OPS Risk: Military Lesson for Wall Street...

 "There is no avoiding the realities of the information age.  Its effects manifest differently in different sectors, but the drivers of speed and interdependence will impact us all.  Organizations that continue to use 20th-century tools in today's complex environment do so at their own peril."  Stanley A. McChrystal

Historically, privacy was almost implicit, because it was hard to find and gather information. But in the digital world, whether it's digital cameras or satellites or just what you click on, we need to have more explicit rules - not just for governments but for private companies.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/bill_gates_626047?src=t_privacy

Almost ten years ago, Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark W. Graper, the 354th Fighter Wing commander at EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE Alaska, quoted the essence of Operational Risk Management.

Corporate Executives and mid-level management should have this made into a poster for their office and hanging in every hallway:

"Summer is just around the corner, and many of us are planning for our favorite warm weather activities - fishing, hunting, hiking, motorcycling, camping and more. All of our summer plans can be fun if we keep in mind the basics of operational risk management: Accept risk when benefits outweigh the cost; accept no unnecessary risk; anticipate and manage risk by planning; make risk decisions at the right level; assess and mitigate risk. Stated more simply, have a (prudent) plan, have a backup plan and have a Wingman."

Whether you are focused on the safety and security of your personnel, the integrity and confidentiality of your information or the continuity of your business operations, consider this.

Effective "Operational Risk Management" will improve your organizations resilience factor.

The brilliance of Brig. Gen. Graper's emphasis on this subject away from the flight line or "The Office" is his understanding, that most of us will become more complacent the minute we hit the parking lot.

You see, OPS Risk is not just something being advocated in the Wall Street workplace. It should be just as pervasive at home or in our own leisure activities. Whether you are climbing "Denali" or entertaining friends around the backyard pool, you have to be continuously in OPS Risk mode, or it could bring harm to life, limb or your own reputation.

Operational Risk includes the risk of litigation and there is one item you can be certain that is a threat to your corporate integrity. Employees, partners and suppliers to your organization:

What most organizations the size and complexity of Facebook under estimate, are the speed of change and the socially "connected" market economy. The blur of business combined with the "Holistic Blindness" of what privacy risks are a threat today or this week, can bring an enterprise to it's knees and then to it's ultimate demise.

"Facebook Inc. (FB - Get Report) and the Federal Trade Commission currently are negotiating details of a settlement related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the Washington Post reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

The penalty imposed by the FTC likely would be a multi-billion dollar fine, which would easily be the largest fine ever issued to a tech company by the FTC. In 2012, Alphabet Inc.'s (GOOGL - Get Report) Google was fined $22.5 million by the agency for user privacy offenses.

The two sides are still negotiating the amount of the fine. If no agreement is reached, the FTC could take the issue to court, according to the Washington Post.

Facebook's privacy issues date back to 2012. Facebook settled a case with the FTC in August 2012, when the two parties reached an agreement that "Facebook must obtain consumers' consent before sharing their information beyond established privacy settings," according to a press release from the FTC published at the time the deal was made.

Facebook's privacy issues continued last March when news broke that Cambridge Analytica, a political research company, had harvested user data beyond what was acceptable. It later became evident that Facebook likely was aware of Cambridge's actions on the platform"
Whether it's collecting user data to sell to your supply chain or keeping your F-22 Raptor in the air to defeat hostiles, OPS Risk is the differentiator. Your survival depends on it...

Unthinkable: Adapting in New World Disorder...

Will 2018 bring more data breaches, lost laptops and insider threats than 2017?  This is why CSO's, CPO's and corporate General Counsels have their teams working overtime.

When the enemy is increasing their attacks, utilizing new strategies and leveraging the existing base of compromised organizational intellectual and data assets, the future horizon becomes ever more clear. 

The statistics don't lie.  1579 documented Data Breaches occurred in 2017. Up 44.7% according to reports by the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) compared to the previous year.  It is the new normal.

The Insider Threat Program (InTP) however, remains a key focus for Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals because human behaviors are exaggerated during periods of stress, fear and uncertainty. This means that people who may have never considered doing something to jeopardize their reputations, may now be up against a wall.

When there is no obvious exit and no way out, people will do extraordinary things to get ahead, beat the odds and hedge their own risk portfolio of life.

In Joshua Cooper Ramo's book "The Age of the Unthinkable", "Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us and What We Can Do About It" the author discusses the concept of Deep Security. His analogy of how to think about "Deep Security" is the biological immune system:

"A reactive instinct for identifying dangers, adapting to deal with them, and then moving to control and contain the risk they present."

The key word in Ramo's writing is "Adapt".  Being Adaptive.  However, prior to this there are two other very vital words that we feel are even more imperative. Instinct. Identifying. In other words, Proactive Intuition.

Ask any savvy investigator on how she solved the case and you may hear just that, "I had a hunch."

Talk with a Chief Privacy Officer in any Global 500 company.  You might get them to admit they have a sense that their organization will be the target of an "Insider data breach" incident in the coming year or two.

Do you remember signing off on reading and your acceptance of the employee handbook?  When did your organization last make changes to the Corporate Employee policies?  We would start with the updates to the following sections:

• MEDIA CONTACT
• SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY
• REMOTE ACCESS POLICY
• E-MAIL, VOICE MAIL AND COMPUTER NETWORK SYSTEM PRIVACY
• (YOUR ORGANIZATION) RIGHT TO ACCESS INFORMATION
• SYSTEMS USE RESTRICTED TO COMPANY BUSINESS
• FORBIDDEN CONTENT
• PASSWORD SECURITY AND INTEGRITY
• INTERNET ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
• POLICY ON USE OF SOFTWARE
• COMPANY PROPERTY
• PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS/NON-DISCLOSURE OF COMPANY INFORMATION 

Due to the increasing complexity of IT systems, cloud computing, data networks and the hundreds or thousands of laptops and mobile devices circling the globe with company executives and employees is enough to predict that a major breach will occur.

Being adaptive and having proactive intuition in the modern enterprise does not come natural. You have to work at it and it requires a substantial investment in time and resources to make it work effectively.  Proactive Intuition.

Once you realize that all of the controls, technology and physical security are not going to keep you out of harms way, you are well on your way to reaching the clairvoyance of "The Age of the Unthinkable."

Vigilance: The Casualty of the Truth...

On the other end of a planned cyber threat are the motives and plans by a person.  Sometimes that person puts into play the use of a "Bot" to carry out many of their planned steps in their scheme.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals have been classifying these cybercriminals for a decade or more yet even now in 2016 they are getting more formal profiles:

BAE Systems, the London-based, multinational security company, recently released profiles of “six prominent types of cybercriminals” and detailed how they could hurt companies around the globe, officials say.

Threat intelligence experts at BAE Systems have compiled a list, “The Unusual Suspects,” that has been created from “research that uncovers the motivations and methods of the most common types of cybercriminals,” according to BAE. “The intention of the campaign is to help enterprises understand the various enemies they face so they can better defend against cyberattacks.” BAE Systems officials have profiled six cybercriminal types:

• The Mule – naive opportunists that may not even realize they work for criminal gangs to launder money;
• The Professional – career criminals who work 9-to-5 in the digital shadows;
• The Nation State Actor – individuals who work directly or indirectly for their government to steal sensitive information and disrupt enemies’ capabilities;
• The Activist – motivated to change the world via questionable means;
• The Getaway – the youthful teenager who can escape a custodial sentence due to their age;
• And The Insider – disillusioned, blackmailed or even over-helpful employees operating from within the walls of their own company.

These individuals and groups have caused billions of dollars in losses and caused significant harm to millions of people and organizations.  Now what?

It will be many more years to come, before the laws catch-up to the technology and those who use the vector of the Internet to carry out their crimes against humanity.  Law enforcement has their hands continually tied by the laws and the geographic challenges of a global epidemic.  Governments and politicians are in constant battle over the privacy vs. security philosophy and all the legal issues.

While the wheels of Parliament, or the U.S. Congress slowly turn and the mechanisms for law enforcement become more robust for evidence collection, investigations and prosecutions, there are significant strategies of resilience that we must focus our respective vigilance.  It is not anything new per se, just a renewed emphasis and a new commitment to redesigning our digital environments.  We can do better.

For now, what if we just pick one cybercriminal type to focus on.  The "Insider".

The "Insider" is most likely in almost every formal organization today, working diligently to mask and perpetuate their goals until they are revealed.  It is your "Duty of Care" to continuously deter, detect, defend and document within your enterprise.  The "Insider" could be anyone and so how can the organization work ever more so vigilantly?

It begins at the core of the business and the culture that surrounds those principles within your company, your team or your relationship with suppliers.  The environment you build and sustain shall have the transparency and the elements necessary to sustain a culture where the "Insider" is incapable of operating.  Where the culture itself, makes the environment impossible for the "Insider" to operate without disclosure.

We would encourage Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals to incorporate new found strategies, new management tools and a renewed effort to extinguish the "Insider" threat across the globe.  The best way we can do this today, is to work on the culture and to establish the foundations for future "Trust Decisions" within the enterprise.  The root of changing the culture and achieving the desired future environment, begins with every single decision to trust.

The journey ahead will be long and full of new found challenges.  The vision of the future and the outcomes received will soon be more apparent.  Now the real work begins to start the journey with your own organization, with each person and understanding the environment and culture you seek.  And remember:

"In war, truth is the first casualty."

Aeschylus
Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC)

Beware of the Cowboy: Risk Driven by Fear...

Beware of the cowboy.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) spans the hazards on the flight deck on the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) or behind enemy lines or even to employee behavior on the front lines of the private sector on Wall Street:

"The recent conviction of Michael Coscia in the Federal District Court in Chicago in the first prosecution for “spoofing” provides more clarity to high-frequency trading firms about how they can operate. The message is to tread carefully when a strategy depends on using orders that will be quickly canceled because the government may claim they are an effort to manipulate the market by fooling others into trading.

Spoofing was made illegal in the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits “bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution.”

Believe it when we say that people who try to be cowboys in your organization are operating without regard to risk. Now multiply the number of cowboys by the number of people that they surround on their team, who think that this is the way to operate. It doesn't take long to find out that these are the root causes of many of the operational risks in your organization. And it starts out with the basics even in the vast private sector beyond Wall Street:

• Revenue is not booked according to the rules. Products sit in the warehouse yet revenue ends up on the sales reps commission report because (s)he had a signed order.
• Assets are not valued correctly. Bank accounts are not validated to make sure they actually exist and accounts receivables are inflated.

These are just two of the many facets of occupational fraud that starts with a few cowboys who have little regard for managing risk and all the incentives to line their pockets with new found cash or bonuses.

From Leadership Lessons of the Navy SEALS

The Cowboy

"Neither of us knows if such a thing has ever been tolerated in modern commando teams. Yes, sometimes you need to charge forward. But, there are simply too many potential casualties and too much political currency resting on commando missions to entrust one to a cowboy. Authorization for an operation depends on the accurate calculation of operational risk. This requires an assessment of proven forces ability to perform a task. All this is contrary to the cowboy philosophy of depending on experimentation, pluck, and luck in order to succeed."

"The problem with being a cowboy is that your bosses won't employ you if they can't trust you, and they can't trust you if they don't know what you'll do. And then you're stuck with the reputation."
        --LT. CMDR. Jon Cannon

You might think that the reason is ego or just plain greed. However, the real motive may not be so clear. More than likely, the motive is fear. And that fear is something that grows until it gets to the point of creating harm, loss and destruction. You have to find the cowboys in your organization and you have to follow the mantra of quality gurus from years past, "Drive out Fear".

Workplace Trust: Integrity, Ethics & Legal Risk...

Operational Risk Management professionals wonder about the "Tone at the Top" and decisions at the latest Board of Directors meetings to ignore or investigate a whistleblowers claims of ethics or governance violations in the workplace.

The financial services companies have for years been the target of scrutiny for claims of fraud, mistreatment of consumers and violations of several U.S. federal regulations many under further examination by the SEC.  As time goes on in the evolution of maleficence you will find examples of wrong doing in other private sector areas, such as the Defense Industrial Base (DIB), Retail and Information Technology (IT).  Think about your own company and ask yourself how you treat and respond to the 800 number Ethics Line and those who staff the Internal Audit, Risk Management or Information Security departments.  Are these enablers or impediments to your future success?  Your answer may be a clue to the issue at hand.

The professionals in the Inspector Generals office, the Operational Risk Management department and the General Counsels office are also there for a good reason.  Think about them as the last "Thin Blue Line" between your company becoming a success or falling into a cultural abyss that will plague the institution for decades.  Steven Pearlstein explains from the Washington Post:

Steven Pearlstein: How could SAIC miss this? By Steven Pearlstein, 

Last week in these pages, The Post ran a profile of John Jumper, the straight arrow former Air Force general who was brought in as chief executive of local contracting giant SAIC in the wake of an embarrassing overbilling scandal involving bribery, kickbacks, foreign shell corporations and a safe deposit box stuffed with $850,000 in cash. 

A year ago company officials were publicly denying that there were any problems at all with its contract to build a new timecard system for New York City, which by then was so late and so over budget that “CityTime” had become a frequent target for the New York tabloids and political embarrassment for Mayor Michael Bloomberg. 

It was just last June that SAIC executives and directors first informed shareholders that there might be a little $2.5 million overbilling problem with the contract and that federal prosecutors had brought criminal charges against six employees of an SAIC subcontractor. Shareholders had to read deep into Note 9 of that quarterly report to learn that there might be “a reasonable possibility of additional exposure to loss that is not currently estimable” that “could have a material adverse impact” on the company’s finances.

This episode by one DIB contractor, was not the first nor will it be the last.  One has to ask whether the advice these companies are getting from their outside counsel is always the right course of action.  The government and the internal risk management departments are going to be continuously deluged with new whistleblower claims.  Not just because new laws are in place to protect them and to provide them with the incentives to come forward.  It is because good people are sick and tired of having their organizations reputation tarnished and their respective ethical practices being jeopardized by a few bad cowboys or rogue actors.  Yet now, the Retail sector is being taught a serious lesson regarding a potential FCPA violation by Wal-Mart.  David Barstow at the NYT has this to report:

By DAVID BARSTOW 

Published: April 21, 2012  MEXICO CITY — 

In September 2005, a senior Wal-Mart lawyer received an alarming e-mail from a former executive at the company’s largest foreign subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico. In the e-mail and follow-up conversations, the former executive described how Wal-Mart de Mexico had orchestrated a campaign of bribery to win market dominance. In its rush to build stores, he said, the company had paid bribes to obtain permits in virtually every corner of the country. 

The former executive gave names, dates and bribe amounts. He knew so much, he explained, because for years he had been the lawyer in charge of obtaining construction permits for Wal-Mart de Mexico. 

Wal-Mart dispatched investigators to Mexico City, and within days they unearthed evidence of widespread bribery. They found a paper trail of hundreds of suspect payments totaling more than $24 million. They also found documents showing that Wal-Mart de Mexico’s top executives not only knew about the payments, but had taken steps to conceal them from Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. In a confidential report to his superiors, Wal-Mart’s lead investigator, a former F.B.I. special agent, summed up their initial findings this way: “There is reasonable suspicion to believe that Mexican and USA laws have been violated.”

Mitigation of Operational Risks in the workplace, such as fraud and corruption is different than it is outside the enterprise.  The difference is, that corporate executives do not always believe that their own employees would behave this way.  They could be naive to the reasons why fraud finds its way into the psyche of some of the organizations must trusted officers.  Corruption and the signs that an organization has lost its way from a place of cultural integrity and one that condones others to look the other way or for many to help perpetuate schemes of wrong doing, requires a massive organizational transformation.  A transformation that is lead by focused and talented Operational Risk professionals.

But most of all, even if you have these professionals on your team already, there are still some important ingredients to achieving your own "Defensible Standard of Care":

1.  If you think you have funded the risk management department in your enterprise adequately, you haven't.  Do not confuse your outside audit function with your internal risk management function. 

2.  If you don't understand how your 800 number ethics line works and the outsourced organization that runs this, then you need to do so immediately. 

3.  If you have a favorite outside counsel to help you with investigations, it might be time for a check up.  Even more importantly, it might be time to get your outside counsel firms and your outside audit firms invited to a meeting of the minds on corporate integrity. 

4.  If you find any indications that 1 through 3 have been ignored, pushed aside or been giving you a false sense of security, then you might consider making a career change.

Tech Inc., a rapidly growing software company operating in 45 countries, learns that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are investigating payments made by its subsidiaries in Brazil and China for possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Bob, the general counsel for Tech Inc., suspects that the source of the investigation is an employee who anonymously lodged a hotline complaint alleging that the company was 1) paying independent sales agents excessive commissions and 2) providing generous discounts and rebates to some of its channel customers and distributors. The complainant also said he believed the problem extended beyond Brazil and China based on discussions he had with other employees.

Integrity & Ethics: Whistleblower Risk...

Operational Risk Management in your organization may be in need of a more robust awareness campaign.  Malfeasance and ethical wrongdoing is continuously perpetuated in the workplace when those who are victims or witnesses refuse to speak up. Many fear the retaliation by supervisors or other co-workers. This study emphasizes the issue at hand:

Labaton Sucharow LLP yesterday announced the results of its nationwide Ethics & Action Survey. Conducted by ORC International between November 17-20, the survey questioned 1,000 Americans on their knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace and willingness to come forward and report it. With significant financial rewards and strengthened anti-retaliation and anonymity protections offered under Dodd-Frank, an overwhelming 78% of respondents indicated they would report wrongdoing in the workplace if it could be done anonymously, without retaliation and result in a monetary award. In fact, more than one-third (34%) of respondents knew about wrongdoing in the workplace. However, 68% were unaware that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a new Whistleblower Program designed to protect and reward individuals who report violations of the federal securities laws.

This kind of Operational Risk doesn't have to involve insider trading or the SEC to be an issue.  Do you have a controlling boss or a bully in the organization who uses their position of power to get what they want at any cost or to force you to look the other direction?  What kind of facts point to their behaviors and the actions by others that contribute to a caustic and toxic work place setting or to further perpetuate the situation?  Whether it is your Fortune 500 public company or your tiny 501(c)3 non-profit does not matter.  When over one-third of the respondents of the ORC Ethics and Action Survey knowingly ignore or are afraid to report incidents of wrongdoing or ethics violations the culture is broken and in need of repair.  The people who have the fiduciary duty to see that this kind of behavior is deterred also have the responsibility to provide the tools and the mechanism for those being victimized and those who are observing the malfeasance to anonymously defend themselves.

So what should you do as an Operational Risk professional to make sure this doesn't happen to the people in your respective organization?  Here is a good start:

Many corporations have internal compliance programs for corporate misconduct. These programs are, in theory, designed to provide an audience for workers who want to report unethical or illegal corporate conduct. Whether to utilize internal compliance reporting procedures is not an easy question to answer. As a general proposition, some believe that where the wrongdoing is pervasive—as in the case of securities fraud—an internal compliance program will not provide an adequate means of redress. Some believe that where the issue involves massive overbilling to the Government, or an allegation that a corporation is receiving significant dollars in unlawful revenue through fraudulent conduct, the internal compliance system will not work.

It's imperative that you also become aware of and communicate to employees and volunteers what their rights are outside the formal processes that are in place within the organization. Sometimes the nature of the ethics violations will not easily fall into the category for the internal compliance department.

So even "A Decade After the Fall of Enron" the laws and the rules provide us with a false sense of security from the corporate and workplace malfeasance that so many U.S. citizens are being subjected to on a daily basis.  And based upon the current-state-of-play around the beltway in Washington, DC you can expect that the coordination and cooperation is increasing by the minute.

The increased collaboration among the alphabet soup of enforcement and regulatory agencies is also due to a collateral effect of the current financial crisis: declining agency budgets. In the current downward budget cycle, agencies are working in concert more than ever before. This trend is exacerbated by a change in the mission of the FBI in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world, shifting resources to counterterrorism and creating a need for other agencies to play an increased role. The overarching lesson from this increased collaboration is clear: Gone are the days that inside or in-house counsel can assume that the state or federal agency with whom they are dealing is acting alone; it is increasingly likely there are additional state or federal agencies involved, resulting in overlapping criminal, civil or regulatory exposure.

If you are charged with the position of the Senior Operational Risk professional in your organization, this topic of wrongdoing in the workplace can not be overlooked any longer.  It is not too late to create a "Defensible Standard of Care" and to turn the word "Integrity" into a cultural pursuit for all to aspire to, before it is too late.

FCPA Alert: Dodd-Frank vs. Powerball...

Board Directors are ever more tuned into the recent 2011 case settlements in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations. This is because Operational Risk Professionals are being much more proactive than years past on uncovering malfeasance in the supply chain operations of major global conglomerates:

• Notable 2011 FCPA Settlements. 2010 was a record year for FCPA enforcement, and thus far 2011 has been no different. In the first half of 2011, 10 notable FCPA enforcement actions have settled, resulting in a total of about $490 million in penalties, disgorgement and prejudgment interest:

1. Tenaris agreed to pay a $3.5 million criminal penalty and $5.4 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.

2. Rockwell Automation agreed to pay disgorgement of $1.7 million, prejudgment interest of $590,000 and a civil penalty of $400,000.

3. Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay a $21.4 million criminal fine and $48.6 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, as well as about $7.9 million in related United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office recovery.

4. Comverse agreed to pay a $1.2 million criminal fine and $1.6 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.

5. Ball Corporation agreed to pay a $300,000 civil penalty.

6. Jeffrey Tesler, a key member of the TSKJ-Bonny Island joint venture accused of being part of a scheme to bribe Nigerian officials in exchange for contracts related to the construction of liquefied natural gas facilities, forfeited nearly $149 million, the largest FCPA-related forfeiture imposed on an individual to date.

7. JGC Corporation of Japan agreed to pay $218.8 million in criminal fines.

8. IBM agreed to pay a $2 million civil penalty, disgorgement of $5.3 million and $2.7 million in prejudgment interest.

9. Tyson Foods, Inc. agreed to pay a $4 million criminal penalty and $1.2 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.

10. Maxwell Technologies agreed to pay $8 million in criminal penalties, as well as $6.4 million to settle SEC civil charges.

Are any Board Directors out there amazed that companies such as IBM are still being impacted by the FCPA risk to the enterprise? Maybe more importantly, why is a Japanese company paying a criminal fine of over two hundred million dollars?

JGC CORPORATION is a Japan-based company mainly engaged in the engineering business. The Company operates in two business segments. The Integrated Engineering segment is engaged in the planning, design, procurement, construction and testing of equipment, appliances and facilities for petroleum, petroleum processing, petrochemistry, gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG), general chemistry, nuclear energy, metal smelting, biotechnology, food, pharmaceutical, logistics, information technology, environment protection and pollution prevention industries. This segment is also engaged in the provision of related inspection, maintenance and information processing services, as well as water and power generation business, among others. The Catalyst and Chemical segment is involved in the manufacture and sale of catalyst agents, functional materials, deodorants and enzymatic filters, electronic materials and high-performance ceramic products, as well as next-generation energy related products.

The Board of Directors of any transnational organization should be doing their homework on the reasons why JGC Corporation has employed an independent compliance consultant for the next two years and paid the $200M. fine. Remember, your supply chain and your business partners may be the reason why you are sitting around the Board Room table negotiating with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The larger question is, could this have been prevented? Is this a risk that can be mitigated within the corporate enterprise? Has the company done everything in it's capacity to put the right controls in place and the tools to keep the possibility of FCPA ever finding its way back to the Board Room Agenda? Do you know all of your joint venture partners are from the U.S. and all of the projects that they are working on together?

JGC’s agreement to pay the fine brings to $1.5 billion the total penalties in a case against a joint venture known as TSKJ that included Houston-based Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, Paris- basedTechnip SA (TEC) and Dutch engineering firm Snamprogetti Netherlands BV, according to a Justice Department statement.

The joint venture’s prosecution represents one of the biggest foreign bribery cases undertaken by the Justice Department since it stepped up pursuit of such cases starting in 2008 when Munich-based Siemens, Germany’s largest engineering company, paid $1.6 billion to settle U.S. and German probes.

“Each of the four companies in the TSKJ joint venture, the former chairman of the U.S. joint venture partner, and several other individuals have now been held accountable for a massive conspiracy to bribe Nigerian government officials to obtain lucrative construction contracts,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman said in the statement.

What is the cost of a FCPA investigation beyond the fine? Imagine for a moment the number of e-mail messages that have to be acquired, preserved and examined. Add up the billable hours for subject matter experts to review the remaining mountain of data to determine the final relevancy of a communication with the matter and the people associated with the project. As an example, what was the magnitude of the Siemens case?

According to court records, it was a vast undertaking spanning 34 countries, with private investigators conducting more than 1,750 interviews and gathering more than 100 million documents. They reviewed approximately 14 million of those documents and gave the Justice Department and the SEC a small subset, about 24,000, according to a Siemens tally.

So what is one of the answers or solutions to finding the "Red Flags" and to self-disclose the issue to the proper authorities early and often? First off, you need to develop your corporate "Human Intelligence" (HUMINT) capability, around your Corporate Intelligence Unit (CIU). Developing and building an awareness factor in a pervasive manner is one way to do this. In order to get your HUMINT working for you, the people on the front lines and in the middle of the corporate hierarchy need to understand and internalize these "Red Flags". If the monthly or quarterly bulletin from the CEO, discussing the integrity factor of the company supply chain partners raises the issue of ethical behavior around a particular scenario, this will educate and increase awareness with those people in the enterprise who comprise this HUMINT network.

Sticks and carrots or other methods for awarding compliance is so 1980's and 1990's. Wake up! In order to bring your global enterprise into the next decade of the 2000's, you have to start using the methods, processes and tools your deal makers use to run their business (SAP, Siebel CRM, Oracle). When was the last time the CEO visited the deal makers pipeline meeting to review and discuss the joint ventures or pending projects that the business developers are forecasting to close in the next quarter? This is the perfect time for the CEO to ask them to fire any partner, agent, consultant, contractor or vendor that does not meet the foundation for the companies "Corporate Integrity Standards." Does your CEO even know what Social CRM is all about?

And how quickly the lessons that should have been learned, are soon forgotten. Not any more. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, employees, partners and other persons who provide original information on an FCPA violation by a public company can receive between 10% and 30% of the resulting fines as a "Whistleblower" bounty.

We wonder whether the odds of winning the next "Powerball" Lottery in the U.S. might be more difficult than getting 20% of a $200 million dollar fine. Global corporations should be preparing their internal processes for Ethics and Integrity Management now. This Operational Risk will soon be more apparent as employees understand the odds of "Winning".

China Syndrome: FCPA & Rating Agencies...

A modern day "Operational Risk China Syndrome" is making the Board of Directors nervous these days. The new syndrome otherwise called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has been the buzz at rating agencies for months. Are you sure about your ability to withstand the scrutiny of a FCPA litmus test? Board Member Magazine explains:

On June 2nd, Fitch Ratings agency announced that Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations could result in ratings downgrades. That’s one more reason boards should educate themselves on FCPA and how their companies are monitoring FCPA-related risks. It appears, though, that many boards do not feel comfortable with their companies’ compliance programs. In a soon-to-be released survey from KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute, only 27 percent of U.S. audit committee members said they were satisfied that their company had an effective process to manage Foreign Corrupt Practices Act risks, and other risks associated with doing business in Brazil, Russia, India, China and other emerging markets. 35 percent of respondents were only somewhat satisfied, and 9 percent said process improvements were needed in conducting such business, which may include sourcing, outsourcing, manufacturing, or sales and distribution channels.

As your Business Development teams fan out across the globe to satisfy the appetite of the Chinese economy for critical infrastructure, establish a sound and effective awareness, training and audit program. What are the ramifications of putting unprepared personnel on the ground to do business in the Chinese Markets?

American companies or individuals who enter joint ventures with foreign partners, as well as those who hire foreign agents or distributors in China, must be extremely cautious of the vicarious liability that they may face as a result of a third party's violation of the principles set forth in the FCPA. According to the Justice Department, an American company will be subject to liability under the FCPA if it makes payments to an intermediary third party with the knowledge that such payments will go to a foreign official for corrupt purposes. Conscious disregard is enough to satisfy the requirement; if the American company is aware of a "high probability" that such payments will occur, the knowledge requirement will be satisfied. More importantly, a joint venture partner, agent, or distributor will be considered an intermediary third party for purposes of the FCPA. Therefore, any violation of FCPA standards by one of those parties could result in the American company being vicariously liable under the FCPA.

In order for the Board of Directors to have peace of mind on the emerging markets business opportunities first a substantial compliance framework needs to be established. Next, the implementation of predictive analytics software to manage the complexity of companies, people and relationships as you do business in any of these countries. This includes the subscription to several databases that include the constantly changing landscape of specially designated nationals (SDN) and politically exposed persons (PEP). World check explains:

During the period 2005 to 2007 alone, more than 310 elections and by-elections took place around the world – that’s an average of nearly 10 elections per month. (Source: ElectionGuide.org). This means that your existing clients may be elected to public office, and hence become PEPs, without your business knowing it. It may be that you only apply your due diligence processes to new customers and so miss a whole category of individuals that do not meet your corporate risk appetite. As such, routine and ongoing PEP risk screening is not only considered best practice, but is also a legal requirement.

In practice, full compliance with PEP legislation has not come without major operational challenges. In the post-9/11 era, the proliferation of regulatory compliance laws, combined with the need to screen hundreds of thousands of users and accounts on a routine basis, has created a substantial administrative burden for businesses subject to PEP legislation.

The sheer magnitude of the due diligence challenge has subsequently led to the adoption of a risk-based approach to regulatory compliance, but nevertheless Enhanced Due Diligence and ongoing risk management is still required for PEPs. Broadly speaking, the risk-based approach entails the identification of risks that exceed your business’ stated risk appetite (including the need for regulatory compliance), and then matching individuals and entities against these heightened risks during the preliminary stages of due diligence. Should a person fall into one or more of the specified heightened risk categories, additional due diligence is then required.

As your company establishes it new China-based strategy for partnerships, joint ventures or actually putting employees in country the operational risks become exponential. Remember, a sound and prudent risk framework includes a 4D approach:

• Deter
• Detect
• Defend
• Document

With these established and operating on a global basis the Board of Directors will be sleeping more soundly. Or perhaps not...learn more.

Information Threat: Battle for Superiority...

What continues to be the greatest economic threat to your organization? Is it "Internal" or "External" to your institution? Could it be both? Insiders rarely work alone and therefore the nexus with some outside influence, whether it be a person, life factors or some other entity are typically in play.

Is an engineer in R & D copying precious intellectual property information from within the enterprise company that could be worth hundreds of thousands or even millions to the highest competitive global bidder? Could your small business have an accounting supervisor that has been diverting funds to a private bank account for the past two years? Would it be possible that a supplier or 3rd party partner is capable of inflating the number of billable hours on a project?

Whether it's IP Theft, Fraud or other white collar corporate malfeasance these Operational Risks are real and growing at a double-digit percentage rate annually. The greatest economic threat to your organization could be complacency or an apathetic staff who works without adequate resources and little communication with the Executive "Powerbase".

The compliance and oversight mechanism's are in full swing from the federal governments around the world as highly regulated critical infrastructure organizations are implicated in a myriad of corruption, scandal, ethics and criminal matters. Litigation is an Operational Risk that many organizations have realized the necessity for more robust internal teams to address the continuous requests for information from the government.

There is one common denominator across all of the insider threats, external forces and other vectors that seem to be attacking our institutions night and day. That common denominator is "Information". And underlying this is the data and meta data that all to often ends up being the key or clue to finding the "Smoking Gun" and the source or person(s) associated with the scheme or attack on the organization.

Managing information in a mobile and interconnected planet is a major issue in any global company. Providing the tools and the right information faster and more accurately than the competition can be the difference in your own survival on the corporate battlefield. So how does the CxO suite even begin to address the risks, opportunities and resilience in our demanding information-centric environment?

They believe in having a strong culture of ethics, training and continuous monitoring of employees, systems and their supply chain. They understand the importance of providing the vital resources to the people on the front line of risk management and to make sure that their early warning systems and methods are not compromised. This breed of CxO's are the new breed of organizational management that are leveraging information to their most significant advantage:

Goldman Sachs isn’t the only firm that made a trading gain every day last quarter.

JPMorgan Chase reported positive trading revenue every day in its first quarter, according to a regulatory filing posted Monday. The firm said that its average daily revenue was $118 million.

The achievement is remarkable for both Goldman and JPMorgan — and yet may serve as another target for legislators eager to restrain the trading activities of banks.

What could account for the phenomenal trading results at both firms? Both would claim strong risk management — especially since both emerged from the financial crisis stronger than their rivals. But the surging markets, especially those in fixed income, surely played a role as well.

Whether you are trading in a marketplace, analyzing assets on a map or manufacturing widgets and selling them to qualified buyers, operational risk management begins and ends with information. Managing that information effectively and more accurately than your competition is the name of the game. What have you done today to insure your survivability in the face of the next crisis?

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. lawyers met this week with representatives of the Securities and Exchange Commission in a first step toward a potential settlement of the agency's fraud lawsuit against the securities firm.

The two sides remain far apart. The preliminary settlement talks, held Tuesday, between Goldman co-general counsel Gregory Palm and other lawyers representing the New York company and SEC officials didn't include any specific settlement terms, such as the amount of a fine or agreements Goldman could make with the agency, people familiar with the situation said.

FCPA: OPS Risk in Pharma & Small Business...

If you are a large U.S. based pharmaceutical company the odds are that over a third of your annual sales are overseas. Selling drugs in the EU, Asia and South America into the health care systems is a tremendous pipeline for Eli Lilly, Pfizer and others who find these markets hungry for their products. What kind of Operational Risks might exist for these firms and should be on "Red Alert" status with the General Counsel?

The DOJ is currently pursuing 120-130 FCPA investigations, and now it has set its sights on enforcement in the pharmaceutical industry where on an annual basis “close to $100 billion dollars, or roughly one-third, of total sales … [are] generated outside of the United States.” The DOJ’s new focus stems in part from the fact that many foreign health systems are regulated, operated and financed by government entities, and competition is intense, which creates more opportunities to “pay off foreign officials for the sake of profit,” and a perceived need for greater supervision from law enforcement.

The head of the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer has indicated their interest in looking at this industry with increased scrutiny. So if you are a General Counsel at one of the companies in the cross-hairs of the government what are you doing about it?

First, you have to call together the right people and create your own internal FCPA Task Force within the enterprise. The General Counsels Office has the lead on bringing together four to six people from Sales & Marketing, Finance, Information Technology, and Internal Audit. This team will have the autonomy, funding and jurisdiction to work specifically on the vulnerabilities that exist on a global basis.

Second, you have to understand the culture, governments and the "Ground Truth" in each country you are selling your pharmaceuticals in, to map the processes and the people associated with the heath care systems, hospitals or the military that are the actual consumers of the medicines and drugs.

Finally, you have to educate your work force on the fact that pharmacists, doctors, lab technicians and other health care consultants may indeed be officials of the government of that country based upon who they work for. Why is this important?

The FCPA has a broad definition under the law that pertains to the foreign officials. In some countries it's entirely possible that if the medical institutions are owned by the government that almost everyone who works in these facilities could be considered under the FCPA. So what is the task force going to do to ensure that the company does not violate the law?

Beyond the focus on compliance and education of employees, there is much work to be done in the collection, analysis and actions within the enterprise of relevant information. Predictive analysis of data that is coming from the CRM, ERP and other open sources can provide the task force with the "Corporate Intelligence" and "Red Flag" warning to prevent a violation of the law. The ability of the company to utilize data collection and predictive analytics to not only head off any DOJ investigation also can be effective in providing voluntary disclosure to government.

Wait a minute. You mean, tell the government that we have identified a violation of the law and bring the wrath of the law and the possible impact on our corporate reputation? Yes and this is why.

Under Federal Sentencing Guidelines, those organizations that do a rigorous internal investigation and share the results with the government can avoid such sanctions as the mandate for a costly independent compliance monitor. Deferred prosecutions are not unheard of and the government can in some cases help you save money in terms of getting fines on the lower end of the sentencing guidelines.

The General Counsel's "Corporate Intelligence Unit" that is focused on the analytics of relevant data, combined with the education, awareness and compliance processes will be well on there way to keeping the legal risk and Operational Risk events associated with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) from impacting their global pharmaceutical enterprises. And just when you think that the DOJ is only looking at the Fortune 500, then think again:

More focus on small and mid-sized companies: As part of their increased FCPA-related efforts, the DOJ and SEC are expected to look more at small and mid-sized firms which do business overseas. The majority of such companies have a small established compliance program, or none at all, yet some may conduct billions of dollars in foreign transactions.

