Translator：Wang Yichun

On February 26th, the Nanchang Lawyers Association's Criminal Litigation Committees and Non-litigation Committees co-hosted a session themed "Criminal Compliance Dialogue for Enterprises Under Investigation". They brought together legal professionals from Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Nanchang to delve into corporate compliance matters. Representing the Shanghai Landing Law Offices' Corporate Risk Prevention Team were Mei Man and Pu Guiping.

Focusing on "Proactive Criminal Compliance", Mei Man highlighted recurrent challenges in defense cases, such as missing evidence proving innocence or the inability to showcase favorable facts. He extended these challenges to prosecution scenarios where there's a lack of substantial evidence underpinning basic criminal allegations, leading to hindered rights protection via criminal channels, emphasizing the significance of preemptive measures to safeguard enterprise growth and existence. He shared insights across three dimensions:

Firstly, the challenges faced by enterprises in seeking rights protection after a criminal violation can be mitigated by emphasizing evidence preservation. Enhancing financial transparency and fortifying shareholders' right-to-know regimes through an indictment perspective further strengthens this approach. Secondly, in situations where businesses face risks from crimes committed by top executives or those involving affiliated entities, it's crucial to adopt a defense-centric approach, emphasizing innocence or lesser culpability, and devising a holistic strategy. Thirdly, given the inherent criminal risks associated with certain industries and operational models, specialized criminal compliance measures should be tailored based on the varying priorities of the enterprise, its shareholders, or top executives.

Pu Guiping elucidated on "Key Considerations in Criminal Compliance." He emphasized that the essence of compliance isn't merely about grasping processes and organizational structures. It's also about pinpointing risk categories and understanding the objectives of compliance, necessitating:

Firstly, taking a cautious approach to corporate malpractices that might lead to convictions despite "compliance-based non-prosecution". Secondly, clarifying the objectives behind corporate compliance: whether it's to shield leadership, safeguard employees, meet regulatory checks, or align with business needs. Thirdly, ensuring that compliance reforms are robust enough to prevent recurrence of risky behaviors. Pu substantiated each point with relevant case studies. He concluded by highlighting that while non-prosecution due to compliance offers a defense angle, it might be a double-edged sword in the future. Nevertheless, the current compliance framework should be leveraged to maximize enterprise benefits.

The collaborative dialogue among lawyers from three distinct regions provided a comprehensive insight into the nuances, challenges, and potential pitfalls of today's compliance landscape, sparking innovative perspectives on its future trajectory.