Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds: Truth Stranger the Fiction: Binance, Iran, Crypto and Compliance

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 it more fully. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode of Compliance into the Weeds, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly look at recent reporting on Binance that raises questions about the effectiveness of its compliance program, monitorships, and executive attitudes toward compliance.

They recap Binance’s 2023 resolution of U.S. criminal and civil matters involving money laundering and sanctions evasion. They discuss the Fortune article, which reported that Binance continued to route funds through its platform to the Iranian government in 2024 and into 2025. They highlight Mr. Zou’s public response on X, suggesting that if investigators found misconduct, it implied they failed to prevent it, which the hosts criticize as a misunderstanding that business units own risk and that compliance’s role is to provide systems, channels, oversight, and escalation rather than “prevent” all misconduct.

Key highlights:

  • Truth Stranger Than Fiction in Compliance
  • Binance’s 2023 Guilty Plea, $4.3B Penalty & Two Monitorships
  • Compliance Team Fallout: Investigators Fired & CCO on the Move
  • ‘If You Found It, You Failed’: Why CEOs Misunderstand Compliance
  • Iran as the Red Line: Plea Agreement Breach, Politics, and Corruption Risk
  • Will Anyone Enforce This? Rule of Law Questions and What Comes Next

Resources:

Matt in 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. Compliance into the Weeds has been conferred a Davey, a Communicator Award, and a W3 Award, all for podcast excellence.

Categories
From the Editor's Desk

From the Editor’s Desk: Compliance Week’s Insights and Reflections for October and into November 2025

In this episode of ‘From The Editor’s Desk’ podcast, hosts Tom Fox and Aaron Nicodemus delve into key compliance issues featured in Compliance Week. Tom and Aaron discuss the top stories from Compliance Week in October, look at some stories that will appear in November, and provide a preview of upcoming content and events.

They discuss the insights from a case study on Lafarge’s anti-bribery issues linked to cartels and terrorist organizations, as well as challenges in business due diligence in high-risk areas. The episode also covers recent trends around DOJ compliance monitorship under different administrations, insights into Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement, and evolving compliance issues related to artificial intelligence (AI). Finally, they highlight upcoming Compliance Week initiatives and webinars, focusing on career pathways in compliance, the importance of due diligence in high-risk environments, and the practical applications of AI in the compliance field.

Resources:

Aaron Nicodemus on LinkedIn

Compliance Week

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: September 18, 2025, The Four Humours 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, including compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest, relevant to the compliance professional.

Top stories include:

  • Muzzled Ben and Jerry’s founder resigns. (NYT)
  • Data Privacy Policies: To Be or Not to Be. (Reuters)
  • The 4 personality types. (BBC)
  • DOJ is about to cut loose the Binance monitor. (Bloomberg)
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
Blog

When Accountability Vanishes: Lessons from the Boeing Settlement Saga

This week on Compliance into the Weeds, Matt Kelly and I broke down the recent announcement of the Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement agreement with Boeing. What we observed is nothing short of astonishing: the DOJ has effectively waved the white flag, replacing a stringent enforcement posture with a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) for Boeing. This was coupled with no requirement for a DOJ- or court-approved monitor. The implications of this decision for compliance practitioners are profound and concerning, to say the least.

Understanding the Boeing NPA: A Quick Recap

To refresh, the Boeing saga stems from two catastrophic crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX, tragically killing 346 individuals. Initially, Boeing faced severe repercussions under a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) in 2021. This original settlement involved a guilty plea, $1.1 billion in penalties, significant enhancements to the compliance program, and a three-year compliance monitor. However, an unexpected twist soon emerged: a mid-flight door blowout on an Alaska Airlines flight raised renewed concerns about safety. Initially, it looked like Boeing might face even tougher accountability. Instead, the current DOJ under the Trump administration drastically altered course, opting for an NPA that I termed “no-calorie” enforcement: no guilty plea, a two-year independent compliance consultant (not monitor), and maintaining financial penalties without additional teeth.

Compliance Consultant: Monitor-Lite or Something Else?

One of the biggest puzzles in this whole affair is the emergence of an “independent compliance consultant.” This seemingly diluted alternative to a compliance monitor raises vital questions about the future of DOJ enforcement. It is unclear what exactly this consultant’s role entails. Unlike compliance monitors, who possess considerable authority and independence, consultants hold diminished responsibilities.

The recent DOJ memo on compliance monitors indicated a desire to manage costs and clarify expectations around monitoring appointments. Is the introduction of this consultant simply a workaround to avoid the stringent requirements for monitors? Possibly. If this consultant has fewer powers and less independence, then Boeing may have effectively dodged significant accountability yet again.

Transparency and Accountability: Unanswered Questions

Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of compliance and ethics programs. But this Boeing settlement sorely lacks both. The consultant’s operating procedures, reporting methods, and enforcement of recommendations remain unclear. Will Boeing have the authority to reject or disregard the consultant’s advice? If so, does this consultant role even fulfill the function of meaningful oversight?

