding Philips. Further there has been no declination regarding Philips publicly announced by the DOJ. Given the strong statement about recidivists by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco in announcing the Monaco Doctrine last September and the need for speed referenced by Kenneth Polite in announcing changes to the Corporate Enforcement Policy in January 2023; one might have expected some statement from the DOJ.

If the DOJ really wants companies to step forward and self-disclose, it would seem that Philips would be a good example to use. Apparently there was not self-disclosure, not extraordinary cooperation and no compliance with the 2013 SEC Order concluding the first Philips FCPA enforcement action. In other words, all the requirements for a company to obtain the significant credit under the 2023 Updated Corporate Enforcement Policy. If you add in Philip’s prior FCPA enforcement action into the mix, it would certainly appear that Phillips’ culture of compliance was lacking, at least along the lines of that aspect of the Monaco Doctrine.

Lessons Learned

With Phillips filing out the trio of recent distributor enforcement actions, it is clear that companies need to start paying more attention to the distributor sales model as a source of risk. Of course, robust due diligence screening is a must but it is only a starting point. Companies need to monitor the relationship after the contract is signed. The Philips FCPA enforcement action points toward the need for robust data analytics particularly around special price discounts with distributors creating excessive distributor margins which could be used to fund improper payments to employees of state-owned enterprises or governmental officials. A data analysis would quickly and efficiently show any special discount or discount beyond the standard range given to distributors. Moreover, regional discounts could be taken into account easily using the data analytics approach.

Additionally the maintenance of adequate books, records, and accounts concerning special price discounts to demonstrate that the discounts were supported by adequate documentation to ensure their business justification and management’s approval of them. This basic step also acts as a basic compliance internal control so that there can not only be oversight of the proposed distributors and any discounts but also creates a documented audit trail if a regulator ever comes knocking.

At this point there is perhaps some head-scratching about the final resolution, if any, regarding Philips given the state of the record as laid out by the Order. However it is clear there are significant lessons for the compliance professional from the Phillips enforcement action around distributors. I hope that at some point there is greater clarity under the 2023 Corporate Enforcement Policy update.

Categories
Blog

Phillips FCPA Enforcement Action: Violations, Remediation and Recidivism – Part 2

We continue our exploration of the Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action involving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for Phillips actions in China and its Chinese subsidiary, Phillips China. As set out in the SEC Order, Philips was order to “pay disgorgement of $41,126,170, prejudgment interest of $6,047,633, and a civil monetary penalty of $15,000,000” for a total fine and penalty of $62 million. Yesterday we considered the bribery schemes employed by Phillips China. Today we consider the responses made by Phillips which led to its internal investigation, Phillips remediation and the prior FCPA enforcement action.

A. The FCPA Violations

In the SEC Order, Phillips was not charged with the payment of bribes. Rather, Phillips was charged with a failure of internal controls. Under the FCPA, companies which are issuers are required “devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances.”

  1. Transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization;
  2. Transactions are recorded as necessary (I) to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, and (II) to maintain accountability for assets;
  3. Access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; and
  4. The recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences.

Philips violated the FCPA “failing to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls regarding distributor transactions and the use of these third parties.” Additionally, “Philips’ internal accounting controls were not sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that transactions were executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization and that access to assets was permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization.”

B. Cooperation and Remediation

Interestingly Phillips did not self-disclose this issue. Nor did Phillips appear to engage in any ‘extraordinary” cooperation. This cooperation was noted in the Order as “Philips undertook an internal investigation and regularly shared with Commission staff the facts developed in its inquiry, including facts previously unknown to the staff, and identified and voluntarily provided translations of key non-privileged documents.” I was particularly intrigued by the statement “facts previously unknown to the staff” which would seem to indicate there were some facts which were previously known to the SEC (and not by the way of a self-disclosure.)

Phillips did engage in remediation efforts which were recognized by the SEC. These included:

  • Phillips made structural improvements to its policies and procedures;
  • The company improved its tone at the top and the middle, with a focus on Philips China;
  • Phillips increased accountability for enforcing compliance policies by its business leaders;
  • The company highlighted compliance as a key component of ethical business practices;
  • Phillips terminated or disciplined Philips China employees involved in the conduct;
  • Phillips terminated business relationships with distributors involved in the conduct;
  • The company also improved its internal accounting controls relating to distributors;
  • Phillips improved its ability to monitor its subsidiaries bidding practices and their use of discounts and special pricing; and
  • Finally, Philips has revised its compliance training.

 C. Prior FCPA Enforcement Action

In 2013 (the year before these actions began) Phillips agreed to its first FCPA enforcement action, also involving the SEC (2013 Order). That matter related to the company’s action in Poland. According to the FCPA Blog, “from 1999 to 2007, in at least 30 bids, employees of Philips’ subsidiary in Poland ‘made improper payments to public officials of Polish healthcare facilities to increase the likelihood that public tenders for the sale of medical equipment would be awarded to Philips. The bribes and kickbacks were 3% to 8% of the contract amounts.” In that 2012 enforcement action, “Philips agreed to pay $4.5 million in the settlement, consisting of disgorgement of $3.1 million and prejudgment interest of $1.4 million.” Of course, Phillips also agreed to “cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of” the FCPA.

As for the remedial actions taken by Phillips for the 2013 Order it stated, “Philips also retained three law firms and two auditing firms to conduct the investigation and design remedial measures to address weaknesses in its internal controls. Included in changes to internal controls, Philips established strict due diligence procedures related to the retention of third parties, formalized and centralized its contract administration system and enhanced its contract review process, and established a broad-based verification process related to contract payments. In addition, Philips has made significant revisions to its Global Business Principles policies and continually revises the policies to keep them current and relevant. Philips also established and enhanced an anti-corruption training program that includes a certification process and a variety of training applications to ensure broad-based reach and effectiveness.”

Given that the Phillips China bribery scheme started in 2014 does it sound like Phillips took these obligations very seriously. I wonder just where those three law firms and two audit firms were looking when they conducted an investigation and designed “design remedial measures to address weaknesses in its internal controls.”  Finally I am not sure where the company’s “certification process” went after the 2013 Order, but apparently not as far as China.

All this means that Phillips is yet another FCPA recidivist. There was no statement in the 2023 Order that Phillips self-disclosed the illegal conduct in China to the SEC. Nevertheless, Phillips seemed to get the benefit of the doubt from the DOJ. In a May 10, 2023 Press Release,  Phillips announced that “The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has closed its parallel inquiry into these matters” and the company intoned that it “fully cooperated with the SEC and DOJ.” Phillips also reported that the FCPA matter had “previously been disclosed in Philips’ Annual Reports 2019 through 2022.”

There has been no statement by the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding Phillips. Further there has been no declination regarding Phillips publicly announced by the DOJ. Given the strong statement about recidivists by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco in announcing the Monaco Doctrine last September and the need for speed referenced by Kenneth Polite in announcing changes to the Corporate Enforcement Policy in January 2023; one might have expected some statement from the DOJ.

Or perhaps not. Tomorrow, we conclude with some final thoughts.

Categories
Compliance Week Conference Podcast

Billy Jacobson – A Fireside Chat with Glenn Leon

In this episode of the Compliance Week 2023 Speaker Preview Podcasts series, Billy discusses some of his fireside chats at Compliance Week 2023 with Glenn Leon, head of the Fraud Section at the DOJ, “Confronting Corporate Crime.”

Join Billy as he visits with Glenn Leon for a discussion focused on the priorities for the fraud section and what compliance professionals can expect in the coming year. Hear the DOJ’s perspective on evaluating corporate compliance programs, including implementing the DOJ’s new white-collar policies, such as violations of FCPA, and investigating complex schemes involving health care, securities, and procurement fraud.

I hope you can join me at Compliance Week 2023. This year’s event will be May 15-17 at the JW Marriott in Washington, DC. The line-up of this year’s event is simply first-rate, with some of the top ethics and compliance practitioners around.

Gain insights and make connections at the industry’s premier cross-industry national compliance event offering knowledge-packed, accredited sessions and take-home advice from the most influential leaders in the compliance community. Back for its 18th year, compliance, ethics, legal, and audit professionals will gather safely face-to-face to benchmark best practices and gain the latest tactics and strategies to enhance their compliance programs. And many others to:

  • Network with your peers, including C-suite executives, legal professionals, HR leaders, and ethics and compliance visionaries.
  • Hear from 75+ respected cross-industry practitioners who are CEOs, CCOs, regulators, federal officials, and practitioners to help inform and shape the strategic direction of your enterprise risk management program.
  • Hear directly from the two SEC Commissioners, gain insights into the agency’s enforcement areas, and walk away with guidance on remaining compliant within emerging areas such as ESG disclosure, third-party risk management, cybersecurity, cryptocurrency, and more.
  • Bring actionable takeaways from your program from various session types, including ESG, Human Trafficking, Board obligations, and many others, for you to listen, learn and share.
  • Compliance Week aims to arm you with information, strategy, and tactics to transform your organization and career by connecting ethics to business performance through process augmentation and data visualization.

I hope you can join me at the event. For information on the event, click here. Listeners of this podcast will receive a discount of $200 by using code TF200 on the link here.

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds: BAT Sanctions Enforcement Action

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 explore a subject and looking for some hard-hitting insights on sanctions compliance. Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds!

Tom Fox and Matt Kelly dive into the recent enforcement action against British American Tobacco (BAT) for violating North Korean sanctions. After years of evading sanctions and funneling over $630 million, regulators have imposed the maximum penalty. Join the podcast to understand the scheme enacted by BAT and the consequences of their actions. They also discuss the need for clarity around who is responsible for ensuring compliance with OFAC and the Justice Department for the next 5 years. With potential penalties looming, the consequences senior management could face, and the extent of compliance commitments expected of BAT, this is a case you want to take advantage of. Listen to Tom and Matt make sense of this perplexing case and what it means for companies in countries like North Korea.

Key Highlights:

·      Sanctions enforcement on British American Tobacco

·      The North Korean Scheme of British American Tobacco

·      British American Tobacco’s Sanctions Compliance Penalty and Requirements

·      Legal implications of BAT’s North Korea joint venture

Notable Quotes:

“I almost think we should just name this series, ‘the hits just keep on coming’ as  sanctions is the new FCPA.”

“This is a long-running, complicated scheme involving the highest levels of BAT knew this was going on to evade sanctions risks.”

“Short of Activision Blizzard, this case strikes me as 1 of the most egregious that we have seen in any form of trade control, export control, trade sanctions, FCPA, or other major corporate white collar.”

“They talk about how BAT and its subsidiaries knew full well that US sanctions said you can’t do business with North Korea; they were upset over how BAT publicly announced it.”

 Resources

Matt 

LinkedIn

Blog Post in Radical Compliance

Tom 

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

Executives at Risk Winter: 2022/2023

Welcome to the award-winning FCPA Compliance Report, the longest-running podcast in compliance. In the latest episode of the FCPA Compliance Report, host Tom Fox welcomes Katherine Pappas, Lauren Briggerman, and Ian Herbert, government experts and internal investigations at the Miller & Chevalier law firm. The group discusses changes to the Corporate Enforcement Policy and the challenges companies face with extraordinary cooperation and clawbacks. They also dive into the Biden administration’s antitrust policies, particularly in labor markets and the recent trend of the DOJ losing no-poach cases to juries. The conversation then shifts to the FTC’s proposed rule on non-compete agreements and recent FCPA individual prosecutions related to bribery allegations. Finally, the hosts discuss potential changes to the duty of oversight requirements for company directors and officers and potential changes to US sentencing guidelines. Take advantage of this informative and engaging episode!

 

Key Highlights:

  • Updates on DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy
  • Challenges and Failures in Antitrust Prosecutions
  • No-poach and non-compete agreements in the energy industry
  • FTC Rulemaking and Non-Compete Agreements
  • Cryptocurrency and High-Profile Nondisclosure Cases
  • Oversight and Sentencing Guidelines in Companies

Resources:

Miller & Chevalier

Executives At Risk Winter: 2022/2023

Lauren Briggerman

Katherine Pappas

Ian Herbert

 

Tom Fox

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
2 Gurus Talk Compliance

2 Gurus Talk Compliance – Episode 4

What happens when two top compliance commentators get together? They talk compliance, of course. Join Tom Fox and Kristy Grant-Hart in their podcast, 2 Gurus Talk Compliance, as they tackle topics on behavior economics, OFAC settlement lessons, the importance of the user experience in compliance policy creation, and more. They also discuss incorporating behavioral sciences into compliance strategies and the exciting changes in compliance consulting services. With their expertise, they share insights on how data, behavioral science, and innovative approaches can improve compliance programs, business processes, and profitability.

 

Listen as they provide valuable insights on understanding culture by starting a dialogue and the importance of finding someone to give a narrative to. Lastly, they discuss the challenge of bribery and corruption and the need for compliance professionals to be innovative, accept failures, and be comfortable with experimentation. Take advantage of this exciting and informative podcast episode from two renowned compliance experts, Tom Fox and Kristy Grant-Hart.

