Episode 209 -- Schlumberger Settles Two OFAC Enforcement Actions

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 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 1 of a 2-Part episode.

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

Is the DOJ really changing its playbook on FCPA enforcement, or is it business as usual under a new administration? In this episode, Michael digs into two headline developments that say a lot about where things are headed - the first FCPA declination under the Trump Administration and the first indictment. Both shed light on how DOJ is applying its policies in practice, what companies should expect, and why individuals are squarely in the crosshairs. Taken together, these cases remind listeners that while priorities may shift, the fundamentals of disclosure, cooperation, and accountability remain very much alive.You’ll hear him discuss:Why Liberty Mutual’s $4.7 million disgorgement shows DOJ is sticking closely to its Corporate Enforcement PolicyHow voluntary disclosure and cooperation continue to all but guarantee a declinationThe details behind Liberty Mutual’s misconduct in India and the factors DOJ weighed in its decisionWhat the Pemex indictment tells us about DOJ’s push to hold individuals accountableThe role of disgorgement in DOJ resolutions and whether the policy might be applied with more flexibility going forwardHow luxury goods and personal perks were used in the Pemex scheme and why DOJ zeroed in on those detailsWhat these developments signal for companies trying to strengthen compliance programs in a shifting enforcement landscapeResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

AI promises efficiency, innovation, and new opportunities - but are companies moving too fast in the rush to adopt it? The risks are very real, from false content to flawed decision-making, and the global regulatory patchwork is only getting more complex. The challenge now is building governance and compliance frameworks that keep pace without stifling progress.In this episode of Corruption, Crime, and Compliance, Michael Volkov explains why an AI compliance program is essential to corporate governance today.You’ll hear him discuss:Why companies need to start with a clear use case and weigh benefits against potential legal and compliance risks before rolling out AIThe evolving patchwork of regulations, including the FTC, state-level laws in the US, and the EU’s AI ActHow sector-specific rules in healthcare, financial services, and defense add new layers of complexityThe two biggest risks: AI-generated false content that can cause liability and reputational harm, and decision-making systems that create unfair or discriminatory resultsWhat strong AI governance looks like, from board oversight and compliance officers to clear policies and cross-functional committeesThe role of training, documentation, and incident reporting in ensuring responsible, transparent AI useWhy embedding responsible AI into company values and employee performance reviews helps build a culture of accountabilityResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

What happens when a company tries to outsmart the system - and gets caught red-handed by the DOJ in a $140 million export control scheme tied to Chinese military supercomputers?In this episode, Michael dives into the DOJ’s criminal enforcement action against Cadence Design Systems - a case that marks yet another major step in the DOJ’s rapidly unfolding trade enforcement strategy. We’re no longer in the FCPA era. This is a whole new ballgame, where national security and trade compliance have collided, and companies that haven’t adjusted are already behind.You’ll hear him discuss:Why Cadence’s plea deal - not a DPA or NPA - is such a big dealHow the DOJ and BIS coordinated to secure over $140 million in criminal and civil penaltiesThe simple, sloppy scheme that involved fake names, hidden aliases, and blatant attempts to skirt export controlsWhy partial cooperation didn’t earn Cadence a full credit reduction - and what they failed to doThe shocking compliance gap: only one export control officer handling global riskWhat this case signals about the DOJ’s growing focus on national security and semiconductor enforcementWhy ethics, due diligence, and transaction monitoring are still your best defenseHow companies can avoid getting blindsided by embracing the new trade enforcement landscapeResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

Is your internal reporting program keeping up or falling behind the curve? With over 2.15 million reports analyzed from nearly 70 million employees worldwide, NAVEX's 2025 Regional Whistleblowing & Incident Management Benchmark Report offers a goldmine of insight into how companies are (and aren’t) managing employee concerns. In this episode, Michael Volkov breaks down the key findings, regional trends, and what they really mean for compliance officers trying to build a stronger speak-up culture. NAVEX dominates the hotline market, and its annual benchmark report gives compliance professionals an unparalleled look at reporting behaviors across the globe. From rising retaliation concerns to surprising substantiation rates, the numbers speak volumes.You’ll hear him discuss:Why Europe’s sharp spike in reporting rates is likely tied to the EU Whistleblower DirectiveHow North American companies resolve reports faster and what that says about handling HR-driven complaintsWhy anonymous reporting is much higher in APAC, Europe, and South America and what it might reveal about employee trustHow retaliation claims are being substantiated at drastically different rates depending on geography and legal frameworksWhat’s behind the higher substantiation rates at privately owned companies compared to public onesHow reporting channel preferences are shifting and why phone-based hotlines may be on the way outWhat “time to report” stats reveal about fear, hesitation, and the need for cultural change in the workplaceResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

A competitor could trigger a federal investigation against your company, just by filing a whistleblower complaint about your imports. In this episode, Michael Volkov explores how the Trump Administration is reshaping the enforcement landscape by linking trade compliance and the False Claims Act (FCA) in unprecedented ways. With “trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion” now a DOJ national priority, companies engaged in international trade face growing legal and reputational risks. A recent Ninth Circuit ruling has only intensified the stakes.You’ll hear him discuss:Why DOJ is combining trade enforcement and FCA cases, and what that means for companies that import goods into the U.S.How “reverse false claims” work in the trade context, and why import misclassification, undervaluation, or incorrect country-of-origin declarations are now high-risk areas.Recent high-dollar settlements - including $45 million in one case - where companies paid the price for customs fraud violations.The significance of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., which confirmed DOJ’s ability to pursue customs fraud claims under the FCA in federal court.How whistleblowers, including competitors, are using FCA claims as a strategic tool in the marketplace, leading to sealed complaints and increased litigation.What companies should be doing now to evaluate and reinforce their trade compliance programs, from reviewing documentation and broker relationships to training and internal reporting.Why ignoring tariff and duty obligations - or failing to investigate them thoroughly - could be seen as deliberate indifference, exposing companies to both civil and criminal liability.ResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

What happens when companies ignore red flags, bypass legal advice, and underestimate the reach of U.S. export laws? In this episode, Michael Volkov unpacks two major enforcement actions from the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). These cases serve as cautionary tales for companies navigating complex trade and sanctions landscapes, highlighting the steep costs of compliance failures, even when violations aren't willful.You’ll hear him discuss:BIS’s $4.25 million penalty against Alpha and Omega Semiconductor (AOS) for 15 violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), including unauthorized shipments to HuaweiHow AOS disregarded legal advice and internal compliance warnings while continuing to export EAR99 items from the U.S. to an Entity List companyThe significance of BIS’s finding that even non-willful violations will trigger serious enforcement consequencesOFAC’s $608,825 settlement with Key Holding LLC over Cuban sanctions violations linked to its Colombian subsidiary, Key ColombiaHow a failure to implement sanctions compliance after acquiring a foreign affiliate exposed Key Holding to U.S. jurisdiction - and liabilityThe importance of post-acquisition compliance integration and automated screening in mitigating enforcement riskWhy these cases mark a return to traditional administrative enforcement priorities and serve as stark reminders of jurisdictional reachResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group