Author Archives: Brad Geyer

DEFENDANTS IN SEC CASE INVOLVING LOANS TO PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES SENTENCED CRIMINALLY

Posted on by

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 23768 / March 3, 2017

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Capital Financial Partners, LLC et al., No. 15-cv-11447-IT (D. Mass. filed Apr. 7, 2015)

United States of America v. Will D. Allen and Susan C. Daub, No. 15-cr-10181 (D. Mass. filed June 15, 2015)

Defendants in SEC Case Involving Loans to Professional Athletes Sentenced Criminally

On March 1, 2017, William D. Allen and Susan C. Daub, both defendants in a parallel SEC enforcement action, were each sentenced to six years imprisonment and ordered to pay $16.8 million in restitution for their role in an investment scheme involving fraudulent loans to professional athletes.

Allen and Daub were arrested in June 2015 on criminal charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, and charging a money transaction in connection with specified unlawful activity. The criminal complaint against Allen and Daub alleged that they collected funds from investors for certain fictitious or oversubscribed loans to professional athletes and created the false impression that athletes were repaying certain fictitious or oversubscribed loans on schedule by making scheduled monthly payments to investors from new investor funds. They pled guilty to the criminal charges in November 2016.

In the SEC’s parallel enforcement action, filed in federal court in April 2015, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Allen and Daub, and three corporate entities they owned or controlled – Florida-based Capital Financial Partners Enterprises LLC, and Boston-based Capital Financial Partners LLC and Capital Financial Holdings LLC – operated a Ponzi scheme that raised almost $32 million from investors who were promised profits from loans to professional athletes. The SEC’s complaint charges Allen, Daub and the three corporate entities with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC’s complaint also named WJBA Investments LLC, Insurance Depot of America LLC, Simplified Health Solutions LLC, and Simplified Health Solutions 2 LLC. – entities owned or controlled by Allen, Daub, or both – as relief defendants for the sole purpose of recovering investor funds received as a result of the alleged Ponzi scheme.

On April 28, 2015, the SEC obtained a preliminary injunction that continued an asset freeze against Allen, Daub, the defendant corporate entities, and relief defendants, restrained the defendants from accepting additional investor funds, and prevented the defendants from destroying or concealing documents related to the alleged Ponzi scheme.

The SEC’s litigation against Allen, Daub, and the corporate defendants and relief defendants is continuing. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement and prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.

Former Executive Director Of The Ramapo Local Development Corporation Pleads Guilty To Securities Fraud And Conspiracy Charges

Posted on by
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Southern District of New York
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that N. AARON TROODLER, the former Executive Director of the Ramapo Local Development Corporation (“RLDC”), pled guilty today before U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel to conspiring with Ramapo Town Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence to commit securities fraud as a result of a scheme to defraud investors in municipal bonds issued by the RLDC and the Town of Ramapo (the “Town”). This case is believed to be the first conviction for federal securities fraud in connection with municipal bond issuances.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “As we said at the time of his arrest, N. Aaron Troodler defrauded both the citizens of Ramapo and thousands of investors around the country, helping to sell over $150 million of municipal bonds on fabricated financials. Today, Troodler has admitted to committing securities fraud. This guilty plea, in what we believe to be the first municipal bond-related criminal securities fraud prosecution, is a big step in policing and bringing accountability to the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market.”

According to the allegations contained in the Superseding Information to which TROODLER pled guilty today and the related Indictment of TROODLER’s co-conspirator, Town Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence:

As of August 2015, the Town had more than $128 million in outstanding bonds that had been issued for various municipal purposes, while the RLDC, a corporation created and owned by the Town under state law, had issued $25 million in bonds to pay for the construction of Provident Bank Park (now Palisades Credit Union Park), a minor league baseball stadium in Ramapo.

The Indictment and Superseding Information charge that St. Lawrence and TROODLER lied to investors in the Town’s and RLDC’s bonds in order to conceal the deteriorating state of the Town’s finances and the inability of the RLDC to make scheduled payments of principal and interest to holders of its bonds from its own money.

While the fraud predated the construction of the stadium, the Town’s financial problems were caused largely by the $58 million total cost of the stadium. The Town paid more than half of that cost, despite the rejection of the Town’s guarantee of bonds to pay for construction of the stadium in a Town-wide referendum in 2010 and St. Lawrence’s public statements that no public money would be used to pay for the stadium.

The defendants lied to investors primarily by making up false assets in the Town’s General Fund. The General Fund is the Town’s primary operating fund. The accumulated difference over time between how much money the Town receives in taxes and fees and how much it spends in a year is the fund’s balance. The fund balance is a cushion that can be spent during difficult financial times. The size of the fund balance relative to the amount of the fund’s revenue and trends in a town’s General Fund balance over time are the primary indicators of the town’s financial health.

The Indictment alleges that St. Lawrence lied to the RLDC’s bond rating service in January 2013 when he told them in a telephone call that the 2012 fund balance would remain unchanged from the 2011 balance. Immediately after that call ended, St. Lawrence told Town employees “to do [an upcoming] refinancing of the short term debt as fast as possible because . . . we’re going to have to all be magicians to get to some of those numbers.”

The Indictment and the Superseding Information also allege that St. Lawrence and TROODLER told investors in the Town’s and RLDC’s bonds that the RLDC was making the payments on its bonds from its operating revenue, meaning money it was making from its ordinary business of running the baseball stadium and selling condominiums at a development it had built. That was important to investors because it led them to believe that the Town would not have to pay off the RLDC’s $25 million bonds. It also made the RLDC’s bonds look less risky. The RLDC actually made those payments from money TROODLER borrowed from the bank or money TROODLER obtained from the Town at St. Lawrence’s direction.

When the RLDC issued $25 million in bonds to build the stadium building itself in 2011, St. Lawrence inflated the size of the Town’s General Fund by including a false $3.6 million receivable in the General Fund. The Town’s financial condition was important to investors in the RLDC’s bonds because the Town guaranteed the payments of principal and interest on the bonds. Without that fake asset, the General Fund’s balance would have been negative in that year.

In addition, St. Lawrence inflated the General Fund with another fake receivable for $3.08 million from 2010 through 2015. It first went on the Town’s books when the RLDC agreed to buy property known as The Hamlets from the Town for $3.08 million. That sale never closed because the land turned out to be a habitat for rattlesnakes. Rather than take the receivable off the Town’s books – and reduce the size of the General Fund balance by $3.08 million, thereby creating a negative balance – St. Lawrence claimed the receivable had to do with the RLDC’s purchase of another property from the Town that had already taken place. To keep it on the books, St. Lawrence then caused the Town Attorney to tell the Town’s auditors over a period of years that the receivable would be paid back within a year, which was required if the receivable was going to stay in the General Fund. Without this fake receivable alone, the Town’s General Fund balance would have been negative for years.

In May 2013, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) searched Town Hall in connection with this investigation. Less than 10 days later, St. Lawrence inflated another receivable in the General Fund – this one for money from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) to reimburse the Town for expenses from Hurricanes Irene and Sandy. St. Lawrence claimed that the Town was going to receive $3.145 million from FEMA when the Town hadn’t even submitted those claims to FEMA yet. Without St. Lawrence’s inflation of this receivable alone, the projected General Fund balance for 2012 would have been negative when the Town sold bonds in May 2013.

Finally, the Indictment alleges that St. Lawrence also inflated the General Fund balance by making more than $12 million in transfers from the Town’s Ambulance Fund to the General Fund from 2009 to 2014. The group of properties in Ramapo that pays into the Ambulance Fund is different from the group of properties that pays into the General Fund. Under state law, transfers between funds with different tax bases can only be loans. St. Lawrence told the auditors that the two funds had the same tax base to justify the transfers.

* * *

TROODLER, 42, of Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, pled guilty to one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

TROODLER is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Seibel on September 18, 2017, at 3:30 p.m.

The charges against Christopher St. Lawrence contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and he is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Mr. Bharara praised the investigative work of the FBI and the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office. He also thanked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for their assistance in the investigation.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s White Plains Division. Assistant U.S. Attorneys James McMahon, Daniel Loss, and Stephen J. Ritchin are in charge of the prosecution.

Kiekert AG to Plead Guilty to Bid Rigging Involving Auto Parts

Posted on by

Kiekert AG, an automotive parts manufacturer based in Heiligenhaus, Germany, has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $6.1 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to rig bids of side-door latches and latch minimodules installed in cars sold in the United States and elsewhere, the Department of Justice announced today.

According to a one-count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Kiekert participated in a conspiracy to eliminate competition by agreeing to allocate sales, rig bids and fix prices for side-door latches and latch minimodules sold to Ford Motor Company and its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere between September 2008 and May 2013.  In addition to Kiekert’s agreement to pay a $6.1 million criminal fine, the manufacturer has agreed to cooperate with the department’s ongoing investigation.  The plea agreement is subject to court approval.

“The Antitrust Division has uncovered conspiracies involving more than 50 automotive parts,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Brent Snyder of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.  “Automobile manufacturers, and the American consumers who buy their cars, are entitled to prices set by competition, not secret cartels.”

“Americans expect corporations in the United States and overseas to conduct their business honestly.  To do anything less, compromises consumer trust,” said Special Agent in Charge David P. Gelios of FBI’s Detroit Division.  “Today’s plea agreement of Kiekert AG, demonstrates the resolve of the FBI and the Department of Justice to protect American consumers from price fixing and bid rigging schemes that ultimately harm the U.S. economy.”

Side-door latches secure car doors to the body.  Latch minimodules include the side-door latch and all related mechanical operating components, including the electronic lock function.

According to the charges, Kiekert officials participated in meetings and communications with representatives of another major side-door latch producer, during which they agreed to allocate sales, rig bids and fix prices submitted to Ford.  To effectuate those agreements, the conspirators exchanged information on bids and price quotations for submission to Ford.

Today’s charge is the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement sections and the FBI.  Including Kiekert, 48 companies and 65 executives have been charged in the division’s ongoing investigation and have agreed to pay a total of more than $2.9 billion in criminal fines.

These charges were brought by the Antitrust Division’s Chicago Office and the FBI’s Detroit Field Office with the assistance of the FBI headquarters’ International Corruption Unit.

Kiekert AG Information

USDOJ Grants and Grantees now in the Crosshairs

Posted on by

We see continuing signs of reinvigorated grant fraud enforcement.  The latest submisison involves a long simmering dispute that has resurfaced involving corporate fines that are recovered, allocated and spent by USDOJ.  USDOJ grants have been a source of frustration for supporters of the current Administration and some believe that white collar enforcement suffered as perverse incentives encouraged the offsets of criminal cases and terms of imprisonment in favor of large recoveries of fines from corporations (Does anyone from the cartel world recall the furious whispers about this case?).  Now there seems to be Trump Administration-led push to shine a media spotlight on USDOJ grants.  Typically, this foreshadows official actions:

Last night Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was on Fox News discussing the issue speaking in bellicose terms. This accompanied various news articles that covered various aspects of the dispute.

Today on Fox News there is a lengthy piece on the subject with sub links:

“It’s clear partisan politics played a role in the illicit actions that were made,” Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, told Fox News. “The DOJ is the last place this should have occurred.

Findings spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee point to a process shrouded in secrecy whereby monies were distributed to a labyrinth of nonprofit organizations involved with grass-roots activism.”

To see how far some have delved into this issue, check out this google search.  You have to go to less established media sources like this InfoWars article referencing State Department grants to get a sense of where this could lead (some will need to don protective suits–oh what we have to do for risk analysis!).  Since there was not as much reporting as there could have been, it is likely this issue could get significant play now. There is also likely to be a convergence effect when problems in one grant tranch from one agency  spills over into other grant programs.

This latest resurfacing of this issue by White House allies suggests a trend and it will likely add to calls for a significant realignment of DOJ on the left side of the org chart and also in its mission in terms of how it helps victims. Particularly vulnerable to significant reform are CRS, OJP, COPS, Office of Violence Against Women (grants) (biannual report) and Office of Access to Justice.  Obviously, grants and grantees will be a subject of interest as well.

I have referenced a prior DOJ IG 2016 civil case here.  Designating an enforcement priority can change whether a case is criminal or civil because criminal investigation assets redeploy and there is often a multiplier effect because the combination of criminal and civil enforcement assets allows for parallel investigations.  Overnight,  a larger swath of FBI agents start trolling for footholds in grants or procurement areas.  Not good.  When investigators expand the duration or number of grants reviewed, when they send agents to do coordinated interviews while serving grand jury and inspector general subpoenas and when AUSA’s start calling witnesses before traditional grand jury investigations, things can change fast.

I am an individual who:

I am a company representative who is interested in:

I am a law firm representative who:

Procurement Fraud and Grant Fraud enforcement programs are likely to be revitalized by the Trump Administration.

Posted on by

It’s no shock that a political change in the Executive Branch leads to an increase in grant fraud and procurement fraud enforcement. The reason? There is low risk in scrutinizing grants and contracts awarded by the outgoing administration. Whatever shenanigans are discovered by a new Administration will have occurred during the term of the previous administration and any negative economic impacts from pulling a grant or imposing a fine, will only impact the grant recipient and, potentially, its subcontractors, who are often presumed by an incoming Administration to have stronger ties to its predecessor.

Imagine you are a high-level Department of Justice official in a new administration positioned to deploy resources toward matters you believe most merit investigation and possible prosecution.  You will need to work on accomplishing the new Administrations mission as well as continue to satisfy your existing management chain with positive results.  What is the best way to move forward in this environment.

The most obvious way is to go after the low-hanging fruit: to aim the enforcement initiative at situations in which there is a high risk/reward ratio. Nowhere in white collar enforcement, is this ratio more favorable than in the realm of grant fraud and procurement fraud enforcement (GFPFE). Contributing to the richness of this area from an enforcement standpoint is that since 2009 the enforcement apparatus adopted a rigid prevention model, decreased the number of federal agents developing cases, increased barriers between the investigations and audit components of the Office of Inspector Generals (OIG’s) and made it more difficult to engage in aggressive or effective GFPFE.[1] This shift away from effective GFPFE in 2009 coincided with the largest spending increase in government history so it stands to reason there will be plenty of cases worth developing.

* * * Click Here for the Rest of the #GFPFE Analysis * * *

 

Department of Energy OIG Enforcement under a Trump Administration

Posted on by

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is a Cabinet-level department of the United States Government. Its responsibilities include the nation’s nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production. It also directs research in genomics; the Human Genome Project originated in an iniative between DOE, NIH and international collaborators.  DOE sponsors more research in the physical sciences than any other U.S. federal agency, the majority of which is conducted through its system of National Laboratories.

Former Governor of Texas Rick Perry has been nominated as the next Secretary of Energy, and a vote is anticipated in the next few weeks.  April Stephenson currently serves as Acting Inspector General United States Secretary of Energy and will continue to head the department,  unless Secretary Perry makes a change. As a practical matter, DOE is unlikely to get a permanent Inspector General installed for many months. This means that its roughly 70 investigative agents in roughly 12 US cities will engage in enforcement that is somewhat skewed by perceptions about what a future Secretary of Energy will want.  For these reasons, I would project that investigative agents will believe they will ultimately receive more overhead support for investigations developed now.

Based on basic familiarity with DOE contracts and DOE-OIG investigative activity in the past as well as reasonable assumptions about how agents will interpret statements made by Trump Administration officials, I see three primary areas where agents will likely focus current efforts to develop cases:

1) Clean-up Sites.

Clean-up sites are viewed as cash cows with poor oversight.  I have lost track of how many there are, but there are  more than half a dozen prime ones including Hanford, Idaho Falls and Savanah River.  The Hanford site is an example of a site that has had longstanding troubles.  CH2MHill took a hit back in 2013 for an $18.5 million qui tam and, just recently, at the same site, BNI and URS agreed to  pay $125 Million for false claims regarding deficient nuclear quality procurements and improper payments to lobby Congress.  Internal conjecture is that there are more false claims being made at these and at other clean-up sites and it would behoove any companies involved at these sites to brush up on compliance and internally investigate around vulnerabilities or weaknesses.

