Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Compliance Officers: Law Enforcement Partners or Targets?
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.
In the years since that speech, law enforcement's ambivalence toward compliance officers has only become more pronounced. Compliance officers' potential exposure has become most apparent in the area of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulation and enforcement.
Since the disclosure of the Panama Papers in April 2016, regulators in the United States and around the world have increasingly focused on enhancing BSA/AML rules and regulations, as well as ramping up criminal investigations and prosecutions. Coupled with regulators' public statements about holding individuals accountable for corporate misconduct across the enforcement spectrum, and regulators' increased emphasis on the effectiveness of corporate compliance programs, generally, compliance officers have found themselves at the center of regulatory and criminal investigations focused on BSA/AML compliance. Of most concern to compliance officers, this regulatory scrutiny tends not to be based on their own participation in the money laundering or fraudulent activity, but rather on their alleged failures to ensure that the compliance and AML programs that they oversee effectively detect and prevent illegal conduct.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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.
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?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.