Corruption Crime & Compliance

In this episode of Corruption, Crime and Compliance, Michael Volkov sits down with entrepreneur and innovator Paul Allen, founder of Ancestry.com and Soar.com, to explore the evolving intersection of artificial intelligence, governance, and public trust. Paul shares insights from his latest venture, CitizenPortal.ai, an AI-powered civic intelligence platform aimed at making government activity more transparent, accessible, and accountable to everyday citizens. The conversation moves beyond hype, focusing on how AI can strengthen—not replace—democratic institutions through constrained, verifiable systems that enhance understanding and engagement. With a thoughtful and pragmatic lens, Paul discusses the risks, opportunities, and responsibilities that come with deploying AI in the public sphere, offering listeners a compelling vision for how technology can rebuild trust in institutions at a critical moment.

The U.S Department of Commerce announced two settlements recently involving export control enforcement actions.First, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) imposed a $374,474 civil penalty against California-based satellite technology supplier Vizocom for unlawfully exporting controlled technical data related to military antennas to a Chinese manufacturer.Second, (BIS) imposed a $1 million civil penalty against Teledyne FLIR, a U.S. manufacturer of thermal imaging cameras, for multiple violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) involving exports to China and Hong Kong. The enforcement action highlights a recurring compliance challenge for multinational exporters: the complex application of the EAR’s de minimis rules, as well as the importance of careful screening and strict adherence to license conditions.

In this episode, I sit down with Matthew Campbell, whose decades-long effort to seek answers about the death of his brother in the World Trade Center has now reached the doorstep of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.This is not a case about liability for the September 11 attacks. Instead, it raises a fundamental constitutional question: can the UK government refuse to reopen an inquest—without meaningful judicial oversight? After the Attorney General denied Campbell’s request for a fresh inquest based on what he argues is new evidence, UK courts largely closed the door on review. Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether that decision is beyond challenge or subject to legal scrutiny.At stake is more than a single case. This litigation tests the boundaries of executive power, the scope of judicial review, and the rights of families seeking to revisit official findings long after tragedy strikes. It also highlights the tension between finality in legal determinations and the pursuit of truth.In our conversation, Matt Campbell explains what has driven his persistence, how the legal battle has evolved, and why this case could have broader implications for accountability in the UK legal system.Whether you approach this from a legal, historical, or human perspective, this episode explores a compelling intersection of law and loss—and the enduring question of when a case is truly closed.

Vera is a Chartered Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, and award-winning Ethics and Compliance expert who writes and speaks about philosophy, business ethics, compliance, risk, and governance.She is the Executive Director of Boards of the Future™, a non-profit that works with corporate boards globally to advocate for stronger ethics, risk, and compliance backgrounds.She spends time between Milan and Los Angeles and serves as a Chair, director, and ethics advisor for global professional bodies, corporations, and international nonprofits.

Anik Shah, Director and Senior Legal Counsel for Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption at SanDisk with 15+ years in enforcement and compliance. He recalls SEC and DOJ investigative work. He discusses FCPA enforcement trends, why companies keep strong programs for reputational reasons, DOJ focus on individuals and self-reporting, and how AI, trade and sanctions reshape compliance risk.

Each year, LRN’s Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report provides one of the most useful snapshots of the global compliance profession. The 2026 report—“The Next Leap: Technology, Trust, and the Transformation of Compliance”—again offers valuable insight into how corporate ethics and compliance programs are evolving amid rapid technological change, new regulatory expectations, and shifting workplace culture.Based on surveys of more than 2,500 compliance professionals and employees worldwide, the report paints a picture of a profession that is progressing—but unevenly. Compliance programs are becoming more sophisticated and technologically enabled, yet many organizations are still struggling to translate technology investments into measurable improvements in culture, risk detection, and program effectiveness.

A major $252M fine against Applied Materials for exporting semiconductor gear to a China Entity List company. Tightened export-control enforcement and the limits of creative regulatory interpretations. Dispute over whether foreign assembly avoids U.S. rules. Compliance breakdowns, internal overrides, and broad enforcement remedies discussed.

Episode 395 of Corruption, Crime and Compliance features an in-depth conversation with Bob Lemmond, the new CEO of LRN, on the evolving role of ethics and compliance in today’s risk environment. In this episode, Bob discusses how organizations can move beyond “check-the-box” compliance to embed a culture of integrity that drives performance, mitigates misconduct risk, and strengthens stakeholder trust. He shares his perspective on the growing complexity of global regulatory expectations, the importance of leadership tone and middle-management engagement, the integration of technology and data analytics into compliance programs, and the measurable business value of ethical culture. The discussion offers practical insights for compliance officers, boards, and senior executives navigating enforcement uncertainty while maintaining high standards of corporate accountability.

FCPA enforcement in 2025 was defined by what did not happen as much as what did. Compared to prior years, the number of publicly announced cases declined sharply, corporate resolutions were fewer, and the overall enforcement posture appeared more restrained. This slowdown, however, reflects a policy recalibration—not a dismantling—of the FCPA enforcement regime.Early in the year, DOJ paused FCPA enforcement activity while it reviewed policy priorities. That pause, followed by the issuance of revised enforcement guidance mid-year, produced a measurable decline in announced actions. Several investigations slowed, at least one long-running prosecution was dismissed, and the SEC brought no new FCPA cases during the year.DOJ’s revised guidance emphasized selectivity, signaling that enforcement would focus on higher-impact cases—large bribe payments, clear evidence of corrupt intent, sophisticated concealment, and conduct implicating U.S. national security or competitiveness. Lower-value cases and routine “business courtesy” fact patterns were explicitly deprioritized.The public numbers reflect that shift. 2025 was one of the lightest FCPA enforcement years in more than a decade. DOJ announced only a small handful of corporate outcomes, while continuing to emphasize voluntary self-disclosure and cooperation through declinations and deferred prosecution agreements.

Earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) and three of its former executives with accounting and disclosure fraud, in what has become one of the most significant financial reporting enforcement actions of 2026. The case underscores a fundamental compliance truth: strong internal controls and transparent disclosures are not optional — they are core risk mitigants that protect investors, markets, and corporate reputations.At its core, the ADM matter highlights how breakdowns in accounting controls and disclosure practices — even when aimed at projecting performance — can quickly spiral into regulatory enforcement, civil penalties, and individual liability.On January 27, 2026, the SEC announced a settlement against ADM, as well as actions against two former executives, and a litigated complaint against a third. The SEC found that ADM materially overstated the performance of its nutrition business segment by recording intersegment transactions on terms that did not approximate market, thereby misleading investors about the segment’s profitability and growth.According to the order, executives directed “adjustments” to nutrition’s results — including retroactive rebates and price changes not available to third parties — to hit targeted profit levels and mask underperformance in key fiscal years. These adjustments were inconsistent with ADM’s internal policies and its public representations, creating materially false and misleading financial statements for multiple annual and quarterly reporting periods.ADM settled the matter and agreed to pay a $40 million civil penalty. Two former executives agreed to pay civil penalties and disgorgement, and one agreed to an officer and director bar. Meanwhile, the SEC is pursuing litigation against a third executive for fraud-based claims.Regulators do not view financial reporting risk as an isolated technical issue. The SEC’s enforcement approach in this case reflects several core priorities that every compliance leader should internalize.