Highlights Include:

·      Evolution of Corporate Ethics and Compliance Programs

·      Microsoft OFAC Settlement

·      Irritating Emails

·      Behavioral Science in Compliance

·      Messaging Apps and Dept. of Business Denial

·      FTX and its (lack of) Internal Controls

 Notable Quotes

1.      “I don’t want to say the traditional tools are limited, but we’ve really evolved past them.”

2.     When they were specifically talking about the section on learning and training and talking about that frequently shorter in more bursts, more frequently where the learner gets to decide when and how they learn is really a lot not just with behavioral science, but also with adult learning theory.”

3.     “But again, 1 of the things that are so powerful about the enforcement act is that they tell us what we should be doing.”

4.     “Compliance professionals need to look at their sales models and see if they’re using distributors.”

Resources 

1.     Microsoft’s OFAC Settlement Underscores Important Remedial Measures

2.     FTX, Multimillion-Dollar Expenses Were Approved by Emoji

3.     Your Email Does Not Constitute My Emergency

4.     New DOJ policies about messaging apps and clawbacks threaten compliance departments’ standing

Connect with Kristy Grant-Hart on LinkedIn

Spark ComplianceConsulting

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Daily Compliance News

April 19, 2023 – The Clarence Thomas Corruption 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.

Stories Include:

  • Clarence Thomas and corruption at Supreme Court. (Politico)
  • Customers want less products made in China. (FT)
  • Cognizant Tech former execs challenge investigation. (Reuters)
  • SFO pushes on charging Glencore traders. (Bloomberg)
Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

Jon May On Defending Individuals in FCPA Cases

Welcome to the award-winning FCPA Compliance Report, the longest-running podcast in compliance. In this episode, Tom Fox interview well-known curmudgeon and iconoclast Jon May. May, who is not a compliance officer, talks about his approach to the topic, which has caught Tom’s attention. The conversation traverses May’s professional background, discussing Miami’s wild west environment in the 1980s and corruption within the police department. The podcast takes a deep dive into corporate strategy, DOJ’s enforcement policies, and the changes in whistleblower laws. The author provides an exclusive hotline number for listeners to call him and wraps up by describing where to purchase his book! Take advantage of this engaging podcast with the brilliant Jon May, hosted by Tom Fox.

Key Highlights:

· Negotiating with Government in Corporate Criminal Conduct

· Navigating US Sentencing Guidelines for Defense Lawyers

· Pleading Guilty and Self-Disclosure for White-Collar Crimes

· Changing view of whistleblowers and self-disclosure regulations

· Balancing Crime Fighting and Civil Liberties

 Notable Quotes

“It is the company’s recommendation that they obtain counsel before they are interviewed by the company or the company’s outside counsel.”

“I have, as you know, always been very critical of the government’s care and stick approach to convincing companies to self-disclose.”

“But showing the prosecutor that there’s a very different side requires a great deal of work.”

“You might not get 3 points. You might only get 2 points. But the amount of time you can save by litigating various aspects of sentencing could be years and years.”

Resources

Jon May

On Creative Criminal Defense Consultants

Who Says You Can’t: Strategy and Tactics for Becoming a More Creative Criminal Defense Lawyer

Tom Fox

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program for 3rd Parties-DOJ Metrics on Third Parties

In a 2015 speech before the SIFMA Compliance and Legal Society New York Regional Seminar, former Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell for the first time, laid out metrics the DOJ would consider in evaluating a corporate compliance program around third parties. Caldwell began with the following question, “Does the institution sensitize third parties like vendors, agents or consultants to the company’s expectation that its partners are also serious about compliance?” This inquiry was brought forward into the DOJ’s 2017 Evaluation and all subsequent updates, including the most recent.

 Three key takeaways:

1. It all starts with a Relationship Manager.

2. Have company oversight of all third parties.

3. Audit, monitor, and remediate on an ongoing basis.

Categories
Blog

2022-The Year in FCPA

2022 saw a relatively slow year in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions. Yet, as usual, the cases themselves were packed with much for the compliance professional to digest. Moreover, 2022 was a very significant year for every compliance practitioner and compliance program. My latest book, 2022 – The Year in FCPA – FCPA Enforcement Actions, DOJ Commentary and Key Lessons for Compliance from 2022 reviews the corporate FCPA enforcement actions from the past year and mine them for lessons which can be garnered by the compliance practitioner.

