Maria T. Galeno

-Represented a Swiss-based company, along with its subsidiaries and affiliates, in a successful settlement with the SEC and the CFTC, in enforcement actions for conduct permitting investors to use cryptocurrency as margin collateral for global trading in derivative products sold to U.S.-based investors that tracked U.S.-listed securities and commodities. -Represented a prestigious university in the “Operation Varsity Blues” college admissions federal investigation. -Represented multiple Swiss banks before the DOJ in Swiss/U.S. Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements resulting from DOJ probes into U.S. depositors’ offshore accounts, and conducted internal investigations at the banks. -Represented a non-U.S. bank in an internal investigation of foreign exchange benchmark rate manipulation allegations. -Served as co-lead trial counsel in New York City’s landmark litigation against 27 out-of-state gun dealers. -Representation of research analyst at major international investment firm in insider trading investigation. -Representation of registered persons at major financial institutions in proceedings before FINRA. -Defense of a U.S. subsidiary of a major Japanese company against multiparty claims of discrimination based on race and nationality, and claims for multimillion-dollar bonuses. -Defend CFO of medical services company in US Attorney’s Office and S.E.C. investigation for accounting irregularities. -Defense of hospital and doctors in False Claims Act case alleging medicare fraud. -Participate in defense of investment advisor in mutual fund investigation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office. -Defend employees of large international food retailer in securities fraud investigation by the US Attorney’s office, the S.E.C. and Dutch authorities. -Defend Fortune 100 company in claims for foreign death benefits. -Conducted internal investigations involving employee dishonesty, insider trading and gender discrimination. -As a federal prosecutor, tried criminal jury cases, including violations of the RICO and narcotics “kingpin” statutes, public corruption and securities fraud.

Serves as executive partner and chair of Pillsbury’s Partner Hiring and Integration committee; served on the firm’s Compensation committee.

In its profile of Pillsbury’s nationally ranked Insurance Recovery & Advisory practice, Law360 reported that the Insurance Group earned its place as a 2022 Insurance Group of the Year—specifically highlighting the team’s success in the litigation surrounding the 2021 Champlain Towers South condominium collapse and a major settlement of coal ash-related coverage litigation for Duke Energy.

On June 1, 2020, DOJ updated its Guidance (2020 Update), once again, on how it will evaluate corporate compliance programs in deciding “whether to bring charges, and negotiating plea or other agreements.” The 2020 Update builds on the 2019 Update from April 30, 2019, and emphasizes three questions: Is the corporation’s compliance program well designed? Is the program being applied earnestly and in good faith? In other words, is the program adequately resourced and empowered to function effectively? Does the corporation’s compliance program work in practice? In updating its Guidance, DOJ did not change the criteria previously explained in our prior alert. Instead, DOJ’s 2020 Update emphasizes the need for a tailored program that continuously adapts and evolves based on individual risk factors and requires updating based on lessons learned by the company, as well as the marketplace. DOJ further poses a number of questions prosecutors may consider when evaluating compliance programs.

El 1ro de junio de 2020, el Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) actualizó sus pautas (Actualización 2020) una vez más, sobre como evaluará los programas de cumplimiento corporativos al decidir “si presentar cargos, y al negociar convenios declaratorios u otros acuerdos.” La actualización 2020 se basa en la del 30 de abril de 2019, y hace énfasis en tres preguntas: ¿Está el programa de cumplimiento de la corporación bien diseñado? ¿Se está aplicando el programa con seriedad y buena fe? En otras palabras, ¿cuenta el programa con los recursos adecuados y está facultado para funcionar de manera efectiva? ¿Funciona el programa de cumplimiento corporativo en la práctica? Al actualizar sus pautas, el DOJ no cambió los criterios explicados en nuestra alerta previa. En cambio, la Actualización 2020 del DOJ hace hincapié en la necesidad de tener un programa hecho a la medida y que continúe a adaptarse y a evolucionar con base en factores de riesgo individuales y que requiera actualización en función de las lecciones aprendidas por la compañía, y por el mercado. El DOJ plantea una serie de preguntas que los fiscales pueden considerar al evaluar programas de cumplimiento.

El 30 de abril de 2019 la División Penal del Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) divulgó Pautas actualizadas para evaluar programas de cumplimiento corporativo. Dichas Pautas tienen la intención de ofrecer una perspectiva detallada sobre factores en los programas de cumplimiento que los fiscales considerarán al tomar decisiones acusatorias en asuntos penales. Toman como base el documento de pautas de febrero de 2017 que emitió la Sección de Fraudes del departamento (una subdivisión de la División Penal del DOJ). Las Pautas ofrecen mayor “transparencia” acerca de las últimas reflexiones sobre programas de cumplimiento corporativo efectivos, según lo reveló el Fiscal General Asistente Brian Benczkowski en su discurso inaugural en la Conferencia de Impacto Anual de la Iniciativa de Ética y Cumplimiento (ECI) de 2019. En su discurso, el Fiscal General Asistente Benczkowski reafirmó el papel central de los programas de cumplimiento corporativos dentro del contexto de la toma de decisiones para presentar cargos. Según las Pautas, los programas de cumplimiento serán significativos en “determinar (1) la forma apropiada de cualquier resolución o enjuiciamiento; (2) la sanción pecuniaria adecuada, en caso de imponerse una; y (3) las obligaciones de cumplimiento propicias incluidas en cualquier resolución penal corporativa (a saber, monitoreo u obligaciones de notificación).”

On April 30, 2019, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) released an updated Guidance for evaluating corporate compliance programs. The Guidance is intended to provide insight into compliance program factors that prosecutors will consider in their charging decisions in criminal matters. It expands upon a February 2017 guidance document issued by the Department’s Fraud Section (a sub-division of DOJ’s Criminal Division). The Guidance provides greater “transparency” into the Department’s recent thinking on effective corporate compliance programs, as revealed by Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski’s keynote address at the Ethics and Compliance Initiative (ECI) 2019 Annual Impact Conference. In his address, AAG Benczkowski reaffirmed the central role of corporate compliance programs in the context of DOJ’s charging decisions. According to the Guidance, compliance programs will be significant in “determining the appropriate (1) form of any resolution or prosecution; (2) monetary penalty, if any; and (3) compliance obligations contained in any corporate criminal resolution (e.g., monitorship or reporting obligations).”