In an increasingly complex global environment, how are you helping your organisation navigate risk while still supporting growth?

In an increasingly complex global environment, we help our organisation navigate risk while actively supporting growth through a systematic, multi-dimensional compliance approach.

First, we treat compliance as an enabler of business innovation. Rather than serving as a late-stage gatekeeper, we embed ourselves in the innovation process from day one, working hand-in-hand with business units at the earliest stage of new products and transactions. We stress-test proposed structures against regulatory requirements, translate complex rules into practical, deal-friendly guidance, and proactively engage regulators to secure buy-in for novel approaches—clearing the path for business lines to move faster and with greater confidence. We also maintain a risk event database and conduct regular post-case reviews, using these insights to continuously refine our innovation playbook so that hard-won lessons strengthen rather than constrain our ability to pursue new opportunities. A strong example is our support for CATL’s H-share IPO in May 2025. Against a backdrop of constrained ODI and QDII channels, we innovated the transaction structure and provided investors with a Total Return Swap as an outbound investment option—securing recognition from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and the Securities and Futures Commission as the market’s first use of a TRS instrument for cornerstone investor participation.

Second, we drive our international strategy and cross-border governance on multiple fronts amid an increasingly fragmented and volatile global regulatory environment. We actively support the company’s global footprint expansion across shifting geopolitical and regulatory terrain, participate in key cross-border transactions, and strengthen group-wide legal and compliance oversight to de-risk and safeguard subsidiaries. We have established a globally unified anti-money laundering framework and a direct coordination mechanism linking domestic and overseas integrity programmes. We have also built a robust data cross-border governance framework—pre-emptively assessing jurisdiction-specific risks against a backdrop of tightening data sovereignty requirements and issuing dedicated compliance guidelines to enable compliant, uninterrupted cross-border data transfers. By connecting legal and compliance platforms with AML and DOI monitoring systems, we achieve unified, group-wide, end-to-end oversight that delivers real-time risk intelligence, allowing the business to pursue global opportunities with confidence despite prevailing uncertainty.

Third, we treat compliance capability-building as foundational infrastructure for business innovation. To embed standards across the firm, we built LC Academy, offering multilingual microlearning, workshops, and online courses covering all business lines—translating complex regulatory requirements into practical, deal-applicable knowledge that empowers front-line staff to spot opportunities, not just risks. We continuously track new regulations and enforcement cases, converting this intelligence into actionable, front-end guidance on sanctions exposure and other regulatory focus areas so that business units can structure transactions with clarity. We also conduct proactive monitoring and screening as an early-warning radar that clears the path for business by catching issues before they become deal-breakers.

Fourth, we use technology to power compliance. We leverage AI large language models to provide near-instantaneous responses to regulatory and policy queries. We have integrated digital tools—including AML monitoring, suspicious trade surveillance, enterprise credit outreach controls, employee trading controls, and intelligent contract review—into daily operations, raising the level of automation and digitalisation.

Finally, when disputes arise, we move swiftly to resolve them and protect the firm. In a recent bond misrepresentation case, we secured a complete dismissal of all claims against the company. Our analysis of loss causation was subsequently recognised by the Securities Association of China as an outstanding contribution to the field. Beyond individual wins, we carry out root-cause analysis and translate lessons into updated controls.

How has the role of General Counsel evolved in recent years, and where do you see GCs creating the most value today?

The role of General Counsel has broadened well beyond its traditional perimeter. What was centred on contract review, litigation and regulatory fire-fighting now sits at the heart of how organisations navigate complexity. In my observation, the most progressive GCs have moved past the cost-centre mindset entirely. They are present at the formulation of strategy, helping the business take calculated risks with full visibility of the constraints.

Safety value begins with prevention. A robust compliance system acts as the institution’s immune system — shielding against external threats while strengthening underlying operational capacity. I have seen this where GCs design governance frameworks that hold across multiple jurisdictions from day one, embedding front-end controls on sanctions and high-risk activities before issues arise, and building systematic protocols that satisfy divergent regulatory regimes simultaneously.

Efficiency value comes from embedding compliance into the operating rhythm rather than applying it as a separate review layer. Leading legal functions integrate digital tools — automated trading surveillance, employee conduct monitoring, intelligent contract review, and unified anti-money-laundering frameworks — directly into business workflows.

Business enablement follows naturally. When compliance is woven into the value chain systematically, it builds the trust that translates directly into market access and innovation headroom. I have seen GCs facilitate market-first structures by engaging early to design operational pathways that satisfy both regulatory requirements and commercial timelines — turning a potential obstacle into a navigable route.

Long-term resilience is the cumulative effect. A mature compliance culture — where governance standards are consistent across markets and accountability is shared rather than delegated — helps the organisation weather policy shifts and economic cycles. It aligns the interests of the company, its employees, and its stakeholders, creating the conditions for sustainable value growth.

How has AI changed the legal function recently (including in the past year), and how are you approaching it within your team?

AI has begun to reshape in-house legal operations over the past year, most notably in information-intensive, process-driven workstreams including legal research, regulatory monitoring, routine contract review and internal knowledge management. The technology has matured sufficiently to handle these tasks with reasonable consistency, freeing legal teams to focus on sophisticated work requiring professional judgment and strategic input.

We have approached this through a structured initiative — internally called the “Digital Legal & Compliance Officer” project — developed jointly by our legal and technology teams. The platform is built on a curated knowledge base covering regulatory sources, enforcement precedents, judicial decisions and internal policies, continuously updated as regulations and business evolve. It currently includes over 2,400 laws and regulations, 3,400 regulatory enforcement cases, 50,000 court decisions and 400+ internal policies, all updated on an ongoing basis.

In practice, the initiative provides round-the-clock availability for routine legal inquiries, cutting response times from hours to seconds. To date, it has handled thousands of queries from across the company, with user satisfaction exceeding 94 per cent and accuracy above 85 per cent. The most significant impact has been a material reduction in repetitive workload, allowing our legal professionals to concentrate on high-value in-depth analysis and bespoke risk assessment.

The project was built with modularity in mind, allowing for extension to additional jurisdictions as our business footprint grows.

Looking ahead, what do you see as the main opportunity or challenge for in-house legal teams?

Looking ahead, I see the integration of artificial intelligence as the most significant development facing in-house legal teams — presenting both substantial opportunity and considerable governance challenge.

On the opportunity side, AI offers a path to redirect legal capacity from repetitive, process-intensive work towards higher-value strategic engagement. Contract review, regulatory horizon-scanning and compliance monitoring have historically consumed the bulk of legal resources; AI can meaningfully reduce this burden, enabling teams to focus on anticipatory risk architecture, transaction structuring and regulatory relationship management. There is also significant potential in harnessing existing legal data assets — contracts, precedents and filings — converting fragmented information into structured intelligence that informs business decisions at the outset.

The core challenges cut across internal governance and industry-wide shifts.

Internally, as AI systems evolve from auxiliary workflow tools towards greater operational autonomy, legal teams must draw clear boundaries: where technology augments capacity and where professional judgment remains indispensable. This imperative is especially acute for financial institutions, where client confidentiality, cross-jurisdictional regulatory compliance and potential risks arising from inaccurate AI-generated legal analysis demand robust safeguards. Data integrity is foundational; AI output is only as good as the quality of underlying input data, while organisations often face data quality and integration challenges before AI can be deployed effectively.

At the industry level, the widespread deployment of AI across business operations generates novel compliance obligations that land directly on legal teams. First, explainability and auditability — AI models often operate as black boxes, yet regulators expect legal teams to be able to explain and audit automated decisions affecting customers or markets. Second, accountability fragmentation — when business users rely on AI-generated advice without legal vetting, they create liability exposure and governance gaps that existing legal frameworks have not clearly allocated. Third, data privacy and IP risks — using public or third-party AI tools may expose confidential client information or inadvertently reproduce copyrighted content in generated outputs, creating new exposure. Fourth, rapidly diverging regulatory requirements — jurisdictions are moving at different speeds, making cross-border compliance a moving target.

The teams that navigate this transition successfully will adopt AI pragmatically — establishing clear governance frameworks, investing in professional development so lawyers can interrogate and validate AI outputs, and preserving accountability as the non-negotiable cornerstone. The objective is to leverage AI as a strategic enabler while ensuring that professional judgment remains the ultimate safeguard.