United States: The U.S. Department Of Justice's New Policy Emphasizing Individual Civil And Criminal Accountability For Corporate Wrongdoing

Last Updated: March 16 2016
Article by Jodi L. Avergun, Anne M. Tompkins and J. Robert Duncan

Most Read Contributor in United States, August 2018

In the past five years, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has negotiated ever more eye-popping settlements with companies in cases involving violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, health-care fraud and financial fraud. With each new corporate resolution, the DOJ announces larger and larger penalties.

Despite the influx of billions of dollars in fines and penalties into the government's coffers, the DOJ's prosecutions of flesh and blood individuals has lagged.

Critics of these cash-based settlements, including judges, politicians and the media, abound.

In response, the DOJ recently made significant changes to its internal policies surrounding corporate investigations and charging decisions, mandating that prosecutors focus on individual civil and criminal accountability, and warning companies that, if a company wants any credit for cooperating with the government, that company must assist the government in its quest to focus on individual accountability.

This new policy was announced in a memorandum entitled ''Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing'' on Sept. 9, 2015, authored by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates (see WSLR, October 2015, page 20).

The Yates Memo

The title says it all. The ''Yates Memo'' posits that ''one of the most effective ways to combat corporate misconduct is by seeking accountability from the individuals who perpetrated the wrongdoing.'' Individual accountability, the memo continues, is important in that it ''deter[s] future illegal activity, it incentivize[s] changes in corporate behavior, . . . ensure[s] that the proper parties are held responsible for their actions, and . . . promote[s] the public's confidence in our justice system.''

The Yates Memo is the first formal announcement of a policy shift that DOJ officials have hinted at during the past year. It represents a refocus from the DOJ's post- Enron tendency to structure corporate settlements in a way that would influence company culture and behavior, and directs prosecutors to focus on individuals from the outset of their investigations.

The new policy is likely to have a significant impact on corporate employees at all levels, companies themselves and those who advise them, because it represents more than just an incremental shift in prosecutorial priorities. It will necessitate a reassessment of how a company under investigation deals with the government, and has the potential to change the dynamic between employees, officers and directors and their employers in internal investigations and perhaps in day-to-day business dealings.

Policy Changes

In truth, the Yates Memo's ''new'' policies exhorting prosecutors to focus their inquiries on individual wrongdoers and requiring civil and criminal prosecutors to work together to achieve both civil and criminal charges and resolutions are not, in fact, new. And, for U.S. Attorney's Offices experienced in prosecuting large-scale corporate investigations, the memo does not represent a big shift in how business gets done.

But the DOJ's requirement that companies actively investigate and disclose individual wrongdoing at all levels before a company will be eligible to receive any credit for cooperation is entirely new and potentially transformative.

Cooperation is now all or nothing—partial credit, where it existed before, is a thing of the past.

In a Sept. 10, 2015, speech at New York University School of Law, at which she publicly announced the policy, Yates stated that, ''if a company wants any consideration for its cooperation, it must give up the individuals, no matter where they sit within the company. And we're not going to let corporations plead ignorance. If they don't know who is responsible, they will need to find out.''

Moreover, the new policy requires that, once a company begins to cooperate against individuals, it is obligated to assist the government in its investigation and prosecution of those individuals, even after any resolution of corporate charges.

Moreover, the requirement of identifying and providing evidence against individual corporate wrongdoers will not be limited to cases in which a company is seeking ''full'' cooperation credit sufficient to result in a nonprosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement, but in all cases in which a company seeks any cooperation credit at all, whether that credit be in the form of a reduced financial penalty, waivers of debarment, or settlement agreements with subsidiaries rather than parent companies.

The new policy also requires that, before a prosecutor can release individuals from liability in connection with a corporate settlement, the prosecutor must show ''extraordinary circumstances.'' If a prosecutor decides not to charge an individual in connection with an investigation, he or she must obtain approval from the relevant U.S. attorney or assistant attorney general supervising the case. The DOJ has said that these approvals will ensure consistent prosecution of individuals and will also be tracked and used to compile data that identifies areas where individual prosecution proves difficult.

The policy also makes clear that civil and criminal division prosecutors are required to consult about investigations from the outset. While the announcement requiring consultation between civil and criminal assistant U.S. attorneys may not be groundbreaking, this heightened cooperation suggests a broadened focus on civil enforcement. In the past, a defendant's ability to pay was a key consideration in bringing individual civil actions.

In her speech explaining the policy shift, Yates emphasized the deterrent value in bringing civil cases against individuals that goes beyond the recovery of money. ''These individual civil judgments will also become part of the corporate wrongdoers' resumes that will follow them throughout their careers.''

Additionally, she noted a goal of changing corporate culture such that accountability for wrongdoing has to be more than the cost of doing business.

Criminal Investigation Strategies Come to the Boardroom

In her speech, Yates further alluded to similarities in the DOJ's pursuit of individuals involved in corporate wrongdoing and investigations with more traditional criminal enterprises. Evoking images of the characters Bud Fox and Gordon Gekko meeting in Central Park in the 1987 movie ''Wall Street,'' Yates noted the desirability of finding a ''cooperating witness, preferably one identified early enough to wear a wire.'' The use of corporate informants shifts the DOJ away from more refined corporate investigation practices of the past; perhaps relying on the historical record and reconstructing ''what happened based on a painstaking review of corporate documents, looking for a smoking gun that most financial criminals are far too savvy to leave behind.''

DOJ lawyers will require that companies that want cooperation credit not only identify, but also essentially become witnesses against, the individual wrongdoer, regardless of the level of that individual actor. The tactic of flipping witnesses up the chain of command will be more frequently applied in corporate investigations, working up from floor trader to managing director.

Underscoring her seriousness, Yates analogized the DOJ's approach to pursuing individuals involved in corporate crimes to a cooperating drug trafficker: ''A drug trafficker . . . can take the stand for the government and testify against a dozen street-level dealers. But if he has information about the cartel boss and declines to share it, we rip up his cooperation agreement and he serves his full sentence.'' Emphasizing an equally demanding playing field for all criminals, she disclaimed that corporations should get ''special treatment as a cooperator simply because the crimes took place behind a desk.''

Collateral Consequences/Widespread Impact

The DOJ might not view the Yates Memo as groundbreaking or having significant impact, because it has always emphasized the goal of prosecuting culpable individuals. However, to the impacted companies and their employees, the requirement that corporations take a more active role in helping the DOJ achieve that goal makes corporate internal investigations more complicated.

Companies and their counsel will have to carefully consider what cooperation looks like and when it occurs under the new policy. While most companies that cooperate with the government understand that the DOJ expects a full and thorough internal investigation and complete cooperation, in the past it may have been able to get cooperation credit and remediate corporate misconduct by instituting new policies and firing culpable wrongdoers. Providing actual evidence against individuals and requiring employees to testify demands a different level of commitment.

Companies will also have to carefully consider the timing of initiating cooperation. Whereas, prior to the Yates Memo, companies might have responded to a subpoena with a swift and sure statement indicating cooperation with the government, a company might need to take some time to conduct more thorough investigations before making that commitment, so that it can assess the impact on its business of a likely demand to cooperate against all those the government identifies as or believes to be individual corporate wrongdoers. The scope of internal investigations may have to be broadened in the search for individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing. If employees feel vulnerable to the threat of prosecution, they may be less inclined to cooperate, making it more difficult for companies to conduct a complete and thorough investigation.

Corporate culture will be tested during an internal investigation. With its ''all or nothing'' standard, the Yates Memo arguably pits the company against its employees, especially mid- and lower-level employees. Potentially culpable high-level employees have always understood that they could be charged, and, most times, they have gotten separate counsel. All employees now know that corporate cooperation credit is conditioned on identifying and turning over names and information on individuals, no matter where they sit in the organization. As such, there may be a chilling effect on open and honest communications between company leadership and employees when the investigation is being conducted.

Only time will tell the extent of the DOJ's willingness to reach deep into an organization for civil or criminal responsibility, and how jarring the new changes will be in reality.

As noted above, Yates has underscored that the DOJ will now mandate that a cooperating company continue cooperating with prosecutors against culpable individuals, even after the terms of the cooperation agreement have been satisfied. Since most recent deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements last for only three years, a corporation must consider its willingness to continue cooperating for the duration of the government's investigation of its employees in both civil and criminal cases. In some cases, it may be preferable to enter into a plea agreement and move forward from the issue.

Finally, given the focus on corporate employees of all levels, corporations will have to double down on their training and enforcement of corporate policies to prevent misconduct. It will be in a company's best interest to ensure that its training programs and processes for monitoring compliance are best designed to prevent misconduct from occurring.

The DOJ's focus on individuals invites speculation into a host of other issues.

For example, it is unclear whether the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has also had its share of high-dollar civil settlements with corporations, will follow the DOJ's lead in defining adequate cooperation. If the SEC does not do so, then the discrepancy in requirements could lead to ''forum shopping'' by corporations under investigation by civil authorities that are considering self-reporting.

Another unclear area is the impact of the Yates Memo on ongoing cases. Yates stated that the policy changes are ''effective immediately.'' She also noted that the new policies will affect cases just getting underway, the impact of which may not be felt for years.

Internal investigations that are not close to resolution may need to be re-examined to determine compliance with the stricter scrutiny required for cooperation credit. Yates stated in an interview that the changes would impact ongoing cases only to the extent that it was ''practicable.'' However, the $900 million General Motors criminal settlement announced just after the Yates Memo was published includes no individual criminal charges.

Yates said that the DOJ would not ''renege on verbal agreements,'' indicating that individual charging decisions were determined prior to the policy change. Counsel involved in current investigations should get clarity on where their case falls on the continuum of practicality.


Yates's memo and speech formally announced a policy shift towards individual accountability. Even though the new focus is on individuals, corporations will be affected by the policy shift as much as, if not more so than, their employees, officers and directors.

Corporate officers should discuss the ramifications of the policy with counsel and take steps to ensure that their companies are positioned to prevent misconduct from occurring, to receive full cooperation credit and to intelligently assess whether the DOJ's all-or-nothing requirement for cooperation might be a less desirable path to follow than a straight plea and fine.

The full text of Yates's memorandum is available at http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download

The full text of Yates's speech as prepared for delivery is available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorneygeneral-sally-quillian-yates-delivers-remarks-new-york-university-school

Originally published in BNA International Inc., a subsidiary of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., U.S.A.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sullivan & Worcester LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sullivan & Worcester LLP
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions