DOJ Unveils New Plan for White-Collar Crime and Corporate Enforcement

White-Collar Enforcement Plan

DOJ’s current approach to corporate criminal enforcement is broadly outlined in a memo to Criminal Division personnel titled “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime.” The memo, also referred to as the “White Collar Enforcement Plan,” starts by acknowledging that white-collar crime “poses a significant threat to U.S. interests.” However, it also states that “overbroad and unchecked” enforcement can burden US businesses and harm US interests. The memo then describes several policy changes that are aimed at addressing this concern, including:

• New priority areas of focus: The Criminal Division will prioritize investigating and prosecuting white-collar crimes in the following areas:
  • Waste, fraud, and abuse, including healthcare fraud and federal program and procurement fraud;
  • Trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion;
  • Fraud perpetrated through variable interest entities (VIEs), including, but not limited to, offering fraud, “ramp and dumps,” elder fraud, securities fraud, and other market manipulation schemes;
  • Fraud that victimizes US investors, individuals, and markets, including, but not limited to, Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, elder fraud, servicemember fraud, and fraud that threatens the health and safety of consumers;
  • Conduct that threatens national security, including threats to the US financial system by gatekeepers, such as financial institutions and their insiders that commit sanctions violations or enable transactions by cartels, transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), hostile nation-states, and/or foreign terrorist organizations;
  • Material support by corporations to foreign terrorist organizations, including recently designated cartels and TCOs;
  • Complex money laundering, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations and other organizations involved in laundering funds used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs;
  • Violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including in connection with fentanyl and opioids;
  • Bribery and associated money laundering that impacts US national interests, undermines US national security, harms the competitiveness of US businesses, and enriches foreign corrupt officials; and
  • Crimes involving digital assets that victimize investors and consumers, use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct, or facilitate significant criminal activity.

It is notable that this list of priority areas for enforcement includes certain types of bribery and foreign corruption, given the pause that was placed on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement by an executive order in February 2025.

• Early termination of corporate criminal resolutions: DOJ is currently reviewing the terms of all existing agreements between companies and the Fraud Section and/or the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS) to determine whether early termination is appropriate. Going forward, the terms of such agreements should not exceed three years, and agreements should be assessed regularly to determine if they should be terminated early. Factors that weigh in favor of early termination include:
  • The duration of the post-resolution period;
  • Whether there has been a substantial reduction in the company’s risk profile;
  • The extent of remediation;
  • The maturity of the company’s compliance program; and
  • Whether the company self-reported the misconduct.
• Minimizing the length of investigations: Criminal Division prosecutors must now “take all reasonable steps to minimize the length and collateral impact of their investigations” and “move expeditiously to investigate cases and make charging decisions.” DOJ will track investigations to ensure they are “swiftly concluded.”
• Review of all existing monitorships: The Criminal Division is working with DOJ leadership to undertake an individualized review of all existing monitorships to determine whether each monitor is still necessary. In performing this review, DOJ is following principles outlined in the newly updated monitor selection memo, described in more detail below.

The White Collar Enforcement Plan also discusses revisions to DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy and monitor selection memo, which are discussed below.

Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy

DOJ has long sought to incentivize voluntary self-disclosures, which are important to DOJ’s current goal of increasing efficiency in investigations, as they allow prosecutors to more quickly identify relevant facts and culpable individuals. The revised Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy offers greater benefits to companies that voluntarily self-disclose misconduct, along with other changes:

• Clearer path to declination: The path to a declination is now clearer under the revised Policy. The Criminal Division will decline to prosecute a company for criminal conduct when it voluntarily self-discloses, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately remediates, and there are no aggravating circumstances. This contrasts with the prior version of the Policy, which only promised a presumption of declination in such circumstances.
• Fewer requirements to overcome aggravating factors: The revised Policy states that prosecutors have discretion to recommend a declination – even if aggravating factors are present – based on a weighing the severity of those factors against the company’s cooperation and remediation. The prior version of the Policy was more prescriptive and outlined specific requirements (such as “extraordinary” cooperation and “immediate” voluntary self-disclosure) for a company to qualify for a declination if aggravating factors were present.
• More clarity for companies that do not qualify for declinations: Companies that do not meet all of the requirements for a declination now have more certainty about the form of resolution they will face. Specifically, companies that self-report misconduct in good faith, cooperate, and remediate, but do not meet all of the voluntary self-disclosure requirements (because, for instance, DOJ was already aware of the misconduct) will generally receive a non-prosecution agreement with a term fewer than three years, no independent compliance monitor, and a penalty reduction of 75% off the low end of the US Sentencing Guidelines fine range. The same is true where aggravating factors preclude a declination, but the company has voluntarily self-disclosed, cooperated, and remediated.
• Streamlined requirements: The revised Policy is generally simpler than the prior version, although many of the principles remain the same. It also includes a flowchart to visually depict the path to a declination and other resolution types.

Monitor Selection Memo

The revised monitor selection memo updates the DOJ’s internal policies governing the imposition, selection, and oversight of independent compliance monitors in corporate criminal resolutions. While it retains the foundational principles outlined in prior guidance, the 2025 update introduces more detailed criteria for both the imposition and governance of monitorships.

Additional considerations for imposing a monitor:

• Impact on US interests: Prosecutors should evaluate whether imposing a monitor would mitigate the risk of repeat misconduct that significantly affects US interests, including sanctions evasion; threats to the US economy; foreign bribery that significantly impacts US interests; trade fraud; tariff evasion; procurement and healthcare fraud; and crimes supporting cartels, TCOs, narcotics trafficking, or terrorist organizations.
• Third-party assistance in pre-resolution remediation: Prosecutors should assess whether a company’s voluntary, pre-resolution engagement of third-party consultants, auditors, or other experts to enhance or remediate its compliance program obviates the need for a monitor.

Updated guidance on monitorship governance is as follows:

• Monitor selection process: The selection process should include an evaluation of whether the candidate’s proposal is cost-efficient and avoids unnecessary burdens on the company’s operations.
• Cost controls: Monitors must submit a detailed budget with their initial work plan, adhere to hourly rate caps, submit an updated budget for DOJ approval before beginning each phase of the monitorship, and obtain prior written approval from DOJ before being paid for any cost overruns.
• Communication and oversight: Resolution agreements will require at least biannual tripartite meetings between DOJ, the company, and the monitor to align expectations, promote DOJ oversight, and prevent monitor overreach.

Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program

DOJ announced that it is leaving in place and expanding the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which the Biden administration had announced earlier last year. The purpose of the program was to address misconduct that existing federal whistleblower programs do not already cover. The updated program expands the subject areas for qualifying whistleblower tips to align with DOJ’s recently announced enforcement priorities, adding the following subject areas:

• Procurement and federal program fraud;
• Trade, tariff, and customs fraud;
• Violations of federal immigration law;
• Violations involving sanctions or material support of foreign terrorist organizations; and
• Violations that facilitate cartels and TCOs, including money laundering, narcotics, and Controlled Substances Act violations.

If an individual helps DOJ discover previously unknown misconduct relating to the specified priority enforcement areas, the whistleblower can qualify for a monetary share of any resulting civil or criminal forfeiture action. However, DOJ’s announcement underscored that tips must result in forfeiture for whistleblowers to be eligible for a reward.

Conclusion

The announcement of the White Collar Enforcement Plan and associated policy revisions provide significant insight into how DOJ will approach white-collar enforcement in this administration. The coming months will offer additional clarity as we see these revised policies in practice. We also expect further guidance to be issued related to FCPA enforcement, consistent with the recent executive order on the topic. In the meantime, companies should stay vigilant to compliance risks, particularly in areas that DOJ has identified as priorities for investigation and prosecution.