Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance

Wasn't it to do with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act ?

Its already a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Missing is fraud, auditors, regulators, lawsuits etc which seem to rule big orgs and small companies largely ignore.

Not so easy because:1/ You don't know "when" nor even "if" they have changed any algorithms. As I alluded to in my previous post, there is no real way you'd know they've changed their routines without them formally telling you. Thus you need other controls in place to manage this (such as regular independent audits - though even these can be useless if an organisation really wants to be deceptive)2/ A lot of American businesses already run on th

No regulation would have prevented this crime from happening.I want to be clear here, what happened here is already illegal as is, and no regulation would have prevented it from happening in the first place.Hell, the firm was already being audited, and those auditors didn't catch the accounting discrepancies, so it's doubtful that any additional regulation would have found this earlier either...

I don't want to sound like I'm defending HSBC here, but it's important to acknowledge that the reason it's so hard to enforce these rules is that nobody else would go to prison at all. The obligation for banks to check whether their customers are running scams is quite unique; Microsoft for example isn't on the hook if a scammer makes their presentations in Powerpoint.

"You'd have to get caught" isn't a way to do business. Plus it won't fly for those of us who work in giant megacorps with license audits.

I'm guessing the devil is in the detail (and I don't know much so I'll shut up shortly) - could companies set up shell legal entities to offend for them / shop around for a better jurisdiction to do dodgy deals in / is current law clear enough that serious penalties wouldn't end up having a chilling effect on all business (OP was implying that the current status is that if the SEC wants to, they can probably find some law you're breaking). Serious penalties would probably demand a lot of legal b

Sure - again I'm a layperson so take this with a grain of salt but in USA the Sarbanes-Oxley act[1], one of the pieces of fallout from Enron and other corporate scandals, has various requirements for accurate and fulsome reporting of information to investors in mandated financial documents, earnings reports and SEC filings and whatnot, for publicly traded companies. Basically don't do Enron.One penalty involved is personal criminal liability for executives - for certain executive ro

probably just a company not big enough to deal with too many financial regulations.