First the Bribery Act, now the Banking Reform Act reverses the burden of proof. What can companies do to ensure robust compliance, pre-empt liability, and gain a distinct competitive advantage?

October 2014Risk Consultant

Abstract

Rob Mason, Becky Stones, Derek Patterson and Toby Duthie at Forensic Risk Alliance in London examine ‘reasonable steps’ companies can take to affirmatively evidence compliance as they face a broadening regulatory drive to reverse the ‘Burden of Proof’. In July this year , in response to the Banking Reform Act the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) and Prudential Regulatory Authority (‘PRA’) published a joint consultation paper on the proposed Senior Management Regime (‘SMR’), Certification Regime and Conduct Rules. While this regulatory focus is on the financial services sector, it touches on wider themes applicable to many sectors and, along with ever larger and often duplicative fines, is part of a wider US-led international enforcement trend.

Subscribe to reador

First the Bribery Act, now the Banking Reform Act reverses the burden of proof. What can companies do to ensure robust compliance, pre-empt liability, and gain a distinct competitive advantage?

Abstract

Related Papers