Significant Developments to DOJ Enforcement Priorities
January 15, 2026
The past year brought significant changes to the Department of Justice (DOJ) following the changeover to the new administration in late January.
New DOJ leadership shifted priorities toward areas more aligned with the broader goals of the administration, including investigations focused on violent crime, narcotics trafficking and immigration. We summarize key developments in DOJ’s white collar enforcement landscape, including the White Collar Enforcement Plan, important revisions to the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self Disclosure Policy (CEP), the resumption of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement, heightened focus on trade and customs fraud and the multi-pronged approach to national security prosecutions, and the likely implications for in-house investigations and corporate compliance departments in the coming year.
White Collar Enforcement Plan
In May 2025, the DOJ Criminal Division announced several policy changes related to its approach to white-collar criminal enforcement. Matthew R. Galeotti, the then head of the Criminal Division,[1] noted that DOJ would be “turning a new page on white-collar and corporate enforcement” and emphasizing the principles of “focus, fairness and efficiency” in its investigations and prosecutions.[2] As part of this policy roll-out, DOJ issued a new White Collar Enforcement Plan and key revisions to the CEP, Monitor Selection Policy and Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program.
The White Collar Enforcement Plan highlights 10 specific “high impact” areas for the DOJ Criminal Division, suggesting heightened enforcement activity in the coming year:[3]
- Government waste, fraud and abuse, including healthcare fraud.
- Customs fraud and tariff evasion.
- Market manipulation schemes, securities fraud and fraud with tangible harm to U.S. investors or markets.
- Conduct that jeopardizes consumer health and safety.
- Threats to national security by Cartels, Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs), hostile nation-states or Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).
- Material support to Cartels, TCOs and FTOs.
- Complex money laundering.
- Controlled Substances Act Violations, including those related to the production and distribution of Fentanyl and other opioids.
- Bribery and money laundering that impact U.S. national interests.
- Digital asset related crime.
In announcing these priority areas, DOJ’s Criminal Division noted that companies are often the “first line of defense” against criminal schemes and misconduct, and underscored the importance of effective corporate compliance programs and their “unique role to play in this fight” against crimes that threaten U.S. economic and national security interests—areas on which the Criminal Division is “laser-focused.”[4] As part of this approach, the White Collar Enforcement Plan outlines enhanced incentives for individuals and companies that report misconduct while lessening the burden on companies that self-disclose and cooperate.[5] DOJ noted the need to strike an appropriate balance between investigating and prosecuting wrongdoing while minimizing unnecessary burdens on U.S. enterprise. These developments reinforce that a commitment to compliance remains a critical factor for DOJ in assessing how it will resolve criminal matters. DOJ also continues to emphasize the importance of its compliance guidance (known as the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs or ECCP) in assessing the strength and implementation of a company’s compliance function.[6]
Revisions to the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy
With its rollout of the White Collar Enforcement Plan, the DOJ Criminal Division also announced significant revisions to the CEP, through which DOJ seeks to incentivize companies to self-report misconduct. The updated CEP also provides a greater guarantee of benefits for companies that voluntarily self-disclose and otherwise meet the requirements of the policy, and where no “aggravating circumstances” exist related to the nature and seriousness of the offense, pervasiveness of the misconduct within the company, severity of the harm or prior criminal recidivism.[7] As explained by Galeotti, the “primary message” on the revised CEP is that “[s]elf-disclosure is key to receiving the most generous benefits the Criminal Division can offer.”[8] Companies discovering misconduct may have a significant opportunity to self-report and walk away with a declination (or no criminal charges) related to the misconduct. Specifically, pursuant to the revised CEP, companies that voluntarily self-disclose, fully cooperate and timely and appropriately remediate will receive a declination absent aggravating circumstances, not just a presumption of a declination, as under the prior policy.[9] Moreover, a “near miss” provision in the policy provides that the DOJ will offer non-prosecution agreements in certain circumstances where companies cannot benefit from full declination because of aggravating circumstances or because self-disclosure was not reasonably prompt, so long as there is full cooperation and appropriate remediation.[10]
New FCPA Guidelines: Strategic Focus on U.S. National Interests
In June 2025, DOJ unveiled new guidelines for FCPA enforcement, marking the end of a temporary “pause” imposed by an Executive Order earlier in the year. The guidelines mirror the overall criminal enforcement priorities and direct DOJ to focus FCPA investigations and prosecutions on cases that implicate certain characteristics, such as threats to U.S. national security or economic competitiveness, threats posed by cartels and TCOs, schemes utilizing money launderers or shell companies, schemes linked to employees of state-owned entities and schemes involving, or demands from, corrupt foreign officials. The guidelines also instruct DOJ prosecutors to prioritize investigations of serious misconduct, substantial bribe payments or sophisticated efforts to conceal bribery schemes, and less on allegations involving more routine, lower-dollar business practices.[11]
Consistent with its approach in other areas, the DOJ has provided benefits to companies that timely self-disclose, cooperate and take appropriate remedial action. In August 2025, DOJ issued a CEP declination with disgorgement to Liberty Mutual following DOJ’s investigation of less than 18 months. In declining to prosecute Liberty Mutual, DOJ highlighted the company’s timely self-disclosure, full cooperation and rapid remediation, as well as the internal investigation that enabled the self-report and the company’s enhancements to its compliance program and internal controls.[12]
In November 2025, DOJ reached the first criminal FCPA corporate resolution following the issuance of the new guidelines. In that matter, Comunicaciones Celulares S.A. (Comcel d/b/a TIGO Guatemala), a subsidiary of Millicom International Cellular, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement to resolve a criminal investigation related to conduct by employees and executives of TIGO Guatemala. We published an in-depth analysis of the resolution in November 2025.[13] In brief, the criminal resolution highlighted numerous themes and priorities seen in the new FCPA guidelines and in other DOJ policy announcements: (1) DOJ is prioritizing investigations involving serious misconduct and “strong indicia of corrupt intent” including evidence involving substantial bribe payments, sophisticated efforts to conceal and fraudulent conduct in furtherance of bribery schemes; (2) highlighting DOJ’s interest in identifying potential links to cartels or transnational criminal organizations, or misconduct involving money launderers or shell companies tied to cartel activity or organized crime, which often intersects with foreign bribery and corruption; and (3) the premium DOJ places on voluntary self-disclosure, including in cases such as the one involving TIGO Guatemala in which the company did not meet the requirements for a declination under the CEP, but otherwise obtained other benefits as part of the resolution.[14] We expect all these themes to remain throughlines in FCPA enforcement this year.
Individual Enforcement
Individual accountability also continues to be a major theme for DOJ. Under the White Collar Enforcement Plan, DOJ noted that its “first priority” remains prosecuting individuals—whether executives, officers or other employees—who commit white collar offenses.[15] In September 2025, the DOJ Criminal Division announced white collar charges involving more than 200 individuals and 140 criminal convictions by the DOJ Fraud Section.[16] With the DOJ’s priorities set, more individuals may find themselves in the crosshairs moving forward, while companies may be expected to identify and discipline employees and executives engaged in misconduct in order to obtain meaningful cooperation and remediation benefits.
