Insights

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.

Current political priorities in Congress will continue to push many industries under the microscope of Congressional investigations, including universities, tech companies, entities that receive federal funds, and energy-sector companies. When the chambers of Congress and the executive branch are controlled by the same party, Congressional oversight of the executive branch is less intense and instead public and private sector, state, and local entities are more likely to find themselves in the crosshairs. If a chamber of Congress changes hands in the midterm elections, the focus of the oversight may shift to reflect the policy priorities of the moment and include more executive branch oversight, but even the executive branch is often contending with requests for information that may implicate their dealings with third parties; for example, there is a risk that agency oversight triggers requests for privileged material belonging to a government contractor or grantee. The topics and industries of highest interest may play musical chairs, but entities across sectors would do well to incorporate a few best practices that will mitigate their risk should they end up in the hot seat, either directly or through a government partner.

The Supreme Court last week blessed a broad reading of the federal wire fraud statute, resolving a circuit split over whether economic loss is an element of fraudulent inducement and bolstering the Government’s future enforcement of procurement fraud. In Kousisis et al. v. United States (unanimous in judgment), the Court upheld the conviction of a government contractor for falsely representing compliance with disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) requirements in contracts awarded by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), despite completing the contracts to PennDOT’s satisfaction. The Court held that a material misrepresentation used to deceive someone into parting with money or property is sufficient for a federal wire fraud conviction, regardless of whether the victim suffered any economic loss.

In a May 12, 2025 speech that signaled both a recalibration of and recommitment to prosecuting white-collar crime, Matthew R. Galeotti, the newly appointed Head of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, said that the Division is “turning a new page” and embracing an enforcement approach that aims to elevate efficiency, predictability, and fairness. The changes he outlined aim to incentivize self-reporting, narrow corporate monitorships, and refocus whistleblowers.

On February 5, 2025, the newly sworn-in Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum with the subject Total Elimination of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations. Attorney General Bondi’s memorandum lays out four distinct avenues to achieve President Trump’s stated policy of eliminating TCOs and Cartels.[1]  These include changing DOJ charging priorities, “removing bureaucratic impediments to aggressive prosecutions,” expanding certain task forces related to TCOs and Cartels, and advocating for certain legislative changes. 

The Court of International Trade recently denied a motion to add a defendant’s criminal attorney to a protective order in a parallel civil regulatory case, teeing up key Fifth and Sixth Amendment concerns. 

On Saturday, October 7, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law two landmark bills—SB 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act; and SB 261, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act—that will require large public and privately-held entities doing business in California to comply with sweeping disclosure requirements regarding their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and their climate-related financial risks.

A New Jersey federal judge has denied two executives’ efforts to suppress statements made during an interview conducted as part of an internal investigation of alleged bribe payments in India even though their employer was hoping to take advantage of a U.S. Department of Justice FCPA Pilot Program.

On May 5, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) announced a record-setting whistleblower award of nearly $279 million.  This award more than doubles the SEC’s previous $114 million record-setter, issued in October 2020.

On Friday, April 14, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, holding that constitutional challenges to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can be heard in federal district court in the first instance, without the plaintiffs first having to exhaust those arguments through the agencies’ respective administrative enforcement processes. The Court did not address the underlying constitutional challenges, but the long-awaited decision on the jurisdictional question is likely to encourage more constitutional challenges to those and other agencies’ enforcement schemes being raised and heard first in the federal courts.

On January 17, 2023, Kenneth A. Polite, Jr, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Criminal Division, delivered a speech at Georgetown Law School announcing the first significant changes to the Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement Policy (“CEP”) since 2017. The changes answer the call of Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and provide companies with new and concrete incentives to self-disclose wrongdoing and meaningfully cooperate with DOJ investigations. Most notably, DOJ is offering both a new path to avoid prosecution, and, in cases where a criminal resolution is warranted, the opportunity to obtain as much as 75% off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range. The revisions also include incentives for companies that do not voluntarily self-disclose, but still fully cooperate and remediate—even these companies can obtain a 50% reduction in fines.

On September 15, 2022, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced major updates to the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) criminal enforcement policy at the NYU Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement, following a yearlong review of the Department’s white collar enforcement practices. These updates were also documented in a 15-page memo that summarized the review conducted by the DOJ’s Corporate Crime Advisory Group. On September 20, 2022, Principal Deputy Attorney General Marshall Miller delivered a keynote address that further detailed the updates.

On June 22, 2022, Lauren Kootman, Assistant Chief in the Corporate Enforcement, Compliance and Policy Unit (the “Unit”) of the Justice Department’s (“DOJ”) Fraud Section confirmed that a forthcoming DOJ policy will require Chief Compliance Officers (“CCOs”) to certify representations about their companies’ compliance programs in settlement agreements with the DOJ.  Similar to the requirement set forth in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that CEOs and CFOs must certify their companies’ SEC disclosures, and much like current end-of-monitorship certifications, the policy will require CCOs and CEOs to certify that their companies’ compliance programs have been “reasonably designed” to prevent future violations.  The policy was first proposed by Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. in March.  Responding to criticism (and echoing prior DOJ statements), Kootman explained that the policy is meant to ensure CCOs have “adequate visibility and access to information” about their companies’ business activities and compliance programs.  In that sense, she said it is DOJ’s goal that the new policy will “empower” CCOs, rather than target or punish them.   

On April 28, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Vale S.A., a Brazilian mining company that trades ADRs [Ticker: VALE] on the New York Stock Exchange, with multiple violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules promulgated thereunder. Arising out of the tragic January 25, 2019, collapse of a massive iron-ore tailings dam (Brumadinho) at the Córrego do Feijão mine in Minas Gerais, Brazil, the complaint alleges that Vale knowingly or recklessly deceived investors and made materially false or misleading statements with regard to the safety and stability of its dams.

Publicly traded companies would have to provide detailed information about potential financial risks related to climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (with varying levels of detail and assurance depending upon a company’s status and size), under a proposal the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued for public comment on March 21, 2022. For example, if finalized in its current form, the proposal would require disclosure of information about how climate change could impact a business’s strategy and outlook, processes for managing climate-related risks, the impact of climate-related events on the company. Notably, the proposal requires disclosure of direct GHG emissions (i.e., “Scope 1”), indirect GHG emissions from the purchase of electricity or other energy sources ( i.e., “Scope 2”), and, in some situations, indirect GHG emissions from both upstream and downstream sources (i.e., “Scope 3”). As summarized in a related fact sheet, the SEC proposal would also require that, if a company has identified a GHG emission-reduction goal, it disclose information about how it intends to reach that goal and report on its progress toward the same—a common target of “greenwashing” claims that have increased of late.

On February 17, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced that KT Corporation (“KT” ) settled allegations that it violated the books-and-records and internal accounting controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) in the Republic of Korea and Vietnam.  KT is South Korea’s largest comprehensive telecommunications provider, maintains its principal executive offices in South Korea, and its American Depositary Shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange.

In an order filed on November 10, 2021, the District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted a motion to dismiss an indictment finding that it lacked jurisdiction over Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and money laundering claims brought against Swiss resident and citizen Daisy T. Rafoi-Bleuler. Moreover, the court concluded that the FCPA and money laundering claims were unconstitutionally vague as applied. See United States v. Rafoi-Bleuler, Case No. 4:17-CR-0514-7, Dkt. No. 255 (Nov. 10, 2021).

On October 28, Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) Lisa O. Monaco delivered remarks at the ABA’s 36th National Institute on White Collar Crime. Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Department”) officials have recently referenced the coming enforcement “surge,” and the DAG’s remarks last week provide a roadmap to corporate criminal enforcement under the current administration.

After a predictable lull in corporate enforcement actions during the recent transition between administrations, and following a near quarter-century low in such actions under the previous administration, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced this week that a “surge” of corporate enforcement is coming. Recent comments from DOJ officials indicate that, in addition to a significant increase in enforcement actions, updated policies and enhanced resources tailored to advance the administration’s priorities are near at hand.

On July 3, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released the second edition of their Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “Guide”). This new edition provides several clarifications on the enforcement agencies’ view of the FCPA, adds summaries of recent cases and declinations, incorporates DOJ's recently updated guidance on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, and addresses other agency policies issued since the first edition including the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy and policies on the selection of monitors and the coordination of corporate resolutions. Although the substance of the Guide remains largely unchanged, it does contain several notable edits that give some further insight into DOJ and SEC’s perspective on key developments in the law and enforcement issues under the FCPA since the first edition was published in 2012. While companies’ attention may be elsewhere during the COVID-19 pandemic, they should nevertheless remain vigilant in maintaining and enforcing their anti-bribery and anti-corruption programs. This updated Guide provides additional insights for doing so.