Tag: monitors

Categories
Everything Compliance

Episode 101, the Glencore Edition


Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance as we celebrate our second century of shows. In 2021, Everything Compliance was honored by W3 as a top talk show in podcasting. In this episode, we have the quintet of Jonathan Marks, Karen Woody, Jonathan Armstrong, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly. In this episode, we take up the Glencore FCPA settlement. We conclude with our fan favorite Shout Outs and Rants.

1. Karen Woody takes a deep dive into the history of Glencore, from its founding by Marc Rich in the 1980s through the allegations of bribery, corruption and market manipulation which led to the FCPA and CFTC settlements.  Woody shouts out the US National and state parks systems which provide much needed green spaces for Americans.

2. Matt Kelly takes a deep dive into CCO certification issue and what it might mean for individual CCO criminal liability going forward.  Kelly has a dual shout out and rant. He shouts out to the Boston Celtics for having the greatest NBA Finals-Game 1 comeback to win the game. He rants about the DOJ failing to post the speech by AAG Kenneth Polite where he announced the new requirement for CCO certification.

3. Jonathan Marks explores the role of internal audit in contributing to the compliance failures and what IA can do to facilitate a culture change at the company. Marks also has a dual shout out and rant. He shouts out to the Philadelphia Phillies for firing manager Joe Girardi and rants about Glencore’s Press Release about their updated compliance which he rants “says nothing”.

4. Tom Fox considers the dual monitor aspect of the resolution and the requirements of the monitorships. Fox reads out the names of the students and teachers who were killed in the recent massacre in Uvalde,  TX.

5. Jonathan Armstrong explores the settlement from the UK perspective and considers, what if any charges against individuals that the UK-Serious Fraud Office might bring. Armstrong shouts out to the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee and Sir Andy Murray for speaking out against the murder of school children. Murray is a survivor of a similar event in Scotland.

The members of the Everything Compliance are:
•       Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
•       Karen Woody – One of the top academic experts on the SEC. Woody can be reached at kwoody@wlu.edu
•       Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com
•       Jonathan Armstrong –is our UK colleague, who is an experienced data privacy/data protection lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at jonathan.armstrong@corderycompliance.com
•       Jonathan Marks is Partner, Firm Practice Leader – Global Forensic, Compliance & Integrity Services at Baker Tilly. Marks can be reached at jonathan.marks@bakertilly.com

The host and producer, ranter (and sometime panelist) of Everything Compliance is Tom Fox the Voice of Compliance. He can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com. Everything Compliance is a part of the Compliance Podcast Network.

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

James Koukios on the Monaco Speech

In this episode of the FCPA Compliance Report, I am joined by fan favorite James Koukios, partner at Morrison and Foerster. In this episode we take a deep dive into the Lisa Monaco speech from October and related remarks from other DOJ representatives about the DOJ refocus on white collar enforcement and related issues. Highlights of this podcast include:

·       Who is the DAG and what does that position entail?

·       Reinstatement of Yates Memo.

·       Does this change an investigation focus?

·       The new focus on culture and how do you assess corporate culture?

·       What about reports of all violations, enforcements and even investigations even is outside FCPA?

·       What are the implications of this change?

·       How will all this work with current FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy?

·       The revocation of Benczkowski Memo. What are the implications?

·       The new focus on monitorships?

·       What about recidivists or those who fail to meet the obligations of their DPA/NPA?

Resources

James Koukios on the MoFo website.

Categories
Everything Compliance

Episode 93, the Activision Blizzard Edition


Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance. The entire gang was also thrilled to be honored by W3 as a top talk show in podcasting. In this episode, we have the quintet of Karen Woody, Jonathan Armstrong, Tom Fox, Matt Kelly and Jay Rosen. We discuss some of the key issues from the Activision Blizzard acquisition by Microsoft in the context of the BeeGees.  We also have a special tribute section to Meatloaf as well as Shout Outs and Rants.

1. Karen Woody used Staying Alive to look at the SEC angle on the acquisition. Karen shouts out to workers in the travel industry for getting travelers home during the holidays.  Woody paid tribute to Meatloaf’s acting career, the Rocky Horror movie and the song Hot Potootie Bless My Soul which her father still loves and is played annually at his birthday.

2. Jay Rosen reviewed To Love Somebody in asking what role can a monitor play in this matter? Rosen ranted about longtime Boston sportswriter Dan Shaughnessy who voted against David Ortiz for the HOF and shouted out to Big Papi’s response. Jay paid tribute to You Took the Words Right Out of My Mouth, Meatloaf’s acting and SNL performances.

3. Matt Kelly considered Massachusetts to consider the anti-trust angles and whether Microsoft can turn the corruption culture at Activision around. Kelly laments the missing child Heather Montgomery and all the officials who did not take her mother’s report of her disappearance seriously.  Matt paid tribute to those listeners who are too young to remember Meatloaf.

4. Jonathan Armstrong used How Can You Mend a Broken Heart to look at EU and UK anti-trust issues as well as data privacy concerns under GDPR. Armstrong shouts out artist Tracy Emin for demanding No. 10 pull her artwork due to the corruption of BoJo. Jonathan paid tribute to Meatloaf’s financial support of Jonathan’s local football club Hartlepool United.

5. Tom Fox considered the role of the Microsoft Board of Directors in the acquisition. He shouted out to the Joel Coen movie Macbeth and started Oscar buzz by further shouting out to Kathryn Hunter for her portrayal of the 3 sisters.  Tom paid tribute to Paradise by the Dashboard Lights.

 The members of the Everything Compliance are:
•       Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
•       Karen Woody – One of the top academic experts on the SEC. Woody can be reached at kwoody@wlu.edu
•       Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com
•       Jonathan Armstrong –is our UK colleague, who is an experienced data privacy/data protection lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at jonathan.armstrong@corderycompliance.com
•       Jonathan Marks is Partner, Firm Practice Leader – Global Forensic, Compliance & Integrity Services at Baker Tilly. Marks can be reached at jonathan.marks@bakertilly.com
The host and producer, ranter (and sometime panelist) of Everything Compliance is Tom Fox the Voice of Compliance. He can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com. Everything Compliance is a part of the Compliance Podcast Network.

Categories
Innovation in Compliance

Not Your Father’s Monitor-Part 5: Vin DiCianni on Where Monitors are Going in 2022 and Beyond


In October, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa O. Monaco gave a Keynote Address at ABA’s 36th National Institute on White Collar Crime (Monaco Speech). Monaco’s remarks should be studied by every compliance professional as they portend a very large change in the way the DOJ will utilize monitors going forward. Over this podcast series, sponsored by AMI we will consider why DAG Monaco’s remarks herald a new era for monitorships.
Over this podcast series we have considered Monaco’s remarks from a variety of perspectives. Bethany Hengsbach considered this change in monitorships from the white-collar enforcement and defense perspective. Mikhail Reider Gordon looked at global aspects of the new DOJ monitor’s focus. Cristina Revelo discussed how E&C assessments help drive more compliant companies. Jesse Caplan brought his views on the intersection of the twin topics of antitrust and healthcare compliance. In this Episode 5, we conclude our series with AMI founder Vin DiCianni who looks at where monitors currently are and where monitorships are going in 2022 and beyond.
Highlights of this podcast include

  1. Why monitorships are an appropriate tool for both the DOJ and companies to utilize.
  2. Why now is the right time for the DOJ to refocus on the usefulness of monitors and monitorships.
  3. Why both monitor selection, and a monitor road map are critical to the success of a monitorship.

Resources
Vin DiCianni
Affiliated Monitors Inc.

Categories
Blog

Not Your Father’s Monitor – Vin DiCianni on Monitorships in 2022

In October, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa O. Monaco gave a Keynote Address at ABA’s 36th National Institute on White Collar Crime (Monaco Speech). Her remarks reframed a discussion about the uses of, reasons for and perceptions on independent monitors and monitorships. I asked Affiliated Monitors Inc. (AMI) founder Vin DiCianni for his thoughts around the remarks on monitors. He said, “For Affiliated Monitors this refreshed approach by DAG Monaco highlights the seriousness which businesses must place on the investment in their programs and in addressing what has for some been a negative experience with a monitor. For those who might be the subject of a monitorship, DAG Monaco recognized that the negativity that has sometimes surrounded monitorships as being punitive, should be seen in a different light bringing value, pointing a way forward and as a solution which has had great success in resolving matters.”
Monaco’s remarks should be studied by every compliance professional as they portend a very large change in the way the Department of Justice (DOJ) will utilize monitors going forward. Over this podcast series, sponsored by AMI, we have considered why DAG Monaco’s remarks herald a new era for monitorships from a variety of perspectives. Bethany Hengsbach discussed this change in monitorships from the white-collar enforcement and defense perspective. Mikhail Reider-Gordon looked at global aspects of the new DOJ monitor’s focus. Cristina Revelo discussed how ethics and compliance (E&C) assessments help drive more compliant companies. Jesse Caplan, Managing Director of Corporate Oversight, brought his views on the twin topics of antitrust and healthcare compliance. We conclude the series in Part 5, with AMI founder Vin DiCianni who takes a look down the road where monitorships are going in 2022 and beyond.
DiCianni heard a couple of different things in the Monaco Speech as they related to monitors. First, monitoring now has been around for quite some time. The DOJ used it historically with much greater frequency under prior administrations. DiCianni believes, “It works, so why not go back to a sanction that can help companies improve? And when you think about it, that’s what a monitorship is. It’s allowing the entity to stay in business, you know, to remain viable through, an independent monitor.” The Monaco Speech simply recognized the use of monitorships is a very good tool for DOJ to use.
Second, the Monaco Speech recognized companies are “perhaps becoming a little bit more lax about compliance, notwithstanding the DOJ guidance that has come out over the years.” DiCianni believes the Monaco Speech reinvigorated the point that companies need to go back and look at their compliance programs. Yet the reality is that it is sometimes hard for a company to make that type of dispassionate analysis. An independent monitor can assist in that process by looking at, for instance, your E&C program and controls around compliance.
Another key insight from the Monaco Speech was that going forward monitors would not be viewed as punitive, and they would not act as prosecutors. Here DiCianni noted, “I think the evolution of monitoring, and it’s an evolution and it’s continuing to evolve, has included consideration that the monitor is not simply an arm of the government.” He believes that the government saying to the monitor, “be a mentor, tell them how to fix them. You’ve seen it, compare it to other companies.” Once the settlement agreement is in place, “the whole notion is let’s fix this. I think that that’s crucial to this whole notion of how monitorships have evolved, because it’s no longer just, you know, a check the box. Are they doing this, doing that now it’s make recommendations on improvement and let’s see if the company make those changes.”
We considered the types of monitors and the types of skills a monitorship needs. It all begins with the settlement agreement, whether it is a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) or other form of resolution. A monitor must have the necessary skills to be able to look at things like business development, so they can understand how a company is going after business? Another growing area is in data analytics, as sometimes the monitorship is driven by data. This could require the monitor to have a data analytics team that can analyze test and look at data in various ways. Sometimes you do need forensic accounting. Sometimes you need an expert in healthcare when the monitorship is dealing with issues such as coding and billing. The AMI approach is to “shape each monitorship to make sure that we have a team that has the various perspectives, what would the government be looking for, but equally importantly how can this be helpful to the entity? Those are the most successful monitorships that we have engaged in. I think that having that broader perspective as you approach a monitorship is crucial.”
I concluded by asking DiCianni where he saw monitors going down the road. DiCianni believes that the use of monitors will increase, in many different areas such as different non-governmental groups and agencies, federal government agencies, state, and municipal agencies. For instance, AMI works with attorney inspector generals, the World Bank and other organizations. They will continue to be used as a tool, as more agencies that have never used them before are starting to recognize the benefits of them. He stated, “I think monitorships are going to continue to grow. The fear that I have is the bad monitoring, where the monitor that does not understand what they are doing and does not know what type of issues to look at or the kinds of things that they should be looking at. This will give everybody a bad name in terms of monitoring.” He concluded, “if you’re going to put a monitor in place to make sure that the selection of the monitor is appropriate. But I think it’s going to be a growing opportunity for both regulators and businesses.”
Affiliated Monitors
Vin DiCianni

