DOJ Announces New Policies And Priorities In Prosecution Of White Collar Crime

Highlights

• The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on May 12, 2025, new investigative and policy priorities, along with changes to current DOJ guidance, that could have a significant impact on the prosecution of white collar crime.
• The announcement represents the broadest and clearest statement yet of the current administration's approach to white collar enforcement.
• In announcing new policies and priorities, DOJ indicated that it was seeking to "strike an appropriate balance" between prosecuting corporate wrongdoing and "minimizing unnecessary burdens on American enterprise."

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) announced on May 12, 2025, new investigative and policy priorities, as well as changes to current DOJ guidance, that could have a significant impact on the prosecution of white collar crime. The announcement represents the broadest and clearest statement yet of the current administration's approach to white collar enforcement.

In a memorandum by the head of DOJ's Criminal Division, Matthew Galeotti, the Department acknowledged that white collar crime will remain a priority, citing "significant threats" to U.S. interests posed by white collar crime and the Department's commitment to rooting out "such insidious conduct." At the same time, DOJ – in a break from prior written pronouncements – observed that "overbroad and unchecked corporate and white collar enforcement burdens U.S. businesses and harms U.S. interests" and cautioned prosecutors to avoid "overreach that punishes risk-taking and hinders innovation." In announcing new policies and priorities, DOJ indicated that it was seeking to "strike an appropriate balance" between prosecuting corporate wrongdoing and "minimizing unnecessary burdens on American enterprise."

The memorandum outlines three "core tenets" for white collar crime prosecutors:

1. focus (outlining "enforcement policies and priorities of this Administration")
2. fairness (emphasizing alternatives to corporate criminal prosecution, particularly for corporations, and outlining paths to leniency based on cooperation and self-disclosure)
3. efficiency (urging prosecutors to "move expeditiously" and announcing that DOJ will impose monitors only when such "heavy-handed intervention" is necessary)

Focus

In setting forth 10 "high-impact areas" for DOJ prosecutors to focus on, the memorandum states that "investigating and prosecuting corporate crime in [these] areas" will have the "greatest impact in protecting American citizens and companies and promoting U.S. interests." Though some areas are familiar and traditional areas of focus for DOJ (e.g., healthcare fraud and money laundering), others reflect the current administration's priorities, including a focus on customs fraud and tariff evasion, cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), gatekeepers (such as financial institutions) that enable illicit transactions and fraudulent practices by "foreign adversary companies," including "Chinese-affiliated companies" and "Chinese Money Laundering Organizations."

The 10 focus areas are:

1. waste, fraud and abuse, including healthcare fraud and federal program and procurement fraud that harm the public
2. trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion
3. fraud perpetrated through variable interest entities (VIEs), including, but not limited to, offering frauds, "ramp and dumps,"¹ elder fraud, securities fraud² and other market manipulation schemes
4. fraud that victimizes U.S. investors, individuals and markets, including, but not limited to, Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, elder fraud, service member fraud and fraud that threatens the health and safety of consumers
5. conduct that threatens the country's national security, including threats to the U.S. financial system by gatekeepers, such as financial institutions and their insiders that commit sanctions violations or enable transactions by cartels, transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), hostile nation-states, and/or foreign terrorist organizations
6. material support by corporations to foreign terrorist organizations, including recently designated cartels and TCOs
7. complex money laundering, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations and other organizations involved in laundering funds used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs
8. violations of the Controlled Substances Act and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including the unlawful manufacture and distribution of chemicals and equipment used to create counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl and unlawful distribution of opioids by medical professionals and companies
9. bribery and associated money laundering that impact U.S. national interests, undermine U.S. national security, harm the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and enrich foreign corrupt officials
10. crimes 1) involving digital assets that victimize investors and consumers, 2) that use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct and 3) that are willful violations that facilitate significant criminal activity; cases impacting victims or involving cartels, TCOs or terrorist groups, or facilitating drug money laundering or sanctions evasion

Notably, the Department also announced in the memorandum that DOJ's Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which Holland & Knight wrote about previously, was being expanded immediately to allow whistleblowers to qualify for awards if their tips lead to forfeiture in many of these same "focus areas," including violations by corporations of federal immigration law or violations related to international cartels. This step further underscores the administration's efforts to encourage and reward credible whistleblowing, an emphasis also expected to continue under current U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) leadership.

