There are many facettes to “compliance”. My recent article on the subject caused quite a few comments. That is why I will now present some borderline examples of (perhaps) modern dishonesty worth discussing:
Let me start with an original and famous, yet rather harmless “use case”:
For almost a year, the former Federal Minister of Finances, Waigel, has now had control over the Siemens AG. He reports regularly to SEC.
Why was Herr Waigel chosen for this job, which doubtless is well-paid?
Because he is such a good supervisor?
or
Because he has the right kinds of connections?
Herr Waigel as keeper of compliance rules at Siemens AG sounds a little like a prudent appointment where the major issue is not supervision, but rather maintenance of advantages through connections.
Engaging Herrn Waigel is absolutely in accordance with regulations. Still, giving someone as famous and as well-connected as him the job of keeper of compliance regulations might be considered a violation of the underlying sentiment of compliance regulations? Is that, maybe, a slight touch of the “new dishonesty”?
RMD
(Translated by EG)
Loading ...
