1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Amendments to Corporate Sentencing Guidelines: Important Changes in Requirements for Effective Compliance and Ethics Programs

New Amendments to Corporate Sentencing Guidelines: Important Changes in Requirements for Effective Compliance and Ethics Programs

Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.03.10

Last Friday, April 30, 2010, the United States Sentencing Commission finalized significant revisions to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. These changes directly implicate the relationship between a corporation's chief compliance officer and the board of directors and the manner in which a corporation should respond to the discovery of criminal conduct.

For the first time, the Sentencing Guidelines now allow a corporation to receive a three level downward departure in sentencing for maintaining an effective compliance and ethics program, even where high level or substantial authority personnel are involved in the offense. However, the following conditions must be met:

  1. the individual(s) with "operational responsibility for the compliance and ethics program" (usually the chief compliance officer) must have had "direct reporting obligations" to the governing authority (usually the board of directors) or an appropriate subgroup thereof (e.g., an audit committee of the board of directors);

  2. the compliance and ethics program must have detected the offense before discovery outside of the corporation or before such discovery was reasonably likely;

  3. the corporation must have promptly reported the offense to appropriate governmental authorities; and

  4. no individual with "operational responsibility for the compliance and ethics program" must have participated in, condoned, or have been willfully ignorant of the offense.

A compliance officer has "direct reporting obligations" if the officer has "express authority to communicate personally" and promptly to the board "on any matter involving criminal conduct or potential criminal conduct." Additionally, the compliance officer must communicate to the board of directors at least once a year regarding "the implementation and effectiveness of the compliance and ethics program."

The Sentencing Guidelines were additionally amended to define a corporation's responsibilities after it has discovered criminal conduct. After the discovery of an offense, an effective compliance and ethics program requires that the corporation take reasonable steps to "remedy the harm resulting from the criminal conduct." These steps may include: i) providing restitution to identifiable victims; ii) self-reporting criminal conduct to relevant governmental authorities; and iii) cooperating with those governmental authorities. The list is not exhaustive.

After the discovery of criminal conduct, a corporation must also assess its current compliance and ethics program and make appropriate modifications as required. Notably, the Sentencing Guidelines now encourage the engagement and retention of an outside professional advisor by the corporation to ensure adequate assessment and implementation of any modifications to the corporation's compliance and ethics program. This change is significant because the retention of an outside monitor usually occurs as a condition to settling the matter with the government.

The amendments will become effective November 1, 2010, unless Congress takes affirmative action to block the amendments.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights