Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Compliance Hotline
More Stringent Guidelines
The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously on April 8 to amend its existing organizational guidelines to make more stringent the guidelines' criteria for effective compliance and ethics programs.
The approved changes will put greater responsibility on boards of directors and executives for the oversight and management of compliance programs. Specifically, directors and executives now must take an active leadership role for the content and operation of compliance and ethics programs. Companies seeking reduced criminal fines must now demonstrate that they have identified areas of risk where criminal violations may occur, trained high-level officials as well as employees in relevant legal standards and obligations, and given their compliance officers sufficient authority and resources to carry out their responsibilities. Under the revised guidelines, if companies hope to mitigate criminal fines and penalties, they must also promote an organizational culture that encourages a commitment to compliance with the law and ethical conduct by exercising due diligence in meeting the criteria.
Under the existing sentencing guidelines, an organization is precluded from mitigation of its sentence if it fails to self-report criminal misconduct to the authorities in a timely fashion, or if executive or management level officials tolerated or were involved in illegal activities. Failure to follow applicable government regulations and industry standards and recurrence of similar misconduct undermine an organization's eligibility for compliance credit under the federal sentencing scheme. The guidelines mandate high fines for organizations that have no meaningful programs to prevent and detect criminal conduct or in which management was involved in the crime.
The new amendments to the sentencing guidelines will take effect Nov. 1, 2004, unless Congress disapproves them during a 6-month review period.
The Amendments are published at http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/ RFMay04.pdf.
More Stringent Guidelines
The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously on April 8 to amend its existing organizational guidelines to make more stringent the guidelines' criteria for effective compliance and ethics programs.
The approved changes will put greater responsibility on boards of directors and executives for the oversight and management of compliance programs. Specifically, directors and executives now must take an active leadership role for the content and operation of compliance and ethics programs. Companies seeking reduced criminal fines must now demonstrate that they have identified areas of risk where criminal violations may occur, trained high-level officials as well as employees in relevant legal standards and obligations, and given their compliance officers sufficient authority and resources to carry out their responsibilities. Under the revised guidelines, if companies hope to mitigate criminal fines and penalties, they must also promote an organizational culture that encourages a commitment to compliance with the law and ethical conduct by exercising due diligence in meeting the criteria.
Under the existing sentencing guidelines, an organization is precluded from mitigation of its sentence if it fails to self-report criminal misconduct to the authorities in a timely fashion, or if executive or management level officials tolerated or were involved in illegal activities. Failure to follow applicable government regulations and industry standards and recurrence of similar misconduct undermine an organization's eligibility for compliance credit under the federal sentencing scheme. The guidelines mandate high fines for organizations that have no meaningful programs to prevent and detect criminal conduct or in which management was involved in the crime.
The new amendments to the sentencing guidelines will take effect Nov. 1, 2004, unless Congress disapproves them during a 6-month review period.
The Amendments are published at http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/ RFMay04.pdf.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?