Fairness

Consistent with messaging from prior administrations, the new memorandum emphasizes that DOJ's "first priority" is to prosecute individual criminals, whether they be executives, officers or employees.

As to corporate misconduct, the memorandum notes that not all such misconduct "warrants federal criminal prosecution" and emphasizes that civil and administrative remedies are "often appropriate" to address low-level corporate misconduct and "vindicate" American interests. Additionally, the memorandum notes that DOJ has also revised the Criminal Division's Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) to "clarify that additional benefits are available to companies that self-disclose and cooperate, including potential shorter terms."

Under the new CEP, companies that self-disclose, fully cooperate, timely and appropriately remediate, and have no aggravating circumstances will be eligible for a declination, meaning they will not be prosecuted at all by DOJ. Companies that do not self-report to DOJ but meet other criteria (such as full cooperation, timely and appropriate remediation, etc.) will generally be eligible for a non-prosecution agreement (absent egregious or multiple aggravating circumstances) and a reduced fine and not be subject to a corporate compliance monitor. For all other companies, "prosecutors maintain discretion to determine the appropriate resolution including form, term length, compliance obligations, and monetary penalty." But as to monetary penalties, companies will not receive, and DOJ will not recommend to a sentencing court, a reduction of more than 50 percent off the fine under the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The revised CEP also reiterates DOJ's expectations for companies that "fully cooperate" with investigations, including DOJ's expectation that such companies will disclose all relevant, non-privileged facts known to it, including all relevant facts and evidence about all individuals involved or responsible for the misconduct at issue.³

More generally, the memorandum states, corporate criminal resolutions involving agreements with DOJ "should not be longer than three years except in exceedingly rare cases, and Criminal Division prosecutors should assess these agreements regularly to determine if they should be terminated early." Likewise, DOJ directs prosecutors to "review the length of terms of all existing agreements with companies to determine if they should be terminated early."

Efficiency

Finally, in recognition of the significant disruptive impact that federal investigations can have on businesses and individuals (even those not involved in wrongdoing), the memorandum directs prosecutors "to maximize efficiency in all corporate investigations" and "take all reasonable steps to minimize the length and collateral impact of their investigations[.]"

Importantly, the memorandum also disfavors the use of corporate compliance monitors. Under the new policy, monitors must be imposed only when necessary and, when imposed, must be "narrowly tailored to achieve the necessary goals while minimizing expense, burden, and interference with business."

Takeaways

As Galeotti announced in a speech on May 12, 2025, these new policies are intended to "turn[] a new page on white-collar and corporate enforcement," and they could potentially have a significant impact in this regard. There are new incentives for companies to cooperate and self-disclose to DOJ under the new CEP. And the revised CEP provides some clarity in this regard, with a clearer pathway to declination in certain circumstances. Additionally, it is clear that DOJ is returning to a prior policy of disfavoring corporate monitors, as it did in the first Trump Administration. And though many of the new areas of focus align with the administration's core policy priorities, many of DOJ's traditional areas of focus remain on the list of "high impact areas," including healthcare fraud, federal program and procurement fraud, investor fraud and complex money laundering. Even in this fast-changing environment, companies should expect enforcement in these areas – particularly healthcare fraud – to remain active.

Footnotes

1. Sometimes called "pump and dumps," such schemes involve market-manipulating conduct in which schemers purchase securities and then engage in conduct that temporarily and artificially inflates share prices, which schemers then turn around and sell for their own profit. The SEC and state securities regulators frequently conduct parallel investigations and file parallel enforcement actions involving such schemes.

2. Often including insider trading, Ponzi schemes and other market manipulation.

3.Though the SEC has not revised its long-standing Seaboard Factors-based approach to crediting self-reporting and cooperation, many anticipate that the SEC under Chair Paul Atkins will encourage and reward companies that self-report, proactively remediate and cooperate with investigations, though whether that will amount to complete declination or increased use of relatively infrequent deferred- and non-prosecution agreements by that agency remains to be seen.

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.