Companies that are not household names have long believed that they were under law enforcement’s radar. Smaller firms have also thought that the DOJ would not expend the resources to investigate their overseas sales. That comfortable illusion no longer exists.

If you are a small disadvantaged supplier to a large Defense Industrial Base (DIB) company working on a sub-contract, then you too should be standing up your FCPA Task Force now:

On January 18, 2010 twenty-two business executives were arrested and over 100 FBI agents conducted related searches. These actions were based on sealed federal indictments handed down by a grand jury several weeks earlier, which in turn stemmed from a two-and-a-half year undercover operation. The indictments claimed that the defendants believed that they were involved in a scheme to acquire a US$15 million defense contract to outfit the presidential guard of an unnamed country. They allegedly agreed to pay a 20 percent bribe to a sales agent, supposedly representing the defense minister but really an undercover FBI officer. This was the first large-scale use of undercover law enforcement techniques to investigate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations.

Legal Risk: Forensic Intel for Investigations...

A wide spectrum of Operational Risk incidents are in the news. Executive Management in the private sector, law enforcement and the military are investigating cases of identity fraud, cyber hacking and insider digital sabotage, transnational economic crime, intellectual property theft, ACH cyber robbery, counterfeiting, workplace violence and industrial espionage. Government agencies and regulatory authorities are increasing oversight, compliance and reporting requirements with the private sector and federal contractors. Inspector Generals and Internal Affairs are addressing whistleblower claims and internal corruption. Homeland security and "Connecting the Dots" are on almost every Americans mind.

All of these Operational Risk Management (ORM) challenges require comprehensive, efficient and legally compliant intelligence-led investigations to establish the ground truth and then to enable a "DecisionAdvantage." The legal framework that establishes your organizations ability to provide a "Duty to Care", "Duty to Warn", "Duty to Act" and "Duty to Supervise" is imperative.

When does information that is collected become a violation of a persons privacy or legal rights? At the point it is collected from a source or how and when it is analyzed by a human? These questions and more will be discussed as the dialogue pursues the latest challenges in Forensic Intelligence, a fast and forensically sound data acquisition, analysis and review solution for front line officers from the corporate investigations, law enforcement and government communities.

These Intelligence-led investigations also leverage the use of new forensically sound methods and proven legal procedures for collection of digital data from a myriad of technology platforms including laptops, PDA's and cell phones and more. These methods have been tested and certified in the forensic sciences for decades and follow many of the legally bound and court tested rules associated with evidence collection, preservation and presentation. Digital Forensic tools and 21st century capabilities enable global enterprises, law enforcement and governments to not only discover what they are looking for and when to use this in a court of law to find the truth.

Legal Risk: Early Case Assessment...

After a few days at LegalTech New York this week, it's now confirmed that a very small percentage of small to medium enterprises (SME) are truly ready for the Operational Risk of litigation. How can a General Counsel achieve a defensible standard of care in this vast sea of software, technology and vendors that are trying to address the modern day business problem called "Electronic Stored Information?" (ESI)

Yet the likes of Bank of America and the Attorney General of New York are well aware of the importance of the "Meet-and-Confer" process as the allegations of fraud look for the "Digital Smoking Gun". Let the metadata wars begin:

Legal action has begun against Bank of America and its former bosses, accusing them of duping investors and taxpayers during the takeover of Merrill Lynch.

The defendants are accused of intentionally withholding details of huge losses Merrill was suffering.

New York state officials have filed the action against the bank, former chief executive Kenneth Lewis and former chief financial officer Joseph Price.

Principle 12 to the Sedona Principles states: Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case. Sedona Principles 2d Principle 12

The issues faced by legal counsel at large Fortune 50 organizations are no different with the Small to Medium Enterprise when it comes to the "Meet-and-Confer." Making the decisions on what is relevant and the scope of eDiscovery is increasingly about the economics of litigation. Law firms are trying to reduce their costs and impact of billable hours with their clients and General Counsels are making sure that internal IT records management tasks are a top priority.

What many vendors are advocating in process and tools at LegalTech is the idea of Early Case Assessment (ECA). In other words, the Plaintiff is going to have to show their hand early and without slight of hand. These interviews with the Hon. James Holderman explains:

Editor: Doesn't that pretty much move in the direction of requiring the plaintiff to provide specific facts about the basis for the complaint? How can the discoverable "ESI" to be preserved and produced be determined unless the plaintiff comes forward with the specific facts on which its case is based?

Holderman: It cannot be done, and that is why the plaintiff needs to cooperate by divulging that information at the outset. Hiding the ball is a concept from the last century that can't be a part of present-day litigation. This is reflected in the Supreme Court's decisions in Iqbal and Twombly . Discovery is expensive and let's get the information out early. What is the benefit of bare-bones pleadings when the expense of e-discovery is so great? If the plaintiff has information then let's see whether the plaintiff has a sufficient basis for going forward to withstand a motion for summary judgment.

Where is the information you seek? In more places than you may realize as the investigation, forensics collection and rules of evidence are engaged. The risk of sanctions is real. The analysis of custodians Blackberry e-mails, BBM's and just plain text messages will be overwhelming as the Attorney General builds the case for fraud. The US Treasury, Federal Reserve and other government agencies will also be producing Terabytes of data for inquiry.

Regardless of the General Counsel's approaches at Bank of America or Merrill, the key risk items that they should have been addressing long before this trial with outside counsel are some of the following topics, again from LegalTech:

• Cloud-based email and records management provides a new approach for cost-effectively managing law firm content
• Securely archive information assets and maintain compliance with all regulatory standards, including the FRCP
• Meaning Based Computing to enable automatic categorization of ESI for the application of retention policies
• Sophisticated retention policies that enable non-critical data to be purged appropriately
• The ability to easily and transparently retrieve archived data, prepare the data for potential future legal holds or preservation, and to rapidly respond to a litigation and investigation pertaining to the firm

• How has legal changed the way we think about back-up?
• What does "inaccessible" mean in discovery?
• How can you implement a reasonable, defensible information management strategy that reduces risk?

As a law firm you always have to look at the fine print. B of A's procedures with outside counsel are available for review online:

These Procedures shall constitute the written engagement, or contract, of the firm for any matter for which it is engaged on behalf of Bank of America, and shall govern the terms of the engagement. These Procedures are applicable to all law firms and attorneys providing legal services to Bank of America. Law firms retained by Bank of America should ensure that a copy of these Procedures is provided to all attorneys, paralegals, administrative, clerical or other assistants assigned to a particular matter before work begins on any matter.

Legal Risk: The Art of Compliance...

Risk Management is on the mind's of Corporate Directors and in some interesting places according to a recent poll by PWC and Corporate Board Member Magazine:

How has your personal risk as a director changed in the past 12 months?

Increased 69%
No change 30%
Decreased 1%

Some risks are tough to name...

What keeps you up at night?

Unknown risks 59%

...while others are identifiable.

Do you think regulators are more likely to investigate your company?

Yes 71%

Do you think there'll be an increase in shareholder suits?

Yes 65%

If 71% of the directors surveyed think that regulators are more likely to investigate the company where does that feeling come from? Is it the fact that the SEC and others such as the FTC, OCC and others are gearing up to facilitate greater oversight than in past years? Is it the lack of internal focus on creating a systemic Risk Management Framework? Could it be the amount of toxic assets that are still on the balance sheet? The answer is yes, yes, and yes.

