Friday, February 26, 2021
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

New DOJ Guidance: Credit for Compliance Program in Cartel Investigations

Antitrust Division Stresses the Importance of a Robust Compliance Program

by Nicole Sprinzen and Thomas Ingalls
August 16, 2019
in Compliance, Featured
baggie of white powder and knife on black background

Cozen O’Connor’s Nicole Sprinzen and Thomas Ingalls discuss how, under the new Antitrust Division policy, an effective compliance policy would not only prevent antitrust violations, but also remediate them when they do occur.

On July 11, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced new guidance concerning the effect of compliance programs in criminal antitrust cartel sentencing that significantly increases the importance of having a well-designed and robust compliance program. Now, a risk-based compliance program appropriately tailored to mitigate company employees entering into conspiratorial antitrust agreements can mitigate the Antitrust Division’s determination that a company engaged in a criminal antitrust violation.

Before this change, pursuant to the Antitrust Division’s Corporate Leniency Policy, only the first company “in the door” of the Antitrust Division to report illegal cartel activity could receive full credit against criminal prosecution. Other members of the cartel could be rewarded for cooperating but were required to plead guilty and pay substantial fines. Further, it was Antitrust Division practice to take the existence and effectiveness of compliance programs into account only as a factor in connection with the determination of any fine amount. Under the new guidance, the DOJ will consider the existence of a robust compliance program in connection with considering reduced criminal exposure and the availability of a deferred prosecution agreement for the company. The change brings Antitrust Division policy and practice more in line with that of the Criminal Division on these points.

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim delivered remarks at the New York University School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement announcing the changes.1 The Antitrust Division is shifting from its “all-or-nothing philosophy” to a more nuanced approach to corporate conduct in which compliance programs are the “first line of defense.” As a result, the Antitrust Division has for the first time released written guidance for the evaluation of compliance programs.

Additionally, Delrahim announced that the Antitrust Division may now resolve investigations through deferred prosecution agreements when the “relevant [f]actors, including the adequacy and effectiveness of the corporation’s compliance program, weigh in favor of doing so.”2 The Antitrust Division considers deferred prosecution agreements “an important middle ground between declining prosecution and obtaining a conviction of the corporation,” but will continue to “disfavor non-prosecution agreements” to preserve the perceived effectiveness of the first-in Corporate Leniency Policy.3

In his remarks, he emphasized that robust compliance programs “do not guarantee” a deferred prosecution agreement, but that prosecutors will analyze whether the compliance program is “adequately designed for maximum effectiveness.”4 In this regard, prosecutors will consider:

  • Whether the program addresses and prohibits criminal antitrust violations;
  • Whether the program detected and facilitated prompt reporting of the violation; and
  • Whether senior management was involved.5

According to the written guidance, the Antitrust Division will consider the following factors to determine if a compliance program is effective:

  • The design and comprehensiveness of the program;
  • The culture of compliance within the company;
  • Responsibility for and resources dedicated to antitrust compliance;
  • Antitrust risk assessment techniques;
  • Compliance training and communication to employees;
  • Monitoring and auditing techniques, including continued review, evaluation and revision of the antitrust compliance program;
  • Reporting mechanisms;
  • Compliance incentives and discipline; and
  • Remediation methods.6

Notably, to be determined “effective,” a compliance program need not prevent a violation. Rather, it must include aspects sufficient to prohibit illegal antitrust activity and minimize the likelihood of a criminal antitrust agreement, taking into account the company’s business activities. The guidance is available here.

In addition to potentially receiving a deferred prosecution agreement, a company with an effective compliance program is eligible for a three-point reduction in the company’s culpability score under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The Sentencing Guidelines have always provided for this reduction. Now, however, the existence of an effective compliance program may result in the Antitrust Division recommending fines below the guidelines range.

On the other hand, the failure to implement an adequate compliance program may result in the Antitrust Division recommending probation, periodic compliance reports or even an external compliance monitor as part of any corporate resolution of antitrust charges.

The shift in policy brings the Antitrust Division in line with the Criminal Division. In practice and under new Antitrust Division policy, an effective compliance policy is one that is designed not only to prevent antitrust violations, but also to remediate them when they do occur. As a result of the policy change concerning the consideration given to compliance policies, in combination with the new availability of deferred prosecution agreements, companies with robust and proactive compliance programs focused on the specific risks of the company’s business could receive a more favorable outcome than was previously available under Antitrust Division policy. Thus, the time for a company to ensure that its compliance program is optimized and targeted to the business’s specific risks is before a violation occurs — to maximize the preventative effect of the program, as well as the mitigation impact of the program in the event of an enforcement action.


1  Remarks of Makan Delrahim at NYU Sch. of Law Program on Corp. Compliance & Enforcement, Wind of Change: A New Model for Incentivizing Antitrust Compliance Programs (July 11, 2019).

2  Id.

3  Id.

4  Id.

5  Id.

6  US Dep’t of Justice, Antitrust Div., Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations (July 2019).


Tags: anti-trustDOJ
Previous Post

How Can Improved Processes Drive CCPA Compliance?

Next Post

Global Rise of Collective Investor Actions Significant Risk for Companies

Nicole Sprinzen and Thomas Ingalls

Nicole Sprinzen is Vice Chair of the White Collar Defense & Internal Investigations practice at Cozen O’Connor in Washington, D.C. and is a former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section. As a prosecutor, Niki led criminal investigations in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division and in parallel with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other international regulators. An experienced trial lawyer, Niki has tried federal and state cases in the District of Columbia and throughout the country. She has litigated cases involving a broad range of industries, including commodities trading. Niki focuses her practice on representing companies and individuals in criminal matters and parallel civil proceedings, as well as in internal investigations.
Thomas Ingalls is a Washington, D.C.-based associate at Cozen O’Connor, where he focuses his practice on complex litigation matters and investigations, including white-collar criminal defense, civil antitrust litigation, premerger review and internal investigations. He represents companies and individuals in both criminal and civil matters.

Related Posts

woman looking at horizon from mountain top

What’s on the Horizon for Anti-Corruption Enforcement?

February 25, 2021
cannabis leaf on $100 bill

The Intersection of EDD and Banking Cannabis

February 24, 2021
gold cup award on red background with stars

Ethisphere Announces the 2021 World’s Most Ethical Companies

February 23, 2021
illustration of hand holding flashlight illuminating hidden stairs

The Corporate Transparency Act: Pulling Back the Veil

February 23, 2021
Next Post
raining gavels on gray background

Global Rise of Collective Investor Actions Significant Risk for Companies

Access realtime data
Addressing systemic racism in the workplace SAI Global
Dynamic Risk Assessments with Workiva
Top 10 Risk and Compliance Trends

Special Coverage

Special COVID page graphic

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management Coronavirus/COVID-19 corporate culture crisis management cyber crime cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making diversity DOJ due diligence fcpa enforcement actions financial crime GDPR GRC HIPAA information security KYC/know your customer machine learning monitoring ransomware regtech reputation risk risk assessment Sanctions SEC social media risk supply chain technology third party risk management tone at the top training whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS Feed

Category

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Whitepapers

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Vendor News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Whitepapers
  • eBooks
  • Events
  • Jobs
  • Subscribe

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights