Welcome to Episode 4 of Compliance Man Goes Global podcast of FCPA Compliance Report International Edition. In this episode, Tom and Tim will focus on typical myths and mistakes regarding compliance trainings. We will do it in plain language so to say and in the simple game form. Moreover, to make the podcast handy and more appealing we attach respective illustration from the Compliance Man illustrated series, created by Timur Khasanov-Batirov. For those who are not aware about our format, in each podcast, the host take two typical concepts or more accurately misconceptions from in-house compliance reality. They check out if these concepts work at emerging jurisdictions.

Myth #1 Compliance training is not an entertainment. It is a very serious thing. Such trainings are about anticorruption, criminal enforcement and consequently could be delivered only by legally trained compliance team members.  Tim, do you agree with this statement?

Tim Khasanov-Batirov: It is a very typical assumption. Let’s see what pros we have:  

Argument #1.

Obviously, the training should cover anticorruption matters based on corporate rules, local and applicable extra-territorial legislations (like FCPA, for instance). Referring to relevant enforcement cases from the specific industry is vital to make training close to reality. Should we have as trainers only lawyers from compliance team? I would say, yes. Lawyers are expected to know and naturally are close to such things as legislation, corporate rules and alike;

Argument #2.

Now let’s discuss if compliance training could be delivered in entertaining form. As we remember, Tom, may be 10 years ago compliance trainings were supposed to be dull and lengthy. They were so to say the best cure to fight insomnia. Now we have the opposite situation. In attempt to be modern, we have appealing, funny and entertaining compliance shows. The problem is that the content of training in many such cases become something secondary after the form of delivery;

Tom Fox:  I think, Tim that there are some cons here as well:

Argument #1 is about having only lawyers as compliance trainers.

I believe for some audiences’ deep knowledge of regulations is not needed. This might be a case for instance when audience should understand just basic rules. Therefore, you can deploy HR team or non-lawyers from compliance department to conduct session for the staff. Moreover, lawyers tend to train employees as if they were talking to other lawyers, which is usually not the case for compliance and ethics training.

To read the full story please visit FCPA Compliance Report’s website at: http://fcpacompliancereport.com/2017/10/compliance-man-goes-global-episode-4/

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *