Released earlier this month with little fanfare, the Department of Justice Criminal Division Fraud Section released guidance on how to evaluate the effectiveness of a corporate compliance program. The document has Compliance Counsel Hui Chen’s fingerprints all over it, as the DOJ has again expressly endorsed the key attributes of the modern Compliance 2.0 model: empowerment, independence, a seat at the table, line-of-sight, resources, and, of course, true Compliance SME — the important foundational element of a successful compliance function.
Thomas Fox – Compliance Week – June 21, 2016
The past couple of months has confirmed a trend we have seen for some time in the world of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and greater anti-corruption compliance. It is the continued growth in the importance of doing compliance in the eyes of the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission. They have clearly moved beyond simply having a compliance program in place. It must be operationalized, and you must demonstrate its effectiveness if you want to receive credit for it in any FCPA enforcement action.
In April with the release of the written document, entitled “The Fraud Section’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Plan and Guidance” and detailing the Pilot Program for FCPA enforcement credit, the Justice Department made clear that it is the doing of compliance that can bring a company “reducing credit.” It also made clear that the role of the chief compliance officer needs not only to be central to your compliance efforts but also central to your overall business operations.
. . .
Richard Bistrong – The FCPA Blog – May 31, 2016
When prosecutors, regulators, and compliance practitioners agree on anything, I pay special attention.
Last week, Compliance Week 2016 opened with a panel of Stephen Cohen, Associate Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement and Andrew Weissmann, Chief of Fraud Section of the DOJ Criminal Division. Their topic: “Are We Defining Effectiveness Correctly?”
Cohen and Weissmann were clear about the importance of the independence of the compliance function. The issue of reporting relationships, from their perspective, wasn’t as significant as the weight of compliance being able to voice disagreement, deal with conflict, and integrating into the business.
. . .
Mike Scher – The FCPA Blog – May 27, 2016
In my last post I discovered the power of images to make a point, like the ribbons of marble floating on air. The Blue Marble, NASA”s image of earth from space, changed how we see the planet, our home.
The radical transformation of compliance in the last four years is hard to grasp. There is astonishing momentum since the Walmart story broke in 2012. However, the upcoming DOJ settlement with Walmart (if there is one) will test that momentum. With a dubious DOJ leak and successful delays in the courts, is this the end of the transformation?
. . .
Thomas Fox – FCPA Compliance Report – May 26, 2016
If there was one theme from Compliance Week 2016 it was the continued evolution of the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) role and the compliance profession. Long gone are the days when someone is sent over from a legal department into the compliance department or worse, some lawyer who is just given the title of CCO and this is considered to be a best practice or even sufficient. In the opening keynote presentation, representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) made clear they expect a CCO to know more than simply the laws of anti-corruption, they must actually work to do compliance in an organization. A key metric of doing compliance is the independence of the CCO and compliance function.
. . .
Michael Volkov – Corruption, Crime & Compliance – April 24, 2016
The FCPA Paparazzi have a thick head and a stubborn chin. They just do not understand the significance of Compliance 2.0 to corporate governance and they blindly adhere to simplistic, yet unexplained, solutions to complex problems – kind of sounds like a presidential candidate we all know.
Without getting into politics, which I avoid here on this blog, DOJ’s recent FCPA guidance on voluntary, disclosure, cooperation and remediation sets out an ambitious push on ethics and compliance programs. Of course, the new remediation elements apply only to those situations where companies are seeking cooperation and disclosure benefits, along with implementation of a remediation plan.
The new compliance elements represent validation of the Compliance 2.0 model, which has been advanced by leading compliance strategists, such as Tom Fox (here), Donna Boehme (here), Roy Snell (here), and Joe Murphy (here). Unlike many in the FCPA Paparazzi, they have been pushing new and innovative compliance strategies for years that flow from the elevation of an independent compliance function in global companies.
. . .
Michael Volkov – Corruption, Crime & Compliance – November 29, 2015
If you read through compliance writings, blogs, articles, white papers, and other sources, you will see the term “Compliance 2.0” bandied about. It is a term that has yet to be defined but is taking on a life of its own – a reflection perhaps of the growing and continuing momentum behind the ethics and compliance function.
This series is an attempt to put some meat on the bones (yes, just after Thanksgiving) and advance the discussion around the new model for ethics and compliance.
In the last three years, compliance has been at a “standstill” in terms of defining the elements of an effective ethics and compliance program. The Justice Department and SEC’s FCPA Guidance was a watershed event in defining an effective ethics and compliance program, along with the UK Bribery Act’s adequate procedures, and continuing work from the OECD and other non-profit organizations. But in the end, it was DOJ and the SEC that have moved the compliance function to a new era, fueled by aggressive enforcement actions and political pressure to provide guidance to the business community.
. . .