On May 12, 2025, the head of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Criminal Division, Matthew R. Galeotti, outlined the Trump Administration’s enforcement framework for white collar crime. The announcement consisted of three parts: the DOJ’s new policy on enforcement priorities, its articulation of “fairness” principles that will guide future prosecutions, and its efforts to streamline corporate criminal investigations.
Voluntary disclosure could yield potentially greater benefits
The DOJ announced that it will revise and refine the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) to emphasize additional benefits for self-disclosing, including shorter remediation terms, and clearly lay out potential routes to declination.
The revised CEP will provide an even stronger presumption of declination for entities that voluntarily disclose misconduct. The announcement stated that not all corporate misconduct warrants prosecution and prosecutors “must consider additional factors when determining whether to charge corporations,” including whether the company self-reported the misconduct, its level of cooperation with the DOJ, and its remediation efforts.
Even where corporate criminal resolutions involve remediation, the DOJ said those terms should be abbreviated. Going forward, terms should not be longer than three years, “except in exceedingly rare cases.”
The DOJ also announced that it will review the length of all existing agreements to assess early termination. Factors in favor of early termination include self-reporting and the extent of remediation.
With these changes, the DOJ has signaled that it will look very favorably at voluntary disclosure of misconduct and that it is in everyone’s interests to streamline investigations and encourage corporate criminal resolutions over prosecution.
A focus on enforcement across 10 key impact areas
First, the DOJ announced a change in its enforcement priorities with respect to white-collar crime to broadly shift toward consumer protection and national security.
In the announcement, the Justice Department said it would prioritize enforcement in the following “high impact” areas:
- Waste, fraud, and abuse involving federal programs, including healthcare and government procurement fraud;
- Trade, tariff, and customs fraud with a focus on tariff evasion and those who “seek to circumvent the rules and regulations that protect American consumers”;
- Investment fraud, specifically, fraud schemes that target vulnerable groups like seniors and veterans along with “fraud that threatens the health and safety of consumers”;
- National security, including sanctions evasion and threats to the U.S. financial system;
- Material support to foreign terrorist organizations;
- Complex money laundering;
- Fraud by variable interest entities, described as “typically Chinese-affiliated companies listed on U.S. exchanges that carry significant risks to the investing public,” specifically the possibility of market manipulation leading to the flow of investor funds to “strategic industries” in China;
- Controlled Substances Act and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act violations, including the unlawful distribution of opioids and fentanyl-laced counterfeit pills;
- Cryptocurrency crimes, particularly those involving digital assets that victimize investors and consumers, use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct, and entail willful violations that facilitate significant criminal activity; and
- Bribery that impacts U.S. interests.
As part of its pivot on enforcement priorities, the DOJ announced changes as to the type of cases it pursues. Going forward, the DOJ will focus its efforts on cases where the government can seize ill-gotten proceeds and use them to compensate victims of the scheme or fraud. The DOJ will also prioritize schemes involving senior-level personnel, demonstrable loss, and efforts to obstruct justice.
The Justice Department also announced that it would expand its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program to reflect these priorities, adding new subject areas where whistleblower tips lead to forfeiture of illegally obtained assets from the wrongdoer: procurement fraud, national security-related crimes like sanctions offenses, violations of federal immigration law, tariff and customs fraud, and material support for terrorism or drug cartels.
Focus on fairness and alternative resolutions
Second, the DOJ articulated several “fairness” principles, including its change to the CEP policy.
The Justice Department said it will prioritize the prosecution of individual criminals and that “[n]ot all corporate misconduct warrants federal criminal prosecution.” Instead, civil and administrative remedies might be more appropriate to address “low-level corporate misconduct.”
The DOJ also encouraged prosecutors to consider corporate criminal resolutions, such as non-prosecution agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, and guilty pleas. The DOJ also emphasized that each decision—whether to prosecute or seek a resolution—should be highly individualized to the facts and circumstances of that case.
Investigations and monitorships have a shorter time horizon
Third, Galeotti announced that his office is working closely with the Criminal Division’s sections to track investigations to “ensure that they do not linger and are swiftly concluded,” noting that corporations might suffer “collateral impact” from lengthy criminal investigations. The DOJ is also changing its approach to monitorship programs. They may be imposed only when necessary (i.e., when the company is incapable of preventing misconduct without this “heavy-handed intervention”), and they must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goals of the DOJ while minimizing expense, burden, and interference with the company and its business. In addition to this change, the DOJ is currently reviewing all existing monitorships to decide whether each monitor is still necessary.
The Justice Department says these policy changes are designed to promote “focused, fair, and efficient” enforcement of white-collar crimes that do not encumber corporations and business while protecting American investors and consumers. However, as with all changes in leadership and policy, the proof is in the pudding—or prosecutions. While the impact of the policy revisions will become better known as the DOJ issues indictments and further refines its guidance, companies, particularly those intersecting with healthcare, national security, and immigration, should take note of these new priorities. Also, all companies and their counsel should consider the benefits—and risks—of cooperation with the government early on in an investigation.
