Recent Guidance Reinforces DOJ Approach to Corporate White-Collar Investigations
In their White-Collar Cirme column, Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan S. Sack discuss the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice and how it recently issued two important documents that reflect significant continuity in DOJ policy toward corporate white-collar criminal investigations.
September 03, 2020 at 01:11 PM
10 minute read
In this unsettled time, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice recently issued two important documents that reflect significant continuity in DOJ policy toward corporate white-collar criminal investigations. In June, the Criminal Division issued guidance titled "Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs" (Compliance Guidance), which builds on earlier policy statements and instructs prosecutors how to analyze an organization's compliance programs. In July, the Criminal Division together with the Securities and Exchange Commission's Enforcement Division issued the second edition of the "Resource Guide to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" (FCPA Resource Guide), which incorporates policies and rulings issued since release of the original FCPA Resource Guide in 2012.
In broad terms, both documents clarify and elaborate on a central tenet of current DOJ policy toward business organizations in white-collar criminal investigations: specifically, a company can get the benefit of a rebuttable presumption of nonprosecution if it voluntarily discloses to the government unlawful conduct; cooperates fully with a resulting government investigation, including by providing information about culpable employees; and undertakes genuine and satisfactory remediation of the conditions which allowed the unlawful conduct to occur. See Justice Manual § 9-47.120 (articulating this policy in FCPA investigations). The effectiveness of a company's compliance programs relates directly to remediation, the third requirement for leniency. More generally, the stronger a company's compliance programs, the stronger a company's arguments will be for the fullest possible leniency in discussions with prosecutors.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
'Serious Legal Errors'?: Rival League May Appeal Following Dismissal of Soccer Antitrust Case
6 minute readDecision of the Day: Judge Sanctions Attorney for 'Frivolously' Claiming All Nine Personal Injury Categories in Motor Vehicle Case
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1‘Blitzkrieg of Lawlessness’: Environmental Lawyers Decry EPA Spending Freeze
- 2Litera Acquires Workflow Management Provider Peppermint Technology
- 3'I Can't Do This': Judge Blocks $16M Alex Jones Settlement
- 4TikTok Opts Not to Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to U.S. Supreme Court
- 5Feasting, Pledging, and Wagering, Philly Attorneys Prepare for Super Bowl
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250