The Wall Street Journal reports how companies and monitors often clash. Monitors often are imposed as part of criminal or civil settlements, and their purpose is to evaluate whether a company is complying with terms of the settlement. The report’s description of conflict at Western Union (where a monitor was imposed for anti-money laundering issues) is an interesting read.
The article highlights how companies and monitors can conflict. The company may feel that the monitor is billing too much in fees, or conducting a fishing expedition, or refusing to give the company the benefit of the doubt. A monitor may feel that the company is refusing to change its ways or is purposefully obstructing the monitor’s work.
A monitor also has to balance how tough he/she is on the company. A monitor viewed as too tough may never get work again because companies would refuse to consent to that person as a monitor; and a monitor too soft may never get work because the government would refuse to consent to someone viewed as a company lackey.