They're just as useless as HR. Give them valuable documentation, solid, credible witnesses that you know will back you up and after taking weeks and months they will come back with a weak 'we didn't find evidence ....'. Total sh1tshow. Won't even look you in the eye while vomitting the block of tu-d out because they know exactly what they saw as evidence. Granted that they too have a job to do and mouths to feed at home and that Legal will never allow admitting to wrongdoing because what's to stop someone from taking that admittance to court to sue?
Still....why have it in the first place? Regulatory purposes? Does no regulator go through a sample of ethics cases logged and the response/action taken to at least take a customary glance through whether the ethics department is just for show?
Rats...the lot of them. Suddenly, I am beginning to believe some of those things against Andy Sieg...the bank will do anything to protect MD's. Not that Citi is the only one doing this but Citi has to be amongst the worst offenders