Tag: DOJ

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds: Boeing, a NPA and the End of Monitors

The award-winning Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to explore a subject more fully and seeking insightful perspectives on compliance. Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode of Compliance into the Weeds, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly take a deep dive into the Department of Justice’s recent proposal to grant Boeing a non-prosecution agreement.

This decision stems from the 737 MAX crashes in the late 2010s that killed 346 people. They cover the history of Boeing’s settlements, the details and leniency of the new agreement, the role and scope of the independent compliance consultant, and the implications for corporate compliance and the victims’ families. The discussion highlights the potential end of compliance monitors and the broader impacts on corporate accountability.

Key highlights:

  • DOJ’s Non-Prosecution Agreement with Boeing
  • Changes in the Settlement Agreement
  • Role and Scope of the Independent Compliance Consultant
  • Implications for Compliance Monitorships
  • Boeing’s Whistleblower Program and Compliance Efforts
  • Judicial and Victims’ Family Reactions

Resources:

Radical Compliance

 Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

A multi-award-winning podcast, Compliance into the Weeds, was most recently honored as one of the Top 25 Regulatory Compliance Podcasts, a Top 10 Business Law Podcast, and a Top 12 Risk Management Podcast.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: May 27, 2025, The Boeing Off the Hook 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 for the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

  • If bribery is in the open, is it corruption? (The Independent)
  • DOJ gives Boeing an NPA. (WSJ)
  • New Scope 3 emissions framework. (Reuters)
  • 4 former VW managers were found guilty in an emissions scandal trial.  (NYT)
Categories
Blog

It’s a New Dawn – Compliance Monitors in 2025

In a move that should surprise no corporate compliance professional, the DOJ’s Criminal Division issued a new Memo on May 12, 2025, updating and clarifying its policies on the selection, imposition, and oversight of compliance monitors in corporate resolutions. (Herein the ‘Monitor Memo.’) This new guidance refreshes prior directives (including the foundational Morford Memo) and lays out how monitorships should be assessed, tailored, and executed in granular detail. I want to end my short series on the DOJ’s announcement of changes in white-collar enforcement by reviewing the changes to monitor selection and monitorships going forward and then considering what this means for compliance professionals. As Grace Slick said when Jefferson Airplane hit the stage at Woodstock on the morning of Day 2, “It’s a new dawn.”

I. Monitors: Precision Tools

First, the DOJ clarifies that monitorship should not be used for punitive purposes. Instead, they aim to ensure that a company meaningfully implements compliance reforms and reduces the risk of future misconduct. However, the DOJ also recognizes that monitors can be costly and intrusive. Hence, their use must be carefully calibrated. The core principle of the Monitor Memo is that monitors should be imposed only when necessary, and their scope should be tailored to the misconduct and the company’s risk profile.

The Criminal Division lays out four key factors for when a monitor may be appropriate:

  1. Risk of Recurrence. If the underlying misconduct is serious—think sanctions violations, FCPA infractions, healthcare fraud, or cartel facilitation—and has national or international implications, the risk of recurrence will weigh heavily in favor of a monitorship.
  2. Other Oversight. If another regulator (domestic or foreign) is already effectively overseeing compliance, the DOJ might hold back on appointing a monitor. But if your company committed crimes despite existing oversight, that fact will support the need for one.
  3. Compliance Program & Culture. If your company has revamped its program, replaced bad actors, and created a credible culture of compliance, that cuts against the need for a monitor. But if your program is underdeveloped, window dressing won’t suffice.
  4. Control Maturity & Self-Monitoring Capacity. Have you tested your controls? Have they been in place long enough to prove they work? Can you test, update, and scale your compliance framework internally? If yes, you may avoid a monitor. If not, start preparing now.

The DOJ’s memo drives home one central theme: fit matters. The DOJ wants focused, cost-conscious, collaborative monitorships, from budget caps to biannual meetings.

Here’s what that looks like (at this point):

  • Budget Caps: Monitors must submit a detailed budget, subject to DOJ approval, at the outset of their work. Rate caps and cost estimates must be justified, updated before each review phase, and strictly adhered to.
  • Tri-Partite Meetings: At least twice a year, the monitor, the company, and the DOJ must meet to align goals, address concerns, and ensure transparency. These are not performative check-ins; they are designed to keep all parties rowing in the same direction.
  • Collaboration over Confrontation: The DOJ is encouraging a cultural shift. Monitorships should be approached as mutual partnerships, not hostile audits. Companies have a voice; explaining operational constraints or challenging unnecessary actions is not a red flag.

The selection of a monitor should not be a backroom deal. As a monitorship is a multilayered and often multiyear process, the selection process should be designed to ensure integrity, independence, and credibility. The Monitor Memo sets out a new and transparent process.

  1. Company Nominates: The company proposes 3–5 candidates with no recent ties to the organization and compliance and independence certifications.
  2. DOJ Interviews and Evaluations: Prosecutors and section supervisors interview each candidate, assessing their qualifications, objectivity, cost-efficiency, and experience.
  3. Standing Committee Review: A special committee, including ethics officials, reviews the DOJ’s recommended candidate and must approve before the pick moves to the Assistant Attorney General (AAG).
  4. Final Approval: The AAG reviews the recommendation and sends it to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG), which gives the final stamp of approval.

In short, this is a deliberate, transparent process. If the DOJ rejects a candidate or the entire slate, the company must resubmit promptly.

The DOJ’s 2025 memorandum reflects an evolution in how federal prosecutors see compliance monitors: not just as watchdogs but as facilitators of lasting cultural change. For the corporate compliance community, this is a clarifying moment. The DOJ isn’t out to punish companies for punishment’s sake. It offers your compliance regime a chance to prove that your organization’s compliance house is in order and that your company can keep it that way without someone watching over your shoulder.

II. Lessons for the Compliance Professional

Taken in conjunction with the Galotti Memo, revised CEP, and Galeotti Speech, what should compliance leaders be doing today?

  • Bolster Your Program Now

The most effective way to avoid the imposition of a monitor and indeed receive a full Declination is to have a robust, tested, and risk-aligned compliance program already in place when misconduct is discovered, or better yet, before it occurs. If your program is reactive, overly general, or untested, it signals to the DOJ that you may need outside help. But suppose you can demonstrate that your program has been implemented thoughtfully, customized to your company’s risk profile, and embedded into business operations. In that case, you are far more likely to avoid a monitor. That means (1) documenting not only your policies and procedures; (2) showing how they are communicated, enforced, and regularly improved; (3) that your internal controls are more than words on paper; they are working in practice; and (4) continuous improvement through regular testing, third-party evaluations, and board-level oversight.

  • Document Everything

In compliance, if it is not documented, it did not happen. This mantra has never been more important than in the post-resolution environment. The DOJ’s refocused CEP and changes to monitorship decisions underscore the need for companies to contemporaneously and comprehensively document all remediation efforts, disciplinary actions, training rollouts, and policy changes. If your company responds to misconduct with serious reforms, but you do not have the paper trail to back it up, prosecutors may assume those reforms are temporary, superficial, or nonexistent. That is a recipe for a monitor.

  • Engage Experts

One of the clearest signals a company can send to the DOJ about its seriousness in addressing misconduct is proactively engaging third-party experts before the government forces its hand. The revised CEP and Monitor Memo recognizes that a company’s voluntary use of outside compliance consultants, forensic auditors, or legal advisors can reduce or even eliminate the need for a monitor. These experts provide an independent lens, help benchmark your program against industry standards, and identify gaps before they become systemic failures. The bottom line is not to wait for the government to tell you to bring in expertise. Be proactive. Be smart. Be credible.

  • Prove Your Culture Has Changed

Culture is the bedrock of compliance, and the DOJ knows it. The revised CEP and Monitor Memo encourage prosecutors to consider whether a company’s leadership and culture differ meaningfully from those that allowed the misconduct to occur. This creates a critical opportunity for compliance professionals to prove that their house has been cleaned and remodeled. It means demonstrable metrics, employee survey data, speak-up culture indicators, training completion rates, or reduction in hotline-related retaliation claims that show your culture is becoming one of integrity and accountability. Suppose you can show that employees now report misconduct earlier, that internal investigations are handled more fairly, and that ethical conduct is rewarded. In that case, your company is more likely to argue that external supervision is no longer necessary, even if a full Declination is not warranted. Cultural change takes time, but in the eyes of the DOJ, it is one of the most persuasive indicators of whether your organization has truly moved on from its past.

  • Prepare for Monitoring Anyway

If your company believes it will avoid a monitorship, prepare as if one is coming. Pressure tests your program and creates a remediation roadmap aligning with DOJ expectations. Be ready to show how your company has made significant progress. Preparing for a monitor also forces your team to adopt a monitor’s mindset: testing controls, tracking effectiveness, documenting improvements, and coordinating with business units. It’s a rigorous, forward-leaning exercise that will strengthen your compliance program, even if the monitor never arrives. Remember, the DOJ is not just interested in what you say your organization will do; it is watching what you have already done. Preparation shows maturity. And if the monitor is ultimately imposed, you can hit the ground running with a partner who views you as ready, willing, and able, not reluctant or reactive.

The bottom line from these new DOJ pronouncements is that compliance can be cleaned up, and then full walking papers for FCPA or other white-collar crime incidents that your organization may have sustained can be obtained. Now is the time to take advantage of the DOJ’s incredibly pro-business approach. If your senior management harks back to the Executive Order suspending FCPA investigation and enforcement, tell them that the DOJ has lifted the suspension.

Resources:

CRM White Collar Enforcement Plan

Revised CEP

CRM Monitor Memo

Categories
Blog

The Updated CEP: Is Real Credit Finally Here?

Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), recently delivered a speech at SIFMA’s Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference. Contemporaneously, the DOJ issued a Memo (the Galeotti Memo) entitled Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime. I have explored both in previous blog posts. Today, I want to review the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) updates. It provides a roadmap for how companies can earn leniency when they self-report wrongdoing. And in an increasingly unforgiving regulatory landscape, that roadmap is worth its weight in gold.

Under the CEP, a company that voluntarily self-discloses, fully cooperates, and timely remediates can qualify for a declination of prosecution, provided there are no aggravating circumstances. This is the reaffirmation of a multi-year DOJ effort to garner more self-disclosures. It gives compliance professionals something real to bring to the C-suite: if we invest in robust compliance and proactively address issues, we can avoid criminal prosecution altogether.

What if aggravating factors exist, such as senior-level involvement or prior misconduct? If the company cooperates and remediates in good faith, the policy still provides for reduced penalties, non-prosecution agreements, and shorter resolution terms. In other words, the DOJ offers a “near miss” safety net for companies that fall short of full eligibility but act responsibly.

The takeaway is clear: Compliance is not just a cost center but a value driver. The CEP recognizes that companies should be rewarded for coming forward, cooperating, and fixing problems. That means compliance professionals must build systems that detect misconduct early, encourage internal reporting, and enable swift action. When a crisis hits, your response will not just shape your company’s future; it may be the difference between a decline and a prosecution.

Voluntary Self-Disclosure

The DOJ’s Criminal Division strongly encourages companies to voluntarily self-disclose potential misconduct as early as possible, even before completing an internal investigation. To qualify under the CEP, a disclosure must meet several key criteria: it must be made to the Criminal Division (or in good faith to another DOJ component involved in the resolution), concern previously unknown misconduct, not be required by any existing legal obligation, and occur before any imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation arises. Additionally, the disclosure must be made within a “reasonably prompt” timeframe, with the company bearing the burden of proving timeliness.

The DOJ proposes a limited exception for the new Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program. Suppose a whistleblower reports misconduct internally and to the DOJ. In that case, a company may still qualify for the presumption of declination, but only if it self-discloses to the DOJ within 120 days of the internal report and meets all other voluntary disclosure conditions.

This guidance underscores the urgency and importance of real-time reporting mechanisms, strong internal controls, and rapid compliance response protocols. Timely self-disclosure is not just encouraged; it is now a strategic imperative in mitigating enforcement risk.

What is Full Cooperation?

To earn full cooperation credit under the CEP, a company must go beyond the general requirements of the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations (Justice Manual 9-28.000) and meet six key obligations:

  1. Disclosure of All Relevant Facts: A company must share all non-privileged, relevant facts it knows, including facts about individuals responsible for the misconduct, regardless of their rank, whether internal or external to the company.
  2. Timely and Specific Information Sharing: This includes facts obtained through any internal investigation, updates during that investigation, and specific attributions of facts to sources. The company must also clearly identify all involved parties.
  3. Proactive Cooperation: Companies must voluntarily disclose relevant facts, even if prosecutors do not specifically request them. They are also expected to alert the DOJ to any avenues of obtaining evidence not in the company’s possession but known to them.
  4. Preservation and Disclosure of Documents: Relevant documents, including overseas ones, must be preserved, collected, and produced. Companies must detail such documents’ origin, custodians, and locations; facilitate third-party productions; and provide necessary translations. The company must prove the restriction if foreign law prevents disclosure and suggest viable alternatives.
  5. De-confliction: Companies must avoid actions that might interfere with DOJ investigations. If requested, they must delay certain investigative steps, such as employee interviews, for a narrowly tailored period to protect DOJ priorities.
  6. Availability of Individuals for Interviews: Subject to constitutional protections, companies must make current and former employees (including those overseas) available for DOJ interviews and facilitate third-party interviews where possible.

These standards ensure that cooperation is meaningful, timely, and valuable to the DOJ’s efforts, rewarding companies that truly support investigations with favorable outcomes under the CEP.

Timely and Appropriate Remediation

Under the CEP, timely and appropriate remediation is a non-negotiable component of earning cooperation credit and potentially avoiding prosecution. And for compliance professionals, it is a clarion call to action. First, the company must conduct a root cause analysis, a genuine examination of what went wrong, why, and how to prevent it from happening again. It’s not about blaming a few bad apples but addressing systemic issues that allowed the misconduct to take root. Did a cultural blind spot develop in a high-risk market? Was there a breakdown in oversight or a failure to escalate red flags? The DOJ expects thoughtful answers and corrective action.

Second, the company must demonstrate an effective compliance and ethics program tailored to its risk profile, business model, and resources. That means more than having policies on the books. DOJ evaluators are looking at leadership’s commitment, compliance’s access to the board, compensation tied to ethical performance, and real-time testing of program effectiveness. Box-checking won’t cut it.

Third, accountability is key. Companies must appropriately discipline wrongdoers, including those who failed in their supervisory duties, and ensure they retain and safeguard business records, including communications on personal devices and ephemeral apps.

Finally, remediation includes showing that the company understands the seriousness of the misconduct and is proactively reducing future risk. This is about culture, not cosmetics.

In short, remediation is proof of your values in action. It is the difference between performative compliance and real commitment. Suppose you’re building a credible compliance program in today’s enforcement environment. In that case, remediation must be embedded in your DNA because the DOJ is watching, and your organization’s future may depend on how you respond.

Providing Cooperation Credit

Finally, there is the cooperation credit. Hopefully, we have finally moved past the Kenneth Polite formulation of super, double-secret, undefined “we know it when we see it” cooperation. Cooperation credit here will be earned through demonstrable, high-quality, timely actions. Cooperation is assessed on a sliding scale based on how extensively and effectively a company supports the government’s investigation. Once a company meets the minimum threshold for cooperation, prosecutors evaluate factors such as scope, quantity, quality, timing, and the overall impact of the cooperation provided.

Importantly, cooperation credit starts at zero and increases only with meaningful contributions, and there is no presumption of full credit. The DOJ now distinguishes between cooperation levels by varying the starting point within the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range, and the percentage of fine reduction awarded. Companies that delay cooperation may significantly reduce their potential credit.

Waiver of attorney-client privilege or work product protections is not required to receive cooperation credit. If a company claims its financial condition limits its ability to cooperate, it must provide supporting documentation. The DOJ will carefully evaluate any such claims. Ultimately, the message is clear: to earn meaningful credit, cooperation must be real, proactive, and sustained. But at least it is now defined and not “We know it when we see it.”

Resources:

CRM White Collar Enforcement Plan

Revised CEP

CRM Monitor Memo

Categories
Innovation in Compliance

Staying the Course in Compliance: Insights from Kristy Grant-Hart

Innovation comes in many areas, and compliance professionals must be ready for and embrace it. Join Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, as he visits with top innovative minds, thinkers, and creators in the award-winning Innovation in Compliance podcast. Today, we begin a 3-part podcast series sponsored by Diligent with Clint Palermo, Kristy Grant-Hart, and Stephanie Font. In Part 3, Tom is joined by Kristy Grant-Hart, Vice President and Head of Compliance Advisory Services at Spark Compliance Consulting, a Diligent brand, about the state of compliance in the wake of recent changes to FCPA enforcement.

They discuss the importance of staying consistent with compliance programs, the role of regulatory bodies worldwide, and the practical implications of modern slavery and trade sanctions. Kristy emphasizes the need for a strategic focus on forward-looking risks and the benefits of combining Diligent’s software capabilities with expertise in compliance services. They also underscore the importance of maintaining psychological safety and a speak-up culture within organizations.

Key highlights:

  • The Importance of Consistency in Compliance
  • The Power of Combining Compliance Services with Technology
  • Strategic Focus for Compliance Officers

Resources:

Kristy Grant-Hart on LinkedIn

Spark Compliance

Visit Diligent Website

Tom Fox

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
SBR - Authors' Podcast

SBR-Author’s Podcast: The Unseen Life of an Undercover Agent: A Conversation with Charlie Spillers

Welcome to the SBR-Authors Podcast! In this podcast series, Host Tom Fox visits with authors in the compliance arena and beyond. Today, Tom is joined by Charlie Spillers, a former federal prosecutor, undercover agent, and author.

Spillers discusses his unique and extensive career, including his 10 years working undercover and his significant contributions in Iraq as a legal advisor during the trial of Saddam Hussein. He shares anecdotes about his life undercover, the impact of stress on his health, and the challenges law enforcement agents face. Additionally, Spillers talks about the lessons he learned from his experiences and offers advice for aspiring professionals in law enforcement. He also touches on his writings and future book projects. This episode is filled with compelling stories, insights into the world of undercover operations, and reflections on global justice.

Key highlights:

  • Writing the Book: Unique Undercover Experiences
  • Impact of Undercover Work on Prosecution
  • Challenges and Ethics in Undercover Operations
  • Personal Toll of Undercover Work
  • Global Stage: Working in Iraq
  • The Importance of Saddam Hussein’s Trial

Resources:

Charlie Spillers  on LinkedIn

Undercover Agent on Amazon.com

Tom Fox

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

DOJ’s White-Collar Enforcement Plan: Galeotti Memo on Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency

Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), recently delivered a speech at SIFMA’s Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference. Contemporaneously, the DOJ issued a Memo (the Memo) entitled Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime. Today, I want to explore the key insights and crucial issues for compliance professionals in the Memo.

The Memo marks a turning point in the enforcement landscape, emphasizing a trio of principles: focus, fairness, and efficiency. For compliance professionals, these adjustments represent more than mere policy shifts; they outline clear and practical pathways that demand immediate attention and strategic integration into compliance frameworks.

Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency

The Memo states that the DOJ’s core mission is delivering justice, upholding the rule of law, safeguarding the public, and championing victims’ rights. Within the Criminal Division, this mission translates into proactive efforts aimed at dismantling dangerous criminal entities, such as cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), disrupting human trafficking networks, combating fentanyl and other illicit drug flows, and prosecuting violent offenders and child predators. This is a way of saying that this Administration’s enforcement priorities have changed.

White-collar crime is identified as a critical threat that significantly impacts American citizens and the national economy. Uncontrolled fraud within government programs and markets harms taxpayers, weakens public resources, and undermines national security by facilitating illicit financial activities, including money laundering and sanctions evasion. However, the DOJ believes that overly aggressive enforcement practices can inadvertently damage legitimate businesses, stifle innovation, and punish legitimate risk-taking.

To navigate this complexity, the DOJ’s Criminal Division emphasizes what it characterizes as a balanced enforcement approach grounded in three key principles: focus, fairness, and efficiency. “Focus” entails directing investigative resources towards crimes of greatest national impact, avoiding unnecessary distractions. “Fairness” involves prosecuting individual offenders primarily, ensuring corporate entities are penalized appropriately without excessive burden for isolated misconduct. “Efficiency” calls for streamlined investigations and appropriate, narrowly tailored interventions. Through these guiding tenets, the Criminal Division seeks to effectively tackle serious crimes, protect public interests, and support the vitality and innovation of American enterprise.

Harms Caused by White Collar Crime

White-collar crime presents a significant threat to American society, economy, and national security. Dishonest actors frequently exploit taxpayer-funded government programs through rampant healthcare, procurement, and defense spending fraud, diverting essential resources for vulnerable populations. These abuses weaken government efficacy and impose unjust financial burdens on taxpayers. Additionally, complex investment schemes, including Ponzi operations and elder fraud, target individual investors, stripping them of their financial security and eroding market trust.

Exploiting monetary systems, particularly through digital asset fraud, hampers economic innovation and growth. In contrast, trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion, negatively impact domestic competitiveness and undermine administration efforts to bolster job creation and investments within the U.S. Financial institutions and shadow banks facilitate serious international crime, including sanctions evasion and money laundering, thus directly supporting transnational criminal enterprises and increasing threats to national security. Specifically, Chinese-affiliated companies (Variable Interest Entities—VIEs) listed on U.S. exchanges have been highlighted for their potential to commit fraud and manipulate markets, putting American investors at significant financial risk.

Sophisticated money laundering schemes further facilitate cross-border crime, allowing criminal organizations to conceal illicit funds and sustain criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking operations that introduce harmful substances like fentanyl to American shores. Furthermore, foreign terrorist groups depend significantly on financial networks and corporate complicity to fund and execute terror activities against U.S. citizens domestically and abroad. Therefore, businesses and financial institutions aiding such organizations severely compromise American lives and national security. Addressing these severe issues, the Criminal Division is intensifying efforts to prosecute these offenses vigorously, prioritizing cases that uphold American economic and national security interests.

Prioritization and Policy Changes

The Criminal Division has updated its enforcement priorities and policies, targeting specific high-impact white-collar crime areas crucial to safeguarding U.S. interests. Priority enforcement categories include fraud against government programs such as healthcare, procurement fraud harming public resources, and trade and customs fraud, like tariff evasion. The Criminal Division will actively prosecute complex financial crimes, including securities fraud, market manipulations, elder fraud, and schemes targeting individual investors and consumers. Additional focus areas encompass activities threatening national security, such as sanctions violations by financial institutions, material support by corporations to foreign terrorist organizations, complex money laundering operations, and violations related to illegal drug manufacturing and distribution.

Furthermore, bribery and associated money laundering activities that harm U.S. competitiveness or security are prioritized, alongside digital asset-related crimes victimizing investors or facilitating significant criminal activities. Prosecutors will prioritize identifying and seizing crime-related assets to reinforce these efforts, emphasizing accountability for senior-level perpetrators or those obstructing justice. Enhancements to the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program also underscore this refined approach, adding incentives for reporting violations involving international criminal organizations, terrorism support, immigration breaches, sanctions offenses, and trade fraud. These targeted measures aim to enhance investigative effectiveness, promote fairness, and streamline DOJ’s enforcement efforts.

Fairness in Prosecutions

The Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) has emphasized transparency, cooperation, and remediation, significantly enhancing efforts to hold individual offenders accountable while rewarding responsible corporate citizens. Recognizing that individual actors, whether executives, officers, or employees, often commit white-collar crimes at the expense of investors, employees, and consumers, the Criminal Division focuses intensely on prosecuting these specific wrongdoers. Notably, federal prosecution isn’t always necessary for corporate misconduct; alternative remedies like civil or administrative actions may better address less severe infractions, provided the companies demonstrate sincere cooperation and effective remediation.

Prosecutors evaluate multiple factors when determining corporate charges, including timely self-disclosure, cooperation level, and the comprehensiveness of remedial actions. Recent updates to the CEP further simplify its guidelines, making pathways for potential declinations and fine reductions clearer for corporations. These refinements offer maximal transparency, allowing corporations to make informed decisions about proactively addressing misconduct.

The Criminal Division also reviews existing corporate agreements, potentially shortening their terms based on compliance maturity, reduced risk profiles, and proactive self-reporting. Future corporate resolutions will typically cap terms at three years unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. Regular assessments will determine whether agreements warrant early termination, enhancing fairness and practicality in corporate enforcement.

Efficiency Through Streamlined Investigations

The DOJ’s revised approach emphasizes efficiency and clarity in investigating and prosecuting white-collar crimes, recognizing that lengthy and intrusive federal investigations can unnecessarily burden innocent stakeholders and significantly disrupt normal business operations. Complex white-collar schemes often span borders and involve extensive evidence, causing investigations to stretch for years. However, the DOJ now mandates prosecutors to expedite these investigations, swiftly conclude inquiries, and promptly make charging decisions. This renewed urgency ensures that justice is served quickly, limiting collateral damage to uninvolved entities and reducing reputational harm.

Additionally, the DOJ addresses the use of independent compliance monitors, recognizing that monitorships should only be imposed when necessary, specifically when internal company mechanisms alone are insufficient to prevent misconduct recurrence. To further efficiency, monitorships must be narrowly tailored, carefully scoped to address the specific misconduct risks, and designed to minimize financial costs and operational disruptions for companies.

The Criminal Division has implemented a new monitor selection Memo clarifying the criteria prosecutors must consider when determining the necessity of a monitor and how to limit their mandates appropriately. Furthermore, the DOJ is actively reviewing existing monitorships to individually assess their ongoing necessity, ensuring alignment with the principles of efficiency and minimal interference. Compliance professionals should thus prioritize developing robust internal compliance programs, mitigating the need for external monitors, and preparing for swift, efficient cooperation with any DOJ inquiries.

The Galeotti Memo emphasized a renewed commitment to focus, fairness, and efficiency in white-collar crime enforcement. The Memo underscores the critical need to precisely target high-impact criminal activities, including healthcare fraud, securities manipulation, customs violations, and digital asset crimes. The DOJ aims to protect American interests by clearly defining enforcement priorities while minimizing unnecessary business disruptions.

The DOJ’s revised Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) reflects a balanced approach that prioritizes prosecuting individual wrongdoers over punishing entire corporations for isolated misconduct. Companies are encouraged toward transparency and proactive self-disclosure, incentivized through more straightforward guidelines, reduced penalties, and potentially shorter oversight durations.

Furthermore, the DOJ stresses the importance of streamlined, efficient investigations to conclude cases and promptly limit collateral damage to innocent parties. Independent compliance monitorships are now restricted to essential circumstances, narrowly tailored to specific compliance needs, minimizing cost and operational interference.

The DOJ’s strategic shifts represent a more cooperative and transparent enforcement regime, fostering improved corporate compliance, accountability, and integrity within American enterprises.

Join us tomorrow when we take a deep dive into the Revised CEP.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: May 19, 2025, The Definition of Corruption 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 for the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

Categories
Blog

A New Era of White-Collar Enforcement

Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), recently delivered a speech at SIFMA’s Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference. Galeotti outlined crucial changes in the DOJ’s approach to corporate enforcement. For compliance professionals, it was the first major speech by a DOJ representative touching on issues important to the corporate compliance community. It represents a paradigm shift that requires immediate attention, reflection, and strategic recalibration.

As compliance professionals, our mission goes beyond merely ensuring adherence to rules and regulations; it is about aligning ethical conduct with business excellence. Galeotti’s remarks clearly state that the DOJ recognizes compliance teams as indispensable allies in maintaining integrity and national security. Today, I want to explore the key insights and crucial lessons learned from Galeotti’s landmark address for compliance professionals.

Proactivity in Self-Disclosure is Paramount

The Criminal Division’s revised Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) underscores a clear incentive structure. Companies that voluntarily self-disclose, fully cooperate, timely remediate, and demonstrate no aggravating circumstances will not merely be presumed eligible but will definitively qualify for a declination. As Galeotti emphasized, “Self-disclosure is key to receiving the most generous benefits the Criminal Division can offer.”

The days of companies hesitating to self-disclose due to uncertainty about consequences are (hopefully) numbered. Compliance programs must prioritize internal monitoring and foster a culture where issues surface rapidly, are transparently addressed, and are communicated proactively to authorities. The DOJ now promises more certainty, with the carrot being a declination, not ambiguity. For compliance teams, the action is clear: establish robust internal reporting mechanisms and ensure swift escalation processes.

DOJ Clarifies Incentives for Partial or Late Disclosures

The revised policy also addresses a longstanding area of anxiety. What happens when a company comes forward after the DOJ has initiated an inquiry or self-discloses late? Galeotti clarified that even companies that disclose “not quickly enough” are eligible for significant benefits, including a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) of fewer than three years, up to a 75% fine reduction, and no monitor requirement.

Compliance professionals should seize this clarity to advocate internally for transparency, even if belated. Organizations must understand that delayed disclosure still carries significant benefits compared to complete silence. This new clarity enhances the compliance professional’s ability to negotiate internally, ensuring corporate leaders understand the tangible benefits of transparency, even under challenging circumstances.

Expect a Narrower and More Focused DOJ Enforcement

Galeotti explicitly intended to shift the Criminal Division’s focus to the priorities of administrative enforcement. These schemes harm individual Americans, defraud government programs, and exploit financial systems to facilitate international crime. The DOJ now pledges to target resources precisely rather than spreading them thin through overly broad or protracted investigations. Galeotti succinctly encapsulated the rationale: “Excessive enforcement and unfocused corporate investigations stymie innovation, limit prosperity, and reduce efficiency.”

This presents an opportunity for compliance programs to fine-tune their internal risk assessments and investigative frameworks. Compliance professionals must ensure internal investigative resources are equally precise and strategic, aligning clearly with the DOJ’s focus areas. In short, avoid distraction; concentrate your vigilance on risks that matter most to regulators.

Reconsideration of Corporate Monitorships

One of the most consequential announcements is the reconsideration of the DOJ’s policy on corporate monitorships. Galeotti recognized that monitors can sometimes impose excessive financial and operational costs. Going forward, monitorships will be narrower in scope, tightly tailored, and deployed selectively only when benefits outweigh costs.

This is welcome news for compliance professionals, as corporate monitorship can be an unpleasant experience for a corporation and a compliance function. This change empowers compliance teams to advocate for internal investment in compliance improvements over external oversight. Compliance leaders should proactively develop internally led remediation and monitoring plans to demonstrate to regulators that the company has comprehensive capabilities to ensure compliance without burdensome external monitoring.

However, when a monitor is necessary, compliance professionals now have clear factors to prepare for DOJ review, including the severity of the underlying conduct, existing regulatory oversight, efficacy and maturity of compliance programs, and a demonstrated culture of compliance. Companies must document continuous improvement efforts clearly and transparently, making a strong case that external monitoring is redundant.

Corporate Whistleblower Programs Elevated in Importance

Lastly, Galeotti underscored the DOJ’s expanded whistleblower program, adding specific priority areas for whistleblower tips, including procurement fraud, trade and tariff violations, immigration violations, and sanction violations supporting terrorist groups or transnational criminal organizations.

The clear lesson here is the criticality of robust internal whistleblower programs. Compliance professionals must champion strong, accessible, secure, and confidential internal whistleblower policies to encourage employees to report concerns internally first. Organizations that fail to nurture internal reporting channels may receive external regulator attention first. Whistleblower programs should no longer be viewed solely as legal necessities; they must be strategic initiatives central to corporate integrity and national security.

A Call to Action for Compliance Professionals

Galeotti’s address represents a clear change in the DOJ’s approach. Compliance professionals have long desired a regulatory environment that rewards proactive transparency and practical self-governance, and the DOJ now offers this.

However, clarity and pragmatism from the DOJ require reciprocal clarity and pragmatism within corporate compliance programs. Compliance leaders must leverage these new DOJ policies to advocate internally for stronger compliance investments, clearer internal communication channels, and faster reporting protocols.

The DOJ’s message to compliance professionals is clear: You are our frontline partners in protecting integrity and national security. Self-reporting, effective remediation, and robust internal compliance structures will not merely shield your company from punitive enforcement; they represent pathways to tangible benefits and increased corporate resilience.

As compliance evangelists, we must seize this moment. Strengthen your internal mechanisms, streamline your reporting protocols, and reaffirm to your organizations that compliance excellence is not merely defensive but strategically beneficial.

Matthew Galeotti’s remarks provide the road map; it is incumbent on the compliance community to lead the way forward.

We will explore the attendant policy releases announced with the publication of Galeotti’s speech. Over the remainder of the week, we will consider the following:

CRM White Collar Enforcement Plan

Revised CEP

CRM Monitor Memo

Categories
10 For 10

10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending May 17, 2025

Welcome to 10 For 10, the podcast which brings you the week’s Top 10 compliance stories in one podcast each week. Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance brings to you, the compliance professional, the 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 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.

  • The $100K in cash deposit.  (WSJ)
  • Broader DOJ whistleblower program announced.  (WSJ)
  • Google faces massive antitrust lawsuit in Italy. (WSJ)
  • Apple says punishment for its illegal acts unfair. (BBC)
  • Insurance cover for chatbot based losses.  (FT)
  • Adani tries to settle corruption case. (Bloomberg)
  • Is the gift of a jet plane corruption. (NYT)
  • Will SEC overturn bans and suspensions? (Reuters)
  • GOP wants to ban state regulation of AI. (Bloomberg)
  • What is risk paralysis.  (FT)

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