“Over the past few months, senior leaders at both the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), have given speeches discussing the need for appropriate corporate culture around compliance. So, this brings up our first question for our next five-part blogpost series, what is corporate culture?
My colleague Eric Feldman believes “culture is everything” for an organization; culture is the foundational internal control, without which all your other controls are likely to be ineffective.
This means corporate culture is the way things really are in an organization and the way things really work.
AMI’s Eric Feldman sat down with the other members of ACFE’s Board of Regents to discuss the importance of CFE’s in fostering corporate culture. This conversation appears in the September/October issue of FRAUD Magazine.
CFEs can trumpet the age-old “tone at the top” concept, but if top executives aren’t working to transform corporate cultures throughout organizations then fraud prevention and deterrence will continually run up against roadblocks. The members of the ACFE Board of Regents know this from their years of consulting with C-suite execs who want to tackle fraud but also have to wrestle with timid general counsels, fluctuating quarterly reports and concerned stakeholders.
The Board gathered at the beginning of the recent 30th Annual ACFE Global Fraud Conference to opine on the latest anti-fraud issues during a 90-minute Fraud Magazine interview.
“The size of the health care industry accounts for almost 20 percent of our economy . . . When you have lots of money being spent in an industry, there is always the potential for fraud, waste and abuse. Now, overlay this with the public money involved, and there is the potential for a False Claims Act or government action, whether civil or criminal.
Independent integrity monitoring can proactively assess compliance programs and culture and identify potential areas of compliance risk.
If you have a compliance and ethics program of any size, odds are good that you need a solution provider to help your program function fully. Manage the vendor search and relationship well, and if you’ve done yourself and your program a great service. Manage it badly, and you’ve created a nightmare.
Jay Rosen of Affiliated Monitors knows the challenge well, having been a buyer of solutions and currently as a vendor to the compliance and ethics community.
In this podcast – a preview of his session at the 2019 Compliance & Ethics Institute — he outlines how to make the vendor relationship a healthy one, beginning even before you begin a search. He advises that buyers reach out to their peers to learn what is working for them and the options in the marketplace.
In this special five-part podcast series, sponsored by Affiliated Monitors, Inc., Tom Fox visits with AMI’s Jay Rosen. In this series they introduce the role of independent integrity monitors and corporate monitorships; discuss both pre-settlement and post- resolution monitorships and their different applications; considerations a company should take in hiring a monitor and cost reflections for monitorships.. Listen to the full series below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.Day 1:
In Part 1, we introduce the role of independent integrity monitors and corporate monitorships.Day 2:
In this Episode 2, we consider the use of monitors in the post-resolution phase. Some of the highlights from this podcast include:What is a monitorship in the FCPA Context? Complying with Consent Decrees When does post-resolution monitorship have the impact of a pre-settlement monitorship?
Jay Rosen begins a deep dive into health care monitoring and how the proactive use of a health care monitor can positively impact all stakeholders: the regulators, the industry itself and the consumers of health care services, the public.
Independent integrity monitoring can be particularly valuable and important in the health care sector because in many ways, health care is the perfect storm for significant compliance risks – but it also has a greater opportunity to mitigate those risks. Using an independent third-party compliance expert or monitor can be one strategy to help mitigate risks.
Health care occupies a unique space in the American business world.
The size of the health care industry accounts for almost 20 percent of our economy.
Jay Rosen’s miniseries on suspension and debarment concludes with this look into the remedies federal agencies seek when misconduct is identified, and where the ultimate focus will lie: compliance.
The defense community largely led the process of putting together an effective ethics and compliance program. There were defense industry initiatives where the contractors got together and talked about what it takes to promote ethics and compliance; the defense industry been doing this for years. Unfortunately, nongovernmental commercial industries were not as far along as the defense industry.
read the full post here
Lately, there has been tremendous growth in the understanding that E&C is critical for any company.
Every compliance professional should be familiar with the concept of present responsibility. Jay Rosen discusses the term and its place in suspensions and debarments.
Present responsibility has become sort of a buzzword. It’s the underlying basis for action involving excluding a party from the federal marketplace through suspension or department.
Unfortunately, the phrase itself is not defined anywhere in the regulatory structure. This means its determination comes down to the discretion of the federal officials who have been empowered to exercise the suspension and debarment authority.
Yet even with this lack of a statutory or regulator definition, there are some common factors and guidelines out there that can help the compliance community understand some of the elements of suspension and debarment as they relate to this issue.
Day 1: in the first episode of a 5-part podcast series, AMI Managing Director Jerry Coyne, introduces the role of State Attorneys General in protecting state consumers through multi-state litigation. Listen below, or on the FCPA Compliance Report
Day 2: In Part 2 of a 5-part series, Jerry Coyne, Managing Director at Affiliated Monitors discusses the reaction to the Master Settlement Agreement with Big Tobacco and criticism of State AG’s as a result. What were the lessons learned by State AG’s in this process, and what are the risks and rewards of State AG’s using private attorneys to pursue multi-state litigation?
Listen below, or on the FCPA Compliance Report
Day 3: In this Part 3 of a 5-part series, Jerry Coyne, Managing Director at Affiliated Monitors discusses some of the issues faced by State Attorneys General in the post big-tobacco settlement era.