by Catherine Amirfar, Megan Bannigan, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, and Karen Levy
Left to Right: Catherine Amirfar, Megan Bannigan, Charu A. Chandrasekhar and Karen Levy (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)
As we look back on 2025, one theme that emerges from our work helping over 100 clients with their AI adoption is that extracting real value from AI takes a sustained effort across the organization, and those investments are now starting to pay off.
Photo courtesy of the author
Financial crime is often framed as a problem of criminal ingenuity. Enforcement agencies and regulators devote increasing attention to sophisticated typologies such as sanctions evasion through shell company networks, trade-based money laundering involving dual-use goods, cyber-enabled fraud, crypto-facilitated laundering, and professionalized scam operations. In response, financial institutions have invested billions of dollars in advanced compliance technology. Artificial intelligence, behavioral analytics, network detection, and real-time transaction monitoring systems now form the backbone of modern financial crime programs.
Photo courtesy of the author
Recently, I have been asked whether the use of corporate monitorships may be fading into the background. With signs of declining enforcement intensity and increased leniency toward corporate firms within the United States—particularly at the federal level[1]—some observers have begun to wonder whether monitors are still a realistic feature of post-resolution oversight. The short answer is yes. The longer answer, and the more important one for multinational firms, is that focusing exclusively on the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) dramatically understates both the prevalence and the reach of monitorships today.[2]
by Kolin Tang, Matthew P. Suzor, and Cameron Smith
Left to right: Kolin Tang, Matthew P. Suzor, and Cameron Smith (photos courtesy of Miller Shah LLP)
Two recent decisions from the Ninth Circuit—Detwiler v Mid-Columbia Medical Center, 156 F.4th 886 (9th Cir. 2025) and Peterson v. Snohomish Regional Fire Rescue, 150 F.4th 1211 (9th Cir. 2025)—offer important guidance on how courts may evaluate religious discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Together, this pair address two prongs of the religious-accommodation framework— (1) the applicant or employee’s burden of proving discrimination on its face and (2) the shifting burden on an employer to prove that any reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship on its business. In both instances, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts’ decisions in favor of the employer and signaled a more thorough and evidence-based approach to evaluating religious discrimination claims, especially in the context of COVID-19 workplace policies.
David-Katz (Photo courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)
On January 7, 2026, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting which could limit the ability of defense contractors to pay dividends or repurchase their stock, as well as potentially impact the compensation of their executives. According to the Executive Order:
While the United States produces the best military equipment in the world, we do not make enough of it quickly enough to meet the needs of our military and our partners. As a result, in these dangerous times, it is imperative that our defense contractors be held to the highest standards intended to ensure the advancement of core national interests, including with respect to the timeliness and quality of the defense items that they deliver.
Although some contractors have made critical investments in increased production capacity and been responsive to our Nation’s vital interests, far more have not. Many large contractors — while underperforming on existing contracts — pursue newer, more lucrative contracts, stock buy-backs, and excessive dividends to shareholders at the cost of production capacity, innovation, and on-time delivery.
by Tom Bednar, David A. Last, Abena Mainoo, and Lisa Vicens[1]
Left to right: Tom Bednar, David A. Last, Abena Mainoo, and Lisa Vicens (photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)
Many jurisdictions have passed laws promoting and protecting whistleblower reporting, particularly with respect to potential violations of law by companies and their executives, while certain law enforcement authorities have introduced monetary awards programs to provide incentives to report potential violations of law.[2] These previous efforts to encourage whistleblower reporting generally continued in the past year. In this three-part series, we first discuss the outlook for whistleblower programs in the United States under the new administration. Second, we review initiatives relating to whistleblower reports in other jurisdictions over the past year. Third, we address emerging issues and considerations for companies in relation to whistleblower reports.
by David A. Katz, Elina Tetelbaum, and Loren Braswell
Left to right: David A. Katz, Elina Tetelbaum, and Loren Braswell (photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)
On December 11, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Protecting American Investors From Foreign-Owned and Politically Motivated Proxy Advisors,” which is aimed at “increas[ing] oversight of and tak[ing] action to restore public confidence in the proxy advisor industry, including by promoting accountability, transparency, and competition.”
by Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Avi Gesser, Gordon Moodie and Karen Levy
Left to right: Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Avi Gesser, Gordon Moodie and Karen Levy (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)
As boards and executives look for guidance on how best to adopt AI, comparisons to previous innovations are often used. But catchphrases like “AI is the new fire” or “it’s the new electricity” are not very helpful for people who have to make decisions about AI adoption. None of us were around to experience the impact of the steam engine, and even if we had been, the business world then was so different from what it is today that any lessons cannot be readily translated into concrete, actionable advice. Continue reading
by Gina Parlovecchio, Hiral Mehta, Arun Rao and Xiamora Damour
Left to Right: Gina Parlovecchio, Hiral Mehta, Arun Rao and Xiamora Damour (photos courtesy of Mayer Brown).
On November 17, 2025, the US Attorney’s Office in the District of New Jersey filed a criminal complaint alleging that Indonesian jewelry company UBS Gold, its Indonesian co-owner Michael Yahya, and two company employees engaged in a five-year-long conspiracy to evade duties and tariffs owed for shipments of jewelry to the United States. The complaint alleges that defendants avoided over $86 million in duties and tariffs on more than $1.2 billion in jewelry shipments. This is the second high-profile criminal tariff evasion case brought since the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced trade and customs fraud as one of its areas of focus in its white collar Enforcement Guidance earlier this year[1]—an area that likely will remain a priority, regardless of the outcome of ongoing litigation challenging President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs. Importers should monitor their current tariff programs and, if needed, develop compliant tariff strategies.
Photo courtesy of the author
Innovation comes to all things, even to classic concepts that have grounded entire professions for years or decades.
Among attorneys and compliance professionals, the classic Fraud Triangle—with its three points of pressure, opportunity, and rationalization—stands as a foundational concept to describe the characteristics present after fraud has occurred.
However, the classic Fraud Triangle yields limited utility—and indeed does not really even apply—in forward-looking situations where the third leg of rationalization is necessarily absent.[1] Such situations include ones adversarial in nature such as complex commercial disputes, investigations, and compliance matters where no admission comes from the opposing side, investigation subjects, or counterparties in compliance due diligence and risk assessments. Indeed, in such situations instead of rationalization, one faces vehement denials. This leaves legal and compliance professionals seeking to pierce through darkness in need of a more suitable and effective guiding light.