e have previously written about the impact of the pause in enforcement of the FCPA implemented by the Trump Administration on non-American companies.[1] Although the 180-day review period the Executive Order provided to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to develop new guidance for FCPA enforcement has not yet elapsed, several recent developments in the global anti-bribery and anti-corruption (“ABAC”) enforcement space warrant an update.

Updates from the United States

U.S. enforcement agencies have given mixed signals about their intentions for future FCPA enforcement.

Several recent decisions by the DOJ suggest that it does not intend to continue pursuing FCPA enforcement in the same way or to the same extent as it has historically. In addition to dropping the long-running bribery case against two former Cognizant executives in New Jersey,[2] the DOJ has closed its corruption investigation into Norwegian oil and gas company PetroNor,[3] dropped its inquiry into American medical device company Stryker relating to potential FCPA violations,[4] and moved to dismiss FCPA charges against American waste management company Stericycle several months before the expiration of its deferred prosecution agreement.[5] The DOJ has also terminated the two monitorships it imposed on Swiss commodity trading and mining company Glencore (one of which relates to Glencore’s conspiracy to violate the FCPA) in May 2022, [6] and ended a FCPA-related non-prosecution agreement with American chemicals manufacturing company Albermarle,[7] all more than a year earlier than they were set to conclude. Although the Executive Order pausing enforcement of the FCPA discussed “eliminating excessive barriers to American commerce abroad,” and stated a desire to reduce “overexpansive and unpredictable FCPA enforcement against American citizens and businesses,”[8] PetroNor and Glencore are not American companies. Closing the PetroNor investigation and ending Glencore’s FCPA monitorship early could suggest a more general intention to limit FCPA enforcement instead of focusing on enforcement against non-American companies as the wording of the Executive Order suggested may be possible.

In addition to dropping existing cases and monitorships, the DOJ is also considering budget cuts that could affect investigations involving foreign defendants, witnesses, and evidence – as many FCPA cases do. In a recent memo, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche suggested that there would be personnel cuts at the Office of International Affairs (“OIA”).[9] OIA is responsible for international extraditions and mutual legal assistance, services relied upon by the FCPA Unit to build and prosecute its cases.

While these moves tend to suggest that the DOJ’s focus on foreign bribery will be more limited moving forward, the DOJ has also indicated that it intends to proceed with several other, already-filed cases. As a result, it is premature to conclude that the DOJ is retreating from FCPA enforcement entirely. Relatedly, it is also difficult to discern any definitive common threads that distinguish the cases the DOJ is continuing to pursue from those it has dropped, making it difficult to predict the strategy for FCPA enforcement going forward. The cases moving forward are against both American and non-American individuals and they include:

• A case against two executives of UK-based voting machine company Smartmatic and a Philippines election official. The DOJ alleges that the Smartmatic executives conspired to pay more than $1 million in bribes to the election official in exchange for contracts for Smartmatic to supply voting machines and services for the Philippines’ 2016 elections.[10]
• A case against a former Corsa Coal executive, who the DOJ accuses of participating in a scheme to bribe Egyptian officials to win coal contracts worth $143 million between 2016 and 2020.[11]
• A case against three individuals for allegedly bribing government officials in exchange for contracts to provide uniforms and other goods to the Honduran National Police.[12]

On May 12, 2025, the DOJ’s Criminal Division published a memorandum setting out its white-collar enforcement priorities and announcing changes to its approach to investigations and prosecutions (the “Galeotti Memo”).[13]  The Galeotti Memo provides further clues about the future of potential FCPA investigations and enforcement in the Trump Administration. Specifically, the Galeotti Memo states that the DOJ will prioritize investigating and prosecuting bribery and related money laundering that “impact U.S. national interests, undermine U.S. national security, harm the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and enrich foreign corrupt officials.” Though it acknowledges that conducting cross-border investigations (as most bribery investigations are) is time-intensive, the Galeotti Memo emphasizes the need for “efficient” investigations, with the DOJ now requiring prosecutors to investigate and make charging decisions expeditiously. Additionally, moving forward, independent compliance monitors – often imposed in the past in resolutions of FCPA enforcement – will be imposed only when truly necessary for a company to implement a compliance program or prevent a recurrence of misconduct. To the extent monitors are imposed going forward, their scope will be narrowly tailored.[14]

On the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) side, the Chief and Deputy Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit have recently retired,[15] and the SEC has informed multiple defense counsel that it has paused FCPA investigations until further guidance is issued by the Trump Administration pursuant to the Executive Order. These developments come on the heels of then-Acting Deputy Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division Antonia Apps’s comment at a recent speaking engagement that the SEC was “obviously going to follow the lead of the DOJ” with respect to FCPA enforcement.[16] At the same time, Apps noted that the SEC intends to decline to bring cases more frequently where companies have self-reported, cooperated, and/or remediated their compliance programs.

While these updates and statements seem to suggest a reduction in FCPA enforcement by the SEC going forward, it has not entirely backed away from the FCPA. On April 10, 2025, the SEC filed a motion to reopen a civil FCPA case against two former Cognizant executives (despite the DOJ having earlier decided to drop criminal charges) and issue a stay to allow the parties to “explore a potential resolution.”[17]

The Trump Administration’s approach to FCPA enforcement therefore remains unclear. DOJ’s review of FCPA enforcement is ongoing, and its outcome, which is presently unknown, will determine whether and how the statute will be enforced during the Trump Administration. However, absent an actual repeal of the law, future administrations could reverse enforcement policy decisions the Trump Administration makes and aggressively investigate FCPA violations, including conduct occurring that occurred during the Trump Administration that falls within the five-year statute of limitations. Notably, enforcement at the state level also remains a risk for parties engaged in foreign bribery: California’s Attorney General has announced his intention to prosecute bribery under state law and Manhattan’s District Attorney has indicated that he is considering how his office can step into the void created by the DOJ’s retreat from certain enforcement areas, including FCPA.[18]

Updates in the United Kingdom and Europe

Outside the U.S., the wind is blowing in a clearer direction. On 20 March 2025, enforcement authorities in the UK, France, and Switzerland announced the creation of a new International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce (the “Taskforce”) to strengthen collaboration between these countries.[19] The Taskforce consists of the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”), France’s National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (“PNF”), and the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (“OAG”). These agencies are no strangers to collaboration, both amongst themselves and with the U.S. For example, as noted by PNF director Jean-François Bohnert, the PNF has assisted the OAG with 89 requests for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters since the agency was created in 2014.[20] Further, both the SFO and OAG were credited with assisting the U.S. with its bribery investigation into Glencore.[21] The Taskforce’s creation represents the SFO’s, PNF’s, and OAG’s intention to continue coordinating, with or without the U.S.

The Taskforce’s Founding Statement acknowledges “the significant threat of bribery and corruption and the severe harm that it causes” and promises that the members will “stand firm in our commitment to tackle this threat within the national and international legal frameworks.”[22] The Taskforce will deliver a “Leaders’ Group focused on the regular exchange of insight and strategy,” a “Working Group, for the purpose of devising proposals for co-operation on cases,” and increased “best practice” intelligence sharing between the three agencies to fully utilize the expertise of each. The Taskforce also intends to invite “other like-minded agencies” to join it,[23] with Bohnert recently stating that the DOJ, as well as other agencies in Europe, Latin America and the Western hemisphere more generally, would be welcome to join.[24] Despite the timing of the announcement and the somewhat pointed language in its Founding Statement, the Taskforce’s creation was, according to SFO Director Nick Ephgrave, “in no way a reaction to” the Trump Administration’s FCPA enforcement pause.[25] Nevertheless, the enforcement vacuum caused by the abrupt cessation of DOJ investigations undeniably creates an opportunity for jurisdictions like the UK, France, and Switzerland to drive global ABAC enforcement going forward. Indeed, Ephgrave has noted that the SFO is currently evaluating the long-term impact of the enforcement pause on the agency, and “actively seeing if there are opportunities where we can pick up investigations in this country,”[26] while the PNF recently added to its credentials a successful prosecution against two SPIE Group companies and two senior managers for bribing an Indonesian public official.[27]

Speaking ahead of the Taskforce’s public announcement, Ephgrave reiterated that the potential use of financial payments to reward whistleblowers (first stated as an SFO policy aim in February 2024) would continue to be on the UK’s agenda, and the recently published SFO Annual Business Plan for 2025-26 (the “ABP”) explicitly references “whistleblower incentive reform.”[28] Ephgrave once again credited the U.S.’s “really well-established system of [whistleblower] incentivisation” as one of the reasons for the U.S.’s historic success in international bribery and corruption intelligence gathering, asserting that 700 UK whistleblowers have gone to the U.S. with tip-offs in the last decade.[29] Speaking at a recent event in London, Ephgrave highlighted whistleblower incentivization as the key reform he wants to implement during his tenure, calling it a “game changer for [UK] intelligence.”[30] This reform looks increasingly likely, with the UK Home Office commissioning an independent report which will consider “incentives for criminal fraud networks informants and whistleblowers”.[31] By introducing financial incentives and stronger channels for whistleblower reports, the UK could generate significantly more leads regarding potential breaches of the UK Bribery Act to investigate. The U.S. has a number of whistleblower incentive programs which have yielded success in recent years. For example, the SEC’s Whistleblower Program received 557 FCPA-related reports during the 2024 financial year, up from 237 in the previous year.[32] The Swiss Attorney General Stefan Blättler has also expressed an appetite for increasing whistleblowing, announcing that he would discuss whistleblower incentivization with both the Swiss parliament and public.[33]

As foreshadowed in the ABP, the SFO has also launched new corporate cooperation guidance (the “Guidance”),[34] to reverse what Ephgrave characterizes as a “slight drop off” in the number of companies self-reporting wrongdoing.[35] The Guidance emphasizes that the SFO will seek to negotiate deferred prosecution agreements with (and not prosecute) companies which promptly self-report wrongdoing to, and cooperate fully with, the SFO “unless exceptional circumstances apply”.[36] Ephgrave hopes that the Guidance, along with strengthened covert surveillance capabilities (another priority set out in the ABP), will give the SFO more control over its referral pipeline and “invigorate or provoke” more self-reports from companies.[37] The SFO also recently announced that it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission in an attempt to “refresh [its] relationship” with the country’s main anti-corruption enforcer.[38]

In addition to these moves by the SFO, the UK’s National Crime Agency (“NCA”) intends to increase its foreign bribery caseload, according to NCA senior manager David Liebscher.[39] The NCA currently has seven foreign bribery cases before the UK courts,[40] and has had success in this space in recent years, having achieved the conviction of the former chief of staff to the president of Madagascar for bribery in February 2024.[41] In remarks that chimed with Ephgrave’s commentary and efforts around increasing reports to law enforcement, Liebscher also suggested that the UK’s current corruption reporting framework, with 39 possible channels, is overly complex and a “barrier” to reporting misconduct.[42] Liebscher’s statements, taken together with the developments at the SFO,  indicate a renewed interest in proactive Bribery Act enforcement in the UK.

In the EU, trilogue negotiations between the European Commission, the European Council, and the European Parliament commenced in February 2025 to finalize the EU’s proposed Directive on combatting corruption (the “Directive,” initially unveiled in May 2023). The Directive aims to harmonize corruption offences and sanctions across the EU. Currently, all 27 EU Member States are signatories to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, which requires acceding states to implement “such measures as may be necessary” to establish the various offenses it sets out (i.e., in relation to the bribery of foreign public officials).[43] However, each Member State has typically adopted its own set of laws to combat corruption, creating a series of fragmented standards that can be easily exploited, with it being reported that the EU loses approximately EUR 990 billion to corruption each year.[44] If adopted in its current form,[45] the Directive will require Member States to introduce a number of specified corruption offences (including domestic and foreign bribery, misappropriation, trading in influence, abuse of functions and obstruction of justice) into their national laws. The Directive will also introduce corporate criminal liability, which will apply where a lack of supervision by a person in a leadership position results in the commission of an offence set out in the Directive.[46] Ultimately, the Directive will allow for greater cross-border cooperation between Member States in investigating and prosecuting corruption.

Looking Ahead

Though the future of U.S. FCPA enforcement, at least for the remainder of the Trump Administration, remains uncertain, the consensus on the other side of the Atlantic is clear: ABAC enforcement remains a priority, and European and British enforcement agencies see the opportunity to lead the charge as the U.S. deprioritizes FCPA enforcement.  

Authored by several attorneys from the law firm King & Spalding in the United States and Europe.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Brandt Leibe, Aaron Stephens, Grant Nichols, and Margaret Nettesheim, “How does the Trump FCPA pause change the landscape for non-American companies?”, Global Investigations Review (Feb. 28, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/just-anti-corruption/article/how-does-the-trump-fcpa-pause-change-the-landscape-non-american-companies.

[2] Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Gordon Cobum and Steven Schwartz Case No. 2:19-cr-00120 (MEF) (Apr. 1, 2025), https://files.lbr.cloud/public/202504/1034%20Cognizant%20motion%20to%20dismiss.pdf?VersionId=9oS.IXOYr7X69W5FEHrNOOYdNmxUZMRb.

[3] Press Release, PetroNor E&P ASA, The U.S. Department of Justice closes its investigation (Apr. 1, 2025), https://petronorep.com/media/jcwltjui/20250402-pnor-investigation-update.pdf.

[4] Stryker Corporation, Form 10-Q (May 2, 2025), https://files.lbr.cloud/public/2025-05/20250502%20-%2010Q%20-%20SYK%20-%20Quarterly%20Report%20-%2028%20pages.pdf?VersionId=cdAGcFWYekWHgT.5u9US2elj0XQcCoM6.

[5] Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Stericycle, Inc. Case No. 22-CR-20156-MOORE (Apr. 21, 2025), https://files.lbr.cloud/public/202504/21%20%20DOJ%20motion%20to%20dismiss%20Stericycle%20DPA%2021%20April%202025.pdf?VersionId=AqQp5fCVxd6Kw7MHh1EnfwQVQaR.G3BP.

[6] Consent Motion to Modify Conditions of Probation, United States v. Glencore International A.G. Case No. 1:22-cr-00297 (LGS) (Mar. 20, 2025), https://assets.law360news.com/2314000/2314349/new%20york%20memo.pdf;  Government’s Notice Concerning Defendant’s Monitor, United States v. Glencore Ltd. Case No. 3:22-cr-00071 (SVN), https://assets.law360news.com/2314000/2314349/connecticut%20notice.pdf.

[7] Albemarle Corporation Form 10-Q (Apr. 30, 2025), https://d6jxgaftxvagq.cloudfront.net/Uploads/u/y/z/albemarle10q_166543.pdf.

[8] Exec. Order, Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security (Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/pausing-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-enforcement-to-further-american-economic-and-national-security/.

[9] See Gaspard Le Dem, “Cuts to DOJ’s international affairs office would slow cases ‘across the board’”, Global Investigations Review (Mar. 31, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/just-anti-corruption/article/cuts-dojs-international-affairs-office-would-slow-cases-across-the-board.

[10] Notice of Authorization to Proceed, Untied States v. Juan Andres Donato Bautista, Roger Alejandro Pinate Martinez, Jorge Miguel Vasquez and Ellie Moreno Case No. 24-CR-20343-WILLIAMS (Apr. 9, 2025), https://files.lbr.cloud/public/2025-04/S.D.%20Fla.%2024-cr-20343%20dckt%20000135_000%20filed%202025-04-09.pdf?VersionId=1MOPwxhmwNPB2rcfDa_Fm3S.xmAhq4eV.

[11] Government’s Notice of Authorization to Proceed, United States v. Charles Hunter Hobson Case No. 2:22-CR-86 (Apr. 11, 2025), https://files.lbr.cloud/public/2025-04/US%20v%20Charles%20Hunter%20Hobson%20Govt%20motion%20to%20proceed%2011%20April%202025.pdf?VersionId=HswogHlEFABzL56Wp2sAsFHJYIzRPpxE.

[12] Government’s Notice of Authorization to Proceed, United States v. Carl Alan Zaglin, Aldo Nestor Marchena and Francisco Roberto Cosenza Centeno Case No. 23-20454-CR-BECERRA (Apr. 11, 2025), https://files.lbr.cloud/public/2025-04/US%20v%20Zaglin%20et%20al%20Govt%20motion%20to%20proceed%2011%20April%202025.pdf?VersionId=TaFwJajV1LUAvSBPqmkBMx7SSOSIqWEf.

[13] DOJ Criminal Division, “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime” (May 12, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400046/dl?inline.

[14] The DOJ has separately issued a new monitor selection memorandum clarifying the factors that prosecutors must consider when determining whether a monitor is appropriate. DOJ Criminal Division, “Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters” (May 12, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400036/dl?inline.

[15] See Gaspard Le Dem, “SEC’s FCPA chief, top deputy retire”, Global Investigations Review (Apr. 1, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/just-anti-corruption/article/secs-fcpa-chief-top-deputy-retire.

[16] See Gaspard Le Dem, “SEC will ‘follow the lead’ of DOJ on FCPA enforcement, official says”, Global Investigations Review (Mar. 5, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/just-anti-corruption/article/sec-will-follow-the-lead-of-doj-fcpa-enforcement-official-says.

[17] Motion to Restore Case, S.E.C. v. Coburn, et al., Civil No. 2:19-cv-05820-MCA-MAH (Apr. 10, 2025), https://files.lbr.cloud/public/2025-04/76%20-%20SEC%20asks%20to%20reopen%20Cognizant%20docket.pdf?VersionId=8A..7PjQ88Akv2tvAEarIVkJvt5n8CEO.

[18] Press Release, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Attorney General Bonta Alerts Businesses: It Remains Illegal to Bribe Foreign-Government Officials (Apr. 2, 2025), https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-alerts-businesses-it-remains-illegal-bribe-foreign; Estelle Atkinson, “Manhattan state prosecutor looking to fill enforcement void left by DOJ”, Global Investigations Review (Apr. 15, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/just-anti-corruption/article/manhattan-state-prosecutor-looking-fill-enforcement-void-left-doj.

[19] International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce Founding Statement (Mar. 20, 2025), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67dc0bb3931ea30d1b7ee33d/International_Anti-Corruption_Prosecutorial_Taskforce.pdf.

[20] See Ana de Liz, “UK, French, Swiss agencies set up new anti-corruption task force”, Global Investigations Review (Mar. 20, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/article/uk-french-swiss-white-collar-agencies-set-new-anti-corruption-task-force.

[21] Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Glencore Entered Guilty Pleas to Foreign Bribery and Market Manipulation Schemes (May 24, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/glencore-entered-guilty-pleas-foreign-bribery-and-market-manipulation-schemes.

[22] International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce Founding Statement (Mar. 20, 2025), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67dc0bb3931ea30d1b7ee33d/International_Anti-Corruption_Prosecutorial_Taskforce.pdf.

[23] Id.

[24] See Austin Cope, “PNF director: international anti-corruption task force will treat companies equally”, Global Investigations Review (May 7, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/just-anti-corruption/article/pnf-director-international-anti-corruption-task-force-will-treat-companies-equally.

[25] See Ana de Liz, “UK, French, Swiss agencies set up new anti-corruption task force”, Global Investigations Review (Mar. 20, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/article/uk-french-swiss-white-collar-agencies-set-new-anti-corruption-task-force.

[26] See Malavika Devaya, “’Look at me as the Mikhail Gorbachev of the SFO’: Nick Ephgrave”, Global Investigations Review (Apr. 24, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/article/look-me-the-mikhail-gorbachev-of-the-sfo-nick-ephgrave.

[27] See Grace Propheta, “SPIE fined, executives handed prison time over Indonesia police bribes”, Global Investigations Review (May 13, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/article/spie-fined-executives-handed-prison-time-over-indonesia-police-bribes?utm_source=SPIE%2Bfined%252C%2Bexecutives%2Bhanded%2Bprison%2Btime%2Bover%2BIndonesia%2Bpolice%2Bbribes&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GIR%2BAlerts.

[28] SFO Business Plan 2025-26, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67ee4e86199d1cd55b48c6e8/SFO_2025-26__Business_Plan.pdf.

[29] See Ana de Liz, “UK, French, Swiss agencies set up new anti-corruption task force”, Global Investigations Review (Mar. 20, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/article/uk-french-swiss-white-collar-agencies-set-new-anti-corruption-task-force.

[30] Daisy Eastlake, “Whistleblowers could reap rewards for exposing fraud”, The Times (Apr. 25, 2025).

[31] Id.

[32] SEC Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2024, https://www.sec.gov/files/fy24-annual-whistleblower-report.pdf.

[33] See Ana de Liz, “UK, French, Swiss agencies set up new anti-corruption task force”, Global Investigations Review (Mar. 20, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/article/uk-french-swiss-white-collar-agencies-set-new-anti-corruption-task-force.

[34] SFO Corporate Guidance (Apr. 24, 2025), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sfo-corporate-guidance/sfo-corporate-guidance.

[35] See Ana de Liz, “SFO announces new five-year plan”, Global Investigations Review (Apr. 18, 2025) https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/article/sfo-aims-revive-corporate-cooperation?utm_source=SFO%2Baims%2Bto%2Brevive%2Bcorporate%2Bcooperation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GIR%2BAlerts.

[36] SFO Corporate Guidance (Apr. 24, 2025), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sfo-corporate-guidance/sfo-corporate-guidance.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] See Ana de Liz, “NCA wants to bulk up foreign bribery caseload”, Global Investigations Review (Apr. 24, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/article/nca-wants-bulk-foreign-bribery-caseload?utm_source=%25E2%2580%259CLook%2Bat%2Bme%2Bas%2Bthe%2BMikhail%2BGorbachev%2Bof%2Bthe%2BSFO%25E2%2580%259D%253A%2BNick%2BEphgrave&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GIR%2BAlerts.

[40] Id.

[41] See Ana de Liz, “Former Madagascar chief of staff found guilty of bribery”, Global Investigations Review (Feb. 20, 2024), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/article/former-madagascar-chief-of-staff-found-guilty-of-bribery.

[42] See Ana de Liz, “NCA wants to bulk up foreign bribery caseload”, Global Investigations Review (Apr. 24, 2025), https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/article/nca-wants-bulk-foreign-bribery-caseload?utm_source=%25E2%2580%259CLook%2Bat%2Bme%2Bas%2Bthe%2BMikhail%2BGorbachev%2Bof%2Bthe%2BSFO%25E2%2580%259D%253A%2BNick%2BEphgrave&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GIR%2BAlerts.

[43] OECD, Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, OECD/LEGAL/0293, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/205/205.en.pdf.

[44] European Commission, High-risk areas of corruption in the EU: A mapping and in-depth analysis (Nov. 4, 2024) at page 9, https://op.europa.eu/fr/publication-detail/-/publication/5c0730b2-9769-11ef-a130-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.

[45] Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on combating corruption, replacing Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA and the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council (May 3, 2023), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2023:234:FIN.

[46] Id.

The post Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement post-FCPA Pause appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

President Trumps said he believes that by issuing such an order, he will restore American competitiveness within the international market. According to a White House press release, the Trump Administration perceives the FCPA as a “barrier to U.S. success.” “We have to save our country,” said Trump. “Every policy must be geared toward that which supports the American worker, the American family, and businesses, both large and small, and allows our country to compete with other nations on a very level playing field.”

In directing AG Bondi to pause FCPA enforcement, the White House provided multiple reasons as to why such a suspension of the law is in the best interest of the country:

• U.S. companies are harmed by FCPA overenforcement because they are prohibited from engaging in practices common among international competitors, creating an uneven playing field.
• Strategic advantages in critical minerals, deep-water ports, and other key infrastructure or assets around the world are critical to American national security.
• FCPA overenforcement infringes upon the President’s Article II authority to conduct foreign affairs, necessitating this review and new enforcement policies.
• Over time, FCPA interpretation and enforcement by U.S. prosecutors has broadened, imposing a growing cost on our Nation’s economy.
  • In 2024, the DOJ and SEC filed 26 FCPA-related enforcement actions, and at least 31 companies were under investigation by year end.
  • Over the past decade, there has been an average of 36 FCPA-related enforcement actions per year, draining resources from both American businesses and law enforcement.”

Focus Shifts to Cases Relating to Cartels and Crime

In addition to the suspension of FCPA enforcement, AG Bondi issued a memo that directed the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division’s FCPA Unit to “prioritize investigations related to foreign bribery that facilitates the criminal operations Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations (“TCOs”), and shift focus away from investigations and cases that do not involve such a connection.”

In helping the FCPA unit to do so, Bondi announced that she has suspended the requirement that investigations or prosecutions of cases relating to Cartels and TCOs under the FCPA be conducted by attorneys. She also indefinitely suspended a requirement that the Criminal Division of the DoJ approve such investigations and prosecutions.

Weakening the Fight Against Corruption?

President Trump’s actions did not proceed without facing criticism. According to Gary Kalman, executive director of Transparency International, Trump’s executive order “diminishes—and could pave the way for completely eliminating—the crown jewel in the U.S.’s fight against global corruption.”

Another opponent of President Trump’s actions, Alexandra Wrage, president and founder of the business anti-bribery group TRACE International said that this move shows that the president does not care about fighting corruption. “Unlike Trump, I think most U.S. companies now agree that bribery is a bad business strategy that introduces delay and uncertainty and undermines confidence in markets,” Wrage said in an email. “Trump has championed reduced regulation and has derided the FCPA, so it seems likely that fighting corruption will be a considerably lower priority.”

Advisers Urge Caution in Responding to the Move

Several law firms have cautioned companies against dismantling their FCPA compliance programs in light of the move by the Trump Administration to pause FCPA enforcement. They point out that several anti-corruption laws are still in place around the world, including the United Kingdom’s Bribery Act of 2010 and many others. They also say the move is likely to be challenged in court and could easily be reversed.

“Though the new Executive Order will likely result in fewer FCPA investigations and enforcement actions in the near term, organizations are best served by staying the course on ensuring anti‑bribery and anti-corruption compliance, including with regard to the FCPA—whose five-year statute of limitations could outlast the four-year term of the current administration—and in light of robust anti-corruption enforcement outside the United States,” wrote law firm Morrison Foerster in a client alert. “The Executive Order does not change the fact that the FCPA remains the law.”

Although President Trump’s executive order pauses all FCPA actions, its effect is not perpetual. Under the executive order, the suspension of FCPA enforcement will cease when AG Bondi issues revised FCPA enforcement guidance that promotes American competitiveness and efficient use of federal law enforcement resources. Until then past and existing FCPA actions will be reviewed in order to develop new guidelines.  

The post Trump Suspends FCPA Enforcement, Advisers Urge Cautious Response appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

cKinsey and Company Africa, which operates in South Africa as a subsidiary of international consulting firm McKinsey & Co., will pay over $122 million to resolve an investigation by the Justice Department into a scheme to pay bribes to government officials in South Africa between 2012 and 2016. A former McKinsey senior partner who participated in the bribery scheme has also pleaded guilty in the case.

McKinsey Africa also entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the department in connection with criminal information filed in the Southern District of New York charging the company with one count of conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Vikas Sagar, a former senior partner of McKinsey who worked in McKinsey Africa’s South Africa office, previously pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.

According to court documents and admissions, McKinsey Africa, acting through a senior partner, agreed to pay bribes to then-officials at Transnet, South Africa’s state-owned custodian of ports, rails, and pipelines, and at Eskom, South Africa’s state-owned energy company. Between at least 2012 and 2016, McKinsey Africa obtained sensitive confidential and non-public information from Transnet and Eskom regarding the award of lucrative consulting contracts and submitted proposals for multimillion-dollar consulting engagements, while knowing that South African consulting firms with which McKinsey Africa had partnered would pay a portion of their fees as bribes to officials at Transnet and Eskom. As a result of the bribery scheme, McKinsey and McKinsey Africa earned profits of approximately $85,000,000.

“McKinsey Africa bribed South African officials in order to obtain lucrative consulting business that generated tens of millions of dollars in profits,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri, in a statement. “The resolution announced today — the department’s third coordinated resolution with South African authorities in only two years — is evidence that our International Corporate Anti-Bribery (ICAB) initiative, which we announced in November 2023, is bearing fruit.”

“This settlement underscores our unwavering commitment to holding companies accountable that willfully engage in corrupt activities around the world,” said Assistant Director Chad Yarbrough of the FBI Criminal Investigative Division. “This misconduct is a blatant violation of law and a breach of public trust. No matter what country the crime occurs in, the FBI will always work closely with our international partners to root out corruption.”

Details of McKinsey Africa’s Credit for Cooperation

The Justice Department has agreed to credit up to one-half of the criminal penalty against amounts McKinsey pays to authorities in South Africa in related proceedings. In addition, both McKinsey and McKinsey Africa have agreed to, among other things, continue cooperating with the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in any ongoing or future criminal investigation arising during the term of the DPA. McKinsey and McKinsey Africa have also agreed to enhance their compliance program where necessary and appropriate and to report to the government regarding remediation and implementation of their enhanced compliance program.

The Justice Department reached this resolution with McKinsey Africa based on a number of factors, including, among others, the nature and seriousness of the offense. McKinsey Africa received credit for its cooperation with the department’s investigation, which included:

• Immediately and proactively cooperating from the inception of the department’s investigation.
• Making numerous factual presentations to the department over the course of its investigation, derived from information obtained through the company’s internal investigation.
• Collecting, reviewing, and producing voluminous records, including those located abroad, in response to requests from the department.
• Promptly reporting the discovery of document-deletion efforts by the McKinsey partner involved in the conduct found during its internal investigation, taking additional investigative steps to uncover information and evidence regarding those efforts, and producing such information and evidence to the department.
• Reporting, in real time, newly discovered information and documents that allowed the department to preserve and obtain evidence as part of its independent investigation.
• Tracing complex internal accounting money-flows and currency exchange-information in response to requests from the department
• Preserving, collecting, and producing to the department documents located abroad, and engaging a third-party forensics consultant to analyze key electronic devices and providing to the department the results of that analysis.

McKinsey and McKinsey Africa also engaged in timely remedial measures, including:

• Putting the McKinsey partner involved in the criminal scheme on leave when it learned of the partner’s role in the scheme, subsequently separating that partner from McKinsey after discovering his deletion activity, and requiring that partner’s continued cooperation post-separation.
• Conducting additional anti-corruption training for employees in South Africa and elsewhere in Africa, and ceasing work with all state-owned enterprises (SOEs) for a period of time while it conducted its internal investigation.
• Enhancing due diligence processes for third-party partners, including instituting controls to ensure that due diligence is completed before work begins on an engagement and imposing a more rigorous risk-review for public sector clients.
• Carrying out an enhanced review process for all sole-source work that requires advance-approval before the engagement can begin.
• Voluntarily repaying, in 2018 and 2021, all revenues that McKinsey and McKinsey Africa received from potentially tainted contracts to the SOEs in South Africa from which they received contracts as a result of the criminal scheme.

In light of these considerations as well as McKinsey’s prior history, the criminal penalty calculated under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines reflects a 35 percent reduction off the fifth percentile of the otherwise applicable guidelines fine range.  

The post McKinsey Unit to Pay $122 Million to Settle Bribery Charges appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

The SEC found that SAP violated the FCPA by paying bribes to foreign officials in South Africa and Indonesia through third-party intermediaries, delivering money in the form of cash payments, political contributions, and wire and other electronic transfers, along with luxury goods purchased during shopping trips.

According to the SEC, SAP bribed South African officials to win business contracts with South African government departments and agencies between 2013 and 2017. The Commission also accused SAP of forging books and records to conceal the bribery.

In addition, the SEC says SAP bribed Indonesian officials between 2015 and 2018 to obtain advantages in winning contracts with various Indonesian departments and agencies. According to the SEC’s order, SAP recorded the bribes as legitimate business expenses in its books and records.

“Today’s resolution—our second coordinated resolution with South African authorities in just over a year—marks an important moment in our ongoing fight against foreign bribery and corruption,” said Assistant Attorney General Nicole Argentieri of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “We look forward to continuing to strengthen our relationship with South African authorities and others around the world. This case demonstrates not only the critical importance of coordinated international efforts to combat corruption, but also how our corporate enforcement policies incentivize companies to be good corporate citizens, by cooperating with our investigations and appropriately remediating, so that we can take strong action to address misconduct.”

SAP’s Credit for Cooperation

SAP received credit for cooperating with the department’s investigation, which started immediately after investigative reports made public allegations of the South Africa-related misconduct in 2017. The SEC says SAP provided well-timed information attained through its own internal investigation, which allowed the government to preserve and obtain evidence as part of its independent investigation.

The software company also engaged in timely remedial measures, including:

• Conducting an assessment of the root causes of the underlying conduct, and undertaking appropriate remediation to address those root causes and enhance its compliance program;
• Undertaking a comprehensive risk assessment focusing on high risk areas and controls around payment processes and enhancing its regular compliance risk assessment process, including by incorporating comprehensive operational and compliance data into its risk assessments.
• Eliminating its third-party sales commission model globally, and prohibiting all sales commissions for public sector contracts in high-risk markets;
• Significantly increasing the budget, resources, and expertise devoted to compliance and restructuring its Offices of Ethics and Compliance to ensure independence and access to executive leadership;
• Enhancing its code of conduct and policies and procedures regarding gifts, hospitality, and the use of third parties;
• Enhancing its reporting, investigations, and consequence management processes;
• Adjusting compensation incentives to align with compliance objectives and reduce corruption risk; and
• Enhancing and expanding compliance monitoring and audit programs

SAP has agreed to  pay a fine of more than $98 million to the SEC to settle the charges of FCPA violations. The Commission’s action is part of a coordinated global settlement that includes the DoJ and criminal and civil authorities in South Africa. In its parallel case, SAP agreed to pay the DoJ a total of $118.8 million in criminal fines.

Jacob Horowitz is a contributing editor at Compliance Chief 360°

The post SAP to Pay $220 Million to Settle Foreign Bribery Investigations appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

Until now, the primary tool that the U.S. Department of Justice used to prosecute those involved in bribery schemes was the Foreign Corruption Practices Act. The FCPA, however, only provides the power to prosecute those on the “supply side” of the transaction, meaning those who offer bribes to secure business or pursue other goals. With the enactment of FEPA, U.S authorities can now prosecute foreign officials who demand or accept such bribes — the “demand side” of the transaction. Violators of FEPA face a maximum fine of $250,000 or three times the amount of the bribe, up to fifteen years in prison, or both.

Elements of FEPA

Specifically, FEPA makes it illegal:

For any foreign official or person selected to be a foreign official: 1. To corruptly demand, seek, receive, accept, or agree to receive, or accept, directly or indirectly, anything of value personally or for any other person or nongovernmental entity; 2. By making use of mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce;

From: 1. Any person while in the territory of the United States; 2. Any issuer; or 3. Any domestic concern;

In return for: 1. Being influenced in the performance of any official act; 2. Being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such foreign official or person; or 3. Conferring any improper advantage, in connection with obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.

“Without this, the U.S. legal arsenal for combating international corruption was incomplete,” said Tom Firestone, a partner at law firm Squire Patton Boggs. “If it’s enforced effectively, it would hopefully protect U.S. companies operating abroad so they won’t be subject to these demands.”

Under FEPA, the DOJ can charge foreign officials with bribery and can be arrested while in the U.S or in any country that has an extradition treaty with the U.S. Before the enactment of FEPA, the DoJ had brought charges against foreign officials for bribery, but such charges were brough under different laws such as money-laundering or fraud. Now, the DoJ is provided with a direct means to purse corrupt foreign officials and will most likely increase their efforts in targeting the “demand side” of these prohibited transactions.  

Jacob Horowitz is a contributing editor at Compliance Chief 360°

The post New Law Targets Foreign Officials Who Seek Bribes appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

The SEC’s order finds that Clear Channel, a U.S. based company in the out-of-home advertising industry, violated the FCPA in connection with the actions of its agent, Clear Media Limited, a Clear Channel majority-owned subsidiary in China at the time.

According to a statement from the SEC, from at least 2012 through 2017 Clear Media bribed Chinese government officials to obtain contracts required to sell advertising services to public and private sector clients for display on public bus shelters and other outdoor displays. In addition, the order finds that Clear Media used sham intermediaries and false invoices to generate cash for off-book “customer development” consultants engaged to win advertising business from government and private customers.

According to the order, Clear Media’s improper payments were falsely characterized as legitimate entertainment, cleaning and maintenance, and “customer development” expenses in Clear Channel’s consolidated books and records. The order further finds that, from at least 2012 through 2019, Clear Channel failed to ensure that sufficient internal accounting controls were in place at Clear Media.

“As the SEC’s order finds, Clear Media bribed Chinese officials with expensive gifts and entertainment and used off-book consultants to obtain contracts from Chinese authorities,” said Charles Cain, chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit. “Despite repeated red flags raised by its internal auditors, Clear Channel failed to address the deficient internal accounting controls that allowed Clear Media to continue these improper payments for many years.”

Clear Channel consented to the SEC’s order finding that it violated anti-bribery, recordkeeping, and internal accounting controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Without admitting or denying the findings, Clear Channel has agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of these provisions, pay disgorgement plus prejudgment interest totaling approximately $20.1 million, and pay a $6 million civil penalty.  

PHOTO BY MARCO VERCH; USED UNDER LICENSE: CC BY 2.0 DEED

The post SEC Charges Clear Channel with FCPA Violation at China Unit appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

The 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), released this month by bribery watchdog Transparency International, shows that most of the world continues to fail to fight corruption. It finds that 95 percent of countries have made little to no progress on fighting corruption since 2017.

Indeed, several have declined on TI’s corruption scale. Since 2017, ten countries significantly declined on their CPI scores. The significant decliners are: Luxembourg (77), Canada (74), the United Kingdom (73), Austria (71), Malaysia (47), Mongolia (33), Pakistan (27), Honduras (23), Nicaragua (19) and Haiti (17). Canada has declined eight points on the index since 2017, while the United Kingdom has fallen nine points. Both are among the biggest decliners during the last five years.

Governments hampered by corruption lack the capacity to protect the people, while public discontent is more likely to turn into violence, said TI in its report. This vicious cycle is impacting countries everywhere from South Sudan (13) to Brazil (38).

“Corruption has made our world a more dangerous place, says Delia Ferreira Rubio, Chair of Transparency International. “As governments have collectively failed to make progress against it, they fuel the current rise in violence and conflict—and endanger people everywhere. The only way out is for states to do the hard work, rooting out corruption at all levels to ensure governments work for all people, not just an elite few.”

Not Much Rotten in Denmark

The CPI ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption on a scale of zero (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The United States was ranked as the 24th least corrupt country with a 69 on the scale, up 2 clicks from its score in 2021.

The CPI global average remains unchanged at 43 for the eleventh year in a row, and more than two-thirds of countries have a serious problem with corruption, scoring below 50.

• Denmark (90) tops the index this year, with Finland and New Zealand following closely, both at 87. Strong democratic institutions and regard for human rights also make these countries some of the most peaceful in the world according to the Global Peace Index.
• South Sudan (13), Syria (13) and Somalia (12), all of which are embroiled in protracted conflict, remain at the bottom of the CPI.
• 26 countries—among them the United Kingdom (73), Qatar (58) and Guatemala (24)—are all at historic lows this year.
• Eight countries improved on the CPI during that same period: Ireland (77), South Korea (63), Armenia (46), Vietnam (42), the Maldives (40), Moldova (39), Angola (33) and Uzbekistan (31).

Russian Corruption

Corruption, conflict, and security are profoundly intertwined, says Transparency International.  The misuse, embezzlement or theft of public funds can deprive the very institutions in charge of protecting citizens, enforcing the rule of law and guarding the peace of the resources they need to fulfill that mandate, it says. Criminal and terrorist groups are often aided by the complicity of corrupt public officials, law enforcement authorities, judges and politicians, which allows them to thrive and operate with impunity.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a stark reminder of the threat that corruption and the absence of government accountability pose for global peace and security: kleptocrats in Russia (28) have amassed great fortunes by pledging loyalty to President Vladimir Putin in exchange for profitable government contracts and protection of their economic interests. The absence of any checks on Putin’s power allowed him to pursue his geopolitical ambitions with impunity. According to TI, this attack destabilized the European continent, threatening democracy and killing tens of thousands.

After decades of conflict, South Sudan (13) is in a major humanitarian crisis with more than half of the population facing acute food insecurity—and corruption is exacerbating the situation, notes the bribery watchdog. A Sentry report from last year revealed that a massive fraud scheme by a network of corrupt politicians with ties to the president’s family siphoned off aid for food, fuel and medicine.

“The good news is that leaders can fight corruption and promote peace all at once,” says Daniel Eriksson, Chief Executive Officer of Transparency International. “Governments must open up space to include the public in decision-making – from activists and business owners to marginalized communities and young people. In democratic societies, the people can raise their voices to help root out corruption and demand a safer world for us all.” 

Joseph McCafferty is editor & publisher of Compliance Chief 360°

The post Study Finds Significant Rise in Corruption in Several Countries appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

In its annual report, the U.S. manufacturing company said it “has identified certain transactions relating to its international operations that may raise compliance questions” under the FCPA, and that it has voluntarily disclosed this information to both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. “The company is cooperating with both agencies in their investigations,” Stanley Black & Decker said in the filing.

The company added that it is “committed to upholding the highest standards of corporate governance and is continuously focused on ensuring the effectiveness of its policies, procedures, and controls.” It further noted that it is “in the process, with the assistance of professional advisors, of reviewing and further enhancing relevant policies, procedures, and controls.”

In that same filing, Stanley Black & Decker disclosed that “certain expenses it incurred in previous years constituted undisclosed perquisites,” and that it has voluntarily disclosed this information to the SEC as well “and is cooperating with the SEC’s investigation of this matter.” 

Jaclyn Jaeger is a contributing editor at Compliance Chief 360° and a freelance business writer based in Manchester, New Hampshire.

The post Stanley Black & Decker Discloses Corruption Probe appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

In December 2019, Ericsson was ordered to pay more than $1 billion in criminal and civil penalties—a $520 million criminal penalty and approximately $540 million to the SEC—for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) arising out of a widespread scheme to make and improperly record tens of millions of dollars in improper payments around the world.  Ericsson further entered a deferred prosecution agreement with the DoJ, in which it agreed to the imposition of an independent compliance monitor for a three-year term.

The newly agreed upon term of the compliance monitorship will run through June 2024. “This extension is consistent with our commitment to continuous improvement of Ericsson’s ethics and compliance program,” said Ericsson President and CEO Börje Ekholm. “We have made significant progress in changing our culture and implementing an enhanced compliance framework and system of internal controls, and we will use this additional time to ensure these improvements are ingrained in our organization, our daily interactions and the way we do business.”

Board Chairman Ronnie Leten commented, “We are dedicated to acting with integrity in everything we do and continuing to align business operations with strengthened internal controls, governance and risk management processes. Our work with the monitor has meaningfully advanced our ethics and compliance program, and we welcome this extension of our engagement with the monitor.”

Iraq affairs

The public statements made by Ekholm and Leten do not align with the additional corruption allegations the company is now facing. The company’s $1 billion settlement with the DoJ and SEC in 2019 did not mention anything about corrupt dealings in Iraq or alleged payments made to terrorist group ISIS.

On Feb. 27, 2022, a leaked internal investigation report obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) revealed that Ericsson “made tens of millions of dollars in suspicious payments over nearly a decade to sustain its business in Iraq, financing slush funds, trips abroad for defense officials and payoffs through middlemen to corporate executives and possibly terrorists.”

“The internal investigation describes a pattern of bribery and corruption so widespread, and company oversight so weak, that millions of dollars in payments couldn’t be accounted for – all while Ericsson worked to maintain and expand vital cellular networks in one of the most corrupt countries in the world,” the ICIJ report revealed. “The review, which has not been made public, covers the years 2011 to 2019.”

According to the ICIJ, the company internally investigated alleged corrupt practices in 15 countries in 2011. “The records show that besides Iraq, the company examined alleged misconduct in Lebanon, Spain, Portugal and Egypt. In addition, a spreadsheet lists company probes into possible bribery, money laundering and embezzlement by employees in Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Croatia, Libya, Morocco, the United States and South Africa.  These probes have not been previously disclosed.”

To date, many questions remain unanswered. On Dec. 14, 2022, the ICIJ reported that the SEC is still investigating the matter, and that the DoJ is preparing to bring additional penalties against Ericsson. Lawsuits alleging the company withheld material information about its operations in Iraq have also been filed. 

Jaclyn Jaeger is a contributing editor at Compliance Chief 360° and a freelance business writer based in Manchester, New Hampshire.

The post Ericsson Monitorship Extended One Year appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

In a Nov. 1 quarterly filing, Leidos cryptically said “through its internal processes, the company discovered in late 2021 activities by its employees, third-party representatives and subcontractors, raising concerns related to a portion of our business that conducts international operations.”

Leidos added that it is conducting an internal investigation that is being “overseen by an independent committee of the board of directors, with the assistance of external legal counsel,” to determine whether the identified conduct may have violated the company’s Code of Conduct, the FCPA, and other applicable laws.

“The company has voluntarily self-reported this investigation to the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is cooperating with both agencies,” Leidos said in regulatory filing.

Leidos further disclosed that it received a federal grand jury subpoena in September 2022 related to the criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California, in conjunction with the DoJ’s Fraud Division.

“The subpoena requests documents relating to the conduct that is the subject of the company’s internal investigation,” Leidos said. “The company is in the process of responding to the subpoena.”

Antitrust Investigation

The subpoena that Leidos received in September 2022 was the second one received in a span of a month. In August 2022, the company received a federal grand jury subpoena in connection with a criminal investigation being conducted by the DoJ’s Antitrust Division.

“The subpoena requests that the company produce a broad range of documents related to three U.S. government procurements associated with the company’s Intelligence Group in 2021 and 2022,” the company said.

“We intend to fully cooperate with the investigation, and we are conducting our own internal investigation with the assistance of outside counsel,” Leidos added. “It is not possible at this time to determine whether we will incur, or to reasonably estimate the amount of, any fines, penalties, or further liabilities in connection with the investigation pursuant to which the subpoena was issued.” 

Jaclyn Jaeger is a contributing editor at Compliance Chief 360° and a freelance business writer based in Manchester, New Hampshire.

The post Leidos: Department of Justice Probing Potential FCPA, Antitrust Violations appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.