Tag: DOJ

Categories
Blog

Rewarding Integrity: Five Lessons from the DOJ – USPS Whistleblower MOU

⁠As compliance professionals, we stand at the forefront of integrity, transparency, and accountability within our organizations. Recently, an important document has emerged from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (Antitrust Division), the United States Postal Service (USPS), and the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General (USPS OIG)—the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the Whistleblower Rewards Program. This MOU represents a significant advancement in promoting corporate transparency, encouraging ethical behavior, and strengthening the reporting channels for criminal antitrust violations.

Understanding the MOU

The MOU is a collaborative agreement among the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, the USPS, and the USPS OIG, designed to establish and operationalize a Whistleblower Rewards Program. The overarching purpose is to incentivize whistleblowers to step forward and report credible and substantial evidence of criminal violations, especially those related to antitrust activities that directly impact the Postal Service’s operations or revenues.

Specifically, this program addresses serious federal criminal offenses, including price fixing, bid rigging, market allocation, and other forms of economic collusion, as well as associated fraud schemes that undermine the integrity of government procurement processes. The initiative reflects a comprehensive and coordinated effort among the Antitrust Division, the USPS, and the USPS OIG to foster accountability and transparency in federal contracts, procurements, and market practices.

A critical component of this MOU is the articulated process for whistleblower engagement and eligibility for rewards. Whistleblowers are encouraged to voluntarily submit original information, which must be specific, credible, timely, and previously unknown to any of the enforcement authorities. Once submitted, this information undergoes a rigorous review by the Antitrust Division, which evaluates its validity, specificity, and potential impact. If the initial assessment finds merit, the information is forwarded to the USPS Inspection Service (USPIS), which determines its relevance to the Postal Service’s operations or finances.

A distinctive feature of the Whistleblower Rewards Program, as detailed in the MOU, is the financial incentive offered to successful whistleblowers. Individuals whose reports lead directly to a criminal prosecution, conviction, deferred prosecution agreement, or non-prosecution agreement resulting in a monetary fine or recovery of at least $1 million may receive financial rewards ranging from 15% to 30% of the collected fine. This explicit reward structure serves to underscore the commitment of federal authorities to rewarding transparency, integrity, and courageous reporting of wrongdoing, providing a clear incentive for ethical action within organizations.

By outlining clear processes, defined roles, specific reporting criteria, and attractive financial incentives, this MOU establishes a strong blueprint for enhancing corporate and governmental compliance efforts, underscoring the critical role whistleblowers play in upholding economic integrity and ethical business conduct.

Five Key Takeaways for the Compliance Professional

1. Embrace Proactive Whistleblower Policies

A primary lesson from this MOU is the importance of proactively establishing robust whistleblower frameworks within your organization. This program demonstrates how structured whistleblower initiatives, backed by clear protocols and monetary incentives, significantly bolster compliance efforts. Organizations should similarly adopt proactive approaches, ensuring their whistleblower programs are transparent, well-publicized, and accessible to all employees and stakeholders. Always remember that 80% of all reported whistleblowers either attempt or do report internally. It is the remaining 20% who go to the government.

2. Original Information and Clear Reporting Channels

Compliance programs must ensure clarity around what constitutes “original information,” as defined by this MOU. Information must be independently obtained, credible, specific, and previously unknown to the enforcement authorities. Clear communication channels and robust internal reporting mechanisms are essential for employees to feel confident in sharing valuable insights, thus fostering an internal culture of integrity and vigilance.

3. Integration with Law Enforcement

Another critical takeaway is the integration and alignment of organizational compliance with external law enforcement agencies. By closely coordinating with entities such as the DOJ Antitrust Division, organizations not only enhance their compliance measures but also demonstrate their commitment to lawful operations and proactive detection of violations. Regular dialogue and clear lines of communication with regulatory and enforcement authorities can ensure alignment and swift action on identified risks.

4. Transparency in Award Determination

The MOU emphasizes transparency and fairness in the distribution of rewards. Rewards are stipulated to range from 15% to 30% of the collected criminal fines, promoting trust and clarity among potential whistleblowers. Compliance professionals must adopt a similarly transparent approach within internal reward and recognition structures, clearly communicating criteria, processes, and the rationale behind award decisions. Transparency fosters trust, boosts morale, and encourages active participation in compliance initiatives.

5. Limitations and Conditions for Whistleblowers

Understanding the MOU’s explicit exclusions and conditions is essential. Individuals excluded from whistleblower eligibility include those who instigated the violation, those with privileged or confidential compliance responsibilities, and those employed by law enforcement or regulatory bodies. Compliance professionals must delineate roles and responsibilities within their organizations, ensuring all team members understand their obligations, the nature of confidential and privileged information, and the boundaries of reporting mechanisms.

Final Thoughts

This Whistleblower Rewards Program MOU is a robust model for fostering a compliance culture and encouraging ethical conduct within corporations. By providing clear incentives, establishing transparent processes, and maintaining close collaboration with regulatory bodies, this program sets a high standard for organizations across industries.

As compliance leaders, it is our responsibility to champion these principles within our organizations, advocating for stronger whistleblower protections, clearer reporting channels, and greater collaboration with external oversight authorities. Only by doing so can we build resilient, transparent, and ethically robust organizations prepared to face tomorrow’s compliance challenges head-on.

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

FCPA Compliance Report – Stay the Course: Ellen Lafferty on Navigating Anti-Corruption Compliance in 2025

Welcome to the award-winning FCPA Compliance Report, the longest-running podcast in compliance. Today, Tom Fox welcomes Ellen Lafferty, a well-known figure in the compliance community with a distinguished career in both financial and educational institutions.

Ellen discusses her new book, ‘Anti-Bribery and Corruption Law and Compliance In a Nutshell,’ detailing what inspired her to write it and how it can serve as a comprehensive reference for both legal and compliance professionals. They explore Ellen’s transition from litigator to in-house compliance officer, emphasizing the importance of understanding the ultimate audience in legal advice. They also discuss the implications of recent changes in FCPA enforcement priorities by the U.S. government as of 2025 and how compliance professionals should adapt. Ellen emphasizes the importance of maintaining rigorous compliance programs and provides practical guidance on conducting self-assessments and gap analyses to ensure robust anti-bribery and corruption measures.

Key highlights:

  • Ellen Lafferty’s Career and Book Inspiration
  • Transition from Litigator to Compliance Officer
  • Scope and Audience of the Book
  • Current Compliance Landscape in 2025
  • Advice for Compliance Professionals

Resources:

Ellen Lafferty on LinkedIn

West Academic Publishing

Anti-Bribery and Corruption Law and Compliance in a Nutshell on Amazon

Tom Fox

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

For more information on the use of AI in Compliance programs, my new book, Upping Your Game. You can purchase a copy of the book on Amazon.com.

Categories
10 For 10

10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending, June 28, 2025

Welcome to 10 For 10, the podcast that brings you the week’s Top 10 compliance stories in one podcast each week. Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you the compliance professionals and compliance stories you need to be aware of to end your busy week. Sit back, and in 10 minutes, hear about the stories every compliance professional should be aware of from the prior week. Every Saturday, 10 For 10 highlights the most important news, insights, and analysis for the compliance professional, all curated by Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance. Get your weekly filling of compliance stories with 10 for 10, a podcast produced by the Compliance Podcast Network.

  • Is it a lawsuit settlement or a bribe? (WSJ)
  • Staley ban upheld by British court. (FT)
  • ABB was released from its DPA early. (Lexology)
  • Matt Galvin was honored as FT Top 20 Innovative Lawyer. (FT)
  • OpenAI can train on copyrighted material. (BBC)
  • PCAOB elimination hits a roadblock. (WSJ)
  • Tesla was threatened in France for deceptive marketing. (FT)
  • Is it safe for Americans to travel abroad? (NYT)
  • Is bias built into hiring algorithms? (WSJ)
  • Are Canadian companies at risk due to the US’s lack of ABC enforcement? (Globe and Mail)

You can check out the Daily Compliance News for four curated compliance and ethics-related stories each day here.

Connect with Tom 

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

You can purchase a copy of my new book, Upping Your Game, on Amazon.com

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: June 27, 2025, The ABB Gets Out of DPA Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, and general interest, all of which are relevant to the compliance professional.

Top compliance stories:

  • Is it a lawsuit settlement or a bribe? (WSJ)
  • Staley ban upheld by British court. (FT)
  • Data and shareholder capitalism. (Bloomberg)
  • ABB was released from its DPA early. (Lexology)
Categories
Blog

The Boeing 737 Max Imbroglio: Part 2 – A Path Forward with a Special Master

In recent weeks, the spotlight has again intensified on The Boeing Company, following a provocative motion filed by families of victims from the tragic 737 Max crashes. They have petitioned a Texas federal judge to appoint a special prosecutor in Boeing’s criminal conspiracy case, arguing fervently against the Department of Justice’s recent Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Boeing. At stake is not merely corporate accountability but, fundamentally, the integrity of our justice system itself. If all a company is required to do under the Department of Justice (DOJ) is throw money at a series of problems, there will never be true reform.

Yesterday, I began a two-part look at the current set of issues raised in the DOJ capitulation to Boeing, its ignoring of the families of the crash victims, and its complete lack of holding Boeing accountable beyond financial penalties. Today, I want to conclude this short series by proposing a path forward that helps to ameliorate the rights of the parties as well as all the other stakeholders involved in this Boeing imbroglio.

For reasons that are not articulated, the DOJ has dropped its requirement for an Independent Corporate Monitor to oversee the overhaul of culture at Boeing, instead allowing a Boeing-hired compliance consultant to be part of the process. This is wholly insufficient as it requires zero transparency for any of the key parties to the litigation: the families of the victims of the 737 MAX crashes, the Court, and even the DOJ itself. Indeed, the DOJ did not even consult with the families of the victims, as it was reported that the DOJ gave them one day’s notice that it was going to provide Boeing with a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with no Independent Compliance Monitor.

The significance of an Independent Compliance Monitor tasked with overseeing Boeing’s adherence to compliance and safety protocols over the next three years cannot be overstated. The role of an Independent Compliance Monitor in this case should be expansive. Beyond traditional compliance responsibilities, such as policies, procedures, internal controls, and training, the Independent Compliance Monitor should also address anti-fraud measures, safety, and quality assurance/control (QA/QC) issues. This broader remit is essential, given the systemic failures at Boeing that contributed to the 737 MAX disasters. (Looming, of course, is the 787 Dreamliner crash in India.)

The DOJ previously found disturbing lapses in Boeing’s safety and quality records.  It is unclear whether the DOJ has revised these findings in light of its proposed NPA. Boeing employees reported feeling pressured to prioritize productivity and financial performance over safety and quality, a cultural flaw that contributed to the compliance breaches. This pressure led to out-of-sequence work, poor record-keeping, and inadequate safety audits, all of which are indicative of a deeper systemic problem.

Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive culture-focused approach. An Independent Compliance Monitor must not only enforce existing standards but also foster a culture of integrity and transparency within Boeing. This involves ensuring that employees can report concerns without fear of retaliation and that safety protocols are rigorously followed and documented.

The families of the crash victims are not mere bystanders in this process. They have voiced strong objections to this NPA, particularly its leniency and the lack of accountability for senior executives, as well as for any future actions by Boeing. They argue that the NPA exonerates those responsible for the safety lapses. This concern resonates with many compliance professionals who advocate for robust accountability at all levels of an organization.

In light of the unique facts and procedural history of this matter, judicial oversight will be crucial in ensuring that an Independent Compliance Monitor leads to genuine remediation. Transparency is a cornerstone of effective compliance and accountability, and its absence could undermine the entire process.

This is where the District Court should step in and appoint a Special Master to act as an Independent Compliance Monitor. Under the Federal Rules of Procedure, a District Court can appoint a Special Master to monitor compliance with court orders or settlement agreements. This can be especially useful in cases where the parties have a history of noncompliance or need ongoing oversight. The appointment of a Special Master is a powerful option for this specific fact pattern.

For Boeing to restore its reputation and regain public trust, it must go beyond the minimum requirements of the NPA. This involves a commitment to comprehensive remediation, encompassing cultural change, structural reforms, and rigorous enforcement of safety and compliance standards. All done with transparency.

A Special Master’s remit would be a step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by genuine transparency and accountability. This includes involving the victims’ families in meaningful ways, such as through regular updates and consultations, and ensuring that their concerns are addressed substantively. In other words, transparency.

The Boeing case serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of compliance, transparency, and accountability in the corporate world. It highlights the devastating consequences of systemic failures and the urgent need for robust oversight mechanisms. As compliance professionals, we must advocate for comprehensive and transparent processes that ensure not only compliance with legal standards but also the fostering of a culture of integrity and responsibility.

Ultimately, true remediation and accountability are in the best interests of all stakeholders, from the victims’ families seeking justice to the company itself, which strives to rebuild its reputation and restore public trust.  The DOJ has completely abrogated its role in this moving forward. However, the District Court can facilitate this process by appointing a Special Master who can act as an Independent Compliance Monitor.

The path forward is clear: there must be a firm commitment to rigorous compliance, transparent practices, and a culture that prioritizes safety and integrity above all else. However, this must be accompanied by independent oversight. If the DOJ does not wish to assume this role, the District Court should consider appointing a Special Master. Only then can it hope to move beyond the shadows of the 737 MAX scandal and emerge as a leader in the aviation industry once again.

Categories
Blog

The Boeing 737 Max Imbroglio: Part 1 – The DOJ Ditches Transparency

In recent weeks, the spotlight has again intensified on The Boeing Company, following a provocative motion filed by families of victims from the tragic 737 Max crashes. They have petitioned a Texas federal judge to appoint a special prosecutor in Boeing’s criminal conspiracy case, arguing fervently against the Department of Justice’s recent Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Boeing. At stake is not merely corporate accountability but, fundamentally, the integrity of our justice system itself. Today, I begin a two-part look at the current set of issues raised in the DOJ capitulation to Boeing, its ignoring of the families of the crash victims, and its complete lack of holding Boeing accountable beyond financial penalties.

The victims’ families and the general flying public represent crucial stakeholders who deserve answers, accountability, and assurances of safety. Disturbingly, the DOJ’s actions appear dismissive of these stakeholders. This lack of consideration significantly undermines public confidence in Boeing and the effectiveness of regulatory enforcement.

The victims’ families seek accountability, including criminal charges for executives, strict compliance oversight, and transparency to prevent future disasters.  Instead, they have received a diminished settlement and an opaque independent consultant, leaving them rightly skeptical and outraged, all of which occurred without any meaningful consultation with the DOJ. At its core, the families argue, the DOJ’s latest move sets a hazardous precedent, allowing corporations essentially to circumvent accountability through financial settlements and carefully crafted agreements.

The current controversy revolves around the DOJ’s decision to dismiss a conspiracy charge under the conditions outlined in the $1.1 billion NPA. This agreement, critics assert, permits Boeing to effectively “buy its way out of a criminal conviction,” marking a disturbing shift in how corporate criminal cases might be handled going forward.

The families’ legal representatives have raised compelling arguments about why the NPA represents a perilous deviation from standard judicial procedures. Specifically, their motion asserts that the NPA dangerously erodes the separation of powers by attempting to bypass the judicial review requirement mandated by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). Such maneuvering, the families contend, could become a worrying precedent that effectively creates a new branch of governmental power, immune to the checks and balances essential to American governance.

Moreover, this case highlights critical issues surrounding the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), legislation designed to ensure victims and their families are treated fairly throughout judicial proceedings. The families argue passionately that the NPA, in its current form, diminishes their statutory rights and sidesteps meaningful accountability, thus undermining the broader principles of justice.

Equally concerning is Boeing’s historical engagement with DOJ agreements. Initially, under a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) brokered in 2021, Boeing pledged reforms and accepted specific responsibilities. However, a disturbing mid-air incident involving a Boeing 737 Max 9 jet in January 2024 revealed serious safety oversights and compliance deficiencies, prompting the DOJ to reexamine Boeing’s commitments. Boeing’s readiness to plead guilty evaporated swiftly when the political landscape appeared favorable, a clear indication, families argue, that the aerospace giant’s commitments were strategic rather than genuine.

This raises fundamental questions about corporate culture, accountability, and oversight. Compliance professionals everywhere must consider: What mechanisms truly ensure meaningful corporate reform? Can performative contrition substitute for authentic, monitored change?

Under the revised NPA, Boeing has agreed to pay significant fines and allocate funds to victim compensation and program enhancements for compliance. Yet notably absent from this agreement is any oversight mechanism akin to the independent compliance monitor stipulated in previous arrangements. Instead, Boeing must merely retain an independent compliance consultant, a far softer requirement and one that has rightly alarmed observers concerned with genuine reform.

From a compliance standpoint, the removal of the independent monitor provision is a clear red flag. Monitors are essential to verifying that changes implemented within a corporation are genuine, sustained, and effective. By settling for a consultant rather than an empowered, independent monitor, the DOJ is creating an environment that is ripe for surface-level reforms that fail to address deeply rooted, systemic issues.

This scenario underscores a crucial lesson for corporate compliance professionals: genuine compliance reforms cannot rely solely on internal assurances or perfunctory oversight. Rigorous external verification mechanisms are essential to ensuring that compliance efforts are meaningful, impactful, and sustained over the long term. The bottom line is that transparency is the key, and this DOJ has completely deleted any Boeing requirement for transparency in its remediation process.

Furthermore, this case illustrates the importance of judicial independence and the robust application of oversight principles. Without vigilant oversight, corporations could increasingly perceive settlements as mere financial calculations rather than genuine opportunities to recalibrate organizational ethics and compliance cultures. Compliance professionals must advocate for and implement frameworks that prioritize meaningful oversight and genuine reform.

As compliance leaders, we must recognize the far-reaching implications of the Boeing case. This case serves as a stark reminder that true corporate reform cannot be bought—it must be earned through demonstrable, monitored change. Regulators and justice departments globally must hold corporations accountable not just financially but also operationally and culturally.

The demand by the victims’ families for a special prosecutor highlights a crucial juncture. Will we endorse a system where accountability is negotiable and oversight diluted? Or will we reaffirm the essential tenets of justice, ensuring robust judicial review, stringent oversight of compliance, and genuine corporate reform?

Boeing’s future actions, closely scrutinized, will reflect its genuine commitment to change. Compliance professionals, corporate leaders, and regulators alike must take heed—reform without rigorous oversight is merely an empty promise. The integrity of corporate compliance demands far more.

Ultimately, the Boeing case offers a powerful lesson: the pursuit of meaningful corporate compliance and ethical integrity requires more than financial penalties; it demands transparency, accountability, and true oversight. For corporations, anything less risks not only reputational harm but also the profound erosion of public trust, which is essential to long-term sustainability.

Tomorrow, we will explore a court-imposed solution to this imbroglio.

Categories
10 For 10

10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending June 21, 2025

Welcome to 10 For 10, the podcast that brings you the week’s Top 10 compliance stories in one podcast each week. Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you the compliance stories that compliance professionals need to be aware of to end your busy week. Sit back, and in 10 minutes, hear about the stories every compliance professional should be aware of from the prior week. Every Saturday, 10 For 10 highlights the most important news, insights, and analysis for the compliance professional, all curated by the Voice of Compliance, Tom Fox. Get your weekly filling of compliance stories with 10 for 10, a podcast produced by the Compliance Podcast Network.

  • EU Advisor backs $4.7bn Google fine. (WSJ)
  • An Interpol official has been arrested for corruption related to Red Notices. (NYT)
  • Who mourns the death of the business card? (WSJ)
  • Mike Madigan was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison. (NYT)
  • The DOJ whistleblower program focuses on healthcare fraud. (Reuters)
  • Congolese customs officer beatified for anti-corruption. (AP)
  • JBS hits the US stock exchange. (FT)
  • MyPillow Founder Mike Lindell was ordered to pay $2.3MM for defamation. (NYT)
  • IMF to assess corruption in Kenya. (Bloomberg)
  • Families of Boeing victims file formal objections. (Reuters)

You can check out the Daily Compliance News for four curated compliance and ethics-related stories each day here.

Connect with Tom 

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

You can purchase a copy of my new book, Upping Your Game, on Amazon.com

Categories
Blog

Is FCPA Enforcement Back? Part 2 – What Compliance Professionals Should Do

After months of speculation and a noticeable lull in FCPA enforcement, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has made a significant announcement with a new policy statement. In a recently released memorandum titled Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the FCPA (FCPA Memo), Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Todd Blanche has sent a clear message that FCPA enforcement is still alive under the Trump Administration. However, it will now focus on new areas, including cartel disruption, national security, US business development, and leveling the global playing field for U.S. companies.

This two-part blog post series delves deeply into the FCPA Memo. Yesterday, in Part 1, we examined the key compliance takeaways from this significant policy shift. Today, in Part 2, we provide practical insights into how you, the compliance professional, should respond.

1. Reassess your FCPA risk profile—especially in high-risk geographies and industries now under the national security spotlight.

Following the FCPA Memo, compliance professionals must reassess their FCPA risk profiles, particularly in high-risk geographies and industries that are increasingly scrutinized due to national security concerns. The FCPA Memo signaled that corruption-related activities, especially those intertwined with national security interests, are receiving enhanced scrutiny. This includes critical infrastructure sectors, technology industries, energy companies, pharmaceutical enterprises, and defense contractors. It also applies particularly to businesses operating in emerging or high-corruption-risk markets such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and Russia, among others.

Companies should move to update their geographic and sector-specific risk assessments. A robust reassessment involves reviewing recent enforcement actions, analyzing geopolitical developments, and carefully monitoring regulatory guidance that identifies new enforcement priorities. It means conducting thorough due diligence on third-party intermediaries, scrutinizing joint venture partnerships, and proactively understanding local business practices that could expose the organization to corruption risks.

Furthermore, compliance leaders should engage senior executives and board members in understanding how heightened national security risks intersect with anti-corruption compliance. This awareness ensures leadership commitment and alignment, enabling resources to be strategically allocated to address emerging risks comprehensively. The current enforcement climate mandates increased vigilance around political contributions, lobbying activities, dealings with foreign government-owned entities, and managing interactions with politically exposed persons (PEPs).

Finally, integrate scenario planning and predictive analytics into your risk assessment procedures to proactively anticipate potential compliance vulnerabilities. By considering worst-case scenarios and conducting regular tabletop exercises, compliance teams can identify possible gaps and vulnerabilities before enforcement authorities do. This forward-looking approach ensures that your FCPA compliance framework remains agile, responsive, and attuned to the evolving global enforcement landscape, providing a robust defense should regulators or investigators come calling.

2. Stress-test your investigation protocols to ensure you can respond quickly and comprehensively when issues arise. Speed now matters more than ever.

The DOJ’s recent pronouncements underscore a critical message for compliance professionals: investigative agility is now paramount. Authorities are increasingly emphasizing the need for rapid and comprehensive responses to allegations or evidence of misconduct. Companies struggle to quickly mobilize internal investigations in response to heightened scrutiny, potential penalties, and reputational damage. Therefore, it is essential to regularly stress-test your internal investigative protocols, ensuring readiness to launch effective and thorough inquiries when allegations surface swiftly.

Begin by evaluating your investigative playbook, checking for clearly defined roles, immediate escalation procedures, and robust communication plans. Conduct scenario-based drills involving different departments—legal, compliance, audit, HR, and senior management—to gauge response times and coordination effectiveness. These exercises help reveal procedural gaps, unclear accountabilities, or bottlenecks that slow down your response capabilities.

Critically test your protocols’ effectiveness in preserving and collecting evidence, managing chain-of-custody requirements, and handling electronically stored information (ESI). Time is your enemy when evidence could be lost, altered, or destroyed. Ensure your team has immediate access to necessary forensic and technical resources, enabling rapid and precise data extraction and preservation. Likewise, train your squad extensively on conducting compelling witness interviews, crafting proper documentation, and swiftly reporting initial findings to internal stakeholders and, if necessary, external regulators.

Additionally, proactively assess your external support networks, including law firms, forensic accountants, and crisis management specialists, and pre-negotiate engagement terms to ensure a seamless process. Having your external investigative partners pre-vetted and standing by will significantly expedite your investigative response. Prompt internal investigations demonstrate organizational integrity, cooperation, and seriousness to regulators, significantly influencing potential penalties or remedial expectations.

Ultimately, speed and thoroughness in investigations are essential not only to meet DOJ expectations but also to mitigate reputational risks, reduce financial exposure, and maintain internal employee confidence in the integrity of the compliance program. Comprehensive and efficient investigations demonstrate proactive, ethical leadership, reassure stakeholders, and position your organization as credible and transparent under regulatory scrutiny.

3. Refocus your compliance program on detecting and preventing serious misconduct, not just paperwork violations. The DOJ isn’t interested in minor slips—it wants meaningful enforcement with real-world impact.

Historically, compliance programs have sometimes overly emphasized procedural compliance, focusing on checking boxes, ensuring policies are signed, and conducting routine training without verifying the actual behavioral impact. However, recent enforcement trends and DOJ guidance unequivocally indicate a shift toward substantive compliance outcomes over procedural adherence. Authorities are explicitly uninterested in minor technical infractions; their priority is detecting meaningful misconduct, preventing real-world harm, and demonstrating a genuine organizational commitment to integrity.

Therefore, compliance leaders must pivot their approach to prioritize detecting and deterring serious wrongdoing, including bribery, fraud, financial misstatements, money laundering, and other forms of criminal conduct. This involves investing in sophisticated monitoring technologies, predictive analytics, and behavioral data analysis to proactively identify anomalies or indicators of serious misconduct. Traditional periodic audits and passive whistleblower hotlines alone are no longer sufficient; compliance programs must evolve into proactive, data-driven risk detection systems capable of identifying misconduct early and intervening decisively.

Tailor your compliance training to address real-world scenarios relevant to your employees’ actual work environments. Interactive, scenario-based training that actively engages employees in solving compliance dilemmas provides deeper learning, reinforces ethical behaviors, and fosters an organizational culture that is sensitive to misconduct red flags. Employees who understand the practical implications of ethical failures are better equipped to identify and escalate serious issues early, providing compliance teams a critical window for intervention.

Moreover, refine compliance incentives and disciplinary systems to reward genuine integrity and ethical behavior rather than mere policy adherence. Incorporate ethics and compliance objectives into performance reviews, leadership promotions, and recognition programs. Conversely, demonstrate a firm stance against serious misconduct through consistent and publicized enforcement actions. Employees must recognize that the organization’s ethical stance is authentic, actionable, and carries consequences.

By refocusing compliance programs on substantive misconduct, organizations send a clear and powerful message to employees, stakeholders, and regulators alike: compliance is not an administrative exercise but a fundamental component of the business’s integrity, sustainability, and long-term success. Such a program meets DOJ expectations for effective compliance, mitigates regulatory exposure, and safeguards the organization’s reputation, credibility, and value.

This FCPA memo was not simply a policy update. It was a strategic reset. And for the compliance community, it’s a call to action.

The bottom line is that the FCPA is here to stay. It may be entering one of its most aggressive and geopolitically consequential phases yet. For compliance professionals, that means redoubling your efforts, not out of fear, but with clarity, purpose, and a seat at the strategic table. As always, effective compliance is not—and never has been—about checklists. Instead, it is about protecting your business and enabling it to compete ethically, globally, and with confidence.

And even if this administration does not follow its own FCPA memo and brings no enforcement actions, the FCPA will still be the law under the next administration.

Categories
Compliance Tip of the Day

Compliance Tip of the Day – New FCPA Enforcement Memo – What Does it Mean?

Welcome to “Compliance Tip of the Day,” the podcast that brings you daily insights and practical advice on navigating the ever-evolving landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements. Whether you’re a seasoned compliance professional or just starting your journey, our goal is to provide you with bite-sized, actionable tips to help you stay ahead in your compliance efforts. Join us as we explore the latest industry trends, share best practices, and demystify complex compliance issues to keep your organization on the right side of the law. Tune in daily for your dose of compliance wisdom, and let’s make compliance a little less daunting, one tip at a time.

Today, we conclude a 2-part look at the recently released FCPA Enforcement Memo. Today, in Part 2, we consider what it means for a compliance professional.

For more information on this topic, refer to The Compliance Handbook: A Guide to Operationalizing Your Compliance Program, 6th edition, recently released by LexisNexis. It is available here.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: June 17, 2025, The JBS Goes Public Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest, all relevant to the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

  • Aspiring CPAs ditching grad school. (WSJ)
  • JBS hits the US stock exchange. (FT)
  • The DOJ whistleblower program focuses on healthcare fraud. (Reuters)
  • IMF to assess corruption in Kenya. (Bloomberg)