- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Kyle Brasseur2023-07-27T13:27:00
Companies seeking credit for voluntarily self-disclosing potential violations of sanctions or export control laws must be mindful of the multiple regimes at play and their differing expectations.
A compliance note released by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on Wednesday explains how each agency assesses voluntary self-disclosure when determining whether reporting companies qualify for potential reductions in penalties. The guidance follows policy updates by the DOJ and BIS in recent months designed to incentivize self-reporting before the government initiates an investigation.
At the DOJ, companies can reduce—or avoid altogether—the potential for criminal liability through prompt voluntary self-disclosure of apparent violations of sanctions and export control laws.
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.
Penalties against companies including British American Tobacco, Wells Fargo, and Microsoft demonstrate the multiple ways in which businesses can run afoul of U.S. sanctions—an area receiving increased scrutiny by regulators.
The Department of Justice scrutinizing sanctions on par with how it views bribery under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act alters the calculus of whether a company should voluntarily self-disclose potential violations, experts discussed at CW’s TPRM Summit.
Swedbank Latvia agreed to pay more than $3.4 million to resolve apparent U.S. sanctions violations in the Crimea region of Ukraine, the Office of Foreign Assets Control announced.
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.
