FRA

Forensic Risk Alliance

In the Press

Risky Business – Assessing Risks in the Age of Big Data

Risk assessments have long been recognised as a core element of an effective compliance programme. Be it the US sentencing guidelines, US DOJ and SEC FCPA guidance, UK adequate procedures or the French Sapin II requirements, each of these authorities expressly calls out risk assessments as being a required measure when assessing the effectiveness of a company’s compliance programme.

Therefore, failing to conduct a risk assessment adequately (or at all) increases the risk of enforcement action, higher penalties and can restrict the availability of early settlement options such as non- or deferred-prosecution agreements.

However, it is important to note that risk assessments are not just programmes of compliance – there is a science and an art to using fundamental approaches to reduce the impact in a data-driven world, as assessing risks is a dynamic and iterative process.

FRA Directors Simon Taylor and Doel Kar discuss this further in their article ‘Risky Business – Assessing Risks in the Age of Big Data’ in the June edition of The Lawyer.

Read the full article

https://www.thelawyer.com/

The Guide to Monitorships – Leveraging Forensic Accountants

FRA founding partner Frances McLeod, partners Emma Hodges and Neil Goradia and director Jenna Voss offer comprehensive insight into the advantages of engaging an experienced forensic firm to support companies under monitorship or the monitorship team. As the monitorship model continues to grow in scope in the US and beyond, the strategic benefit of engaging a forensic firm with multi-jurisdictional expertise in data analytics, data governance and compliance monitoring activities, should not be underestimated.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to monitorships, as the situation will vary depending on industry, the nature of the monitorship and the maturity of the company’s existing compliance programme. That said, the involvement of a forensic firm in a monitorship is most successful when triggered from the start of the monitorship life cycle (i.e. selection) so that the most efficient work plan can be created from the initial stages.

A forensic firm can play one of three roles: the monitor, the supporting firm to the company or the supporting firm to the monitor. Our chapter focuses on the two supporting roles.

The ‘Company-Support’ Forensic Firm. Employing a monitor-response team is one way for a company to alleviate the significant and often unprecedented burden that a monitorship can place on a company’s time and resources. A forensic firm can help the company proactively understand and respond to key issues, including:

  • helping the company navigate the nuances of monitorships and certification decisions by better understanding the monitor’s role and anticipating their demands;
  • providing project management support to the company, such as facilitating its responses to monitor requests for data and documentation, preparing status reports, and coordinating meetings and interviews with the monitor;
  • providing additional resources to fill new or vacant roles within the company, or to departments that require additional support such as boosting internal audit and investigations teams;
  • supporting the company in developing and executing plans to implement the remedial measures the monitor recommends, including in remote locations;
  • identifying potential areas of concern through compliance testing and monitoring, allowing the company the opportunity to pre-empt these issues during the monitorship; and
  • supporting the company’s implementation of measures to mitigate identified risks, whether concerning policies and procedures, controls, technology, data management, or data analytics.

The ‘Monitor-Support’ Forensic Firm. Monitors must carefully consider how to structure a team with sufficient subject matter expertise, industry knowledge, technical and analytical skills, and resources to meet the monitorship objectives established by the regulators. Forensic firms can be explicitly required or a matter of best practice in a monitorship team, particularly given the heavy emphasis on data analytics by compliance regulators. An experienced forensic firm can offer the following complementary skill sets to the monitorship team:

  • understanding the historical misconduct and subsequent investigation, focused principally on the scope and methodology employed by the company;
  • understanding the company’s current situation, including what, if any, remediation efforts are already in place;
  • structuring the monitor’s assessment and determining what a company must do to meet the regulator’s mandate;
  • devising clear and pragmatic recommendations;
  • testing the company’s remediation efforts following implementation of the monitor’s recommendations; and
  • reporting to the monitor, the company and relevant regulators.

The chapter also offers practical advice on selecting the right forensic firm for the monitorship, weighing in factors such as industry and subject matter expertise, the firm’s independence, experience and credibility with regulators, systems and data management expertise, staffing and project approach. Additionally, in cross-border and multi-jurisdictional engagements, the forensic firm should have the capability and knowledge to create bespoke solutions to navigate data privacy and management hurdles.

Read FRA’s Leveraging Forensic Accountants chapter here

www.globalinvestigationsreview.com

Accreditation: An extract from the first edition of The Guide to Monitorships. The whole publication is available at https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/edition/1001321/the-guide-to-monitorships-first-edition

Too Big to Care? What should ‘Big Tech’ learn from banking?

In the years that followed, a generation of tech entrepreneurs jumped into to the vacuum of regulation left by governments looking the other way and created the most valuable corporations in the world using personal data collected from individuals to generate profit.

Having now being aware of the risks involved, politicians and regulators are faced with a number of problems including: how to reign in the power of these organisations; how to restore healthy competition; how to ensure that personal data entrusted to big tech is used responsibly and in accordance with the terms on which it was provided; how to prevent the spread of harmful content through their platforms; and how to regulate political campaigning on their platforms.

These problems are generating a ‘techlash’ by governments around the world, with proposals for breaking up the big tech monopolies mixing with calls for tough regulation.

Against this stand the tech giants themselves, and in particular Facebook, and whilst not necessarily suggesting that the scale of these problems can be met by self-regulation alone, they are keen to have a hand in drafting the new rules.

FRA Partner Rob Mason and Director Simon Taylor argue this further in their article in Global Investigations Review (GIR) ‘Too Big to Care? What should ‘Big Tech’ learn from banking?’.

Read the full article here.

www.globalinvestigationsreview.com

Are Life Science Companies Truly Managing Compliance Risks? Becoming Data Ready

Life science compliance functions have already begun applying data analytics to achieve two important objectives: fact-finding and forecasting. Effective data management needs to be established to accommodate the velocity, volume, and variety and ensure the value and veracity of Big Data.

FRA Manager, Jenny Bi, continues her discussion from last month’s Policy and Medicine Compliance Update, on risk management basics that can be applied to life science corporate compliance programs to help manage risk. Jenny explains how to integrate analytics into each of the key process steps of Risk Assessment and Management Plan (“RAMP”), to ensure effectiveness and efficiency.

One of the key factors of success to assess and mitigate compliance risks is the ability to analyze data. When the correct data analysis techniques are employed in the right context, Big Data brings value by discovering new insights with accuracy and reliability.

Read Jenny’s article in Policy and Medicine Compliance Update here.

https://www.policymed.com/

FRA Director joins the panel at Transparency International Sweden

Following the launch of a new Transparency International chapter in Sweden, anti-corruption activists from the Baltic and Nordic region are meeting to discuss clean trade, good corporate governance and European integration at the Transparency International Swedish Chapter event in Stockholm.

FRA Data Analytics Director, Rasoul Golparvar, is joining the Digitalization in Compliance panel. He will be discussing how to leverage data and analytics to enhance compliance. Rasoul has over 18 years of experience in the areas of data, analytics and software development and has extensive experience applying data analytic techniques on structured and unstructured datasets to detect, investigate and prevent instances of fraud, corruption, misconduct and other non-compliance issues.

Two other external guests will give their views on Digitalization in Compliance:

Patrick Couch, Business Developer, AI & Cognitive Technologies, IBM

  • “Trust & Transparency in the Age of AI”

Eliza Kücükaslan, CEO, Klarity

  • “How to use digital tools to create a movement against corruption.”
  •  Klarity shares some of the experiences from their pilot case in Ghana of using new technology to empower the many to fight  everyday corruption.

Key insights will be shared on our website after the forum.