Hong Kong SFC Signals Tougher Scrutiny of Legal Privilege Claims
The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has signaled that it intends to take a tougher approach to claims of legal professional privilege, particularly where companies assert privilege broadly over internal investigation materials, documents collected during dawn raids, or materials responsive to compulsory regulatory requests.
The warning follows a recent Hong Kong court ruling rejecting privilege claims over an internal investigation report and related materials because their dominant purpose was found to be satisfying regulatory reporting obligations, rather than obtaining legal advice or preparing for litigation. The decision underscores that the involvement of lawyers, confidentiality labels, or even a limited waiver to a regulator does not itself establish privilege.
In this post, our colleagues examine the ruling, the SFC’s stated intention to “push back hard” against over-broad privilege claims, and the practical implications for companies conducting internal investigations and responding to regulatory inquiries. The post also considers how companies can preserve legitimate privilege claims while navigating investigations that may simultaneously involve fact-finding, legal advice, remediation, and regulatory engagement. Click here to read the full post.
DOJ Loosens the Whistleblower Program’s Bar on “Other Program” Claimants in Latest Revision
On July 30, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) revised its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, expanding the pool of individuals who may qualify for an award. Most notably, DOJ eliminated the prior rule that automatically disqualified whistleblowers who could have been eligible for an award under another U.S. government whistleblower program, such as those administered by the SEC or CFTC. Instead, a whistleblower is now disqualified only if he or she actually receives an award from another program for reporting the same or substantially the same misconduct, while DOJ retains discretion to reduce or deny duplicative awards.
The revised guidance also includes several administrative updates, including confirmation that the program is now administered by the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering, Narcotics, and Forfeiture Section (formerly the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section) and that submissions will be made through a dedicated online intake portal. The covered subject-matter areas remain unchanged from the May 2025 expansion and continue to include, among other areas, financial institution crimes, bribery, healthcare fraud, trade and customs fraud, procurement fraud, immigration offenses, and sanctions-related misconduct.
For companies, the revisions further strengthen incentives for whistleblowers to report directly to DOJ, including in matters that may also be eligible for other agency whistleblower programs. At the same time, DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy continues to provide a pathway to a declination for companies that promptly self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate misconduct, reinforcing the importance of effective internal reporting mechanisms and careful consideration of self-disclosure decisions in the face of potential whistleblower reports. Click here to read the full post.
Beyond AML: FinCEN and FDIC Clarify That Section 314(b) Safe Harbor Extends to Fraud Prevention
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s (FinCEN) June 12, 2026 guidance, along with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) July 9, 2026 Financial Institution Letter, signal a significant shift in how regulators expect financial institutions to use Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Historically viewed as an anti-money laundering (AML) information-sharing tool, Section 314(b) is now expressly recognized as a mechanism for combating fraud. The updated guidance confirms that financial institutions may rely on the provision’s safe harbor to share information relating to suspected fraud, encourages real-time collaboration among institutions, and highlights the role of Section 314(b) in improving suspicious activity reporting and detecting illicit activity more quickly.
Our latest blog post examines the agencies’ expanded interpretation of Section 314(b), including the broader range of fraud-related information that may be shared, FinCEN’s encouragement of joint suspicious activity report (SAR) filings and proactive information sharing, and the governance, compliance, and supervisory considerations for institutions evaluating or expanding their Section 314(b) programs. The post also explores how the guidance reflects the continued convergence of fraud prevention and AML compliance and what these developments may mean for financial institutions’ information-sharing practices and supervisory expectations. Read the full post here.
What to Expect in SEC Rulemaking: Takeaways From the SEC’s Spring 2026 Regulatory Agenda
The SEC has released its Spring 2026 regulatory agenda. With nearly 40 action items in the prerule or proposed-rule stages and many proposals scheduled for October 2026, the agenda signals a robust effort focused on reducing compliance burdens, facilitating capital formation, and providing greater regulatory certainty for digital assets.
EU Forced Labor Regulation Moves Toward Implementation: How Companies Should Prepare
On June 26, 2026, the European Commission (Commission) published its long-awaited guidelines on the Forced Labor Regulation (FLR). The FLR, which entered into force in December 2024 (see Sidley Update of December 2024) and will apply in full from December 14, 2027, introduces a broad ban on products made, wholly or partly, with forced labor at any stage of the supply chain, regardless of product type, sector, or origin.
Federal Agencies Propose More GENIUS AML/CFT Rules: Customer Identification Program and OCC Conforming Updates
As the AML compliance framework for payment stablecoin issuers continues to take shape under the GENIUS Act, federal regulators proposed another set of rules that will have important implications for compliance program design and implementation. The latest FinCEN, banking agency, and OCC proposals clarify customer identification program (CIP) expectations, reinforce a bank-like approach to AML/CFT compliance, and provide additional insight into the OCC’s supervisory and enforcement posture.
Our latest blog breaks down the proposals, highlights the practical compliance takeaways for stablecoin issuers, and explains what these developments mean for firms preparing for the new federal AML/CFT regime.
Prediction Markets and Insider Trading: Why Organizations Should Update Compliance Policies Now
As prediction markets expand to cover corporate, regulatory, and geopolitical events, organizations face new compliance risks when employees, directors, or other insiders possess nonpublic information that could affect the value of event contracts.
In this post, we examine the first insider trading case involving prediction markets, discuss the government’s position that existing insider trading and antifraud principles apply to these markets, and outline practical steps organizations can take to strengthen their governance frameworks. We also explore why existing insider trading, confidentiality, and code of conduct policies may be insufficient and provide recommendations for updating policies, training, and compliance controls to address this emerging risk area.
Read our analysis of the evolving regulatory landscape and the measures organizations should consider to mitigate legal, reputational, and compliance risks associated with prediction market activity.
Three Potential Benefits, One Powerful Incentive: NDIL’s New Individual Self-Disclosure Program
On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois (NDIL) announced a new Individual Self-Disclosure Program offering qualifying individuals three potential forms of relief in exchange for voluntary self-disclosure and cooperation: letter immunity, a deferred or non-prosecution agreement, or criminal prosecution with substantial sentencing relief. The Program’s express three-tier structure distinguishes it from many other federal self-disclosure programs, which generally focus on the possibility of a non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreement. To qualify, individuals must provide a complete and truthful proffer, cooperate fully with law enforcement, testify if required, and disgorge any criminal proceeds, among other requirements. This post summarizes the Program’s key features and highlights how it compares to similar self-disclosure initiatives adopted in other jurisdictions.
