CONNECTICUT: An Introduction to Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations
This year has brought dramatic changes within the DOJ, including high-profile departures and internal conflict, and the Trump administration has signaled potentially significant shifts in law enforcement priorities. Attorney General Pam Bondi and her DOJ colleagues have begun to implement those shifts, as discussed below. But experienced white-collar practitioners will also recognize that the DOJ has institutional stability that will persist even through tumultuous times, and that the fundamentals of navigating clients through government investigations remain the same. Indeed, the Head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division has recently issued policy revisions intended to make the benefits to corporate clients of self-disclosure and co-operation more predictable and clearer.
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Memoranda
In February 2025, Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi issued fourteen memoranda outlining shifts in DOJ priorities and policies, which included the following key points.
Limiting prosecutorial discretion in charging decisions
AG Bondi has directed that, in the absence of “unusual facts”, prosecutors are expected to charge the most serious, readily provable offense. This is a reversion to the general policy in place during President Trump’s first term and a departure from the Biden administration’s policy, which expressly directed prosecutors to consider whether a charge would result in a disproportionate sentence.
De-prioritizing traditional Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and bribery investigations
AG Bondi directed the DOJ to prioritize FCPA enforcement to target foreign bribery “that facilitates the criminal operations” of drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations. President Trump subsequently issued an executive order pausing FCPA enforcement for 180 days and directed AG Bondi to “issue updated guidelines or policies.” AG Bondi has also implemented DOJ policy changes to allow individual U.S. Attorneys’ offices to pursue FCPA investigations and prosecutions without prior authorization of the DOJ Criminal Division.
Narrowing enforcement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)
AG Bondi has directed that criminal FARA charges be brought only with respect to “alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors.”
Disbanding Task Force KleptoCapture and the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative
The disbanding of these units represents a significant shift of DOJ resources away from the enforcement of sanctions and export controls targeting Russia and its affiliates’ evasion of sanctions.
Future FCPA Enforcement
The re-framing of FCPA enforcement to target bribery with a nexus to transnational crime presents new terrain for FCPA prosecutors, who previously focused their investigations on multinational corporations’ business dealings with foreign governments and officials. The narrowing of enforcement to cases with a nexus to conduct such as “human smuggling and the trafficking of narcotics and firearms” would, if implemented, represent a dramatic shift of scrutiny away from multinational corporations’ typical international business dealings. Companies and industries with significant dealings in Latin America, or whose services have any arguable connection to international criminal activity – such as banking and payments providers – may find themselves under new scrutiny.
The “updated guidelines or policies” expected from AG Bondi may provide more clarity on whether the shift is as significant as implied. For example, AG Bondi’s elimination of the requirement that the Criminal Division in Washington authorize FCPA investigations may allow various U.S. Attorneys’ offices to pursue cases with the transnational criminal nexus on which the Trump administration is focused, while the FCPA Unit in Washington continues to pursue the more traditional FCPA violations with which it is comfortable.
Even if the ultimate effect of AG Bondi’s initiatives is an overall decline in traditional FCPA enforcement, multinational corporations would be well-advised to remain vigilant in anti-corruption compliance. Indeed, the Head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division stated in an internal memorandum, issued after AG Bondi’s memoranda and the FCPA pause, that the Criminal Division intends to continue to “prioritize investigating and prosecuting,” among other things, “[b]ribery and associated money laundering that impacts U.S. national interests, undermine U.S. national security, harm the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and enrich foreign corrupt officials”. While the new priorities may change the character of FCPA enforcement going forward, they are not indicative of any intent by the DOJ to abandon FCPA investigations. There is also no indication that foreign law enforcement authorities will follow the DOJ in downgrading the priority of anti-corruption investigations.
Future FARA and Economic Sanctions Enforcement
Criminal enforcement of FARA and 18 U.S.C. § 951 appears to be less likely in the near-term. AG Bondi’s directive to focus criminal enforcement on “traditional espionage by foreign government actors” appears intended to distinguish what can be characterized as mere unregistered lobbying on behalf of foreign actors. But this change may have limited practical impact, as there is no indication that DOJ will curtail civil FARA enforcement efforts.
The apparent de-prioritization of export control and sanctions enforcement may likewise be less significant than appears at first blush. AG Bondi’s memoranda are undoubtedly significant with respect to individuals and entities with connections to Russia. But this may be only a reflection of the Trump administration’s foreign policy priorities and shift in focus to China and other countries, rather than a fundamental change in the enforcement regime itself. President Trump’s focus on promoting “American interests” and “American economic competitiveness with respect to other nations”, as well as his extensive use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, would indicate that sanctions, export control, and other economic crime investigations are shifting in geographic focus, not going away.
Continuing Emphasis on Self-Disclosure and Co-Operation
On 12 May 2025, Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the DOJ Criminal Division, issued a memorandum to DOJ personnel titled Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime. The memorandum emphasizes a desire to mitigate the “overbroad and unchecked corporate and white-collar enforcement burdens” faced by U.S. businesses. To do so, Mr. Galeotti has issued revisions to the Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) to make more clear and understandable “the paths for potential declination, the available fine reductions for a company’s cooperation and remediation, and relevant factors that determine the contours of a corporate resolution”. Mr. Galeotti’s memorandum further identifies ten categories of misconduct that the Criminal Division intends to prioritize, including victimization of investors, “waste, fraud, and abuse,” threats to national security, bribery, and complex money laundering.
The revised CEP’s details are crucial, but certain high-level takeaways are apparent:
- The CEP seeks to provide more clarity to corporations, stating that the DOJ “will decline” to prosecute when the company voluntarily self-discloses, fully co-operates with the investigation, and timely remediates the misconduct, apparently removing a level of discretion that was implied in prior iterations of the policy.
- Even where a company does not qualify for a declination because its self-disclosure did not qualify as a voluntary self-disclosure under the policy or because there are aggravating circumstances, but it has fully co-operated and timely remediated, the DOJ “shall” provide a non-prosecution agreement, allow a term length of fewer than three years, not require an independent compliance monitor, and provide a reduction of 75% off the low end of the guidelines range.
Discerning the practical implications of the new administration’s enforcement priorities and the revised CEP is an uncertain endeavor. Prudence would recommend continuing vigilance in compliance efforts and remaining mindful that the DOJ continues to incentivize self-disclosure and timely and appropriate remediation.