The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has reprimanded Zheng Da International Financial Holding Limited and imposed a HK$7 million fine for failures involving anti-money laundering (AML) controls, client due diligence, and trading surveillance. The SFC also suspended one of the firm’s responsible officers for seven months, underscoring its continued focus on compliance controls and senior management accountability.
The SFC found that Zheng Da failed to conduct adequate due diligence on customer-supplied trading systems used to execute more than 10 million futures trades, investigate substantial client deposits inconsistent with customers’ financial profiles, and detect potentially suspicious trading activity. The firm had also disabled a trading surveillance function because it interfered with normal client trading. The SFC further found that Zheng Da could not produce contemporaneous records supporting its claims that certain compliance checks had been performed.
The action reinforces several recurring SFC enforcement themes: compliance policies must be effectively implemented, firms must maintain records demonstrating adherence to those policies, and reliance on third-party technology providers does not relieve intermediaries of their regulatory obligations. Notably, the SFC treated Zheng Da’s failure to respond to earlier enforcement actions involving similar misconduct as an aggravating factor, highlighting the importance of monitoring regulatory developments and assessing their implications for existing compliance programs.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/04/GettyImages-1080626808.jpg400600James Comberhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJames Comber2026-10-13 12:25:482026-10-13 12:26:25SFC Enforcement Reinforces Approach To Due Diligence on Third-Party Systems, Client Transaction Monitoring, AML Liability
Sidley has been named a finalist for the “Most Impressive Global Investigations Practice of the Year” at the Global Investigations Review (GIR) Awards 2026 — one of the most prestigious honors in the global investigations and white collar defense community. The annual awards recognize firms that have demonstrated exceptional skill in navigating high-profile and complex investigations over the past year.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00White Collar Watchhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngWhite Collar Watch2026-10-09 11:04:572026-10-09 11:04:57Sidley Named a Finalist for “Most Impressive Global Investigations Practice of the Year” at the 2026 GIR Awards
On October 1, 2026, the SEC’s Division of Examinations published a new SEC Exam Handbook: A Practical Guide on Process and Engagement, replacing the brochure that has long accompanied examination notices. Although the Handbook largely memorializes existing practice, it provides new detail on how examinations are opened, conducted, and closed—and on the circumstances in which examination findings may lead to enforcement scrutiny.
Among other things, the Handbook confirms that examination staff may refer issues to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, other regulators, or criminal authorities, and in some circumstances may do so before an exit conference or deficiency letter. It also emphasizes that prompt remediation may mitigate whether a finding is referred to Enforcement, while encouraging registrants to address misunderstandings and compliance concerns with examination staff as they arise.
The Handbook does not announce a new enforcement policy, but it puts in writing several features of the examination process that can matter when an exam begins to take on an enforcement dimension. For registrants, the publication offers a useful roadmap for managing that risk—from responding to information requests and preserving privilege to addressing potential deficiencies before they become referral issues. Click here to read the full post.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/02/GettyImages-1307247030.jpg400600Victoria A. Anglinhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngVictoria A. Anglin2026-10-07 10:07:042026-10-07 10:07:28SEC Division of Examinations Issues Exam Handbook
On October 1, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald issued Directive 26-12, “Corporate Enforcement in the Fight Against Fraud,” setting out the recently established National Fraud Enforcement Division’s corporate enforcement strategy. The Directive calls for an “aggressive, all-tools approach” to corporate fraud and identifies four priority areas: health care; fraud affecting public trust or the financial integrity of Americans and markets; significant tax and revenue evasion; and tariff evasion, import fraud, and forced labor.
The Directive also provides an early look at how the Fraud Division will decide which corporate cases warrant particular attention. Prosecutors are instructed to place “great weight” on ten factors, including management involvement, concealment from government agencies or auditors, misconduct lasting three years or more, conduct spanning at least three federal districts, and conduct causing harm to at least 25 victims or losses of at least $25 million. The Directive also formalizes the involvement of the Division’s Corporate Enforcement Section throughout corporate investigations and resolutions.
At the same time, the Directive preserves DOJ’s broader corporate enforcement framework, including the Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy. It also directs Fraud Division leadership to develop additional incentives for whistleblowers—including participants in misconduct—to come forward with credible information. For companies operating in the Division’s priority areas, the Directive provides important new guidance for assessing enforcement risk, conducting internal investigations, and evaluating potential voluntary disclosures. Click here to read the full post.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Kenneth A. Polite Jr.http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKenneth A. Polite Jr.2026-10-02 16:26:492026-10-02 16:28:04DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues First Corporate Enforcement Priorities
On September 22, 2026, Daniel Glad, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement in DOJ’s Antitrust Division, delivered remarks at a conference hosted by the Women’s White Collar Defense Association (“WWCDA”), a non-profit organization co-founded by Sidley Senior Counsel Karen Popp. His remarks, among other things, highlighted the interaction between the Division’s Leniency Policy and its newer Whistleblower Rewards Program, as well as the Division’s recent criminal trial record.
