|
|
|

|
|

|
|
Volume
3, Issue 3 |
January
2006 |
|

|
|
About Per
Mar
Contact Us

CORPORATE
OFFICE
Per Mar Security
Services Per Mar Centre 1910 East Kimberly
Rd Davenport, IA
52807 Tel#
1-800-4-PERMAR (737627) Fax # 563-359-6700

|
The
Attorney-Client Privilege: Part II
[more...]
Newly
Released Guidelines for Anonymous Reporting Overseas
[more...]
IRS
Audits Focus More on Small Firms
[more...]
Katrina
Fraudsters Being Caught
[more...]
Strategies for Acquiring Taken Domain Names
[more...]
Spam:
Legislators Take Notice
[more...] |
|
|
|
The
Attorney-Client Privilege: Part II |
|
This is
the second article in a two-part series addressing the
attorney-client privilege. Last month's article defined and
discussed the nature of the privilege and how it may apply to your
organization.
Here are
some common mistakes that may nullify the attorney-client
privilege:
Inadvertent
Distribution -
Disclosure of confidential communications between an attorney and
their client to individuals who have no decision-making authority
over the scope of the incident will void the privilege. Moreover,
disclosure to individuals without direct responsibility for the
matter communicated can also void the privilege. The most common
real world example is through e-mail. Confidential e-mail
communications can be accidentally or advertently forwarded outside
your organization, and with great ease and harmful consequences.
Many organizations that regularly deal with private and confidential
information have instituted formal policies that mandate that all
emails must include a confidentiality statement, even if they do not
rise to the level of attorney-client privilege.
Partial
Disclosure - Disclosing part of a discussion or advice rendered by
your attorney may negate the privilege. You may be tempted to
disclose what you might conclude to be superficial or cursory
information to answer questions with regard to how you came to a
decision. For example, you might be asked "Why are your procedures
that way?" and a common response might be "Because our attorney
suggested we develop such a procedure." At first thought, this is a
rather innocuous statement.
However,
should this conversation either proceed to, or result in,
litigation, it can be argued (and most probably will be with great
success) that your partial disclosure constitutes a forfeiture of
the privilege. If you are aware that a conversation is privileged,
do not disclose even seemingly harmless content.
Using your
Counsel as an Investigator - Probably the most common mistake with
regard to investigations of whistleblower, sexual harassment, or
most any type of workplace misconduct claims is to use your attorney
to investigate the claim. For example, in a sexual harassment claim,
the amount of time an individual has to endure the harassment is
paramount to the penalty imposed on the organization. In making the
claim that the harassment was dealt with in an expedient manner by
your organization, you may have to make the investigator, in this
case the attorney, available as a witness. In doing so, the attorney
would have to disclose any relevant information eliminating the
privilege and confidentiality.
Clearly,
working with your attorney to formulate specific protocols with
regard to the attorney-client privilege as it relates to your
organization is extremely important. By following some simple
guidelines, you can assure that your organization is in the best,
most defensible, legal position moving forward.
The advice
given in the article above is not intended to serve as legal
advice.
top
|
|
|
|
Newly
Released Guidelines for Anonymous Reporting
Overseas |
|
On
November 10, 2005, the French data protection agency, Commission
nationale de l'informatique et des libertés, (CNIL) released a
document containing detailed guidelines for European Union (EU)
operated companies, related to the implementation and existence of
anonymous incident reporting systems. The widespread use of
whistleblowing systems, including hotlines and other such solutions
in the United
States, stems from legal
obligations of corporations under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX),
Section 301. To summarize, SOX requires company audit committees to
establish procedures for the receipt, retention, and treatment of
complaints received by the issuer regarding accounting, internal
accounting controls, or auditing matters and that corporations allow
for the confidential and anonymous submission by employees of the
issuer of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing
matters. Furthermore, under SOX, employees who "blow the whistle" on
financially related improprieties have in addition to protection
from retaliation, the opportunity for monetary damages if they are
subjected to any type of retaliation.
The formal
guidelines stem primarily from two cases involving the well known
McDonald's France fast food
restaurant, and the retail giant, Wal-Mart. In the case of the
former, McDonald's France sought permission
to implement different systems that would have allowed their French
employees to report workplace misconduct on the part of their
managers in an anonymous fashion either via mail or fax. The ruling
against McDonald's was based on the fundamental principles of
individual rights to privacy. In the case of the latter, Wal-Mart's
German subsidiaries implemented a code of ethical conduct and an
anonymous alert hotline for its employees to report workplace
misconduct while maintaining their identity. Similarly to the
findings of the French Data Protection Authority in the case of
McDonald's France, the German Labor Court
ruled the implementation of such an ethical code (and specifically
certain rules within the code) may violate the personal rights of
employees, in addition to ruling that an alert hotline was invalid
without prior approval from the company's works council. Not
surprisingly, such rulings have resulted in widespread ambiguity for
US based corporations who have multi-national
interests.
In an
effort to elucidate the legalities surrounding anonymous reporting
systems in the EU, a brief summary, taken from the CNIL guidelines
are included below:
- Whistleblowing systems
must be designed as solely complementary to other reporting
systems in companies, and should be limited in scope to include
financial, accounting, banking, and anti-bribery
matters.
- Controllers of such
data must clearly indicate that the whistleblowing system is
strictly reserved for financial, accounting, banking, and
anti-bribery matters only.
- Organizations must not
encourage employees to utilize such systems in an anonymous
fashion.
- Only relevant data
should be included in a report of wrongdoing, and the wording used
in the report should express that the facts are
alleged.
- The collection and
handling of reports must be entrusted to individuals within the
company, who have specific training and are bound by a
contractually defined obligation of
confidentiality.
- Data relating to a
report found to be unsubstantiated by the entity in charge of
processing such reports must be deleted
immediately.
- The alleged wrongdoer
must be informed of the entity responsible for the system, the
facts he is accused of, any departments which might receive the
report as well as how to exercise his/her rights of access and
correction.
- Any person identified
through the whistleblowing system may access data concerning
him/her and request, as applicable, its correction or
removal.
To view
the CNIL guidelines in their entirety, please visit: http://www.cnil.fr/index.php?1901.
top
|
|
|
|
IRS
Audit Trends: Focus on Small Firms, Individuals |
|
The IRS
has more than doubled its examination activity for small firms in
the fiscal year of 2005. Approximately one out of every 127 returns
from corporations with total assets of less than $10 million were
examined in 2005, twice the rate of 2004, according to the IRS.
Small business owners should take notice and prepare for every year
as if this was the year of their audit.
Individual
IRS examinations are increasing as well, with approximately one out
of every 108 tax returns being audited in 2005, as opposed to only
one out of about 130 in 2004.
It should
be noted that the vast majority of individual examinations (about
80%) were correspondence audits, or audits of a particular tax
issue. Furthermore, face-to-face audits are becoming exceedingly
rare, with approximately one out of 526 returns receiving such
attention. Source: Kiplinger Tax Letter
top
|
|
|
|
Katrina
Fraudsters Being Caught |
|
At least
two dozen Red Cross contract workers have been indicted for filing
false relief claims and collecting funds earmarked for victims of
Hurricane Katrina. The fraudsters created fake accounts that were
issued relief checks.\
A
Western Union employee notified
authorities after she observed the same individual came into the
same store three times to pick up wire transfers. Red Cross
employees also became suspicious after they noticed an unusual
amount of funds going to the Bakersfield, CA Western Union, thousands of miles away from the areas
affected by Hurricane Katrina.
The FBI's
investigation is expected to last several months and will include
looking at thousands of other claims made in California
and other states.
The Red
Cross has admitted that its system for receiving charity funds was
not perfect, and that a premium was placed on having the necessary
support in place to receive the high volume of
donations.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/28/katrina.fraud/index.html
top
|
|
|
|
Quote
of the Month: "Human
beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change
the outer aspects of their lives." -William James (1842 -
1910)
|
|
|
|
Strategies
for Acquiring Taken Domain Names |
|
Attempting
to secure the perfect domain name for your website can be tricky,
especially if the name you want is already taken. Oftentimes there
may not even be a functional website at that address, yet someone
has purchased the rights to the name. Visiting a site like Whois.com
can yield some information as to who owns the domain rights and for
how much longer, and can even help put you in touch with a broker
who can attempt to purchase the name for you from the
owner.
Domain
rights expire in stages. When a domain owner allows their ownership
to lapse, there is time period of anywhere between 10 to 45 days
(depending on the domain registrar) during which the now
previous-owner has a chance to reacquire the rights. When a domain
is actually released to the public after it has expired, it is not
broadcasted for all to see, although sites like Dropwatch.com are
attempting to change that. One who lives in hope of acquiring the
once-taken domain must now monitor the various domain registration
sites vigorously, or bring in assistance.
There are
services and brokers who can scour for the availability of domains
that are due to be available to the public. Check out these helpful
sites: Snapnames.com, GoDaddy.com, Enom.com, Pool.com, and Dropshark.com and consider using one or more of
them to acquire the domain you want.
top
|
|
|
|
Spam:
Legislators Take Notice |
|
The advent
of the Internet has brought with it innumerable challenges for our
legal system, not the least of which includes the vast amounts of
unsolicited email swimming through cyberspace. We all well
understand the inconvenience and annoyance associated with receiving
slews of spam or "junk" email and the impact it has on our ability
to most effectively use email as the timesaving communication tool
that it is. However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently
announced in a report to Congress that the incidence of spam email
has actually declined by as much as 9% in the two years since the
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 was enacted. This legislation contains four
primary provisions:
- Header information
must be accurate. The Act prohibits false or misleading
information to be contained in the "From" and "To" sections of the
e-mail's header. The originating domain name and email address
must accurately identify the initiating party.
- Recipients must be
provided with a method by which they can request to be removed
from the mailing list for future correspondence. The method must
include a return email address or other internet-based response
mechanism.
- Subject lines cannot
be deceptive or misleading in any way regarding the subject matter
contained within the email message.
- Commercial email must
contain a valid physical postal address for the sending
organization and must identify itself as an advertisement or
solicitation.
Legislators
have taken further notice of the problems created by the sending of
spam emails and new legislation has been proposed in 2005 to further
regulate commercial emailing activities. The proposed Anti-phishing
Act of 2005 seeks to criminalize Internet activity attempting to
obtain personal identifying information that could be used for
fraudulent purposes. While this legislation has yet to be enacted,
it potentially further protects American consumers from identity
theft and other fraudulent use of personal
information.
top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright
© 2003-2005 PerMar Security - All rights reserved.
|
|
Duplication
and distribution for commercial purposes is strictly
prohibited. Powered
by SecurityNewsletters.comTM
|
|
|