During the past decade, the use of monitorships has matured considerably, with an increasing number of regulators and enforcement entities implementing this form of remediation. Jurisdictions outside the United States have moved beyond nurturing an interest in monitorships to formally legislating their application in settlement negotiations. It was once more common for monitorships to stem from investigations into alleged bribery and corruption; today, regulators impose monitorships in response to a variety of organisational misconduct across a breadth of industries. Monitors have been installed, for example, to oversee and assess conduct in:
- Police departments (focusing on cultural change);
- Automotive industry (assessing controls around research and development, and emissions testing);
- Financial institutions (testing anti-money laundering and sanctions-related compliance programmes); and
- Public accounting and auditing firms (overseeing quality control and cultural improvements).
As the scope of monitorships has evolved, so has the role of forensic accountants in these situations. Chartered accountants, certified fraud examiners, anti-money laundering specialists, data specialists and analysts, and industry-specific experts within forensic accounting firms (forensic firms) marry complementary expertise in anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, sanctions and counter-terrorism financing investigations, compliance programme design, review and testing, process review and internal controls testing, audit negligence assessments, disgorgement and the ability to pay calculations.
In this chapter, published in Global Investigations Review‘s The Guide to Monitorships – Second Edition, Frances McLeod, Emma Hodges, Neil Goradia, Jenna Voss and Samantha Hsu discuss how forensic firms support a monitor or company through the monitorship process.
