Designed for busy in-house counsel, compliance professionals, and anti-corruption lawyers, this newsletter summarizes some of the most important international anti-corruption law and enforcement developments from the past month, with links to primary resources. This month we ask: What will be the impact of the new U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement? Which companies might have benefited from DOJ’s new FCPA enforcement posture? What moves did the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) take to bolster its foreign bribery enforcement efforts? The answers to these questions and more are here in our June 2025 Top 10.
1. DOJ Issues New FCPA Enforcement Guidelines, Ending FCPA Enforcement Pause
On June 9, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a four-page memorandum establishing “Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)” (“FCPA Guidelines”). The publication ends the pause in FCPA enforcement that began with President Trump’s February 2025 Executive Order (“FCPA EO”), which, among other things, directed the Attorney General to issue updated guidelines or policies for FCPA enforcement “to adequately promote the President’s Article II authority to conduct foreign affairs and prioritize American interests, American economic competitiveness with respect to other nations, and the efficient use of Federal law enforcement resources.” According to the memorandum, the FCPA Guidelines are intended to ensure that FCPA investigations and prosecutions are carried out in accordance with the FCPA EO’s directives to limit undue burdens on American companies operating abroad and to target conduct that directly undermines national interests.
The FCPA Guidelines direct prosecutors to consider four “non-exhaustive factors” when evaluating FCPA investigations and enforcement actions. (1) Targeting Cartels and TCOs. In accordance with the Attorney General’s February 2025 memo on the Total Elimination of Cartels and Transitional Criminal Organizations (TCOs), prosecutors should consider whether the alleged bribery is associated with the criminal operations of a cartel or TCO, utilizes money launderers or shell companies that also engage in money laundering for cartels or TCOs, or is linked to foreign officials who have received bribes from cartels or TCOs. (2) Safeguarding U.S. Business Opportunities. To prioritize economic growth and expansion of U.S. business opportunities abroad, prosecutors should consider whether the alleged misconduct deprived “specific and identifiable U.S. entities of fair access to compete and/or resulted in economic injury to specific and identifiable American companies or individuals.” According to the memo, prosecutors should not focus on particular individuals or companies on the basis of their nationality when applying this factor. (3) Advancing U.S. National Security. To safeguard U.S. national security from threats of foreign bribery, prosecutors should prioritize enforcement on “sectors like defense, intelligence, and critical infrastructure” and bribery involving “key infrastructure or assets.” (4) Prioritizing Serious Misconduct. Prosecutors should focus on alleged misconduct “that bears strong indicia of corrupt intent tied to specific individuals, such as substantial bribe payments, proven and sophisticated efforts to conceal bribe payments, fraudulent conduct in furtherance of the bribery scheme, and other efforts to obstruct justice.” In a June 10, 2025 speech, DOJ Criminal Division Head Matthew Galeotti explained that the “tied to specific individuals” phrase means that DOJ will not use “collective knowledge theories” to pursue FCPA cases. This factor also directs prosecutors not to focus on “de minimis or low-dollar, generally accepted business courtesies” that are more akin to facilitation payments or reasonable and bona fide promotional expenditures. The FCPA Guidelines further direct prosecutors to consider the likelihood that a foreign law enforcement authority “is willing and able to investigate the same alleged misconduct”—presumably meaning that DOJ will be less interested in pursuing cases where a competent foreign authority is willing to do so.
In some ways the FCPA Guidelines are consistent with historical FCPA enforcement practices. For example, FCPA Guideline 4 is consistent with the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations, which direct prosecutors to consider, among other things, the nature and seriousness of the offense when making charging decisions. Under this principle, DOJ has historically focused on FCPA cases that involve large bribes or systemic bribery schemes, bribery of high-level officials, and/or bribery that results in substantial profits, while deferring to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or declining to prosecute cases that do not meet these criteria. Of course, there are exceptions to this general practice, and the FCPA Guidelines should help avoid such results. In other ways, however, the FCPA Guidelines seem to signal a significant departure from historical FCPA enforcement practices. For example, DOJ has generally not considered the impact of an alleged bribery scheme on U.S. national security or economic interests in deciding whether to initiate an FCPA investigation or enforcement action. Indeed, Article 5 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, to which the United States is a party (and for which the United States was a prime mover), states that “[i]nvestigation and prosecution of the bribery of a foreign public official . . . shall not be influenced by consideration of national economic interest, [or] the potential effect upon relations with another State[.]” Some commentators mistakenly equate these new factors—which consider the impact on U.S. national interests of actions taken for business purposes—with the generally applicable public authority defense—which negates the intent element of any crime when a defendant is expressly authorized to conduct an otherwise criminal act by a U.S. authority—and the “narrowly tailored” exception contained in the FCPA’s accounting provisions, which is related in spirit to that defense. (See the FCPA Resource Guide at n. 223.) These things are not alike.
As with any new DOJ policy, we will have to wait to see how the FCPA Guidelines are applied in practice before we know their true impact. Like any DOJ policy, the FCPA Guidelines provide DOJ with a significant amount of discretion and require interpretation in light of the facts and circumstances of specific cases. The factors are expressly “non-exhaustive,” allowing for considerations beyond the four factors outlined in the memorandum; there is no requirement that any, let alone all four, of the expressly delineated factors be present for DOJ to pursue an enforcement action. And it may not be readily apparent at the outset of an investigation whether, for example, a scheme involved “serious misconduct,” caused injury to an American company or individual, or impacted U.S. national security interests; even at the end of an investigation, there will likely be many instances where DOJ and a company disagree on the application of those factors. In this sense, the memorandum’s statement that “[p]rosecutors should account for the fact that they may not have as much insight into all of the facts of a case at the beginning of a matter as when making charging decisions” may actually serve as a message to companies that, even though the likelihood of an FCPA enforcement action may be reduced under the new Guidelines, they might not avoid an FCPA investigation.
(For more on how FCPA enforcement policy is developing under the second Trump administration, see our February 2025, March 2025, and April 2025 Top 10s and our client alert on the FCPA EO and Cartel/TCO Memo. For more on the FCPA Guidelines, listen to this podcast.)
2. DOJ Returns to the OECD Working Group on Bribery, Reaffirms Cooperation with the UK SFO
Likely in response to the FCPA EO, DOJ did not attend the March 2025 quarterly meeting of the OECD’s Working Group on Bribery. According to the summary of the meeting, the State Department did attend that meeting (as it usually does) and provided an oral update on the FCPA EO; other Parties “express[ed] concerns regarding the [EO’s] potential implications for implementation of the Convention,” and the Working Group “[i]nvited the United States to report back . . . in June 2025.” Likely in conjunction with the issuance of the FCPA Guidelines, DOJ returned to the OECD Working Group for the June 2025 quarterly meeting. According to the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), DOJ Criminal Division Head Matthew Galeotti met with SFO Director Nick Ephgrave on the margins of the Working Group meeting. According to the SFO, the meeting covered DOJ’s latest white collar crime policies and the two agencies’ “shared commitment to encouraging voluntary self-disclosure from companies as well as positive action to reduce the length of complex investigation to deliver swift justice.” (For more on Ephgrave’s positions on these issues, see our April 2025 Top 10.) Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to cooperate with each other in international white collar investigations.
3. SEC and Former Technology Company Executives Reach Agreement in Principle to Resolve India Bribery Allegations
In April 2025, DOJ decided to dismiss FCPA charges against two former technology-company executives who were accused in February 2019 of authorizing an Indian construction company to bribe Indian government officials in connection with securing a permit needed to open a new office campus. We opined that this decision suggested that DOJ was de-emphasizing bribery on the “operational side” of business, because such bribery is more akin to a facilitation payment than to winning business. The FCPA Guidelines (discussed in #1 above) suggest that this interpretation might have been correct. But we also noted in April 2025 that it was potentially significant that “within days of DOJ’s decision to drop criminal charges, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the defendants in the India case jointly moved to restore the civil FCPA case to the active docket to allow the parties to explore a potential resolution.” This was potentially significant in our view because, as discussed in #1 above, DOJ has often deferred to SEC in cases involving bribes similar to those alleged in the India case. In a June 16, 2025, filing in the District of New Jersey, SEC’s Enforcement Division informed the court that “[t]he Parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter in its entirety, subject to Commission review and approval.”[1] SEC requested that the court continue the stay while the Enforcement Division seeks approval from SEC for the proposed settlement. The ultimate settlement in this case could provide a window into how SEC, which is not bound by the FCPA Guidelines, will approach FCPA enforcement during the second Trump administration.
4. DOJ Moves for Early End to Swiss Technology Company’s FCPA Deferred Prosecution Agreement
On June 20, 2025, a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted[2] DOJ’s motion to dismiss[3] FCPA charges against ABB Ltd., six months before the scheduled expiration of the company’s three-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). In December 2022, DOJ announced that the company had agreed to a DPA to resolve allegations that it and its subsidiaries had bribed government officials in South Africa to secure cabling and installation contracts at a state-owned power station. The DPA provided that DOJ would move to dismiss the information within six months of the DPA’s expiration if the company fully complied with its obligations, or earlier if DOJ found “that there exists a change in circumstances sufficient to eliminate the need for the [self-]reporting requirement . . . and that other provisions of [the] Agreement have been satisfied[.]” In its motion, DOJ stated that the company had fulfilled its obligations under the DPA, including by implementing an enhanced compliance program, and it had determined, therefore, that early dismissal was appropriate. Although DOJ did not cite the FCPA EO or the FCPA Guidelines, it is likely that DOJ reviewed the ABB resolution pursuant to the FCPA EO, which, among other things, empowered the Attorney General to review prior FCPA cases and take “remedial measures” if the prior cases are deemed “inappropriate” in light of the revised guidelines. In this way, the ABB early dismissal is similar to DOJ’s March 2025 decision to dismiss Glencore’s FCPA monitorship 15 months before its scheduled termination.
5. Japanese Automaker Discloses DOJ Declination in Thai Bribery Investigation
In a June 18, 2025 securities filing, Toyota Motor Corporation disclosed that DOJ had informed the company that it had closed its investigation into possible foreign bribery violations relating to a Thai subsidiary. It is not clear from the filing whether DOJ’s declination was related to the FCPA EO or the FCPA Guidelines. The filing also stated that the company had disclosed the possible FCPA violations to SEC but did not provide any update on the SEC investigation.
6. Indiana-Based Pharmaceutical Technology Company Discloses SEC Declination in Non-Human Primate Importation Investigation
In a June 4, 2025, securities filing, Inotiv Inc. disclosed that SEC had notified the company that the enforcement division had concluded its investigation into whether the company’s non-human primate importation practice complied with the FCPA and had decided not to recommend an enforcement action against the company. According to the filing, SEC sent the company voluntary document requests in May 2023, a formal order of investigation in March 2024, and supplemental document requests in April 2024. The filing did not state whether DOJ had ever expressed interest in the matter.
7. Updates in Latin American FCPA Cases
- Florida Man Convicted of Conspiring to Launder Honduran Bribery Proceeds
In April 2025, DOJ stated that it had conducted a “detailed review” as contemplated by the FCPA EO and “intend[ed] to proceed to trial” against three defendants whom DOJ announced in December 2023 had been charged in the Southern District of Florida in connection with an alleged scheme to bribe Honduran government officials to secure contracts to provide uniforms and other goods to the Honduran National Police. On June 5, 2025, one of those defendants, Aldo Nestor Marchena, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.[4] Trial for Marchena’s two co-defendants, Carl Alan Zaglin and Francisco Roberto Cosenza Centeno, is scheduled for September 2025. Marchena’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for October 2025.
- Business Owner Sentenced in Connection with Ecuador Bribery Scheme
On June 24, 2025, Christian Patricio Pintado Garcia was sentenced in the Southern District of Florida to a sentence of 10 months’ time served and three years of supervised release[5] following his April 2025 guilty plea in connection with an alleged scheme by two UK-based reinsurance brokers to bribe officials of Ecuadorian state-owned insurers Seguros Sucre S.A. and Seguros Rocafuerte S.A. Pintado’s lawyers argued that he deserved a reduced sentence because he had already served 10 months in a Costa Rican prison and his codefendant Esteban Eduardo Merlo Hidalgo, who directed the payments, received a “very lenient” sentence of five months—half the time that Pintado had already served. Ultimately, prosecutors informed the court that they would not object to Pintado’s proposed sentence of time served, noting his “affirmative and timely acceptance of personal responsibility.”[6] DOJ announced charges against Pintado Garcia, Merlo Hidalgo, and one other defendant, Luis Lenin Maldonado Matute, in July 2022.
8. New Charges Brought Against Top New York State Official Alleged to Have Received Kickbacks from PPE Vendors Based in China
On June 25, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York announced a second superseding indictment against Linda Sun, who worked in various capacities for the state of New York, including serving as deputy chief of staff for the sitting governor, Kathy Hochul, and as an aid to the administration of Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo. Sun was initially charged in September 2024 in connection with allegations that she acted on behalf of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to influence the policies and practices of the state of New York and laundered millions of dollars in the process. According to the new allegations, Sun used her position of influence with the New York State government during the COVID-19 pandemic to procure contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) from vendors located in the PRC. Two of these vendors allegedly had direct ties to Sun and her family, which she concealed by falsifying documents and claiming the referrals were from the PRC government. With Sun’s alleged assistance, these vendors were awarded millions of dollars in contracts with the New York state government, which also allegedly resulted in the payment of approximately $2.3 million in kickbacks to Sun and her co-defendant and husband Chris Hu. Sun faces new charges of committing and conspiring to commit honest services wire fraud and bribery, as well as conspiring to defraud the United States. For his role, Hu was charged with committing and conspiring to commit honest services wire fraud and bribery, conspiring to defraud the United States, and committing tax evasion.
9. UK Serious Fraud Office Joins Global Anti-Corruption Alliance
On June 26, 2025, the UK SFO announced that it had joined the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre (IACCC), an international, multiagency team of investigators and intelligence analysts that provides dedicated operational support to grand corruption investigations. Based within the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA), the IACCC brings together specialist law enforcement officers from agencies worldwide to take allegations of grand corruption across jurisdictions. According to the SFO, this alliance builds on its anti-corruption taskforce with French and Swiss authorities, announced in April 2025.
10. Swiss Bank and Former Account Relationship Manager Convicted of Money Laundering
On June 17, 2025, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) announced that a final summary penalty order had been entered against a former relationship manager at Banque Pictet et Cie SA for acts of aggravated money laundering. The manager was sentenced to a six-month suspended custodial sentence with a two-year probation period. The OAG also announced that it had assessed a fine of CHF 2 million against the bank for its failure to take reasonable actions to prevent the manager’s misconduct, including its failure to adequately monitor transfers and identify high-risk accounts. According to the announcement, the OAG established that between June 2010 and May 2013, the manager approved dozens of transfers totaling $4.1 million debited from an account at the bank held by an offshore company ultimately owned by an employee of Brazil’s national oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras). The transfers allegedly concealed that the assets originated from a series of corrupt payments in relation to contracts with Petrobras for the chartering and operation of oil rigs. (The OAG investigation is related to the widespread bribery investigation in Brazil known as Operation Car Wash (a/k/a Lava Jato).) According to the OAG, the manager and the bank declared that they would not appeal the summary penalty order.
[1] Letter, SEC v. Coburn, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05820-MCA-MAH, ECF No. 81 (D.N.J. June 16, 2025).
[2] Order, United States v. ABB Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cr-00220-MSN, ECF No. 24 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2025).
[3] Government’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Information, United States v. ABB Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cr-00220-MSN, ECF No. 23 (E.D. Va. June 18, 2025).
[4] Plea Agreement, United States v. Marchena, Case No. 1:23-cr-20454, ECF No. 140 (S.D. Fla. June 5, 2025).
[5] Minute Entry, United States v. Merlo Hidalgo et al., Case No. 1:22-cr-20311, ECF No. 102 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2025).
[6] Plea Agreement, United States v. Merlo Hidalgo, et al., No. 1:22-cr-20311, ECF No. 91 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2025).
[View source.]
