Categories
2 Gurus Talk Compliance

2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 38 – The SCCE Wrap Up Edition

What happens when two top compliance commentators get together? They talk compliance, of course. Join Tom Fox and Kristy Grant-Hart in 2 Gurus Talk Compliance as they discuss the latest compliance issues in this week’s episode!

In this episode of the ‘Two Gurus Talk Compliance Podcast,’ hosts Kristy Grant-Hart and Tom Fox delve into recent updates and stories in the compliance world. They explore the DOJ’s latest guidance on corporate compliance programs, highlighting themes of data access and the role of AI. Discussion on domestic bribery leads to the case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams for alleged violations, including unauthorized travel expenses. The hosts also analyze four significant trade sanction cases detailed by Michael Volkov, illustrating the importance of rigorous compliance measures. Notable segments include the investigation into Binance’s hefty compliance investments, the influence of competition on corporate culture, and current issues in internal controls. A curious case on Caremark claims against Wells Fargo’s board is mentioned, providing insights into potential legal trends. The podcast closes with a humorous touch on a Florida man’s recurring jail visits due to retail fraud. The episode is a comprehensive overview of key compliance topics marked by real-world examples and expert insights.

Stories Include:

Resources:

Kristy Grant-Hart on LinkedIn

Spark Consulting

Prove Your Worth

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Regulatory Ramblings

Regulatory Ramblings: Episode 54 – From Secret Service Agent to Global Financial Crime Fighter: David Caruso’s 30-Year Journey

David Caruso is the founder and managing director of the Dominion Advisory Group, a consulting firm based in Virginia, near the nation’s capital. The firm works with banks facing regulatory enforcement actions across the U.S., Europe, and Asia. David aids institutions and organizations in navigating financial crime risk and compliance modernization globally.

As a former special agent with the US Secret Service and a graduate of George Washington University since 1996, he has been at the forefront of shaping the financial crime risk and compliance profession more generally. Building anti-money laundering (AML) and sanctions compliance programs at banking and financial institutions across the US and internationally, overseeing headline-grabbing corruption and money laundering investigations, and building and selling a RegTech software firm have afforded him an ideal perspective to reflect on every major issue and trend occurring in the financial crime compliance space for the past 25 years.

In this episode of Regulatory Ramblings, David shares his reflections on a nearly three-decade career in AML and financial crime compliance with our host, Ajay Shamdasani. 

He recounts having worked at global institutions like JP Morgan, Riggs Bank, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, and HSBC, to name a few. His notable achievements include his time as Riggs Bank’s chief compliance and AML officer.

In that role, he was hired to address some program weaknesses cited by the US Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). While at Riggs, David’s team uncovered two notorious international corruption schemes involving the government of Equatorial Guinea and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The team’s work led to investigations by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. 

The cases drew worldwide media attention from justice authorities in the US, UK, Spain, and Chile. The facts uncovered by David at Riggs shook US lawmakers and regulators, kicking off 10 years of active regulatory and law enforcement action against banks across the US. 

After Riggs, David founded The Dominion Advisory Group in 2005. From his ringside seat near Washington, DC, he works closely with executive management, boards, and outside counsel to craft responses and build entire financial crime risk and compliance programs to address regulatory concerns—of which there has been no shortage in recent years. 

David also discusses the allure of AML and financial crime compliance and what brought him to the professional path he has been on for over three decades. Methodologically speaking, he recounts what has changed in AML and financial crime in that time and what has remained the same. 

He concurs that since 1970, so many additional requirements and expectations have been created that AML teams still need to catch up on their primary mission. Reflecting on the impact of the Bank Secrecy Act (1970), the USA PATRIOT Act (2001), the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (2010), or FATCA, and the more recent Anti Money Laundering Act (2020), he shares his views on how the impact of regulatory action has distracted from compliance professionals’ more critical tasks—with an eye towards how the regulatory exam-focused mindset of money laundering reporting officers (MLROs) affects operations and innovation. 

