The month of May 2026 started off marked by significant movements in the Compliance and Investigations scene, highlighting an increasingly dynamic regulatory environment driven by new expectations for governance, transparency, and risk management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The launch of Operation \u201cSem <\/em>Refino<\/em>\u201d by federal authorities has brought to light investigations involving a conglomerate in the fuel sector suspected of structuring sophisticated mechanisms for asset concealment, asset disguise, and the evasion of funds abroad, as well as potential tax and operational irregularities. The operation resulted in the execution of 17 search and seizure warrants and the removal of individuals from public office. Court orders also included the freezing of approximately BRL 52 billion in financial assets and the suspension of the economic activities of the companies under investigation, reflecting the materiality and seriousness of the facts under scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case also underscores the use of international cooperation, including the listing of an investigated individual with INTERPOL, as well as the joint action of authorities such as the Federal Police and the Federal Revenue Service. This reinforces the State\u2019s ability to trace complex structures and financial flows, including in transnational contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From a compliance perspective, the case highlights the importance of robust integrity programs, particularly in highly regulated sectors. Complex corporate structures, when not supported by adequate governance and transparency, may be interpreted as concealment mechanisms, significantly increasing the risk of liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This scenario emphasizes the need for continuous monitoring of financial transactions, periodic review of corporate ownership chains, and in-depth due diligence, with particular attention to the identification of ultimate beneficial owners and the traceability of international flows of funds. Weaknesses in these controls may give rise to severe precautionary measures, with direct impacts on business continuity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this context, adopting a preventive and integrated compliance approach becomes a strategic differentiator. Strengthening internal policies, training programs, whistleblowing channels, and independent audits helps reduce vulnerabilities and increase the confidence of regulators and stakeholders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The publication of a new joint manual by international organizations, including the FATF-GAFI, the Egmont Group, INTERPOL, and UNODC, represents a significant step forward in enhancing global strategies to combat money laundering. The document\u2019s central objective is to accelerate investigations by strengthening cooperation among authorities, with an emphasis on the use of informal mechanisms that complement traditional channels, which are often slower and more bureaucratic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The initiative responds to a recurring weakness identified in international assessments: the difficulty of ensuring effective coordination among jurisdictions in cases involving transnational financial crimes. In this context, the manual proposes the use of secure communication channels, swift responses, and real-time intelligence sharing, while also encouraging joint analyses among different authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The material also presents practical examples illustrating the impact of international cooperation, including cases involving the dismantling of multilateral financial schemes and the seizure of significant assets, including crypto-assets. These examples highlight the growing sophistication of both illicit practices and institutional responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From a compliance perspective, this new guidance reinforces the importance of structures capable of operating in an increasingly integrated and dynamic regulatory environment, in which the traceability of financial flows, transparency, and the ability to respond promptly to requests from authorities become critical differentiators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The European Commission has stepped up the implementation of its regulatory agenda by launching infringement proceedings against 11 Member States for failures in implementing the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, particularly with respect to access to information on ultimate beneficial owners. The measure reflects the growing priority assigned to corporate transparency as a central tool in combating financial crimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The proceedings focus on the absence of effective mechanisms to ensure access to data on the true owners of legal entities, trusts, and similar structures, as required by the directive. The new regulation provides that such access must be granted to authorities and to parties with a \u201clegitimate interest,\u201d in line with adjustments resulting from a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union that restricted unrestricted public access to this information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The initiative seeks to address inconsistencies identified among EU Member States, including practical and bureaucratic barriers to accessing data that undermine the effectiveness of the anti-money laundering framework. In this context, the notified Member States have a deadline to adapt their legislation, failing which the proceedings may advance to more stringent stages of the European enforcement process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This development reinforces the central role of beneficial ownership identification and transparency in corporate structures, particularly against a backdrop of greater international regulatory harmonization and intensified scrutiny by authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this environment, companies with international operations or connections should prioritize the review of their corporate structures, the consistency of registration information, and adherence to AML\/CFT requirements, ensuring their ability to respond to inquiries across multiple jurisdictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The S\u00e3o Paulo State government imposed a fine of approximately BRL 1.04 billion on a retail chain as a development arising from Operation \u00cdcaro, which investigates an alleged tax corruption scheme involving ICMS tax credits, tax auditors, and private-sector agents. According to the report, this is the largest sanction ever recorded in Brazil under the Anti-Corruption Law, imposed following an administrative liability proceeding related to the improper obtainment of tax credits, interference in tax audits, and the alleged offering of undue advantages to public officials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The investigations indicated that the company allegedly engaged a tax consultancy operated by a former tax auditor to irregularly access state tax administration systems and conduct \u201ctax data mining\u201d using privileged information and the company\u2019s own digital certificate. According to the authorities, transactions totaling approximately BRL 1.59 billion were reviewed, with the identification of BRL 1.04 billion in ICMS credits allegedly obtained improperly \u2014 the amount used as the basis for the sanction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case demonstrates that corruption and fraud risks are not limited to traditional commercial interactions with the public sector. They may also arise in tax routines, refund and reimbursement procedures, relationships with consultants, and the use of digital access credentials for government systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For companies, the message is clear: tax, finance, legal, and compliance departments must work in an integrated manner, with controls over third parties, decision traceability, segregation of duties, review of tax benefits, and monitoring mechanisms capable of identifying inconsistencies before they turn into administrative, reputational, and financial exposure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The company mentioned in the report stated that the administrative proceeding is still ongoing, that no final decision has been issued, and that it will file the appropriate appeals. It also highlighted measures adopted to cooperate with authorities and strengthen its governance and compliance practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regardless of the outcome, the episode reinforces an important market trend: effective integrity programs must also encompass tax governance and the management of specialized third parties, supported by robust documentation, independent validations, and concrete evidence of prevention and response to sensitive risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Brazilian Central Bank presented its Integrity Plan for the 2026\u20132027 biennium, focusing on enhancing governance and strengthening mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest. The initiative arises in a context of institutional review and seeks to establish more structured guidelines for conduct, decision-making, and integrity risk monitoring, with an emphasis on greater coordination among departments and the standardization of internal practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the measures adopted, the implementation of rotation policies for sensitive positions stands out, including supervisory and oversight roles, with the aim of mitigating the risk of regulatory capture and reducing the formation of inappropriate ties with external agents. The proposal also provides for periodic assessments of these practices and greater involvement by senior management in overseeing integrity actions, reinforcing the role of collegial governance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The plan also incorporates initiatives aimed at improving decision-making processes, such as the requirement for more robust technical documentation, structured analysis of risks and benefits, and the adoption of dual-validation mechanisms for critical matters. These measures are complemented by the strengthening of reporting channels, accountability procedures, and training and communication initiatives, expanding the preventive and educational approach within the authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the regulatory environment, this movement signals a relevant evolution in institutional maturity, with greater integration between integrity risk management and governance. In practical terms, it reinforces the importance of organizational structures capable of demonstrating consistency, traceability, and quality in decision-making, contributing to greater regulatory predictability and trust in the relationship between regulator and market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recent decision by the United States to classify Brazilian criminal organizations as foreign terrorist organizations represents a significant milestone in how transnational organized crime is being addressed globally. The measure includes their prior designation as \u201cspecially designated global terrorists\u201d and subsequent classification as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), substantially expanding the scope of legal tools aimed at disrupting financial flows, freezing assets, and dismantling illicit networks operating across borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From a practical standpoint, an FTO designation is expected to materially increase companies\u2019 exposure to legal risks, particularly those with international operations or connections to the U.S. financial system. Under this framework, interactions that were previously treated as operational or security risks, such as those involving third parties, supply chains, or coercive contexts, may now be interpreted as providing support to activities covered by counterterrorism laws, triggering significant civil and criminal consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This development also reflects a broader trend of leveraging counterterrorism instruments to combat transnational criminal organizations, which is likely to intensify international cooperation and regulatory scrutiny over financial flows, corporate structures, and operations in higher-risk markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this evolving landscape, companies face an increased need to adopt an integrated compliance approach, with particular focus on third-party risk management, payment monitoring, enhanced due diligence in supply chains, and readiness to respond to international investigations. Specialized legal and compliance advisory plays a critical role in identifying potential exposures, aligning internal controls with more stringent global standards, and developing strategies that balance operational continuity with the mitigation of legal and reputational risks in an increasingly interconnected regulatory environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The United Kingdom\u2019s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) entered into its first deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) in five years, with judicial approval of a \u00a314.8 million settlement with Ultra Electronics to conclude investigations related to a failure to prevent bribery in overseas contracts. In addition to the payment of a fine and investigative costs, the agreement requires the company to submit periodic reports on the effectiveness of its anti-corruption compliance program over the next three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case highlights the role of DPAs as an important negotiated resolution tool in corruption matters, particularly when accompanied by cooperation and institutional improvements by organizations. The judicial decision emphasized that the terms of the agreement were proportionate and in the interests of justice, reinforcing the importance of remedial measures and continuous monitoring as central elements of this type of resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another relevant aspect is that negotiations were resumed only after significant changes to the company\u2019s governance, structure, and controls, signaling the importance of concrete internal transformations to enable settlements with authorities. The history of the case also demonstrates the growing international coordination of enforcement efforts, as the group had faced similar measures in other jurisdictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The resumption of activity by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), marked by its first Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) in five years, signals a renewed focus on corporate accountability for failures in preventing misconduct, particularly in contexts involving third parties and international operations. At the same time, the United Kingdom is advancing a structural reform by expanding the so-called \u201csenior manager test,\u201d allowing companies to be held criminally liable for acts committed by individuals exercising significant decision-making authority, no longer limited to financial crimes, but potentially applicable to any offense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this new landscape, there is a clear trend toward stricter regulatory enforcement, with reduced thresholds for attributing liability and heightened expectations for effective governance, significantly increasing the legal and reputational exposure of companies and their leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For businesses, the return of DPAs underscores the importance of robust anti-corruption compliance programs capable of demonstrating continuous improvement, monitoring, and strong tone at the top. In an increasingly technical and coordinated global enforcement environment, the ability to respond to investigations with transparency, solid governance, and well-documented controls remains a key strategic differentiator in managing legal and reputational risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Canadian Parliament has begun considering a bill that provides for the creation of a federal agency dedicated to investigating financial crimes and recovering illicit assets. The proposal, which passed first reading in the House of Commons, seeks to establish a specialized body to address complex fraud, replacing the current model, which is characterized by fragmented action by multiple entities, such as the federal police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the financial intelligence unit, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), and regional regulators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The initiative reflects an institutional movement to strengthen enforcement in response to recurring criticism regarding the effectiveness of Canada\u2019s system for combating money laundering and other financial crimes. Previous reports have identified operational limitations, budget constraints, and competing priorities within the existing model, in addition to international assessments indicating that enforcement outcomes were not fully aligned with the risks faced by the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If approved, the new agency is expected to work in close coordination with the federal prosecution service, while maintaining a separation between investigative and prosecutorial functions. The expectation is that specialization and the concentration of powers will allow for greater efficiency, speed, and technical depth in the conduct of investigations, particularly in sophisticated and transnational schemes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From a regulatory standpoint, the proposal signals a relevant trend toward centralization and specialization in tackling financial crimes, aligned with practices observed in other jurisdictions. For organizations with international operations, this development reinforces the importance of compliance structures capable of responding to more coordinated and technically robust investigations, with an emphasis on transaction traceability, risk governance, and the integrity of financial flows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced the opening of a public consultation on a proposal that would allow public companies to replace mandatory quarterly financial disclosures with semiannual reports, as a means of providing greater regulatory flexibility. Currently, U.S. law requires the periodic disclosure of information relevant to the market, including events that may affect investment decisions, such as investigations, sanctions, or litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The proposal has generated debate among experts regarding its potential effects on market transparency and supervision. It is being assessed whether reducing the frequency of reporting could decrease the amount and timeliness of information available to investors and authorities, influencing their ability to identify and respond to emerging risks, including those related to fraud and irregular practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From a technical standpoint, although immediate disclosure mechanisms \u2014 such as current reports on material events \u2014 would remain applicable, the lower frequency of structured reports could change the dynamics of continuous risk monitoring, as well as the detection of accounting or operational inconsistencies over time. Regular transparency is traditionally viewed as an important element of market integrity, particularly in environments marked by high information volatility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For organizations, the discussion reinforces the importance of maintaining consistent governance, internal control, and disclosure practices, regardless of the minimum frequency required by the regulator. Compliance and investor communications programs that prioritize clarity, timeliness, and information quality tend to strengthen market confidence and reduce exposure to reputational and regulatory risks, even in scenarios of greater regulatory flexibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A recent decision by a federal court in Manhattan has reignited the debate over the limits of using generative artificial intelligence tools in sensitive contexts, particularly internal investigations, litigation, and criminal proceedings. In the case reviewed, the judge held that written interactions between a defendant and an AI chatbot were not protected by attorney-client privilege, even though the user claimed to have entered information related to legal advice received from counsel and later shared the results with the defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The central point of the decision was the absence of the elements required to establish privilege: the communication did not occur with an attorney, there was no sufficient guarantee of confidentiality, and it was not demonstrated that the interaction with the tool was intended to obtain protected legal advice. The conclusion is relevant because it signals that information entered into third-party AI platforms may, in certain contexts, be treated as accessible data or subject to evidentiary production, including by public authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For companies, the precedent reinforces the need to update internal policies on the use of AI, especially in situations involving investigations, document preservation, responses to authorities, employment disputes, litigation, and regulatory inquiries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The unsupervised use of chatbots by employees, officers, or third parties may expose legal strategies, internal documents, and sensitive communications, in addition to weakening arguments related to professional secrecy and work product protection, particularly where there is no clear and traceable guidance from legal counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The issue becomes even more complex in cross-border investigations, where rules on legal privilege, data protection, platform terms of use, and governmental access to information may vary significantly across jurisdictions. In this environment, AI governance must go beyond generic guidelines: it is advisable to establish objective parameters on when, how, and by whom these tools may be used, with particular caution regarding legal, investigative, or confidential content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The key lesson for compliance programs is that AI adoption must be accompanied by controls proportionate to the risk, specific training, and integration among legal, compliance, information security, and business teams. In a scenario in which technological efficiency coexists with evidentiary and regulatory risks that are still evolving, companies that structure clear policies, approval flows, and appropriate records will be better positioned to leverage the technology without compromising confidentiality, legal strategy, and the defensibility of their investigations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In May 2026, the administrative proceedings initiated by the CGU involved several public bodies under the authority\u2019s oversight for purposes of commencing the PAR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Authorities Involved:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nNew international manual strengthens cooperation in combating money laundering<\/mark><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
European Union increases requirements on corporate transparency<\/mark><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Record Fine Under the Anti-Corruption Law Highlights Integrity Risks in Tax Management<\/mark><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Central Bank Strengthens Governance and Integrity with New Institutional Plan<\/mark><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
International Highlights<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Combating organized crime takes on a new international regulatory dimension<\/mark><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
SFO resumes DPAs and reinforces expectations regarding anti-corruption programs<\/mark><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Canada advances in the creation of a specialized financial crimes agency<\/mark><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
SEC proposes easing reporting frequency: impacts on market transparency and integrity<\/mark><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Use of AI in internal investigations: U.S. decision raises concerns about legal privilege and confidentiality<\/mark><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
CGU Observatory<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trends in PARs opened in the month<\/mark><\/h3>\n\n\n\n