Category Archives: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

Deputy Attorney General Delivers Keynote at ACI FCPA Conference 

by Greg D. Andres, Martine M. Beamon, Daniel S. Kahn, and Neil H. MacBride

Left to right: Greg D. Andres, Martine M. Beamon, Daniel S. Kahn and Neil H. MacBride (photos courtesy of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP)

On December 4, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and other DOJ officials participated in the annual ACI FCPA conference in Washington DC, outlining key principles to corporate enforcement and FCPA investigations and prosecutions.  The remarks provide insight into how this DOJ is approaching FCPA enforcement and corporate enforcement more broadly.

Continue reading →

Do the Enforcement Choices Match the “America First” Antitrust Rhetoric?

by Bilal Sayyed

Bilal Sayyed (photo courtesy of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP)

Gail Slater, the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, suggests that the antitrust leadership of both political parties “underenforced our century-old antitrust laws for several decades,” accepting “false economic theories of self-correction” of markets negatively impacted by anticompetitive conduct and dominant firms.  Gail Slater, The Conservative Roots of America First Enforcement (Apr. 28, 2025).  Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Mark Meador recently criticized “the monstrously swollen firms who’ve hollowed out communities, raised prices, distorted labor markets, corrupted the public square, or otherwise degraded quality across [the] economy.” “Antitrust enforcement is,” according to Meador, “one of the most powerful, economy-wide tools available for addressing” a “dehumanization of economic life” associated with “the size and power of the largest companies” that have “ballooned to unprecedented levels.” Mark Meador, Antitrust’s Populist Soul (Sept. 15, 2025). “Big is bad.” Mark Meador, Antitrust Policy for the Conservative (May 1, 2025).

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 →

Recent Developments in the Law of Federal Property Fraud: It’s a Long and Winding Road

by James Joseph Benjamin Jr., Katherine R. Goldstein, Michael A. Asaro, and Parvin Daphne Moyne 

Left to right: James Joseph Benjamin Jr., Katherine R. Goldstein, Michael A. Asaro, and Parvin Daphne Moyne (photos courtesy of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP)

In two recent high-profile decisions, Chastain v. United States and Johnson v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed wire fraud convictions that were based on theories resembling insider trading.[1] In both cases, the government invoked the wire fraud statute, and not a securities fraud statute, because the products at issue (non-fungible tokens and spot foreign currency) were not securities. These cases mark the latest developments in a long-running, ongoing and sometimes head-spinning debate in the courts concerning the breadth of the federal property fraud statutes.

Continue reading →

DOJ Defines “Illegal DEI,” Warns Recipients of Federal Funds to Take Notice

by Adam S. Hickey, Marcia E. Goodman, Ruth Zadikany, and Hiral D. Mehta

Left to right: Adam S. Hickey, Marcia E. Goodman, Ruth Zadikany, and Hiral D. Mehta (photos courtesy of Mayer Brown)

On July 29, 2025, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination (the “Guidance”). Following the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud  Initiative by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and joint guidance issued by DOJ and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on “unlawful DEI-related discrimination“, the Guidance is the most tangible guidance released to date on what the administration views as “illegal DEI” and a likely roadmap for DOJ’s False Claims Act (“FCA”) investigations under the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative.

Continue reading →

Antitrust Insights from the Administration’s First Six Months

by Ilene Knable Gotts, Nelson O. Fitts, Damian G. Didden, Christina C. Ma, and Emily E. Samra

Left to right: Ilene Knable Gotts, Nelson O. Fitts, Damian G. Didden, Christina C. Ma, and Emily E. Samra (photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

As predicted, antitrust merger enforcement under the second Trump Administration exhibits a return to a more restrained approach at both the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.  Most refreshingly, the agencies appear committed to good faith engagement with merging parties.  The FTC lifted its four-year “temporary” suspension of early terminations of the HSR waiting period, and a senior Division official recently stated that the DOJ will “not send ‘scarlet’ letters warning parties that they ‘close at their own risk’”—a practice adopted under the prior administration.  In recent orders, the FTC highlighted the importance of Commission staff and merging parties working together in “good faith” during merger reviews.  In public statements, both the FTC and DOJ have eschewed “turning the HSR review into an extortion racket.” These commitments reflect a welcome return to established patterns of antitrust practice, where proactive engagement with regulators can lead to efficient outcomes for lawful transactions.  

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 →

Whistleblowers Receive New Pathway for Reporting as DOJ Announces Antitrust Whistleblower Reward Program

by Max Rodriguez and Bianca Beam

Left to right: Max Rodriguez and Bianca Beam (photos courtesy of Law Office of Max Rodriguez PLLC)

As discussed in a prior post,[1] last year the Department of Justice announced new pilot programs for whistleblowers in the following U.S. Attorney’s Offices: the Southern District of New York[2]; Eastern District of New York[3]; Northern District of California[4]; Central District of California[5]; District of New Jersey[6]; District of Columbia[7]; Southern District of Texas[8]; Northern District of Illinois[9]; Southern District of Florida[10]; Eastern District of Virginia[11]; and the Western District of Virginia.[12]

Continue reading →

Changes in Approach to Criminal Liability: Trump’s Executive Order Regarding Criminal Regulatory Offenses

by Greg L. Johnson, Clare M. Bienvenu, Sean Toomey, and Colin North

Photos of the authors

Greg L. Johnson, Clare M. Bienvenu, Sean Toomey & Colin North (photos courtesy of the authors)

On May 9, 2025, the Trump Administration published an executive order (“EO”), titled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations,” that targets criminal regulatory offenses subject to strict liability, or liability that attaches without a required criminal mindset. The EO states that strict liability offenses are “generally disfavored,” and encourages agencies to consider civil or administrative, rather than criminal, enforcement of strict liability offenses. The EO further explains that prosecution of criminal regulatory offenses is “most appropriate” when “a putative defendant is alleged to have known his conduct was unlawful.”

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 →