Key Takeaways
- The DOJ announced a revised corporate enforcement strategy that aligns with the Administration’s priorities in areas such as national security, trade and customs offenses, fraud in U.S. markets and government programs, narcotics trafficking and terrorism, and it also revised certain previously issued policies to make them consistent with the Administration’s priorities. This includes prosecutions to protect U.S. businesses and American economic competitiveness from unfair practices such as foreign bribery, money laundering, and theft of U.S. trade secrets/practices/technology.
- The DOJ will continue to incentivize corporate voluntary self-disclosures and has revised its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Disclosure Policy to clarify the benefits that will inure to companies that voluntarily and timely self-report, including a commitment to decline prosecution for companies self-disclosing misconduct without aggravating circumstances and that meet all of the requirements of the policy; allowing greater discretion to prosecutors to decline prosecution in cases involving aggravating circumstances; and allowing self-disclosure benefits for companies which have a “near miss” voluntary self-disclosure.
- The DOJ is revising its monitor selection policy to ensure that monitorships are imposed only where necessary and, when imposed, both the mandate and cost are narrowly tailored to the conduct at issue.
- The DOJ is expanding its whistleblower pilot program to reflect its new enforcement priorities.
On May 12, 2025, Matthew Galeotti, Head of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Criminal Division, unveiled a comprehensive white collar enforcement strategy titled “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime” (“the Strategy”).[1] The Strategy reflects a significant realignment of the Criminal Division’s priorities, where white collar enforcement will be designed to promote broader policy goals related to national security, trade and market integrity that harm U.S. businesses and American economic competitiveness. The Strategy also introduces several process changes that seek to eliminate “excessive” and “unfocused” corporate investigations, by prioritizing the prosecution of senior-level conduct and instructing prosecutors to maximize the efficiency of their investigations and “to minimize the length and collateral impact of their investigations” to lessen the negative impacts of investigations on affected businesses, investors and other stakeholders. In addition, the Strategy implements changes to narrowly tailor the use of monitors. The announcement of the Enforcement Plan was accompanied by revisions to several recent DOJ policies, including its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP), Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, and policies on the selection of monitors.
I. White Collar Enforcement Priorities
The Strategy details 10 priority areas for DOJ’s white collar enforcement efforts, all of which track the Administration’s broader economic and national security agendas. While some priorities are traditional areas of DOJ focus – such as federal program fraud, healthcare fraud, scams that target individuals and retail investors, and narcotics trafficking – others are new, including:
- Trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasions and sanctions violations.
- Securities fraud involving Variable Interest Entities (VIEs) – a corporate structure that has allowed Chinese companies to list on U.S. exchanges.
- Corporate malfeasance that provides material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), most notably the recently designated Mexican drug cartels.
- “Complex money laundering,” specifically “Chinese Money Laundering Organizations” that operate with cartels and TCOs to facilitate fentanyl and other narcotics trafficking.
The Strategy also makes clear that enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) will be recalibrated and directed toward national security threats and to prevent harm to U.S. businesses. This significant pronouncement signals that FCPA enforcement may remain active under the new Administration with an increased focus on foreign entities and individuals. As we previously predicted, the Administration will likely seek to use FCPA enforcement to maintain a level playing field for U.S. corporations by focusing on bribery by foreign corporations that creates a competitive disadvantage for U.S. corporations. Investigations and prosecutions involving digital assets will also be prioritized where they involve TCOs, harm individual or retail investors, or involve “willful violations that facilitate significant criminal activity,” such as cartel-related activity, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion.
In all, the Strategy recognizes the fundamental precept outlined in the Administration’s America First Investment Policy, namely, that “economic security is national security.” Notably, many of the Strategy’s enforcement priorities have historically been the province of the National Security Division (NSD), such as crimes involving FTOs, sanctions and international trade crimes.
II. Related Policy Revisions
To buttress the DOJ’s focus on these priorities, the DOJ’s Criminal Division announced significant revisions to several existing corporate enforcement policies. Specifically, the DOJ clarified and enhanced the benefits available to companies that voluntarily self-report, tightened its monitor selection policy, and added four priority areas to its nascent whistleblower program. These changes are designed to streamline the DOJ’s corporate enforcement posture, minimize disruption to U.S. businesses, and marshal DOJ resources toward the delineated priority areas to counter the most serious threats.
