Category Archives: Monitors

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

Editor’s Note: PCCE has been following the Trump Administration’s new approach to corporate criminal enforcement. In this post, which is the second in a 2-part series, 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.

Left to right: Robertson Park, Elizabeth Roper, and Maria Piontkovska (photos courtesy of the authors)

Continue reading →

Keeping Deferred Corporate Charges Deferred: Some Dos and Don’ts

by John Savarese, Randall Jackson, and Michael Holt

Left to right: John Savarese, Randall Jackson, and Michael Holt (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

At the heart of every white-collar deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is the deferral of filed criminal charges and a promise by DOJ to dismiss those charges at the end of a fixed term if the company has lived up to its remedial and other commitments. Breaches of these agreements are rare. But DOJ’s recent letter advising the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that Boeing breached its obligations under a January 2021 DPA (entered into with DOJ to resolve criminal charges relating to Boeing’s mishandling of FAA reporting concerning its 737 MAX aircraft following fatal crashes of two of those planes) provides a telling reminder of the critical need for companies to design and carry out an effective and comprehensive plan to abide by all terms established under a DPA.

Continue reading →

Monitoring What Matters: A Fresh Look Proposal to Government and Industry for How Post-Resolution Oversight Can Best Deny Hostile Actors the Means to Cause Deadly Harm

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

U.S. economic sanctions and export controls serve a wide range of national security interests. When hostile actors rely on U.S.-designed or -manufactured components in weapons used in fatal attacks on U.S. and coalition military personnel and civilian populations, there is an acute need to quickly identify the illicit trade flows and stop those components from reaching the battlefield. Continue reading →

“Expect Some Illumination”: A Fresh Look at U.S. Congressional Hearings in the Era of Sanctions and Export Controls as the New FCPA

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

The 118th U.S. Congress has taken an active and bipartisan interest in U.S. sanctions and export controls. With reports that U.S. executives have been asked to testify before the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party[1] and recent hearings before a U.S. Senate subcommittee previewing further questions for both companies and regulators,[2] U.S. companies whose products might require a license for export to China or that might be found in Russian or Iranian weapons should prepare for congressional scrutiny—and congressional pressure on the U.S. Executive Branch departments to deliver enforcement results. Continue reading →

How Not to Stand Out Like a Sore Thumb (Part 2): A Fresh Look at the “High Probability” Definition of Knowledge Applied to Export Controls and Sanctions Enforcement

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

Media coverage concerning the widespread use of U.S. or Western microelectronics in recovered Russian- or Iranian-manufactured missiles and drones is putting pressure on governments, manufacturers, and exporters to consider ways to reduce more effectively the flows of such items to prohibited end-users. Even considering that many of the items are ubiquitous consumer electronics, the discovery of such items after mass-casualty events—including fatalities—on the front lines puts manufacturers and exporters on the front pages and in the crosshairs of U.S. regulators, prosecutors, media, and congressional committees. However the items arrived on the battlefield, their presence begs the questions of how and through whom they arrived. Continue reading →

How Not to Stand Out Like a Sore Thumb (Part 1): A Fresh Look at the “Willful” Intent Standard for Criminal Liability in Export Controls and Sanctions Corporate Enforcement

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

“The ‘willfulness’ standard for criminal prosecutions appears nearly insurmountable to reach.”

So concluded a “90-Day Review Report” issued January 2, 2024 by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, following congressional hearings in May and December 2023.[1] The report further contended that “the statutory requirement to prove ‘willfulness’” for there to be a criminal violation of U.S. export controls (and sanctions) is a “high bar” that “often results in [the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security (“BIS”)] export enforcement personnel pursuing administrative enforcement actions with lower penalties,” compared to the alternative (unstated but implied by the report) of U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) personnel pursuing criminal penalties.[2]

This conclusion is not accurate. BIS is not itself responsible for criminal enforcement, yet it has partnered closely with the DOJ’s National Security Division—including by co-leading the inter-agency Disruptive Technology Strike Force launched on February 16, 2023—to bring several high-profile convictions or resolutions. Nor is the requirement to prove willfulness “insurmountable” for U.S. federal prosecutors, whose cases achieve the standard regularly and can do so not only with direct evidence of intent but also indirect evidence, i.e., the relevant facts and circumstances. Such facts and circumstances often—especially in the eyes of jurors—make the willful nature of criminal evasion schemes stand out like a sore thumb. Continue reading →

White-Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: What Mattered in 2023 and What to Expect in 2024

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, Wayne M. Carlin, David B. Anders, Sarah K. Eddy, Randall W. Jackson, and Kevin S. Schwartz

Top left to right: John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, Wayne M. Carlin, and David B. Anders.
Bottom left to right: Sarah K. Eddy, Randall W. Jackson, and Kevin S. Schwartz. (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

This past year was yet another notable and intensely active one across the entire range of white-collar criminal and regulatory enforcement areas. We heard continued tough talk from law enforcement authorities, especially concerning the government’s desire to bring more enforcement actions against individuals and on the need to keep ramping up corporate fines and penalties. The government largely lived up to its talking points about increasing the numbers of individual prosecutions and proceedings, particularly with respect to senior executives in the cryptoasset industry. But there were some notable stumbles. The most striking example of this was DOJ’s failure to secure convictions in cases where it attempted to extend criminal antitrust enforcement in unprecedented areas, such as no-poach employment agreements and against certain vertical arrangements—neither of which has historically been viewed as involving per se violations of the federal antitrust laws. And, as in years past, many state attorneys general remained active throughout 2023, using broad state consumer-protection statutes to bring blockbuster cases across a wide array of industries, from ridesharing and vaping to opioids and consumer technology offerings.

Continue reading →

Looking Back at Fall 2023 PCCE Events: CFTC Enforcement Director Announces Updates to the CFTC’s Enforcement Policies

As we prepare for a full schedule of events in 2024, starting with an event on Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy for Export Controls Violations on January 16, 2024, the NYU School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) is taking a moment to reflect on our busy Fall 2023 program. In this post, we review our October 17, 2023 event featuring a corporate and individual enforcement policy announcement by the CFTC’s Director of Enforcement.

Continue reading →

An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure . . . or an Imposed Compliance Monitorship: A Fresh Look at the DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Toolkit Applied to Sanctions and Export Controls Enforcement

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

In our last article, we discussed the evolution of export controls penalties.[1] Beyond monetary penalties, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has additional items in its corporate enforcement toolkit that dramatically increase the cost of non-compliance. These include the DOJ’s new policies requiring companies to claw back or withhold executive compensation, requiring CEOs and chief compliance officers to make pre-release compliance certifications, and expanding the grounds for appointing independent compliance monitors.

Such corporate enforcement trends significantly increase the value of making front-end investments to avoid the “pound of cure.” In this post, we take a “fresh look” at these trends with an eye towards sanctions and export controls enforcement and offer practical guidance for dealing with them. Continue reading →

Former CFTC Enforcement Officials Comment on the CFTC’s New Enforcement Advisory

Left to Right: Panelists David Meister, Douglas Yatter, Elizabeth Davis, Jennifer Arlen (moderator), and James McDonald (©Myaskovsky: Courtesy of NYU Photo Bureau)

On October 17, 2023, the NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) hosted Ian McGinley, the Director of Enforcement for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), to announce updated enforcement guidance to CFTC staff on penalties, monitors, and admissions. Director McGinley’s remarks (available here) were followed by a fireside chat and moderated Q&A with questions from the audience, and later by a moderated panel of former CFTC enforcement directors and senior enforcement counsel. The updated staff guidance is available here. In this post, the panelists from the event offer additional commentary on the guidance.

Continue reading →