Author Archives: gg3051

Why Governance Failures Are the Real Root Cause of Financial Crime

by Arun Maheshwari

Photo courtesy of the author

Financial crime is often framed as a problem of criminal ingenuity. Enforcement agencies and regulators devote increasing attention to sophisticated typologies such as sanctions evasion through shell company networks, trade-based money laundering involving dual-use goods, cyber-enabled fraud, crypto-facilitated laundering, and professionalized scam operations. In response, financial institutions have invested billions of dollars in advanced compliance technology. Artificial intelligence, behavioral analytics, network detection, and real-time transaction monitoring systems now form the backbone of modern financial crime programs.

Continue reading →

Are Corporate Monitors Really “Off the Table”? Not Quite.

by Veronica Root Martinez 

Photos of the author

Photo courtesy of the author

Recently, I have been asked whether the use of corporate monitorships may be fading into the background. With signs of declining enforcement intensity and increased leniency toward corporate firms within the United States—particularly at the federal level[1]—some observers have begun to wonder whether monitors are still a realistic feature of post-resolution oversight. The short answer is yes. The longer answer, and the more important one for multinational firms, is that focusing exclusively on the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) dramatically understates both the prevalence and the reach of monitorships today.[2]

Continue reading →

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Employers in Two Recent Religious Discrimination Cases

by Kolin Tang, Matthew P. Suzor, and Cameron Smith

Left to right: Kolin Tang, Matthew P. Suzor, and Cameron Smith (photos courtesy of Miller Shah LLP)

Two recent decisions from the Ninth Circuit—Detwiler v Mid-Columbia Medical Center, 156 F.4th 886 (9th Cir. 2025) and Peterson v. Snohomish Regional Fire Rescue, 150 F.4th 1211 (9th Cir. 2025)—offer important guidance on how courts may evaluate religious discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Together, this pair address two prongs of the religious-accommodation framework— (1) the applicant or employee’s burden of proving discrimination on its face and (2) the shifting burden on an employer to prove that any reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship on its business. In both instances, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts’ decisions in favor of the employer and signaled a more thorough and evidence-based approach to evaluating religious discrimination claims, especially in the context of COVID-19 workplace policies.

Continue reading →

Whistleblowing in Focus: Recent Developments, Emerging Issues, and Considerations for Companies

by Tom Bednar, David A. Last, Abena Mainoo, and Lisa Vicens[1]

Left to right: Tom Bednar, David A. Last, Abena Mainoo, and Lisa Vicens (photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

Introduction

Many jurisdictions have passed laws promoting and protecting whistleblower reporting, particularly with respect to potential violations of law by companies and their executives, while certain law enforcement authorities have introduced monetary awards programs to provide incentives to report potential violations of law.[2]  These previous efforts to encourage whistleblower reporting generally continued in the past year.  In this three-part series, we first discuss the outlook for whistleblower programs in the United States under the new administration.  Second, we review initiatives relating to whistleblower reports in other jurisdictions over the past year.  Third, we address emerging issues and considerations for companies in relation to whistleblower reports.

Continue reading →

Trump Issues Executive Order Targeting Proxy Advisors and Shareholder Proposals

by David A. Katz, Elina Tetelbaum, and Loren Braswell

Photos of authors

Left to right: David A. Katz, Elina Tetelbaum, and Loren Braswell (photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

On December 11, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Protecting American Investors From Foreign-Owned and Politically Motivated Proxy Advisors,” which is aimed at “increas[ing] oversight of and tak[ing] action to restore public confidence in the proxy advisor industry, including by promoting accountability,  transparency, and competition.”

Continue reading →

A Light Shines Through the Darkness in Disputes, Investigations, and Trade Compliance: A Fresh Look at the Classic Fraud Triangle

by Brent Carlson

  Photo courtesy of the author

Innovation comes to all things, even to classic concepts that have grounded entire professions for years or decades.

Among attorneys and compliance professionals, the classic Fraud Triangle—with its three points of pressure, opportunity, and rationalization—stands as a foundational concept to describe the characteristics present after fraud has occurred.

However, the classic Fraud Triangle yields limited utility—and indeed does not really even apply—in forward-looking situations where the third leg of rationalization is necessarily absent.[1] Such situations include ones adversarial in nature such as complex commercial disputes, investigations, and compliance matters where no admission comes from the opposing side, investigation subjects, or counterparties in compliance due diligence and risk assessments. Indeed, in such situations instead of rationalization, one faces vehement denials. This leaves legal and compliance professionals seeking to pierce through darkness in need of a more suitable and effective guiding light.

Continue reading →

DOJ Issues First FCPA Deferred Prosecution Agreement Under New Guidelines

by Jay Holtmeier, Kimberly A. Parker, Christopher Cestaro, and Erin G.H. Sloane 

Left to right: Jay Holtmeier, Kimberly A. Parker, Christopher Cestaro, and Erin G.H. Sloane (photos courtesy of WilmerHale)

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:

  • The DOJ entered into its first deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) since the February 2025 Executive Order pausing FCPA enforcement.
  • The DPA provides further evidence that the DOJ may scrutinize conduct in Latin America more closely and highlights the risks of entering into joint venture arrangements, particularly in industries and geographies where there are corruption risks.
  • The DPA also demonstrates that the DOJ will likely continue to look to provide more favorable terms to companies that implement remediation, have a robust compliance program, and agree to report to the DOJ regarding the state of their compliance program.

Continue reading →

Deputy Attorney General Delivers Keynote at ACI FCPA Conference 

by Greg D. Andres, Martine M. Beamon, Daniel S. Kahn, and Neil H. MacBride

Left to right: Greg D. Andres, Martine M. Beamon, Daniel S. Kahn and Neil H. MacBride (photos courtesy of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP)

On December 4, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and other DOJ officials participated in the annual ACI FCPA conference in Washington DC, outlining key principles to corporate enforcement and FCPA investigations and prosecutions.  The remarks provide insight into how this DOJ is approaching FCPA enforcement and corporate enforcement more broadly.

Continue reading →

CFTC announces changes to investigations and resolution process

by Greg D. Andres, Martine M. Beamon, Daniel S. Kahn, and Neil H. MacBride

Left to right: Greg D. Andres, Martine M. Beamon, Daniel S. Kahn, and Neil H. MacBride (photos courtesy of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP)

On December 1, 2025, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced amendments to its Rules Relating to Investigations and Rules of Practice.  The amendments are aimed at enhancing transparency and due process protections, including with respect to the Wells process.

Continue reading →

Reset or rollback: Unpacking the EU’s Digital Omnibus Package

by Gareth Kristensen, Prudence Buckland, Jan-Frederik Keustermans, and Hakki Can Yildiz

Left to right: Gareth Kristensen, Prudence Buckland, Jan-Frederik Keustermans, and Hakki Can Yildiz (photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

Background

On 19 November 2025, the European Commission presented its much-anticipated Digital “Omnibus” package[1] intended to ease the administrative and compliance burden facing European businesses. Executive Vice-President of the Commission Henna Virkkunen stated that “[f]rom factories to start-ups, the digital package is the EU’s answer to calls to reduce burdens on our businesses.”[2] 

Continue reading →