Glad emphasized that companies confronting potential criminal antitrust conduct may now face two races: one against other participants seeking leniency and another against potential whistleblowers with independent incentives to report. Because only one participant can obtain leniency, Glad cautioned that companies need not complete an internal investigation before considering whether to seek a marker.
Glad also pointed to the Division’s four consecutive criminal jury trial convictions as evidence of its readiness to litigate cases and its focus on presenting them efficiently. Taken together, his remarks underscore the importance of quickly assessing potential antitrust misconduct, evaluating reporting options early, and preparing for a Division that remains willing to take criminal cases to trial. Click here to read the full post.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/06/AdobeStock_1494587598.jpeg606833Juan A. Arteagahttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJuan A. Arteaga2026-09-30 13:45:142026-09-30 13:46:29The Race to Report: DOJ’s Antitrust Division Highlights Leniency, Whistleblowers, and Trial Readiness
The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) is signaling a more flexible, outcome-focused approach to enforcement. In a September 24 speech, SFC Head of Enforcement Michael Duignan said the regulator would pursue “any lawful, workable approach that gets good outcomes fast and efficiently,” rather than relying solely on conventional disciplinary proceedings.
Duignan highlighted a not-yet-public matter in which the SFC addressed significant control weaknesses through voluntary licence surrender, an orderly wind-down, and investor redress. His remarks suggest the SFC may increasingly use remediation, licensing restrictions, redress, and other regulatory tools to address problems earlier.
The speech also underscores the importance of supervisory engagement. How firms respond to inspections, deficiency letters, breach notifications, and other regulatory concerns—including the speed and credibility of remediation—may increasingly shape whether those issues develop into enforcement matters. Click here to read the full post.
On September 23, 2026, Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, announced the creation of a new Fraud and Asset Recovery Division. The new Division will be dedicated to investigating and pursuing fraud against the federal government with a “particular focus” on the False Claims Act (“FCA”). This represents a significant reorganization—and expansion—of that Office’s affirmative civil enforcement capacity.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/06/AdobeStock_330226534.jpeg606833Kristin Graham Koehlerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKristin Graham Koehler2026-09-25 11:55:182026-09-25 11:55:18D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office Announces Creation of Standalone Division Focused on False Claims Act Enforcement
On September 17, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the government may manually search a traveler’s cellphone at the border without a warrant or any individualized suspicion. In United States v. Alisigwe, the court concluded that manual cellphone searches qualify as routine border searches, resolving a split among district courts within the Second Circuit.
The decision could have significant implications beyond traditional customs and immigration enforcement. Cellphones can contain communications, financial records, and other evidence relevant to government investigations, and the court reaffirmed that border searches may be conducted for investigative purposes unrelated to border enforcement. Individuals involved in government investigations—and companies whose employees travel internationally—should consider what privileged or sensitive information is accessible on devices carried across the border.
Important questions remain. Alisigwe addressed only a manual search and did not decide whether suspicion is required for more intrusive forensic searches or whether the government may compel a traveler to provide a passcode or biometric authentication. Those issues remain unsettled and are likely to be the subject of further litigation. Click here to read the full blog post.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Michael D. Mannhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngMichael D. Mann2026-09-24 15:20:462026-09-24 15:23:10No Suspicion Required: Second Circuit Permits Warrantless Manual Cellphone Searches at the Border
SFC Enforcement Reinforces Approach To Due Diligence on Third-Party Systems, Client Transaction Monitoring, AML Liability
The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has reprimanded Zheng Da International Financial Holding Limited and imposed a HK$7 million fine for failures involving anti-money laundering (AML) controls, client due diligence, and trading surveillance. The SFC also suspended one of the firm’s responsible officers for seven months, underscoring its continued focus on compliance controls and senior management accountability.
The SFC found that Zheng Da failed to conduct adequate due diligence on customer-supplied trading systems used to execute more than 10 million futures trades, investigate substantial client deposits inconsistent with customers’ financial profiles, and detect potentially suspicious trading activity. The firm had also disabled a trading surveillance function because it interfered with normal client trading. The SFC further found that Zheng Da could not produce contemporaneous records supporting its claims that certain compliance checks had been performed.
The action reinforces several recurring SFC enforcement themes: compliance policies must be effectively implemented, firms must maintain records demonstrating adherence to those policies, and reliance on third-party technology providers does not relieve intermediaries of their regulatory obligations. Notably, the SFC treated Zheng Da’s failure to respond to earlier enforcement actions involving similar misconduct as an aggravating factor, highlighting the importance of monitoring regulatory developments and assessing their implications for existing compliance programs.
James Comber
Hong Kong
james.comber@sidley.com
Dominic James
Hong Kong
dominic.james@sidley.com
David Kalani Lee
Hong Kong
david.lee@sidley.com
Jenny Liu
Hong Kong
jenny.liu@sidley.com
Sidley Named a Finalist for “Most Impressive Global Investigations Practice of the Year” at the 2026 GIR Awards
Sidley has been named a finalist for the “Most Impressive Global Investigations Practice of the Year” at the Global Investigations Review (GIR) Awards 2026 — one of the most prestigious honors in the global investigations and white collar defense community. The annual awards recognize firms that have demonstrated exceptional skill in navigating high-profile and complex investigations over the past year.
(more…)
White Collar Watch
SEC Division of Examinations Issues Exam Handbook
On October 1, 2026, the SEC’s Division of Examinations published a new SEC Exam Handbook: A Practical Guide on Process and Engagement, replacing the brochure that has long accompanied examination notices. Although the Handbook largely memorializes existing practice, it provides new detail on how examinations are opened, conducted, and closed—and on the circumstances in which examination findings may lead to enforcement scrutiny.
Among other things, the Handbook confirms that examination staff may refer issues to the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, other regulators, or criminal authorities, and in some circumstances may do so before an exit conference or deficiency letter. It also emphasizes that prompt remediation may mitigate whether a finding is referred to Enforcement, while encouraging registrants to address misunderstandings and compliance concerns with examination staff as they arise.
The Handbook does not announce a new enforcement policy, but it puts in writing several features of the examination process that can matter when an exam begins to take on an enforcement dimension. For registrants, the publication offers a useful roadmap for managing that risk—from responding to information requests and preserving privilege to addressing potential deficiencies before they become referral issues. Click here to read the full post.
Victoria A. Anglin
Los Angeles
vanglin@sidley.com
Chuck Daly
New York, Boston
cdaly@sidley.com
Ranah Esmaili
Washington, D.C., New York
resmaili@sidley.com
Marissa L. Henry
Boston
marissa.henry@sidley.com
Lara Mehraban
New York
lmehraban@sidley.com
DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues First Corporate Enforcement Priorities
On October 1, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald issued Directive 26-12, “Corporate Enforcement in the Fight Against Fraud,” setting out the recently established National Fraud Enforcement Division’s corporate enforcement strategy. The Directive calls for an “aggressive, all-tools approach” to corporate fraud and identifies four priority areas: health care; fraud affecting public trust or the financial integrity of Americans and markets; significant tax and revenue evasion; and tariff evasion, import fraud, and forced labor.
The Directive also provides an early look at how the Fraud Division will decide which corporate cases warrant particular attention. Prosecutors are instructed to place “great weight” on ten factors, including management involvement, concealment from government agencies or auditors, misconduct lasting three years or more, conduct spanning at least three federal districts, and conduct causing harm to at least 25 victims or losses of at least $25 million. The Directive also formalizes the involvement of the Division’s Corporate Enforcement Section throughout corporate investigations and resolutions.
At the same time, the Directive preserves DOJ’s broader corporate enforcement framework, including the Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy. It also directs Fraud Division leadership to develop additional incentives for whistleblowers—including participants in misconduct—to come forward with credible information. For companies operating in the Division’s priority areas, the Directive provides important new guidance for assessing enforcement risk, conducting internal investigations, and evaluating potential voluntary disclosures. Click here to read the full post.
Kenneth A. Polite Jr.
Washington, D.C., New York
kpolite@sidley.com
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Brian C. Earl
New York
bearl@sidley.com
Asher J. Zlotnik
New York
asher.zlotnik@sidley.com
The Race to Report: DOJ’s Antitrust Division Highlights Leniency, Whistleblowers, and Trial Readiness
On September 22, 2026, Daniel Glad, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement in DOJ’s Antitrust Division, delivered remarks at a conference hosted by the Women’s White Collar Defense Association (“WWCDA”), a non-profit organization co-founded by Sidley Senior Counsel Karen Popp. His remarks, among other things, highlighted the interaction between the Division’s Leniency Policy and its newer Whistleblower Rewards Program, as well as the Division’s recent criminal trial record.
Glad emphasized that companies confronting potential criminal antitrust conduct may now face two races: one against other participants seeking leniency and another against potential whistleblowers with independent incentives to report. Because only one participant can obtain leniency, Glad cautioned that companies need not complete an internal investigation before considering whether to seek a marker.
Glad also pointed to the Division’s four consecutive criminal jury trial convictions as evidence of its readiness to litigate cases and its focus on presenting them efficiently. Taken together, his remarks underscore the importance of quickly assessing potential antitrust misconduct, evaluating reporting options early, and preparing for a Division that remains willing to take criminal cases to trial. Click here to read the full post.