David also depicts the pervasive and ongoing discrepancies between what domestic and international/supernational policy-setting organizations, like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), based in Paris, say and what they do. He says, “No one wants to ask if new rules and regulations are working and whether they prevent crime or have the unintended consequence of reducing [economic] growth?” 

He acknowledges the degree of geopolitical hypocrisy when it comes to AML and financial crime compliance, as well as when it comes to fighting bribery, fraud, and corruption internationally. Washington, New York, London, and Brussels all too often regulated the financial world. Yet, while the US and UK, and increasingly the EU, are some of the most aggressive jurisdictions regarding financial crime enforcement actions, their regulatory apparatus is often used to further their geopolitical goals. It is a view that many outside the West hold. 

The conversation concludes with David’s views on why sanctions against Russia stemming from its 2022 invasion of Ukraine have largely been unsuccessful, how technologies such as artificial intelligence can help AML/KYC/FCC compliance, and what policy recommendations he suggests moving forward. 

We are bringing you the Regulatory Ramblings podcasts with assistance from the HKU Faculty of Law, the University of Hong Kong’s Reg/Tech Lab, HKU-SCF Fintech Academy, Asia Global Institute, and HKU-edX Professional Certificate in Fintech.

Useful links in this episode:

  • Connect or follow David Caruso on LinkedIn

  • Dominion Advisory Group: Webpage

You might also be interested in:

Connect with RR Podcast at:

LinkedIn: https://hk.linkedin.com/company/hkufintech 
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hkufintech.fb/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hkufintech/ 
Twitter: https://twitter.com/HKUFinTech 
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@hkufintech
Website: https://www.hkufintech.com/regulatoryramblings 

Connect with the Compliance Podcast Network at:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/compliance-podcast-network/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/compliancepodcastnetwork/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CompliancePodcastNetwork
Twitter: https://twitter.com/tfoxlaw
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/voiceofcompliance/
Website: https://compliancepodcastnetwork.net/

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: May 21, 2024 – The All NYT 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:

  • The Senate says BMW used forced labor on car parts.  (NYT)
  • The OZY fraud trial begins. (NYT)
  • Chinese firms are both a rock and a hard place. (NYT)
  • How to dodge a tariff. (NYT)

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: May 16, 2024 – The Violated The DPA 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:

  • The DOJ says Boeing violated its DPA.  (Reuters)
  • Sanctions were levied on oil trading firms and Russia. (WSJ)
  • FDIC head goes to Congress. It’s not pretty.   (NYT)
  • Opening statement in the Senator Menendez trial.  (Bloomberg)

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: March 15, 2024 – The More CFOs to CEOs 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:

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

Categories
Blog

Boards of Directors in the Era of Sanctions Enforcement

In a recent episode of the podcast ‘All Things Investigations, the discussion centered around directors’ critical role in ensuring legal compliance, particularly in sanctions and export controls. I was joined in this exploration by Mike Huneke, partner at HughesHubbardReed, and Brent Carlson, Director at BRG. Our discussion was based on their blog post on directors’ duty of oversight, which can be found here:  Boards of Directors Lovin’ It after McDonald’s? A Fresh Look at Directors’ Duty of Oversight in the New Era of Sanctions & Export Control Corporate Enforcement.

Our discussion highlighted McDonald’s case from the Delaware Court of Chancery, where the company officers faced lawsuits for neglecting their duties, emphasizing the importance of a dynamic approach from boards and compliance officers to evaluate and enhance compliance programs in response to the evolving geopolitical landscape and increased regulatory enforcement.

While many compliance professionals reviewed McDonald’s for the new duty of oversight created for corporate officers, including Chief Compliance Officers, Huneke and Carlson focused on the duties owed by Directors. For companies engaged in international trade, these actions engage directors’ fiduciary duties. Looking to bellwether Delaware corporate law, Delaware’s Chancery Court recently reiterated in the McDonald’s shareholder litigation that directors’ Caremark duty of oversight is a function of their duty of loyalty.

According to Huneke and Carlson’s article, this case “reinforced the limits of the protections directors would otherwise have if it were instead a function of the duty of care—under both the business judgment rule and “exculpation,” which is the option corporations have to excuse in their articles of incorporation directors’ liability for breaches of their duty of care (but not of loyalty).” Directors’ duty of oversight further requires ensuring that they receive information regarding any “central compliance risks,” not just “mission critical” risks, and that there is an appropriate response to red flags.”

The decision in McDonald’s case underscored the significance of information systems and controls for compliance. It stressed the need for companies to adopt a broader, qualitative view in monitoring export control compliance, with the Department of Justice’s heightened involvement signaling a shift towards a more proactive approach. Key aspects such as oversight, duty of care, and the business judgment rule were highlighted as essential components of board responsibilities and liability.

Board directors were urged to engage with compliance issues actively, ask critical questions, and conduct thorough investigations to fulfill their fiduciary duties. It was emphasized that boards should exercise caution when relying on management reports, proactively address risks, and take necessary actions to prevent potential legal and reputational damage.

From the Board’s perspective, we emphasized the importance of being cautiously skeptical of management’s information, seeking external advice, and taking preventive measures to avoid compliance issues. We also discussed the significance of the duty of oversight, which stems from the duty of loyalty and requires directors to ensure the presence of information systems and controls for informed decision-making and an effective response to red flags.

There is a clear need for board directors, corporate officers, and compliance professionals to stay abreast of the changing landscape of sanctions and export controls. With the Department of Justice’s increased focus on enforcement in this area, organizations must prioritize compliance efforts, seek external guidance, and take proactive steps to mitigate risks and ensure legal adherence.

Huneke and Carlson noted that the court ultimately dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against the directors because, after learning of the red flags, the directors:

  • Obtained detailed oral and written reports from management throughout several meetings dedicated to the red flag identified;
  • Made enhancements to the compliance program, including training and communication;
  • Retained external advisors;
  • Ensured that affiliates (here, franchisees) were included in the enhancements made;
  • Assessed and improved corporate culture and
  • Management involved in the conduct was eventually terminated.

These serve as a road map for the sanctions and export control boards.

Huneke and Carlson concluded their article with the following suggestions:

1) Understand how the world is changing and how those changes impact your business 

Geopolitical risks impact companies in different ways. Analyze potential impact scenarios to arrive at effective oversight approaches. Seek input from a variety of experts. Challenge commonly held assumptions, especially concerning the sufficiency of traditional screening.

2) Continuously ensure that the compliance program identifies and addresses evolving risks

Effective compliance programs evolve as risks change. Make sure management considers the changed enforcement environment when assessing risk. Do not just ask questions—ensure you receive good answers. Avoid solutions that are too clever by half, which can ultimately expose the company to greater risks.

3) Don’t sit on any red flags, and don’t let the management team sit on them either

All kinds of red flags can indeed come out of the blue. Our prior posts provide suggestions for responding to potential evasion effectively and efficiently. Politics (global and domestic) drive regulatory enforcement, and 2024 will be no exception. Now is the time to get ahead of what’s coming. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We concluded the podcast by noting that directors’ duties in sanctions and export controls are paramount in today’s regulatory environment. The pressure will only increase. Boards must be vigilant, proactive, and thorough in their oversight of compliance programs to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities and safeguard their organizations from potential legal and reputational harm. By staying informed, engaging with compliance issues, and taking decisive actions, directors can navigate the complexities of sanctions and export controls effectively.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: November 29, 2023 – The Sweden Vs. Tesla Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance brings to you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in 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:

  • Sweden vs. Tesla: Who do you think will win? (FT)
  • No, it’s my yacht. (Reuters)
  • The EU was impressed with Ukraine’s ABC efforts. (Reuters)
  • Rivals move to exploit the OpenAI leadership crisis. (WSJ)
Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: November 9, 2023 – The ESG Helps Hiring 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.

