Compliance Management In Projects

In the last 24 months we identified 300+ new legislations related to climate change and over 10% of them have elements assessing green claims. But what are the steps for a business to comply with the upcoming legislation in the EU? To comply with the EU's greenwashing regulations and avoid misleading consumers, companies should take the following steps: 1. Review and audit all marketing materials and environmental claims: Businesses should conduct a thorough review of their marketing materials and environmental claims to ensure they align with the regulations. This may involve consulting with legal and sustainability experts to identify potential areas of concern. 2. Substantiate environmental claims: Companies must provide evidence to support their environmental claims, using credible and verifiable sources. This may include scientific studies, third-party certifications, or government data. Companies should be prepared to disclose this information if required by the regulations. 3. Rigorous carbon accounting:  To prove one’s environmental impact, you will have to back it up with data. Companies must diverge from industry averages when calculating the footprint of a product or service. It is important to leverage primary activity data with already existing proof, for example, your scope 1 and 2 can be easily tracked through energy invoices, bills and such. Then, the golden share still is represented from scope 3 emissions, but it is important for companies to start backing up their claims with proof and data. 4. Implement standardised environmental labels: The EU Commission promotes using standardised environmental labels, such as the EU Ecolabel, to provide consumers with reliable information about a product's environmental performance. Companies should consider adopting these labels where applicable to demonstrate compliance with the regulations. 5. Train employees on greenwashing and regulations: Companies should provide training to their employees on greenwashing to ensure that all relevant personnel understand the implications of these regulations and can identify potential compliance issues. 6. Continuously monitor and update marketing materials: Businesses should regularly review and update their marketing materials and environmental claims to ensure ongoing compliance with regulations. This may involve keeping abreast of new developments in sustainability research, as well as changes to the regulatory environment. To understand further how the EU greenwashing regulations will impact your business, have a read here: https://lnkd.in/egrfuk6h To understand green-related terms, have a read here: https://lnkd.in/eznWaTZ5 #greenwashing #sustainability #co2 #eu #co2 #esg #compliance

On August 1, 2024, the European Union's AI Act came into force, bringing in new regulations that will impact how AI technologies are developed and used within the E.U., with far-reaching implications for U.S. businesses. The AI Act represents a significant shift in how artificial intelligence is regulated within the European Union, setting standards to ensure that AI systems are ethical, transparent, and aligned with fundamental rights. This new regulatory landscape demands careful attention for U.S. companies that operate in the E.U. or work with E.U. partners. Compliance is not just about avoiding penalties; it's an opportunity to strengthen your business by building trust and demonstrating a commitment to ethical AI practices. This guide provides a detailed look at the key steps to navigate the AI Act and how your business can turn compliance into a competitive advantage. 🔍 Comprehensive AI Audit: Begin with thoroughly auditing your AI systems to identify those under the AI Act’s jurisdiction. This involves documenting how each AI application functions and its data flow and ensuring you understand the regulatory requirements that apply. 🛡️ Understanding Risk Levels: The AI Act categorizes AI systems into four risk levels: minimal, limited, high, and unacceptable. Your business needs to accurately classify each AI application to determine the necessary compliance measures, particularly those deemed high-risk, requiring more stringent controls. 📋 Implementing Robust Compliance Measures: For high-risk AI applications, detailed compliance protocols are crucial. These include regular testing for fairness and accuracy, ensuring transparency in AI-driven decisions, and providing clear information to users about how their data is used. 👥 Establishing a Dedicated Compliance Team: Create a specialized team to manage AI compliance efforts. This team should regularly review AI systems, update protocols in line with evolving regulations, and ensure that all staff are trained on the AI Act's requirements. 🌍 Leveraging Compliance as a Competitive Advantage: Compliance with the AI Act can enhance your business's reputation by building trust with customers and partners. By prioritizing transparency, security, and ethical AI practices, your company can stand out as a leader in responsible AI use, fostering stronger relationships and driving long-term success. #AI #AIACT #Compliance #EthicalAI #EURegulations #AIRegulation #TechCompliance #ArtificialIntelligence #BusinessStrategy #Innovation 

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has released its Updated Recommendations (February 2025), reinforcing international standards on AML, CFT, and Combating the Financing of Proliferation (CFP). Key Highlights: ✅ Risk-Based Approach (RBA) Strengthened • Countries and financial institutions must continuously assess ML/TF risks. • Proliferation financing risks (linked to WMDs) must now be explicitly assessed and mitigated. • Greater emphasis on data-driven decision-making in risk management. ✅ Stronger Financial Crime Enforcement & Asset Recovery • Enhanced measures to identify, freeze, and confiscate illicit assets, even without conviction-based legal proceedings. • Countries must cooperate more effectively on cross-border investigations related to ML, terrorism, and sanctions evasion. • Expanded legal mandates for regulators to seize cryptocurrency-related assets used for illicit activities. ✅ Enhanced Corporate Transparency & Beneficial Ownership Regulations • Stricter disclosure requirements for companies and trusts to prevent anonymous ownership structures facilitating financial crime. • Introduction of centralized registries for beneficial ownership information, accessible by regulators and FIUs. • Bearer shares and nominee shareholder arrangements are further restricted due to their role in obfuscating ownership. ✅ New Standards for Virtual Assets & Emerging Technologies • FATF mandates stronger oversight on VASPs, aligning AML rules for crypto-assets with traditional financial institutions. • New tech-based compliance controls (including AI-driven monitoring) recommended to enhance financial crime detection. • Stricter regulations for cross-border virtual asset transactions to combat illicit financing and crypto-enabled ML. ✅ Expanded Measures Against Terrorist Financing & Sanctions Evasion • Countries must implement targeted financial sanctions to prevent terrorism and WMD proliferation financing. • NPOS are now required to assess their terrorist financing risks while ensuring legitimate operations are not disrupted. • Greater scrutiny on correspondent banking relationships to prevent facilitation of illicit transactions. ✅ Increased International Cooperation & Mutual Legal Assistance • FATF calls for faster cross-border financial intelligence sharing to prevent criminals from exploiting jurisdictional gaps. • Countries must align with UNSCRs on CTF and sanctions enforcement. Recommandations: 🔹 Implement advanced transaction monitoring using AI to detect suspicious financial activities more effectively. 🔹 Reinforce beneficial ownership compliance 🔹 Strengthen cross-border AML/CFT coordination by fostering partnerships between FIs, regulators, and law enforcement agencies. 🔹 Ensure robust oversight on virtual assets by applying FATF’s Travel Rule to cryptocurrency transactions and monitoring DeFi risks. #AML #FATF #FinancialCrime #Compliance #CryptoRegulation

It has taken over 2 years for NESO to start properly enforcing correct rebalancing behaviour in the D* markets, it takes users of the Arenko Nimbus software 5 seconds per asset to be compliant.   This week the National Energy System Operator released a public notice regarding State of Energy Management (SoE) rules, monitoring and penalties in the D* markets. A Q&A document released (link in comments)  alongside existing service terms makes it fairly unambiguous: If you break the SoE rules you will get £ penalties escalating to ejection from the EAC bidding process.   So what’s happening?  As part of the service terms providers are expected to reserve energy volume (REV) to ensure they can deliver power for a duration of a possible frequency event (DC=15 mins, DM 30 mins and DR 60 mins).   The majority of assets are not doing this as it not being policed and adhering puts you at a serious disadvantage.   Batteries are actively trading the reserve energy volume, buying and selling the energy in the traded markets or even on the BM. Why is this a problem? Well it means at times you do not have enough energy to provide the service. In 2023 we highlighted this problem in a paper to NESO and Ofgem: What would happen if all batteries delivered the service managing SoE in the same pattern the top 10 rule breaking assets were.*  The result is illustrated in graph1 below: due to market price trends these assets regularly have little or no reserve energy volume to respond to a system event negating the impact of that service to support the grid. It’s a major threat to system stability.   Due to lack of any penalties this behaviour is still prevalent across D* providers there’s no reason not to do it and if you don’t play the game you lose revenue: 10-30% by our estimations (we gave in to this after 8 month or so of fight). You also plummet drop down the leaderboards (never a great look despite their inaccuracies).   The second graph shows the Arenko Nimbus D* Automation page highlighting the parameter setting change that takes us from non-compliant to compliant. The green shaded areas are DC contacts in play, the grey boxes charges and discharges relating to trades or BM instructions changing the SOC (pink line). The impact of the change can be seen in the green dotted line that gives the targeted range of SOC. You can clearly see the SOC being managed within a much narrower range protecting that REV and the energy needed to respond to an event. Actions are still price sensitive but this activity becomes much less profitable due to the restrictions. This sort of capability to be compliant should not be difficult for any of the BESS control and dispatch systems deployed. It will be interesting to see how the industry responds as the actual penalties are not being enforced until April…. 🤦   *worth noting these rule breaking assets were pretty much the top performing assets in the leaderboards as highlighted by Modo Energy in a post at the time.

NEW ANALYSIS: Meeting European climate goals will require a stark contraction in fossil gas use. But in many countries gas grid planning is based on the assumption of infinite gas grid use. Despite the substantial implications for gas grid users and infrastructure, current grid planning does not adequately reflect this new reality. This misalignment poses a substantial barrier to the transition towards a sustainable energy system and underscores the need for more holistic planning. Alignment of energy infrastructure planning with other planning processes could better support climate and social goals. Regulations regarding heat planning, for instance, have significant consequences for gas grid infrastructure development, heating appliance regulations and consumer burdens. Infrastructure planning processes also do not yet address the support needed to ensure vulnerable energy users are able to fully participate in the transition to cleaner, more efficient technologies. Our study provides comprehensive information on the current state of the gas grid, its development, and the regulatory framework in selected European countries, and identifies current regulatory barriers for the phase-out of fossil gas. It concludes with recommendations on how Member States could better align energy infrastructure planning with the attainment of national and EU climate targets: - Adopt a national phase-out target and give energy regulators a net zero mandate. - Make the regulatory framework fit for the gas phase-out. - Adopt integrated heat and grid planning. - Plan future gas infrastructure based on realistic assumptions about future availability of zero-carbon heating technologies. - Track and collect harmonised data at the EU level. - Protect vulnerable customers. More in our Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) & Oeko-Institut e.V. report released today.

While speaking at Cloud Security and Compliance Series - CS2 Reston I was approached with numerous questions about DFARS Clause 252.204-7012. What struck me most wasn’t just the volume of questions but their nature… Many were focused on the fundamental application and basic requirements of DFARS. This highlighted a critical gap: even though these requirements have been in place for years, there’s still widespread uncertainty around their practical implications. This experience has led me to create a series of posts to break down DFARS requirements clearly. My goal is to ensure that the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) not only understands these critical compliance points but also appreciates why they’re essential for our collective national security. So, why does DFARS matter? DFARS (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement) requirements protect sensitive government data, specifically Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Compliance isn’t simply about checking boxes; compliance is the starting point for building a strong cybersecurity posture, it’s about maintaining trust, ensuring operational resilience, and safeguarding our national security interests. Here’s a quick snapshot of key DFARS clauses impacting the DIB: - DFARS 252.204-7012: Requires protecting CUI according to NIST SP 800-171 and mandates incident reporting. - DFARS 252.204-7019 & 7020: Obligate contractors to conduct cybersecurity self-assessments and submit scores through the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). - DFARS 252.204-7021: Introduces the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), involving third-party verification of compliance. Compliance starts with awareness and clarity. How comfortable are you with DFARS requirements today? What specific questions or challenges are you facing? Let’s start a conversation—I’d love to hear your experiences and insights below. #Cybersecurity #DFARS #NIST #CMMC #DefenseIndustrialBase #Compliance

Cross border transaction can trigger an ED search. It just happened to Vedanta. Here’s what founders and CFOs often get wrong: They treat intra-group payments as internal. Accounting entries between related parties. Low risk by default. FEMA sees it differently. Every payment between your Indian entity and a foreign parent/ subsidiary- brand fees, royalties, management recharges, IP licensing, even refunds - is a current account transaction under FEMA. Each one is individually scrutinised. Three things regulators look for in every such transaction: → A valid, executed agreement backing the payment → Pricing that is arm’s length and defensible → RBI filings made correctly and on time If the answer to any of these is uncertain - that is your compliance gap. Civil FEMA penalties go up to 3x the transaction amount. That’s not a rounding error on your P&L. The fix is not complicated. It just requires discipline: Document before you transact. File on time. Price it like a regulator will read it - because one might. Is your intra-group cross-border payment framework audit-ready today? #FEMA #CrossBorderCompliance #IndiaRegulatory #TaxLeadership #CorporateTax

