- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Adrianne Appel2024-09-26T14:23:00
Companies under criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice for any reason must show they have robust compliance for any artificial intelligence (AI) in use–or risk heightened prosecution–under a DOJ policy update.
Companies also must show that they have strong whistleblower protections, according to an update of the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP), an online guidebook about the compliance, governance, and risk assessment systems the DOJ expects companies to have.
The DOJ periodically updates the ECCP, and announced in March that it planned to include AI and whistleblower protections. In March 2023, an ECCP update provided guidance about corporate off-channel communications, among other issues.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec. Select an option and click continue.
Annual Membership $499 Value offer
Full price one year membership with auto-renewal.
Membership $599
One-year only, no auto-renewal.
Now that the U.S. Department of Justice launched a new pilot whistleblower program, many questions remain. What types of companies might find themselves to be the subject of a criminal investigation stemming from a whistleblower tip? And what should they do to prepare for a whistleblower tip?
The Department of Justice has added antitrust compliance guidance in an update to its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs.
A federal court in Florida has lashed out at federal whistleblower programs by dismissing a mundane False Claims Act case against a medical practice on the grounds that the qui tam provisions of the FCA are unconstitutional.
Any product that uses AI needs to be safety assessed for its entire lifespan under new rules that went into effect recently across the EU. Experts warned companies using AI to tailor products could be classed as “manufacturers” and face the same duty of care as developed.
When lawmakers slam the U.K.’s chief financial regulator as “incompetent,” it not only opens the doors for others to pile criticism on it, but it sparks a debate about how the organization can be improved–or removed.
The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority apologized to investors in peer-to-peer investment firm Collateral for not acting swiftly enough to prevent Collateral from defrauding its customers.