  • ESG helps in hiring the best and brightest. (FT)
  • The UK hits Russia with new sanctions. (WSJ)
  • Indian anti-corruption journalist targeted in spy op. (Reuters)
  • GE Aerospace to pay $9.4M in a DOJ false claims case (Compliance Week)
Categories
Corruption, Crime and Compliance

Catch up on OFAC Enforcement – 3M and Emigrant Banks Cases

3M faced a dual settlement, first with the SEC and then with OFAC, over alleged Iranian sanctions violations stemming from misconceptions and oversights in a license plate deal with a German intermediary. Despite the gravity of the case, 3M took proactive remedial actions, including voluntary disclosure and internal changes. Similarly, Emigrant Bank maintained a CD account for two Iranian residents for over two decades without proper screening, leading to a $31,000 settlement. In this episode of Corruption, Crime, and Compliance, Michael Volkov shares details of both cases, underscoring the complexities of navigating sanctions regulations, the consequences of compliance failures, and the pivotal role of voluntary disclosure and proactive remediation in mitigating penalties.

You’ll hear Michael talk about:

  • 3M settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for $6.5 million and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for $9.6 million over alleged violations of Iranian sanctions. 3M’s Dubai-based subsidiary entered a deal to manufacture reflective license plate sheeting for a German company. Still, it misunderstood the end user, believing it was a reseller when it was Iran. 
  • Between 2016 and 2018, 3M sent 43 shipments to the German intermediary, who resold them to Iran, violating OFAC regulations. This led to 54 violations of the Iran sanctions program. 3M’s compliance team approved the deal without realizing the end-user was in Iran. Suggestions to review the agreement were ignored, and steps were taken to conceal its true nature. 
  • 3M took remedial steps, including voluntary disclosure, termination or discipline of involved employees, leadership changes, revamped sanctions compliance training, and discontinuation of business with the German reseller.
  • In another case, Emigrant Bank maintained a certificate of deposit (CD) account for two Iranian residents from 1995 until 2021 without properly screening it for sanctions issues. In 2016, when the account holders requested a wire transfer, Emigrant became aware of potential sanctions issues but still approved the transfer.
  •  In 2019, Emigrant’s upgraded screening software flagged the account, but the compliance team overrode the alert based on erroneous guidance from the 2016 wire transfer. Emigrant recognized the account’s status in 2021, closed it, and took steps to remediate compliance program shortcomings.
  • Emigrant settled the matter for $31,000, significantly lower than the maximum penalty applicable ($9.9 million), with voluntary disclosure and proactive remediation efforts considered mitigating factors by OFAC.

KEY QUOTES

“In setting up this agreement, numerous managers at 3M suggested that trade compliance reviewed the deal. But these 60 suggestions were ignored by the deal’s proponents. Even worse, a 3M subsidiary received an outside due diligence report, flagging the connection to Iranian law enforcement, and closed the matter without further investigation.” – Michael Volkov

“On September 21 of this year, OFAC announced that Emigrant agreed to pay $31,867 to resolve 30 violations of the Iran Sanctions Program. The violations all relate to a single CD account that Emigrant maintained for two Iranian residents from 1995 until it closed the account in 2021.”  – Michael Volkov

“In 2019, Emigrant upgraded its screening software, sanctioned screening, and the new program flagged the account as problematic due to the account holder’s Iranian residency. However, the software is only effective as its operator. Upon review, Emigrant’s compliance team overrode the alert based on erroneous guidance from the 2016 wire transfer. Now, Emigrant finally recognized the account status in 2021 and took steps to remediate its compliance program shortcomings.” – Michael Volkov

Resources

Michael Volkov on LinkedIn | Twitter

The Volkov Law Group

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: October 12, 2023 – The Unfreeze 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 in 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:

  • OECD approves tax treaty for digital giants. (FT)
  • CA law requires companies to report carbon emissions. (BBC)
  • When the ex testifies-Day 2. (NYT)
  • Belgium to unfreeze frozen Russian assets. (WSJ)