Thursday, February 11, 2021
All companies big and small are collecting a tsunami of data. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has now challenged corporate America to harness and analyze that data to improve corporate compliance programs by going beyond the risk profile of what
has happened to better understanding the risk profile of what
is happening. But where to begin? Artificial intelligence, which is already used to assist in the review and production of documents and other materials in response to government subpoenas and in corporate litigation, is invaluable in proactively reviewing data to identify and address compliance risks.
Takeaways
DOJ expects compliance programs to be well resourced and to continually evolve.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
While my first posting highlighted the positive developments in the CCO’s role and professional development, the next two postings present troubling concerns.
We have to recognize that 2020 was a difficult and unusual year for CCOs, given the panoply of risks, the disruption to every organization, and devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. CCOs were forced into a new environment where health and safety issues, along with remote working arrangements raised a number of new risks that had to be addressed. CCOs played an important role in reassuring employees, shareholders and other stakeholders in the community.
Europe, Middle East and Africa Investigations Review 2020
Fighting corporate crime and compliance defence in the Czech Republic
In summary
Inspired the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ), non-binding internal guidelines for public prosecutors were issued in September 2018 (Czech CMS Guidelines). A slightly updated version of the Czech CMS Guidelines was published in November 2020. Both guides are comparable in quality and level of detail and a company will set-up an equally effective compliance management system following either of them. The major difference is the approach of the Czech prosecution authorities, which is considerably less predictable compared to DOJ’s. Czech prosecuting authorities are still struggling to understand the concept of compliance management systems and specially to apply it accordingly taking into account all the relevant specifics of the prosecuted company.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In early January 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“the DOJ”) Antitrust Division (“the Division”) announced a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) with Argos USA LLC (“Argos” or “the Company”).
1 While DPAs have been used to resolve prosecutions in other Divisions of the DOJ, the Antitrust Division has considered DPAs only since a policy shift in 2019. Under the new policy, DPAs were to be applied in limited situations where a company committed an antitrust crime despite having an effective compliance program. Division leadership has further suggested that the compliance program in place at the time of the antitrust violation would need to be robust and thoughtful, and that DPAs would be considered only for companies that self-reported misconduct.
The Company shall review its anti-bribery/anti-corruption compliance policies and procedures no less than annually and update them as appropriate to ensure their continued effectiveness, taking into account relevant developments in the field and evolving industry standards.
The Company will designate an officer or employee to serve as the Company’s Chief Compliance Officer for the implementation and oversight of the Company’s anti-bribery/anticorruption compliance code, policies, and procedures, including for guidance and advice about compliance with such code, policies, and procedures. The Chief Compliance Officer shall have direct reporting obligations to independent monitoring bodies, and shall have an adequate level of autonomy from management as well as sufficient resources and authority to maintain such autonomy.