Everything Compliance-Episode 3

We are back to our more rounded format for this episode on a variety of topics including anti-corruption enforcement across the globe, the new French anti-corruption law, Sapin II, the Agricultural Bank of China compliance enforcement action by the state of New York Department of Financial Services; how corruption influences as much as it pays money and individual accountability for corporate malfeasance is not a Democratic or GOP issue but a law enforcement issue. We end with a well-deserved one minute rant from the panel about what is in the front of their mind.

Mike Volkov discusses the internationalization of anti-corruption enforcement. He refers to the comments from the ACI FCPA conference, by Kara Brockmeyer and Dan Kahn about the increasing international enforcement efforts against corruption. This extends far beyond cooperation but also to enforcement. Recent examples are VimpelCom and Embraer where other countries received proceeds from fines and penalties. How does a company begin to deal with this type of complexity? Who does it disclose to? Who does it pay? When will the US give credit for payments made to other countries and when does it not? Finally this year saw of the third joint DOJ/SEC week long training for foreign prosecutors put on in DC. How do such events assist enforcement efforts, particularly around cooperation and mutual assistance?

For Tom Fox’s blog post, “Anti-Corruption Enforcement Has Gone International?” click here. 

• Matt Kelly leads a discussion dive into the AgBank enforcement/sanction action. He explains what does it all means and then pivots into a discussion of where he might see state regulators such as the state of New York Department of Financial Services or state banking regulators becoming more aggressive if the Trump administration pulls back? He discusses how these issues may have relevance for areas of compliance other than bribery and corruption and if so how. Finally, he ends with a reverse states’ rights discussion of Democratically aligned states fighting federal roll back of rights and privileges through litigation.

For Kelly’s posts, see post on the enforcement action involving the Agriculture Bank of China, click here. 

• Jonathan Armstrong leads a discussion on the new French anti-corruption law, Sapin II. He discusses the genesis of the law and why prior French efforts at anti-corruption law and enforcement was so harshly criticized by the OECD. He articulates how Sapin II differs from the UKBA, FCPA, the Brazilian Clean Companies Act and other anti-corruption laws across the globe. He talks about where he envisions French enforcement efforts going and the whistleblower protections of the law. Finally he ends with the key piece(s) of advice for clients regarding this law Cordery is suggesting around this law.

For Cordery’s piece on the new law click here.

Jay Rosen takes us through a Paul Krugman NYT post on some of the invidiousness of corruption, focusing on the corrupting nature of compliance around undue influence. Rosen explains incentives more than anything else and how such incentives skew the marketplace. We consider whether Trump’s discussions with the Carrier Corp over jobs was unduly influenced recalling President Kennedy’s ‘jawboning’ of the US steel industry in the 1960s. He also discusses the remarks of Sally Yates at ACI national FCPA conference about individual accountability and how this is not a GOP or Democratic issue but a criminal enforcement issue. For a link Krugman post, click here. For a copy of the text of Yates remarks, click here.

For a copy of Jay blog post entitled, “The DOJ and SEC Share Patriots Mantra—Next Prosecutor Up” click here.

Rants this week include the new UK surveillance law, the SEC domestic corruption enforcement action involving United Airlines for the Chairman’s Flight and the Chicken Littles of the compliance world claiming the sky is falling.