In certain circumstances, a company’s statement that one of its employees poses a significant and unacceptable compliance risk is not defamatory. According to a recent federal appellate decision, such a statement (made by a company while complying with a deferred prosecution agreement relating to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations) had no “provably false factual connotation,” and was a statement of opinion beyond the reach of defamation law. Continue Reading
On September 26, 2019, a bipartisan group of eight Senators introduced the Illicit Cash Act, which, among other proposed reforms, would require certain companies to disclose beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) at incorporation and within 90 days of any change in beneficial ownership.
Led by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), co-sponsors to the bill include Republican Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Mike Rounds (R-SD), John Kennedy (R-LA), and Jerry Moran (R-KS); and Democratic Senators Doug Jones (D-AL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV). This cohort of Senators – who sit on the powerful Senate Banking Committee – achieved something rarely seen in the current US political climate: bipartisanship. Though the sponsors have crossed the aisle in introducing this legislation, prospects for passage this year remain uncertain. Against the backdrop of the recently-announced House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, lawmakers have a shrinking number of legislative days to tackle complex issues like anti-money laundering (AML) reform. What’s more, Congress must also come together to fund the government when the current Continuing Resolution expires on November 21. Looking ahead, the Illicit Cash Act is a step toward meaningful AML reform but it still has a long way to go. Below, we discuss what’s in the bill, outside support, uncertainty for AML reform in the House, and next steps. Continue Reading
Following its agreement with the United Kingdom, the United States announces formal negotiations are underway with Australia about joining the CLOUD Act. Although also a bi-lateral negotiation, the U.S. talks with Australia strike a more practical tone than those with the U.K.
Saying it will accelerate complex investigations, the United States and the United Kingdom proposed an historic data exchange agreement. In future, each government will be able to obtain electronic data directly from technology companies in the other country. The governments also say this first of its kind agreement will protect privacy and enhance civil liberties.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an intergovernmental organization founded 30 years ago to develop and uphold policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, is conducting a peer review (or “mutual evaluation”) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) this year.
FATF last assessed the UAE in 2008, and found the country’s systems and frameworks geared to prevent criminal abuse of the financial system to be “satisfactory” at that time. FATF made a number of suggestions for improvement, including expanding the range of predicate offenses in the law, extending customer due diligence (“CDD”) requirements to Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (“DNFBPs”), clarifying the bases upon which suspicious activities/transactions are expected to be reported, and providing greater powers to enforcement authorities.
In the context of this year’s mutual evaluation, the UAE has undertaken a number of proactive initiatives to ensure best practice anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures, including enacting an important new law and seeking to combat financial crime in cooperation with international partners. Continue Reading
A post on our Triage blog discusses a decision about the legality of changing medical billing codes in order to maximize revenue from the government. Can that be done consistent with the False Claims Act? See the discussion here.
Sometimes an investigation of corporate conduct results in criminal charges. Will an insurance policy protecting Directors and Officers (D&O) pay the costs of those criminal charges? Larry Schiffer reports on a recent decision from the Eleventh Circuit interpreting Florida law. Larry’s post (here) reveals the importance of knowing the scope of your policy.
The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (“Division”) now considers a company’s compliance program at the charging and sentencing stages in a criminal antitrust investigation. The Division incorporated these changes into the Justice Manual. The Division also published a guide for evaluating compliance programs under this new approach.
In a growing trend, the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted two corporate executives and two licensed pharmacists for drug distribution. This is the second time in 2019 that DOJ acted to hold opioid distributors and manufacturers criminally liable for contributing to the drug crisis.
Data protection in Poland now includes an updated “black list” of operations requiring an impact assessment. Another action announces a controversial decision about privacy of license plate numbers. In addition, a data breach manual is available. For fuller analysis see Magdalena Gad-Nowak’s article here in the Data Privacy & Cybersecurity blog.