2) Management and Operational (M&O) Contracts

Management Operations Contractors, whether deserved or not, are a source of frustration to enforcers.  These are huge, large dollar volume contracts that are viewed by enforcers as having poor oversight.  Other sources of frustration is that enforcers believe that they have no visibility with indirect contractors.  This feeling is even generally held in regard to direct contractors where transparency is lacking and contractors are perceived as foot dragging.  Because of lack of appetite in some US Attorney’s Offices for these complex investigations, there was less support in the past few years than perhaps there could have been, but I believe this will begin to change as the Trump Administrations enforcement priorities becomes more clear.

3) Green Grants

Although these are smaller dollar volume contracts, legal theories are easier to fashion around bite-sized grants and the story around each is usually more accessible to prosecutors and potential juries.  There is lingering resentment that politics adversely affected investigations that adversely impacted potential prosecutions (see Solyndra as an often cited example in the opinion of some) and there is a view among enforcers that investigations involving more than $2 billion in green grants and associated loans guaranteed by the government were never pursued appropriately.

* * * * * Here for the Rest of the Story * * * * * 

 

Labuda on trade risks

Posted on by

Compliance: what are the trade risks (part 1)

by [email protected]

Over the last few weeks, I have written a series of short articles discussing the need for developing a compliance-based approach to transacting international trade. This will help to prepare your organization to effectively deal with the risks inherent in importing.

What are these risks that continue to be the focus of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)? There are various operational policies and programs that give insight into the agency’s concerns. The most important is the identification of Priority Trade Issues (PTIs). Currently, CBP considers the agency’s trade enforcement priorities to be:

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty case administration and enforcement;

Import Safety;

Intellectual Property Rights protection;

Revenue;

Textiles; and

Trade Agreements.

In CBP’s own words “Priority Trade Issues (PTIs) represent high-risk areas that can cause significant revenue loss, harm the U.S. economy, or threaten the health and safety of the American people. They drive risk-informed investment of CBP resources and enforcement and facilitation efforts, including the selection of audit candidates, special enforcement operations, outreach, and regulatory initiatives.”

* * * * * Click here for the rest of the story * * * * * 

 

New Jersey Plastic Surgeon Sentenced To Prison For Evading Taxes

Posted on by
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of New Jersey
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, February 16, 2017

Morris County, New Jersey, Plastic Surgeon Sentenced To Three Years In Prison For Evading Taxes On More Than $5 Million In Income

NEWARK, N.J. – A plastic surgeon with a practice in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, was sentenced today to 36 months in prison for fraudulently diverting millions in corporate earnings for his personal use, costing the United States nearly $3 million in tax revenue between 2006 and 2010, U.S Attorney Paul Fishman announced.

David Evdokimow, 56, of Harding Township, New Jersey, was previously convicted of all eight counts of a superseding indictment charging him with one count of conspiring to defraud the United States, four counts of personal income tax evasion and three counts of corporate tax evasion. He was convicted following three-week trial before U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, who imposed the sentence today in Camden federal court.

According to the superseding indictment and evidence at trial:

Evdokimow ran his medical practice through a corporation called De’Omilia Plastic Surgery P.C. (De’Omilia). He conspired with others to conceal millions of dollars of taxable income from the IRS by forming shell corporations and then having trusted associates open bank accounts for those corporations. Evdokimow then convinced these associates to give him their signatures or signature stamps so that he had full access to the shell company bank accounts while at the same time being able to conceal his connection to those accounts. He and the other conspirators then funneled millions of dollars in De’Omilia income into the bank accounts of the shell corporations and falsely claimed that these transfers were legitimate business expenses. Evdokimow also used bank accounts in the name of De’Omilia to pay his personal expenses, and falsely claimed those were business expenses too.

Evdokimow used the shell corporation and De’Omilia bank accounts to pay for more than $5.8 million in personal expenses, including designer apparel, jewelry, vacations, artwork, and multiple residences, all of which he falsely claimed as business expenses.

Evdokimow also opened accounts at several banks in order to cash checks received directly from patients for professional medical services. Between 2009 and 2011, Evdokimow cashed more than $360,000 in checks from patients, which he failed to report on his federal income tax returns.

Evdokimow was convicted of concealing more than $5.8 million in income from tax years 2006 to 2010. By concealing this income, Evdokimow evaded paying almost $3 million in taxes during that period.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Hillman sentenced Evdokimow to one year of supervised release and fined $96,000. He previously paid the taxes owed.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jonathan D. Larsen, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Paul Murphy and Justin Herring of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark.

Bradford Geyer explains we need to keep an eye on #OIG audits

Posted on by

Bradford Geyer has seen an enforcement agency storm forming around government grants and government procurement and he argues that contractors and grantees would be well served to keep an eye on OIG audit reports that often telegraph enforcement activity.  He provides a quick primer regarding a Department of State Office of Inspector General Audit Report regarding Armored Vehicles below:

For reasons I hope to explain more fully in a future column,  there could be a perfect storm forming for reinvigorated grant fraud and procurement fraud enforcement (GFPFE) in a Trump Adminisitration. Assuming that is the case, and we wont know for sure for at least another six months, it becomes very important to keep an eye on OIG audits like this one (DOS-OIG Armored Car Audit Report) because audit reports can signal the deployment of investigative resources.  Audits can also become a platform for an expanded enforcement initiative or provide a low cost basis for new investigative activity even by other agencies.  Armored vehicles is a product market where the government has found procurement problems for close to 15 years and government enforcement agencies have had success at bringing cases in these areas.  This is a toxic mix for contractors who should consider doing internal investigations and brushing up on their compliance programs.  If they find a problem they should carefully consider a voluntary disclsoure to the appropriate agency(ies).

Click Here for the Rest of the Story

Compliance: it starts at the top

Posted on by

GeyerGorey LLP draws upon Janet Labuda’s contacts and experience to understand trade enforcement trends.  Here she is with her latest on the importance of compliance. Janet can be reached at the FormerFedsGroup.

By [email protected]

Whether you are a small to medium sized enterprise, or a large multinational corporation, creating a culture of compliance starts at the top. This compliance culture should permeate your entire organization starting with the Chief Executive, the Chief Financial Officer, and the corporate counsel.

Compliance is not something that can be compartmentalized, rather, it must be ingrained in the consciousness of every employee from the executive suite to the shop floor. This is one area where a top down driven process is vital. The compliance officer is responsible for implementing the compliance focused program that is established by the corporate ownership and top management.

However, all aspects of the company, whether sourcing, transportation, production, marketing, or sales must work together to support the compliance operation. Leaving just the compliance office to establish the ethic and carry the entire company is an accident waiting to happen.

I often hear that various departments in a company do not understand the compliance aspect of the operation, which sometimes leads them to negate the guidance of the compliance department.  This can lead a company down a slippery slope.

The corporate culture must embrace compliance across the entire company and all must understand the risk of potential regulatory violations.  A once a year training program is not going to cut it.  Compliance is something that everyone must  live, day in and day out.  Workplace evaluations should include a compliance segment for each and every employee. Every department head needs to understand and communicate compliance procedures to their direct reports.

The compliance department must keep a finger on the pulse of risk.  The compliance officer should be responsible for communicating these risks throughout the organization and information should be refreshed and disseminated as often as necessary.  To this end, the CEO must make time for compliance officers, and not leave this critical function on auto-pilot.

Once a vibrant internal compliance driven operation is rooted in the day-to-day operation, companies must push their ethic out to their entire supply chain.  This includes interaction with foreign suppliers, agents, and transporters.  Everyone in the supply chain needs to understand that by doing business with your company, they accept the strict standards that support adherence to the laws and regulations governing trade and all aspects of how the business conducts itself.  This should be reflected in all corporate negotiations, contracts, and purchasing agreements.

By taking this position, senior corporate management supports the highest levels of business ethics and integrity throughout the supply chain.  Compliance is not a skate on thin ice, or a fly by the seat of your pants exercise.  A culture of compliance provides that  sure footing needed when regul