Comments on: Standard Chartered case highlights competing agendas of compliance, legal departments in firms Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:40:16 +0000 hourly 1 By: Shaz_uae Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:52:43 +0000 Unfortunately, some Boards often consider that it is easier to remove CCO’s than Legal Counsel, for both practical and legal purposes (including a view that Legal is more senior and often has negotiated a stronger package). What would be interesting to add to this article is a review of the turnover of compliance personnel compared to legal personnel in large firms.

As both a lawyer, accountant and compliance professional I believe that the compliance side presents the most dilemmas, and frankly has more operational breadth and impact. It is also the hardest to resource appropriately given that many professionals “fall into” the role and there is very little focus given to financial services compliance at tertiary education level. The pool is smaller at the top end compared to the relative ease of obtaining a legal counsel.

We have also seen the extreme pressure to “justify the position” of spirit compared to the letter of law by CEO’s and Boards, and it is often seen to be an easier path to a “right decision” to (incorrectly) err towards a defined legal analysis.

By: Tibet Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:44:50 +0000 Poor judgement at the time they brought in this piece of business. The company has been in damage control ever since.

Someone at standard charter needs to be held accountable here.

They knew that this could blow up, and pushed hard despite the concerns of compliance, risk, and legal. Standard Charters board probably knows who is responsible. Unfortunately to this point they can’t pull the trigger to straighten out the company. Could be that the people responsible have long left the company or the people responsible are to high up in the company and the board.

Someone needs to take responsibility for this problem.