The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued a revised version of its guidance on corporate compliance, alerting businesses to the evolving expectations prosecutors have when assessing a company’s compliance program, especially in light of criminal employee misconduct. This updated guidance, known as the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP), serves as a crucial tool for DOJ prosecutors when determining whether a corporation’s compliance efforts were effective at the time of an alleged offense, and whether they remain so during the investigation or resolution of a case.
According to the DOJ, the purpose of the ECCP is to assist prosecutors in evaluating how well a company has designed and implemented its compliance program to prevent and detect criminal activity. As the DOJ regularly updates this guidance, the latest revisions reflect key shifts in how technology, whistleblower protections, and data access should factor into corporate compliance evaluations.
Technology’s Role in Compliance
One of the notable updates to the ECCP is its emphasis on the role technology plays in business operations and its impact on corporate compliance. The new guidance instructs prosecutors to carefully consider a company’s use of technology, specifically its risk assessment related to technological risks and whether the company has taken steps to mitigate any vulnerabilities. This is particularly pertinent in an age where criminal activity can be facilitated by advanced technologies. For example, prosecutors will now assess whether a company has implemented measures to address the risks posed by artificial intelligence, such as the potential for AI to generate fraudulent approvals or documentation that could undermine internal controls.
The DOJ’s revised guidance highlights the importance of balancing the benefits of technology with its associated risks, reinforcing the need for companies to have a comprehensive strategy that accounts for both.
Whistleblower Protections and Reporting Misconduct
Another significant change in the updated guidance relates to the DOJ’s growing focus on whistleblower protections. The ECCP now explicitly states that prosecutors will evaluate how effectively a company encourages employees and others to report misconduct. Companies will be scrutinized to determine whether they have fostered a “speak up” culture or, conversely, whether they have inadvertently or intentionally discouraged whistleblower activity.
The DOJ’s attention to whistleblower protections is backed by recent legislative support, including the formation of “Whistleblower Protection Caucuses” in both the House and Senate. A robust whistleblower program, as part of a company’s compliance framework, will be a key factor for prosecutors assessing a company’s overall approach to preventing and addressing misconduct. Companies will need to demonstrate that they actively support whistleblowers and take appropriate action when misconduct is reported.
Data Access and Compliance Effectiveness
The updated ECCP also introduces new requirements regarding a company’s access to data and its ability to assess the effectiveness of its compliance program. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole Argentieri emphasized that prosecutors will now evaluate whether companies are leveraging the same resources and technology for compliance purposes that they use in their business operations. This shift reflects a growing recognition that data analysis can be a powerful tool for enhancing compliance efforts.
To support this focus, the DOJ has recently created a new position within its Criminal Division—Counsel for Compliance and Data Analytics. Moving forward, prosecutors will expect to see that companies are not only gathering data but are actively utilizing it to strengthen their compliance programs. Companies that fail to demonstrate a commitment to data-driven compliance may face increased scrutiny in the event of an investigation.
In conclusion, the updated ECCP makes clear that the DOJ’s expectations for corporate compliance are evolving, with a particular emphasis on technology, whistleblower protections, and data analysis.
Source: BHFS
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand