Category Archives: Criminal Enforcement

Cryptocurrency Exchange KuCoin Pleads Guilty to Unlicensed Money Transmission, Agrees to Pay More Than $297.4 Million in Criminal Forfeiture, Fine

Photo courtesy of the author

For more than a decade, as part of its oversight of financial institutions’ compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and regulations thereunder, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has repeatedly stated that any person accepting and transmitting convertible virtual currencies (“cryptocurrencies”) must register with FinCEN as money transmitters and thereafter comply with the anti-money laundering/counter-terrorism financing program, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.[1] Even so, a number of cryptocurrency or virtual currency businesses have ignored these longstanding requirements, sometimes resulting in massive criminal and civil penalties.[2]

Continue reading →

President Trump and Attorney General Bondi Announce Significant Shift in FCPA and Other Corporate Enforcement Priorities

by Kimberly A. Parker, Matt Jones, Jay Holtmeier, Erin G.H. Sloane, Christopher Cestaro, Brenda E. Lee, Aaron M. Zebley and Emily L. Stark

Top left to right: Kimberly Parker, Matt Jones, Jay Holtmeier, and Erin Sloane. Bottom left to right: Christopher Cestaro, Brenda Lee, Aaron Zebley, and Emily Stark. (Photos courtesy of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP).

Soon after being sworn in, President Trump issued Executive Orders identifying top administration priorities: combating illegal immigration, drug cartels, and unlawful DEI practices. Taking a similar tack, on her first day in office, February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pamela Bondi instructed the US Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Department”) to redirect its enforcement efforts from certain corporate crimes so that it could devote greater attention to the priorities outlined by the President. Across fourteen memoranda that promised more guidance to follow, Attorney General Bondi detailed changes that could transform the corporate enforcement landscape. This included a direction to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) Unit of the DOJ to “prioritize investigations related to foreign bribery that facilitates the criminal operations of Cartels and TCOs,” or transnational criminal organizations, and to “shift focus away from investigations and cases that do not involve such a connection.”[1]

Continue reading →

Lessons from Hospital Criminal Prosecution for Larger Health Systems and Provider Groups

by Ericka Aiken, Kevin Lamb, and Audrey Sapirstein

From Left to Right: Ericka Aiken, Kevin Lamb, and Audrey Sapirstein. (Photos courtesy of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP)

Introduction

On January 8, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a federal grand jury indicted the Chesapeake Regional Medical Center (CRMC) in Virginia for conspiracy to defraud the United States and health care fraud. In this rare move, DOJ seeks to hold a hospital criminally responsible for alleged fraudulent conduct committed by a physician at the hospital. The indictment alleges that from 2010 to 2019, CRMC and a former obstetrician-gynecologist with surgical privileges at CRMC conspired to defraud the government by performing medically unnecessary operations, submitting inaccurate and false bills, and failing to comply with applicable rules and regulations. According to the indictment, CRMC received approximately $18.5 million in reimbursements from health care benefit programs over that time for procedures performed by the former physician at the hospital.

Continue reading →

TD Bank Pleads Guilty to Bank Secrecy Act and Money Laundering Conspiracy Violations and Agrees to Pay More Than $3.09 Billion in Criminal and Civil Penalties for “Systemic Breakdown” in Compliance Policies, Procedures, and Processes

by Jonathan J. Rusch

Photo courtesy of the author

In any corporate compliance program, chief compliance officers must be mindful that their programs are not guaranteed to maintain consistent levels of funding from year to year. Factors such as expanding or contracting business operations, declining business conditions, or external events such as recessions or COVID may require various year-to-year adjustments in a compliance program’s staffing levels and internal controls operations.[1]

Even so, it is essential that senior management in any company or financial institution recognize and accept the fact that at all times, the compliance programs in their enterprise must be adequately resourced and empowered to function effectively.[2] What a company’s senior leadership may not do, under any circumstances, is to make decisions that, over time, systematically starve critical compliance programs of resources essential to the effectiveness of those programs.

Continue reading →

The New ‘Failure to Prevent Fraud’ Corporate Offence — UK Government Publishes Guidance

by Karolos Seeger, Aisling Cowell, Andrew H. Lee, and Sophie Michalski

Left to Right: Karolos Seeger, Aisling Cowell, Andrew H. Lee, and Sophie Michalski (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On 6 November 2024, the Home Office finally published government guidance on the corporate offence of failure to prevent fraud (the “FTPF Offence”), which was introduced in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 enacted last October. The new offence will now come into force on 1 September 2025, giving companies a longer period to prepare than had been expected.

Continue reading →

DOJ Announces Changes to Corporate Enforcement Policy at PCCE’s Fall Conference

On November 22, 2024, the NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) hosted a conference titled “New Directions in Corporate and Individual Enforcement.” At the conference, Nicole Argentieri, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), delivered remarks on DOJ’s corporate enforcement policies, including recent policy changes. A note on DOJ’s blog regarding these changes is reprinted below and is available here. More resources on DOJ’s corporate enforcement policies are available here.

Nicole Argentieri, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, DOJ (©Hollenshead: Courtesy of NYU Photo Bureau)

Courtesy of Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri

A crucial element of the Justice Department’s fight against white collar crime is transparency — being clear about what we at the department are doing and why. As someone who has spent significant time as a defense lawyer, I know from personal experience how important it is to be able to explain to your client — whether that client is an individual or a board of directors at a publicly traded company — what is happening in an investigation, how the government might view their actions, and the risks and the benefits of proceeding in a certain way.

Continue reading →

PCCE Hosts Roundtable Discussion on Leniency Policies with the DOJ’s Antitrust Division

All photos courtesy of NYU Photo Bureau

On September 19, 2024, the NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) hosted senior members of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division including Emma Burnham, Director of Criminal Enforcement, Ryan Danks, Director of Civil Enforcement, and Sean Farrell, Chief, New York Office, as well as academics, in-house counsel, and distinguished members of the antitrust bar to examine the efficacy of the Antitrust Division’s corporate and individual leniency policy and discuss possible reforms. The roundtable discussion was moderated by Director Burnham, PCCE Faculty Director Jennifer Arlen, and NYU Law Professor Daniel Francis.

Photos of the event below:

Continue reading →

Three – No, Four – Important Revisions to the Department’s Policy on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Efforts

by Bethany Hengsbach and Steve Solow

From left to right: Bethany Hengsbach, and Steve Solow. Photos courtesy of the authors.

In a speech at the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement at NYU School of Law, Nicole Argentieri, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, announced key revisions to the March 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP). The September 17, 2024 speech was followed by the release of the updated ECCP on the DOJ website. The revised ECCP converts leading edge compliance efforts into standard operating procedures (SOPs) against which companies will be judged by the Department of Justice (DOJ) when making prosecution decisions. The primary changes include three new areas of focus, and a fourth important expansion of a pre-existing idea: Continue reading →

Avoid Kicking the Hornet’s Nest: A Fresh Look at How to Anticipate, Avoid, and Respond to BIS Administrative Subpoenas (Part 2)

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (photos courtesy of authors)

In Part 2 we pick up where we left off in Part 1 to continue our discussion of how best to avoid an administrative subpoena. We then discuss how best to respond, if and when they cannot be avoided, and conclude with some practical guidance.

Avoid: How to Dissuade BIS from Resorting to Administrative Subpoenas (Continued)

Prepare well for outreach visits

Companies should prepare for outreach visits. Persons who will be meeting or speaking with OEE agents should be well prepared to do so with an eye toward and an awareness of the implications of the information and representations they are providing to BIS. Any and all information that company representatives provide to BIS representatives is fair game for future enforcement and for sharing with other U.S. agencies.

Continue reading →

Avoid Kicking the Hornet’s Nest: A Fresh Look at How to Anticipate, Avoid, and Respond to BIS Administrative Subpoenas (Part 1)

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (photos courtesy of authors)

Anticipating, avoiding, and responding to administrative subpoenas pose the next in a long line of challenges facing U.S. companies and their legal and compliance teams as the new wave of export controls enforcement unfolds.

The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security (“BIS”) has primed the corporate enforcement engine[1] through (1) public guidance identifying “red flags” indicating a “high probability” of diversion in violation of U.S. export controls, (2) successful criminal prosecutions in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the Disruptive Technology Strike Force of intermediaries facilitating diversion,[2] and (3) “supplier list” and “red flag” letters warning companies of the risks of diversion posed by certain counterparties.[3]

Continue reading →