Compliance Basics Unplugged (A weekly series simplifying compliance fundamentals. From AML to sanctions, learn how risk-based thinking really works in practice).   KYC ≠ CDD ≠ EDD — in simple plain-English If you’re new to compliance, these three get muddled. Let me try to keep it straight. KYC (Know Your Customer) — Validate who the customer is. Identity, address, and basic particulars at onboarding or for certain one-off transactions. This is your foundation. CDD (Customer Due Diligence) — Understand the customer and why they need banking. Purpose of account, expected activity, counterparties, and ongoing monitoring. It’s risk-based, not a box-tick. Depth depends on the risk you see. EDD (Enhanced Due Diligence) — Turn up the scrutiny for higher-risk cases. Think Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), layered or opaque ownership, high-risk geographies or products. You corroborate Source of Wealth and Source of Funds, and you tighten monitoring and approvals. Three quick examples 1. Student opening a basic savings account → KYC + standard CDD. 2. Local SME with simple ownership and only domestic sales → KYC + CDD; monitoring aligned to stated volume/purpose. 3. Holding company with layered owners and a politically exposed UBO → KYC + EDD (enhanced questions, SoW/SoF evidence, closer monitoring).   Why these matters Regulators expect proportional controls: more for higher risk, less for lower risk. That’s not bureaucracy; that’s efficient, defensible banking. Want to read more? Given below are some important reference points: i. FATF (Financial Action Task Force - sets the global rules to fight dirty money and terrorism financing) Recommendation 10 — CDD basics: identity, thresholds, and when CDD kicks in. ii. FATF Risk-Based Approach (Banking) — what “risk-based” really means in practice. iii. Wolfsberg Group FAQs on SoW/SoF — what to collect and how to corroborate. iv. UN Consolidated Sanctions List — global baseline screening. v. OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control (U.S. Department of the Treasury) - administers and enforces U.S. sanctions against targeted countries, entities, and individuals to protect national security and foreign policy interests) Sanctions List Search. DISCLAIMER: Views are my own; shared for learning, not to be construed as employer commentary. #Compliance #AML #KYC #CDD #EDD #Sanctions #RiskBasedApproach #FinancialCrime #BankingBasics #DueDiligence #PEP #SourceOfWealth #CareerInCompliance

Compliance isn’t one-size-fits-all. Global Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations vary widely. Understanding these differences is critical for staying ahead. Here’s how major regions stack up: ➡️ EU Prioritizes Know Your Customer (KYC) processes and due diligence. Focuses on identifying beneficial ownership. Sets a high compliance benchmark for transparency. ➡️ US Driven by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Patriot Act. Enforces stricter financial controls through the Corporate Transparency Act. Advocates for tech-driven solutions in transaction monitoring and risk management. ➡️ Asia Features a mix of regulatory maturity. Singapore and Hong Kong align with global standards, emphasizing risk prevention. Emerging markets are evolving rapidly to strengthen AML measures. ➡️ Africa Nigeria and South Africa lead with stronger AML regulations. Efforts focus on Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, corruption, and inclusion. Highlights the need for region-specific compliance strategies. 💡 What does this mean for businesses? Agility is key. Adapting to these diverse frameworks ensures compliance and protects reputations.

There is not such thing as 𝙜𝙡𝙤𝙗𝙖𝙡 payment. Every transaction has a border and it is the jurisdiction that defines that border. The origin and endpoint of the transaction determine which rules apply, the level of risk involved, and the associated costs, such as interchange, cross-border fees, and compliance obligations. When a payment is processed, it moves through multiple layers of infrastructure, compliance checks, and financial institutions, each of which plays a key role in establishing the legal, regulatory, and operational frameworks that govern a transaction. This becomes even more complex when dealing with transactions where one party is located in a different jurisdiction from the other, leading to unique operational and regulatory challenges. ◾Licensing requirements, as different jurisdictions impose distinct licensing and AML regulations. Some markets require local acquiring or issuing licences, while others may allow non-domestic financial institutions to operate under passporting agreements. ◾Settlement timelines, unlike domestic transactions that typically settle within the same payment infrastructure, a one-leg out transaction may rely on correspondent banking networks, international clearing systems, or third-party intermediaries. ◾In card payment, the cross-border interchange fees (the fees paid by the merchant’s bank to the cardholder’s bank) are typically higher than domestic fees. Visa and Mastercard set different cross-border interchange rates based on regions and transaction types. For example, Intra-EEA transactions (where both the issuer and acquirer are in the EEA) typically have lower interchange fees than EEA to non-EEA transactions (e.g., Europe to US). ◾Cross-border transactions also carry higher fraud risk due to varying levels of security and authentication standards across jurisdictions. This can trigger stricter fraud screening, increasing the chances of false positive declines and adding friction to payments. ◾Currency conversion, where the originating currency differs from the settlement currency. This can lead to additional costs, including FX markups, conversion spreads, and potential delays due to intermediary bank involvement. 👉🏽This looks simple on paper but plays out very differently in real setups, right? #CrossBorderPayments --- 𝘗𝘢𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘱𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴! 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭. 👉 intro@paypr.work #payprwork #paymentstrategy #card #acquiring Merchant Hub: Merchant Voice, Amplified! Paypr.work [ˈpeɪpəwəːk] #PaymentLeadership