The way that I focus on handling ethical considerations and conflicts of interest is to identify and address the gaps between "what is legal" and "what is right." Often these two aspects don't align perfectly, and bridging that gap is essential to maintaining integrity and trust in financial markets. Regulatory responsibilities provide a clear framework of rules to follow, while ethical considerations often require a more nuanced approach that is influenced by how we interpret these frameworks. When advising leadership on the strategies to uphold both the organization's values and the regulatory responsibilities, it is important to be transparent about how these responsibilities are being met and forward thinking about how these interpretations may potentially be abused. By being forthcoming about these gaps, it allows the organization to proactively work to mitigate any residual risk relating to decisions where meeting the organization's legal obligations may cause unnecessary harm and, therefore, do what is right. This promotes a culture where ethical decision-making is prioritized, even if it means exceeding regulatory requirements. In the financial crime compliance space, many of the regulatory responsibilities are meant to safeguard the financial market from illicit funds. This often means that doing the 'minimum' requirement may not be enough to prevent a sophisticated bad actor from circumventing the safeguards and additional measures must be implemented to mitigate risks, as is the case with insider threats for example.