Ten Takeaways from the DOJ Criminal Division’s New Playbook on White Collar Enforcement Priorities

On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice ("the DOJ" or "the Department") unveiled its new playbook for prosecuting white-collar and corporate crime. DOJ announced enforcement priorities for the Criminal Division ("the Division") and introduced a host of changes designed to bring greater "focus" and "efficiency" to corporate investigations and prosecutions. These shifts are important to understand for any member of a corporate legal or compliance department running a corporate compliance program, facing a DOJ investigation, or laboring under an existing corporate integrity agreement or other corporate resolution. Moreover, the changing priorities provide opportunities for advocacy for companies that can claim harm to American business or consumer interests.

Criminal Division Head Matthew R. Galeotti issued a memorandum outlining the Division's enforcement priorities and policies, alongside a revised Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy ("CEP"), a new Memorandum on the Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters ("Monitor Memorandum"), and updates to the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program ("Whistleblower Program").¹ In parallel, Galeotti's delivered remarks at SIFMA's anti-money laundering and financial crimes conference, where he made clear that "the Criminal Division is turning a new page on white-collar and corporate enforcement."² Stating that "most corporations and financial institutions want to play by the rules and provide value for their shareholders and customers,"³ Galeotti indicated that the Division's approach to corporate enforcement was meant to end what he described as "excessive enforcement and unfocused corporate investigations,"⁴ which "stymie innovation, limit[] prosperity, and reduce[] efficiency."⁵

This alert provides our team's key takeaways from these pronouncements, summarizes the core areas of focus for the Criminal Division moving forward, and details the policy changes that have been announced to align with the Division's new enforcement priorities.

Key Takeaways from DOJ's Revised Enforcement Priorities and Policies

The memorandum and policies confirm that while the Criminal Division remains committed to white collar and corporate enforcement, the Division will seek to pursue corporate enforcement in a way that "minimiz[es] unnecessary burdens on American enterprise,"⁶ including through its prioritization of certain "high-impact areas," an expressed intention to conduct investigations more efficiently, providing greater benefits to companies that self-report misconduct, and more circumscribed use of independent compliance monitors. The memorandum and policies also make clear that the Division will pursue corporate enforcement in a way that aligns with overall administration priorities, with an emphasis on the public fisc, tariffs, cartels and transnational criminal organizations ("TCOs"), and the southern border. And the fact that the Criminal Division is providing financial incentives through its expanded Whistleblower Program for individuals to come forward and report misconduct in these priority areas likely means that prosecutors will soon be opening new investigations.

Here are key takeaways from the Criminal Division's memorandum and updated policies:

1. New Benefits for U.S. Businesses: The memorandum and new guidance set forth numerous priorities and examples that suggest the Department will focus white-collar enforcement on overall "America First" administration priorities, including prioritizing cases involving foreign companies harming U.S. interests, tariff evasion, immigration crime, drug cartels and TCOs, and crimes related to the southern border. This may provide opportunities for advocacy—where enforcement against U.S. companies may undermine U.S. economic or national security interests or where conduct under investigation does not fall into a priority area and did not obviously harm U.S. persons or interests.
2. FCPA Enforcement Shifts Overseas: The guidance indicates that, as we predicted in a previous alert,⁷ enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") will now be focused on conduct that harms U.S. interests and affects the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, further suggesting that future FCPA enforcement will be focused on non-U.S. companies.
3. Targeting Cartels and Terrorist Organizations: The memorandum confirms that the Division plans to prioritize investigations of companies that provide material support to cartels and TCOs that were designated earlier this year as foreign terrorist organizations ("FTO") and specially designated global terrorists ("SDGT"). The Division has expanded the Whistleblower Program to create financial incentives to encourage individuals to come forward and report this type of conduct. Companies should update their compliance programs—including their internal reporting procedures—to focus on these new priority areas.
4. Prioritizing Evasion of Tariff Policies: The guidance also confirms that the Division will prioritize tariff evasion as an area of criminal enforcement, providing financial incentives through the expanded Whistleblower Program for individuals to come forward with information about efforts to evade tariffs.
5. Focus on Defrauding the Government: Procurement fraud will continue to be an area focus going forward, with even greater emphasis from criminal prosecutors. And the Department indicates it will continue to prioritize other cases involving the public fisc, such as fraudulent activity that targets Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending, or other fraud that impacts government programs.
6. Immigration Enforcement Meets Corporate Enforcement: Criminal Division prosecutors will also, for the first time, prioritize corporate violations of immigration law. Amendments to the Whistleblower Program incentivize whistleblowers to come forward and report this type of conduct. We should expect to see investigations and prosecutions of companies and individuals who harbor and profit from labor by undocumented workers or otherwise facilitate or profit from their presence in the U.S.
7. Centering Sanctions with National Security: The memorandum affirms economic sanctions as a tool that will continue to be leveraged to advance U.S. national security. Accordingly, we can reasonably expect a Department-wide prioritization of sanctions enforcement, including by DOJ's National Security Division. Moreover, we should expect to see continued interagency collaboration between the DOJ and other regulatory agencies in this space, particular the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
8. Encouraging Self-Reporting by Corporations: In terms of policy, the memorandum and the updated CEP affirm the Division's commitment to corporate enforcement and to providing stronger and clearer incentives for companies to self-report misconduct, while also making clear that the Division will seek to make investigations more efficient and less costly for companies.
9. Reviewing and Reducing Post-Settlement Compliance Reporting Periods: The announcements emphasize reducing the duration of post-settlement compliance periods ("terms") imposed as part of corporate resolutions. The Department's policy also makes clear that it is conducting a review of ongoing resolutions and, in some cases, granting early terminations. Companies with existing corporate resolutions should put themselves in the best position to advocate for early termination through remediation and compliance enhancements, consider doing so quickly, as other similarly situated parties may soon join a long queue.
10. Narrowing and Reducing the Use of Corporate Monitors: Finally, the memorandum and the Monitor Memorandum underscore that the Division will use independent compliance monitors in limited circumstances, in a more narrowly tailored way, and will take steps to minimize their cost. In particular, the new policy gives greater consideration to a corporation's compliance program at the time of resolution, making it even more important that corporations pursue meaningful remediation or improvements of any compliance gaps immediately upon receipt of a subpoena.

The Criminal Division's Revised White-Collar Focus

A. Prosecutors to Focus on Harm to "American Interests" in White-Collar Enforcement

The new memorandum from the Head of the Criminal Division sets forth a list of priorities for white-collar enforcement, centering those priorities on crime that represents a "significant threat to U.S. interests."⁸ Noting that "overbroad and unchecked corporate and white-collar enforcement burdens U.S. businesses and harms U.S. interests,"⁹ the guidance stresses that prosecutors should follow three core tenets: (1) focus, on the priorities set out below; (2) fairness, by clarifying the benefits that are available to companies that self-disclose and cooperate; and (3) efficiency, through streamlined investigations and a narrow use of monitorships. The memorandum goes on to outline ten specific areas of focus that the Criminal Division believes pose the most urgent threats to U.S. citizens and companies:

• Waste, fraud, and abuse, including health care fraud and federal program and procurement fraud
• Trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion
• Fraud perpetrated through variable interest entities (which are typically Chinese-affiliated companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges), including, but not limited to, offering fraud, "ramp and dumps," elder fraud, securities fraud, and other market manipulation schemes
• Fraud that victimizes U.S. investors, individuals, and markets, like Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, elder fraud, service member fraud, or fraud that threatens the health and safety of consumers
• Conduct that threatens the country's national security, including threats to the U.S. financial system by gatekeepers, such as financial institutions and their insiders that commit sanctions violations or enable transactions by Cartels, TCOs, hostile-nation states, and/or foreign terrorist organizations
• Material support by corporations to foreign terrorist organizations, including recently designated Cartels and TCOs
• Complex money laundering, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations or laundering funds used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs
• Violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including the unlawful manufacture and distribution of chemicals and equipment used to create counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl and unlawful distribution of opioids by medical professionals and companies
• Bribery and associated money laundering that impact U.S. national interests, undermine U.S. national security, harm the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and enrich foreign corrupt officials
• Digital assets crimes (1) where investors and consumers have been victimized; (2) that use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct; or (3) constitute willful violations that facilitate significant criminal activity. Specifically, cases impacting victims, involving cartels, TCOs, or terrorist groups, or facilitating drug money laundering or sanctions evasion shall receive highest priority.¹⁰

The primary takeaway from these changes is that the Department appears to be aligning its white-collar enforcement efforts with overall administration priorities, including an emphasis on the public fisc, tariffs, cartels and TCOs, and the southern border. As we previously predicted, the DOJ intends to enlist resources that have traditionally been dedicated to the investigation of white-collar and corporate crime in the fight against drug cartels and other TCOs. Further, the memorandum indicates that the Criminal Division will now pursue white-collar and corporate enforcement in a manner that promotes U.S. national and economic interests, including by prioritizing investigations of non-U.S. companies and prosecution of crimes that interfere with the administration's international trade policies. The new guidance specifically emphasizes the need to protect Americans from "fraudulent practices connected to certain foreign adversary companies listed on U.S. exchanges,"¹¹ and calls out by name Chinese-affiliated variable interest entities that "carry significant risks to the investing public for several reasons."¹² Despite the overall cross-border focus of the priorities highlighted in the memorandum, one priority area that is more traditionally domestic in nature is fraud affecting the public fisc, like Medicare or Medicaid programs, defense spending, and other government programs. This approach is consistent with the administration's broader efforts to attempt to identify and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.

B. Amended Policies to Align with New Priorities

To support and reflect the DOJ's new priority areas, the Criminal Division announced significant amendments, effective immediately, to several of its corporate enforcement policies.

Revisions to the Criminal Division's Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy

Since 2018 (and, in FCPA cases, since 2016), the CEP has encouraged companies to self-report misconduct by providing a presumptive declination of prosecution if certain requirements are met. These requirements include (1) voluntary self-disclosure, as defined in the CEP; (2) full cooperation; (3) timely and appropriate remediation; and (4) the absence of certain aggravating circumstances. The revised CEP now provides that companies that self-report and satisfy those four requirements will receive not a presumptive declination, but a guaranteed declination. As explained by Galeotti, "companies that voluntarily self-disclose and meet other criteria will receive a declination, not just a presumption of one."¹³

Other revisions to the CEP expand upon changes made late last year. For "near miss" voluntary self-disclosures—i.e., where a company made a self-report in good faith but did not meet the requirements for a voluntary self-disclosure—and where aggravating factors warrant a resolution, the Criminal Division will provide a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA"), absent particularly egregious or multiple aggravating circumstances. The Division will also provide shorter NPA terms (less than three years), will not require a monitor, and will provide a reduction of 75% off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range.

The memorandum announcing the new guidance indicates that corporate resolution terms more generally should "not be longer than three years except in exceedingly rare cases"¹⁴ and noted that the Criminal Division is presently reviewing the length of terms of all existing agreements with companies "to determine if they should be terminated early."¹⁵ When analyzing whether early termination is warranted, the DOJ considers the duration of the post-resolution period, any substantial reductions in a company's risk profile, the extent of remediation and maturity of the company's compliance program, and whether the company self-reported the misconduct. According to the memorandum, the Criminal Division has determined in "multiple matters" that companies have met the terms of their agreements, and the Criminal Division ended those agreements early.

According to Galeotti, the primary takeaway for companies regarding the changes to the CEP is that "[s]elf-disclosure is key to receiving the most generous benefits the Criminal Division can offer."¹⁶ Galeotti indicated in his public remarks that the new changes to the CEP are designed to "emphasize the role of and benefits for law-abiding companies and companies that are ready to acknowledge and learn from their mistakes."¹⁷

At bottom, the changes to the CEP are incremental. The shift from a presumptive declination to a guaranteed declination is a welcome development, but the Department still retains substantial discretion to find that aggravating circumstances exist. A clearer path to an NPA for so-called "near miss" self-reports and where aggravating circumstances are present is also welcome. But in deciding whether to self-report, companies will continue to weigh these potential benefits of self-reporting against the costs of potentially prolonged engagement with the DOJ, the detection risk, and the benefits that are available through cooperation and remediation even in the absence of a self-report.

Revisions to Corporate Monitorship Policy

The Criminal Division also announced a significant change to its approach and policy regarding the use of independent compliance monitors in corporate resolutions. In many corporate resolutions, DOJ has required the imposition of an independent compliance monitor to oversee remediation and enhancement of corporate compliance programs. Galeotti indicated in his remarks, however, that "unrestrained monitors can be a burden on businesses that are frequently making self-directed improvements and investing significant amounts in their own compliance programs to solve problems internally and proactively."¹⁸

Based on the new guidance issued, the use of monitors will significantly decrease, as the factors the Criminal Division is now required to consider in determining whether to appoint a monitor will likely lead prosecutors to conclude that the cost of a monitorship outweighs the benefits. Galeotti said as much in his remarks, commenting that "the value monitors add is often outweighed by the costs they impose."¹⁹ As for pre-existing monitorships, the Criminal Division confirmed, as previously reported when the Division terminated two monitorships early, that it has been reviewing each engagement in an effort to narrow their scope, and, where appropriate, terminate the monitorship in full. The Criminal Division made clear, however, that "[i]n limited circumstances," it will continue to use "a narrowly-tailored monitorship that is right-sized to the conduct it seeks to remedy."²⁰

Specifically, the Criminal Division's policy on the selection of monitors was amended to clarify the factors prosecutors must consider when deciding when to enlist a monitor and how to narrowly scope and tailor the monitor's mandate. The new guidance instructs prosecutors to consider the:

• Risk of recurrence of criminal conduct that "significantly impacts U.S. interests"— such as sanctions evasion, trade fraud and tariff evasion, foreign bribery, or crimes related to cartels or TCOs—and whether the potential of the recurrent conduct would be sufficiently mitigated by imposition of a monitor;
• Availability of independent government oversight, including whether a company is regulated by other governmental bodies in the U.S. or abroad;
• Efficacy of the compliance program at the company and the company's culture of compliance; and
• Maturity of the company's controls and its ability to independently test and update its program.²¹

The Criminal Division announced that the costs of a monitorship must be proportionate to the underlying criminal conduct and the company's size and risk profile. To promote lower costs, the Criminal Division announced the introduction of a cap on hourly rates, budget approvals (including a description of the composition of the monitor team and an estimate of the hours necessary to complete the engagement), and biannual tripartite meetings among the DOJ, the monitor, and the company. Before agreeing to imposition of a monitor in any case, the line prosecutors handling the matter must receive approval from supervisors, including the Section Chief, as well as the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. If a monitor is imposed, the new guidance further encourages the Criminal Division to take steps to ensure the monitorship is carried out appropriately, including by ensuring costs are proportionate, scheduling meetings among the company, the monitor, and the government, and giving due consideration to a company's arguments against a monitor's positions.

Expansion of the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program

Finally, the Criminal Division has expanded the Whistleblower Program it launched last August to cover several of the Division's priority areas of corporate enforcement. This expansion, along with the updates to the CEP, is intended to incentivize companies to "come forward, come clean, reform, and cooperate with the government,"²² and to focus on the most egregious crimes and the worst actors. The new areas covered by the Whistleblower Program are:

• Procurement and federal program fraud;
• Trade, tariff, and customs fraud by corporations;
• Violations by corporations of federal immigration law; and
• Corporate sanctions violations, and corporate violations involving material support of foreign terrorist organizations, or those that facilitate cartels and TCOs, including money laundering, narcotics, and Controlled Substances Act violations.²³

As with other areas of new policy changes, the Whistleblower Program's expanded incentives address overall administration priorities, including targeting of cartels and TCOs, immigration, sanctions, trade, and tariffs. The Whistleblower Program otherwise remains unchanged—tips in these new subject areas must result in significant forfeitures (over $1 million) to be eligible for an award. Companies should take note that the Criminal Division is creating significant financial incentives—up to $50 million—for individuals to come forward and report misconduct in these priority areas—including by taking steps to encourage internal reporting on these subjects and ensuring that they have strong compliance controls in place to prevent and detect misconduct.

Conclusion

The Department's new guidance and policy changes are clearly more business-friendly—particularly toward U.S companies—than we have seen in the past. However, the Department is paying special attention to issues that align with overall administration priorities and about which we can expect to see continued investigation and enforcement: crimes affecting the public fisc, tariffs, cartels and TCOs, and the southern border, including corporate involvement in immigration crimes. Particularly given the new financial incentives for whistleblowers to come forward, corporations should strongly consider reviewing and updating existing compliance programs to ensure they adequately address the Department's new priorities and are prepared for increased scrutiny on these issues.

White & Case's White Collar and Investigations Group will continue to cover the implementation of the Department's new guidance and policies and highlight key takeaways for corporations and individuals alike.

_{1 Criminal Division Memorandum, Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime (May 12, 2025), available here. 
2 Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division, Matthew R. Galeotti Delivers Remarks at SIFMA’s Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference (May 12, 2025), available here.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 See supra note 1.
7 Client Alert, FCPA Freeze and Refocus: Is Enforcement Becoming a Tool to Promote U.S. Economic, Foreign Policy and National Security Interests? (Feb. 12, 2025), available here. 
8 See supra note 1. 
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 See supra note 2.
14 See supra note 1.
15 Id. 
16 See supra note 2.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Criminal Division Memorandum, Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters (May 12, 2025), available here.
22 See supra note 2.
23 Id.; see also supra note 1.}

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2025 White & Case LLP}