United States: DOJ Issues Policy On Holding Individuals Accountable For Corporate Malfeasance

Following widespread criticism of its failure to prosecute corporate insiders in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and other recent corporate malfeasance while collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate civil penalties and criminal fines, the Department of Justice (Justice Department or DOJ), on Sept. 9, 2015, announced new policies intended to enhance the Justice Department's ability to identify and prosecute culpable individuals at all levels in corporate cases.1 Authored by Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, the memorandum titled "Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing" (the Yates Memorandum) revises the Justice Department's "Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations," (the Filip Memorandum) principally by directing DOJ lawyers, both civil and criminal, to focus on collecting evidence that will lead to the prosecution of individuals in large corporate malfeasance cases.

The Yates Memorandum adopts a position that had been publicly espoused by several high ranking Justice Department officials over the last year and that has been largely followed by prosecutors around the country. For example, during his Sept. 17, 2014 speech, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Marshall Miller announced that "if a company wants full cooperation credit, make your extensive efforts to secure evidence of individual culpability the first thing you talk about when you walk in the door to make your presentation." Similarly, on Jan. 20, 2015, Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy Attorney General for the Criminal Division, announced that "corporations do not act criminally, but for the actions of individuals ... the Criminal Division intends to prosecute those individuals, whether they are sitting on a sales desk or in a corporate suite." Likewise, on April 17, 2015, at a speech delivered at New York University Law School, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Leslie R. Caldwell noted that the "mere voluntary disclosure of corporate misconduct—by itself—is not enough ... . True cooperation, however, requires identifying the individuals actually responsible for the misconduct— be they executives or others—and the provision of all available facts relating to that misconduct." The Yates Memorandum, together with the accompanying public statements by Deputy Attorney General Yates2 and Assistant Attorney General Caldwell,3 on Sept. 10, 2015 and Sept. 22, 2015 respectively, represent efforts to standardize what is essentially current practice in several parts of the Justice Department and various U.S. Attorneys' Offices, notwithstanding the Yates Memorandum's protestations that it represents a "substantial shift from [the Justice Department's] prior practice."

The Yates Memorandum

Recognizing the challenges it faces in prosecuting employees of large corporations, including that "responsibility can be diffuse and decisions made at various levels" of a corporation and that it can often be "difficult to determine if someone possessed the knowledge and criminal intent necessary to establish [] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ... particularly when determining the culpability of high-level executives who may be insulated from the day-today activity in which the misconduct occurs," the Justice Department has resolved to leverage its resources to identify culpable individuals at all levels in corporate cases. Thus, the Yates Memorandum identified six principles to strengthen its ability to investigate and prosecute corporate malfeasance. These principles apply equally to both civil and criminal investigations.

First, to be eligible for any cooperation credit, corporations must provide to the Justice Department all relevant facts about the individuals involved in corporate misconduct. This principle departs from the Justice Department's prior practice of awarding full or partial credit for cooperation that stops just short of identifying the individuals who may be criminally liable. Setting aside for the moment the philosophical question of whether it is appropriate to task a corporation (and its counsel) with engaging in this level of finger pointing at its employees, the Yates Memorandum now makes clear that a corporation "must completely disclose to the [Justice] Department all relevant facts about individual misconduct" and "must identify all individuals involved in or responsible for the misconduct at issue, regardless of their position, status or seniority, and provide to the Department all facts relating to that misconduct." Notably, the requirement to disclose all relevant facts applies equally in civil and criminal cases.

Second, both criminal and civil attorneys "should focus on individual wrongdoing from the very beginning of any investigation of corporate misconduct." Apparently, by focusing on individuals from the beginning of an investigation, the Justice Department can "maximize [its] ability to ferret out the full extent of corporate misconduct." Moreover, this early focus will supposedly "increase the likelihood that individuals with knowledge of the corporate misconduct will cooperate with the investigation and provide information against individuals higher up the corporate hierarchy" and "maximize the chances that the final resolution of an investigation uncovering the misconduct will include civil or criminal charges against not just the corporation but against culpable individuals as well." In practice, in our experience, Justice Department lawyers typically focus on individuals from the beginning of an investigation so it remains to be seen how this guidance will change how criminal and civil attorneys collect and use information in corporate investigations.

Third, criminal and civil attorneys handling corporate investigations should be in routine communication with one another because early and regular communication between civil attorneys and criminal prosecutors handling corporate investigations can be crucial to the Justice Department's ability to effectively pursue individuals. The Yates Memorandum asserts that this early consultation would allow criminal and civil attorneys to be alert to circumstances where concurrent criminal and civil investigations of individual misconduct should be pursued. Such coordination should happen early, even if it is not certain that a civil or criminal disposition will be the end result for the individuals or the company.

Fourth, absent extraordinary circumstances, "no corporate resolution will provide protection from criminal or civil liability for any individuals." Typically, the Justice Department tends to resolve allegations of corporate wrongdoing against the corporate entity first and, where it deems it appropriate, institute follow-on actions against purportedly culpable individuals. In those corporate settlements, absent approved departmental policy such as the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy, we rarely see settlements where the Justice Department agrees to settle with a company while immunizing culpable individuals. In any case, in the unlikely and extraordinary event that a corporate resolution proposes to immunize an individual, the guidelines compels that such a resolution must be approved in writing by the relevant Assistant Attorney General or U.S. Attorney.

Fifth, the guidance notes that "corporate cases should not be resolved without a clear plan to resolve related individual cases before the statute of limitations expires and declinations as to individuals in such cases must be memorialized." Here, the implication appears to be that Justice Department lawyers focus on the high-profile monetary settlements with corporations at the expense of individual prosecutions. Moreover, if a decision is made at the conclusion of an investigation not to bring civil claims or criminal charges against the individuals who committed the misconduct, the reasons for that determination must be memorialized and approved by the U.S. Attorney or Assistant Attorney General whose office handled the investigation, or their designees.

Sixth, civil attorneys should consistently "focus on individuals as well as the [corporations] and evaluate whether to bring suit against an individual based on considerations beyond that individual's ability to pay." The Justice Department's civil enforcement efforts are designed not only to return government money to the public fisc, but also to hold the wrongdoers accountable and to deter future wrongdoing. These twin aims of recovering as much money as possible, on the one hand, and of accountability for and deterrence of individual misconduct, on the other are equally important. As such, an individual's demonstrated inability to pay should not determine whether or not a case is brought.

Implications of the Yates Memorandum

While it is too early to tell how the U.S. Attorney's Manual, more specifically the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations (USAM 9-28.000), will be revised to reflect the changes proposed in the Yates Memorandum, a number of early observations bear noting.

First, it appears that the Justice Department is of the view that one of the key barriers to its prosecution of corporate insiders is the difficulty it encounters in securing admissible evidence that will lead to the successful prosecution of wrongdoers. However, the available evidence does not seem to support this proposition. One only need look at several of the corporate settlements that the Justice Department has negotiated over the last several years to notice that the vast majority of these settled cases included language suggesting that the settling entity had in fact cooperated with the government's investigation, produced all relevant evidence, made domestic and foreign employees available for witness interviews, and (in some cases) waived attorney-client privilege in an effort to provide the government with the results of its internal investigation. As such, the proposition that companies are somehow withholding critical information that prevents the prosecution of culpable individuals seems dubious at best.

Second, relatedly, the Yates Memorandum makes clear that cooperation credit will now only be given where a corporation has provided all relevant facts about the individuals involved in the corporate misconduct. Accordingly, a corporation looking to secure cooperation credit ought to consider devising a system by which, in a multiyear investigation, it documents all of its efforts to provide the Justice Department with facts evidencing individual misconduct. Such a record will be critical in showing that the corporation has fulfilled its obligation to secure cooperation credit. To the extent that a corporation can secure periodic written confirmation that it is meeting the government's expectation of providing timely and complete information about employee wrongdoing, such a confirmation will likely remove any ambiguity years down the road when the corporation is seeking to negotiate a settlement.

Third, one of the unintended consequences of the requirement to provide all relevant facts about employee misconduct is the pressure it puts on corporations to waive privilege even though Deputy Attorney General Yates noted, on Sept. 10, 2015, that if a corporation wants cooperation credit, it "will need to investigate and identify the responsible parties, then provide all non-privileged evidence implicating those individuals." Moreover, while it is true that Assistant Attorney General Caldwell, on Sept. 22, 2015, indicated that the new guidance does not change existing Justice Department policy of not requesting waiver of a corporation's attorney-client privilege or work product protection, it nevertheless remains a significant concern that the information the government is seeking (particularly as it relates to intent, credibility, and culpability) is so tightly interwoven with a corporation's attorney-client privilege or work product protection that a corporation must approach this issue with extreme care so as not to waive its attorney-client privilege or work product protection.

Fourth, it is likely that employees are going to be less likely to cooperate with corporate internal investigations if they feel that their employer is going to throw them under the proverbial bus to save itself. To be fair, this is not a new problem, but the Yates Memorandum does ratchet up the level of distrust that permeates corporate internal investigations. Relatedly, while a U.S.-based employee may be forced to submit to an interview under threat of termination, the same is not necessarily true for employees in other countries where strong labor laws may prevent the corporation from terminating employees for failure to submit to an interview. Similarly, the decision to have counsel present during the critical initial interviews in the early stages of the internal investigation now takes on added significance. Again, while the general practice is that US-based employees are often not afforded counsel at the internal investigation stage, corporations ought to consider whether that practice should change in light of the Yates Memorandum, particularly because certain foreign-based employees may have a right to counsel or a works council representative present at their interviews. Moreover, there is a question as to whether counsel for the corporation ought to consider revising the Upjohn Warning to inform witnesses that one of its tasks is to gather and report evidence of individual wrongdoing to the Justice Department so that the employee can determine whether it wants to cooperate with the internal investigation.

Fifth, one of the likely consequences of the Yates Memorandum is that there will be an increase in civil charges where the Justice Department determines that it may not have enough to institute criminal charges. Counsel representing individuals should be aware of the potential overlap in cases implicating, among other statutes, alleged violations of the books and records provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act where there is concurrent jurisdiction between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Justice Department. Individuals and their counsel should also be aware of the potential collateral consequences that may stem from civil enforcement, including debarment and loss of professional licenses.


In announcing the new principles, Deputy Attorney General Yates stated that to codify and supplement the changes, the Justice Department will be revising several guidance documents. How far the Yates Memorandum goes to "revise" the Filip Memorandum will be of interest in the coming months. Also worthy of following is how much additional resources the Justice Department will devote to the implementation of the guidance. Additionally, how well the Civil Division and the Criminal Division coordinate their work internally and with other government agencies such as the SEC will play a significant role in how successful the new guidance works. As the Justice Department implements the guidance outlined in the Yates Memorandum, corporations and their employees will likely continue to assess how to adapt to the new terrain.


1. See "Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing," dated Sept. 9, 2015, http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download.

2. Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates Delivers Remarks at New York University School of Law Announcing New Policy on Individual Liability in Matters of Corporate Wrongdoing, Sept. 10, 2015, http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputyattorney-general-sally-quillian-yates-delivers-remarks- new-york-university-school.

3. Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell Delivers Remarks at the Second Annual Global Investigations Review Conference, Sept. 22, 2015, http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-leslie-r-caldwell-delivers-remarkssecond- annual-global-0.

Previously published by the New York Law Journal

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.