The cases themselves ranged in fine and penalty values from $1.1 billion (Glencore International A.G.) down to $6.3 million (KT Corporation). The Department of Justice (DOJ) FCPA prosecutions involved the following entities: Stericycle Inc. (Stericycle), with an overall fine of $84 million; Glencore, with an overall fine of $1.1 Billion; GOL Linhas Aéreas Inteligentes S.A. (GOL), with an overall fine of $41 million; ABB Ltd. (ABB) with an overall fine of $315 million and, concluding the year, Honeywell UOP, with an overall fine of $160 million. From the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) we saw enforcement actions involving the following entities: KT Corp, with a penalty of $6.3 million; Tenaris S.A., with a penalty of $78 million; Oracle Corporation (Oracle), with a penalty of $23 million, and Stericycle, GOL, ABB and Honeywell, with the fine amounts noted above. Finally, Glencore was also fined by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The total fines and penalties were $1.396 billion. Under the new monitorship policy, announced in October 2021 and put into practice through the Monaco Memo, there were two cases which  included appointments of Corporate Monitors (Glencore and Stericycle). From the DOJ there were two Declinations. The first involved the French entity Safran S.A. and included a $17 million disgorgement. The second involved the UK entity Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group Holdings Ltd. (JLT) and included a $29 million disgorgement. 2022 saw one individual FCPA trial involving former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Managing Director Roger Ng, who was convicted for criminally circumventing the firm’s internal controls. The Swedish telecom company Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Ericsson) had its monitorship extended for 1 year amidst ongoing investigation they breached the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and, finally, the Russian entity Mobile TeleSystems PJSC (MTS) also had its monitorship extended for 1 year.

In the realm of individuals prosecuted there were 24 individual criminal prosecutions and it appeared that individual criminal prosecutions continued at aggressive pace. With the formalization of the Monaco Memo, the DOJ will be targeting more individuals for prosecutions in 2023 so the pace of individual prosecutions will continue and probably increase. In 2022, the majority of the individual prosecution stemmed from prior FCPA actions involving a small number of companies; most notably Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), Vitol Inc., Odebrecht S.A. and Sargeant Marine Inc. It is significant that the DOJ has continued its use of anti-money laundering (AML) charges, which have a 20-year maximum sentence together with FCPA charges, which have a five-year maximum sentence.

However, 2022 was a very significant year for every compliance practitioner and compliance program. While there was a paucity of corporate FCPA enforcement actions, three actions were significant, with multiple lessons for the compliance professional. In ABB, we learned about the costs of a corrupt culture and recidivism. In Glencore, we saw what happens to a company that engages in worldwide systemic bribery and corruption. Finally, in Stericycle, the company had a culture of corruption burned into the DNA of the LATAM business unit, which was so thorough that it was documented via bribery spreadsheets and analysis of revenue based on payments of bribes in LATAM. Yet even with this corrupt culture, the Stericycle enforcement action demonstrated how a company could take advantage of the discounts available under the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy by extensive cooperation and remediation during the pendency of the FCPA investigation, as the company obtained a 25% reduction off the bottom of the applicable US Sentencing Guidelines fine range.

September saw the announcement of a significant refinement of DOJ enforcement policies on the FCPA enforcement and corporate compliance programs. It was encapsulated in the Monaco Memo and a speech by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announcing the Monaco Doctrine. There was additional commentary by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Marshall Miller in a speech and by Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite. Every compliance professional should know them in detail as they significantly turn the heat up on corporate compliance programs. The Monaco Memo is further clarification and guidance for line prosecutors when considering whether to put a monitor in place. While we have seen these factors in a disparate manner, in disparate places, here they are in writing. Perhaps the greatest significance is that the Memo sets down all these matters in writing, which leads to a blueprint for DOJ thinking and a roadmap for anyone who finds themselves in an FCPA investigation or enforcement action. Finally, the Monaco Memo cemented the new DOJ requirement for CCO certification of compliance programs at the end of a resolution.

The final key event for compliance in 2022 was very much under the radar. The DOJ hired Matt Galvan to help develop data analytics expertise and capability for the FCPA Unit and the Fraud Section. Galvan was most recently the CCO at AB InBev and perhaps the top compliance professional in data analytics for a corporate compliance program. It will be most interesting to see where Galvan and the DOJ take this initiative, but it does portend the increasing use of data analytics in FCPA enforcement and compliance.

What did the year 2022 in FCPA mean for you. Check out 2022-The Year in FCPA now available on Amazon.com.