Get Smart or Get Indicted: Corporate Compliance in the Age of AI
"When wrongdoing inevitably occurs, the better the compliance program, the better the outcome for the corporation," write Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert.
October 09, 2024 at 12:00 PM
10 minute read
The Justice Department's hop onto the AI bandwagon seemed inevitable with the technology's constant buzz in the news, and alas, executives responsible for corporate compliance programs must take heed. For companies facing criminal allegations, a robust compliance program can mean the difference between an indictment and a declination. In the September 2024 update to its published guidance for the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP), the DOJ cautioned corporations to mitigate the risks of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), while simultaneously urging them to utilize the capabilities of those technologies in their compliance programs. The DOJ advised companies to implement processes for identifying and managing emerging technological risks; provide technological resources, such as data analytics tools, to compliance teams to maximize their efficiency and effectiveness; and closely oversee new technologies, which may be capable of causing unethical or unlawful behavior. As Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco remarked, the DOJ is "laser-focused on what may well be the most transformational technology we've confronted yet: artificial intelligence." Companies, C-Suites, and their legal and compliance advisers are well advised to be similarly attentive.
Why Do Corporate Compliance Programs Matter?
The holy grail of corporate compliance programs is to prevent all corporate misconduct, a quest well recognized to be unattainable. When wrongdoing inevitably occurs, the better the compliance program, the better the outcome for the corporation enmeshed in a criminal investigation or prosecution.
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 AllHere’s Looking at You, Starwood: A Piercing the Corporate Veil Story?
7 minute readChancery Claims Linking Fox Management to Defamation Liability Clear Hurdle
4 minute readTurbocharge Growth: How Technology Will Shape a Successful 2025
Fatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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