Publication
GCR Guide to Data & Antitrust – Competition law and data
Miranda Cole and Francesco Salis from our Brussels office are the authors of a chapter on the evolving view of data in the application of competition law.
Global | Publication | October 2022
On 13 October 2022, our Singapore office co-hosted an in-person event with ethiXbase on “Navigating geopolitical risks and legal challenges in business transactions”, addressing pertinent issues relating to sanctions, compliance and regulatory risks. Speakers included:
Below are the key takeaways and highlights from the panel discussions. If you would like to learn more about these topics, please reach out to our global regulatory compliance and investigations team.
The Sanctions Panel discussed how the rapidly evolving international sanctions regimes and elevated risks faced by businesses have exerted tremendous pressure on companies to assess business decisions, analyse counterparty transactions and implement sanctions compliance programs.
Setting the scene, David noted that sanctions are being imposed on Russia at an unprecedented level both in terms of volume and complexity. He commented that companies are overhauling their risk assessments for sanctions, reviewing contractual protections, as well as preparing for downstream dispute and enforcement risks.
David highlighted some key challenges and risks for businesses. First, he emphasized that obtaining global advice is vital, as even though headlines in the press often refer to a joint approach by the US, UK and EU (and other) authorities, advice across each of the regimes is still necessary due to various key differences in scope. Second, even where prohibitions are similar, interpretation of the prohibitions by regulators and authorities across jurisdictions may be different, with an example being the issue of ownership and control by sanctioned persons being treated differently depending on the applicable regime. Third, many of the regulations have been implemented at short notice and are drafted in broad terms, which can make it difficult to determine exactly what activities are prohibited.
James provided a high-level overview of the main methods employed to screen ownership. First, businesses can reach out to third parties to ask for ownership information. Second, businesses can obtain ownership information through the due diligence process. James also noted operational challenges business face in conducting screening. These include how the ownership information obtained may be inaccurate, and that corporate ownership does not equate to ultimate beneficial ownership. David emphasized that notwithstanding the difficulties, it is critical for businesses to go beneath the surface to actually understand their counterparties. This is because regulatory authorities expect corporates to know the counterparties they deal with.
Moving to enforcement trends, David noted a trend of more active investigations and enforcement of sanctions. David pointed out that the US Department of Justice has described sanctions as the new Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. On this note, David warned that the US continues to target foreign companies, and that the use of U.S. dollar transactions can subject one to U.S. primary sanctions because this entails the involvement of U.S. correspondent banks. Additionally, David highlighted that the EU is taking steps to create minimum rules for criminal offences and penalties for sanctions breaches across all Member States, which indicates an increasing trend of investigations that we are already starting to see in EU states such as Germany and the Netherlands. As a word of caution, David noted that in the U.K., the violation of financial sanctions is now a strict liability offence, which means that regulators no longer need to establish knowledge, or even that the infringing entity had reasonable cause to suspect infringement. The approach of the UK regulators to the new offence and their expectations of companies was also outlined.
In terms of sanctions risk assessments, jams highlighted that a proper risk assessment is fundamental to any compliance regime as it demonstrates that the business has a good understanding of where its risks are. After sanctions were imposed on Russia, many organisations were unsure how to handle their exposure to Russia. Notwithstanding this, high-risk scenarios can be mitigated by identifying ultimate beneficial owners, doing screening as well as conducting due diligence that is proportionate to the risk identified. James also observed that risk assessments are dynamic, which requires organisations to tailor and revisit their risk assessments frequently. Additionally, organisations should document their risk assessment measures and communicate them to staff, such that employees are aware of the company protocol. Further, testing and auditing would be required to consider if the risk assessment measures remain fit for purpose. Regarding sanctions screening software, James pointed out that false positives are a perennial issue. To mitigate this issue, he suggested screening full names, secondary identifiers and aliases.
Do I need a risk assessment? | Are there rules to follow? |
Integral in informing sanctions policies, procedures, internal controls and training to mitigate sanctions risks | No one-size-fits-all model |
Should be recorded clearly and updated regularly | General expectations of risk-based approach and measures proportionate to the risks associated with a particular transaction or class of business |
Impact vis-à-vis authorities:
|
Assessments may include review of specific counterparties, products, services and graphic locations |
Vs
|
Maintain on-going monitoring of transactions and relationships |
Publication
Miranda Cole and Francesco Salis from our Brussels office are the authors of a chapter on the evolving view of data in the application of competition law.
Publication
Miranda Cole, Lara White and Christoph Ritzer from our Brussels, London and Frankfurt offices are the authors of a chapter on how the interplay between competition and privacy law is affecting online advertising.
Publication
Unannounced inspections by competition authorities, usually called “dawn raids”, are undoubtably one of the most efficient tools for collecting evidence and enforcing competition rules. They are also an area where investigators test (and sometimes exceed) the boundaries of companies’ procedural rights.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023