Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds: The DOJ Whistleblower Incentive Program

The award winning, Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast which 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 recently announced Department of Justice (DOJ) Whistleblower Incentive Program.

Last week, the DOJ announced a whistleblower pilot program, offering monetary rewards to whistleblowers who report corporate misconduct. Whistleblowers can receive up to 30% of the net proceeds of a settlement resulting from their tip. The program covers various types of corporate crime, including bribery, healthcare fraud, and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations.

This program puts pressure on compliance programs to quickly investigate and address reported misconduct. It also raises questions about how whistleblowers will be rewarded in cases where there is a declination or non-prosecution agreement. The SEC case involving a whistleblower award highlights the importance of handling whistleblower reports effectively.

Key Highlights:

  • DOJ Announces Whistleblower Pilot Program
  • Covering Various Types of Corporate Misconduct
  • Tension Between Self-Reporting and Whistleblower Reporting
  • Recent SEC whistleblower award as a cautionary tale

Resources:

Matt in Radical Compliance 

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

DOJ Whistleblower Pilot Program: Transforming the Compliance Landscape

In a world where corporate integrity and accountability are more crucial than ever, the Department of Justice (DOJ) ‘s Whistleblower Pilot Program announcement marks a pivotal moment for compliance professionals. This initiative promises to reshape how we approach whistleblowing, corporate misconduct, and organizational culture. Let’s dive into the details and implications of this program, focusing on how it impacts compliance officers, whistleblowers, and corporate governance.

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said of the Whistleblower Pilot Program, “With this program, we’re doubling down on a proven strategy to ferret out criminal activity that might otherwise go unreported. Law enforcement has long offered rewards to coax tipsters to report crimes — from the “Wanted” posters of the Old West to the reforms in Dodd-Frank that created whistleblower programs at the SEC and the CFTC.” However, she cautioned, “those programs — by their very nature — are limited in scope. They only cover misconduct within those agencies’ jurisdictions. The same is true for similar programs run by the IRS and FinCEN. And qui tam actions, which offer whistleblowing incentives, are available only for fraud against the government.” The DOJ “corporate enforcement program is rooted in using carrots and sticks. Today’s announcement builds on our other efforts to incentivize reporting of corporate misconduct to the government.” Part of those carrots is to reward those “under these disclosure programs — both our corporate voluntary self-disclosure programs and the whistleblower initiative we’re announcing today — you have to tell us something we didn’t already know. With few exceptions, you must be first in the door.”

The Whistleblower Pilot Program incentivizes individuals to report corporate misconduct directly to the authorities. It offers financial rewards similar to existing programs at agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Under the Whistleblower Pilot Program, whistleblowers are now eligible for a financial award. The award may be up to 30% of the first $100 million in net proceeds forfeited and up to 5% of any net proceeds forfeited between $100 million and $500 million. This framework encourages individuals to come forward with information about corporate wrongdoing, particularly in areas such as the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

From the whistleblower’s perspective, the Whistleblower Pilot Program provides a powerful incentive to report misconduct. The promise of financial rewards and legal protections can motivate individuals who might otherwise fear retaliation or lack confidence in their employer’s internal reporting mechanisms. The program is designed to cover various types of corporate crime, ensuring that potential whistleblowers have a direct channel to report wrongdoing, even when internal channels might fail.

For compliance officers, the Whistleblower Pilot Program introduces new dynamics into the compliance landscape. On the one hand, it underscores the importance of robust internal compliance programs that can effectively handle whistleblower reports. On the other hand, it creates potential challenges, as employees might need help to bypass internal reporting mechanisms in favor of direct reporting to the DOJ, mainly when financial incentives are involved. The Whistleblower Pilot Program raises an interesting dilemma for compliance officers and corporate management: How do you maintain a solid internal reporting culture when employees have a lucrative alternative in external reporting?

The answer lies in strengthening internal reporting mechanisms and fostering a culture of trust and transparency. Companies must ensure that their whistleblower hotlines and reporting channels are accessible, confidential, and effective. Employees should feel confident that their reports will be taken seriously and addressed promptly without fear of retaliation. It also reiterates that investing in anti-retaliation training and policies is crucial. Employees must know that the organization values their input and that speaking up will have no negative consequences. Training managers and supervisors to handle reports sensitively and ensuring that whistleblowers receive feedback on the status of their reports can reinforce this trust.

With the potential for whistleblowers to report externally, companies must act quickly and decisively when handling internal reports. The Whistleblower Pilot Program highlights the need for efficient triage and investigation processes to swiftly assess and address misconduct allegations. This requires clear protocols and collaboration among compliance, legal, and HR departments to ensure timely resolutions.

The Whistleblower Pilot Program also addresses the tension between whistleblower reports and voluntary self-disclosure by companies. The DOJ has adjusted its policies to allow companies to receive credit for voluntary self-disclosure, even if a whistleblower has already reported the matter to the authorities. However, this requires that companies disclose the misconduct within 120 days of the internal report. This adjustment emphasizes the importance of timely action and reinforces the value of self-reporting as part of an effective compliance program.

The recent SEC whistleblower award case is a cautionary tale for companies navigating this new landscape. In this case, a whistleblower who reported misconduct internally was ignored, leading them to report the issue to the SEC. The company eventually self-disclosed but lacked cooperation, highlighting the risks of inadequate internal handling of whistleblower reports. This scenario underscores the need for companies to take internal reports seriously and proactively investigate and address issues before they escalate externally.

The Whistleblower Pilot Program reinforces organizations’ need for a robust speak-up culture. Compliance officers play a crucial role in fostering this culture by promoting open communication, ensuring that employees understand the importance of reporting misconduct, and providing them with the tools and support they need to do so safely.

Compliance officers must also engage senior management and the board of directors to ensure alignment on the importance of a strong compliance culture. This includes advocating for the necessary resources and support to maintain effective reporting mechanisms and demonstrating the value of proactive compliance efforts in mitigating risks and enhancing corporate reputation.

Compliance officers must continuously assess and improve their programs in this evolving landscape. This includes staying informed about regulatory developments, analyzing whistleblower reports to identify trends and areas for improvement, and adapting strategies to address emerging risks and challenges. The Whistleblower Pilot Program marks a significant step in promoting corporate accountability and transparency. It presents challenges and opportunities for compliance professionals to strengthen internal programs and foster a culture of integrity. By prioritizing trust, transparency, and effective reporting mechanisms, companies can successfully navigate this new era, ensuring they are well-prepared to address misconduct and protect their reputations. As compliance officers, embracing these changes and championing a culture of accountability will be key to thriving in this dynamic environment.

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

FCPA Compliance Report: The Boeing Plea Agreement – Culture is The Key

Welcome to the award-winning FCPA Compliance Report, the longest-running podcast in compliance. We take things in a different direction today as Tom Fox reposts the recent webinar with Sam Silverstein and Mike Volkov, where we took a deep dive into the Boeing Plea Agreement, the Monitorship, and why culture is the key to a Boeing turnaround.

We explore the recent plea agreement filed by Boeing, the outrage among victims’ families over the proposed penalties, and the appointment of an independent compliance monitor. Key issues discussed include the necessity of a culture overhaul at Boeing, the implications of excluding court jurisdiction over the monitorship, and the role of the board in fostering a culture of compliance and safety. The discussion highlights the critical need to focus on values, accountability, and transparent processes to rebuild trust and ensure long-term organizational integrity.

Highlights of this episode:

  • Details of the Plea Agreement
  • Compliance Monitor Appointment and Transparency
  • The Importance of Culture
  • The Role of Compliance Monitors
  • Board Involvement and Accountability
  • Victims’ Families and Organizational Accountability

Resources:

Sam Silverstein

Mike Volkov

The Culture Audit

Tom Fox

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

For more information on the Ethico ROI Calculator and a free White Paper on the ROI of Compliance, click here.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: August 5, 2024 – The Dept. of Misery 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:

  • HR: the Department of Misery? (NYT)
  • Income inequality and corruption .  (The Economic Times)
  • Can a corporate vote overturn a court decision? (FT)
  • DOJ announces whistleblower incentive program. (WSJ)

For more information on the Ethico ROI Calculator and a free White Paper on the ROI of Compliance, click here.

Categories
Blog

The Boeing Saga: Compliance, Accountability, and the Path Forward

When it comes to corporate accountability, few cases are as significant as the ongoing litigation involving Boeing. Since the 737 MAX safety scandal erupted in 2021, the company has been embroiled in a complex legal journey. In July, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a proposed Plea Agreement with Boeing in the District Court in Dallas, Texas, under Judge Reed O’Connor. This filing stems from the original Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) in 2021, and it underscores some critical issues that every compliance professional should be acutely aware of.

Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the airplane evaluation group. This plea involves Boeing paying a $243 million fine, predetermined in the 2021 DPA. However, the Plea Agreement does not conclude the matter; it introduces several critical facets that warrant detailed exploration.

A poignant and complex aspect of this case is the involvement of the families of victims from the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes. Under their statutory rights, these families participate in the proceedings and seek restitution for their profound losses. The court will determine whether any restitution should be awarded, a process fraught with emotional and legal challenges. The families argue that the proposed penalties are insufficient and that Boeing should explicitly acknowledge its responsibility for the tragic events.

Central to this plea agreement is the appointment of a Compliance Monitor tasked with overseeing Boeing’s adherence to compliance and safety protocols over the next three years. This monitor will be selected through a process involving the DOJ and Boeing, with a noteworthy exclusion: the district court will have no oversight of the monitor’s activities. This exclusion raises significant concerns about transparency and accountability, echoing past controversies in similar cases, such as the environmental crime case involving Carnival Cruise Lines.

The Compliance Monitor’s role in this case is unusually expansive. Beyond traditional compliance responsibilities—such as policies, procedures, internal controls, and training—the monitor will address anti-fraud measures, safety, and quality assurance/control (QA/QC) issues. This broader remit is essential, given the systemic failures at Boeing that contributed to the 737 MAX disasters.

The DOJ’s findings highlight disturbing lapses in Boeing’s safety and quality records. Employees reported feeling pressured to prioritize productivity and financial performance over safety and quality, a cultural flaw at the heart of the compliance breaches. This pressure led to out-of-sequence work, poor record-keeping, and inadequate safety audits, all indicative of a deeper systemic problem.

Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive culture-focused approach. The Compliance monitor must enforce existing standards and foster a culture of integrity and transparency within Boeing. This involves ensuring that employees can report concerns without fear of retaliation and that safety protocols are rigorously followed and documented.

The families of the crash victims are not mere bystanders in this process. They have voiced strong Objections to the Plea Agreement, particularly its perceived leniency and the lack of direct accountability for senior executives. They argue that the agreement implicitly exonerates those responsible for the safety lapses, a concern that resonates with many compliance professionals who advocate for robust accountability at all levels of an organization.

The district court’s exclusion from supervising the compliance monitor is unprecedented and troubling. In previous cases, judicial oversight has been crucial in ensuring that monitorships lead to genuine remediation. The current arrangement’s lack of transparency—where the monitor’s identity and activities are kept under seal—further exacerbates these concerns. Transparency is a cornerstone of effective compliance and accountability, and its absence could undermine the entire process.

For Boeing to restore its reputation and regain public trust, it must go beyond the minimum requirements of the plea agreement. This involves a commitment to comprehensive remediation, encompassing cultural change, structural reforms, and rigorous safety and compliance standards enforcement.

The Compliance Monitor’s broader remit is a step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by genuine transparency and accountability. This includes involving the victims’ families meaningfully through regular updates and consultations and ensuring their concerns are addressed substantively.

The Boeing case is a stark reminder of the critical importance of compliance, transparency, and accountability in the corporate world. It highlights the devastating consequences of systemic failures and the urgent need for robust oversight mechanisms. As compliance professionals, we must advocate for comprehensive and transparent processes that ensure compliance with legal standards and foster a culture of integrity and responsibility.

Ultimately, true remediation and accountability are in the best interests of all stakeholders—from the victims’ families seeking justice to the company itself, striving to rebuild its reputation and restore public trust. Boeing’s path forward is clear: It must commit to rigorous compliance, transparent practices, and a culture prioritizing safety and integrity above all else. Only then can it hope to move beyond the shadows of the 737 MAX scandal and emerge again as a leader in the aviation industry.

Categories
10 For 10

10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For The Week Ending August 3, 2024

Welcome to 10 For 10, the podcast which 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.

  • The EU investigates Chinese corruption in Cyprus. (FT)
  • US aviation company accused of bribery in South Africa. (Business Insider)
  • Glencore trader criminally charged by SFO for bribery. (FT)
  • Meta agrees to pay the state of Texas a $1.2 billion fine. (Texas Tribune)
  • FirstEnergy loses the privilege ruling. (Reuters)
  • Are corporate criminal convictions ‘just a footnote’?   (WSJ)
  • State Street agreed to a $7.5 million fine for Russia’s sanctions violations. (WSJ)
  • Mozambique wins the ‘hidden debt’ case. (Barron’s)
  • The top Trump bundler connected the FirstEnergy corruption scandal. (Ohio Capital Journal)
  • Raytheon (RTX) sets aside $959 million for pricing, corruption probe fine.   (Bloomberg)

For more information on the Ethico ROI Calculator and a free White Paper on the ROI of Compliance, click here.

You can check out the Daily Compliance News for four curated compliance and ethics related stories each day, here.

Connect with Tom:

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

The Boeing Monitorship: Memo to Attorney General Garland and Kelly Ortberg

To: Attorney General Merrick Garland and Boeing CEO Robert ‘Kelly’ Ortberg

From: Tom Fox

Re: The Boeing Monitorship

===============================================================

Gentlemen

I have written blog posts and articles about the proposed Plea Agreement negotiated between Boeing and the Department of Justice (DOJ). As the leaders of both organizations, I wanted to address you both directly.

To General Garland, this is the most important monitorship in the history of the DOJ.

To CEO, Ortberg-Boeing has to turn around its culture completely.

To both of you, business as usual will not suffice.

The DOJ must start with full transparency in the process, for sunshine in the light of day is always the best disinfectant. There must be full transparency in the selection process and the oversight of the Monitorship itself, with a party outside the DOJ and Boeing overseeing this process. In other words, it cannot simply be a process where the DOJ decides who will be the monitor, tells the court its selection, and then the DOJ goes off to oversee the process and, in three years, tells us whether Boeing has met the terms of the Monitorship.

First, completing the Plea Agreement by fulfilling the terms laid out must be a condition of the Probation, which the Court must approve. Second, this process must be overseen by the District Court. The Monitor should report to the Court or a court-appointed Special Master to determine whether Boeing has met the requirement to “create and foster a culture of ethics and compliance with the law in its day-to-day operations.” Both parties must realize that Boeing’s culture is broken and must be fixed. This is beyond policies and procedures and a best practices compliance program. This is fixing Boeing’s DNA.

The DOJ recognized that it is more than compliance at Boeing, which is broken; it starts with culture and moves to safety, QA/QC, and even down to record and document keeping. It is far beyond the current mandate of the Plea Agreement, which states that the Monitor should test “the effectiveness of the Company’s compliance program and internal controls, record-keeping, policies, and procedures as they relate to the Company’s current and ongoing compliance with U.S. fraud laws.”

At least this is a decent start, but there are so many other areas that Boeing, the DOJ, and the Monitor must fix. I urged the DOJ to ‘Think Big’ about this monitorship. It concerns not only fraud and record keeping but also culture, safety, QA/QC, compliance, Speak Up and Listen Up, Supply Chain, fraud, Export Control, Sanctions, and a wide variety of other areas not addressed in the Plea Agreement.

Put all of that responsibility on the Monitor but make sure the Monitor has the resources to oversee this work for all of the stakeholders involved: Boeing, its shareholders, the victims’ families, employees, third parties, the U.S. government, Boeing’s customers and the U.S. and global flying public. It all starts at the top of the organization. The Monitor must not simply assess the Board of Directors and senior management’s commitment to and effective implementation of the corporate compliance program “as necessary to address and reduce the risk of any recurrence of the Company’s misconduct”; both the Board and senior management must lead this effort by example.

Finally, the DOJ must get this right. Everyone knows the DOJ’s failures from the 2008 financial crisis to prosecute any bank meaningfully. The phrase ‘too big to fail’ has entered the Lexicon as a byword for corporate malfeasance that gets off with ZERO consequences. This matter is much more important than those banks. It concerns the U.S.’s flagship airline manufacturer and whether it can be turned around through government oversight. If the DOJ does not get this Monitorship right, it will demonstrate once and for a time the failure of this program as a tool to fix a broken business that violates the law multiple times.

But this is not all on the backs of the DOJ or the Monitor. Boeing has an equally key role in this Monitorship. That is why the role of the new CEO is so important. Kelly Ortberg must fully embrace this monitorship and all it will entail to the company as the last and best way to turn it around. He comes from but is outside the organization, so he is not tainted with the company’s prior cultural miasma. Further, he comes from a former supplier to Boeing, Rockwell International. This means he knows the business, and he knows Boeing.

His main focus will be to turn around the company’s manufacturing side and create a culture where employees have enough trust in their employer to raise their hands and speak up when they see something wrong. They also know that the company will not harass or terminate them for doing so. In short, he must set the correct cultural tone and go into the weeds to fix how the company builds planes.

This focus requires Ortberg to fully embrace the Monitorship and a Monitor selected with full transparency and oversight by the Court. Ortberg should welcome the opportunity to turn Boeing around literally with all the help he can garner, not do as his predecessors did with so much opaqueness, where they clearly did not accept their responsibility to fix the company’s broken culture.

Finally, Ortberg must reach out to the victims’ families of the two 737 MAX crashes and listen to their concerns. The victims’ families’ interests are aligned with Boeing on one key point: They do not want any family to go through what they had to go through. Ortberg’s meeting with and listening to the victims’ families can go a long way toward their healing.

Boeing is a key component in U.S. national security. Boeing provides advanced missile defense systems, including the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, which protects the United States from ballistic missile attacks. The company also offers solutions for tracking and monitoring space objects, which is vital for maintaining the safety and security of space operations. Boeing is also involved in the Internal Space Station (ISS), orbital test vehicles, and deep space exploration.

In short, no single institution is as important to the U.S. in manufacturing as Boeing. Nearly 200 million Americans who fly in Boeing planes depend on Boeing to get it right. The U.S. (and the world) economy needs the drive that Boeing provides. The U.S. national security depends on a well-functioning Boeing to lead the technological drive to protect the U.S. for the rest of the 21st century and beyond. Boeing needs to continue its work as one of the leading companies in space exploration. Lastly, and indeed not least, the families of the victims of the two 737 MAX crashes should receive some justice for all they have been through and then seeing Boeing not live up to its agreement in the original DPA or worse for there to be more failures under this Plea Agreement.

So one final plea to General Garland and CEO Ortberg-Get it Right This Time

Categories
Blog

The Boeing Plea Agreement – A Major Disconnect

In its proposed Plea Agreement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) lays out Boeing’s abject failures, which led the DOJ to conclude that the underlying Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) from 2021 has been breached. The DOJ stated

  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to “create and foster a culture of ethics and compliance with the law in its day-to-day operations”;
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to implement “compliance policies and procedures designed to reduce the prospect of violations of U.S. fraud laws and the Company’s compliance code”;
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to implement “compliance policies and procedures designed to reduce the prospect of violations of U.S. fraud laws and the Company’s compliance code”;
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to implement “compliance policies and procedures designed to reduce the prospect of violations of U.S. fraud laws and the Company’s compliance code” and
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to appropriately develop and adjust “compliance policies and procedures based on a periodic risk assessment addressing the individual circumstances of the Company” [citations omitted]

As the victims’ families noted in their Objections to the Plea Agreement, “The Government told the Court that the Justice Department was “best positioned to implement the DPA and evaluate Boeing’s compliance with these rigorous requirements. The Fraud Section has compliance experts who routinely evaluate compliance programs and oversee corporate monitorships and self-reporting.” And Boeing chimed in with a similar tale, recounting that “DOJ has been vigilant and thorough. They’re professional, they probe, and they make suggestions, and as you would imagine, Boeing accepts those suggestions. Boeing has been vigilant and thorough, too. We sincerely believe the system is working and that any further monitor or examiner, reporting, would be duplicative to DOJ oversight and counterproductive to the processes that are operative now.” [citations omitted]

There was a major disconnect between what Boeing agreed to in the DPA, meeting its obligations under the DPA, and the DOJ oversight. The DOJ and Boeing want the district court to approve the same process for a Compliance Monitor in this Plea Agreement. The Plea Agreement states

Probation Condition – Retention of Independent Compliance Monitor. A condition of probation shall be that the Defendant retain an Independent Compliance Monitor, as provided in Paragraph 7(j). However, the probation condition is limited to the retention of the Independent Compliance Monitor—not oversight of the Independent Compliance Monitor or the Company’s compliance with the Independent Compliance Monitor’s recommendations. Instead, the Independent Compliance Monitor will report to and be overseen by the Offices. The Independent Compliance Monitor’s selection process, mandate, duties, review, and certification as described in Paragraphs 29-37 and Attachment D, and the Defendant’s compliance obligations as described in Paragraphs 7(k), 8 and 9 and Attachment C, are not conditions of probation. [emphasis supplied]

This means Boeing agrees to retain a Compliance Monitor only under this Plea Agreement. The DOJ is asking the court to allow it to fully oversee the monitor selection process and the ongoing work of the Compliance Monitor, with no other involvement or oversight, just as the DOJ did under the original DPA, when, at least according to the DOJ, the original oversight was such an utter failure it leads to this guilty plea.

According to the Plea Agreement,  “the Independent Compliance Monitor will evaluate, in the manner set forth below, the effectiveness of the Company’s compliance program and internal controls, record-keeping, policies, and procedures as they relate to the Company’s current and ongoing compliance with U.S. fraud laws, particularly in connection with interactions with any domestic or foreign government agency, with a focus on the integration of its compliance program with its safety and quality programs as necessary to detect and deter violations of anti-fraud laws or policies, and take such reasonable steps as, in his or her view, may be necessary to fulfill the foregoing mandate (the “Mandate”). This mandate shall include an assessment of the Board of Directors and senior management’s commitment to, and effective implementation of, the corporate compliance program described in Attachment C of the Agreement as necessary to address and reduce the risk of any recurrence of the Company’s misconduct,”. Note that the Monitor will only ‘assess’ whether the Board and senior management are committed to such a program, not make it so.

What does this mean for the Monitor? This means that the Monitor will oversee Boeing’s integration of its ethics and compliance program with its safety and quality programs into a single system that treats safety and quality issues as defects in the corporate culture. This will occur while the Monitor oversees Boeing, creating and fostering a culture of ethics and compliance with the law in its day-to-day operations. Yet again, it will only happen with DOJ oversight of the entire process.

What is needed here is transparency. Unfortunately for the victims’ families and all other stakeholders in getting Boeing uprighted, this Plea Agreement does not bring the most effective disinfectant that can be brought to bear on corporate misconduct to the light of day.

Categories
FCPA Survival Guide

FCPA Survival Guide – Step 9 – Internal Controls

How can you survive an FCPA enforcement action? In this special podcast series, Tom Fox and Nick Gallo outline the Top 10 things you can do to reduce your overall fine and penalty, perhaps down to a complete declination. All of the actions you can take come from recent DOJ prosecutions under the FCPA and speeches from DOJ representatives. This podcast, sponsored by Ethico, is the companion series to the book The FCPA Survival Guide: Surviving and Thriving a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action. Today, we discuss lesson number nine: internal controls.

Tom and Nick delve into the importance of internal controls in compliance, emphasizing the pivotal role they play in business operations. After studying the COSO Framework, Tom shares his transformation into a firm believer in internal controls, underscoring that robust financial controls can cover a significant portion of compliance requirements. They discuss real-world examples, including SAP’s lack of payment process controls and ABB’s successful avoidance of a monitor through proactive measures. The episode highlights the necessity of continuous improvement and collaboration between legal, financial, and business units to ensure the effectiveness of internal controls and the appropriate handling of overrides. The session concludes with a nod to the upcoming episode on speak-up, triage, and internal investigation.

Key Highlights and Issues

  • The Importance of Internal Controls
  • Financial Controls and Compliance
  • Continuous Improvement in Internal Controls
  • Effective Collaboration and Overrides

Resources:

Nick Gallo on LinkedIn

Ethico

The FCPA Survival Guide: Surviving and Thriving a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

The Boeing Monitorship – Compliance, Accountability, and the Path Forward

Regarding corporate accountability and the often murky waters of compliance, few cases are as illustrative and significant as the ongoing litigation involving Boeing. Since the 737 MAX safety scandal erupted in 2021, the company has been embroiled in a complex legal journey. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed a proposed Plea Agreement with Boeing in the District Court in Dallas, Texas. This filing stems from the original Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) in 2021, and it underscores some critical issues that every compliance professional should be acutely aware of.

Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the airplane evaluation group. This plea involves Boeing paying a $243 million fine, predetermined in the 2021 DPA. However, the plea agreement does not conclude the matter; it introduces several critical facets that warrant detailed exploration.

Matt Kelly, who was over in Radical Compliance, also looked at the compliance spending requirement agreed to by Boeing. As laid out in the Plea Agreement, Boeing must “make a sustained monetary investment in its compliance and safety programs of at least $455,000,000, which, on an annualized basis, is an amount equal to at least approximately 75 percent more than the company’s expenditure on compliance in fiscal year 2024.

Now, let’s do some math. If Boeing is supposed to spend $455 million over its three-year probation period, that’s an average of $151.6 million per year.” But here is the bottom line. It “means the company was devoting 0.12 percent of total revenue to its compliance program.”

A poignant and complex aspect of this case is the involvement of the families of victims from the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes. Under their statutory rights, these families participate in the proceedings and seek restitution for their profound losses. The court will determine whether any restitution should be awarded, a process fraught with emotional and legal challenges. The families argue that the proposed penalties are insufficient and that Boeing should explicitly acknowledge its responsibility for the tragic events.

The families of the crash victims are not mere bystanders in this process. They have strongly objected to the plea agreement, particularly its perceived leniency and the lack of direct accountability for senior executives. They argue that the agreement implicitly exonerates those responsible for the safety lapses. This concern resonates with many compliance professionals who advocate for robust accountability at all levels of an organization.

Central to this plea agreement is the appointment of an independent compliance monitor tasked with overseeing Boeing’s adherence to compliance and safety protocols over the next three years. This monitor will be selected through a process involving the DOJ and Boeing, with a noteworthy exclusion: the district court will have no oversight of the monitor’s activities. This exclusion raises significant concerns about transparency and accountability, echoing past controversies in similar cases, such as the environmental crime case involving Carnival Cruise Lines.

The compliance monitor’s role in this case is unusually expansive. Beyond traditional compliance responsibilities—such as policies, procedures, internal controls, and training—the monitor will address anti-fraud measures, safety, and quality assurance/control (QA/QC) issues. This broader remit is essential, given the systemic failures at Boeing that contributed to the 737 MAX disasters.

The DOJ’s findings highlight disturbing lapses in Boeing’s safety and quality records. Employees reported feeling pressured to prioritize productivity and financial performance over safety and quality, a cultural flaw at the heart of the compliance breaches. This pressure led to out-of-sequence work, poor record-keeping, and inadequate safety audits, all indicative of a deeper systemic problem.

Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive approach. The compliance monitor must enforce existing standards and foster a culture of integrity and transparency within Boeing. This involves ensuring that employees can report concerns without fear of retaliation and that safety protocols are rigorously followed and documented.

The district court’s exclusion from supervising the compliance monitor is unprecedented and troubling. In previous cases, judicial oversight has been crucial in ensuring that monitorships lead to genuine remediation. The current arrangement’s lack of transparency—where the monitor’s identity and activities are kept under seal—further exacerbates these concerns. Transparency is a cornerstone of effective compliance and accountability, and its absence could undermine the entire process.

For Boeing to restore its reputation and regain public trust, it must go beyond the minimum requirements of the plea agreement. This involves a commitment to comprehensive remediation, encompassing cultural change, structural reforms, and rigorous safety and compliance standards enforcement.

The compliance monitor’s broader remit is a step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by genuine transparency and accountability. This includes involving the victims’ families meaningfully through regular updates and consultations and ensuring their concerns are addressed substantively.

The Boeing case is a stark reminder of the critical importance of compliance, transparency, and accountability in the corporate world. It highlights the devastating consequences of systemic failures and the urgent need for robust oversight mechanisms. As compliance professionals, we must advocate for comprehensive and transparent processes that ensure compliance with legal standards and foster a culture of integrity and responsibility.

Ultimately, true remediation and accountability are in the best interests of all stakeholders—from the victims’ families seeking justice to the company itself, striving to rebuild its reputation and restore public trust. Boeing’s path forward is clear: It must commit to rigorous compliance, transparent practices, and a culture prioritizing safety and integrity. Only then can it hope to move beyond the shadows of the 737 MAX scandal and emerge again as a leader in the aviation industry.