Compliance officer liability: between a rock and a hard place?

There is a pervading impression in financial services that compliance officers are subject to significantly more regulatory exposure than they used to be. Yet the primary pitfall is intentional misconduct, argues Christopher David.

Christopher David (christopher.david@wilmerhale.com) serves as counsel in WilmerHale’s UK investigations and criminal litigation practice. He represents both individuals and companies in international matters mainly involving allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption, insider dealing or money laundering.

In recent years, a perception has developed that compliance officers have personally become more exposed to regulatory and government enforcement action. This has been coupled in many industries, especially financial services, with a broader increase in scrutiny by regulators and government agencies as well as the contingent increase in compliance officers’ responsibilities. But does this perception of personal risk match the reality?