SAI Global GRC Community

Building Organizational Integrity.
Blogs >> Business Ethics and Corporate Culture

Compliance – whose role is it anyway?

03 Jun 2015
Written by Joan Keevill

Who is responsible for compliance in your organisation? The Chief Compliance Officer (CCO)? The Head of Internal Audit? The Chief Executive Officer (CEO)? The Board? Or is it something that every employee and line manager should take responsibility for?

The United States Department of Justice (DoJ) has made available Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell's remarks (17 April 2015) delivered at the New York University on the DoJ criminal division's "efforts to increase transparency in its corporate prosecutions".

The New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has announced that Ernst & Young (EY) has agreed to pay US$10 million to settle allegations regarding the auditing firm's "involvement in a financial statement fraud at the now-defunct investment bank ... Lehman Brothers". Specifically, the OAG alleges that EY's treatment of certain sales, made by Lehman Brothers under the condition of quick repurchase by Lehman Brothers, as being simple sales "enabled [Lehman Brothers] to temporarily remove tens of billions of dollars of securities from its balance sheet without requiring [Lehman Brothers] to disclose the ... transactions as financings on its financial statements". The OAG states that Lehman Brothers is alleged to have "used the funds derived from the transactions to pay down billions of dollars of liabilities". According to the OAG, the settlement sum will be "distributed as restitution to investors in [Lehman Brothers] securities".

Read this whitepaper to gain insights into:

  • understanding the five steps to designing a thorough and effective, yet practical, conflicts of interest policy
  • training all levels of staff and management
  • deploying disclosure questionnaires to increase transparency
  • reporting that engages senior management and the Board
  • improving business ethics over the long term 
Published in Whitepapers

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has announced that it has formally warned 39 telecommunications service providers (undated) for their first-time breaches of cll. 9.3.1(a) (Customer Information Compliance Statement) and 9.4.1(a) (Compliance Attestation) of the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code (2012) (the TCP Code).

The United Kingdom Cabinet Office (CO) and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) have jointly announced the release by the CO and national social enterprise organisation Social Enterprise UK of research showing that British consumers are "concerned about where and how they buy products and services".

The Federal Court of Australia (FCA) has handed down its judgment in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Safe Breast Imaging Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 998 (16 September 2014). According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the FCA has fined Safe Breast Imaging Pty Ltd (SBI) and its sole director Joanne Firth A$200,000 and A$20,000 respectively in relation to false representations made by SBI in breach of Schedule 2 (The Australian Consumer Law) to the Competition and Consumer Act (2010) 1974 No. 51 (Cth).

Published in Consumer Protection

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs in the United States Department of Labor (OFCCP) has announced that Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling has agreed to pay US$475,000 in back wages and interest to settle allegations that it "unfairly rejected [1,293 qualified female job seekers] for merchandiser, driver, driver trainee, production and warehouse positions at the company's bottling and distribution facility".

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced that Famous Chicken of Shreveport has agreed to pay US$25,000 and provide other relief to settle charges that the Popeye's Chicken franchisee "unlawfully den[ied] employment to an HIV-positive applicant because of his disability at a Longview, Texas [Popeye's Chicken] location".

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced that Holly Manor Center Nursing Home (Holly Manor) is to pay US$75,000 and provide other relief to settle charges that it "unlawfully rescind[ed] a job offer to an applicant because he is deaf".

Page 1 of 77

© 2015 SAI Global Limited ABN 67 050 611 642




User Registration
or Cancel