by Anat Carmy-Wiechman and Giovanni Patti
Left to right: Anat Carmy-Wiechman and Giovanni Patti (Photos courtesy of authors)
In a new report, the NYU Pollack Center for Law & Business, in collaboration with Cornerstone Research, analyzes recent SEC enforcement trends using data from the Securities Enforcement Empirical Database (SEED). The key findings are summarized below.
by Courtney Andrews, Darryl Lew, Tami Stark, and Olivia Hussey
Courtney Andrews, Darryl Lew, Tami Stark, and Olivia Hussey (Photos courtesy of White & Case)
On October 7, 2025, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) Chairman Paul S. Atkins announced procedural reforms aimed at enhancing fairness and transparency in the agency’s enforcement program.[1] Chairman Atkins emphasized that the reforms focus on the SEC’s three-part mission: to protect investors; to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and to facilitate capital formation. These changes will have implications for companies and individuals facing potential enforcement actions.
Photo courtesy of the author
Export controls penalties that were previously peanuts compared to FCPA penalties are now becoming more like elephants, with the “high probability” standard driving the stampede.
On July 28, 2025, DOJ and BIS announced a $140 million resolution with an electronic design automation (“EDA”) exporter via a guilty plea[1] and BIS settlement[2] over exports to China.
The BIS settlement turned on what the exporter had “reason to know, including awareness of a high probability” (aka the “high probability” standard), and not just actual knowledge—an escalation in BIS’s use of the full definition of “knowledge” under the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”).[3] Recent BIS guidance in July 2024, October 2024, and May 2025 foreshadowed this shift,[4] as did an August 15, 2025, $5.8 million settlement.[5]
For practical guidance on the “high probability” standard, see prior “Fresh Looks” posts.[6]
This recent case also warrants an update of the November 14, 2023, comparison of export controls and FCPA enforcement, which likewise leveraged the “high probability” standard.[7]
by Eyitayo “Tee” St. Matthew-Daniel, Joshua Hill Jr., Christopher M. Wilson, and Yoosun Koh
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:
Below, we provide a high-level overview of the new laws and offer some observations.
Jonathan J. Rusch (photo courtesy of the author)
Since 2023, when Singapore Police arrested 10 people connected with Singapore’s largest-ever case of money laundering (involving S$3 billion in cash and assets)[1], the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has been conducting supervisory examinations against pertinent financial institutions with a nexus to persons of interest in that case and certain employees of those financial institutions.
On July 4, the MAS announced regulatory actions against nine financial institutions and prohibition orders and reprimands against 18 executives and managers of those institutions for failure to comply with MAS’s Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements.[2] This post will summarize those actions and identify certain lessons to be learned for AML/CFT compliance.
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]
by David B. Anders, John F. Savarese, and Aline R. Flodr
Left to right: David B. Anders, John F. Savarese, and Aline R. Flodr (photos courtesy of authors)
On June 9, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the awaited new guidelines for prosecutors investigating and enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). These enforcement guidelines were issued in response to President Trump’s Executive Order titled “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security,” which directed DOJ to “pause” certain FCPA investigations while reassessing enforcement priorities and to issue new FCPA enforcement guidelines within 180 days. The stated aim of the new policy is to reduce undue burdens on American companies operating abroad and to focus on activities that undermine U.S. national interests. The memorandum announcing the guidelines directs prosecutors to consider the following non-exhaustive factors and confirms that these new guidelines shall govern all current and future FCPA investigations and enforcement actions:
by Veronica Root Martinez and Liz Carrasco
Left to right: Veronica Root Martinez and Liz Carrasco (photos courtesy of authors)
Governments have a responsibility to evaluate corporate compliance programs and an opportunity to design strong regulatory frameworks. To identify reforms and encourage implementation, they must first understand the state of compliance. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report Governments’ Assessments of Corporate Anti-Corruption Compliance[1] provides a detailed look at how governments are approaching the assessment of corporate anti-corruption compliance programs. The report explains that clear, consistent standards for assessing these programs would improve both efficiency and credibility—but few governments have adopted such standards. This blog post explores governments’ roles in 1) guiding companies on compliance criteria, 2) enhancing oversight, and 3) the value of information sharing.
by Veronica Root Martinez and Liz Carrasco
Left to right: Veronica Root Martinez and Liz Carrasco (photos courtesy of authors)
As anti-corruption compliance programs have become standard within corporations, an increasing number of companies are shifting their focus to the effectiveness of these programs. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report Companies’ Assessments of Anti-Corruption Compliance[1] provides a detailed look at this shift within the private sector. Drawing on survey data and examples from a range of companies, the report highlights a growing recognition that compliance cannot be isolated from a company’s culture, leadership, or structure. In short, the question is not merely whether a compliance program exists, but whether it is effective.
The report includes anonymized company case studies to illustrate various approaches and insights. This blog post explores three key aspects of the report: (1) why companies assess the effectiveness of their anti-corruption compliance programs; (2) what methodologies they use to do so; (3) the tools companies leverage to monitor progress over time.
by Jonah Anderson, Neill Blundell, Anneka Randhawa, and Phil Taylor
From left to right: Jonah Anderson, Neill Blundell, Anneka Randhawa and Phil Taylor (photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)
More than a decade ago, the concept of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) became part of UK law. Ever since, there has been considerable uncertainty as to exactly what conditions a company needs to meet in order to be given the chance to enter into a DPA. Continue reading