No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • CCI Magazine
    • Writing for CCI
    • Career Connection
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Library
    • Download Whitepapers & Reports
    • Download eBooks
    • New: Living Your Best Compliance Life by Mary Shirley
    • New: Ethics and Compliance for Humans by Adam Balfour
    • 2021: Raise Your Game, Not Your Voice by Lentini-Walker & Tschida
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
    • Great Women in Compliance
    • Unless: The Podcast (Hemma Lomax)
  • Research
  • Webinars
  • Events
  • Subscribe
Jump to a Section
  • At the Office
    • Ethics
    • HR Compliance
    • Leadership & Career
    • Well-Being at Work
  • Compliance & Risk
    • Compliance
    • FCPA
    • Fraud
    • Risk
  • Finserv & Audit
    • Financial Services
    • Internal Audit
  • Governance
    • ESG
    • Getting Governance Right
  • Infosec
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
  • Opinion
    • Adam Balfour
    • Jim DeLoach
    • Mary Shirley
    • Yan Tougas
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home FCPA

Emerging Trends Under the DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy

“So Really, What Will My Company Get for Voluntary Self-Disclosure?”

by Nicole Sprinzen and Kara Kapp
February 20, 2020
in FCPA, Featured
man in navy suit in handcuffs

Changes are on the horizon for FCPA prosecutions. Nicole Sprinzen and Kara Kapp of Cozen O’Connor offer guidance to help compliance professionals navigate the FCPA landscape given what’s to come, particularly in terms of white-collar prosecutions.

Every consideration of whether to self-disclose a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) ultimately comes down to one key question: If the company self-discloses, what will the company get in return? This has been a longstanding critical question for advisors to companies subject to FCPA jurisdiction. Current enforcement policies adopted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) beginning in 2016 address that question. In addition, case resolutions under those policies reveal trends of better outcomes for companies that report their own misconduct rather than those that wait to come to the settlement table until after an investigation develops.

DOJ Adoption of a Presumption in Favor of Declination

With its announcement in 2016 of a trial FCPA corporate enforcement program and its decision to make the program permanent in November 2017 as the current FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, the DOJ for the first time offered concrete rewards for cooperation by corporate entities in such investigations. For a company that self-discloses and remediates its misconduct and fully cooperates with the DOJ’s subsequent investigation, the company is eligible to receive a specific percentage – up to 50 percent – off the prescribed minimum and maximum fine ranges for organizations.

Additionally, in making the policy permanent, the Criminal Fraud Section, which has primary jurisdiction over FCPA enforcement, announced that it would apply a presumption in favor of declining prosecution where the company self-discloses the conduct and fully satisfies the DOJ’s expectations regarding cooperation and remediation of related compliance issues.[1] Thus, central to the assessment of a company’s cooperation in an investigation is whether the company self-disclosed, in addition to what other mitigating and aggravating factors have to be considered on balance.

Mitigating Factors Leading to Declination with Disgorgement

Declination letters issued over the last four years reflect the mitigating factors considered beyond the company’s self-disclosure, including whether the company:

  • Undertook a thorough internal investigation;
  • Implemented an enhanced compliance program in the wake of the misconduct where one was not already in place; or
  • Made significant compliance program enhancements where the company already had a program; and
  • Terminated or disciplined all employees involved in the misconduct, regardless of seniority.

The robustness of the entity’s existing compliance program and whether the conduct was identified by that program have factored heavily into several declinations, including Cognizant Technology Solutions,[2] Dun & Bradstreet,[3] Nortek, Inc.[4] and Polycom, Inc.[5] For example, the DOJ specifically singled out in the June 3, 2016 declination letter issued to Nortek that the decision was based in part on “the fact that Nortek’s internal audit function identified the misconduct” and Nortek promptly self-disclosed its findings.[6] In November 2018, Daniel Kahn, then Chief of the DOJ’s FCPA Unit, observed that since the enforcement policy was permanently adopted, all companies that voluntarily self-disclosed to the DOJ received declinations.[7] That remains true today.

With its formal policy adoption in 2017, the DOJ also included a new remedy: the declination with disgorgement. The Corporate Enforcement Policy cites the agreement to give up all profits connected with unlawful foreign bribery as a requirement to qualify for a declination. Indeed, since adopting the new policy, declinations issued by the DOJ have included accompanying agreements by the involved companies to disgorge all profits from the illicit conduct to the DOJ, Securities and Exchange Commission or another enforcement agency.[8] (In the Guralp Systems Limited (Guralp) case, the declination letter noted the company was subject to a parallel criminal proceeding by the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO). Ultimately, in a move echoing the handling of these cases in the U.S., the SFO entered a deferred prosecution agreement with Guralp in December 2019 in which the company agreed to disgorge all profits but pay no fine.[9])

Still, these cases do not guarantee that self-disclosure of an FCPA violation will always lead to a declination. The DOJ has recognized that the presence of certain aggravating circumstances may override this presumption, but the trend has been for the DOJ to continue to issue declinations despite the existence of some aggravating conduct in a case.[10]

Aggravating Factors Do Not Preclude Declinations

Further to both the 2016 and 2017 versions of the policy, the DOJ will also consider the existence of aggravating circumstances in connection with resolving an FCPA case.  These include:

  • involvement by executive management of the company in the misconduct;
  • a significant profit to the company from the misconduct;
  • pervasiveness of the misconduct within the company; and
  • criminal recidivism.[11]

Resolutions since the adoption of the policy have suggested that the balance still weighs heavily in favor of mitigating factors. For example, the DOJ has routinely awarded declinations even where there was knowledge or involvement of corporate leadership. The DOJ awarded declinations to Akamai Technologies, Johnson Controls, NCH Corporation, Nortek, Linde North America and Dun & Bradstreet, among others, despite knowledge of the misconduct by corporate leadership.[12] Undoubtedly a critical factor in these resolutions has been that the companies self-disclosed their misconduct.

Nonetheless, the DOJ policy makes clear that the presence of aggravating circumstances, particularly where they are present to a significant degree, “may warrant a criminal resolution.”[13]

Resolutions Where Aggravating Factors Outweigh Mitigating Factors

Even where the company voluntarily self-disclosed its conduct, the presence of significant aggravating factors may cause the DOJ to withhold a declination. For example, the DOJ did not grant declinations to companies in cases that involved high-profit bribery schemes exceeding $50 million, even though the companies promptly and voluntarily self-disclosed their misconduct.[14] The cases were resolved with a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), a formal agreement by the DOJ not to prosecute the company with an accompanying payment by the company of fines and disgorgement.

The single most notable factor that drives decisions as to how a case is resolved, however, continues to be whether the company self-disclosed its conduct. In cases that have been resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) — an agreement in which the DOJ reserves the right to later prosecute the company for its misconduct if the company fails to live up to its promises — or have been criminally charged since 2016, the unifying characteristic in those cases is that the company did not self-disclose the misconduct before the DOJ began its own investigation.

In November 2019, the DOJ entered into a DPA with Samsung Heavy Industries concerning a $20 million bribery scheme where the company did not self-disclose its misconduct and in the course of the investigation provided substantial — but, according to the DOJ, not complete — cooperation.[15] The company’s cooperation included conducting an internal investigation, giving regular factual presentations to the DOJ, making foreign-based employees available for DOJ interviews and producing relevant documents. The DOJ concluded, however, that the company failed to investigate at the pace the DOJ requested. In addition to requiring the company to enter a DPA, in a rare move, the DOJ additionally lowered the cooperation credit awarded to the company for its partial cooperation.

In the Panasonic Avionics Corporation case, the company did not self-disclose its involvement in a $92 million bribery scheme, but did fully cooperate with the DOJ in its investigation.[16] As outlined in the DPA, the DOJ required Panasonic Avionics to retain a compliance monitor for a two-year period, followed by a two-year period of self-reporting to the DOJ because many of the company’s compliance enhancements had been implemented recently and therefore they had not been tested by the time of the settlement.[17]

In some cases where the company did not disclose the violation and more than one aggravating factor was present to a significant degree, the DOJ allowed one entity, either the parent or subsidiary, to enter into a DPA while requiring a related entity involved in the conduct to enter a guilty plea. For example, in December 2016, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. received a DPA for its involvement in an expansive bribery scheme resulting in more than $200 million in profits, but its subsidiary, Teva Russia, entered a guilty plea. There, the company did not self-report its misconduct and delayed in cooperating with the government.[18] The agreement also required the company to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years.[19]

Similarly, a year later, the Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd. case was resolved with a DPA for the parent entity and a guilty plea by its U.S. subsidiary. The bribery scheme in that case involved over $350 million in profits and more than $50 million in bribes. In addition, the company did not self-disclose the conduct but substantially cooperated in the DOJ’s investigation.[20] Notably, in addition to the broad scope of misconduct, senior leadership was involved in the misconduct, including a member of the company’s legal team.[21]

Conclusion

FCPA case resolutions over the last four years reflect that the more weight a company dealing with a violation can put on mitigating factors, the more likely it will overcome aggravating circumstances in the case. Self-disclosure, fulsome and timely cooperation and the company’s efforts to remediate the misconduct are all key parts of the equation. Although never an easy decision, those factors, coupled with the DOJ’s current operating presumption toward issuing a declination where the misconduct has been disclosed by the involved company, may more readily weight the scales in favor of self-disclosure than in years past.

 


[1] Under the Corporate Enforcement Policy, there is a presumption that “[w]hen a company has voluntarily self-disclosed misconduct in an FCPA matter, fully cooperated, and timely and appropriately remediated, . . . the company will receive a declination.” See Department of Justice, Justice Manual, § 9-47-120, FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy.

[2] Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. Declination Letter (Feb. 13, 2009).

[3] Dun & Bradstreet Declination Letter (Apr. 23, 2018).

[4] Nortek, Inc. Declination Letter (June 3, 2016).

