Companies need to remain vigilant in the face of escalating fraud
In this rapidly changing global regulatory environment, fraught with tempestuous economic conditions, it can be difficult for many companies to persevere and continue to grow while remaining ethically above board and compliant.
May 24, 2012 at 08:14 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In this rapidly changing global regulatory environment, fraught with tempestuous economic conditions, it can be difficult for many companies to persevere and continue to grow while remaining ethically above board and compliant.
To this end, Ernst & Young (E&Y) yesterday released the results of its 2012 Global Fraud Survey. The study, which features findings on fraud, bribery and corruption, gathered responses from more than 1,700 executives across 43 countries, including heads of legal, compliance and internal audit departments and chief financial officers.
The 12th annual Global Fraud Survey found that the record levels of fines, penalties and profit disgorgements secured by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission in 2011 raises both the perceived and actual cost of noncompliance. Because of this, E&Y says that companies and their boards must weigh the risks associated with varying degrees of compliance enforcement within their organizations. And moving into new markets definitely introduces additional risks.
The survey also found that corporate boards and audit committees continue to face substantial challenges in tackling fraud, bribery and corruption, and that many companies are failing to successfully mitigate the risks they present. Dovetailing with this, E&Y says that boards also are struggling to effectively absorb the massive amounts of compliance information placed before them.
The study suggests that corporate boards and compliance managers consider the following when responding to these challenges:
- They must ensure effective lines of communication with a broad range of roles within the business. This will enable boards to question the information that they are given.
- They can make improvements to focus compliance reporting to the board.
- Boards must make sure that they are asking the right questions. These could include:
• Does management at headquarter level understand local risks, and have strategies been developed to deal with these specific risks?
• Can management demonstrate the contemporaneous effectiveness of its anti-corruption compliance efforts to its stakeholders?
• Does the company know how many third parties and agents represent it, particularly in dealing with those that could be considered “government officials”?
• Is management making the best use of the latest forensic data analytics techniques to monitor compliance in real time?
• Assuming that contracts with third parties normally contain audit rights, how many times has the company conducted an audit principally to gain comfort around bribery and corruption risk?
• Does the company have clear criteria to guide it with respect to how extensive pre- or post-acquisition anti-corruption due diligence should be, or whether to conduct it at all?
Should companies make a concerted effort to target areas of potential risk exposure, and management lead by example, E&Y says companies should be able to properly balance the priorities of growth and ethical business conduct.
To read the complete survey, visit Ernst & Young's website.
For more from InsideCounsel, read:
In this rapidly changing global regulatory environment, fraught with tempestuous economic conditions, it can be difficult for many companies to persevere and continue to grow while remaining ethically above board and compliant.
To this end,
The 12th annual Global Fraud Survey found that the record levels of fines, penalties and profit disgorgements secured by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission in 2011 raises both the perceived and actual cost of noncompliance. Because of this, E&Y says that companies and their boards must weigh the risks associated with varying degrees of compliance enforcement within their organizations. And moving into new markets definitely introduces additional risks.
The survey also found that corporate boards and audit committees continue to face substantial challenges in tackling fraud, bribery and corruption, and that many companies are failing to successfully mitigate the risks they present. Dovetailing with this, E&Y says that boards also are struggling to effectively absorb the massive amounts of compliance information placed before them.
The study suggests that corporate boards and compliance managers consider the following when responding to these challenges:
- They must ensure effective lines of communication with a broad range of roles within the business. This will enable boards to question the information that they are given.
- They can make improvements to focus compliance reporting to the board.
- Boards must make sure that they are asking the right questions. These could include:
• Does management at headquarter level understand local risks, and have strategies been developed to deal with these specific risks?
• Can management demonstrate the contemporaneous effectiveness of its anti-corruption compliance efforts to its stakeholders?
• Does the company know how many third parties and agents represent it, particularly in dealing with those that could be considered “government officials”?
• Is management making the best use of the latest forensic data analytics techniques to monitor compliance in real time?
• Assuming that contracts with third parties normally contain audit rights, how many times has the company conducted an audit principally to gain comfort around bribery and corruption risk?
• Does the company have clear criteria to guide it with respect to how extensive pre- or post-acquisition anti-corruption due diligence should be, or whether to conduct it at all?
Should companies make a concerted effort to target areas of potential risk exposure, and management lead by example, E&Y says companies should be able to properly balance the priorities of growth and ethical business conduct.
To read the complete survey, visit
For more from InsideCounsel, read:
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
© 2024 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 AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 2GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 3Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 4Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 5FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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