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: Can foreign bribery be prosecuted under the U.S. “honest services” fraud statute? What efforts have Denmark and South Africa taken to combat foreign bribery? What actions do two key British agencies encourage the financial services industry to take to help curb foreign kleptocracy? The answers to these questions and more are here in our July 2025 Top 10.
1. U.S. Appellate Court Reinstates Foreign Bribery Convictions in International Soccer Corruption Case
On July 2, 2025, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York that had vacated the convictions of two defendants prosecuted as part of the global bribery scandal involving the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and affiliated continental and regional soccer confederations. In March 2023, Full Play Group, S.A., an Argentine sports marketing company, and Hernan Lopez, the former CEO of Fox International Channels, were convicted on wire fraud and money laundering charges alleging that they had participated in a scheme to bribe South American soccer officials to secure soccer broadcasting rights. In September 2023, the District Court in the Eastern District of New York vacated their convictions on the basis that the intangible right to honest services under 18 U.S.C § 1346 did “not extend to foreign commercial bribery.” In reaching this conclusion, the District Court relied on two Supreme Court cases decided after the jury’s verdict: Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023); and Percoco v. United States, 598 U.S. 319 (2023). Ciminelli rejected the Second Circuit’s “right to control” theory of fraud, which allowed for a conviction when the “defendant’s scheme denies the victim the right to control its assets by depriving it of information necessary to make discretionary economic decisions,” while Percoco held that a private citizen generally does not owe a fiduciary duty of honest services to the public.
The Second Circuit concluded that neither Ciminelli nor Percoco were relevant controlling authorities, nor did they compel a finding that 18 U.S.C § 1346 did not extend to bribery of foreign officials. The court held that Percoco applied “in the context of duties to the public… in the unique context where the defendant did not actually hold public office” and that Ciminelli addressed the scope of § 1343, not § 1346. The court stressed that Percoco, in particular, did not address commercial actors or employment relationships (which was the factual background of this prosecution). The court held that the relevant authority was United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2011), which upheld an honest services fraud conviction of a foreign national, working at the United Nations (UN), who had accepted bribes from a foreign vendor. As such, the Second Circuit found the District Court had erred and that 18 U.S.C § 1346 did extend to cases of foreign bribery. The court also rejected an alternative argument by the defendants that they did not have a fiduciary duty to FIFA because (i) the foreign jurisdictions in which the bribery occurred did not recognize a general fiduciary duty to employers and (ii) FIFA’s code of ethics was insufficient to give rise to fiduciary duties. The court remanded the case to the District Court to consider a further alternative argument advanced by the defendants: that the prosecution had failed to prove a conspiracy by the defendants to deceive the relevant South American continental confederation.
(For more on this prosecution, see our April 2020, January 2022, March 2023, and September 2023 Top 10s. For more on an earlier trial involving allegations of bribery in international soccer, see our November 2017, December 2017, and June 2020 Top 10s. For more on the potential application of Ciminelli and Percoco in foreign bribery cases, see our article Applying High Court’s Domestic Corruption Rulings To FCPA.)
2. DOJ Argues That FCPA Enforcement Pause Does Not Compel Dismissal of Honduran Bribery Case
In February 2025, President Trump ordered a six-month pause in FCPA enforcement. During the pause, the Attorney General was directed, among other things, to review in detail all existing FCPA investigations or enforcement actions with an eye to “restor[ing] proper bounds on FCPA enforcement and preserv[ing] Presidential foreign policy prerogatives[.]” In light of this directive, DOJ requested that four FCPA trials be postponed to allow it to consider whether to proceed in light of the factors set forth in President Trump’s pause order. Among the trials postponed was the trial of three defendants whom DOJ announced in December 2023 were charged 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. In April 2025, DOJ stated that it had conducted a “detailed review” of that case “as contemplated by the Executive [Pause] Order” and “intends to proceed to trial.” One of the defendants in the Honduran case, Carl Alan Zaglin, filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing, among other things, that the prosecution conflicted with President Trump’s order pausing FCPA enforcement. On July 10, 2025, DOJ filed an opposition brief arguing that, despite a change in priorities and FCPA enforcement policy, the charges against Zaglin should not be dismissed.[1] According to DOJ, “there is simply no legal basis for dismissing an Indictment on ‘public policy’ grounds, much less on grounds that have already been thoroughly and fully considered in accordance with the Executive Order and with the Department of Justice’s internal processes.” Although DOJ did not initially provide details regarding its decision to move forward in April 2025, its opposition brief provides some insight into the agency’s thought process. For example, in a footnote in its opposition brief, DOJ wrote, “Zaglin and his co-conspirators competed with other American companies for contracts with the Honduran government, depriving them of a fair playing field.” This is one of the non-exhaustive factors that DOJ now considers in determining whether to bring an FCPA enforcement action, as set forth in DOJ’s June 2025 guidelines for investigations and enforcement of the FCPA. (For more on the case involving Zaglin, see our December 2023, February 2024, March 2025, April 2025, and June 2025 Top 10s.)
3. SEC Dismisses Bribery Suit Against Former Technology Company Executives Arising from India Bribery Allegations
Another trial postponed pursuant to the FCPA Pause Order was the case 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. Unlike the Honduran bribery case discussed above, DOJ decided to dismiss the charges against the executives in April 2025. 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 related civil FCPA case to the active docket in the District of New Jersey to allow the parties to explore a potential resolution. We found this development to be “interesting” and “potentially significant,” even more so when, in June 2025, 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.” We opined that “[t]he ultimate settlement in this case could provide a window into how SEC, which is not bound by the [DOJ] FCPA [Investigation and Enforcement] Guidelines, will approach FCPA enforcement during the second Trump administration.” Well … on July 15, 2025, SEC informed the court that they had agreed to a stipulation to dismiss charges against two former technology company executives.[2] The stipulation states that the dismissal does not reflect SEC’s position on any other case, and, indeed, it is hard to know what to make of it. Presumably, the Enforcement Division staff had recommended some kind of settlement on the merits to the Commission, but there are no public clues as to what happened to that recommendation. We will have to wait for a future SEC enforcement action or policy statement to gain an understanding of SEC’s FCPA enforcement plans under the second Trump administration.
4. U.S. Life Sciences Company Discloses Declination in FCPA Investigations
In a July 30, 2025, securities filing, GE HealthCare Inc. disclosed that the company had received letters from SEC and DOJ in May 2025 stating that the agencies had closed their FCPA investigations without further action. According to the filing, the investigations arose out of voluntary self-disclosures that the company had made beginning in 2018 regarding “tender irregularities and other potential violations of the FCPA relating to our activities in certain provinces in China.” The company further stated that it had cooperated with the investigations and enhanced its compliance program. It is unclear what impact, if any, the FCPA Pause Order or the factors set out in DOJ’s FCPA Guidelines (issued publicly the month after the declination letters were sent) played in the declinations.
5. Singapore Public Prosecutor Enters into DPA with Offshore, Marine, and Energy Company over Brazilian Bribes
On July 30, 2025, the Singapore Public Prosecutor announced that it had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with Singapore-based Seatrium Limited. The DPA arose out of allegedly corrupt payments made by Seatrium’s Brazilian subsidiary in connection with oil rig and other energy contracts. These payments were uncovered as part of the Brazilian authorities’ wide‑ranging Operation Car Wash (Lava Jato) investigations into alleged corruption involving Brazil’s national oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”). Under the terms of the DPA, Seatrium is required to pay a financial penalty of $110 million – with a credit of up to $53 million permitted to offset fines paid to Brazil in connection with an anticipated leniency agreement with the Brazilian Attorney General’s Office and the Comptroller General of the Union (CGU). The DPA is subject to final approval by the Singapore High Court, which will consider whether the DPA is in the interests of justice and whether its terms are fair, reasonable, and proportionate. In March 2024, Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPID) and the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) jointly announced charges against two former executives of a Seatrium subsidiary for bribing Brazilian officials and previewed that the Public Prosecutor was in discussions with the company on a DPA.
6. Mexican Attorney General Announces Investigation into Former Mexican President for Reportedly Accepting Bribes from Israeli Businessmen
On July 8, 2025, Mexican Attorney General Alejandro Gertz Manero announced an investigation against former Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto for allegedly accepting as much as $25 million from Israeli businessmen to secure government contracts for spyware and other technology. The investigation follows allegations arising out of reporting on an arbitration in Israel, wherein two businessmen sought to determine their individual proceeds from a $25 million investment into Peña Nieto. Although Peña Nieto was not directly named in the documents, they reportedly reference his years in office. This is not the first investigation involving Peña Nieto. In July 2020, Emilio Lozoya Austin, the former Chief Executive of Mexico’s national oil company, Petróleos Mexicanos, reportedly provided evidence to Mexican authorities that top officials in the Peña Nieto administration were involved in corruption, including bribing politicians to support the former president’s energy reform plan. (For more on investigations concerning Peña Nieto and investigations connected with his presidency, see our May 2019, February 2020, March 2020, May 2020, July 2020, and September 2020 Top 10s. For more on how arbitration cases can produce evidence of foreign bribery, see here.)
7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery Reviews Denmark’s and South Africa’s Foreign Bribery Enforcement Efforts
All parties to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention are subject to a rigorous peer-review process, Phase 4 of which focuses on the evaluated country’s enforcement of the Convention and considers the country’s particular challenges and positive achievements.
- OECD Working Group on Bribery Commends Denmark on International Cooperation but Identifies Gaps in Enforcement Efforts
On July 8, 2025, the OECD Working Group on Bribery released its Phase 4 evaluation of Denmark’s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. According to the Working Group, “Denmark has reported some commendable efforts to enforce the foreign bribery offence[.]” Denmark’s “notable enforcement progress” included its second corporate sanction for foreign bribery, arising out of a power plant bribery case. The Working Group also commended Denmark’s “consistent use of regional and international law enforcement networks to support cooperation in foreign bribery cases, and active international cooperation, including through mutual legal assistance” and participation in law enforcement networks. The Working Group identified several key weaknesses and gaps, and recommended a number of key reforms that would strengthen Denmark’s anti-bribery regime, such as (1) developing a comprehensive national strategy on combating foreign bribery, (2) raising awareness of foreign bribery within the private sector and encouraging internal controls, (3) taking steps to ensure the proactive assessment of foreign bribery allegations received from foreign authorities, and (4) considering measures to encourage self‑reporting of foreign bribery, among other reforms.
- OECD Working Group on Bribery Commends South Africa on International Cooperation and Encourages Measures to Enhance Capacity to Fight Foreign Bribery
On July 10, 2025, the OECD Working Group on Bribery released its Phase 4 evaluation of South Africa’s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The Working Group commended South Africa’s “progress in detecting and investigating foreign bribery cases, despite an undermining of the rule of law and weakening of its law enforcement institutions during a period of state capture.” The Working Group commended South Africa for cooperating with other parties to sanction companies for transnational corruption and found that the commitment of individual government and law enforcement officials contributed to South Africa’s progress. The report specifically commended South Africa’s improved whistleblower legislation, but identified that “whistleblowers and witnesses can still be exposed to serious dangers, including to their physical safety” and recommended that South Africa “further enhance its whistleblower protection framework to ensure that those who report foreign bribery are protected from the full range of potential retaliation and can more effectively obtain remedies.” The Working Group also recommended a number of key reforms, including that South Africa (1) hold companies and individuals liable for foreign bribery and related offenses, (2) enhance efforts to promptly detect foreign bribery allegations, (3) ensure more transparent appointments for investigators and prosecutors to prevent the risk of undue influence in foreign bribery cases, (4) increase operational and financial autonomy for investigators and prosecutors, (5) strengthen its framework for sanctioning foreign bribery with non-trial resolutions, and (6) ensure that it has the appropriate framework for sanctioning companies for foreign bribery.
8. UN Human Rights Council Adopts Resolution Linking Human Rights and Corruption
On July 7, 2025, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution addressing the negative impact of corruption on human rights. The Council, among other things, recognized that the promotion and protection of human rights and the prevention of corruption were mutually reinforcing, urged UN member states who had not yet joined the UN Convention Against Corruption to accede to it or ratify it (as applicable), and encouraged national anti-corruption and human rights bodies to work more closely together. Resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council are non-binding.
9. British Agencies Publish Priorities for Regulated Financial Services Businesses
On July 21, 2025, the UK National Crime Agency (NCA) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published nine system-wide economic crime priorities for the UK’s financial services regulated sector. These guidelines were published further to the UK’s Economic Crime Plan 2 and are intended to facilitate public-private collaboration and to support the regulated sector in allocating resources to where they can have the most impact on the threat of economic crime. One of the nine priorities is “Transaction flows and corporate structures associated with the abuse of power by overseas Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs).” For this priority, the agencies encourage public‑private partnership actions that (i) support the NCA’s international anti-corruption efforts through suspicious activity referrals, (ii) identify risk factors associated with UK enablers of bribery and corruption and include these in onboarding and due diligence processes, (iii) enhance collective understanding of the threats and risks of PEPs and other corrupt elites, and (iv) proactively refer cases of overseas PEP bribery solicitation involving the regulated business to the NCA International Corruption Unit, either on an intelligence basis or as a witness to an offense, even where this goes beyond the legal requirements for mandatory self-reporting.
10. Ukraine Faces Scrutiny, Protests Over Reforms for Anti-Corruption Agencies
On July 22, 2025, Ukraine’s parliament adopted new anti-corruption amendments, which President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed into law on the same day. The amendments would have given Ukraine’s general prosecutor—a presidential appointee—strict control over two previously independent agencies, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anti‑Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, that were established after Ukraine replaced its pro-Russian president in 2014 and are key to Ukraine’s integration into the European Union. The agencies have raised allegations against prominent officials during the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia. The law was quickly criticized by observers and sparked protests across the country. On July 31, 2025, Ukraine’s parliament voted to overturn the amendments. In signing the bill restoring independence to the anti-corruption agencies into law, President Zelenskyy wrote, “Ukraine is a democracy - there are definitely no doubts.”
[1] United States v. Zaglin, Case No. 23-CR-20454-JB, ECF No. 146 (S.D. Fla. July 10, 2020).
[2] SEC v. Coburn, Case No. 2:19-cv-05820-MCA-MAH, ECF No. 84 (D.N.J. July 15, 2025).
[View source.]