[5] Polycom, Inc. Declination Letter (Dec. 20, 2018).

[6] Nortek, Inc. Declination Letter (June 3, 2016).

[7] Christopher Cole, “Feds Say Tough FCPA Actions Continue Despite Declinations,” Law360 (Nov. 28, 2018).

[8] See, e.g., Cognizant Tech. Sol. Corp. Declination Letter (Feb. 13, 2019); Polycom, Inc. Declination Letter (Dec. 20, 2018); Ins. Corp. of Barbados Ltd. Declination Letter (Aug. 23, 2018).

[9] See Serious Fraud Office, News Release, Three Individuals Acquitted as SFO Confirms DPA with Guralp Systems Ltd.

[10] See Department of Justice, Justice Manual, § 9-47-120, FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy.

[11] Id.

[12] See Dun & Bradstreet Declination Letter (Apr. 23, 2018); Linde North America Inc. Declination Letter (June 16, 2017); NCH Corp. Declination Letter (Sept. 29, 2016); Johnson Controls, Inc. Declination Letter (June 21, 2016); Akamai Techn., Inc. Declination Letter (June 6, 2016);  Nortek, Inc. Declination Letter (June 3, 2016).

[13] Id.

[14] See, e.g., In re General Cable Corp., DOJ Fraud  Section, 2016 Related Enforcement Actions (Dec. 29, 2016).

[15] See DOJ Office of Public Affairs, Samsung Heavy Industries Company Ltd Agrees to Pay $75 Million in Global Penalties to Resolve Foreign Bribery Case (Nov. 22, 2019).

[16] See DOJ Office of Public Affairs, Panasonic Avionics Corporation Agrees to Pay $137 Million to Resolve Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Charges (Apr. 30, 2018).

[17] Id.

[18] See DOJ Office of Public Affairs, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Agrees to Pay More Than $283 Million to Resolve Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Charges (Dec. 22, 2016).

[19] Id.

[20] DOJ Office of Public Affairs, Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd. and U.S. Based Subsidiary Agree to Pay $422 Million in Global Penalties to Resolve Foreign Bribery Case (Dec. 22, 2017).

[21] Id.


Tags: DOJFCPA Enforcement Actions
Previous Post

The “Old” Board Governance Model Needs to Change

Next Post

Risk Management During the Coronavirus

Nicole Sprinzen and Kara Kapp

Nicole Sprinzen and Kara Kapp

Nicole Sprinzen is a member in Cozen O’Connor’s White Collar Defense & Investigations group. She represents companies and individuals in criminal matters and parallel civil proceedings, as well as in internal investigations. Her practice includes advising clients primarily with respect to fraud-related allegations, including in matters arising under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), anti-money laundering regulations, antitrust laws, the securities and commodities laws, as well as in connection with federal procurement and health care services and devices. Previously, Nicole served as a prosecutor with the Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division.
Kara Kapp is a member of the White Collar Defense & Investigations team at Cozen O’Connor. Kara regularly handles a variety of criminal and civil matters on behalf of Fortune 500 entities, corporate executives and foreign defendants. Her matters have involved allegations of illegal gaming, securities fraud, health care fraud, tax fraud, antitrust offenses, environmental offenses and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, among others.

Related Posts

doj sign front

Assessing the Business Risks of the Trump Administration’s ‘Total Elimination’ Strategy

by José Cortina and Jennifer Christian
May 20, 2025

As cartels increasingly participate in mainstream economic activities, traditional due diligence practices become inadequate to address new material support risks

doj sign and sculpture

DOJ’s New CEP Proposes Guaranteed Declination for Some Self-Reporters

by Jennifer L. Gaskin
May 13, 2025

The Trump Administration continues reshaping its approach to corporate crime, with the DOJ issuing major revisions of its corporate enforcement...

doj building sign with flags

‘Reasonable Steps’: What the DOJ Expects From Your Bulk Data Transfer Compliance Program

by Alexandra P. Moylan, Alisa L. Chestler and Michael J. Halaiko
May 5, 2025

Sample provisions offer blueprint for compliant data brokerage with foreign entities

data security program concept cameras

Your Sensitive Data Is Now a National Security Matter: The DOJ’s New Data Security Program

by Randall Cook, Vince Mekles and Rachel Woloszynski
April 29, 2025

90-day implementation window closing on regulations affecting companies with genomic, biometric, health and other personal information

Next Post
illustration of multiracial group all wearing surgical masks

Risk Management During the Coronavirus

No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy | AI Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

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

© 2025 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • CCI Magazine
    • Writing for CCI
    • Career Connection
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Library
    • Download Whitepapers & Reports
    • Download eBooks
    • New: Living Your Best Compliance Life by Mary Shirley
    • New: Ethics and Compliance for Humans by Adam Balfour
    • 2021: Raise Your Game, Not Your Voice by Lentini-Walker & Tschida
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
    • Great Women in Compliance
    • Unless: The Podcast (Hemma Lomax)
  • Research
  • Webinars
  • Events
  • Subscribe

© 2025 Corporate Compliance Insights