Data Analytics in Corporate Compliance – Part One
How government agencies are using data analytics, and the implications for corporate compliance programs.
March 11, 2020 at 02:00 PM
5 minute read
This article is the first part in a two-part series on data analytics in corporate compliance.
Data analytics is a new tool that government agencies and companies across industries increasingly use to identify risky and possibly illegal behavior. Not surprisingly, companies are rightly questioning what level of sophistication law enforcement and regulators now expect them to display when it comes to deploying this new technology. This two-part series addresses these questions. This article—part one of the series—examines how government agencies are using data analytics and the implications for corporate compliance programs. Part two, expected to be published on March 12, examines how corporate compliance programs should adjust to this new reality.
Government Use of Data Analytics
In the United States, government agencies have consistently highlighted how data analytics is used to aid investigations and detect potentially illegal activity. Most prominently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have used data analytics to successfully spot health-care and securities fraud. For years, the SEC has trumpeted how data analytics helps it identify potential illegal trading patterns and then pursue investigative leads. As emphasized in its public statements, the SEC has dedicated in-house experts who use data analytics to assist in surveillance and specific in-house programs designed to detect patterns suggestive of possible wrong-doing. The SEC also has experts and in-house tools that assist the agency in using data analytics as they conduct examinations of registered broker-dealers and investment advisers and carry out enforcement investigation. One such program, ARTEMIS— apparently named for the Greek goddess of the hunt—is used by the Enforcement Division to generate possible leads. ARTEMIS combines a review of historical trading and account holder data with other data sources to allow for "longitudinal, multi-issuer, and multi-trader data analyses." In June 2019, SEC chair Jay Clayton emphasized that the commission's use of data analytics is "more important than ever" as it increases both effectiveness and efficiency. The SEC has successfully brought cases—often in coordination with criminal authorities—where initial leads came from data analytics, including insider trading cases.
DOJ and other federal agencies have also noted their success in using data analytics to find indicators of health-care fraud. For example, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force Teams—composed of personnel from the FBI, the Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General and other law enforcement agencies—analyze billing metrics and Medicare claims submissions to identify patterns of health-care fraud. As highlighted in its public statement, the Strike Force teams "have a proven record of success in analyzing data and investigative intelligence to quickly identify fraud and bring prosecutions." Data analytics allows these strike forces to spot outliers among millions of Medicare and Medicaid claims. To date, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force at HHS has led to over 2,000 indictments and investigative receivables of over $3.3 billion.
In the United Kingdom, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) released in January 2020 a refreshed data strategy that seeks to transform how the regulator uses advances in data analytics to carry out its mission. The FCA's goal is to improve its use of data analytics over the next five years to "[d]eepen [its] understanding of markets and consumers," "[s]wiftly identify, connect and react to firm and market issues," and "[b]uild a flexible and fit-for-the-future organisation." As part of this strategy, the FCA is developing new monitoring and detection tools focused on "delayed disclosure and misleading statements by issuers, and 2) secondary market behaviour including cross-market manipulation, abuse in fixed income markets and equity insider trading." The FCA seeks to become a "highly data-driven regulator" and to use technology in the AML space to "be more intrusive in assessing the effectiveness of firms' own systems and controls." The FCA's objectives underscore the importance of companies keeping pace with advances in data analytics and leveraging technology in improving internal compliance functions.
Implications for Corporate Compliance
Companies should anticipate that regulators and law enforcement authorities will expect them to make smart use of data analytics in their compliance efforts. Although companies are likely not required to beat the government in a data analytics arms race, they likely will be expected to use available data to fine tune their compliance program. As the second part in this series will further examine, this means that, in practice, companies should not rely solely on qualitative and episodic indicia of risky behavior—like reports into the company hotline and Internal Audit findings. Quantitative data, such as trading activity, third-party payments, expense reports, and other financial transactions, often contains information vital to early detection of control weaknesses and errant behavior. A company that has such data at its finger tips, but does not systematically mine it to detect noncompliance, is leaving points on the field.
Like all compliance program elements, there is no magic level of sophistication a company should develop around data analytics as a compliance tool. Instead, a company's investment in this new technology should correlate to its risk profile, informed by factors like the industry in which it operates and its regulatory environment. Data analytics also must be used in connection with traditional investigative steps—such as review of emails and expenses—to be a part of a well-designed surveillance program. Data analytics is here to stay, and companies that invest in it with risk-based sensitivities should reap long term compliance benefits.
Charles D. Riely, a former assistant regional director for the Division of Enforcement for the SEC, and Erin R. Schrantz are partners, and Matthew J. Phillips is an associate, in Jenner & Block's Investigations, Compliance and Defense Practice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAI Disclosures Under the Spotlight: SEC Expectations for Year-End Filings
5 minute readA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Trending Stories
- 1Million-Dollar Verdict: Broward Jury Sides With Small Business
- 2'Reluctant to Trust'?: NY Courts Continue to Grapple With Complexities of Jury Diversity
- 3'Careless Execution' of Presidential Pardons Freed Convicted Sex Trafficker, US Judge Laments
- 4Newsmakers: Littler Elevates Dallas Attorney to Shareholder
- 5South Florida Real Estate Lawyers See More Deals Flow, But Concerns Linger
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250