Corruption Crime & Compliance

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.

Conflicts of interest are not abstract compliance niceties. They are serious risks to integrity that, if left unidentified or unmitigated, can erode employee trust, compromise decision-making, and expose organizations to regulatory enforcement, litigation, and reputational harm. Recent high-profile scandals involving relationships between supervisors and subordinates have underscored how personal conflicts can quickly morph into enterprise-wide compliance failures when controls, oversight, and ethical culture are weak.A conflict of interest program, when thoughtfully designed and actively managed, is far more than a static policy on a shelf. It is a risk identification and mitigation engine that anticipates where incentives might diverge from organizational interests, assesses control effectiveness, and embeds ethical decision-making into everyday business processes.Conflicts of interest arise wherever personal interests have the potential to interfere — or appear to interfere — with the objective performance of professional duties. Classic examples include financial interests in third parties, personal relationships that influence work decisions, and outside employment that competes with an employer’s interests.

The Justice Department has increased False Claims Act prosecutions, reflecting a continued focus on healthcare fraud and a new initiative on trade fraud. DOJ announced the largest annual recovery figure in the FCA's history -- $6.8 billion in settlements and recoveries.  FCA whistleblowers filed a record number of new cases -- 1,297 lawsuits and the government initiated 401 investigations. Since 1986, DOJ has recovered a total in excess of $85 billion. DOJ is taking full advantage of the power provisions of the FCA that include treble damages, broad liability coverage, and favorable amendments adopted to increase government leverage. Health care fraud remained the primary source of FCA settlements. Approximately $5.7 billion of the total $6.8 billion related to actions against healthcare companies. Notably, DOJ continued and expanded its success in three major areas: Managed Care, Prescription Drugs, and Medically Unnecessary Care.

A calm critique of AI-risk hype and a call to stop sprinting toward every hypothetical danger. How to separate companies that center their business on algorithms from those that use AI for support. A practical rundown of five risk categories: privacy, third parties, accuracy, employee misuse, and regulation. Concerns about data exposure, vendor oversight, misinformation, workplace surveillance, and shifting laws.

A brisk review of 2025 trade enforcement trends, from criminal indictments to administrative upticks at OFAC and BIS. The expanding use of the False Claims Act to target tariff and customs evasion is highlighted. Legal developments and court rulings shaping FCA jurisdiction get attention. Practical risks for importers and cooperation lessons from major resolutions are also explored.

Scott Greytak, Transparency International, and Nate Sibley, Hudson Institute, join Michael Volkov for a review of anti-corruption issues and a look forward to the next year.

Tom Fox joins Michael Volkov to discuss ethics and compliance issues for the year 2025. Tom and Mike focus on the importance of ethics, conflict of interest, trade compliance, organizational justice and other issues.This is Part 2 of a 2-Part Episode.

Tom Fox, a seasoned expert in corporate ethics and compliance, joins Michael Volkov to explore key issues for 2025 and trends for 2026. They discuss the resilience of ethics amid turbulence and how it can be measured as a 'business premium.' The conversation turns to rising internal investigations, particularly around conflicts of interest, and the need for integrating ethics into compliance programs. They also touch on generational differences in ethical expectations and the increasing focus on trade enforcement and sanctions risks.

What do you do when the headlines shift faster than your risk matrix can keep up? In this episode, Michael Volkov dives into the challenge of adapting compliance programs in the face of volatile and fast-changing global risks—from tariffs and trade controls to supply chain disruptions and third-party exposures. While the pressure to react is constant, the real key is staying anchored in your company’s values while making smart, timely adjustments.Legal and compliance officers are used to adjustments and continuous improvement of their compliance programs. Building and maintaining an effective ethics and compliance program never ends — it is a continuous process. In a climate of rapid change, the strategies may feel familiar, but the risks themselves are taking new shape. To that end, Michael outlines five specific strategies for evolving your compliance program without losing your footing.You'll hear him discuss:Why culture isn't just a buzzword—it's the first and most critical line of defense in volatile timesHow to run a quick-turn, focused risk assessment to identify new hotspots like sanctions, tariffs, and supply chain gapsThe rising danger of indirect exposure to foreign terrorist organizations and cartels through third partiesWhat companies need to know about tariff classification, scope, and enforcement to avoid legal and economic penaltiesWhy sanctions and export controls enforcement is heating up—and what that means for your global operationsHow to recalibrate third-party risk management to account for trade-based threats and hidden ownership structuresResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

With the beginning of the “New FCPA” era coined by DOJ’s Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, we now need to focus on third-party risk and sanctions enforcement. The law, the practice, and the risks are important and not just the same as FCPA legal requirements. As we embark on a new criminal enforcement era surrounding sanctions violations, companies have to address this issue and do it correctly. In this episode, Michael Volkov takes a comprehensive look at third-party risks from the distribution and supply sides and outlines appropriate strategies to manage these risks.Epsilon Electronics serves as a stark reminder of the financial consequences of non-compliance. The company faced an OFAC enforcement action due to a shipment to Iran, resulting in a staggering penalty of over $4 million.Apollo Aviation Group settled with OFAC for $210,600 for leasing aircraft engines which ultimately ended up being placed in to aircraft of a prohibited entity, Sudan Airways, violating sanctions regulations.ELF Cosmetics settled with OFAC for $996,000 for importing false eyelash kits containing materials sourced from North Korea, highlighting supply chain due diligence failures.The ELF Cosmetics case underscores the crucial role of supply chain due diligence in preventing sanctions violations. Instead of sticking their heads in the sand, companies must undertake basic supply chain due diligence when sourcing products from regions close to high-risk countries or regions.“Reason to know” is now the key phrase guiding the New FCPA era. OFAC does not need to prove goods ultimately end up in a sanctioned country. When you see red flags, you must resolve them or they could be considered a “reason to know” in OFAC’s eyes.Seven essential elements to boost your compliance program and effectively mitigate third-party sanctions risks include risk assessment, varying levels of due diligence, end-user documentation, monitoring, training, and red flag identification.ResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group