DOJ Releases First-Ever Department-Wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy

On March 10, 2026, the Department of Justice released the first-ever Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (the “Department-wide CEP” or “Policy”), which applies to all non-antitrust corporate criminal cases across the Department. The new policy has been anticipated since December 2025, when Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the Department’s plans to release a new, single corporate enforcement policy for all criminal matters. According to the Department, the new policy is designed to “help ensure consistency across the Department” and “transparently describe the Department’s policies and decisionmaking.”

To that end, the Department-wide CEP supersedes all other corporate enforcement policies currently in effect, except that it excludes antitrust violations such that the Antitrust Division’s Leniency Policy remains intact. This means similar policies from the Criminal Division, National Security Division, and Environmental Division are now superseded. The new Policy also supersedes such policies issued by U.S. Attorney’s Offices, which appears to include the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program for Financial Crimes adopted two weeks ago by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. The SDNY policy adopted a novel approach of offering “conditional” declinations that are not mentioned in the Department-wide CEP.

The new Policy largely mirrors the May 2025 Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (the “Criminal Division CEP”), which guaranteed declinations to companies that 1) fully disclose misconduct; 2) fully cooperate with the Department; and 3) undertake timely and appropriate remediation where no aggravating factors are present. The Department-wide CEP preserves these guaranteed declinations along with essentially all of the Criminal Division CEP’s other substantive provisions, with a few notable updates including the following:

• Potential for Declinations Outside the Policy: The Department-wide CEP notes that it does not “prohibit the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to decline prosecution.” This language appears to leave open the possibility for declinations outside the Policy, which are more favorable for companies as they generally are not publicized and typically do not require payment of disgorgement or restitution.
• Possibility That Disclosures to Other Agencies Will Qualify: The Department-wide CEP leaves the door open for credit when the disclosure is made to other government agencies. Although the Policy expressly notes that “[d]isclosures made only to federal regulatory agencies, state and local governments, or civil enforcement agencies generally do not qualify,” it also states that good faith disclosures to such entities “may” qualify if appropriate under the circumstances (emphasis added).
• Increased Penalty Range for Near Miss Cases: The Criminal Division CEP guaranteed a fixed 75% reduction off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) fine range for “near miss” cases that did not qualify for a declination. By contrast, the new Policy gives the Department discretion to offer a reduction ranging from 50% to 75%, potentially reducing the self-disclosure benefits available to companies.

Conclusion

The Department-wide CEP represents a significant step toward consistency in DOJ’s approach to corporate criminal enforcement. It is worth noting that the Policy does not apply to DOJ’s Civil Division and other civil enforcement agencies, such as the SEC and CFTC. Thus, the Policy only partially addresses the self-reporting dilemma that companies face during parallel investigations. However, companies should be attentive to the new language potentially permitting credit for disclosures made to other government agencies, which may expand strategic options in multi-regulator investigations. Given these developments, we strongly encourage clients to consult with counsel to assess the implications of the Department-wide CEP for their specific compliance posture and any ongoing or potential investigations.