WorkBright’s Post

📢 Are you ready for the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) enforcement deadline? Starting December 31, 2024, businesses must disclose beneficial owners to FinCEN or face hefty penalties, including fines and jail time. Learn what steps to take, exemptions, and how to avoid compliance pitfalls. Stay informed, avoid last-minute stress, and keep your business safe from potential fines and scams. 🕒 👉 Read the full article for essential insights: https://lnkd.in/ehasDypV

There can be some serious consequences to noncompliance with I-9. Here's a quick overview of them and how to prevent them.

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) became effective on January 1. However, as of April 30, fewer than 5% of expected filings were completed. Likely due to judicial and legislative challenges, some stakeholders have deferred analysis and reporting. Unless there is definitive judicial or legislative action delaying compliance, the deadline is January 1, 2025. Non-compliance can result in significant penalties. #CTA #CorporateTransparencyAct #Deadline #Compliance #DuaneMorris

Please see my blog on Companies House and how they now have powers to query and issue penalties for non-compliance

SRA and Sky High Penalties From the smallest law firm to the Magic Circle elite, these proposals for 'unlimited fines' should be of the utmost concern to all solicitors. Every solicitor should make urgent representations before the deadline of the 20th of September next. Practising law in the UK is becoming potentially unworkable. With no equality of arms, and nobody to protect them, the case for a Solicitors Defence Union grows more powerful by the day. So, we need to hear from the Law Society on controversial proposals that if implemented, would have a profound effect on the balance of power within the regulatory matrix. Like with so much regulation there is NO evidence to justify these massive changes. #regulation

+2 Penalties for violating a presidential executive order can include civil sanctions like fines, administrative repercussions like loss of business licenses, or in some cases, criminal penalties depending on the nature of the executive order and the specific violation, as they are considered legally binding directives within the executive branch and subject to judicial review if challenged.  Key points about executive order violations: Not always criminal: While violating an executive order can have legal consequences, it doesn't automatically constitute a criminal offense in most situations.  Civil penalties common: The most common penalties for violating an executive order are civil fines or administrative actions like contract termination for government contractors not adhering to the order's terms.  Judicial review: If someone believes an executive order is being violated, they can challenge it in court to determine if it is legally enforceable.  Enforcement depends on the order: The specific penalties for violating an executive order will depend on the content of the order itself and how it is implemented by the relevant government agencies.  Examples of potential penalties for violating an executive order: Fines: Monetary penalties imposed by a government agency for noncompliance with an executive order.  Loss of government contracts: For businesses that fail to follow an executive order related to government contracting, they may be ineligible for future contracts.  Disciplinary action for government employees: Federal employees who violate an executive order may face disciplinary actions like suspension or termination.  Injunctions: In certain cases, courts may issue injunctions to prevent further violations of an executive order. 

The CFPB issued a new circular to law enforcement agencies and regulators explaining how companies may be breaking the law by requiring employees to sign broad nondisclosure agreements that could deter whistleblowing. The circular explains how imposing sweeping nondisclosure agreements that do not clearly permit communication with law enforcement may intimidate employees from disclosing misconduct or cooperating with investigations. The circular explains that financial institutions may violate the CFPA when they require employees in certain circumstances to sign broad nondisclosure agreements, or other types of agreements that contain confidentiality requirements, if the agreements do not clearly permit communications or cooperation with law enforcement. The circular also highlights circumstances that would typically violate the law, such as when an employer demands a confidentiality agreement during an internal investigation, warning employees not to discuss the relevant matters with any external parties and saying they may be subject to legal penalties for doing so. The CFPB states that an employer can significantly reduce the risk of violating whistleblower protections by ensuring that its agreements expressly permit employees to communicate freely with government enforcement agencies and to cooperate in government investigations. #cfpb #compliance #whistleblowers

This week marks 150 days under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) – what companies need to know about compliance and legal challenges  https://lnkd.in/euxPYMZW

📢 **𝐔𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 128𝐀** 📢 Can you 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭 of Section 128A in cases involving an order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107(11), especially when it stems from an OIO under Section 74(9)? 🤔 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 👉 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 128𝐀(1)(𝐜) clearly includes orders passed by the appellate authority under Section 107(11) or revisional authority under Section 108(1), making them𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐲. Importantly, this also applies if no order has been passed by the appellate tribunal under Section 113(1) ✅. 🔍 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐞 - 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 74(9) orders (related to fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression) are appealable under Section 107(1), allowing the appellate authority to pass an order under Section 107(11). - A 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠of Section 128A(1)(c) indicates that any order under Section 107(11) is eligible for waiver, irrespective of whether it stems from Section 73(9) or 74(9). There’s 𝐧𝐨 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 in the statute 🧾. 💡 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 "𝐎𝐑"": - The usage of “or” in Section 128A(1) (a), (b), & (c) emphasizes𝐦𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲—each clause operates 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲. This means that the conditions in one clause do not influence the applicability of the other clauses. 📜 𝐉𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭: - The word “or” coordinates parts of a sub-section, creating 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬. So, even though clauses (a) and (b) refer to Section 73, this doesn’t restrict clause (c) to Section 73—𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 74 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨𝐨 ✋𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 - Section 128A(2) bars the waiver benefit only in cases of erroneous refunds, not in cases like those originating from Section 74(9) OIOs. Thus, it seems 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 128𝐀(1)(𝐜) 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 Section 74 cases. 📚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲: Based on a literal interpretation and established legal principles, there’s 𝐧𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 against availing the benefits of Section 128A for appeals under Section 107(11) from Section 74(9) OIOs. Regards Rajendra Prasad Gangula www.grprasad.com **#LegalInsight** #Section128A #TaxLaw #AppellateAuthority #InterestWaiver #PenaltyWaiver #LiteraLegis #Jurisprudence #grprasad

Here's an additional reminder that businesses must file a BOI report this year! Businesses could risk penalties of $500 per day or even criminal penalties if filing is not complete. #BOIreport #marketingagency #creativebusinessowner