Last year, 45 new FCPA-related investigations were publicly disclosed for the first time, making 2017 the most active year in history for new disclosures of FCPA-related investigations. Rewind one year and take into consideration 27 companies were required to pay a paralyzing $2.48 billion in fines and penalties to resolve FCPA cases in 2016, making it the biggest enforcement year in FCPA
These are but only two parts of a much larger force driving urgency around FCPA risk, which begs the question: “Why are current FCPA compliance efforts failing?”
We have dedicated this edition of On the Front Line with AI to discussing how corporations are adopting AI as part of their anti-bribery and corruption programs to mitigate FCPA risks.
Key highlights from the discussion with anti-money laundering (AML) expert and Founder & CEO of QuantaVerse, David McLaughlin, include:
- In recent years, the United States government has dramatically intensified its efforts to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
- There’s a historic increase in the number of companies under investigation and greater investigative resources are being deployed, including more FBI agents
- This sense of urgency goes beyond the U.S., as European regulators are following the U.S. model to crack down on corruption and are actively cooperating with U.S. enforcement agencies
The Problem with Current FCPA Programs and How They Can Be Improved with AI
- Current FCPA programs are ineffective and laborious because of their reliance on:
- Reports from whistleblowers
- Outdated technology that runs tedious keyword searches
- These programs are failing to find critical indicators of corruption such as accounting misappropriations
- The next evolution of FCPA is to leverage modern technologies and advancements in data science such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning
A key part of the role of Chief Compliance Officer is satisfying both regulatory guidelines and the regulators that monitor their programs. That has meant staying the course with an AML program that checked regulatory boxes even if outcomes were less than effective....
Financial institutions have for years banked on rules-based transaction monitoring systems (TMS) to root out money laundering and other financial crimes only to be served up false positives that result in paralyzing inefficiencies and runaway costs. Although an...
False positives caused by Volume and Value (V&V) calculations violating a rule or a threshold are a significant cause for concern among anti-money laundering (AML) teams. According to industry estimates, close to 50% of the alerts generated by transaction...