Tag: Monaco Memo

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

Day 12 – Financial Incentives for Compliance

One of the areas that many companies have not paid as much attention to in their compliance programs is compensation and incentives. However, the DOJ and SEC have long made clear that they view monetary structure for compensation, rewarding those employees who do business in compliance with their employer’s compliance program, as one of the ways to reinforce the compliance program and the message of compliance.

This was made clear again in the Monaco Memo, which stated, “Corporations can help deter criminal activity if they reward compliant behavior and penalize individuals who engage in misconduct. Compensation systems that clearly and effectively impose financial penalties for misconduct can incentivize compliant conduct, deter risky behavior, and instill a corporate culture in which employees follow the law and avoid legal “gray areas.”

Moreover, the Monaco Memo tied compensation to a company’s culture of compliance. It stated, “Similarly, corporations can promote an ethical corporate culture by rewarding those executives and employees who promote compliance within the organization. Prosecutors should also consider whether a corporation’s compensation systems provide affirmative incentives for compliance-promoting behavior. Affirmative incentives include, for example, the use of compliance metrics and benchmarks in compensation calculations and the use of performance reviews that measure and reward compliance-promoting behavior, both to the employee and any subordinates whom they supervise. When effectively implemented, such provisions incentivize executives and employees to engage in and promote compliant behavior and emphasize the corporation’s commitment to its compliance programs and culture.”

Yet compensation incentives have long been key to any best practices compliance program. As far back as 2004, then SEC Director of Enforcement Stephen M. Cutler noted that integrity, ethics, and compliance needed to be part of promotion, compensation, and evaluation processes: “At the end of the day, the most effective way to communicate that “doing the right thing” is a priority, is to reward it.”

The 2020 FCPA Guidance, 2nd edition, stated the “DOJ and SEC recognize that positive incentives can also drive compliant behavior. These incentives can take many forms, such as personnel evaluations and promotions, rewards for improving and developing a company’s compliance program, and rewards for ethics and compliance leadership.” The Monaco Memo takes it a step further by asking more broadly has your company, “incentivized employee behavior as part of its efforts to create a culture of ethics and compliance within its organization.”

Three key takeaways:

  1. The DOJ and SEC have long advocated compensation as a way to motivate employees into ethical and compliant behaviors
  2. Keep the compliance aspects of your compensation structure simple and easy for your employees to understand
  3. Have full transparency in the framework of your compensation structure
Categories
Blog

Incentives in Compliance: Part 2 – Clawbacks

Just as the Department of Justice (DOJ) has long focused on financial incentives in a best practices compliance program, it has equally focused on punishing those officers and employees who fail to do business ethically and in compliance. The 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition, stated, “A compliance program should apply from the board room to the supply room—no one should be beyond its reach. DOJ and SEC will thus consider whether, when enforcing a compliance program, a company has appropriate and clear disciplinary procedures, whether those procedures are applied reliably and promptly, and whether they are commensurate with the violation. Many companies have found that publicizing disciplinary actions internally, where appropriate under local law, can have an important deterrent effect, demonstrating that unethical and unlawful actions have swift and sure consequences.”

The Monaco Memo drove this point home with the statement, “Corporations can best deter misconduct if they make clear that all individuals who engage in or contribute to criminal misconduct will be held personally accountable. In assessing a compliance program, prosecutors should consider whether the corporation’s compensation agreements, arrangements, and packages (the “compensation systems”) incorporate elements ­ such as compensation clawback provisions – that enable penalties to be levied against current or former employees, executives, or directors whose direct or supervisory actions or omissions contributed to criminal conduct. Since misconduct is often discovered after it has occurred, prosecutors should examine whether compensation systems are crafted in a way that allows for retroactive discipline, including through the use of clawback measures, partial escrowing of compensation, or equivalent arrangements.”

Prior to the Monaco Memo, clawbacks had not been generally seen as a necessary part of a compliance program. However now it is clearly mandated by the DOJ. Moreover, having such a penalty in place is also seen as a part of a good corporate culture which not only penalizes those who engage in unethical behavior in violation of a company’s policies and procedures but will “promote compliant behavior and emphasize the corporation’s commitment to its compliance programs and its culture.”

This will mandate the DOJ investigating whether a corporation has included clawback provisions in its compensation agreements and whether “following the corporation’s discovery of misconduct, a corporation has, to the extent possible, taken affirmative steps to execute on such agreements and clawback compensation previously paid to current or former executives whose actions or omissions resulted in, or contributed to, the criminal conduct at issue.”

The issue for many compliance professionals is where to look for guidance in how to construct such clawback provisions. Fortunately, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has provided guidance in another area that the compliance professional can look to for guidance. In a final rule, published in 2022 and entitled “Listing Standards for Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Compensation”, the SEC directed “the national securities exchanges and associations that list securities to establish listing standards that require each issuer to develop and implement a policy providing for the recovery, in the event of a required accounting restatement, of incentive-based compensation received by current or former executive officers where that compensation is based on the erroneously reported financial information.” While this final rule related to Both Big-R and little-r restatements, the final rule does provide guidance in the anti-corruption compliance area.

According to a client alert, entitled “SEC Issues Long-Awaited Rule on Clawback of Executive Compensation”,  by law firm Vinson & Elkins LLP, the final rule “requires companies to claw back incentive compensation erroneously received by current and former executives during the three-year period preceding the required restatement date.” An interesting caveat is that under this final rule, “the term “received” generally means that the applicable financial reporting measure connected to incentive compensation has been satisfied and such incentive compensation has been earned, even if such incentive compensation has not yet actually been paid.”

This means “an annual bonus award is deemed received in the fiscal year that the executive earns the award based on achievement of the underlying performance measure(s), even if the award is not actually paid until March of the following fiscal year.” Interestingly, the final rule “applies to incentive compensation received by executive officers on or after the effective date of the listing standards, incentive compensation granted prior to the effective date would still be subject to the Rule if it is not received prior to the effective date.” Finally, this means that the “recoverable amount (on a pre-tax basis) is the difference between the incentive-based compensation received by the executives and the amount that would have been received based on the required restatement.”

While the Monaco Memo directed, “to develop further guidance by the end of the year on how to reward corporations that develop and apply compensation clawback policies, including how to shift the burden of corporate financial penalties away from shareholders- who in many cases do not have a role in misconduct–onto those more directly responsible.” This clause is an effort by the DOJ to keep companies from shielding recalcitrant executives from the consequences of their own illegal and unethical conduct. Here compliance professionals can also draw assistance from the SEC final rule for guidance which bans companies from obtaining indemnity insurance to protect executives from clawbacks. The final rule stated, “The Commission proposed that listed issuers would be prohibited from indemnifying any executive officer or former executive officer against the loss of erroneously awarded compensation.” The reason is that if your clawback provision can be overcome by indemnification, it would “fundamentally undermine the purpose of the statute and effectively nullify the mandatory nature of the compensation recovery.”

Of course, all of this should be written down and reflected in the corporation’s compliance policies and procedures. The Monaco Memo stated, “a corporation’s policies and practices regarding compensation and determine whether they are followed in practice.” This is also consistent with the SEC final rule which said that a company should develop and implement a policy requiring recovery of erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation, stating, “in the event that the issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement, the issuer will recover from any of its current or former executive officers who received incentive-based compensation during the preceding three-year period based on the erroneous data, any such compensation in excess of what would have been paid under the accounting restatement.”

But the Monaco Memo made clear it is not simply having a written policy and procedure in place. There must be corporate action, if warranted, under the clawback policy and procedure. The DOJ will evaluate a company’s actions, “following the corporation’s discovery of misconduct, a corporation has, to the extent possible, taken affirmative steps to execute on such agreements and clawback compensation previously paid to current or former executives whose actions or omissions resulted in, or contributed to, the criminal conduct at issue.”

Categories
Blog

Incentives in Compliance: Part 1 – Financial Incentives

One of the areas that many companies have not paid as much attention to in their compliance programs is compensation and incentives. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have long made clear that they view monetary structure for compensation, rewarding those employees who do business in compliance with their employer’s compliance program, as one of the ways to reinforce the compliance program and the message of compliance.

This was made clear once again in the Monaco Memo which stated, “Corporations can help to deter criminal activity if they reward compliant behavior and penalize individuals who engage in misconduct. Compensation systems that clearly and effectively impose financial penalties for misconduct can incentivize compliant conduct, deter risky behavior, and instill a corporate culture in which employees follow the law and avoid legal “gray areas.””

