Corporate compliance originated in the United States and has since evolved into a globally recognized model of corporate governance. However, its precise meaning remains contested, both within legal academia and among practitioners. This divergence reflects the fact that corporate compliance is not a unitary concept; rather, it encompasses multiple dimensions. Debates continue over the scope and substance of corporate compliance. For instance, some equate “compliance” solely with corporate compliance, while others emphasize its close connection to the legal liability of corporate executives. Similarly, some view compliance as synonymous with the prevention and avoidance of legal risks in general, whereas others argue that its core function lies specifically in managing the risks of administrative and criminal sanctions, rather than generic risk control. Moreover, there are contrasting views on the normative status of compliance. Some scholars contend that corporate compliance remains primarily a matter of corporate ethics and has not yet evolved into a fully coherent and enforceable legal regime. Others, however, argue that although corporate compliance initially emerged as an internal governance tool within the broader framework of corporate governance, it has gradually evolved—since the 1990s—into a significant legal institution, particularly with the formalization of regulatory and criminal compliance systems.