As the long arm of the US law lengthens, what does this mean for European corporations and their advisers when faced with fraud, corruption, or regulatory issues?
Meet the AlixPartners experts
Susan Markel,
corporate investigations
Steven Ambort,
information management
Watch the highlights of the seminar we hosted in the UK on May 27
Insights from the speakers and top lawyers in the UK
Susan Markel
US regulation framework
Coordination between international regulators
Current SEC enforcement environment
Steven Ambort
Dealing with evidence
The audience said
Your UK client has identified that it has paid bribes to foreign government officials to win an overseas contract. If informed of this today, would you advise your client to report the matter to the Serious Fraud Office?
Which sanction do you think would have the biggest impact on UK Board attitudes to fraud and corruption?
The experts comment
On self-reporting bribery: We were astonished that almost half the audience of external lawyers would not advise their client to self-report. If the SFO is to reach the levels of self-reporting enjoyed by the US, the benefits need to be more widely understood and the chance of external detection of an offence needs to be perceived to be higher. Companies and their directors certainly will have more protection if they demonstrate they are taking positive action to stamp out corrupt practices in their organisation.
On sanctions: As indicated by nearly 90% of the audience, it is human nature to take most care when self-interest is at stake. This has been recognised by US regulators who are using personal liability triggers to make sure companies stay clean. Upon the future enactment of the Bribery Bill in the UK, it will be considered a corporate offence for negligently failing to prevent bribery - this should bring greater focus to the prevention and detection of corruption from UK Boards of Directors.
Case study
Hear more from Steve – an example to illustrate how to save time and money planning an investigation.
Case Study