Earlier this month, I was fortunate enough to participate in the American Conference
Institute’s conference on the FCPA and Global Anti-Corruption. The conference brought together in-house professionals, law firm partners, government officials, and compliance vendors for three days’ worth of panels, fireside chats, and workshops. The number of topics covered was impressive, and the networking opportunities were top notch, with some attendees even joking about the conference’s reputation as the “FCPA prom.” Below are my main takeaways from the event.
Consistent Messages from the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”)
There were several current and former DOJ officials at the conference, at least three of whom had prime speaking slots, opening the conference on Wednesday and Thursday. Nicole Argentieri, a former Acting Assistant Attorney General, was one of the conference’s co-chairs, and kicked the conference off by introducing her successor, the current Acting Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Galeotti, who led an engaging fireside chat. Galeotti was followed by David Fuhr, Chief of the Criminal Division’s FCPA Unit, and Keith Edelman, Acting Chief Counselor for the Criminal Division – along with several former DOJ officials who had previously occupied these positions.
Galeotti, Fuhr, and Edelman all emphasized similar themes:
- The FCPA pause, issued in February 2025, gave the Department’s prosecutors the opportunity to review their caseloads and determine which cases should be wound down versus continued. The review done between February and June formed the basis of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2025 memorandum, which outlined the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement focus going forward. Galeotti characterized this shift as more of a pivot in enforcement practices than a sea change.
- The DOJ will no longer be prosecuting de minimis courtesies or low value customary practices (I can’t recall cases where this actually occurred, but this point was repeated a few times throughout the conference by various officials). Galeotti made the point that prosecutors should not prosecute a company where there is not enough evidence to charge
individuals at that company with a crime, essentially stating: we don’t want a company to be held liable for diffuse knowledge across the organization – we will focus on individuals who acted willfully. Individual accountability was a common thread linking most, if not all, of the current DOJ officials’ remarks. - Despite the enforcement pause during the first half of 2025, FCPA enforcement has picked up since August (with at least one DOJ official proudly noting that there has been an indictment or a resolution every month since August). In fact, the DOJ has received over 1,100 whistleblower tips since it launched its pilot program last year, which have resulted in over
500 referrals to prosecutors. Though not all of these tips relate to the FCPA, the high referral rate suggests that a large portion of the tips are actionable and contain solid information. - The DOJ officials also pushed backed against the consistent perception by many in the international community that the DOJ has used the FCPA to target primarily foreign (non-U.S.) companies. In my opinion, this perception is grounded in reality, as any list of the top ten FCPA fines will demonstrate, the vast majority of the largest fines have been levied against non-U.S. companies. Nonetheless, the DOJ panelists reiterated, a few times, that it does not matter where a company is headquartered, it only matters whether a given company’s misconduct disadvantages the U.S.
- Monitorships will be disfavored by the DOJ during the Trump administration. Deputy Attorney General Blanche made this point very plainly during his remarks, castigating monitorships as having become “expensive” and “sprawling” in recent years. Going forward, monitors will only be imposed when necessary, they will be rare, and the DOJ’s default posture will be that a company will be able to meet its compliance obligations on its own. When monitors are necessary, Deputy Attorney General Blanche stressed that companies will be able to weigh in, upfront, on the budgets with which they will need to comply.
- As an aside, Deputy Attorney General Blanche's remarks differed from those of all other DOJ officials in that he very much stuck to his script. He had a speech printed out and barely deviated from the words on the page. Messrs. Galeotti, Fuhr, and Edelman were conversational in their approach, and were willing to engage with their co-panelists, their moderators, or the audience. Deputy AG Blanche did not engage with anyone - he delivered his remarks and then promptly exited the building. His speech was also the most Trumpian. The other DOJ officials' remarks were not politically tinged, the same could not be said for Deputy AG Blanche (more colorful commentary on his speech can be found here and here).
- Variable interest entities ("VIEs") were mentioned a few times by DOJ officials over the course of the conference (VIEs are legal structures where control is determined by means other than majority voting rights). A few DOJ officials noted that VIEs were often necessary for doing business in China and have been "abused" and used as conduits for funneling money. Given the Trump administration's focus on and hostility towards China, I predict that the DOJ's line prosecutors would be quite keen to bring cases involving VIEs in the future.
European Cooperation – Still Too Early to Judge…
In March of 2025, the U.K., France, and Switzerland launched a joint anti-corruption taskforce to strengthen their collaboration on combatting corruption. Though the taskforce was unveiled barely a month after the FCPA pause, representatives from the U.K., France, and Switzerland denied that the taskforce was created as a reaction to the U.S.’s actions in the enforcement arena. Instead, the taskforce seeks to strengthen an already existing collaboration between the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (the “SFO”), France’s National Financial Prosecution Office (the “PNF”), and Switzerland’s Office of the Attorney General (the “OAG”). The panelists noted that the taskforce has a Leader’s Group, which sets strategic goals, and a Working Group, which is the
operational group staffed by prosecutors who meet regularly. Members of the Working Group exchange information that could help open new cases, discuss ways to improve coordination strategies between the three countries, and share best practices.
The panelists explained that the taskforce is not a supra-national organization, and that companies would not be able to self-report, for example, to the taskforce itself (companies would still need to reach out to the individual government agencies directly).
Emma Luxton, Director of Operations for the SFO, noted that the SFO has a strong pipeline in the works for 2026, with five cases going to trial (three fraud and two bribery cases) and around 35 lives cases at the moment. Luxton also noted the recent expansion of the SFO’s budget, which she interpreted as a vote of confidence in the SFO by the British government, and the fact that the SFO intends to expand its Intelligence Unit to be more proactive, with the intent to find cases further upstream.
Could the SFO, PNF, and OAG jointly bring bribery or corruption cases in the future? It is certainly possible. The taskforce is less than a year old, so we will have to wait and see if any prosecutions or settlements come about as a result of taskforce activities.
Cartels were on everyone’s mind
The return of the Trump Administration has brought back a keen focus on the U.S. southern border and Latin America. Indeed, both President Trump’s January Executive Order and Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s June Memorandum discussed cartels and the threat they pose to U.S. national security. The Trump Administration has elevated cartels from “mere” criminal organizations to foreign terrorist organizations (“FTOs”), significantly raising the stakes for companies operating in Mexico and Latin America. Additionally, Deputy AG Blanche’s June Memorandum tied cartels to FCPA enforcement in a way that previous administrations did not. Unsurprisingly, many conference attendees were curious to learn more about the DOJ’s approach
to enforcing the FCPA under President Trump’s cartel obsession.
Though the DOJ officials did not give away any earth-shattering revelations about their plans for cartel-based FCPA enforcement, a couple of them did note that cartels often engaged in bribery and “bribery-adjacent” crimes simultaneously. The two examples of “bribery-adjacent" crimes given were money laundering and tax evasion. So, an investigation into one of these crimes could also lead to the discovery of bribery and form the basis for an FCPA charge.
A panel focusing exclusively on cartel risk and Latin America, which was extremely well attended, also proved insightful. One panelist identified suppliers – such as cleaning companies or security guards – as a leading source of cartel risk in many Latin American countries. Examples highlighting the pervasiveness of cartels included the scenario whereby failing to hire the local militia’s cleaning company could result in a company not being able to remain in business. Another panelist cited a study that stated that cartels are the fifth largest employer in Mexico, which seems like anastounding figure. Cartels also take great pains to conceal themselves and hide the true nature of their operations. Their near-ubiquity in some locales makes it seem impossible to do business without at least some cartel touchpoints.
What can be done to mitigate the risk of inadvertently engaging with a cartel? Though there are no full-proof solutions, taking steps that will allow your company to tell a good story in the event a regulator comes knocking seems to be a good starting point:
- Due diligence questionnaires are often used in connection with engaging third parties and suppliers. Though a cartel will never admit to its true nature, the act of obtaining written representations that a company is not affiliated with any cartels or criminal organizations (even if such reps are ultimately untrue), could help demonstrate that efforts were made
to avoid interacting with them. - Running the names of suppliers through various screening tools, FTO lists, and SDN lists could also help build a case that a company took reasonable measures to avoid doing business with cartels.
- One panel on cartels hosted Maria Elisa Vera Madrigal, who works in Mexico’s Office of Specialized Prosecutor for Combatting Corruption. Madrigal spoke at length about invoice fraud and the ways in which fake invoices (for services that are never rendered) have been used in Mexico. She also mentioned that there is an online list of companies found to
have engaged in fraudulent invoice practices and suggested that the companies
on this list would be helpful to include in diligence screenings (not necessarily
for cartel affiliations, but more generally when screening partners for reputability and corruption risk purposes)
I feel I barely scratched the surface of the range of topics covered during ACI’s conference, as I was dipping in and out of events in order to check on my four-month old daughter. The breadth of topics covered was fantastic (click here for the agenda!), and the speakers were all very informative. The networking breaks and events were also really fun. All in all, the conference was a great opportunity to hear directly from government, in-house counsel, and outside counsel
on today’s most pressing anti-corruption issues. It was well worth the trek down to Maryland and is definitely an experience I hope to repeat in the future.
