USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Daniel J. Fetterman and Brian S. Choi, Kasowitz LLP
still offers companies an opportunity to avoid crimi - nal charges – through a deferred or non-prosecution agreement – if they fully co-operate and remediate. The CEP makes clear that “full cooperation” requires a company to “[d]isclose all relevant, non-privileged facts known to it, including all relevant facts and evi - dence about all individuals involved in or responsi - ble for the misconduct at issue, including individu - als inside and outside of the company regardless of their position, status, or seniority”. Since issuing the revised CEP in June 2025, DOJ has authorised four declinations. One of the first cases that DOJ resolved through the revised CEP was an FCPA case involving Liberty Mutu - al Insurance Company, whose Indian subsidiary was being investigated for bribing officials in exchange for customer referrals to its insurance products. In August 2025, DOJ issued a declination to the company based on its timely and voluntary disclosure, co-operation, and remediation. DOJ declined to prosecute anoth - er FCPA case in March 2026 involving Balt SAS, a French medical device company that allegedly bribed a physician at a state-owned hospital to buy the com - pany’s products. This declination came on the heels of a newly revised, department-wide CEP in March 2026 – one that supplanted all prior iterations – and credited the company for its voluntary self-disclosure, co-operation, and remediation. Notably, while companies have tremendously ben - efited from the CEP, individuals involved in the same conduct remain vulnerable to prosecution. In the Balt case, for example, DOJ proceeded with charg - ing two Balt executives who allegedly had orches - trated the bribes and sought to conceal them as sham consulting payments. Most recently, in March 2026, DOJ charged an individual who had used his Texas- based intermediary to bribe an official at a subsidiary of Mexico’s national oil company, Petroleos Mexica - nos (PEMEX). Mere weeks later, DOJ secured a guilty plea from this individual, and indicated that it is likely to pursue additional co-conspirators involved in the PEMEX scheme. Thus, the message in these cases is clear: the company may settle, but its executives and employees may still be prosecuted. This approach is entirely consistent with DOJ guidance that “the focus of FCPA enforcement will be on alleged misconduct
that bears strong indicia of corrupt intent tied to par - ticular individuals”. It aligns with the Criminal Divi - sion’s recognition that the CEP has “resulted in the Department bringing more cases against individual wrongdoers while rewarding good corporate citizens”. And it tracks DOJ’s clearly articulated view that com - panies commit crimes through their individual agents who should be investigated and prosecuted: “It is indi - viduals – whether executives, officers, or employees of companies – who commit these crimes, often at the expense of shareholders, workers, and American investors and consumers. The Criminal Division will investigate these individual wrongdoers relentlessly to hold them accountable”. The US Supreme Court Continues to Narrow the Reach and Scope of White-Collar Statutes In addition to these trends, the United States Supreme Court has been significantly limiting the reach of multi - ple public corruption and fraud statutes in white-collar cases. Based on this line of cases, one can expect that the Court will continue to reject attempts by the government to apply what it considers expansive interpretations of white-collar statutes and will seek to apply the narrowest possible reading of such stat - utes. This trend appears to be continuing unabated: evidenced not only by a decision by the Court last year that narrowed the scope of a federal statute criminalising false statements to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), but also by its agree - ing to consider, in the current term, a case that will define under what circumstances the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can obtain equitable disgorgement. In March 2025, the Court issued a unanimous decision in Thompson v United States , 604 U.S. 408 (2025), interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1014, a federal statute govern - ing statements made on loan and credit applications to agencies like the FDIC. The Court held that Section 1014 criminalises statements that are “false”, but not statements that are “misleading”. In Thompson , the defendant had told the FDIC’s loan servicer that he had previously applied for a bank loan of USD110,000 but omitted the fact that he had later borrowed addi - tional amounts. The defendant challenged his convic - tion under Section 1014, arguing that his statement to the loan servicer – although incomplete – was literally
232 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook