Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part One of this article examines key actions brought by U.S. regulators against compliance officers in 2017 based on their failures to ensure that their firms maintain effective compliance and AML programs.
In May 2014, Andrew Ceresney, then-Director of Enforcement of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in his keynote address at Compliance Week 2014, stated, “ …. legal and compliance officers who perform their responsibilities diligently, in good faith, and in compliance with the law are our partners and need not fear enforcement action.” Andrew Ceresney, Director of Division of Enforcement, SEC, Keynote Address at Compliance Week 2014 (May 20, 2014). In the same speech, however, Ceresney articulated the circumstances under which the SEC would bring actions against compliance officers, personally: “[W]hen the [SEC] believes … compliance personnel have affirmatively participated in the misconduct, when they have helped mislead regulators, or when they have clear responsibility to implement compliance programs or policies and wholly failed to carry out that responsibility.” Id.
*May exclude premium content
By Jodi Misher Peikin and Jacob Mermelstein
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission to address a question that, until fairly recently, seemed clear: whether the SEC has authority to obtain disgorgement in civil actions to enforce the federal securities laws.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
In recent years, practitioners have observed a tension between criminal enforcement of the broadly written terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the modern Supreme Court’s notions of statutory interpretation and due process in the criminal law context. A certiorari petition filed in late August in Sanchez et al. v. United States, asks the Supreme Court to address this tension, as embodied in the judge-made per se rule.
By Sareena Malik Sawhney
Over the past few years, defense attorneys have been turning to forensic accountants significantly more often in white-collar cases. An experienced and skilled forensic accountant is valuable to the defense team by casting reasonable doubt on the issue of intent and uncovering other evidence in support of innocence or a reduced sentence.
By Juliet Gunev
Maryland Jury Convicts Former Executive on FCPA Charges for Bribing Russian Official to Win Nuclear Fuel Transportation Contracts