So what can Directors do to make sure that management and the company are ready when the "Feds" come to town? The answer may well lie in the ability to show a history and evidence of doing the right thing and doing it with extreme diligence.

For good or bad—okay, mainly for bad, most respondents agree—the government as boardroom-player-cum-active-investor will be around for a foreseeable spell.

Regulation will rise...

Do you think there will be a big increase in regulation?

Yes 91%
No 2%

Of that 91%, 54% “strongly agree” with the premise that there’ll be more regulation, 37% “agree.”

...and spread.

Do you think other companies will have to adopt rules that the government has imposed on those receiving financial help?

Yes 54%
No 20%

Nearly 45% of the respondents say no amount of government control, whether more or less than what we got, could have prevented the severity of the economic crisis.

No to Uncle Sam as paymaster

Respondents are against the feds’ having a say in setting executive pay.

Are government limits on executive compensation justified?

No 88%

Should the government impose further limitations on pay?

No 97%

Should comp be left to the board?

Yes 76%

The only hope for "Achieving A Defensible Standard of Care" in your institution could be what Siemens and other wrongdoers have discovered. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on "Compliance" might be a good thing when the time comes to differentiate yourself in the marketplace and negotiate with the government. Especially if you are a global enterprise doing business in countries that don't exactly have the best reputation with transparency and the rule of law. Here is what Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Siemens AG, Gerhard Cromme had to say on their efforts to date:

Wherever wrongdoing was proved beyond a doubt, we immediately took the necessary actions. Wherever there were systemic weaknesses, we identified them and corrected them. Where the necessary resources were lacking, we provided them. These demanding efforts have paid off: Today Siemens has a clear, transparent structure that no longer allows any gray areas with respect to responsibility. At the same time, these structures make Siemens more efficient, more cost-effective, and thus more competitive. The authorities took into consideration our unflinching desire to do whatever was necessary for a fresh start in determining the size of the penalties and the duration of the proceedings.

Operational Risk encompasses the actions taken by Siemens that includes the new centralized systems for payments, disbursements and other accounting functions that were previously in business units outside of Germany. This consolidation and integration of systems was not easy but represents that a discovery in the vulnerability of controls with a decentralized system warranted the investment in a new way of doing business.

Only time will tell whether any companies Board of Directors efforts to spend more resources on "The Art of Compliance" will make a difference to the regulators, investigators and litigators. One could probably bet that over time it will make a difference. But only if the "Tone at the Top" is commensurate with the actions being asked of the employees and stakeholders, doing the day-to-day tasks running the risk operations of the enterprise.

Remote Digital Forensics: Complacency Risk...

Operational Risk Management commands a spectrum of disciplines within the global corporate enterprise. While convergence of responsibility, accountability and resources is taking place the internal threats continue to flourish. Why? How could a Chief Security Officer (CSO) not be aware of a specific threat to the institution by unknown subjects half way around the world? The transnational organized crime syndicates that target our weakest organizations know that they don't share information between departments, business units or even shared services within the enterprise. Does your CSO get a briefing from the CISO or CIO / INFOSEC staff on what the latest threats mean to you, such as cyber heists using ACH fraud?

This complacency is an internal threat that continues to amaze many and reinforces what few people truly understand about risk management. The adversaries utilize asymmetric strategy against unsophisticated targets to perpetuate their crimes and overall threats to people, processes, systems and deposit accounts. They are the modern day equivalents of "Bonnie & Clyde", Al Capone with a dash of Al Gonzales all rolled up into a massive threat that is increasing exponentially:

Two Romanian Citizens Extradited to the United States to Face Charges Related to Alleged Phishing Scheme

A phishing scheme uses the Internet to target large numbers of unwary individuals, using fraud and deceit to obtain private personal and financial information such as names, addresses, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and Social Security numbers. Phishing schemes often work by sending out large numbers of counterfeit e-mail messages, which are made to appear as if they originated from legitimate banks, financial institutions, or other companies.

The investigation leading to the indictment stemmed from a citizen’s complaint concerning a fraudulent e-mail message made to appear as if it originated from Connecticut-based People’s Bank. In fact, the e-mail message directed victims to a computer in Minnesota that had been compromised, or “hacked,” and used to host a counterfeit People’s Bank Internet site. During the course of the investigation, it was determined that the defendants had allegedly engaged in similar phishing schemes against many other financial institutions and companies, including Citibank, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Comerica Bank, Wells Fargo & Co., eBay, and PayPal.

Risk Management 101 talks to the X and Y axis with X representing the frequency of risk and Y representing the severity (impact) of the risk. So using the four quadrant model, the lower right box is where low risk times high frequency incidents occur. In the upper left box is where high risk times low frequency incidents occur. Got it.

As a CSO in your organization, where do you spend your time, resources and personnel in terms of their training, awareness and work efforts? Think about it for a minute. Most of you would probably say, "Well we focus on the High Frequency times High Risk incidents, the upper right box of the Risk Management model." Practice and prepare for the incidents that happen often and you will have employees who have no clue on what to do the day that something from that upper left box impacts your organization. The HIGH RISK x LOW FREQUENCY incidents are where you remain most vulnerable.

Arlington Man Sentenced 36 Months for $40 Million Ponzi Scheme

ALEXANDRIA, VA—Preston David Pinkett II, age 70, of Arlington, Va., was sentenced to 36 months in prison for engaging in a massive Ponzi scheme that raised more than $40 million in fraudulent payments from investors. Pinkett was also sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $18,774,989 in restitution.

The two years that most frauds are conducted before they are discovered tells most risk managers that even effective accounting and audit controls can't catch these white collar criminals before it's too late. The high risk low frequency incidents are the greatest impact on your institution and yet little or no resources, training or attention is paid to these threats to your reputation and economic livelihood.

Now let's take this step further into what practices you have with exiting employees from your business. Are you conducting exit interviews? Are you examining all of the employee's digital assets for the presence of anti-forensics or the ex-filtration or theft of sensitive, proprietary trade secrets or intellectual property from the corporation? Both of these steps are necessary regardless of the person leaving and the circumstances why they are leaving your institution.

The utilization of "Remote Digital Forensics" and other centralized shared services such as this can provide your Business Units and even suppliers with capabilities that they don't need to staff internally. The technologies and resources exist today to address the stealth of fraud, the crisis stemming from industrial espionage or the disgruntled employee stalking those who they perceive as the reason for their dismissal.

An effective internal approach to high tech and advanced Operational Risk Management as it pertains to the rapidly changing landscape of smart, educated and daring people shall include a robust intelligence and audit capacity. Without it, the transnational eCrime syndicates or the internal employee threat will prey on your vulnerabilities of complacency, lack of training and apathetic approach to the design, configuration or implementation of your systems.

Health Care: Operational Risk on Steroids...

Health Care Sector Operational Risk Management is on the front burner once again. Recent changes to federal law governing health information suggest expanded regulation, increased enforcement, and significantly enhanced penalties could be on the horizon for businesses not previously subject to HIPAA. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which was amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) in February, regulates the use of, access to, and dissemination of healthcare information. The increased scrutiny of our own health related personal identifiable information is only the beginning of a national platform for health care. Personal health records will be highly sought after by criminal organizations to help them with extensive online extortion schemes so they can monetize the stolen information.

