FCPA Enforcement Continues to Evolve with Newly Unsealed Indictment

On August 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had unsealed an indictment against two Mexican businessmen for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). DOJ asserts that the defendants, both Mexican nationals living in Texas, paid bribes to officials at Petróleos Mexicanos (“PEMEX”), and its subsidiary, PEMEX Exploración y Producción (“PEP”) to secure contracts worth an estimated $2.5 million. These charges come amidst a period of uncertainty regarding FCPA enforcement following the Trump administration’s temporary pause on FCPA enforcement and the subsequent issuance of new investigation and enforcement guidelines.

Background: FCPA Enforcement in Flux

After an enforcement pause initiated by the Trump administration in February 2025, DOJ resumed FCPA activity under guidance issued by the U.S. Attorney General in June. The stated goal was to “to restore American competitiveness and security” by revising enforcement priorities.

The new guidelines require prosecutors to prioritize cases with ties to cartels or Transnational Criminal Organizations (“TCOs”), economic or competitive harm to specific U.S. entities, national security interests, and serious misconduct—while de-emphasizing routine business practices and low-dollar courtesies.

Recent Indictment: Facts and Alignment with DOJ Guidelines

DOJ alleges that the defendants Ramon Rovirosa and Mario Avila paid or offered at least $150,000 in bribes—cash, luxury watches, handbags, and other items—to PEMEX and PEP officials in a scheme aimed at securing $2.5 million in contracts. In one instance, a Hublot watch valued at $12,500 was allegedly provided to influence an audit outcome, reducing a company’s liability by MXP $775,000 (approximately $40,000 USD). The indictment suggests DOJ’s continued attention on conventional bribery cases, particularly when serious misconduct, a direct quid pro quo, and individual accountability are present.

DOJ did not directly address the Attorney General’s new FCPA guidance in its press release but chose to repeatedly highlight the adverse effects of bribery on fair markets. Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Galeotti of DOJ’s Criminal Division commented that “the Criminal Division will not tolerate those who enrich corrupt officials for personal gain and to the detriment of the fair market,” and FBI Assistant Director Jose Perez added that “bribery harms fair competition” and underscored a commitment to “fairness for communities in Texas and beyond.”  

This indictment may also be motivated in part by one of the defendant’s alleged connections to cartel activity. In its August 11 Motion to Impose Certain Conditions of Release, DOJ referenced evidence that Rovirosa has ties to Mexican cartel members and that one of his close business associates is associated with the cartels. While the indictment does not directly connect the bribery scheme itself to cartel activity, DOJ’s interest in potential cartel affiliations may reflect a broad interpretation of the Attorney General’s guidance.

Implications for Companies

DOJ’s latest indictment illustrates that FCPA enforcement is adapting—not completely retreating—in response to new administration priorities. While much was written about the initial pause in FCPA enforcement under the Trump administration, it is important to remember that FCPA enforcement—and white-collar enforcement generally—historically tends to slow during the first few months following any administration turnover. Certainly the pause here was greater, but with the issuance of DOJ’s FCPA enforcement guidelines and indictments like these starting to emerge, companies should remain vigilant.

Notably, the recent DOJ activity may signal heightened scrutiny of transactions with state-owned enterprises in countries with significant cartel or TCO activity. Companies operating in Mexico, Venezuela, and similar jurisdictions should expect continued enforcement risk, even where cartel connections are peripheral or based on historical patterns of corruption. Companies should also expect that DOJ may take a similarly expansive approach to interpreting other provisions of the Attorney General’s guidance. And where DOJ is leaving gaps, other countries have pledged to work together to fill the void in anti-corruption enforcement.

Crowell attorneys are closely monitoring these developments to help clients navigate compliance and investigation challenges in this evolving enforcement landscape.