Categories
Blog

Not Your Father’s Monitor – Jesse Caplan on Antitrust and Healthcare Compliance

In October, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa O. Monaco gave a Keynote Address at ABA’s 36th National Institute on White Collar Crime (Monaco Speech). Her remarks reframed a discussion about the uses of, reasons for and perceptions on independent monitors and monitorships. I asked Affiliated Monitors Inc. (AMI) founder Vin DiCianni for his thoughts around the remarks on monitors. He said, “For Affiliated Monitors this refreshed approach by DAG Monaco highlights the seriousness which businesses must place on the investment in their programs and in addressing what has for some been a negative experience with a monitor. For those who might be the subject of a monitorship, DAG Monaco recognized that the negativity that has sometimes surrounded monitorships as being punitive, should be seen in a different light bringing value, pointing a way forward and as a solution which has had great success in resolving matters.”
Monaco’s remarks should be studied by every compliance professional as they portend a very large change in the way the Department of Justice (DOJ) will utilize monitors going forward. Over this podcast series, sponsored by AMI, we will consider why DAG Monaco’s remarks herald a new era for monitorships. We will consider Monaco’s remarks from a variety of perspectives. Bethany Hengsbach discussed this change in monitorships from the white-collar enforcement and defense perspective. Mikhail Reider-Gordon looked at global aspects of the new DOJ monitor’s focus. Cristina Revelo discussed how ethics and compliance (E&C) assessments help drive more compliant companies. We will conclude the series with Vin DiCianni who will look at where monitorships are going in 2022 and beyond. In Part 4, Jesse Caplan, Managing Director of Corporate Oversight, brings his views on the twin topics of antitrust and healthcare compliance.
Both antitrust and healthcare have significant needs for monitorships. Antitrust concerns raised by the government can be handled through a monitorship of specific issues so that a merger can often go through and satisfy the regulators. This is a prime example of the DOJ or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) extending their reach so that anti-competitive issues do not arise or are properly remediated. Healthcare regulators are most interested in the continued delivery of healthcare services, particularly on the state and local level. It is not in anyone’s interest to stop the delivery of healthcare services which puts a hospital, healthcare practice group or doctor out of business, absent grievous circumstances. By using a monitor, a state regulator can help assure an appropriate level of compliance from a healthcare provider.
There were three key components from the Monaco Speech around monitors. Number one, that monitors are not viewed by the DOJ as punitive and should not be viewed as such by the compliance community or wider corporate community. Here Caplan observed, it is not the job of a monitor “to be punitive, but rather to facilitate a successful compliance program and a successful settlement agreement, works with both the government and for the company.” Number two is a monitor can act as an early tripwire to prevent companies from sliding into a recidivous situation. Number three, monitors bring a level of skill and talent around compliance programs and corporate culture that can help companies create a best practices program so the monitor actually works with the companies under an enforcement action to help them create a program that will be sustainable far down the road. Caplan said, a monitor can bring an “appreciation for what government enforcers are looking for, what the goals of government regulators are, as well as some of the challenges and goals of companies, who want to be successful and to do so in a compliant and fair manner.”
We then turned to the evolution of thinking of state regulators around monitors. Caplan noted, “some of these state Attorney General’s (AG) offices have realized for a long-time monitors can really be a resource extend for government agencies and particularly enforcement agencies.” He pointed to the example of the “Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, particularly with their Medicaid fraud control.” He went on to say, “more and more state AGs are using monitors when they enter in settlement agreement with conditions.” Using an independent allows an extension of their resources, to “verify that the company is compliant with those settlement conditions.”
Perhaps most powerfully, independent monitors can be seen as “an honest broker, bridging between the company and the regulator. Moreover, monitors can actually facilitate, a successful transition and then termination of a monitorship.” Caplan said, “we can do that because we can have candid conversations with both the company and then separately with the government, so that we can better understand where there might be disconnect between the two, and then we can help connect compliance up so that there’s not misunderstandings. There may be different expectations that end up sometimes torpedoing a settlement agreement and by having those conversations, by serving as that bridge, we can help prevent problems address so that ultimately the monitorship is successful.”
Affiliated Monitors
Jesse Caplan

Categories
Blog

Not Your Father’s Monitor – Mikhail Reider-Gordon on Global Aspects of New DOJ Monitor’s Focus

In October, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa O. Monaco gave a Keynote Address at ABA’s 36th National Institute on White Collar Crime (Monaco Speech). Her remarks reframed a discussion about the uses of, reasons for and perceptions on independent monitors and monitorships. I asked Affiliated Monitors Inc. (AMI) founder Vin DiCianni for his thoughts around the remarks on monitors. He said, “For Affiliated Monitors this refreshed approach by DAG Monaco highlights the seriousness which businesses must place on the investment in their programs and in addressing what has for some been a negative experience with a monitor. For those who might be the subject of a monitorship, DAG Monaco recognized that the negativity that has sometimes surrounded monitorships as being punitive, should be seen in a different light bringing value, pointing a way forward and as a solution which has had great success in resolving matters.”
Monaco’s remarks should be studied by every compliance professional as they portend a very large change in the way the Department of Justice (DOJ) will utilize monitors going forward. Over this podcast series, sponsored by AMI, we will consider why DAG Monaco’s remarks herald a new era for monitorships. We will consider Monaco’s remarks from a variety of perspectives. Bethany Hengsbach will consider this change in monitorships from the white-collar enforcement and defense perspective. Mikhail Reider-Gordon will look at global aspects of the new DOJ monitor’s focus. Cristina Revelo will discuss how ethics and compliance (E&C) assessments help drive more compliant companies. Jesse Caplan brings his views on the twin topics of antitrust and healthcare compliance. We will conclude the series with Vin DiCianni who will look at where monitorships are going in 2022 and beyond. In Part 2, Mikhail Reider-Gordon, Managing Director of Institutional Ethics & Integrity, will look at global aspects of the new DOJ monitor’s focus.
Mikhail said the change in DOJ focus and orientation actually started in late 2020 when then Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Rabbit said in a speech, “notably many of DOJ, corporate resolutions in 2020 included coordination with one or more foreign enforcement authorities and increasingly important aspect of DOJ his work.” Mikhail believes that since that time, it is reasonable to conclude that US regulators have progressively coordinated with foreign enforcement authorities to resolve multi-jurisdictional corruption and money laundering cases and other white-collar crimes. She added, “I would even say the cross jurisdictional approach has really gained traction in 2021.”
Next, she pointed to a recent interview of John Carlin in the Financial Times. In this article, Carlin drew particular attention to two types of companies. The first, those entities which violated their Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) or other settlement agreements and the second are those companies failing to invest in compliance systems that are now in all practicality a mandatory business and legal practice. Taking Carlin’s FT interview, Rabbit’s 2020 speech and the Monaco Speech and the renewed focus on corporate malfeasance US legislation recently passed or proposed, we see a DOJ which is fully focused on fighting the international scourge of corruption. Finally, if the Biden Administration announcement raising corruption to a national security concern.
Mikhail highlighted one key outcome from the Monaco Speech and related DOJ announcements. It is that companies can take proactive steps right now to address these DOJ concerns. She said that businesses “may want to take a hard look at their corporate compliance programs and assess just how robust and effective they truly are. If you are a corporation currently under a DPA and a monitor was not imposed, but you aren’t certain how well you’re meeting the terms of your settlement agreement really well. You know, now may be the time to seek out an independent assessment.”
We concluded by circling back to two words from the Monaco Speech, ‘independent’ and ‘integrity’. I asked Mikhail why she thought those two words were so significant. She said, “one thing that when we talk about independence is that it indicates that the monitor is a neutral, impartial evaluator. Whether it is a law firm or consultancy that offers a range of services, your firm cannot be thinking down the road, we can sell them more services. So, let’s handle them gently, lightly. Let’s not tell them the truth. We don’t want to offend them. We want them to hire us later for all this other work. You can’t have independence that way.” Your firm must be truly independent.
We then turned to the word ‘integrity’, which Mikhail observed “is at the core, all of compliance and ethics.” Unfortunately, we seemed to have moved away from this concept of integrity somewhat. Mikhail noted, “we don’t focus enough anymore on the philosophy that underpins the concept of integrity and ethics. You can have all the transparency in the world, but if you don’t have integrity what you do fails. The concept of independence and understanding we do this; this is the right thing to do that this is better for society. This is the spirit of the law. It is embracing integrity, it’s not compromising integrity, it’s not phoning it in if you will.”
Even the G20 is moving in this direction, dovetailing in concert with the Biden administration. In November, the G20 issued their anti-corruption action plan for 2022 through 2024. The G20 has made clear, now more than ever, the international fight against corruption requires increased international cooperation and renewed global commitment. Here Mikhail noted they are “really calling for a spirit of zero tolerance of corruption.”

Categories
Blog

Monaco Speech: Part 2 – Monitors

Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa O. Monaco gave a Keynote Address at ABA’s 36th National Institute on White Collar Crime last week (Monaco Speech). Her remarks were noted by many commentators, including on Compliance Into the Weeds where Matt Kelly and myself took a deep dive into her speech in a rare emergency podcast. Her remarks reframed a discussion about this Department of Justice’s (DOJ) priorities on white collar criminal enforcement, including under the Foreign Corrupt Practices (FCPA). Her remarks should be studied by every compliance professional as they portend a very large change in the way the DOJ and potentially other agencies enforce the FCPA. This has significant implications for every Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), compliance professional and corporate compliance programs.
Today, I am going to take up the third change announced by Monaco, the use of corporate monitors. I asked Affiliated Monitors Inc., (AMI) founder Vin DiCianni for his thoughts around the remarks on monitors. He said, “For Affiliated Monitors this refreshed approach by DAG Monaco highlights the seriousness which businesses must place on the investment in their programs and in addressing what has for some been a negative experience with a monitor.  For those who might be the subject of a monitorship, DAG Monaco recognized that the negativity that has sometimes surrounded monitorships as being punitive, should be seen in a different light bringing value, pointing a way forward and as a solution which has had great success in resolving matters.”
In 2021, we have seen several enforcement actions which seemed quite well suited for monitors.Of course, the DOJ recently announced that some companies have been failing to live up to their settlement resolutions and have proposed the extension of current monitorships. Monaco echoed this sentiment stating, “Recently, two different multinational corporations separately announced that each had received a breach notification from the Justice Department.”
Monaco’s remarks may well have been tailored to these 2021 FCPA resolutions and companies in breach of their settlement obligations when she stated, “In recent years, some have suggested that monitors would be the exception and not the rule. To the extent that prior Justice Department guidance [Benczkowski Memorandum] suggested that monitorships are disfavored or are the exception, I am rescinding that guidance. Instead, I am making clear that the department is free to require the imposition of independent monitors whenever it is appropriate to do so in order to satisfy our prosecutors that a company is living up to its compliance and disclosure obligations under the DPA or NPA. Of course, the decision to use monitors must also include consideration of how the monitorship is administered and the standards by which monitors are expected to do their work. And the selection of monitors will continue to be accomplished in a fashion that eliminates even the perception of favoritism. The department will study how we select corporate monitors, including whether to standardize our selection process across the divisions and offices.”
Monaco went on to explain several reasons for need for the increased use of monitorships.  The first is in the area of recidivist offenders. However, this is beyond simply recidivist FCPA offenders and ties into another part of the Monaco speech. It deals with the DOJ taking into account the full panoply of corporate misconduct which might lead to tax investigations, import control enforcement actions or any anti-trust concerns to resolve any FCPA enforcement action. It all seems to me to be around the issue of trust. Monaco stated, “Stepping back, any resolution with a company involves a significant amount of trust on the part of the government. Trust that a corporation will commit itself to improvement, change its corporate culture, and self-police its activities. But where the basis for that trust is limited or called into question, we have other options. Independent monitors have long been a tool to encourage and verify compliance.” If the DOJ cannot trust you to follow the law in some areas, it may not trust you to fulfill your compliance obligations under a FCPA resolution.
Earlier in her speech Monaco talked at length on the importance of corporate culture. She noted, “But corporate culture matters. A corporate culture that fails to hold individuals accountable, or fails to invest in compliance — or worse, that thumbs its nose at compliance — leads to bad results. Let me also be clear: a company can fulfill its fiduciary duty to shareholders and maintain a commitment to compliance and lawfulness. In fact, companies serve their shareholders when they proactively put in place compliance functions and spend resources anticipating problems. They do so both by avoiding regulatory actions in the first place and receiving credit from the government. Conversely, we will ensure the absence of such programs inevitably proves a costly omission for companies who end up the focus of department investigations.”
When taken as a whole, Monaco’s speech says that once again, the DOJ wants companies to be good corporate citizens. Moreover, it all starts with culture and flows from there. If a company puts making a quarterly number above all else, that becomes the corporate culture and employees will do whatever is necessary to accomplish this goal. Conversely, if the values of the company are to do business ethically and in compliance, that will be taken into account. This ups the ante for corporations which find themselves in an FCPA investigation or enforcement action.
Join us tomorrow when we consider Monaco’s remarks on corporate culture.

Categories
The Affiliated Monitors Expert Podcast

How Ethical Culture is a Part of an Overall Ethics and Compliance Assessment


In this episode, I visit with Jay Rosen, VP of Business Development for Affiliated Monitors, Inc. (AMI). Corporate culture exists in the space between what an organization professes and what it does. In this series Jay and I will be exploring key aspects of corporate culture, including why it matters, what influences culture, the CCOs role in culture, assessing corporate culture and how to use that information to improve culture. In this episode, we consider how an ethical culture is a part of an overall ethics and compliance assessment.
 Highlights include:

  • Begin with framework for such an assessment, usually the compliance program itself.
  • Is your training both focused and effective?
  • Is there institutional fairness in your promotion and compensation programs?
  • Is there institutional justice around reporting, discipline and investigations?
  • Is your compliance program a paper program or is it fully operationalized?
  • Is there accountability in your organization?

For more information see Jay’s blog post How is ethical culture a part of an overall ethics and compliance assessment? on Corporate Compliance Insights.
For more information on Affiliated Monitors, Inc. check out their website here.

Categories
The Affiliated Monitors Expert Podcast

Cost Issues Around Monitorships


In this episode, I am joined by Jay Rosen, the Vice President of Business Development and Monitoring Specialist at Affiliated Monitors, Inc. In this episode, we look at cost issues when hiring a monitor and how a company can work to ameliorate them. Some of the highlights from this podcast include:

  1. What will be the overall scope of the monitorship?
  2. What will be the frequency of engagement by the monitor?
  3. What will be the duration of the monitorship?
  4. What is the experience of the monitor and how does that play into overall costs?
  5. How you can work through cost control issues by using a robust monitor’s Workplan?
  6. How selective sampling is a powerful tool and why it can be a cost-saving measure.

For additional reading see Jay Rosen’s article How Much Will a Corporate Monitorship Cost? on Corporate Compliance Insights.
For more information on Affiliated Monitors, Inc. visit their website here.