Does your business or organization have a website that allows people to maintain their medical information online? Do you provide applications for personal health records – say, a device that allows people to upload readings from a blood pressure cuff or pedometer into their personal health record?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes provisions to strengthen privacy and security protections for this new sector of web-based businesses. The law directed the Federal Trade Commission to issue a rule requiring companies to contact customers in the event of a security breach. After receiving comments from the public, the FTC issued the Health Breach Notification Rule.

Transnational economic crime syndicates that have been fueled by the failures in systems and people at institutions in the financial services industry may now be getting a better source to perpetuate their wave of extortion . Just think about the phishing e-mail that goes out to the hundreds of thousands of people who have a particular type of medical condition or are taking a specific drug to help a particular medical diagnosis. Revealing the names, occupations and other relevant information on the subset of male politicians running for office that are currently taking the Pfizer drug for ED or the subset of women talk show hosts that are taking the drug Xanax may have some individuals willing to pay up the 500 or 1000 dollars being demanded from the criminals that stole the Protected Health Information (PHI).

As the United States speeds along towards the consensus on a national health care system the risk of health care data breaches will be rising. Where a doctor had a small staff helping with the back office to bill insurers and where the health care information systems vendors were in high demand you will now have the nexus of targets that cyberspace criminals will be focused on. Like the consumer retailers who rely on third party credit card processing companies to take care of the millions of annual point-of-sale transactions, so too will the consumers of health care services at the retail level. Doctors offices, pharmacies and out patient or triage centers.

The HHS and FTC interim rules were mandated by more stringent privacy and security requirements outlined in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) covered entities and business associates and certain non-HIPAA-covered entities.

"This new federal law ensures that covered entities and business associates are accountable to the Department and to individuals for proper safeguarding of the private information entrusted to their care," said Robinsue Frohboese, acting director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights.

HHS and FTC said their rules were intentionally written to be harmonious with one another. The entities covered by either rule have up to 60 days to notify individuals whose information was accessed without authorization. If the breach involves PHI belonging to 500 or more people, entities must alert the media and either HHS or FTC, depending on which rule they are subject to. If the breach involves less than 500 people, the entities must keep a log of the incident to be submitted to either HHS or FTC at the end of the year.

Unlike the motive to utilize the information from a compromised credit card to monetize through additional fraudulent purchases, the new health care criminal syndicates will find their own niches. Whether there is a continued attempt at utilizing the PHI for spear phishing attempts at specific individuals online or a more broad use of PHI to steal ones identity to obtain health services at hospitals or physicians offices, the impact could now turn more deadly:

Medical identity theft is potentially lethal to its victims. When the identity thief obtains medical treatment, medical records are created in the name of the victim. When treatment occurs in the same locality as the victim, the treatment of the thief can be appended to local medical records of the victim. With the strong movement towards electronic medical records, all those under the victim’s name and social security number can be collated in seconds. Once the thief’s medical records are collated with the victim’s, there is a risk of mistreatment of the victim, which can potentially lead to death.

Lind Weaver, a retired school teacher, was harassed by a bill collector for a medical bill for the amputation of her foot. The problem was that Weaver still had two feet. Foot amputations are associated with diabetes, a disease that Weaver did not have. Months later Weaver suffered a heart attack, when she awoke in the hospital a nurse asked her which type of drugs she was taking for her diabetes. Had Weaver underwent heart surgery as a diabetic, mistreatment could have been life threatening.

Protected Health Information will continue to be a challenge for those institutions that are trying to achieve a "Defensible Standard of Care" in the decade ahead. The wave of risks associated with online banking and the technologies driven by consumers thirst for financial information will seem non-consequential compared to what we are about to experience in the online health care industry.

FCPA: Modern Day "Smoking Gun"...

Corporate malfeasance is on the mind of most global executives today. Their enterprise is consistently fighting the economic challenges and at the same time defending it's reputation as new "Smoking Guns" are revealed. Perhaps these modern day discoveries of wrong doing should be renamed "Smoking Digital Evidence" because this is exactly what it is. Information uncovered through normal monitoring practices or as the result of a specific investigation produces "Red Flag" alerts based upon acceptable use policy or corporate rule sets.

These "Red Flags" uncovered in the context of programs devoted to processing digital evidence is now a standard Modus Operandi for corporate governance, legal and operations risk management. These new tactical business units are being developed in a rapid response to new regulatory and compliance mandates yet the greater pressure is coming from the wake-up calls senior executives have been receiving lately.

The Justice Department's probe of the credit default swaps market is reportedly focusing on Markit Group Holdings Ltd., the London-based supplier of prices in OTC derivatives, and its relationship to a group of major banks that own a stake in the company. The DOJ is scrutinizing the ownership of Markit by a group of banks that control a large amount of pricing in the $28 trillion credit derivatives market.

The banks have received a notice of investigation from the DOJ asking them for details on their trading activity, including how much they have at risk in the market and their monthly value of their credit default swaps, according to Bloomberg News. Banks that own the largest stakes in Markit, include: J.P. Morgan, Bank of America (through its acquisition of Merrill Lynch), Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland which acquired ABN Amro, as well as Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and UBS, according to Bloomberg News.

"The DOJ is looking to find any wrongdoing in that marketplace," commented Paul Zubulake, senior analyst at Aite Group in an interview with Wall Street & Technology. "Obviously that is going to open up a large can of worms," he said. "It will be costly for the dealers that have to battle the DOJ given the discovery issues, about all the information, emails and instant messages they will need to turn over."

Digital Forensics, Records Management and eDiscovery units at some of the largest financial institutions are working overtime. Finding any "Smoking Digital Evidence" will be the standard operating procedure on most international transactions whether it be in the financial services industry or even telecommunications:

Good news for compliance officers: You now have solid evidence that the benefit of implementing an effective compliance program far outweighs the cost, in the form of the massive Foreign Corrupt Practices Act settlements swallowed by Siemens AG and three of its foreign subsidiaries.

Siemens, a German conglomerate that is one of the largest engineering firms in the world, agreed in December to pay more than $1.6 billion to U.S. and German regulators for a massive bribery scheme that felled the highest executives at the company. Penalties paid to the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission alone topped $800 million, by far the largest sanction ever imposed in an FCPA case.

In the following excerpt, Linda Chatman Thomsen speaks on the massive Siemens investigation: "Furthermore, the $1.6 billion total that Siemens will pay in these settlements is the largest amount that any company has ever paid to resolve corruption-related charges.

And that is fitting because the alleged conduct by Siemens was egregious and brazen. It was systematic, it involved thousands of payments, and it occurred over an extensive six-year period. Siemens created elaborate payment schemes to conceal these corrupt payments to foreign officials. The company’s inadequate internal controls allowed the conduct to flourish.

The details tell a very unsavory story: employees obtained large amounts of cash for Siemens’ cash desks; employees sometimes carried that cash in suitcases across international borders to pay bribes; payment authorizations were recorded on post-it notes that were later removed to avoid leaving any permanent record; there were slush funds and a cadre of consultants and intermediaries to facilitate paying the bribes.

Investigating this intricate scheme and righting Siemens’ wrongs has taken a remarkable and unprecedented level of coordination among many law enforcement agencies around the world."

The internal threat of employees, partners and so called in-country agents who help facilitate business deals is one square in the risk management matrix. The business transactions themselves are becoming part of the Venn Diagram that includes:

• Business & Global Commerce
• Personnel Security & Integrity
• Rule of Law & Litigation

As global institutions continue their expansion across the continents where capital follows security and the rule of law, so too will the attacks on the corporate enterprise.