Moreover, the Monaco Memo tied compensation to a company’s culture of compliance. It stated, “Similarly, corporations can promote an ethical corporate culture by rewarding those executives and employees who promote compliance within the organization. Prosecutors should therefore also consider whether a corporation’s compensation systems provide affirmative incentives for compliance-promoting behavior. Affirmative incentives include, for example, the use of compliance metrics and benchmarks in compensation calculations and the use of performance reviews that measure and reward compliance-promoting behavior, both as to the employee and any subordinates whom they supervise. When effectively implemented, such provisions incentivize executives and employees to engage in and promote compliant behavior and emphasize the corporation’s commitment to its compliance programs and its culture.”

Yet compensation incentives have long been seen as a key element of any best practices compliance program. As far back as 2004, then SEC Director of Enforcement Stephen M. Cutler noted that integrity, ethics and compliance needed to be part of promotion, compensation and evaluation processes: “At the end of the day, the most effective way to communicate that “doing the right thing” is a priority, is to reward it.”

The 2020 FCPA Guidance, 2nd edition, stated the “DOJ and SEC recognize that positive incentives can also drive compliant behavior. These incentives can take many forms such as personnel evaluations and promotions, rewards for improving and developing a company’s compliance program, and rewards for ethics and compliance leadership.” The Monaco Memo takes it a step further by asking more broadly has your company, “incentivized employee behavior as part of its efforts to create a culture of ethics and compliance within its organization.”

The 2020 Update, in the section entitled “Incentives and Disciplinary Measures”, provided some key questions for a company to ask about its incentive system:

Incentive System—Has the company considered the implications of its incentives and rewards on compliance? How does the company incentivize compliance and ethical behavior? Have there been specific examples of actions taken (e.g., promotions or awards denied) as a result of compliance and ethics considerations? Who determines the compensation, including bonuses, as well as discipline and promotion of compliance personnel?

The first question posed in the 2020 Update requires you to start with the basic question of what does your employee compensation consist of? Is it a straight salary? Is it variable? If so, what does the variable component consist of? Is it a discretionary bonus based upon the overall success of the entire business enterprise or some small subset, such as a business unit or geographic region? Is it solely personal? Or is it some combination of all of the above?

Under the second question, you need to demonstrate that you have thought through this issue. The DOJ does not mandate one solution or formula, only that it be well considered. And, of course, the approach you come up with must be documented. A good starting place is Marc Roberge’s 2015 Harvard Business Review (HBR) article, entitled “The Right Way to Use Compensation”, that discusses the design and redesign of an employee’s compensation system to help drive certain behaviors. The article’s subtitle, “To shift strategy, change how you pay your team”, echoed Cutler’s message from 2004. The article lays out a framework for a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner to operationalize compensation as a mechanism in a best practices compliance program.

As your compliance program matures and your strategy shifts, “it’s critical that the employees who bring in the revenue—the sales force—understand and behave in ways that support the new strategy. The sales compensation system can help ventures achieve that compliance.” The prescription for you as the compliance practitioner is to revise the incentive system to focus employees on the goals of your compliance program. This may mean that you need to change the incentives as the compliance programs matures; from installing the building blocks of compliance to integrating anti-corruption compliance within the DNA of your company.

There are three key questions you should ask yourself in modifying your compensation structure. First, is the change simple? Second, is the changed aligned with your company values? Third, is the effect on behavior immediate due to the change?

Simplicity. Keep the compensation plan simple when designing your program. The simplest way to incentivize employees is to create metrics that they readily understand and are achievable in the context of the compliance program.

Alignment. You need to state the most important compliance goal your entity needs to achieve. From there you should determine how your compensation program can be aligned with that goal. The beauty of this alignment is that it works with your sales force throughout the entire sales cycle, whether employee-based or through third parties such as agents, representatives, channel ops partners or distributors.

Immediacy. It is important that such structures be put in place “immediately” but in a way that incentivizes employees. As a part of immediacy, there must be sufficient communication with your employees. In the world of employee compensation incentives, there should be transparency as to the expectations.

Under the third question from the 2020 Update, you need to have documented examples where additional compensation or promotions were made to employees who did business ethically and in alignment with the corporate compliance program. The fourth question goes in a different direction by asking who in the organization is evaluating and then setting the compensation of the CCO and compliance personnel?

Obviously, the power of a compensation plan is to motivate employees to not only sell more but to act in ways that support your company’s business model and overall culture and values. For the compliance practitioner, one of the biggest reasons is to first change a company’s culture to make compliance more important, and then integrate it into the DNA of your organization. But you must be able to evolve in your thinking and professionalism to recognize the opportunities to change and then adapt your incentive program to make the doing of compliance part of your company’s everyday business process. The Monaco Memo makes it clear that the bottom line is the “use of financial incentives to align the interests of the C-suite with the interests of the compliance department can greatly amplify a corporation’s overall level of compliance.”

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

Day 1 – What 2022 Brought To Compliance Programs

Welcome to a special podcast series on the Compliance Podcast Network, 31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program. Over these 31 days series in January 2023, I will post a key part of a best practices compliance program daily. By the end of January, you will have enough information to create, design or enhancement a compliance program. Each podcast will be short, at 6-8 minutes, with three key takeaways you can implement at little or no cost to help update your compliance program. I hope you will plan to join each day in January for this exploration of best practices in compliance.

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 Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement policies on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (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.

 Three key takeaways:

1. Key FCPA cases in 2022 were Glencore, ABB, and Stericycle.

2. The Monaco Memo refocused the DOJ’s efforts on FCPA and other white-collar crime and put the heat on compliance programs.

3. The DOJ’s hiring of Matt Galvan will focus on the DOJ’s expertise in data analytics and their employment in compliance programs.

Categories
Blog

What 2022 Brought to Compliance

2022 was a very significant year for every compliance practitioner and compliance program. While there was a paucity of corporate FCPA enforcement actions, there were three enforcement 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 happens to a company which 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 can 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 Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement policies on the around Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (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 also additional commentary by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Marshall Miller, in a speech and a speech by Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite. Every compliance professional should all of them in detail as they significantly turn the heat up on corporate compliance programs.

The Monaco Memo is broken down into four main sections: I. Guidance on Individual Accountability; II. Guidance on Corporate Accountability; III. Independent Compliance Monitorships; and IV. Commitment to Transparency in Corporate Criminal Enforcement. The Monaco Memo is both further clarification and further guidance for line prosecutors when they are 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.

I see the Monaco Memo and the Miller and Polite Speeches as complimentary releases of information which drive home several key changes in DOJ enforcement. Perhaps changes are too strong, but they these announcements make clear the DOJ is dedicated to individual accountability and prosecution. Corporations will have to reorient their approach to investigations and sharing of information with the DOJ to this new mandate. Next the DOJ is strongly shifting the burden in the investigatory and negotiation phases to make clear the company must come forward with evidence to support lower fines and penalties and greater discounts, particularly in individual financial penalties and incentives, i.e., clawbacks. The Monaco Memo laid out not simply how to avoid a monitor but a program of proactive monitoring which can lead to the prevention of a crime before the FCPA is violation. 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. It was the DOJ hiring of Matt Galvan to help develop a 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 profession in the use of 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.

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

Scott Garland and Zach Hafer – Practice After the DOJ

Welcome to the award-winning FCPA Compliance Report, the most senior podcast in compliance. I have double trouble in this episode as I welcome Scott Garland and Zach Hafer. They worked together for many years at the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. Both are now in private practice, Garland as a Managing Director at Affiliated Monitors, Inc. and Hafer as a Partner at Cooley LLP in Boston.

Some of the highlights include:

In this podcast, we consider DOJ corporate enforcement through the mechanisms of DPAs and NPAs based upon Hafer’s tenure as the Criminal Chief. They discussed the need to balance approving prosecutions for general impact vs. based on the case’s merits. We also consider how, if at all, the Monaco Memo changes DOJ focus. Garland leads us through a discussion of compliance issues within a prosecutor’s office, why your compliance philosophy is so critical, and some of the biggest issues and situations they both confronted while in the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. We conclude this section with a discussion of receiving compliance advice: what worked and what did not.

We conclude with a discussion of transitioning from DOJ to private practice, and both Zach and Scott summarize some of the key questions they are getting from clients. Garland opines on key issues he sees for monitors after Monaco Memo, and we conclude with why proactive monitoring can be such a powerful tool.

