On 12 May 2025, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) published a memo outlining its revised priorities and policies for tackling white-collar crime. The memo, entitled “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime”, updates the DoJ’s existing guidance and seeks to strike a balance between targeted criminal enforcement and minimising the burden for legitimate businesses.
Background
The DoJ’s memo emphasises the substantial threat that white-collar crime – in particular fraud, corruption and money laundering – continues to pose to the US public fisc, capital markets and national security. At the same time, the DoJ emphasises that overly broad and unchecked enforcement against companies can stifle economic innovation and discourage necessary risk-taking. The aim is to strike a balance between effective criminal enforcement and minimising unnecessary burdens on businesses. While not a complete departure from previous strategies, the revised policy can be considered a targeted development and sharpening of priorities in response to evolving challenges.
Criminal Division Head Matthew R. Galeotti outlined the Department’s new strategy in a speech delivered at SIFMA’s anti-money laundering and financial crimes conference that same week. He remarked that future efforts would focus on cooperation with companies and voluntary self-disclosure, in particular.
Focus – prioritisation of high-impact areas
Under its primary core principle of “focus”, the DoJ is instructing prosecutors to concentrate their limited resources on areas that pose the greatest threat to US citizens and companies. These key areas are:
Waste, fraud and abuse that harms the public fisc: Prioritising investigation of fraud and abuse that affect public funds, in particular in healthcare, procurement, defence spending and federal programmes that support citizens in need.
Trade and customs: Prosecution of trade and customs fraud, with the goal of creating a level playing field in global markets and protecting the competitiveness of American businesses.
Market manipulation: Investigation of investment fraud, “ramp and dump” schemes – in particular those perpetrated using foreign corporate structures – and other forms of fraud that threaten US investors and weaken the integrity of capital markets.
Complex money laundering operations: Combating cross-border money laundering networks, especially Chinese and other international money laundering organisations that finance criminal activities and drug trafficking.
Protecting national interests against corruption and money laundering: Prosecution of bribery and associated money laundering activities that impact the integrity and transparency of financial markets and undermine US national security, in particular where they harm the competitiveness of US businesses and enrich foreign corrupt officials.
Digital assets crimes: Prioritising investigations of fraud that victimise investors and consumers using cryptocurrency and other digital assets.
Sanctions violations and material support to terrorist organisations: Highest priority for violations that endanger national security interests, such as supporting cartels, transnational criminal organisations and terrorist groups.
The DoJ emphasises that it will be prioritising cases involving senior-level executives and efforts aimed at obstructing justice. Forfeiture is also to be actively pursued through the seizure and confiscation of assets that are the proceeds of or involved in criminal offences, with these assets to be used to compensate victims.
Fairness – promoting company cooperation and prosecuting individuals
The DoJ goes on to say that prosecuting individual criminals is its first priority and would both ensure that individual offenders are held accountable and have a deterrent effect on others. For companies, on the other hand, the DoJ would focus on cooperation and companies’ self-disclosure, Galeotti said. To reward responsible companies that are willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them, and to incentivise cooperation, the DoJ has revised its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (“CEP”).
While voluntary self-disclosure plays a central role, the following concessions apply to companies:
Companies that voluntarily disclose misconduct before it is discovered by the authorities, meet the CEP’s already existing requirements for cooperation, timely and appropriate remediation, and have no aggravating circumstances will now receive a public declination of prosecution.
To date, the CEP has only granted a presumption of declination; however, the decision whether to prosecute was generally not published.
Even if there are aggravating circumstances, prosecutors are instructed to weigh those circumstances against the extent of the company’s cooperation and remediation and use their discretion in deciding whether to recommend declination.
Companies that do not voluntarily self-report misconduct prior to discovery by the DoJ or have aggravating circumstances may still be able to settle with the DoJ out of court, for example by reaching a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) or non-prosecution agreement (NPA), which contain corresponding obligations imposed on the companies. The DoJ has granted concessions in this regard, too:
The terms of DPAs/NPAs should generally not be longer than three years.
In these cases, it will also be possible to reduce fines by 75% without necessarily requiring a monitor.
Even recidivist companies that have been prosecuted within the past five years have a chance of concluding a settlement agreement with a limited term and a reduction of the fine.
Under DoJ policy, early termination of these agreements can also be requested. In addition, the DoJ will regularly review internally whether the agreements should be terminated prematurely. Relevant factors that may lead to early termination include:
Duration of the post-resolution period
Substantial reduction in the company’s risk profile
Extent of remediation
Maturity of the compliance corporate programme
Whether the company self-reported the misconduct
According to DoJ policy, each case must be assessed individually. The DoJ also emphasises the need for transparency in the decision-making process so that companies and their advisers can clearly understand the requirements and benefits.
Efficiency – streamlining investigations
Under the final principle of “efficiency”, the memo seeks to speed up investigations with clear deadlines and reporting mechanisms. Where possible, investigations are to be expedited to reduce the burden on companies and uninvolved third parties associated with unnecessary procedural delays.
A monitor selection memorandum defines the future criteria for imposing and selecting independent compliance monitors. ,Previously, monitorships were only imposed if it could be proven that no internal programme was sufficient to prevent infringements. The scope and duration of monitorships have to be appropriately tailored, and the ongoing review of existing monitorships will ensure that measures do not remain in force longer than necessary. The aim is to enhance the efficiency of investigations while maintaining the ability of businesses to operate effectively.
Expansion of existing whistleblower programme
The Criminal Division’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which has been in place since 2024, has been expanded to include further offence categories. For the first time, whistleblowers may now receive a financial award for tips leading to the forfeiture of assets in the following areas:
Procurement fraud
Violations of federal immigration laws
Violations in connection with international cartels
Sanction offences
Support of terrorist groups
This is designed to further improve the detection of white-collar crime. The expansion of the programme further incentivises whistleblowers, increasing the likelihood of serious violations being detected at an early stage. This change underscores the need for companies to have responsive internal reporting systems and effective compliance systems in place to detect and remediate misconduct before employees report it to the authorities.
Significance for (German) companies with ties to the United States
The approach outlined in the DoJ’s new policy may lay the groundwork for more business-friendly enforcement. The DoJ places particular emphasis on issues that align with the broader priorities of the US and are likely to prompt further investigation and enforcement, such as offences involving the public fisc, customs, cartels and terrorist organisations.
The memo includes numerous examples indicating that the DoJ will focus its white-collar crime enforcement efforts on advancing the US government’s “America First” agenda. While prioritising high-impact areas, pursuing individual offenders and offering concessions to businesses are all addressed, the central focus remains the economic and national security interests of the US and its businesses; the memo also indicates that enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act will prioritise activities that harm US national interests and undermine the competitiveness of US businesses, i.e. particularly infringements by non-US companies.
Internationally active German companies with ties to the US are therefore advised to review and adapt their compliance programmes in light of the key focus areas specified in the memo. These include healthcare and investment fraud, violations of food and drug laws and cryptocurrency fraud. Proactive self-disclosure and full cooperation with authorities can result in significant reductions in fines and other penalties and may even avoid the appointment of a compliance monitor. DPAs, NPAs and ongoing monitorships should be reviewed on a regular basis against current DoJ criteria with a view to the DoJ proactively terminating the measures early. A thorough due diligence process for business partners – especially in sanction-prone regions – along with targeted training on the DoJ’s new enforcement priorities will be essential to identifying risks early and avoiding sanctions. These steps will enhance legal certainty for German companies and strengthen their reputation in the US as trustworthy business partners.
Conclusion
The DoJ’s new policy is expected to set a new standard for combatting white-collar crime in the US, aiming to combine targeted, consistent enforcement in high-impact areas with concessions (incentives) for companies that demonstrate cooperation and compliance. While this approach reduces the risk for companies acting in good faith, it increases exposure for those in high-risk sectors. It remains to be seen to what extent the policy will be applied in a way that favours US companies over their foreign counterparts.
That makes it all the more important that German companies with US ties proactively review their compliance structures and align them with the DoJ’s new priorities – such as cooperation and voluntary self-disclosure – as an integral part of their risk management.
Forward
