USA Law and Practice Contributed by: Eric Bruce and Justin Simeone, Freshfields US LLP
stantial award based on the damages suffered by the relevant government agency. These suits may involve corruption-related allegations (eg, that a government contract was awarded based on a false representation that the contractor was not affiliated with any public officials). The state or federal government generally has the option to intervene in these actions, but the suits may proceed to judgment without any such inter - vention.
imposed a 180-day pause on any new FCPA investi - gations, requiring the DOJ to undertake a comprehen - sive review of existing FCPA investigations. In June 2025, the DOJ issued an FCPA enforcement guidance memorandum that directed prosecutors to prioritise: • misconduct associated with cartels and transna - tional criminal organisations; • misconduct that deprived US companies of “fair access to compete and/or resulted in economic injury” to them; • the “most urgent threats to U.S. national security... involving key infrastructure or assets”, like defence capabilities; • individuals who have “engaged in criminal miscon - duct, and not attribute nonspecific malfeasance to corporate structures”; and • the most “serious misconduct”, such as “sub - stantial bribe payments, proven and sophisticated efforts to conceal bribe payments, fraudulent conduct in furtherance of the bribery scheme, and efforts to obstruct justice”. In turn, the memorandum noted that prosecutors should de-prioritise misconduct where another “appropriate foreign law enforcement authority is will - ing and able to investigate and prosecute the same alleged misconduct”. The SEC, which is charged with administering federal securities laws, civilly enforces violations of the FCPA involving US securities issuers. The CFTC has also claimed authority to take civil enforcement actions based on foreign corruption impacting US commodi - ties markets and entities trading on those markets. Domestic anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws are civilly administered by a wide variety of agencies and authorities. For example, at the federal level, the DOJ’s civil division may civilly enforce aspects of federal eth - ics laws (eg, the Ethics in Government Act). The Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Eth - ics, as well as agency- or branch-specific ethics bod - ies, also play a role in formulating, administering, and enforcing anti-corruption laws and regulations. Gener - ally, states have similar bodies.
7. Enforcement Trends 7.1 Enforcement
There is no US federal government agency tasked exclusively with enforcing anti-bribery and anti-cor - ruption laws, although a variety of federal agencies share authority over various aspects of US anti-cor - ruption issues. State and local governments may have specific anti-bribery and anti-corruption agencies, although most state anti-corruption efforts reflect the federal approach, with criminal enforcement given to prose - cutors and broader oversight and/or civil enforcement powers granted to state ethics agencies, inspectors general, election regulators, and others. 7.2 Enforcement Bodies There are multiple anti-bribery and anti-corruption enforcement bodies. The DOJ is the most prominent criminal authority and generally prosecutes all federal crimes, includ - ing violations of the FCPA and domestic anti-bribery statutes. State prosecutors or attorneys general may also have authority to prosecute criminal violations of state anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws. The DOJ’s “piling on” policy, announced in May 2018, instructs DOJ employees to co-ordinate with one another and with other domestic and foreign authorities to avoid “a risk of repeated punishments that may exceed what is necessary to rectify the harm and deter future viola - tions”. The DOJ periodically issues statements and memo - randa regarding enforcement priorities. In February 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that
302 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook