Citing the need to strike a balance between "overbroad and unchecked corporate and white-collar enforcement [that] burdens U.S. businesses and harms U.S. interests" and "[u]nchecked fraud in U.S. markets and government programs [that] robs hardworking Americans and harms the public fisc," on May 12, 2025, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued guidance outlining the Criminal Division's enforcement priorities and policies for prosecuting corporate and white-collar crime in the second Trump administration. The memorandum, "Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime," is titled after the three tenets that will guide white-collar enforcement going forward and (1) outlines 10 high-impact areas of white collar crime the Criminal Division will prioritize investigating and prosecuting, (2) reiterates DOJ's commitment to prosecuting corporations and individuals, (3) directs the Criminal Division to implement policies to maximize efficiency in corporate investigations, and (4) announces a forthcoming monitor selection memorandum that will narrow the use of independent compliance monitors.
"Focus:" Enforcement Priorities
The memorandum identifies the following "high-impact" priorities for white-collar investigation and prosecution:
- Waste, fraud, and abuse, including health care fraud and federal program and procurement fraud that harms the public fisc;
- Trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion;
- Fraud perpetuated through VIEs, including, but not limited to, offering fraud, "ramp and dumps," elder fraud, securities fraud, and other market manipulation schemes;
- Fraud that victimizes U.S. investors, individuals, and markets including, but not limited to, Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, elder fraud, servicemember fraud, and fraud that threatens the health and safety of consumers;
- 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, TCOs, hostile nation-states, and/or foreign terrorist organizations;
- Material support by corporations to foreign terrorist organizations, including recently designated Cartels and TCOs;
- Complex money laundering, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations, and other organizations involved in laundering funds used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs;
- Violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics 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;
- Bribery and associated money laundering that impacts U.S. national interests, undermines U.S. national security, harms the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and enriches foreign corrupt officials; and
- As provided in the Digital Assets DAG Memorandum: crimes (1) involving digital assets that victimize investors and consumers; (2) that use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct; and (3) willful violations that facilitate significant criminal activity. Cases impacting victims, involving cartels, TCOs, or terrorist groups, or facilitating drug money laundering or sanctions evasion shall receive highest priority.
"To demonstrate the Division's focus on these priority areas," the memorandum also amends the Criminal Division's Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program to reflect these enforcement priorities, including corporate procurement fraud, sanctions offenses, violations of the Controlled Substances Act, and trade, tariff and customs fraud.
"Fairness:" Prosecuting Corporations and Individuals
First and foremost, the memorandum makes clear that DOJ's "first priority is to prosecute individual criminals," because "[i]t is individuals—whether executives, officers, or employees of companies—who commit these crimes, often at the expense of shareholders, workers, and American investors and consumers." And recognizing that "[n]ot all corporate misconduct warrants federal criminal prosecution," the memorandum notes that prosecution of individuals, as well as corporate civil and administrative remedies, often suffice to address low-level corporate misconduct.
Second, to encourage companies to develop and maintain effective corporate compliance programs and to voluntarily self-disclose misconduct to the government, the memorandum directs the Criminal Division to revise the Criminal Division's Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) to clarify that prosecutors must consider all forms of resolution, including non-prosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements, when making an individualized assessment about the appropriate disposition of an investigation, and provide for additional benefits available to companies that self-disclose and cooperate, including paths for potential declination and fine reductions.
"Efficiency:" Streamlining Corporate Investigations and Narrowly Tailored Use of Monitors
Importantly, the memorandum recognizes that "investigations into corporate crime can linger for years and, at times, with little meaningful progress," and that "investigations can also significantly interfere with day-to-day business operations and cause reputational harm that may at times be unwarranted." It directs prosecutors to "move expeditiously to investigate cases and make charging decisions," and to "take all reasonable steps to minimize the length and collateral impact of their investigations." Toward that end, the Criminal Division will track investigations to ensure they "do not linger and are swiftly conducted."
In addition, the memorandum recognizes that independent compliance monitors must only be imposed when necessary—specifically, when a company cannot be expected to implement an effective compliance program or prevent recurrence of misconduct on its own. In order to ensure appropriate implementation of monitors, a forthcoming new monitor selection memorandum will clarify what factors prosecutors must consider when determining whether a monitor is appropriate and how to apply those factors, and ensure that when a monitor is necessary, the scope of review is narrowly tailored.
Key Takeaways
- DOJ's white-collar enforcement priorities include a comprehensive list that encompasses much of the areas of white-collar investigations that we have seen in prior administrations. We should expect to see continued enforcement of DOJ's bread-and-butter white-collar priorities, such as healthcare and securities fraud, as well as an uptick in trade and tariff investigations.
- DOJ intends to offer greater carrots to companies who voluntarily self-disclose misconduct and cooperate with government investigations, including declinations and non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements.
- We should expect limited use of independent compliance monitors in corporate criminal resolutions going forward.
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.
