In the Department of Justice’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, Prong 8 Incentive and Disciplinary Measures it states:
Incentive System – How has the company incentivized compliance and ethical behavior? How has the company considered the potential negative compliance implications of its incentives and rewards? Have there been specific examples of actions taken (e.g., promotions or awards denied) as a result of compliance and ethics considerations?
Further, one of the key points that representatives of the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have continually raised when discussing any best practices compliance program; whether based on the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, as articulated in their 2012 FCPA Guidance, or some other articulation such as in a Deferred Prosecution Agreement’s (DPA) Attachment C embedded in a compliance program. They continually remind Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) and compliance practitioners that any best practices compliance program should have incentives as a part of the program.
The 2012 Guidance is clear that there should be incentives for not only following your own company’s internal Code of Conduct but also doing business the right way, i.e. not engaging in bribery and corruption. On incentives, the Guidance says, “DOJ and SEC recognize that positive incentives can also drive compliant behavior. These incentives can take many forms such as personnel evaluations and promotions, rewards for improving and developing a company’s compliance program, and rewards for ethics and compliance leadership. Some organizations, for example, have made adherence to compliance a significant metric for management’s bonuses so that compliance becomes an integral part of management’s everyday concern.” But the Guidance also recognizes that incentives need not only be limited to financial rewards as sometime simply acknowledging employees for doing the right thing can be a powerful tool as well.
All of this was neatly summed up in the Guidance with a quote from a speech given in 2004 by Stephen M. Cutler, the then Director, Division of Enforcement, SEC, entitled, “Tone at the Top: Getting It Right”, to the Second Annual General Counsel Roundtable, where Director Cutler said the following:
[M]ake integrity, ethics and compliance part of the promotion, compensation and evaluation processes as well. For at the end of the day, the most effective way to communicate that “doing the right thing” is a priority, is to reward it. Conversely, if employees are led to believe that, when it comes to compensation and career advancement, all that counts is short-term profitability, and that cutting ethical corners is an acceptable way of getting there, they’ll perform to that measure. To cite an example from a different walk of life: a college football coach can be told that the graduation rates of his players are what matters, but he’ll know differently if the sole focus of his contract extension talks or the decision to fire him is his win-loss record.
All of this demonstrates that incentives can take a wide range of avenues. The oilfield services company Weatherford, annually awards cash bonuses of $10,000 for employees who go above and beyond in the area of ethics and compliance for the company. While some might intone that is to be expected from a company that only recently concluded a multi-year and multi-million dollar enforcement action; if you want emphasize a change on culture, not much says so more loudly than awarding that kind of money to an employee.
While I am sure that being handed a check for $10,000 is quite a nice prize, you can also consider much more mundane methods to incentivize compliance. You can make a compliance evaluation a part of any employee’s overall evaluation for some type of year end discretionary bonus payment. It can be 5%, 10% or even up to 20%. But once you put it in writing, you need to actually follow it.
But incentives can be burned into the DNA of a company through the hiring and promotion processes. There should be a compliance component to all senior management hires and promotions up to those august ranks within a company. Your Human Resources (HR) function can be a great aid to your cause in driving the right type of behavior through the design and implementation of such structures. Employees know who gets promoted and why. If someone who is only known for hitting their numbers continually is promoted, however they accomplished this feat will certainly be observed by his or her co-workers.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s series is sponsored by Advanced Compliance Solutions and its new service offering the “Compliance Alliance” which is a three-step program that will provide you and your team a background into compliance and the FCPA so you can consider how your product or service fits into the needs of a compliance officer. It includes a FCPA and compliance boot camp, sponsorship of a one-month podcast series, and in-person training. Each section builds on the other and provides your customer service and sales teams with the knowledge they need to have intelligent conversations with compliance officers and decision makers. When the program is complete, your teams will be armed with the knowledge they need to sell and service every new client. Interested parties should contact Tom Fox.
Over some breakfast tacos and Mexican coffee, Jay and I have a wide-ranging discussion on some of the week’s top compliance related stories. We discuss:
Uganda considers a demand side response to corruption. See Tom’s article in Compliance Week. What are the rationales for anti-corruption legislation? See Tom’s post on the rationales underlying the FCPA on the FCPA Compliance Report.
Why is hiring so important under for compliance? It is because hiring is important to any company’s health and reputation. At this point, until the US Supreme Court tells us that a corporation is the same as a human being, with both obligations and rights; a company is only as strong as its employees. Like most areas of compliance good hiring practices for those employees who will do business in compliance with anti-corruption laws such as the FCPA are simply good business practice. I have seen one industry estimate, it costs an average of roughly $4,000 to replace a single employee, and one survey of 2,500 companies found that a single bad hire can cost more than $25,000 in lost productivity, lower morale and the like. For one of the energy services company where I worked this estimate went as high as $400,000 to hire and fully train a new employee. I would add that those costs could go up significantly if a bad hire violates the FCPA.
As far back as 2004, in Opinion Release 04-02, the Department of Justice (DOJ) realized this was an important part of an overall compliance program when it approved a proposed compliance program that had the following requirement:
Clearly articulated procedures which ensure that discretionary authority is not delegated to persons who the company knows have a propensity to engage in illegal or improper activities.
One tool which that is often overlooked in the hiring process is the reference check. Many practitioners feel that a reference is not of value because prospective candidates will only list references that they believe will provide glowing recommendations of character. This leads to a pro forma reference check. However, in an article in Harvard Business Review (HBR), entitled “Gilt Groupe’s CEO on Building a Team of A Players”, author Kevin Ryan explodes this misconception by detailing how he views the entire hiring process and specifically checking references. I would add that it could be a valuable and useful tool for you and your compliance program.
In the hiring of personnel, Ryan details the three steps his company takes: (1) Resume review; (2) In-Person interview; and (3) Reference checks. Ryan believes that resumes are good for establishing “basic qualifications for the job, but not for much else.” He believes that the primary problem with in-person interviews is that they are skewed in favor of “persons who are well spoken [or] present well.” For Ryan, the key check is through references and he says, “References are really the only way to learn these things?”
Ryan recognizes that many people believe that reference checks are not of great value because companies cannot or will not give out much more information than confirming dates of employment. However, he also believes that “the way around it is to dig up people who will speak candidly.” He also recognizes that if you only speak to the references listed on a resume or other application, you may not receive the most robust appraisal. Ryan responds that the answer is to put in the work to check out references properly. Ryan believes this is one of the key strengths of search firms and that companies should emulate this practice when it comes to reference checks.
He notes that anyone who has worked in an industry for any significant length of time will have made many connections. Invariably some of these connections will be acquainted with you or those in your current, and former, company. Ryan gave the following example: A longtime friend who was employed at another company called and said that he had been asked by his hiring partner to find out “the real story” on a hiring candidate by asking Ryan his candid opinion of the candidate. Ryan’s response was “Don’t hire him.” Lest you think that such refreshing honesty no longer exists when informal employment references are provided, you are mistaken. In my past corporate position, I was charged with performing compliance due diligence on senior executives and I spent time doing what Ryan suggested, calling acquaintances that I knew and asking such direct questions. More than 75% of the time, I got direct responses.
Ryan believes that you must invest your company in the hiring process to get the right people for your company. The same is true in compliance. You do not want people with a propensity for engaging in corrupt acts working for, or leading, your company. Moreover, failure to prevent such hires can be evidence of an not effective compliance program and lack of appropriate commitment to compliance at your company.
The hiring of someone who will perform business activities in compliance with anti-corruption laws such as the FCPA will continue to be as much art as science because the hiring of quality employees for senior management positions is similarly situated. But that does not mean a company cannot work to not hire those persons who might have a propensity to engage in bribery and corruption if the situation presented itself. The hiring process is just one more tool that can be utilized to build an effective and operationalized compliance program.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s series is sponsored by Advanced Compliance Solutions and its new service offering the “Compliance Alliance” which is a three-step program that will provide you and your team a background into compliance and the FCPA so you can consider how your product or service fits into the needs of a compliance officer. It includes a FCPA and compliance boot camp, sponsorship of a one-month podcast series, and in-person training. Each section builds on the other and provides your customer service and sales teams with the knowledge they need to have intelligent conversations with compliance officers and decision makers. When the program is complete, your teams will be armed with the knowledge they need to sell and service every new client. Interested parties should contact Tom Fox.
One of the theories of conventional wisdom about anti-corruption compliance is that you will never be able to reach 5% of your workforce with compliance training because they are predisposed to lie, cheat and steal anyway. Whether they are simply sociopaths, scumbags or just bad people; it really does not matter. No amount of training is going to convince them to follow the rules, as they do not think such laws apply to them. They will lie, cheat and steal no matter what industry they are in and what training you provide to them. But knowing such people exist and they may be able to lie, con or otherwise dissimilate their way into your organization does not protect your company from FCPA liability when they inevitably violate the law by engaging in bribery and corruption. It is still the responsibility of your company to prevent and detect such conduct and then remediate if it occurs.
This is where your HR function has a dual role. They can work to help weed out such miscreants and to communication your corporate values of doing business ethically, in compliance and aligned with your corporate values of integrity. Today, I want to consider several techniques which might be used to both help in the hiring process and begin the ongoing communications with prospective employees about your values at the pre-employment process in the employment relationship lifecycle.
Through a structured series of questions, a properly trained HR professional can begin to assess whether an employee might have a propensity to engage in bribery and corruption. By adding information about your company’s values towards doing business ethically and in compliance, you can introduce this topic at either the interview evaluating process or in the promotion process. While true sociopaths will most certainly lie to you, perhaps even convincingly, by introducing the topic at such a pre-employment stage, they may be encouraged to take their skills elsewhere.
In a Corner Office column of the New York Times (NYT), entitled “Three Keys to Hiring: Skill, Will and Fit”, Adam Bryant interviewed Marla Malcolm Beck, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Bluemercury. She had several lessons that are helpful when trying to have your company avoid bringing in the five per-center mentioned above.
Avoiding the hiring or promotion of the sociopaths, is a key tool that HR brings to the table. Beck’s approach is to take a short interview technique in which she attempts to assess, Skill, Will and Fit. She said, “I’ll ask, “What’s the biggest impact you had at your past organization?” It’s important that someone takes ownership of a project that they did, and you can tell based on how they talk about it whether they did it or whether it was just something that was going on at the organization. Will is about hunger, so I’ll ask, “What do you want to do in five or 10 years?” That tells you a lot about their aspirations and creativity. If you’re hungry to get somewhere, that means you want to learn. And if you want to learn, you can do any job. In terms of fit, I’m looking for people who have some sort of experience with a smaller company. At big companies, your job is really one little piece of the pie. I need someone who can make things happen and is comfortable with ambiguity.”
Another approach was suggested by Russell Goldsmith, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of City National Bank in Los Angeles, CA. He was interviewed by Adam Bryant for the Corner Office column entitled, “What’s Your Story” Tell It, and You May Win a Prize”. Goldsmith focuses on character by directly asking the prospective hires what their expectations are in coming to work at City National because if the person is not a good match for the company, both parties will be better off if he or she does not go to work there in the first place. Goldsmith also asks if a prospective hire has any questions for him. Goldsmith believes it is important for a candidate to not only have questions but to ask them as well. He stated, “Not because I want them to kind of butter me up or something. It tells me several things. Sometimes people don’t have a single question. And if you have any curiosity, here is your window. I mean, you are thinking of changing your entire career and you have 40 to 60 minutes with the C.E.O., and you don’t have a single question about the company?”
An interesting example came from an interview of Brian Ching, the General Manager of the Houston Dash, the city’s professional women’s soccer team. The Dash are quite active in the local community, not only sent its players out into the community to meet fans but also encouraged its players to adopt local charities and become involved to create greater community involvement. The Dash left it up to the individual player as to which charity they might want to be involved with.
I asked him how the team could work to draft or sign players or prospects who are willing to engage in that type of community development. He said that in addition to the metrics and traditional scouting it involved having a frank discussion with any prospective signing about what would be expected of her as a Dash member. If getting out, meeting and interacting with the fans was not something that the prospective player was interested in doing that was considered in the evaluation process. This last point is assessed during face-to-face interviews with any prospect.
Something that may not seem important for professional athletes is the ability to get out and engage with the community, however this was viewed as not only an important part of the job description with the team but a key job skill which was required. For prospective Dash players, this meant that there had to be some direct conversations about not only the team’s expectations but also the prospects ability to engage in those activities.
Ching’s discussion about how they communicate their expectations was also an important point that the compliance practitioner should also consider in the interview process and compliance. Just as the Dash use the interview process to convey expectations, they also use the interview to directly inquire from candidates whether they would be willing to go out into the public and represent the franchise. This is important when interviewing for compliance positions and for senior management positions in companies as well.
Another approach was suggested by Mike Tuchen, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the software vendor Talend, in an interview by Adam Bryant for the NYT Corner Office Column entitled “Watch the Road, Not the Wipers”. I thought Tuchen’s thoughts on hiring from the compliance perspective were pertinent. When he interviews, “The first questions are always going to be about management and leadership style. And I’ll ask a number of open-ended questions about what’s important to get right as a leader. Some people will talk about the people on the team and the best way to motivate them. The answers that kind of scare me are from candidates who talk about people as if they’re something on a spreadsheet. Leadership and management are all about people.” Clearly for Tuchen, leadership is about people and this should be so for any CCO who is interviewing as well.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s series is sponsored by Advanced Compliance Solutions and its new service offering the “Compliance Alliance” which is a three-step program that will provide you and your team a background into compliance and the FCPA so you can consider how your product or service fits into the needs of a compliance officer. It includes a FCPA and compliance boot camp, sponsorship of a one-month podcast series, and in-person training. Each section builds on the other and provides your customer service and sales teams with the knowledge they need to have intelligent conversations with compliance officers and decision makers. When the program is complete, your teams will be armed with the knowledge they need to sell and service every new client. Interested parties should contact Tom Fox.
Today, I conclude my review of FCPA enforcement actions that involved the corporate hiring function. From these three cases I have considered, it is clear that HR must be involved in compliance and if HR hiring controls are over-ridden there must be an appropriate consideration of the risk management issues.
In November 2016, JP Morgan Chase (JPM) and its subsidiary, JPMorgan Securities (Asia Pacific) Limited (JPM-APAC) resolved its FCPA matter, obtaining a NPA from the DOJ with a penalty of $72MM, agreeing to a Cease and Desist Order (“Order”) from the SEC, with a penalty consisting of profit disgorgement and interest of $135MM, and reaching an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) for a Consent Cease and Desist Order (Fed Order) to put in place a best practices compliance program and pay a penalty of $61MM. The total fines and penalties paid by JPM for its violation of the FCPA was $268 MM.
The conduct involved JPM-APAC’s Client Referral Program, named the “Sons & Daughters Program” (Sons and Daughters), which targeted children of high Chinese government officials and employees of state-owned enterprises, other close family members and even close friends and associates of foreign officials and employees of state-owned enterprises for hiring in a blatant attempt to win business. It was designed, created and implemented by the top management of JPM-APAC, which went so far as to keep a tally of those persons hired by JPM-APAC and JPM tied to specific business development. As noted in the NPA, “certain senior executives and employees of (JPM-APAC) conspired to engage in quid pro quo agreements with Chinese officials”. The language quid pro quo is replete throughout the settlement documents because that is the specific language used by JPM-APAC personnel when discussing Sons and Daughters.
These actions led to over $100MM in profit to JPM. While JPM was certainly aware that many of these hires did not meet the companies stringent hiring requirements, there never seemed to be oversight of this illegal program or even investigation into the clear red flags presented by the company’s actions. What is more JPM knew the high-risk in hiring family members of foreign officials as far back as 2001 and indeed, had a written policy prohibiting such conduct. However, in 2006, this program morphed into a targeted program “directly attributable linkage to business opportunity”, and lasted until 2013. Over seven years, over 100 family members went through the program, with parents in more than 10 different Chinese government agencies. The program extended from new hires to summer internships to lateral hires.
JPM-APAC tracked the metrics of Sons and Daughters, the with “a spreadsheet that tracked hires to specific clients, while also tracking revenue attributable to those hires.” This spreadsheet was so detailed that it delineated “columns for each hire, the referring client, the relationship of the candidate, and the amount of revenue generated attributable to the hire in U.S. dollars.” Finally as noted in the NPA, a of the purpose of this level of documentation “was to track deals that resulted from the hires and measure revenue associated with Client Referral Program hires.” So the corruption scheme and the benefits obtained therefrom were fully documented.
The Son and Daughters program began as a FCPA risk management tool and listed five requirements to be considered for hire at JPM-APAC: “(1) whether the applicant was qualified for the position; (2) whether the applicant had gone through the normal interviewing process; (3) whether the referring client/potential client was government-related; (4) whether the firm was actively pitching for any business from the client/potential client; and (5) whether there was an “expected benefit to JPMorgan” for hiring the referred candidate.” These criteria were designed to act as internal control to prevent illegal hiring under the FCPA but it morphed into a program to disguise the true reason for these hires.
Worse, it appears that both the HR and compliance functions were complicit in the scheme to violate the FCPA because on at least one instance where the JPM-APAC business unit sponsor noted on the form “[t]he hiring of this candidate will place JPMorgan in a more favorable position for securing future business from the client.” This business justification morphed into the next iteration, “The candidate will be trained by JPMorgan for couple of years and then go to local bank. Thus, will bring more business”; all because the company’s compliance and HR functions “instructed the JPMorgan-APAC employee to remove the offending language, writing, “[h]iring of the candidate should not be for the purposes of securing future business of the firm. Please remove.” Further damning to the JPM-APAC compliance and HR functions was that of the more than 200 candidates hired through the Sons and Daughters program, none were rejected by either HR or compliance.
In addition to the tying of business to the hiring’s under the Sons and Daughters program, there was the additional problem that these hires did not meet JPM’s basic hiring and retention standards. According to the Order, one JPM-APAC representative described those hired under the program “as a protected species requiring [senior management] input. His reporting line to you is accountable but like national service.” Both the Order and NPA were replete with document evidence that the hires under Sons and Daughters did not meet minimum hiring standards and they often failed to meet minimum standards for retention at the company. The Box Score is a summary from the NPA of some of the candidates which clearly did not meet JPM hiring standards, yet who were hired and where such hires under the Sons and Daughters program brought benefits to JPM.
| Foreign Official or SOE employee | Reasons for hire | Candidate deficiencies | Deficiencies as JPM employee | Benefit tied to hire |
| Client 1 | Maintain good relationship with client |
|
| $4.82MM profit |
| Client 2 | Quid pro quo for business |
|
| JPM-APAC lead underwriter on IPO |
| Client 3 |
| Not very impressive, poor GPA | Attitude issue. He doesn’t seem to care about work. Don’t need to have an intern doing nothing | JPM-APAC lead underwriter on IPO |
| Client 4 | Promised IPO work | Not qualified for job at JPM. Tech and quantitative skills ‘light’ | Communication skills and interest in work lagged his peers | JPM-APAC lead underwriter on IPO. $23.4MM profit |
| Government Official 1 | Father would go the extra mile to help JPM | Worst business analyst candidate ever seen | Immature, irresponsible and unreliable. Sent out sexually inappropriate emails | JPM-APAC lead underwriter on IPO |
| Government Official 2 | Hire would ‘significantly’ influence role of JPM-APAC | Unlikely to meet hiring standard | New York not comfortable with his work. Recommends he follow a different career path | JPM-APAC lead underwriter on IPO |
One thing that the resolution decidedly does not stand for is the proposition that a company can never hire a family member of a foreign official or employee of a state-owned enterprise. Indeed, it was one JPM-APAC compliance officer (albeit a new one) in 2013 who stopped the entire Sons and Daughters program with the following reason for denying a family member a position at the company, writing, “I’m afraid from an anti bribery [sic] and corruption standpoint, we cannot create positions to accommodate client requests….”. This statement clearly shows that when an official refers a family member for hire, a red flag should go up. It also demonstrates why compliance should be involved in any high-risk endeavor. If there is no position which the candidate can fill based upon their own qualifications at your company, that should be the end of the discussion, full stop.
What are the criteria compliance can advise to HR to operationalize the compliance issues in hiring? There are three questions I suggest be used to analyze the hiring of a family member of foreign official or state-owned enterprise. They can also be installed as internal controls.
If the answer to the first question is “No” and the second two “Yes”, you may well be in a high-risk area of violating the FCPA. You should investigate the matter quite thoroughly and carefully. Finally, whatever you do, Document, Document, and Document your investigation, both the findings and the conclusions.
These questions can be set up as internal controls. This is another example of how a company can operationalize compliance and burn it into the fabric and DNA of an organization. Further, it provides another level of oversight or “a second set of eyes” on the hiring process around hires that are high-risk under the FCPA or other anti-bribery/anti-corruption regime such as the UK Bribery Act.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s series is sponsored by Advanced Compliance Solutions and its new service offering the “Compliance Alliance” which is a three-step program that will provide you and your team a background into compliance and the FCPA so you can consider how your product or service fits into the needs of a compliance officer. It includes a FCPA and compliance boot camp, sponsorship of a one-month podcast series, and in-person training. Each section builds on the other and provides your customer service and sales teams with the knowledge they need to have intelligent conversations with compliance officers and decision makers. When the program is complete, your teams will be armed with the knowledge they need to sell and service every new client. Interested parties should contact Tom Fox.
In this episode, Matt Kelly and I take a deep dive into the weeds of the soon-to-be-released the House Financial Services Committee, the Financial Choice 2.0 Act. We consider some of the ideas in the legislation which Matt thinks are bad including:
1. Repeal of the Chevron deference repealed.
2. Attempts to clip the SEC rule making authority.
3. Exempting more companies which desire to go public from SOX 404(b) requirements and reporting.
4. (Matt's most particular bad idea) The exemption of more filers exempted from XBRL reporting.
We also discuss some of the potential benefits from the legislation and where it may all go in the Senate.
For more see Matt's blog post House GOP Regulatory Reform Axe, on his site Radical Compliance.
Up until the summer of 2015, hiring practices under the FCPA were not been given much thought or widely discussed. However that began to change in the summer of 2015 when the SEC announced a resolution with Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BNY Mellon) for violations of the FCPA. This was the first enforcement action around the now infamous Princess-lings and Princelings investigation where US companies hired the sons and daughters of foreign officials to curry favor and obtain or retain business.
In this matter the BNY agreed to pay $14.8 million to settle charges that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by providing valuable student internships to family members of foreign officials affiliated with a Middle Eastern sovereign wealth fund.
The Order also specified how the hiring of the relatives led directly to BNY Mellon obtaining and retaining business. One foreign official, made a personal request that BNY Mellon provide internships to two of his relatives: his son and nephew. As a Middle Eastern Sovereign Wealth Fund department head, he had authority over allocations of new assets to existing managers and was viewed within the bank as a “key decision maker” at the Middle Eastern Sovereign Wealth Fund. The second foreign official, who had authority to make decisions directly impacting BNY Mellon’s business asked that BNY Mellon provide an internship to the official’s son.
Added to all of this was that none of the three individuals met the BNY Mellon requirements for its internship program; they met neither the academic or professional requirement to obtain an internship. BNY Mellon not only waived its own hiring requirements, it did not even go through the pretense of meeting with them or interviewing them. Finally, these three individuals were provided with personalized, rotational internships so they had the opportunity to work in a number of different BNY Mellon business units, enhancing the value of the work experience beyond that normally provided to interns.
Red Flags
In February 2016, came the Qualcomm enforcement action. In addition to the types of facts presented in BNY, there were additional reasons not to hire the family member of a foreign official. The candidate was rated as a “No Hire” because not only was he not a “skill match” for the company but he did not even “meet the minimum requirements for moving forward with an offer”. Finally, among the Qualcomm team involved in the interview process, “there was an agreement that he would be a drain (not even neutral) on teams he would join.” Yet he was offered a job as a “special favor”. [Emphasis supplied]. If someone is so unqualified that employing them will negatively impact the company, there must be another very good reason to hire them, such as providing a benefit to their father, who is an official under the FCPA.
Lessons Learned Going Forward
The obvious starting point for any hiring of a close family member of a foreign governmental official is whether the candidate is qualified for the position. If they are not qualified it is ‘Full Stop’ at that point. In the case of BNY Mellon there was no evidence any of the candidates had the academic background, the academic credentials, leadership traits or intangible skills to meet the bank’s normal internship hiring criteria. As with any other anomaly granted in a company’s normal process, there must be a documented reason for the exception, review by appropriate authority of the exception and documentation as to why the exception was granted. None of these steps were present in the BNY Mellon matter. Put another way, if you are hiring a family member or close relative of a foreign official for any reason other than merit, it had better be a darn good one and well-documented as to your decision-making calculus with appropriate senior management oversight.
But your risk management does not stop simply with the hiring process. If the foreign governmental official is the person who made the request for the hiring of the family member, this is a Red Flag not to be overlooked. Your analysis needs to be on the role of that foreign governmental official in awarding new business to your company or in retaining old business. If the foreign governmental official has direct or even strong indirect control over such business relation, this may present such a direct conflict of interest, this may be a risk that you cannot manage. A good rule of thumb here is whether there is full transparency in the hiring with the foreign government involved with your company. In the case of BNY Mellon, they did not want anyone in the Sovereign Wealth Fund to know BNY Mellon had hired the son or nephew. That is a clear sign transparency is lacking and someone, somewhere is engaging in unethical conduct, if not breaking the law.
Finally, if you do decide to move forward and hire the close family member, you need to assign that new hire to work not associated with the business relationship between your company and the foreign government involved. Just as in the lifecycle of third party management, managing the relationship after a contract is inked is in many ways the most critical element; the same is true in the employment relationship involving close family members of foreign officials.
Ultimately, you need to have internal controls to ensure effective compliance going forward. You cannot have customer relationship managers making the calls on hiring which over-ride the Human Resources (HR) procedures. There must be not only HR review but also mechanisms to flag for compliance review such hires. Lastly, there needs to be sufficient senior management oversight because this is such a high-risk proposition.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s series is sponsored by Advanced Compliance Solutions and its new service offering the “Compliance Alliance” which is a three-step program that will provide you and your team a background into compliance and the FCPA so you can consider how your product or service fits into the needs of a compliance officer. It includes a FCPA and compliance boot camp, sponsorship of a one-month podcast series, and in-person training. Each section builds on the other and provides your customer service and sales teams with the knowledge they need to have intelligent conversations with compliance officers and decision makers. When the program is complete, your teams will be armed with the knowledge they need to sell and service every new client. Interested parties should contact Tom Fox.
In this podcast, Marc Bohn and James Tillen from the firm of Miller & Chevalier, discuss their recent publication entitled, "Evaluating FCPA Pilot Program: Declinations on the Rise" where they review the state of Department of Justice's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act declinations after one year of the agency's enforcement Pilot Program, which sought to promote greater accountability for companies and individuals who violate the FCPA, while rewarding those who voluntarily self-disclose violations and cooperate with investigations and remediation efforts. They discuss the following issues:
For additional reading on FCPA enforcement in 2017, see Miller & Chevalier's FCPA Spring Review 2017.
Day 1- The Role of Human Resources in Operationalizing Compliance
This month, I will consider the role of Human Resources (HR) in operationalizing a best practices compliance program. I have long advocated for a greater role of Human Resources (HR) in a compliance program. Indeed, one sign of a mature Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance and ethics program is the extent to which a company’s HR Department is involved in implementing a solution. While many practitioners do not immediately consider HR as a key component of a FCPA compliance solution, it can be one of the lynch-pins in spreading a company’s commitment to compliance throughout the employee base. HR can also be used to ‘connect the dots’ in many divergent elements of a FCPA compliance and ethics program.
Even more importantly is the operationalization of compliance into the fabric of the business. One of the key indicia of compliance program effectiveness is how thoroughly each separate corporate discipline incorporates compliance into its everyday job functions. An active and functioning compliance program will literally be alive in each department in an organization.
HR has as many touchpoints as any other corporation function with employees. From interviews to onboarding, through evaluations and performance appraisals, even to the separation process; HR leads many of the corporate touchpoints. Each one of these touchpoints can be used teach, educate and reinforce the message of doing business ethically and in compliance with laws such as the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act or any similar legislation.
The Department of Justice Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (Evaluation) listed four specific areas of HR touchpoints in a best practices compliance program, found under Prong 8, Incentives and Disciplinary Measures
Accountability – What disciplinary actions did the company take in response to the misconduct and when did they occur? Were managers held accountable for misconduct that occurred under their supervision? Did the company’s response consider disciplinary actions for supervisors’ failure in oversight? What is the company’s record (e.g., number and types of disciplinary actions) on employee discipline relating to the type(s) of conduct at issue? Has the company ever terminated or otherwise disciplined anyone (reduced or eliminated bonuses, issued a warning letter, etc.) for the type of misconduct at issue?
Human Resources Process – Who participated in making disciplinary decisions for the type of misconduct at issue?
Consistent Application – Have the disciplinary actions and incentives been fairly and consistently applied across the organization?
Incentive System – How has the company incentivized compliance and ethical behavior? How has the company considered the potential negative compliance implications of its incentives and rewards? Have there been specific examples of actions taken (e.g., promotions or awards denied) as a result of compliance and ethics considerations?
When you consider the number of touchpoints, HR has in the employment life cycle, its role in facilitating the operationalization of compliance becomes clear. At each of these touchpoints, HR can take the lead in operationalizing compliance. Additionally, each touchpoint provides an opportunity for ongoing communications with a prospective employee, newly hired employee, seasoned employee or one moving up into the ranks of management about the need for ethical dealings and compliance with company values as set out in the Code of Conduct and operationalized in the compliance policies and procedures.
By using these touch points HR can demonstrated the shared commitment requirement found in Prong 2 of the Evaluation as well as provide ongoing communications as laid out in Prong 6. There are few other corporate departments which have so many employee touchpoints as HR. Every compliance practitioner should use HR to operationalize compliance through the variety of touchpoints and expertise available to a compliance professional through a corporate HR department. As a key first step, I would suggest that every compliance professional head down to your corporate HR department and have a cup of coffee with your functional equivalent. Find out not only what they do but how they do it and then explore how you can further operationalize your compliance program through these HR-employee touchpoints.
Over this next month, I will be considering the role of HR in all of these steps and more. Further, over the past 20 months there have been 3 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions which spoke directly to the role of HR and hiring in a compliance program. I will begin with these three cases and move through the employment lifecycle.
Three Key Takeaways
In this episode, Jay and I have a wide-ranging discussion on some of the week’s top compliance related stories. We discuss:
I end this one month series by taking things a different direction. Today I do not focus on third party risk management but on third parties as a compliance innovation source for your organization. It is universally recognized that third parties are your highest Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) risk. What if you could turn your third party from a liability under the FCPA to an innovation partner to your compliance program? This is an area that not many compliance professionals have mined but once again in compliance, you are only limited by your imagination.
In an article in Third Party Management Review by Jennifer Blackhurst, Pam Manhart and Emily Kohnke, entitled “The Five Key Components for Third party Innovation”, the authors asked “what does it take to create meaningful innovation across third party partners?” One reason compliance innovation with third parties can be so power is that it cannot only affect costs but can move to gain a competitive advantage. To do so companies need to see their third parties as partners and not simply as entities to be squeezed for costs savings.
Their findings identified five components common to the most successful innovation partnerships. They are: “(1) Don’t Settle for the Status Quo; (2) Hit the Road in Order to Hit Your Metrics; (3) Send Prospectors Not Auditors; (4) Show Me Yours and I’ll Show You Mine; and (5) Who’s Running the Show?”
Don’t Settle for the Status Quo
This means that you should not settle for simply the status quo in compliance. Innovation does not always come from a customer or even an in-house compliance practitioner. Here the key characteristics were noted to be “cooperative, proactive and incremental”. You need to be leading the compliance innovation discussion rather than falling from behind. If a third party can suggest a better method to make compliance more efficient or cost effective, particularly through a technological solution, it may well be something you should consider.
Hit the Road in Order to Hit Your Metrics
To truly understand your compliance risk from all third parties, you must get out of the ivory tower and hit the road. This is even truer when exploring compliance innovation. You do not have hit the road with the “primary goal to be the inception point for innovation” but through such interactions, innovation can come about organically, as a part of your ongoing third party relationship. There is little downside for a compliance practitioner to go and visit a third party and have a “face-to-face meeting simply to get to know the partner better and more precisely identify that partner’s needs.”
Send Prospectors Not Auditors
While an audit clause is critical in any third party contract, both from a commercial and FCPA perspective, this exercise should be considered as such. You can establish a point of contact as an innovation manager for your third parties” Every third party should have a relationship manager, whether that third party is on the sales side or the Supply Chain side of the business. Moreover, the innovation partners are “able to see synergies where [business] partners can work together for the benefit of everyone involved.”
Show Me Yours and I’ll Show You Mine
As with all relationships, trust plays an important role in third party compliance innovation, as “Firms in successful innovations discussed a willingness to share resources and rewards and to develop their partners’ capabilities.” The authors believe that “Through the process of developing trust, firms understand their partner’s strategic goals.” I cannot think of a more applicable statement about FCPA compliance. Another way to consider this issue is that if a third party partner has trust in you and your compliance program, they could be more willing to work with you on the prevent and detect prongs of compliance regimes. Top down command structures may well be counter-productive.
Who’s Running the Show?
This means “who is doing what, but also what each firm is bringing to the relationship in terms of resources and capabilities.” In the compliance regime, it could well lead to your third party taking a greater role in managing compliance in a specific arena or down a certain set of vendors. Your local third party might be stronger in the local culture, which could allow it to lead to collaborations by other vendors in localized anti-corruption networks or roundtables to help move the ball forward for doing business in compliance with the FCPA or other anti-corruption laws such as the UK Bribery Act.
The authors ended by remarking, “we noticed that leveraging lean and process improvement was mentioned by virtually every firm.” This is true in the area of compliance process improvement, which is the essential nature of FCPA compliance. Another interesting insight from the authors was that utilization can increase through such innovation in the third party. Now imagine if you could increase your compliance process performance by considering innovations from your third parties?
The authors conclude by stating that such innovation could lead to three “interesting outcomes (1) The trust and culture alignment is strengthened through the partnership innovation process leading to future innovations and improvement; (2) firms see what is needed in terms of characteristics in a partner firm so that they can propagate the success of prior innovations to additional partners; (3) by engaging third party partners as innovation partners, both sides reap rewards in a low cost, low risk, highly achievable manner.” With some innovation, you may well be able to tap into a resource immediately available at your fingertips, your third party.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Opus. Opus helps free your business from the complexity and uncertainty of managing the risks associated with your customers, vendors, and third parties. By combining the most innovative Third-Party Risk Management and Know Your Customer Compliance SaaS platforms with unparalleled data solutions, Opus turns information into action so your business can thrive. Opus solutions include Hiperos 3PM accelerator, the leading platform for
In this Part I of a two part series recorded at this month's European Compliance and Ethics Institute in Prague, Roy Snell discuss the DOJ's Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in the context of cavemen and Plato's Analogy of the Cave. We review some of the new information and Roy discusses how it is a compilation of many differing strands of compliance thought over the past 20 year. We then discuss the HCCA-OIG Resource Guide on Measuring Compliance Program Effectiveness. As always we go off on tangents and dive deeply into issues relating to the the compliance profession.
One of the areas many companies do not focus on enough is possible corruption in their Supply Chain (SC) for goods and services provided on a company’s behalf. The FCPA risks can be just as great through those entry points as it can be through the sales side of an organization. You need to know who your company is doing business with through the SC as much as you need to know your agents seeking business opportunities on your behalf.
As most companies have exponentially more vendors than sales agents, this task may seem daunting. However a well thought plan to risk rank your company’s third parties on the SC side can go a long way towards ameliorating this issue. The key is to set reasonable parameters and then management those third parties which present true corruption risk to your organization.
This determination of the level of due diligence and categorization of a supplier should depend on a variety of factors, including, such factors as whether the supplier is (1) located, or will operate, in a high risk country; (2) associated, or recommended or required by, a government official; (3) currently under corruption investigation, or has been recently convicted of any form of corruption; (4) a multinational publicly traded corporation with a recognized exemplary system of compliance and internal controls; or (5) a provider of widely available services and products that are not industry specific. You should note that any supplier, which has foreign government touch points, should move up into a higher level of scrutiny.
My suggestion is that you create a three-tiered matrix for SC risks, with the three levels consisting of (1) High-Risk Suppliers, (2) Low-Risk Suppliers, and (3) Minimal Risk Suppliers. Below this final category is another category for providers of goods which are commonly available and pose almost no corruption risk.
A High-Risk Supplier presents a higher level of compliance risk because of the presence one or more of the following factors: (a) It is based or operates in a country that poses a high risk for corruption, money laundering, or commercial bribery; (b) It supplies goods or services to a company from a high-risk country; (c) It has a reputation in the business community for questionable business practices or ethics; or (d) It has been convicted of, or is alleged to have been involved in, illegal conduct. Other factors you may wish to consider include some or all of the following: (1) the Supplier is located in a country that has inadequate regulatory oversight of its activities; (2) the Supplier is in an unregulated business; (3) the Supplier’s ultimate or beneficial ownership is difficult to determine; (4) your company has an annual spend of more than $100,000 with the supplier; (5) the Supplier was established or registered in a jurisdiction where ownership is not transparent or that permits ownership in the form of bearer shares; (6) the Supplier is registered or conducts business in a jurisdiction that does not have anti-corruption, anti-money laundering (AML) and anti-terrorism laws comparable to those of the US and UK; or (7) the Supplier lacks a discernable and substantial business history.
A Low-Risk Supplier is an individual or a non-publicly held entity that conducts business in a Low-Risk Country. Some indicia include that it (1) supplies goods, equipment or services directly to a company in a Low-Risk Country; (2) a company has an annual spend of less than $1,000,000 with the supplier; and (3) the supplier is not involvement with any foreign government, government entity, or Government Official. However, if the supplier has other indicia of lower risk such that it is a publicly-held company, it may be considered a Low-Risk Supplier because it is subject to the highest disclosure and auditing and reporting standards such as those under FCPA or similar law.
Below the high and low risk categories I would add two other categories of suppliers that present very low compliance risks. The first is ‘Minimal-Risk Suppliers’ which generally provide to a company goods and services that are non-specific to a particular project and the value of the transaction is USD $25,000 or less. Some examples might be for the routine purchase of fungible items and services, including, among others: Office supplies, such as paper, furniture, computers, copiers, and printers; Industrial or factory supplies, including cleaning materials, solvents, safety clothing and off-the-shelf equipment and parts; Crating and other standard materials for packing products for shipping; Leasing and rental of company cars and other equipment; and Airline or other travel tickets or services. It may also include legal services from professional firms that are approved and overseen by a company’s Legal Department; Investigative services from professional firms that are approved and overseen by a Legal Department and that do not interact with government agencies on behalf of a company; and Accounting and financial services from professional firms that are approved and overseen by a company Finance Department or Audit Committees and that do not interact with government agencies on behalf of a company.
Finally, are the category of third parties that provide widely available services and products, ‘Common Product and Services’, that are not industry specific, are offered to the public at large and do not fall under the definition of Minimal-Risk Supplier. These include, among others, wide circulation newspapers, magazines, florists, daily limousine and taxi, airline and food delivery (including coffee shops, pizza parlors and take out) services. These third parties raise even less than Minimal Risk to a company, especially when their services and products are provided in a non-high risk country. Suppliers in this category require no FCPA due diligence.
You need to risk rank your third parties which your company might engage through your SC for FCPA exposure. It should be based on your company’s experience and risk going forward. As with all other third party risk management issues, you must document, document, document.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Opus. Opus helps free your business from the complexity and uncertainty of managing the risks associated with your customers, vendors, and third parties. By combining the most innovative Third-Party Risk Management and Know Your Customer Compliance SaaS platforms with unparalleled data solutions, Opus turns information into action so your business can thrive. Opus solutions include Hiperos 3PM accelerator, the leading platform for third party risk management. To learn more, go to www.opus.com.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) world is littered with cases involving freight forwarders, brokers and agents in the shipping and express delivery arena. Both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have aggressively pursued third party business relationships where bribery and corruption have been found. This is particularly true where companies are required to deliver goods into a foreign country through the assistance of a freight forwarder or express delivery service. There are several major risk points. These include:
How can a company respond to protect itself or at least reduce its potential FCPA risk with regarding to a logistics company, freight forwarder or express delivery company? Obviously having a thorough risk assessment program and due diligence program are critical. After determining risk, move to perform due diligence based upon this risk. However, there are some general questions that you should ask, both internally and to your prospective vendor.
After you ask some of these questions, investigate your risks and evaluate them; you should incorporate these findings into a contract with appropriate FPCA compliance terms and conditions. This contract should announce to your to third party freight forwarder/express supplier of your expectations regarding their compliance program. Your contract should also allow for management of the compliance relationship. Your contract should require training and certification by verified provider or by your company. Your company’s Relationship Manager should ensure the third party’s compliance with your company’s anti-bribery compliance program.
James Min, Vice President, Int'l Trade Law & Global Head of Trade Law Practice Group at DP-DHL Legal Department, developed a risk matrix for the freight forwarders/express delivery industry. In this Min analyzes risks by multiplying factors noted herein and thus scoring. This model shows that location should not be the sole criteria for risk. The factors in the Min Model are the performance of your company’s customers clearance brokers and how far that performance varies from the norm your company normally receives. In the below chart, +1.00 equals average clearance time. >1.0 equals faster than average and <1 means slower than average.
The Min Model
| Country | TI CPI | Customs Clearance Performance | Variance from Average Performance | Risk Score | Risk Rank |
| A | 55 | .93 | 1.21 | 61.9 | 1 |
| B | 20 | .76 | 0.89 | 13.5 | 3 |
| C | 54 | .29 | 1.00 | 15.6 | 2 |
| D | 88 | .12 | 0.7. | 7.39 | 4 |
The key in this approach is how often the Customs Broker/Express Delivery Service varies above the average for customs clearance times. If the percentage of customs clearance performance is so great that your vendors variance is above 100% most of the time, this could be a Red Flag that bribery or corruption is involved. This should lead to further investigation, due diligence, or asking of questions of your vendor.
Almost every business transaction engaged in by a freight forwarder, express delivery service or customs broker, outside the US involves a foreign governmental official. Every time your company sends raw materials into, or brings them out of, a country there is an interaction with a foreign governmental official in the form of a Customs Official. Every customs transaction involves a payment to a foreign government and every transaction involves some form of a foreign governmental regulatory process. While the individual payment per transaction can be small, the amount of total transactions can be quite high, if a large volume of goods are being imported into a foreign country.
Conversely interacting with international tax authorities can present problems similar to those with customs officials, but the stakes can often be much higher since tax transactions may be less in frequency but higher in financial risk. These types of risks include the valuation of raw materials for VAT purposes before such materials are incorporated into a final product, or the lack of segregation between goods to be sold on the foreign country’s domestic market as opposed to those which may be shipped through a free trade zone for sale outside that country’s domestic market.
If you utilize the services of a third party for any of the transactions listed above, that company’s actions will go a long way in determining your company’s FCPA liability. You must have a thoughtful process and document that process.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Opus. Opus helps free your business from the complexity and uncertainty of managing the risks associated with your customers, vendors, and third parties. By combining the most innovative Third-Party Risk Management and Know Your Customer Compliance SaaS platforms with unparalleled data solutions, Opus turns information into action so your business can thrive. Opus solutions include Hiperos 3PM accelerator, the leading platform for third party risk management. To learn more, go to www.opus.com.
In this episode I visit with white collar defense and Qui Tam specialist Joel Androphy about prosecution of whistleblower claims at the federal and state level. Androphy explains what type of evidence is required to file such a claim, have the government take over the action and what a whistleblower may expect. It is a fascinating view from a whistleblower expert counsel at the state and federal level. Joel Androphy can be reached at jandrophy@bafirm.com. For more information about his practice areas, including whistleblower claims, False Claims Act lawsuits and Qui Tam claims; check out the firm website at bafirm.com.
One of the issues in any compliance program is the compensation paid to a third party as FCPA exposure arises when companies pay money - either directly or indirectly - to fund bribe payments. In the traditional intermediary scenario, the company funnels money to the agent or consultant, who then passes on some or all of it to the bribe recipient. Often, the payment is disguised as compensation to the intermediary, and some portion is redirected for corrupt purposes.
When companies grant distributors uncommonly steep discounts, bribes can result either: 1) because the distributor is instructed by the company to use the excess amounts to fund corrupt payments; or 2) because the distributor pays bribes on its own, without the express direction or implicit suggestion from the company to do so, in an effort to gain some business advantage. The 2012 FCPA Guidance, it noted that common red flags associated with third parties include “unreasonably large discounts to third-party distributors”. The distributor enforcement cases offer lessons to combat the scenario, which is where legitimate companies require assistance.
How can risk that distributors present be managed? One mechanism is to install a distributor discount policy and monitoring system tailored to the company’s operational structure. In virtually every business, there exists a range of standard discounts granted to distributors. Under the approach recommended here, discounts within that range may be granted without the need for further investigation, explanation or authorization (absent, of course, some glaring evidence that the distributor intends use even the standard cost/price delta to fund corrupt payments).
Where the distributor requests a discount above the standard range, however, the policy should require a legitimate justification. Evaluating and endorsing that justification requires three steps: (1) relevant information about the contemplated elevated discount must be captured and memorialized; (2) requests for elevated discounts should be evaluated in a streamlined fashion, with tiered levels of approval (higher discounts require higher ranking official approval); and (3) elevated discounts are then tracked, along with their requests and authorizations, in order to facilitate auditing, testing and benchmarking. This process also works to more fully operationalize your compliance regime as it requires multiple and increasingly upper levels of management involvement, approval and oversight.
Capturing and Memorializing Discount Authorization Requests
Through whatever means are most efficient, a discount authorization request (“DAR”) template should be prepared. While remaining mindful of the need to strike a balance between the creation of unnecessary red tape and the need to mitigate risk, the DAR template should be designed to capture a given request and allow for an informed decision about whether it should be granted. Because the specifics of a DAR are critical to evaluating its legitimacy, it is expected that the employee submitting the DAR will provide details about how the request originated (e.g., whether as a request from the distributor or a contemplated offer by the company) as well as explain the legitimate justification for the elevated discount (e.g, volume-based incentive). In addition, the DAR template should be designed to identify gaps in compliance that may otherwise go undetected (e.g., confirmation that the distributor has executed a certification of FCPA compliance).
Evaluation and Authorization of DARs
Channels should be created to evaluate DARs submitted. The precise structure of that system will depend on several factors, but ideally the goal should be to allow for tiered levels of approval. Usually, three levels of approval are sufficient, but this can expanded or contracted as necessary. Ultimately, the greater the discount contemplated, the more scrutiny the DAR should receive. Factors to be considered in constructing the approval framework include the expected volume of DARs and the current organizational structure. The goal is to ensure that all DARs are vetted in an appropriately thorough fashion without negatively impacting the company’s ability to function efficiently. It also mandates the operationalization of this compliance issue into multiple disciplines within your organization.
Tracking of DARs
Once the information gathering, review and approval processes are formulated, there must be a system in place to track, record and evaluate information relating to DARs, both approved and denied. This captured data can provide invaluable insight into FCPA compliance and beyond. By tracking the total number of DARs, companies will find themselves better able to determine where and why discounts are increasing, whether the standard discount range should be raised or lowered, and gauge the level of commitment to FCPA compliance within the company (e.g., confirming the existence of a completed and approved DAR is an excellent objective measure for internal audit to perform as part of its evaluation of the company’s FCPA compliance measures). This information, in turn, leaves these companies better equipped to respond to government inquiries down the road.
Rethinking approaches to evaluating distributor activities is but one of the ways that the increased number of enforcement actions, 2012 FCPA Guidance and Justice Department’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs document have provided insight into how the government interprets and enforces the FCPA. This information, in turn, allows companies to get smarter about FCPA compliance. With a manageable amount of forethought, companies who rely on distributors can create, install and maintain systems which allow them to spend fewer resources to more effectively prevent violations. Moreover, these systems generate tangible proof of a company’s genuine commitment to FCPA compliance, by more fully operationalizing this aspect of their compliance program.
Many companies have been involved in FCPA enforcement actions because of distributors. This sales side channel does not receive the focus equal to that of commissioned sales agents. Yet it can present an equally large compliance risk. By using this DAR approach, you will have created a well-thought out process which will operationalize your compliance program around distributor compensation, in a manner which documents your decision-making calculus.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Opus. Opus helps free your business from the complexity and uncertainty of managing the risks associated with your customers, vendors, and third parties. By combining the most innovative Third-Party Risk Management and Know Your Customer Compliance SaaS platforms with unparalleled data solutions, Opus turns information into action so your business can thrive. Opus solutions include Hiperos 3PM accelerator, the leading platform for third party risk management. To learn more, go to www.opus.com.
In this episode, Matt Kelly and I take a very deep dive into two recent speeches by Department of Justice (DOJ) Acting Principal Assistant Attorney General Trevor McFadden in which he addressed multiple topics and issues around the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The first set of remarks were made in Washington DC at the Anti-Corruption, Export Controls & Sanctions (ACES) 10th Compliance Summit (the “DC speech”). The second set of remarks were made at the American Conference Institute (ACI) 19th Conference on the FCPA in New York City (the “NYC speech”). We consider the evolving rationale for FCPA enforcement which has changed in the 40 years since it was enacted, the mandatory corporate response to FCPA compliance requirements, and how McFadden sees Justice Department enforcement of the FCPA going forward in the Trump administration.
For Matt Kelly blog post on McFadden's remarks, click here. For Tom Fox's segments of a three part series, click here for Part I, Part II and Part III.
At some point, you will be required to terminate a third-party and there will be multiple legal, compliance and business issues to navigate going forward. If you are stuck doing it in the middle of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or Bribery Act investigation, such as Airbus is currently under with the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), there may well be some tension to do so and do so quickly. If you have not thought through this issue and created a process to follow before it all hits the fan, you may well be in for a very tough road.
The key theme in termination is planning. The Office of Comptroller of the Currency, OCC Bulletin 2013-29, said that regarding third-party termination, a bank should develop a “contingency plan to ensure that the bank can transition the activities to another third party, bring the activities in-house, or discontinue the activities when a contract expires, the terms of the contract have been satisfied, in response to contract default, or in response to changes to the bank’s or third party’s business strategy.”
In an article entitled “Breaking Up Is Hard To Do”, Carol Switzer related how to avoid pain by planning for the end of a third-party relationship. She said it all should begin with “an exit strategy, a transition plan or a pre-nup—whatever the title, it’s best to begin by planning for the end which, in the case of business at least, will always eventually come. Whether due to contract completion or material breach, turning over responsibility to another party, or abandonment of the contracted activity altogether, contract termination is an inevitable phase in the third-party relationship lifecycle.” Planning for the end is important because, “The more long term and layered the relationship, the more difficult it will be to disentangle. The deeper the third-party is embedded in and uses the confidential information of the company and its customers, the greater the risks presented by failing to design a smooth transition process.”
It should originate with clearly specified contract termination rights but that is only the starting point, “To work out a smooth transition, the plan must also include internal change management processes and policies, designated transition team members, contingencies, and adequate resources and time allowances.” Your corporate values must be protected by “clearly designating the disposition of shared intellectual property and infrastructure assets.” Next you need to think through your transition plan by “ensuring rights to hire or continue use of key contractor employees who have been servicing your account, arranging to bringing new contractors or internal managers up to speed, and filing any regulatory or other required notifications.” Finally, bear in mind that your reputation must be protected during this transition process “by controlling and planning for issuance of public statements and social media postings by terminated contractors or their employees, or the best laid transition plans may be for naught.”
You will also need to consider the business risks around the termination of a third-party, particularly on the sales side of your business. This may mean sitting down with a customer or group of customers to explain the reasons behind the termination. Obviously if your business team has not developed a relationship with the end-using customer, this can be a difficult and very problematic conversation.
Unless you are exiting a business sector or territory, you will need to replace the third-party. This means going through the entire five-step process with any potential sales agent or representative. Such planning needs to be built into your termination strategy. If the reason for termination is a contract violation or worse a FCPA violation, there may well be other notifications which are required, both internally and externally to government regulators. You have also been under some type of contractual nondisclosure language and so consultation with your legal counsel, once again both in-house and outside, may be required. Finally, never forgot the reputation damage by releasing such information, or conversely not disclosing it. Both sets of reasons may hurt your business reputation as well.
In addition to the above steps, there are some specific considerations you should take. In the area of data, data privacy and data accessibility, if a third-party has access to your network and systems, such access must be revoked. If your terminated third-party has physical data, you must plan for the return of your data to you in a format that is acceptable to you and is secure. If your data is confidential, you may want to require that it be returned in an encrypted format and via an encrypted channel. You should lay out the time frame for the return of any data.
Alternatively, you can specify that data be destroyed. If this is the route you take with your third-parties, it should be performed in a way which is secure so the data cannot be reconstructed at a later date, through the use of surreptitiously created backup or duplicate data. You should mandate the third-party provide to you a certificate of destruction that confirms the destruction of your data and the methods used for destruction. Information that must be retained should maintain the data protection requirements currently in place, or stronger if the applicable laws change during the time of retention.
Although rarely considered, the termination of a third-party relationship can be as important a step as any other in the management of the third-party lifecycle. While having the contractual right to terminate is a good starting point, it is only the starting point. You not only need to have a compliance and legal plan in place but a business plan as well. If you do not, the cost in both monetary and potential business reputation can be quite high.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Opus. Opus helps free your business from the complexity and uncertainty of managing the risks associated with your customers, vendors, and third parties. By combining the most innovative Third-Party Risk Management and Know Your Customer Compliance SaaS platforms with unparalleled data solutions, Opus turns information into action so your business can thrive. Opus solutions include Hiperos 3PM accelerator, the leading platform for third party risk management. To learn more, go to www.opus.com.
In this episode, Jay Rosen returns from a week’s trip to Walt Disney World. Jay and I have a wide-ranging discussion on some of the week’s top compliance related stories. We discuss:
One area that has bedeviled Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) and compliance practitioners is how to determine the return on investment (ROI) for your compliance program regarding third parties. While it is still clear that third parties are the greatest risk in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions, senior management often wants to know what is the monetary benefit to the company for this type of risk management.
When you couple the request for ROI with the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) mandate for the operationalization of your compliance program, as articulated in the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, it may seem like a doubly daunting task. However the requirement for operationalization of your compliance program actually lends itself to formulating ROI around the risk management of third parties. This is because if you move the third-party compliance into the organization as a business process, with a technological solution, the ROI becomes not only clearer but easier to calculate going forward.
I recently read a study by Forrester Research Inc., suggested an approach for the anti-corruption compliance practitioner. In this study, Forrester compared the user experience, leading to a finding of a positive ROI for the technology user around third-party risk management. I found the approach and methodology used persuasive and valuable for the compliance professional to consider in evaluating such a process in your organization.
Some of the key findings readily translate across for the anti-corruption compliance practitioner. The first area was in risk assessments of third parties. If you are able to provide a technological platform, you can enhance both the speed and efficiency of your risk assessments on an ongoing basis. The decrease in time it would take for each risk assessment, both in terms of length and compliance department man-hours will yield an immediate cost saving for your compliance function.
Consider just two of the steps required in the lifecycle management of third parties, the questionnaire and due diligence. Both steps can be not only labor intensive to complete and analyze but the cycles of time spend sending out a questionnaire, receiving a completed form and then inputting the information into a spreadsheet for manual analysis can be quite time consuming. It usually involves the basic tools of spreadsheets, interviews, Internet searches and additional questionnaires. By tailoring your questionnaire to the specific risk areas and using logical question design you can reduce confusion and therefore decrease the cycle of response time. Additionally, in the final step of managing the relationship there is often not only a dearth of data but usually the data is in such a siloed format that (1) it cannot be utilized between corporate functions and (2) there can be no meaningful comparison across the third parties. Through standardized questions and responses, this data can be compared across the spectrum of third parties.
In addition to the increased efficiency in the compliance portion of this analysis, by operationalizing your third-party risk management in this manner, you increase business efficiency by bringing in more dollars more quickly for third parties on the sales side. For third parties on the Supply Chain side, the efficiencies turn on your use of their products or services more quickly in business critical elements of your company. Simply put, approving third parties and incorporating them into your business cycle will not only save your money more quickly and efficiently but also make you money more quickly and efficiently.
Using a tool that incorporates Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform would also allow a more comprehensive review of data and information for several reasons. Firstly the various types of data is not siloed but stored in a centralized platform. Second, having this type of data allows for not only an ongoing review of each third-party but also allows you to review historical trends. This enables you to move from detection to prevention and possibly even delivery of a prescriptive solution before an issue arises to a full-blown FCPA violation. You would also be able to garner a better understanding of relationships across industry sectors and countries with a bigger picture look.
Obviously you will need to set the parameters for the risks to be assessed but more clearly in the FCPA they deal with third parties who are or who have, as owners, Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), the inability to account for discretionary funds such as marketing or other expenses was seen in a recent FCPA enforcement action, payments to offshore locations or unusual commission or other payments tied 100% to sales. Not only would your company have more and greater visibility into such issues but the range of third parties you could monitor would increase, perhaps at an exponential rate. As with the cost savings of the initial risk assessment, there would be similar savings for ongoing monitoring in the area of greater efficiency and need for smaller headcount from the compliance function to perform such ongoing monitoring.
The speed and robustness of this database is a key element in operationalizing your compliance program in the area of third parties. The prevent component of any compliance regime is improved as you would have better visibility into potential non-compliant third parties which you may have to discharge. You would also have the ability to work with non-compliant third parties to remedy any issues before they become legal violations and then recommend extra monitoring as appropriate.
Using the above as a guide the ROI calculation would be something along the lines of the number total number of hours spent on each risk assessment x the total risk assessments performed x the hourly rate of the compliance professional performing the services. So if you spend 20 hours on 50 risk assessments and the hourly rate for your in-house compliance professional is $100, the ROI is $100,000. Now just think of what that number would be around third parties if the SC third parties runs into the thousands. Even with a round number of 1,000 for such third parties, your ROI increases to $2MM. Of course you have to subtract out the cost for any technological solution but with these types of efficiencies, your ROI will still be quite impressive.
There are a wide variety of other factors that could increase your ROI, as detailed in the Forrester report, which include renewal assessments, ongoing monitoring, increase in business efficiencies for both your organization and the third parties, which would all work to uplift your ROI. Most critically you would demonstrate the operationalization of your compliance program into the very fabric of your organization.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Opus. Opus helps free your business from the complexity and uncertainty of managing the risks associated with your customers, vendors, and third parties. By combining the most innovative Third-Party Risk Management and Know Your Customer Compliance SaaS platforms with unparalleled data solutions, Opus turns information into action so your business can thrive. Opus solutions include Hiperos 3PM accelerator, the leading platform for third party risk management. To learn more, go to www.opus.com.
When was the last time you considered the health of your company’s third party management program? A good way to test that well-being is to perform a check-up on your third party program. An article entitled “Third Party Essentials: A Reputation/Liability Checkup When Using Third Parties Globally”, provided a manner for the compliance practitioner to test an “organizations health status concerning your relationship to your third parties.” The article provided seven points that you can consider in a self-assessment:
Many companies understand the maxim “Know Your Customer (KYC)”, nevertheless, in today’s global economy this maxim may well need to be expanded to “Know Your Third Party”. The bottom is that that there is no out, no; when it comes to third party risk management and third party compliance efforts. A good place to start is with a third program party checkup.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Opus. Opus helps free your business from the complexity and uncertainty of managing the risks associated with your customers, vendors, and third parties. By combining the most innovative Third-Party Risk Management and Know Your Customer Compliance SaaS platforms with unparalleled data solutions, Opus turns information into action so your business can thrive. Opus solutions include Hiperos 3PM accelerator, the leading platform for third party risk management. To learn more, go to www.opus.com.
Internal controls are a key tool to operationalize your third party risk management program. Initially, a compliance practitioner should perform an analysis of any third party representative to provide insight into the pattern of dealings with such third parties and, therefore, the areas where additional controls should be considered. The basic internal controls, that should be a part of any financial controls system, include some or all of the following:
There should also be internal control needs based on activities with third party representatives. These could include some or all of the following internal controls:
While that may appear to be an overly exhaustive list, there were four significant controls the compliance practitioner implement initially. They include: (1) Delegation of Authority (DOA); (2) Maintenance of the vendor master file; (3) Contracts with third parties; and (4) Movement of cash / currency.
A DOA should reflect the impact of corruption risk including both transactions and geographic location so that a higher level of approval for matters involving third parties and for fund transfers and invoice payments to countries outside the US would be required inside an organization. Often, a DOA is prepared without much thought given to FCPA risks. Unfortunately once a DOA is prepared it is not used again until it is time to update for personnel changes. Moreover, it is often not available, not kept current, and/or did not define authority in a way even the approvers could understand it. Therefore it is incumbent that the DOA be integrated into a company’s accounts payable (AP) processing system in a manner that ensures all high-risk vendor invoices receive the proper visibility. To achieve this you should identify the vendors within the vendor master file so payments are flagged for the appropriate approval BEFORE they are paid.
Furthermore if a DOA is properly prepared and enforced, it can be a powerful preventive tool for FCPA compliance. For example, consider a wire transfer of $X between company bank accounts in the US might require approval by the Finance Manager at the initiating location and one officer. However, a wire transfer of $X to the company’s bank account in Nigeria, could require approval by the Finance Manager, a knowledgeable person in the Compliance function, and one officer. In this situation, the DOA should specify who must give the final approval for engaging third parties. Moreover, the DOA should address replenishment of petty cash funds in countries outside the US, as well as approval of expense reports for employees who work outside the US (including those who travel from the US to work outside the US).
Some believe the vendor master file, can be one of the most powerful PREVENTIVE control tools largely because payments to fictitious vendors are one of the most common occupational frauds. The vendor master file should be structured so that each vendor can be identified not only by risk level but also by the date on which the vetting was completed and the vendor received final approval. There should be electronic controls in place to block payments to any vendor for which vetting has not been approved. Next manual controls are needed over the submission, approval, and input of changes to the vendor master file. These controls include verification that all vendors have been approved before their information (and the vendor approval date) is input into the vendor master. Finally, manual controls are also needed when “one time” vendors are requested, when a vendor name and/or vendor payment information changes are submitted.
Near and dear to my heart as a lawyer, contracts with third parties can be a very effective internal control which works to prevent nefarious conduct rather than simply as a detect control. I would caution that for contracts to provide effective internal controls, relevant terms of those contracts (commission rate, whether business expenses can be reimbursed, use of subagents, etc.,) should be extracted and available to those who process and approve vendor invoices. If there are nonconforming service descriptions, commission rates, etc., present in a contract such terms must be approved not only by the original approver but also by the person so delegated in the DOA Unfortunately contracts are not typically integrated into the internal control system. They are left off to the side on their own, usually gathering dust in the legal department file room.
One FCPA enforcement action was an excellent example of the lack of internal control over the disbursements of funds and movement of currency because you had the country manager delivering bags of cash to a government official to obtain or retain business. All situations where funds can be sent outside the US (AP computer checks, manual checks, wire transfers, replenishment of petty cash, loans, advances, etc.,) should be reviewed from a compliance risk standpoint. Further, within a company structure you need to identify the ways in which a country manager (or a sales manager, etc.,) could cause funds to be transferred to their control and to conceal the true nature of the use of the funds within the accounting system.
All wire transfers outside the US should have defined approvals in the DOA, and the persons who execute the wire transfers should be required to evidence agreement of the approvals to the DOA and wire transfer requests going out of the US should always require dual approvals. Lastly, wire transfer requests going outside the US should be required to include a description of proper business purpose.
Never forget that internal controls are in reality, simply good financial controls. The internal controls that he detailed for third party representatives in the compliance context will help to detect fraud, which could well lead to the prevention of bribery and corruption.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Opus. Opus helps free your business from the complexity and uncertainty of managing the risks associated with your customers, vendors, and third parties. By combining the most innovative Third-Party Risk Management and Know Your Customer Compliance SaaS platforms with unparalleled data solutions, Opus turns information into action so your business can thrive. Opus solutions include Hiperos 3PM accelerator, the leading platform for third party risk management. To learn more, go to www.opus.com.
In this episode I am joined by Ruth Steinholtz of AretéWork, Jonathan Armstrong of Cordery Compliance and Kristy Grant-Hart of Spark Compliance Consulting and author of How To Be a Wildly Effective Compliance Officer for a roundtable discussion of the recently concluded SCCE European Compliance and Ethics Institute. We discuss some of the highlights, the changes this group of compliance practitioners has seen and where compliance may be headed in 2017 and beyond.
Next I consider at how data analytics can be used to help detect or prevent bribery and corruption where the primary sales force used by a company is third parties. A clear majority of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations and related enforcement actions have come from the use of third parties. While sham contracting (i.e. using a third party to conduit the payment of a bribe) has lessened in recent years, there are related data analysis that can be performed to ascertain whether a third party is likely performing legitimate services for your company and is not a sham. There are several more complex analytics that can be run in combination to identify suspicious third parties, and some of the simplest can be to look for duplicate or erroneous payments.
A key to moving from detection to prevention is the frequency of review. It is common for organizations to periodically review a year or more of accounts payable invoices at one time for errors or overpayment. Changing this from a one-time annual or biannual event to something that is done daily or weekly dramatically improves the value of such internal controls. This more frequent, preventative analysis is integral to a foundation of third party audits. While many company perform periodic look-back audits, ongoing monitoring also works to accomplish the same queries on a daily or weekly basis. This allows organizations to find duplicate payments or overpayments after the invoice has been approved but prior to its disbursement. So instead of detecting a payment error three or six months after it is made, you prevent the money from leaving the company altogether.
Duplicate invoices are a favorite mechanism of fraudsters. Consider the following scenario, Invoice No. 955-TX, was paid for $10,597.95. Thirty days later the same vendor re-submitted the same invoice due to non-payment, but it was recorded by the payor organization without the hyphen between 955 and TX, consequently it was not detected by the system of payable controls. The problem is the second invoice had slightly different writing on the face of it, but it was for the same services and hence was a duplicate invoice. On the company side, both invoices were scanned into the company’s imaging system and queued for payment. Data analysis can locate such overpayments and identify a second payment should not be made because it is a match of one that had been previously approved.
Another analysis, which a compliance practitioner could compare using vendor name and other identifying information, for example address, country, data from a watch list such as Politically Exposed Persons (PEP) or Specially Designated National (SDN), to names and other identifying information on your vendor file. An inquiry could also be used to test in other ways such as if a vendor has the same surname as a vendor on the specially designated national terrorist list, or a politically exposed person.
Now suppose they share the same name as an elected official down in Brazil. How do we make sure that our vendor or broker is a different John Doe than the John Doe that is a politically exposed person in that country? It is only upon closer inspection where you can determine that the middle names are different and the ages are different, one of has an address is Brasilia and the other is in Sao Paulo. Without further inspection including other demographic information about your vendors, consultants or third parties and the comparing them to watch list individuals, such red flags are present but not cleared. That is what data analytics is designed to do, is to help you go from tens of thousands of “maybes” to a very small number of potential issues which need to be researched individually.
One of the important functions of any best practices compliance program is to not only follow the money but try to spot where pots of money could be created to pay bribes. Through comparison of invoices for similar items among similar vendors, data analytics uncover overcharges and fraudulent billings. Continual transaction monitoring and data analysis can prove its value through more frequent review, as individuals tend to perform better when they know they are being monitored.
The techniques used in transaction monitoring for suspicious invoices can be easily translated into data analysis for anti-corruption. Software allows a very large aggregation of suspicious payments not only by day or by month, but also by vendor or even by employee who may have keyed the invoices into your system. As these suspicious invoices begin to cluster by market, business unit or person a pattern forms which can be the basis of additional inquiry. That is the value of analytics. Analytics allows a compliance practitioner to sort and resort, combine and aggregate, so that patterns can be investigated more fully.
This final concept, of finding patterns that can be discerned through the aggregation of huge amounts of transactions, is the next step for compliance functions. Yet data analysis does far more than simply allow you to follow the money. It can be a part of your third party ongoing monitoring as well by allowing you to partner the information on third parties who might come into your company where there was no proper compliance vetting. Such capabilities are clearly where you need to be heading.
Three Key Takeaways
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Opus. Opus helps free your business from the complexity and uncertainty of managing the risks associated with your customers, vendors, and third parties. By combining the most innovative Third-Party Risk Management and Know Your Customer Compliance SaaS platforms with unparalleled data solutions, Opus turns information into action so your business can thrive. Opus solutions include Hiperos 3PM accelerator, the leading platform for third party risk management. To learn more, go to www.opus.com.
In this episode Compliance Week Editor in Chief Bill Coffin discusses the upcoming Compliance Week 2017 Conference May 22-24, 2017 in Washington DC. Coffin highlights the key note speakers and some of the other key topics for the event. He discusses how Compliance Week is an entire experience for attendees, exhibitors, speakers and guests. Best of all, listeners to this podcast can receive a discount to this year's event. Go to registration and enter discount code CW17TOMFOX.