Cross-border risk has shifted from episodic to systemic. Today, a single trigger can cascade into parallel regulatory inquiries, civil litigation and contractual disputes spanning multiple jurisdictions. As a result, legal and compliance leaders are tasked with responding faster, preserving defensible evidence and protecting business continuity, often while also navigating conflicting rules on data, privilege and disclosure.
In our annual Global Disputes Forecast, 82% of survey respondents expressed concern that they may be subject to a cross-border investigation in 2026. We conducted a second wave of research to delve into the key challenges 600 senior legal decision-makers are facing and the actions they can take to build a roadmap to reduce dispute and investigation risk.
- Cross border complexity drives investigation risk to an all-time high
- Ripple effects of investigations expose broader business risk
- An integrated and coordinated approach can reduce exposure
- Key actions
- About the series and methodology
Cross border complexity drives investigation risk to an all-time high
Cross-border complexity is exacerbating investigation risk across cyber, data, AI, trade and tax. Respondents tell us they struggle to navigate different legal systems and enforcement approaches, which drives up costs and increases operational complexity.
In the cyber space, for example, data governance challenges and cross-border evidence management raise the risk of investigations related to data handling and privilege. Additionally, increasing coordination among regulatory agencies is leading to simultaneous demands and complex settlements, which require a consistent global approach from multinationals.
Read more from our survey on how leaders are tackling cyber, data and AI disputes risks.
Investigations risk goes hand-in-hand with wider dispute risk. Organizations consistently point to jurisdictional complexity (identified by 42% of all respondents) as a key challenge in managing customs/tariff disputes. 38% of respondents cite it as a challenge in relation to cross-border tax disputes.
Yindi Gesinde, co-lead of the Investigations, Compliance and Ethics practice in London, notes that “complex and conflicting disclosure obligations across jurisdictions, tight reporting deadlines and managing potential media fallout adds layers of complexity beyond ‘traditional’ bribery or fraud investigations.” Gesinde emphasizes that "coordinating a timely and compliant response is critical, especially when consumer or public data is involved.”
Multijurisdictional tax disputes are a further concern for boards, GCs and tax specialists. 32% of all respondents (and 28% of respondents in tax-specific roles) say that cross-border transactions and transfer pricing pose significant tax dispute risks, underlining the international dimension of tax risk and the challenge of managing disputes and potential investigations across multiple jurisdictions.
Read more about findings specific to tax disputes.
Unsurprisingly, geopolitical shifts, including sanctions and national security enforcement, are a main source of trade-related disputes. These can rapidly escalate into contract breakdowns and regulatory actions, triggering cross-border investigations. The knock-on impacts are amplified: supply chain accountability also exposes companies to heightened risks from supplier-related claims, joint ventures and reputational disputes.
Read more about trade-related dispute risks and recommended actions.
Ripple effects of investigations expose broader business risk
Investigative processes often run in parallel with, or directly trigger, litigation and disputes, as findings uncover potential legal breaches that prompt claims, regulatory scrutiny or defensive actions. One example is the intersection of HR claims and investigative processes, which can hinder timely employment actions, particularly during misconduct probes linked to cyber or data breaches. Slowed decision-making and prolonged organizational exposure during high-stakes incidents can lead to material business continuity risks — a key area of concern flagged by 43% of respondents.
Internally, whistleblower complaints and internal misconduct can drive scrutiny of organizational culture, making robust governance, leadership and strong compliance systems essential for mitigating risk and ensuring operational continuity. Asia Pacific Head of Investigations, Compliance & Ethics, Mini Menon vandePol shares that “there is a growing trend of shareholder litigation following corporate disclosures of bribery, where investors sue companies for alleged losses tied to such misconduct.” A recent example includes a company which faces shareholder lawsuits in the UK after pleading guilty to bribery offences.
A single trigger for a cross-border investigation may have far-reaching consequences, bringing about significant reporting and due process requirements. Meanwhile, follow-on and satellite investigations are an emerging key risk area, according to Gesinde, and require proactive and holistic management. “Investigations into one issue can lead to additional investigations either concurrently or subsequently. Additionally, decisions to remediate after an investigation may prompt further inquiries into other jurisdictions, business units, or acquisitions to ensure comprehensive risk management,” she says.
Ultimately, reactive action alone is not enough. Robust leadership and continual investment in preparedness are necessities — even in the face of stretched resources. “Top-level commitment and board-level oversight are two of the essential elements required to demonstrate adequate or reasonable procedures, the only defenses available in respect of the various failure to prevent offences. Companies are either investing in or enhancing their governance programs in order to manage risks like bribery, corruption and fraud effectively,” says Gesinde.
An integrated and coordinated approach can reduce exposure
As explored in the Convergence of Risk series, data, trade and tax risks do not occur in isolation, so it's a concern that companies continue to report a lack of connectivity across their compliance programs. Only 28% of respondents say they have strengthened supply chain resilience in response to trade/customs disputes through building cross-functional response teams. "When companies manage risk in silos, it can create gaps and weaken overall compliance. Risks such as money laundering, corruption, fraud and conflicts of interest often interrelate and do not occur in isolation,” notes Gesinde.
vandePol cautions that investigations conducted “in a segmented or piecemeal manner by different departments” may fail to uncover the full extent of misconduct. Instead, she recommends a holistic approach to investigations, as demonstrated by cases where external experts uncovered evidence missed by fragmented internal efforts.
While having policies and compliance programs is necessary, vandePol emphasizes that it is not sufficient to merely develop them. “Programs must be robust, well understood and actively followed. Inadequate control, oversight, monitoring and testing can lead to companies being exploited, such as through redirection of products to sanctioned countries to boost sales.”
Inculcating the right culture and mindset around effective governance and compliance therefore involves regular testing and tracking of compliance effectiveness, moving beyond superficial "box-ticking" to ensure true adherence and understanding within the organization. Individual accountability, particularly for leadership, is key to ensuring adequate resourcing and focus are directed to this business priority.
Key actions
Building a defensible cross-border response blueprint can make a difference. Leading legal and compliance teams are focusing on these five areas:
- Front-end readiness via investigation playbooks, escalation triggers, cross-border privilege strategy and crisis communications protocols.
- Evidence control via rapid preservation, lawful data review workflows, and a single-source-of-truth case narrative.
- Internal capability via closing internal gaps such as documentation and resourcing, strengthening internal processes, investigation readiness, and cross-border coordination.
- Continual investment via allocating resource (either human and/or technological) to improve regulatory intelligence and agility, real-time regulatory tracking, scenario planning, and cross-functional coordination
- Outcome management via coordinated regulator engagement, settlement strategy, and litigation containment across jurisdictions.
Ultimately, organizations will need to respond quickly, consistently and defensibly to reduce regulatory exposure whilst keeping the business moving. If your organization operates across multiple jurisdictions, consider a “cross-border stress test” of your investigation readiness covering data flows, privilege, third-party risk, incident response and board reporting.
The Convergence of Risk: Today's pressures, tomorrow's disputes
A series overview
Our flagship Global Disputes Forecast survey revealed that in 2026, geopolitical flux, technology and supply chain disruption are driving disputes risk externally, while resource constraints mean that organizations must also be intentional and flexible in where they allocate resources.
With robust disputes preparedness key to building organizational resilience, we commissioned another wave of research to delve further into these initial findings. In this series, we explore the intersection of key risk areas and identify how respondents are taking action.
Methodology
We surveyed 600 senior decision-makers with oversight or key roles in legal, risk, compliance, or tax functions. Respondents included Directors in Legal, Risk, Compliance, or Tax, Heads of Function/Departmental Leaders, and C-suite roles such as General Counsel, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Risk Officer, and Chief Compliance Officers.
