Category Archives: Corporate Criminal Liability and Enforcement

California Restricts Use of Common Pricing Algorithms, Reforms the Pleading Standard for Certain Antitrust Claims, and Increases Penalties

by Eyitayo “Tee” St. Matthew-Daniel, Joshua Hill Jr., Christopher M. Wilson, and Yoosun Koh

Photos of authors.

Eyitayo “Tee” St. Matthew-Daniel, Joshua Hill Jr., Christopher M. Wilson, and Yoosun Koh (Photos courtesy of Paul, Weiss)

On October 6, 2025, California enacted AB 325 and SB 763. These two laws amend the state’s primary antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act, which generally prohibits combinations or agreements between two or more entities in restraint of trade, such as agreements to fix prices or to limit production. These amendments are effective as of January 1, 2026.

Together, AB 325 and SB 763:

  • Add two new Cartwright Act violations related to the use or distribution of “common pricing algorithms.”
  • Lower the pleading standard for Cartwright Act claims.
  • Establish civil penalties for violations of the Cartwright Act and increase maximum criminal penalties.
  • Make remedies and penalties for Cartwright Act violations cumulative.

Below, we provide a high-level overview of the new laws and offer some observations.

Continue reading →

Beware the Tariff DDP Trap: Managing Hidden Import Liabilities Before They Bite

by Jonny Frank and Jerry McAdams 

Photos of authors

Left to right: Jonny Frank and Jerry McAdams  (photos courtesy of StoneTurn Group, LLP)

Looking to mitigate tariffs, companies are purchasing foreign products through Duty Paid (“DDP”) transactions marketed by foreign suppliers as turnkey solutions.  DDPs promise efficiency but often deliver exposure. Under U.S. law, the importer—not the supplier—remains legally responsible for accurate customs declarations, tariff payments, and regulatory compliance. When suppliers cut corners or game the system, the importer inherits the fallout, including potential Customs Border Protection (“CBP”) penalties, DOJ criminal prosecution and False Claim Act (“FCA”) exposure.

Continue reading →

DOJ Announces First FCPA Enforcement Activity After Months-Long Pause

by Kimberly A. Parker, Jay Holtmeier, Erin G.H. Sloane, and Christopher Cestaro

Left to Right: Kimberly A. Parker, Jay Holtmeier, Erin G.H. Sloane, and Christopher Cestaro (photos courtesy of WilmerHale)

Over the past week, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) unsealed its first Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement action and issued its first declination since the pause in FCPA enforcement mandated by President Donald Trump’s February 10, 2025 Executive Order (“February Executive Order”)[1] and the subsequent issuance of updated FCPA enforcement guidelines, the Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (“June Guidelines”).[2]  

Continue reading →

DOJ Secures First Criminal Conviction in Wage-Fixing Case

by Christopher A. Miller and Nicole Jefferson

Left to right: Christopher A. Miller and Nicole Jefferson (photos courtesy of Miller Shah LLP)

On April 14, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (“The Division”) secured its first wage-fixing criminal conviction in United States v. Lopez, after a federal jury found that Eduardo “Eddie” Lopez violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (“Section 1”) by engaging in wire fraud and wage fixing. This decision signifies a shift in the DOJ’s approach to antitrust conduct in the labor market toward an expansion of criminal enforcement and deviates from the majority of antitrust litigation, which has largely been civilly prosecuted.  

Continue reading →

Italy under OECD Scrutiny: Foreign Bribery and the Rule of Law

by Simone Lonati 

Photo courtesy of the author

In order to respond to the phenomenon of the so-called “global crime”[1] in the last decades there has been a proliferation of multilateral international and regional treaties in criminal matters, together with executives and soft law measures in the field. International corruption is not an exception: starting from the 1990s, thanks to the pivotal role of the United States back in 1977 when it adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, there has been a wave of conventions adopted by bodies such as the OECD, the UN, the Council of Europe and the European Union, each bringing different approaches and demands to domestic legal systems.

Continue reading →

Second Circuit Reinstates FIFA Bribery Convictions, Reviving Honest Services Fraud Prosecutions for Foreign Commercial Bribery

by David A. Last, Rahul Mukhi, Victor L. Hou, Lisa Vicens, Matthew M. Yelovich, and Sarah Pyun

From left to right:  David A. Last, Rahul Mukhi, Victor L. Hou, Lisa Vicens, Matthew M. Yelovich, and Sarah Pyun (photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

In a significant decision with broad implications for companies and individuals operating internationally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed the acquittal of a former media executive and a sports marketing company in the long-running FIFA bribery investigation.[1]  The ruling reinstates jury convictions for honest services wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy, holding that the federal honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, can apply to foreign commercial bribery schemes.[2]

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Upholds Expansive Reading of Wire Fraud Statute

by David A. Last, Rahul Mukhi, Joon H. Kim, Matthew M. Yelovich, and Michael Cronin

From left to right: David A. Last, Rahul Mukhi, Joon H. Kim, Matthew M. Yelovich, and Michael Cronin (photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the wire fraud conviction of a government contractor in Kousisis v. United States, rejecting the argument that federal wire fraud requires proof of economic loss to the victim. In so holding, the Court endorsed the “fraudulent inducement” theory of wire fraud, marking a victory for federal prosecutors after several recent decisions that narrowed the scope of federal fraud statutes. This decision takes on added significance given the current administration’s renewed emphasis on False Claims Act (“FCA”) enforcement, as companies now face heightened exposure under both criminal fraud and civil FCA theories for false representations to government agencies, even absent demonstrable financial harm.

Continue reading →

White Collar Experts Discuss New DOJ Criminal Enforcement Priorities (Part I)

Editor’s Note: PCCE has been following the Trump Administration’s new approach to corporate criminal enforcement. In this post, PCCE invited leading white collar practitioners to discuss the new enforcement priorities and revisions to the DOJ Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) outlined by Matthew Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division for the DOJ, in a speech at the SIFMA Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference on May 12, 2025.

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Paul Krieger, Michael Chang-Frieden, Sharon Cohen Levin, and Andrew J. DeFilippis
Bottom left to right: David Massey, Jamie Schafer, Seetha Ramachandran, and William C. Komaroff
(photos courtesy of the authors)

Continue reading →

The Trump Administration’s Changes to White Collar Enforcement Are Transformative, Not Cyclical

by Robertson Park

Photos of the author

Photo courtesy of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

When Administrations change, it is inevitable that there will be new leadership and priorities which inform their actions.  This applies across governmental functions, and the Department of Justice has never been exempted.  I served in the Department — both in the USAO (DC) and in Main Justice (Fraud) — under Presidents Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. My wife served for almost 20 years in the Public Integrity Section under similarly diverse leadership.  Joseph DiGenova was my US Attorney, and AG Edwin Meese signed my Criminal Division Appointment. I worked under Attorneys General as diverse as Edwin Meese, Bill Barr, Janet Reno, and Eric Holder. Sometimes the changes in the Department were substantial, and at others they were more nuanced.  But the impact on traditional white-collar investigations and enforcement was generally reflected in shifts toward new initiatives and away from others, while not altering the fundamental landscape of white-collar enforcement.  In those years, white-collar practice moved through procurement fraud, the Savings and Loan Crisis, invigoration of foreign bribery enforcement, health care, and more sophisticated forms of financial and market fraud.

Continue reading →

DOJ Announces Policy Ending “Regulation by Prosecution” of Digital Assets

by Joel Cohen, Brent Wible, Ladan Stewart, Marietou Diouf, Robert Denault, and Elisha Mvundura 

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Joel Cohen, Brent Wible and Ladan Stewart, Bottom left to right: Marietou Diouf, Robert Denault and Elisha Mvundura (Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP).

On April 7, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum instructing federal prosecutors to cease pursuing “litigation or enforcement actions that have the effect of superimposing regulatory frameworks on digital assets,” noting that regulators and not prosecutors will “do this work outside the punitive criminal justice framework.”[1]  Under the new policy, the Justice Department will prioritize investigations and prosecutions involving individuals who defraud investors in digital assets or who use digital assets in furtherance of other crimes, including offenses related to terrorism, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing.  The memorandum indicates that the Justice Department plans to close all ongoing investigations that are inconsistent with the new policy.

Continue reading →