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

WilmerHale Global Anti-Bribery Year-in-Review: 2023 Developments and Predictions for 2024

by Kimberly Parker, Jay Holtmeier, Erin Sloane, Christopher Cestaro, Sandra Redivo, Matthew Girgenti, Elliot Shackelford, and Keun Young Bae

Top left to right: Kimberly Parker, Jay Holtmeier, Erin Sloane, and Christopher Cestaro.
Bottom left to right: Sandra Redivo, Matthew Girgenti, Elliot Shackelford, and Keun Young Bae. (Photos courtesy of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP).

Although publicly announced Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement activity remains lower than the levels reached a few years ago, 2023 saw a modest increase in the overall number of FCPA enforcement actions (26 in 2022 vs. 27 in 2023).  This was seen especially in the number of corporate resolutions (12 in 2022 vs. 15 in 2023).  The combined total of monetary penalties decreased, from $1.56 billion in 2022 to $776 million in 2023.  Nonetheless, senior officials at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) again signaled, through policy changes and public announcements, that anti-corruption enforcement is a priority and that there will be significant and growing enforcement efforts going forward.  Below are the key takeaways regarding FCPA enforcement in 2023 and trends to keep in mind as we look ahead to 2024.

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

Photos of the authors.

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 →

DOJ Continues to Modernize its Criminal Antitrust Enforcement Strategy

by Richard A. Powers

(Photo courtesy of the author)

Over the past few years, the Justice Department has been hard at work on a comprehensive update to the way it detects, investigates, and prosecutes price-fixing cartels. Several recent announcements, including at last week’s ABA White Collar Conference, preview the DOJ Antitrust Division’s next steps in this generational shift—the goals of which are to refine disclosure incentives, promote individual accountability, and obtain trial convictions.

First, on March 7, 2024, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the DOJ is kicking off a 90-day whistleblower “policy sprint”; the finish line is a new program to complement existing regulators’ programs, rewarding qualifying whistleblowers for bringing non-public, previously unknown misconduct to the DOJ’s attention. The Antitrust Division has long sought to encourage individual self-reporting as a complement to its corporate VSD policy, so expect that this initiative will aim to improve that incentive structure. Next, the DOJ updated the Justice Manual to incorporate the M&A safe harbor policy that it announced last fall. Notably for antitrust practitioners, the JM updates included changes to the Antitrust Division’s leniency policy that provide much-needed clarification on how companies that detect potential collusion at an M&A target can avoid inheriting those liabilities by promptly reporting to DOJ. Third, senior Antitrust Division officials continue to emphasize that they are focused on developing investigations through affirmative investigative techniques, such as wiretaps and whistleblowers.

Continue reading →

Paying Criminal Whistleblowers: DOJ Announces A Program to Pay For Tips, and the SFO Is Considering Doing So Too

by Joshua A. Naftalis, Matt Getz, and Tracey Dovaston

From left to right: Joshua A. Naftalis, Matt Getz, and Tracey Dovaston. (Photos courtesy of Pallas Partners LLP).

In the past two weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO) each made announcements about paying financial bounties to whistleblowers.  On March 7, 2024, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced a new DOJ whistleblower program that will compensate individual whistleblowers for reporting corporate or financial misconduct previously unknown to DOJ.  This announcement followed a February 13, 2024 speech by SFO Director Nick Ephgrave, who said that he supported the idea of paying whistleblowers.    

Continue reading →

President Biden Issues Executive Order Granting Authorities to Regulate the Transfer of Sensitive U.S. Data to Countries of National Security Concern

by Eric J. Kadel Jr., Sharon Cohen Levin, Nicole Friedlander, Anthony J. Lewis, Andrew J. DeFilippis, Joshua Spiegel, and George L. McMillan

photos of authors

Top left to right: Eric J. Kadel Jr., Sharon Cohen Levin, Nicole Friedlander, Anthony J. Lewis.
Bottom left to right: Andrew J. DeFilippis, Joshua Spiegel and George L. McMillan. (Photos courtesy of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP).

SUMMARY

On February 28, 2024, President Biden issued Executive Order 14117, “Preventing Access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern” (the “Executive Order”), delegating new authorities to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and other agencies to regulate the transfer of sensitive U.S. data to countries of national security concern. The Executive Order focuses primarily on personal and other sensitive information, such as U.S. persons’ financial information, biometric data, personal health data, geolocation data, and information relating to government personnel and facilities.[1]

Continue reading →

DOJ Announces Initiative to Combat AI-Assisted Crime

by Helen V. Cantwell, Andrew J. Ceresney, Avi Gesser, Andrew M. Levine, David A. O’Neil, Winston M. Paes, Jane Shvets, Bruce E. Yannett, and Douglas S. Zolkind

photos of the authors

Top (left to right): Helen V. Cantwell, Andrew J. Ceresney, Avi Gesser, Andrew M. Levine, and David A. O’Neil
Bottom (left to right): Winston M. Paes, Jane Shvets, Bruce E. Yannett, and Douglas S. Zolkind (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On February 14, 2024, Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco announced an initiative within the U.S. Department of Justice to ramp up the detection and prosecution of crimes perpetrated through artificial intelligence (AI) technology, including seeking harsher sentences for certain AI-assisted crimes. Monaco also announced a new effort to evaluate how the Department can best use AI internally to advance its mission while guarding against AI risks.

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

Photos of the authors.

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 →

U.S. White-Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: Some Thoughts for 2024

by Joshua A. Naftalis and Melissa Kelley

Photos of authors

Left to right: Joshua A. Naftalis and Melissa Kelley (Photos courtesy of Pallas Partners LLP)

2023 was another busy year in the U.S. white-collar and regulatory enforcement areas.  As we begin 2024, a few of the Government’s recent enforcement policies and priorities should be kept front of mind: (1) the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) focus on corporate criminal enforcement; (2) DOJ’s related prioritization of sanctions evasion and anti-foreign bribery enforcement; (3) the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) diverging policies on “no-admit/no-deny” settlements; and (4) the cryptoasset space.  

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

Photos of the authors.

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

Photos of Authors

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 →