 Resources

Scott Garland at Affiliated Monitors

Zach Hafer at  Cooley LLP

Categories
All Things Investigations

All Things Investigations: Episode 17 – Kevin Abikoff and Laura Perkins on the FCPA & Anti-Bribery Fall 2022 Alert

 

Welcome to the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption and Internal Investigations Practice Group’s Podcast, All Things Investigations. In this podcast, host Tom Fox and guests Laura Perkins and Kevin Abikoff of the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group highlight some of the key legal issues in white-collar investigations, locally and internationally.

 

 

Laura Perkins is a Hughes Hubbard partner whose practice focuses on representing clients in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and white-collar criminal investigations. She also advises clients on issues related to the FCPA, the federal securities laws, the False Claims Act, and other federal statutes. 

Kevin Abikoff is partner, deputy chair at Hughes Hubbard, and Chairman of the firm’s Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group. He specializes in securities and white-collar criminal litigation, enforcement, regulation, and counseling, emphasizing the representation of entities in anti-corruption (including FCPA) matters.

Key ideas we discuss in this podcast:

  • The DOJ’s recent discussions about requiring Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) certifications.
  • The Monaco Memo is a guidance document from the DOJ that sets expectations for prosecutors when investigating and prosecuting companies. 
  • How the Monaco Memo is taking a different approach to monitoring.
  • The Monaco Memo gives companies flexibility in how they approach compliance, demonstrating they take it seriously. 
  • The DOJ can now successfully prosecute internal controls in a criminal context.
  • Assessing the past year in FCPA.

 

Resources

Hughes Hubbard & Reed website 

FCPA & Bribery 2022 Fall Alert

Laura Perkins on LinkedIn

Kevin Abikoff on LinkedIn

 

Categories
GalloCast

Gallocast – Episode 5

Welcome to the GalloCast. You have heard of the Manningcast in football. Now we have the GalloCast in compliance. The two top brothers in compliance, Nick and Gio Gallo, come together for a free-form exploration of compliance topics. It is a great insight on compliance brought to you by the co-CEOs of Ethico. Fun, witty, and insightful with a dash of the two brothers throughout. It’s like listening to the Brothers Gallo talk compliance at the dinner table. Hosted by Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance.

Topics in this episode include:

  • FTX
  • Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced. End of an era in tech?
  • Compliance program incentives and clawbacks.
  • Assessing culture.
  • Monaco Memo

Resources

Nick Gallo on LinkedIn

Gio Gallo on LinkedIn

Ethico

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

Investigative Protocols After the Monaco Memo

In this episode, I take things in a different direction today as I post the recording of a webinar I recently put on for i-Sight Software Solutions. In this presentation, I detail what the Monaco Memo means your corporate investigative protocol.

Some of the highlights include:

·      What changes did the Monaco Memo portend for corporate investigative protocols?

·      What unintended consequence did the Russian invasion of Ukraine bring to the public view of whistleblowers?

·      Why is triage a key aspect of your investigative protocol?

·      Why should you create an investigative protocol long before an investigation becomes needed?

·      How do you create an investigative protocol to keep key decision makers in the loop?

 Resources

For a White Paper on these issues, click here.

Categories
Innovation in Compliance

Corporate Case Management in the Era of the DoJ’s Monaco Memo: Episode 5 – Data Drives Prevention

Welcome to a special podcast series, Corporate Case Management in the Era of the DoJ’s Monaco Memo, sponsored by i-Sight Software Solutions. Over this five-part podcast series, I visit with Jakub Ficner, Director of Partnership Development at i-SIght. This series considers how the Monaco Doctrine and Monaco Memo have impacted compliance in several key areas. In this concluding Part 5, we consider how data and data analytics are even more critical after the Monaco Memo and how using data can drive prevention and detection.

Highlights include:

  • How does ongoing monitoring lead to continuous improvement, and how does it relate to investigations?
  • How your investigative protocol can supplement ongoing monitoring.
  • How the outlays for your investigative process are a critical step going forward.
  •  Employing root cause analysis, corrective actions, and preventative action recommendations can provide valuable data from a holistic perspective.

For more information, check out i-Sight here.