Stuart Gerson Quoted in “In Updated Compliance Evaluation Guidance, DOJ Asks Three Questions”

COSMOS

Stuart M. Gerson, Member of the Firm in the Litigation and Health Care & Life Sciences practices, in the firm’s Washington, DC, and New York offices, was quoted in COSMOS, in “In Updated Compliance Evaluation Guidance, DOJ Asks Three Questions,” by Nina Youngstrom.

Following is an excerpt:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 30 released updated guidance for white-collar prosecutors who evaluate compliance programs when deciding whether to file fraud charges and what the charges should be. The Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, first published by the criminal division in 2017, is also used by compliance officers to benchmark their organization’s compliance programs (“DOJ Compliance Guidelines for Fraud Cases Double as Effectiveness Checklist,” RMC 26, no. 8). …

The updated Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs modifies the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations in the Justice Manual (previously known as the United States Attorneys’ Manual).

“This amplified guidance is directed at line attorneys who have no real hands-on experience with the complexities of compliance and, especially with respect to larger companies that have invested significantly in compliance but nevertheless have become settling defendants in fraud cases, necessarily view compliance often in a theoretical way. Thus, the new guidance should be helpful to lawyers who have not worked in the field in detailing both evaluative criteria and deciding whether and to what extent monitors should be required,” says former Acting Attorney General Stuart Gerson, with Epstein Becker & Green in Washington, D.C. Smaller defendants who have less evolved compliance programs also may benefit from the additional detail when they establish or expand their compliance programs. “Large companies, generally well represented by experienced counsel and already having a compliance infrastructure, likely know everything that now is set forth concerning compliance criteria, but can better focus their negotiations on solving the problem that has led to the case against them,” Gerson says.