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 we are following in today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:
Polycom came to FCPA grief in China, as have many other US companies. The bribery scheme was long running, occurring from 2006-2014. They included the creation of an off-the books accounting and recordation system for corrupt payments made by or on behalf of Polycom China. The money to fund these bribes came through variations of the basic bribery scheme. There would be a discount between the price reported to Polycom and that paid by the buyer. These discounts were not passed on to the end customer, but instead were intended to cover the cost of the payments the distributors made to the Chinese government officials.
In other words, this discount would form the basis of the pot of money to pay the bribe.
The Chinese business unit was equally creative with the reasons for the discounts, which were listed in the CRM. Polycom China usually cited competition with one or more vendors was required to give discounts on pricing. They also claimed that some end-using customers refused to pay full price. However these were all false excuses entered into the CRM to hide the truth from auditors and others charged with reviewing and approving the discounts.
Three Key Takeaways
There remains a question about franchisor liability under the FCPA. Franchising has been a successful model in the U.S. and now many corporations are looking at overseas expansion opportunities. Franchise law has become well developed across the U.S., with many states developing laws to protect the rights and obligations of both parties in a franchise agreement.
There are no reported FCPA enforcement actions regarding franchisors. However, the factors in a franchise relationship would appear to lead to clear FCPA responsibility of the franchisor for its overseas franchisee’s actions. Additionally, court interpretation of the FCPA has held that it is applicable where conduct is used “to obtain or retain business or secure an improper business advantage” which can cover almost any kind of advantage, including indirect monetary advantage even as nebulous as reputational advantage. As everyone knows, the FCPA prohibits payments to foreign officials to obtain or retain business or secure an improper business advantage. Nevertheless, many U.S. companies view franchisees as different from other types of more direct sales representatives, such as company sales representatives, agents, resellers or even JV partners, for the purposes of FCPA liability.
The Master Franchise model is typically the most used model in international franchise expansion. It generally revolves around a Master Franchise agreement between the U.S. based franchisor and a franchisee in a specific geographic territory. This franchisee then contracts with third-party sub-franchisees within the specified territory. Typically, the U.S.-based franchisor will have no contractual relationship with the international sub-franchisees. The master franchisee acts as the franchisor in the local market and recruits, trains, and provides other support in the local area on behalf of the U.S. franchisor. Here the FCPA exposure is both direct and indirect.
While some believe that a franchisor may not have direct involvement in conduct prohibited by the FCPA, as there may not be the requisite corrupt intent required under the statute. However, unless a franchisor has an adequate compliance program in place, a franchisor may well find itself in the shoes of Frederic Bourke and sustain a finding of conscious indifference.
Three key takeaways:
Welcome to a special 5-part podcast series sponsored by Diligent. Over this series, we will consider a risk-based approach to third-party risk management. Over this series, I will visit with Michael Parker, the Director of Advisory and Consulting Services; Stephanie Font, Director of the Optimizations Group; Kairi Isse, Managed Services Group Manager; Adam Bailey, Senior Vice President, Product Management and Alexander Cotoia, Associate at the Volkov Law Group. In this Part 5, I visit with Alexander Cotoia, a Regulatory and Compliance Manager at the Volkov Law Group, to consider how recent FCPA enforcement actions point toward the use cases for a robust third-party risk management system.
In 2022, the overwhelming majority of FCPA-related enforcement actions involved third parties and required organizations to reprioritize third-party risk management. In this episode, we consider case studies involving ABB Limited, GOL Airlines, and Oracle, which all demonstrated the importance of understanding bribery and corruption schemes, making voluntary disclosures, and reassessing third-party risk management.
Key Highlights
· How can organizations reprioritize third-party risk management as a core compliance function?
· What strategies can organizations use to avoid FCPA violations and maximize cooperation credit?
· How can organizations effectively assess the risks posed by potential business partners?
Notable Quotes
1. “Don’t put yourself in a position of being uncooperative with either the SEC or DOJ. Reassess your framework for third-party risk management holistically and hone in on the nature and quality of the information that’s being collected to objectively evaluate the totality of risks posed by a potential business partner to the organization.”
2. “You really can’t afford to be complacent, especially as we have a new emerging consideration suspecting sanctions and export controls that have become core enforcement priorities of the federal government.”
3. “The critical question asked from a functional perspective is, is it adequate to objectively evaluate the totality of risks posed by a potential business partner to the organization?”
4. “You have to understand that third-party risk, especially as it pertains to anti-bribery and corruption concerns, is a universal constant.”
Resources
Alexander Cotoia on LinkedIn
Check out Diligent’s 3rd party products and services here.
From the Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions in 2022, one clear theme emerges; that is, organizations must reprioritize their third-party risk management programs. Many companies are becoming complacent in this arena, not realizing the potential consequences of not properly assessing their third-party risk management practices. I recently had the opportunity to visit with Alexander Cotoia of the Volkov Law Group to discuss importance of reprioritizing third-party risk management and how organizations can assess the effectiveness of their current practices. We review three 2022 FCPA enforcement actions to explore the importance of proper third-party risk management and how to avoid the potential consequences of not properly assessing these risks. Join us as we explore the details and implications of these enforcement actions and how organizations can reprioritize their compliance programs for the ever-changing dynamics of third-party risk management.
Here are the steps you need to follow to reprioritize your third-party risk management program.:
Understanding that third party risk, especially as it pertains to anti-bribery and corruption, is a universal constant is an important step in the risk management process. As evidenced by three key enforcement actions, ABB Limited, Oracle and GOL Airlines, organizations must evaluate the risks posed by potential business partners and ensure that the information collected is adequate to objectively assess the totality of the risks. Organizations should be aware that the DOJ requires companies to adopt a risk-based approach to third party risk management. To ensure that the organization is compliant with these regulations, they should review their existing practices and be prepared to supplement them if necessary. Additionally, organizations should be aware that they may be given credit for voluntary disclosure and cooperation efforts when faced with potential violations. This may be beneficial when determining penalties and is an important factor to consider when dealing with third party risk.
Reassessing the framework by which third parties are evaluated and objectively evaluating the totality of risks posed by a potential business partner to the organization is a critical step in reprioritizing your third-party risk management strategy. This should be approached holistically, focusing on the information being collected and its adequacy in objectively evaluating risks. Organizations should adopt a risk-based approach, as recommended by the DOJ, and not simply have a one size fits all approach. This approach should include due diligence, assessing the potential partner’s reputation and business practices, verifying their legitimacy and background, and understanding their country of origin and its laws. Additionally, organizations should consider the potential partner’s relationship with government officials and whether it could violate any anti-bribery or corruption laws. If any of these issues are identified, organizations should look into it further to ensure that their partner is compliant. By doing this, organizations can ensure that they are not engaging in any activities that could be deemed illegal or unethical.
Implementing a risk-based approach to third party risk management is essential to any organization’s compliance program. This involves assessing the external parties on which an organization relies operationally, and identifying any risks associated with those external parties. This assessment should include evaluating their qualifications and experience to ensure they are able to meet the organization’s expectations. Additionally, organizations should consider conducting background checks on potential external parties, and assessing any potential conflicts of interest that may arise. Once potential external parties have been identified, organizations should consider conducting due diligence to ensure that the external party has not been involved in any fraud, bribery, or other criminal activities. Organizations should also consider developing contracts and compliance policies for external parties and monitoring their activities to ensure compliance. Finally, organizations should consider developing a training program for their external parties to ensure they understand the organization’s expectations and policies. By implementing a risk-based approach to third party risk management, organizations can reduce the risk of an FCPA violation and ensure their organization remains compliant.
Third-party risk management one of the most critical components of any organization’s compliance program. Organizations should take the initiative to reprioritize third-party risk management and assess the effectiveness of their current practices. Through the exploration of three enforcement actions and the introduction of the joint compliance note, this article has highlighted the importance of properly assessing third-party risk and how to best prepare for the ever-changing dynamics of third-party risk management. By implementing a risk-based approach to third party risk management, organizations can protect themselves from potential violations of the FCPA and ensure their organization remains compliant. With the right tools, processes, and dedication you can achieve the same results and protect your organization from costly fines and penalties.
For more information, on Diligent’s Third-party Risk Management solution, click here.
Listen to Alexander Cotoia on the podcast series, sponsored by Diligent here.
Check out the Volkov Law Group here.
Do FCPA considerations come into play for customers? How should you think about your obligations under the FCPA for a group not traditionally associated with FCPA liability or even FCPA risk? These questions and perhaps others are raised by the FCPA investigation into certain transactions in Venezuela by Derwick Associates (Derwick) and a U.S. company ProEnergy Services (ProEnergy). ProEnergy supplied turbines that Derwick resold to the Venezuelan government and then installed in that country. This investigation demonstrates why businesses need to be more concerned with not only who they do business with but how their customers might be doing business. In banking and financial services parlance, you now need to ramp up your organization’s Know Your Customer (KYC) information to continue throughout a seller-purchaser relationship, in the context of the FCPA.
There does not have to be a direct bribe or other corrupt payment made by a U.S. company to have liability under the FCPA. FCPA enforcement is littered with companies that have paid bribes through third-parties. However, as the Fifth Circuit said in US v. Kay, “[W]e hold that Congress intended for the FCPA to apply broadly to payments intended to assist the payor, either directly or indirectly,” [emphasis mine]. While at first blush, ProEnergy may appear to be at the edge of potential FCPA liability; if it knew, had reason to know, or should have taken steps to know about some nefarious conduct by its customer, it does not take too many steps to get to some FCPA exposure. The FinCEN rules on customer due diligence for financial institutions are a good starting point for other commercial entities to base their compliance program for customers around.
Three key takeaways:
I want to emphasize again the risks JVs pose under the FCPA. Mike Volkov has stated, “A joint venture requires the integration of disparate company cultures. It can be successful and is usually one of the significant reason for the joint venture itself.” Both parties should assess each other and decide that the JV is a good fit, meaning that each side will benefit. Too much time is spent on looking at the JV partner’s compliance toolbox (i.e., policies, procedures, and controls), and not enough time is spent on identifying compliance strengths and weaknesses. You must bring it all together with one format.
Indeed the 2020 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs posed the following questions under the category, “Process Connecting Due Diligence to Implementation” What has been the company’s process for tracking and remediating misconduct or misconduct risks identified during the due diligence process? What has been the company’s process for implementing compliance policies and procedures, and conducting post- acquisition audits, at newly acquired entities? Remember a “newly acquired entity” can be a joint venture.
Three key takeaways:
Why should a company engage in pre-acquisition due diligence in the M&A context? In this episode, I am joined by Affiliated Monitors founder Vin DiCianni to explore the business reasons for engaging in what may be seen as a compliance exercise.
Financial, legal, or reputational risk can have a significant impact the valuation or a transaction or its desirability. Factors such as current or historical bribery/corruption discovered at any point in the acquiring company provide the compliance practitioner with strong ammunition when confronted with a management that fails to understand the need for a robust due diligence in a M&A transaction. By not focusing on the regulatory aspects of M&A transactions, but more on the market reasons for engaging in the appropriate due diligence, you can emphasize the business reasons for compliance.
Three key takeaways:
A company that does not perform adequate due diligence before a merger or acquisition may face legal and business risks. Perhaps most commonly, inadequate due diligence can allow a course of bribery to continue – with all the attendant harms to a business’s profitability and reputation and potential civil and criminal liability. While most compliance practitioners have been long aware of the requirement in the post-acquisition context, the FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition, focused many compliance practitioners on the need to engage in robust pre-acquisition due diligence.
The 2020 Update made the need for a robust compliance presence in the pre-acquisition phase even more apparent. It stated, “A well-designed compliance program should include comprehensive due diligence of any acquisition targets, as well as a process for timely and orderly integration of the acquired entity into existing compliance program structures and internal controls. Pre-M&A due diligence, where possible, enables the acquiring company to evaluate each target’s value and negotiate for the costs of any corruption or misconduct to be borne by the target. Flawed or incomplete pre- or post-acquisition due diligence and integration can allow misconduct to continue at the target company, causing harm to a business’s profitability and reputation and risking civil and criminal liability.”
Multiple red flags could be raised in this process, which might warrant further investigation. They include if the target has ineffective compliance program elements in their compliance program or if there were frequent breaches of policies and procedures. A target that is in financial difficulty would bear closer scrutiny. Structurally, this could present issues if the company did not have a formal ethics and compliance committee at the senior management or Board of Directors’ level. From the CCO perspective, if the position did not have Board or CEO access or had no regular reports, it could present an issue for compliance. Conversely, if there were frequent requests to waive policies, management override of compliance controls, or no consistent consequence management for violations, it could present clear red flags for further investigation.
Three key takeaways:
JVs provide many FCPA risks that other types of business relationships do not bring. For instance, the JV may interact with foreign government officials or employees of a state-owned enterprise; then leverage those relationships for an improper benefit relating to contracts, regulatory licenses, permits or customs approvals. It is difficult to regulate a JVs interaction with foreign government officials when your partner is a state-owned enterprise, or where your company is relying on the local company for its local contacts and expertise for business development and/or regulatory knowledge and experience.
The risks are compounded when the U.S. company does not exercise control of the JV. This is further compounded by the fact there is no minimum threshold for a FCPA enforcement action against a U.S. company for the actions of a JV in which it holds an interest. If a company holds something less than majority rights, it must to urge, beg and plead for the majority partner to adhere to anti-corruption compliance standards and controls. Often, these requirements are established in the JV agreement but the success in securing such contract protections depends on the importance of the global company to the JV itself.
Another set of issues comes from the JV when it seeks to retain third-party agents and/or distributors. Depending on the amount of control, the U.S. company usually can impose its set of standards for conducting due diligence of third-party agents and distributors. These risks become more difficult when the JV partner brings a proposed third-party agent or distributor and vouches for the agent or distributor. If the JV partner is a state-owned enterprise, the issues become even more complicated as such a referral creates an obvious red flag for a government-sponsored referral.
Three key takeaways:
