As UK and US white-collar enforcement agencies reaffirm their commitment to joint working, corporates face evolving compliance expectations, enhanced international cooperation, and ongoing differences in enforcement practice. This post explores what the latest SFO and DOJ developments mean for businesses navigating cross-border investigations.
1. Continued collaboration on each side of the Atlantic
On 27 June 2025, the SFO and DOJ released a short joint statement reaffirming their commitment to collaborate in tackling financial crime (read the official press release here). The discussion focused on updated white collar crime policies, mutual encouragement of voluntary self-disclosure, and steps to expedite investigations for swifter justice.
The meeting between SFO Director Nick Ephgrave and DOJ Criminal Division Head Matthew Galeotti signals alignment in enforcement priorities—but at present remains more a matter of tone rather than structure.
At this stage, the announcement is best understood as a reinforcement of ongoing policy alignment, rather than a fundamental shift in approach.
2. Evolving Enforcement Landscape: Shared Themes, Distinct Systems
Both jurisdictions have recently set out updated enforcement frameworks, signaling common priorities around corporate accountability, voluntary self-reporting and efforts to streamline investigations.
US: Senior DOJ officials have recently made public statements reaffirming that fighting white collar and corporate crime remains a core part of the DOJ's mission. To demonstrate that commitment, the DOJ has released refreshed guidance that expands the benefits that entities may receive from voluntary self-reporting and cooperation and increases the scope of areas where whistleblowers may receive financial rewards. One significant refinement is that the DOJ intends to prioritise cases to vindicate US interests. For example, in recent guidance concerning FCPA investigations and prosecutions, the DOJ emphasised, among other things, cases where the conduct deprived a US company of the fair ability to compete or where the conduct involved a business or infrastructure that was important to US interests. Where the conduct does not involve US interests, the guidance is to leave enforcement to the foreign counterparts or appropriate regulator. (see our analysis of the new FCPA guidelines here). Viewed in that light, it remains imperative that the DOJ will continue to collaborate closely with foreign governments with whom the agency has traditionally had close working relationships.
UK: Aligning with the US/UK joint commitment, the recently published SFO Annual Report 2024–25 refers to ongoing efforts to strengthen cooperation with international agencies and gradual improvement in investigation timelines (for a detailed analysis, see our recent piece covering the SFO's 2024-2025 Annual Report). Although a number of SFO investigations highlighted in the annual report have a more domestic focus, the agency's recent statements would suggest that this is not a deliberate change in focus and that international cooperation in relation to global investigations remains on the enforcement agenda. Charges recently brought in an international bribery case, along with raids on overseas premises conducted in conjunction with overseas investigators, tend to support this view.
The joint commitment paves the way for continued close collaboration. Despite the commitment to joint working, both agencies retain unique legal frameworks and enforcement tools. While the US and UK agencies share similar language particularly around early engagement, remediation and voluntary disclosure, important differences in enforcement philosophy and legal infrastructure remain. For instance, the US model provides the DOJ with extensive discretion in negotiating the terms of any corporate resolution, including the type of resolution, the monetary sanctions and corporate undertakings. The SFO, by contrast, requires judicial oversight of DPAs and operates within narrower statutory constraints. Both agencies encourage self-reporting, but the incentives, timing, and consequences can differ significantly. These divergences must be factored into any cross-border compliance or disclosure strategy.
3. Looking Ahead: What Does This Mean for Corporates?
For companies active in both jurisdictions, several practical points emerge:
- Anticipate continued engagement between authorities: While no formal bilateral structures have been announced, closer alignment in tone and expectations signals the potential for more harmonised engagement in cross border investigations.
- Rising compliance expectations: Both regulators expect early self-reporting, swift investigation responses, and comprehensive remediation efforts. Internally, that means robust digital readiness, strong whistleblower procedures and investigation protocols.
- Persistent structural differences: Distinct approaches to DPAs, self-reporting guidance and evidence disclosure mean corporate strategies must be tailored to each jurisdiction.
- Increasing scrutiny: The SFO and DOJ's most recent guidance and approach indicate greater expectations not only of misconduct detection and disclosure, but also the timelines and effectiveness of companies' responses when issues arise.
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.