The second-half of 2025 also brought a number of individual prosecutions including: the conviction of Carl Alan Zaglin, a U.S. businessman involved in a years-long scheme to bribe Honduran government officials and launder money to secure business for a Georgia-based manufacturer[17] and the sentencing of Glenn Oztemel, a former senior oil and gas trader to 15 months in prison for money laundering and bribing Brazilian officials.[18]
Looking briefly beyond DOJ enforcement, we will be keeping a close eye on investigations and prosecutions by authorities in other countries in 2026. Last March, we wrote about the nascent International Anti-Corruption Taskforce founded by prosecutors in the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland.[19] The recent FCPA enforcement guidelines direct DOJ prosecutors to “consider the likelihood (or lack thereof) that an appropriate foreign law enforcement authority is willing and able to investigate and prosecute the same alleged misconduct,” indicating that the U.S. may defer to other authorities depending on the circumstances.[20]
Focus on Trade and Customs Fraud
Trade and customs fraud enforcement, one of the “high impact” areas identified in the White Collar Enforcement Plan, already has shown an increase in activity. In August 2025, DOJ launched a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force (TFTF), signaling a likely increase in scrutiny for companies frequently engaged in cross-border operations.[21] Recently, DOJ’s TFTF announced its resolution of an investigation related to MGI International, a global plastic resin distributor, and its two subsidiaries for falsifying country of origin declarations to avoid paying duties on China-originated products.[22] In line with the updated CEP discussed earlier, DOJ declined to prosecute MGI and its subsidiaries based on MGI’s timely voluntary self-disclosure and proactive cooperation. As part of the declination, DOJ also credited $6.8 million previously paid by MGI to resolve potential civil liability under the False Claims Act concerning its failure to pay customs duties on certain plastic resins imported from China. Separately, MGI’s former Chief Operating Officer was charged and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to smuggle goods into the United States. According to DOJ, the former CCO had instructed subordinates to misrepresent the manufacturer and country of origin on paperwork submitted to U.S. customs authorities to avoid paying the required Section 301 duties. Another recent prosecution underscores the potential intersection between trade and customs fraud and foreign bribery. In October 2025, a customs broker and owner of a U.S. freight forwarding business pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the FCPA.[23]
DOJ also continues to focus on national security-related prosecutions promoting U.S. interests and fighting cartels, both common themes for the Department. As part of this approach, DOJ may use FTO designations, sanctions and export controls, as well as new data protection rules to achieve its goals.
Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO)
From the earliest days of the new administration, DOJ has taken aggressive action against cartels and TCOs. One of the very first memos issued under new leadership was on the “Total Elimination of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations.”[24] The administration acted quickly to designate multiple cartels as FTOs and bring indictments under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B against individuals accused of providing material support.[25] We expect the material support statute to continue serving as a basis for prosecutions of cartel members. It also serves as a cautionary warning to third parties—such as financial services firms that may have touches to funds related to cartels or companies engaged in transactions with individuals or entities with potential ties to newly designated FTOs—which could face potential investigations by the DOJ under the same law.[26]
Bearing in mind the DOJ’s messaging around “focus, fairness, and efficiency,” voluntary self-disclosure in the right circumstances could provide an avenue worthy of consideration for companies facing FTO-related liability in 2026. Accordingly, we are closely monitoring Kodiak Gas Services (Kodiak), which is testing the waters. In November, Kodiak publicly disclosed that it had retained outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation of whether any payments made in connection to its recently acquired Mexican affiliate, may have indirectly benefitted individuals associated with criminal cartel organizations or designated as foreign terrorist organizations. Kodiak self-reported its ongoing investigation to several U.S. authorities, including DOJ, SEC and OFAC, and we will be closely monitoring how the early disclosure strategy plays out.[27]
Sanctions and Export Controls
Another area where DOJ has advanced administration priorities is in addressing sanctions and export control violations by companies and affiliated individuals that compromise national security, particularly those involving sensitive technologies.[28] As mentioned previously, trade-related enforcement is expected to be a focus for years to come.
Just as DOJ’s Criminal Division has demonstrated a willingness to reward self-reporting and cooperation, DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) has issued declinations under its Enforcement Policy for Business Organizations, demonstrating the potentially significant benefits available for companies that voluntarily self-disclose sanctions and export control violations. For instance, in April 2025, NSD declined to prosecute the Universities Space Research Association (USRA) for criminal export control violations committed by a former employee who unlawfully exported controlled software to a Chinese entity on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Entity List.[29] NSD’s declination letter cited “timely and voluntary self-disclosure of the misconduct” and “exceptional and proactive cooperation” as the basis for its decision.[30]
One of the most interesting national-security related resolutions in 2025, however, was with White Deer Management in June 2025. This marked the first application of DOJ’s merger-related safe harbor provision, where a private equity firm received a declination after discovering and promptly reporting sanctions violations committed by an acquired company.[31] Normally, the involvement of senior management in misconduct—as there was in this matter—would preclude such an outcome. But this resolution underscored the potential value of self-reporting and cooperating in an effort to earn a declination, or at least a penalty reduction even where aggravating factors may be present.
Bulk Data Rule
A new frontier in the realm of national security is the promulgation of the Bulk Data Rule. Pursuant to Executive Order 14117, DOJ promulgated the rule in December 2024[32] and released a “Compliance Guide” and “Frequently Asked Questions” document after it took effect on April 8, 2025.[33] The Bulk Data Rule restricts U.S. persons from certain data transactions that would give “countries of concern” (China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela) or “covered persons” access to sensitive personal data or U.S. government-related data.[34] Violations of the rule can result in civil penalties up to the greater of $368,136 or twice the transaction amount, while criminal penalties for willful violations can result in fines up to $1 million and/or imprisonment for up to 20 years for individuals.
DOJ has not yet initiated any enforcement actions under the Bulk Data Rule. However, in light of guidance directing U.S. persons to “know their data,” companies should expect heightened scrutiny in 2026 and maintain effective compliance programs addressing how their data is collected, preserved and used.[35]
[1] Andrew Tysen Duva, confirmed by the Senate on December 18, 2025, is the new Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, “Senate Republicans Confirm 14 Law and Order Nominees to Deliver Safer Streets for Americans” (Dec. 19, 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 (Galeotti SIFMA Speech).
[3] Memorandum from Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of Crim. Div. of U.S. Dep’t of Just. to All Crim. Div. Personnel (May 12, 2025), available here, (White Collar Enforcement Plan), at 2.
[4] Galeotti SIFMA Speech, supra note 2.
[5] White Collar Enforcement Plan, supra note 3.
[6] U.S. Dep’t of Just., Criminal Division, “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” (Sep. 2024), available here.
[7] For additional information, see our May alert memo available here.
[8] Galeotti SIFMA Speech, supra note 2.
[9] Matthew R. Galeotti, “Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti Delivers Remarks at the Global Investigations Review Annual Meeting” (Sep. 18, 2025), available here (Galeotti Annual Meeting Remarks).
[10] U.S. Dep’t of Just., Just. Manual 9-47.120 (May 12, 2025). Additionally, the resolution will include a term shorter than three years (the typical length of a criminal corporate resolution), a 75% reduction off the low-end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range, and no requirement for an independent compliance monitor. Id.
[11] Memorandum from the Deputy Att’y Gen. of the U.S. Dep’t of Just. to the Head of the Crim. Div. (June 9, 2025), available here. See also our June alert memo available here.
[12] Letter from the U.S. Dep’t of Just. Crim. Div. (Aug. 7, 2025), available here.
[13] For additional information, see our November alert memo available here.
[14] Deferred Prosecution Agreement, United States v. Communicaciones Celulares S.A., d/b/a TIGO Guat., No. 25-CR-20476-JB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2025), Dkt. No. 17.
[15] See White Collar Enforcement Plan, supra note 2 at 5 (“The Department’s first priority is to prosecute individual criminals.”).
[16] Galeotti Annual Meeting Remarks, supra note 8. The Fraud Section usually publishes a full year in review in January or February. The 2025 full year numbers are not yet available. U.S. Dep’t of Just., Crim. Div., “Fraud Section Year in Review” (Oct. 15, 2025), available here.
[17] Zaglin was sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to forfeit over $2 million. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., “Georgia Businessman Sentenced In International Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme”(Dec. 3, 2025), available here. The third-party money launderer, Aldo Nestor Marchena, earlier pled guilty and was sentenced to 84 months for conspiracy to commit money laundering. Id.
[18] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., “Connecticut-Based Oil Trader Sentenced to 15 Months in Prison in International Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme” (Dec. 9, 2025), available here.
[19] For additional information, see our March blog post available here.
[20] Memorandum from the Deputy Att’y Gen. of the U.S. Dep’t of Just. to the Head of the Crim. Div. at 4 (June 9, 2025), available here.
[21] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., “Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Partnering on Cross-Agency Trade Fraud Task Force” (Aug. 29, 2025), available here.
[22] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., “Justice Department Resolves Criminal Trade Fraud Investigation with Plastic Resin Distributor; Former Executive Agrees to Plead Guilty” (Dec. 18, 2025), available here.
[23] R&R of Mag. J. Upon Def.’s Plea of Guilty, United States v. Alvelais, No. 3:25-cr-02512 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2025), Dkt. No. 19.
[24] Memorandum from the Att’y Gen. of the U.S. Dep’t of Just. to All Dep’t Employees (Feb. 5, 2025), available here.
[25] See, e.g., Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., “High-Ranking Tren de Aragua Member in Custody on Terrorism and International Drug Distribution Charges” (Apr. 23, 2025), available here; Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., “Sinaloa Cartel Leaders Charged with Narco-Terrorism, Material Support of Terrorism and Drug Trafficking” (May 13, 2025), available here.
[26] This theme has also made its way into a series of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) orders. These include prohibiting transactions with three Mexico-based financial institutions connected with laundering money on behalf of Mexico-based cartels, and sanctions against affiliates of Tren de Aragua in Venezuela. See, e.g., Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, “Treasury Issues Historic Orders under Powerful New Authority to Counter Fentanyl” (June 25, 2025), available here; Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, “Treasury Targets Money Laundering Network Supporting Venezuelan Terrorist Organization Tren de Aragua” (Dec. 3, 2025), available here.
[27] Kodiak Gas Services, Inc., “Quarterly Report (Form 10-Q)” (Aug. 7, 2025), available here. Treasury may give some indication of the willingness for the administration to quickly settle this type of matter when there is timely self-disclosure. Cf. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, “Key Holding, LLC Settles with OFAC for $608,825 Related to Apparent Violations of Cuban Assets Control Regulations” (July 2, 2025), available here.
[28] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., “Cadence Design Systems Agrees to Plead Guilty and Pay Over $140 Million for Unlawfully Exporting Semiconductor Design Tools to a Restricted PRC Military University” (July 28, 2025), available here; Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., “North Carolina Man Pleads Guilty to Attempting to Illegally Export Sensitive Technology to China” (Feb. 28, 2025), available here; Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., “Evolutions Flooring Inc. and Its Owners to Pay $8.1 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations Relating to Evaded Customs Duties” (Mar. 25, 2025), available here.
[29] Letter from U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Nat’l Sec. Div. (Apr. 30, 2025), available here (USRA Declination Letter); see also our May blog post, available here.
[30] USRA Declination Letter, supra note 32, at 2.
[31] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, “Justice Department Declines Prosecution of Private Equity Firm Following Voluntary Disclosure of Sanctions Violations and Related Offenses Committed by Acquired Company” (June 16, 2025), available here; see also our June blog post, available here.
[32] “28 C.F.R. § 202 (2025); see our blog post, available here.
[33] U.S. Dep’t of Just., “Data Security Program: Compliance Guide” (Apr. 11, 2025), available here (Compliance Guide); U.S. Dep’t of Just., “Data Security Program: Frequently Asked Questions” (Apr. 11, 2025), available here.
[34] 28 C.F.R. § 202 (2025).
[35] Compliance Guide, supra note 36.