The amended Criminal Division policies include:
- Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP):[2] The new CEP Enforcement Plan is shorter than prior iterations, with the express goal of being more transparent and easier to understand. To ensure “maximum transparency,” the CEP includes a flow chart of possible outcomes for a company seeking to make a voluntary self-disclosure.
Most significantly, the CEP definitively states that companies that voluntarily self-disclose and meet certain criteria in the absence of aggravating circumstances will receive a declination, not just a presumption of a declination. That is, companies that meet core requirements – voluntary self-disclosure to the Criminal Division, full cooperation, timely and appropriate remediation, and no aggravating circumstances – will not be required to enter into a criminal resolution.
Even companies with aggravating circumstances may still be eligible for declination “based on weighing the severity of those aggravating circumstances and the company’s cooperation and remediation.” Similarly, companies that self-disclose in good faith but not quickly enough, or after the DOJ is already aware of the misconduct, are still eligible for “significant benefits,” such as a non-prosecution agreement with a term of less than three years, 75 percent reduction in criminal fines, and no monitor. Even where a company does not self-disclose, prosecutors still have discretion to recommend any resolution (e.g., up to a 50 percent reduction in fine).
The new CEP also makes plain that the DOJ will be more open to non-criminal resolutions of corporate misconduct, noting that “civil and administrative remedies directed at corporations are often appropriate to address low-level corporate misconduct.” This is consistent with the Strategy’s acknowledgment that “not all corporate misconduct warrants federal criminal prosecution” and that “it is critical to American prosperity to promote policies that acknowledge law-abiding companies and companies that are willing to learn from their mistakes.”
- Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program: Under the Program, whistleblowers are eligible for up to a 30 percent recovery for any judgment over $1 million relating to certain offenses. The revisions expand the qualifying categories to include federal program fraud; trade, tariff and customs fraud; federal immigration law violations; sanctions offenses; violations involving material support of terrorism; and violations that enable international cartels or transnational criminal organizations, including money laundering, narcotics and Controlled Substances Act violations. The revised Pilot Program also now covers crimes involving both private and public healthcare benefit programs.
- Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters (Monitorship Memorandum):[3] Following the pause and active review of Criminal Division monitorships, the Monitorship Memorandum makes clear that monitorships will be used rarely and in a limited capacity. Such limited situations include offenses impacting U.S. national security, including foreign bribery and TCO-related crimes. Where another regulatory authority has primary responsibility over a particular company, or where a company voluntarily employs outside consultants or auditors, a monitorship will be disfavored as being duplicative. Notably, the maximum term for a monitorship is presumed to be no more than three years, and companies will be routinely assessed for early termination.
Conclusion
While the DOJ under the new Administration has emphasized increased enforcement of immigration and other related criminal statutes, there has been much speculation about the extent to which it will continue to pursue white collar criminal investigations. The DOJ’s revised corporate enforcement strategy answers this question with a resounding “Yes.” By introducing new priorities and implementing changes to certain important policies, the DOJ has confirmed its commitment to focused and robust prosecution of white collar crime in alignment with the Administration’s economic and national security agendas. Notably, DOJ has strongly signaled that FCPA enforcement – albeit redirected toward national security threats and to prevent harm to U.S. businesses – will continue to remain a priority.
In light of the DOJ’s revised corporate enforcement strategy and announced policy changes, businesses should remain vigilant in designing and implementing effective compliance policies to deter misconduct and to enable the prompt identification and remediation of misconduct – including potential self-reporting in appropriate instances. In particular, foreign entities seeking to do business with U.S. companies should assess their compliance policies and operations to ensure they are not at risk for prosecution as a result of these new enforcement priorities. Similarly, companies that are subject to pre-existing monitorships should revisit their terms and consider whether the scope of the monitor’s mandate and the associated costs are proportional to the underlying conduct they seek to remedy.
[1] See https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/head-criminal-division-matthew-r-galeotti-delivers-remarks-sifmas-anti-money-laundering; and https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400046/dl?inline
[2] https://www.justice.gov/d9/2025-05/revised_corporate_enforcement_policy_-_2025.05.11_-_final_with_flowchart_0.pdf
[3] https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400036/dl?inline
[View source.]