Furthermore, transparency matters profoundly to the victims’ families and the public. Given Boeing’s track record of missteps, you would think transparency would be a top priority. Unfortunately, we currently have only an eight-page proposal outlining the deal and scant details for an agreement of this magnitude and gravity. Unless we see comprehensive follow-up documents delineating the consultant’s powers, independence, and transparency, it’s tough to label this a meaningful compliance win.

What Does This Mean for the Future of Compliance Monitors?

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this settlement is its broader message: if a company as large, influential, and consequential as Boeing can evade genuine oversight after catastrophic failures, what company will ever truly face a compliance monitor again?

The DOJ’s memo lists key criteria for determining monitor appointments, including a company’s recidivism risk, the public interest, and the effectiveness of existing regulatory oversight. Suppose these criteria do not merit a monitor appointment in Boeing’s circumstances, with multiple fatalities and systemic compliance and safety failures. In that case, it is nearly impossible to imagine a scenario severe enough to warrant a monitor in the future. In short, the Boeing NPA could signal the practical end of corporate compliance monitorships. That’s a troubling development for all compliance professionals committed to accountability and ethical business practices.

Whistleblower Program: Is Boeing Serious?

Interestingly, Boeing has highlighted recent enhancements to its whistleblower program, emphasizing structural changes designed to prevent conflicts of interest in investigations. While this appears positive, the compliance community rightly questions Boeing’s commitment to cultural transformation.

The enhanced program includes assigning an independent investigative body separate from the employee’s direct manager to handle the investigation of any report. This improvement, while commendable, feels insufficient given Boeing’s historic failures in culture, ethics, and safety management. The true test will be implementation effectiveness: will Boeing genuinely embed these changes, or is this merely compliance window dressing?

Stakeholders Left Out in the Cold

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, in particular, have sought genuine accountability, including criminal liability for responsible executives, robust compliance oversight, and transparency regarding changes to prevent future disasters. Instead, they have received a diminished settlement and an opaque independent consultant, leaving them rightly skeptical and outraged, all of course, with no meaningful consultation with this Administration’s Department of Justice.

With victims’ families openly protesting this agreement, the trial judge’s next moves will be closely watched. He holds unique leverage to either restore some semblance of meaningful oversight or further diminish accountability in corporate misconduct.

The Compliance Community’s Next Steps

Given this unsettling outcome, compliance professionals must recalibrate expectations regarding DOJ enforcement. Organizations may anticipate far lighter regulatory oversight in similar high-profile cases. As professionals, we must advocate for stringent compliance practices and robust cultures of integrity internally even more strongly, irrespective of regulatory pressure or its absence. Compliance officers cannot rely solely on government enforcement to ensure corporate integrity. It is clearer than ever that compliance must stem fundamentally from internal conviction rather than external compulsion.

Final Thoughts: A Troubling Precedent

Ultimately, this settlement is underwhelming but not surprising for this administration. The implications ripple far beyond Boeing, potentially affecting enforcement expectations and corporate behaviors across industries. The compliance community must remain vigilant, committed, and proactive in its efforts to ensure effective compliance. Genuine compliance effectiveness relies on internal ethical commitment, leadership accountability, and transparency, not merely regulatory pressure. While the DOJ’s Boeing decision represents a low-water mark for compliance enforcement, it also underscores a vital truth about compliance: effective compliance begins and ends with internal integrity and ethical leadership.

As Boeing demonstrates, sometimes compliance enforcement may fail us, but our commitment to integrity and ethics never should.

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
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

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
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
2 Gurus Talk Compliance

2 Gurus Talk Compliance – Episode 50 – The Tariffs Tariffs Tariffs Edition

What happens when two top compliance commentators get together? They talk compliance, of course. Join Tom Fox and Kristy Grant-Hart in 2 Gurus Talk Compliance as they discuss the latest compliance issues in this week’s episode!

Stories this week include:

  • Trump is redefining what corruption is. (Axios)
  • The pain of doing business with the Trump Administration. (FT)
  • The fired DOJ lawyer accused the current DOJ leadership of corruption. (AP)
  • 8 arrested in Huawei corruption probe. (Bloomberg)
  • Whistleblowers awarded $6.7 million against Texas AG. (Houston Chronicle)
  • New Tariffs Promise Increased False Claims Act Scrutiny on Importers and Other Companies in the Import Chain (Gibson Dunn)
  • Justice Department Scales Back Crypto Enforcement (WSJ)
  • DOJ Monitorship Policy Disappears (Radical Compliance)
  • Navigate Career Chaos: 5 Steps to Find Clarity Now (Psychology Today)
  • Woman arrested after accidentally texting sheriff’s department instead of drug dealer (KKTV)

 

Resources:

Kristy Grant-Hart on LinkedIn

Prove Your Worth

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn