Cross Border Internal Investigations

Cross Border Internal Investigations

Roger Best

06 July 2011

Outline

Why companies commission internal investigations

The basics of conducting internal investigations

Legal constraints on the conduct of internal investigations

Cross-border implications

06 July 2011 2Cross Border Internal Investigations

Why companies commission internal investigations Firms authorised by the Financial Services Authority (“FSA)

Principle 11“A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and cooperative way, and must disclose to the

FSA appropriately anything relating to the firm of which the FSA would reasonably expect notice”

SUP 15 Notification required if–Significant reputational impact–Significant fraud and accounting irregularities or employee misconduct

“The FSA recognises that there are good reason for firms wishing to carry out their own investigations. This might be for, for example, disciplinary purposes, general good management, or operational and risk control. The firm needs to know the extent of any problem, and it may want advice as to what immediate or short-term measures it needs to take to mitigate or correct any problems identified. The FSA encourages this proactive approach and does not wish to interfere with a firm’s legitimate procedures and controls.” [FSA Enforcement Guide paragraph 3.17]

The Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”): Guidance of self-reporting on Overseas Corruption encourages companies to self-report and commission an investigation:

“We will discuss the scope of any further investigation needed. Wherever possible, this investigation will be carried out by the corporate’s professional advisers.”

Good corporate governance

Reputational risk management


4

FSA approach to firms conducting their own investigations in anticipation of FSA enforcement action The FSA recognises that sharing the outcome of an investigation

can potentially save time and resources A firm's willingness to volunteer a report is something the FSA may

take into account when deciding whether to take enforcement action The FSA encourages prior consultation before an investigation is

commenced because it is concerned about the potential prejudice to any investigation it may wish to conduct (particularly where there is possible criminal conduct or market abuse)

In addition to seeing the report the FSA may want access to the underlying documents and interview notes supporting the report

The FSA will accept material on the basis of a limited waiver of privilege but expects to be able to use any report for enforcement action

06 July 2011Cross Border Internal Investigations

5

The preparation and gathering of material

Document preservation notices What is the scope of the investigation? Where is the relevant data stored? How do the IT systems work? Who is required to assist in the collection task? What confidentiality obligations need to be imposed

on third party vendors? Clean up – don’t forget the obligations on third

parties to destruct documents and clean their systems


6

Co-operation with the investigation

Employees are under a contractual duty to co-operate with an investigation to establish relevant facts

Limited obligations of former employees unless imposed by termination arrangements


7

Constraints on internal investigations

Data protection restrictions on personal informationIs there justification for processing?Does notice need to be given?Is there a pre-existing policy on telephone tapes

and email monitoring?Can personal data be exported?

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act restricts interception and live monitoring of communications


8

Constraints on internal investigations (2)

Maintenance of privilegeEmployment law considerations

Do not predetermine internal disciplinary findingsWatch out for the need to switch from investigation

to formal disciplinary process

Independent representation of employeePrivilege against self-incrimination


9

Reducing civil litigation risk

Record purpose at the outset of the investigation and consider whether it is for a privileged purpose

Use in-house legal function and external lawyers where there could be a claim for privilege and advantages therefrom

Form of report (oral or written/factual or evaluative) Maintenance of privilege

Limited disclosure of the reportRestrict interviewees access to interview notes


10

Warning

Throughout the process remain alert toThe requirement to file suspicious transaction

reports (STRs and SARs)FSA’s general notification requirements relating to

firms and approved personsThe advantages of self-reporting to the SFOThe possibility that there will be a leak requiring a

reactive statement


Cross-border complications

Some countries have blocking laws that make it illegal to investigate on their territory where there are foreign or national implications (e.g. Switzerland and France)

In some European countries breach of data privacy and/or bank secrecy laws carries criminal law penalties

Some other European countries’ employment laws provide greater levels of protection for employees in relation to internal investigations and subsequent disciplinary action

Local bar rules may prohibit local lawyers conducting factual investigations

Differing concepts of confidentiality and legal privilege in civil law countries reduce the advantages of using lawyers for internal investigations


Clifford Chance, 10 Upper Bank Street, London, E14 5JJ

© Clifford Chance LLP 2011Clifford Chance LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number OC323571Registered office: 10 Upper Bank Street, London, E14 5JJWe use the word 'partner' to refer to a member of Clifford Chance LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications

UK-2801985-v1

www.cliffordchance.com

Cross Border Internal Investigations

Documents

Cross Border Internal Investigations