Juan A. Arteaga
New York
juan.arteaga@sidley.com
Corey Roush
Washington, D.C.
corey.roush@sidley.com
Laura Collins
Washington, D.C.
laura.collins@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Rosa M. Morales
New York
rosa.morales@sidley.com
Brian C. Earl
New York
bearl@sidley.com
Hong Kong Regulator Reframes Enforcement Priorities Around Outcomes
The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) is signaling a more flexible, outcome-focused approach to enforcement. In a September 24 speech, SFC Head of Enforcement Michael Duignan said the regulator would pursue “any lawful, workable approach that gets good outcomes fast and efficiently,” rather than relying solely on conventional disciplinary proceedings.
Duignan highlighted a not-yet-public matter in which the SFC addressed significant control weaknesses through voluntary licence surrender, an orderly wind-down, and investor redress. His remarks suggest the SFC may increasingly use remediation, licensing restrictions, redress, and other regulatory tools to address problems earlier.
The speech also underscores the importance of supervisory engagement. How firms respond to inspections, deficiency letters, breach notifications, and other regulatory concerns—including the speed and credibility of remediation—may increasingly shape whether those issues develop into enforcement matters. Click here to read the full post.
Dominic James
Hong Kong
dominic.james@sidley.com
David Kalani Lee
Hong Kong
david.lee@sidley.com
James Comber
Hong Kong
james.comber@sidley.com
D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office Announces Creation of Standalone Division Focused on False Claims Act Enforcement
On September 23, 2026, Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, announced the creation of a new Fraud and Asset Recovery Division. The new Division will be dedicated to investigating and pursuing fraud against the federal government with a “particular focus” on the False Claims Act (“FCA”). This represents a significant reorganization—and expansion—of that Office’s affirmative civil enforcement capacity.
(more…)
Kristin Graham Koehler
Washington, D.C.
kkoehler@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
No Suspicion Required: Second Circuit Permits Warrantless Manual Cellphone Searches at the Border
On September 17, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the government may manually search a traveler’s cellphone at the border without a warrant or any individualized suspicion. In United States v. Alisigwe, the court concluded that manual cellphone searches qualify as routine border searches, resolving a split among district courts within the Second Circuit.
The decision could have significant implications beyond traditional customs and immigration enforcement. Cellphones can contain communications, financial records, and other evidence relevant to government investigations, and the court reaffirmed that border searches may be conducted for investigative purposes unrelated to border enforcement. Individuals involved in government investigations—and companies whose employees travel internationally—should consider what privileged or sensitive information is accessible on devices carried across the border.
Important questions remain. Alisigwe addressed only a manual search and did not decide whether suspicion is required for more intrusive forensic searches or whether the government may compel a traveler to provide a passcode or biometric authentication. Those issues remain unsettled and are likely to be the subject of further litigation. Click here to read the full blog post.
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
Asher J. Zlotnik
New York
asher.zlotnik@sidley.com
Categories
Archives
Meet the Team
Douglas A. Axel
daxel@sidley.com
David H. Hoffman
david.hoffman@sidley.com
Joan M. Loughnane
jloughnane@sidley.com
Kenneth A. Polite Jr.
kpolite@sidley.com
Daniel D. Rubinstein
drubinstein@sidley.com
Yuet Ming Tham
ytham@sidley.com
Dave Anderson
dlanderson@sidley.com
Sheila A.G. Armbrust
sarmbrust@sidley.com
Ellyce R. Cooper
ecooper@sidley.com
Daniel C. Craig
dcraig@sidley.com
Alexandria Daugherty
adaugherty@sidley.com
Craig Francis Dukin
cdukin@sidley.com
Sara George
sara.george@sidley.com
Shu Min Ho
shumin.ho@sidley.com
Naomi A. Igra
naomi.igra@sidley.com
Kristin Graham Koehler
kkoehler@sidley.com
Scott R. Lassar
slassar@sidley.com
Michael A. Levy
mlevy@sidley.com
Geeta Malhotra
gmalhotra@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
mdmann@sidley.com
Ian McGinley
ian.mcginley@sidley.com
Lisa H. Miller
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Paige Holden Montgomery
pmontgomery@sidley.com
Julia G. Mirabella
jmirabella@sidley.com
Takayuki Ono
tono@sidley.com
Matthew Podolsky
matthew.podolsky@sidley.com
Alexa Poletto
apoletto@sidley.com
Karen A. Popp
kpopp@sidley.com
Jacqueline Pruitt
jpruitt@sidley.com
Doreen M. Rachal
drachal@sidley.com
Kevin Rubino
krubino@sidley.com
Leslie A. Shubert
lshubert@sidley.com
David A. Silva
david.silva@sidley.com
Michele Tagliaferri
mtagliaferri@sidley.com
Frank R. Volpe
fvolpe@sidley.com
Marisa S. West
marisa.west@sidley.com
Angela M. Xenakis
axenakis@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com