The Trump Administration took the white-collar bar by surprise in February with a pair of directives that froze enforcement of the The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and suggested that, once enforcement resumed, the Department of Justice's ("DOJ") enforcement efforts would be significantly narrowed.
For months, it seemed like FCPA enforcement might be a thing of the past. In June, however, DOJ issued a memorandum outlining revised FCPA guidelines. The new guidelines stop short of a total abandonment of FCPA enforcement, although they do mark a shift in the types of conduct and business sectors that are most likely to draw FCPA scrutiny.
While those doing business in foreign countries—and their lawyers—wait to see how the FCPA landscape unfolds in the months ahead, it is clear that the FCPA is not the only regulatory framework of which those who are active in this space need to steer clear. Indeed, two recent court decisions sustaining prosecutions under the honest services wire fraud and money laundering statutes demonstrate that liability for the payment of bribes by or to foreign officials can be prosecuted under several statutes.
Thus, lawyers with clients who do business internationally should not only keep abreast of any future developments in the FCPA enforcement space but should also carefully consider liability under these other statutes.
The Trump Administration's FCPA Enforcement Changes and Priorities
On Feb. 5, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum that directed DOJ to "prioritize investigations related to foreign bribery that facilitates the criminal operations of" cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCO), and "shift focus away from investigations and cases that do not involve such a connection."
Shortly thereafter, on Feb. 10, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14209 (FCPA EO), ordering DOJ to "cease initiation of any new FCPA investigations or enforcement actions, unless the Attorney General determines that an individual exception should be made," and to "issue updated guidelines or policies" concerning FCPA enforcement.
Consistent with these directives, FCPA enforcement largely came to a halt in 2025. According to the Stanford Law Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Clearinghouse, DOJ and the SEC (which also has some FCPA enforcement power) did not institute any new FCPA cases in the first half of 2025, dismissed the prosecution of former executives of Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, closed several investigations without further action (and informed at least two companies that the closure was prompted at least in part by the FCPA EO), and ended a compliance monitorship early.
On June 9, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum outlining DOJ's new FCPA priorities. Under the new guidelines, FCPA investigations and prosecutions must be "carried out in accordance with President Trump's directive by (1) limiting undue burdens on American companies that operate abroad and (2) targeting enforcement actions against conduct that directly undermines U.S. national interests." The memorandum sets forth four non-exhaustive factors for DOJ to consider before initiating FCPA investigations or prosecutions:
- Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations. In Executive Order 14157, President Trump established that a key enforcement priority for his administration is combating cartels and TCOs. The Blanche memorandum directs that a "primary consideration" in deciding whether to pursue an FCPA action is "whether the alleged misconduct (1) is associated with the criminal operations of a Cartel or TCO; (2) utilizes money launderers or shell companies that engage in money laundering for Cartels or TCOs; or (3) is linked to employees of state-owned entities or other foreign officials who have received bribes from Cartels or TCOs."
- U.S. Business Opportunities Abroad. A key theme of the FCPA EO was President Trump's goal to "advance American economic and national security by eliminating excessive barriers to American commerce abroad." The Blanche memorandum explains that "another important factor prosecutors shall consider is whether the alleged misconduct deprived specific and identifiable U.S. entities of fair access to compete and/or resulted in economic injury to specific and identifiable American companies or individuals."
- National Security. The Blanche memorandum follows up on President Trump's finding in the FCPA EO that "American national security depends in substantial part on the United States and its companies gaining strategic business advantages whether in critical minerals, deep-water ports, or other key infrastructure or assets" by directing that "FCPA enforcement will therefore focus on the most urgent threats to U.S. national security resulting from the bribery of corrupt foreign officials involving key infrastructure or assets."
- Serious Misconduct. Finally, in the FCPA EO, President Trump decried previous FCPA enforcement as penalizing "American citizens and business" for "routine business practices in other nations." The Blanche memorandum directs that "FCPA investigations and enforcement actions shall not focus on alleged misconduct involving routine business practices or the type of corporate conduct that involves de minimis or low-dollar, generally accepted business courtesies." Instead, DOJ should focus on "misconduct that bears strong indicia of corrupt intent tied to particular individuals, such as substantial bribe payments, proven and sophisticated efforts to conceal bribe payments, fraudulent conduct in furtherance of the bribery scheme, and efforts to obstruct justice."
Other Statutes Applicable to Bribery Involving Foreign Actors
The goal of the Blanche memorandum is clearly to curtail FCPA enforcement generally and to ensure that the statute is used only in ways consistent with the Trump Administration's overall priorities for DOJ.
The FCPA, however, is not the only tool prosecutors have to combat international bribery—they may also rely on honest services wire fraud and money laundering, as highlighted by two recent decisions.
Honest Services Wire Fraud: 'United States v. Lopez.' Under 18 U.S.C. §1346, a "scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services" gives rise to liability under the wire fraud statute. A recent Second Circuit opinion makes clear that foreign commercial bribery is cognizable under this statute.
In 2023, the government indicted a sports marketing company and one of its executives for honest services wire fraud, alleging that they paid bribes to FIFA officials to obtain lucrative broadcasting rights. United States v. Full Play Grp., S.A., 690 F. Supp. 3d 5 (E.D.N.Y. 2023). After unsuccessfully moving to dismiss the indictment by arguing the statute did not apply to foreign commercial bribery schemes (i.e., bribery of foreign employees of foreign non-government employers), the defendants were convicted. The district court vacated their convictions, however, finding that Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023) and Percoco v. United States, 598 U.S. 319 (2023) "signal[led] limits on the scope of the honest services wire fraud statute" and that it therefore did not extend to foreign commercial bribery. Full Play, 690 F. Supp. 3d 5, at 8.
In July, the Second Circuit reversed, finding that neither Percoco nor Ciminelli foreclosed application of Section 1346 to the bribes in question. United States v. Lopez, 143 F.4th 99 (2d Cir. 2025). The question in Percoco was "whether a private citizen who had influence over government decision-making, but who did not hold public office, could be convicted of honest services wire fraud," and the Supreme Court had "declined to hold that a person outside public employment could never have a fiduciary duty to the public."
The Second Circuit found this holding irrelevant, as it "did not address commercial actors or employment relationships like those at issue here." The court similarly rejected the district court's reliance on Ciminelli, noting that the decision in that case addressed a different statute.
Instead, the court found that the defendants' "conduct, i.e., engaging in bribery, is an example of the core conduct proscribed by §1346." The court rejected defendants' argument that "a foreign employee's duty to his foreign employer does not yield a cognizable duty under the honest services doctrine," concluding that "the presence of foreign defendants or an international component to a scheme does not categorically remove an offense from the ambit of" Section 1346.
Lopez by its terms applies to foreign commercial bribery, rather than bribery of foreign government actors, and so may not immediately fill gaps in FCPA enforcement. But given the Trump Administration's focus on protecting American enterprise generally and on cartels specifically, which routinely bribe commercial actors, prosecutors may seek to apply this theory more aggressively.
Money Laundering: 'United States v. Sun.' Federal law prohibits laundering the "proceeds" from "specified unlawful activity" ("SUA"). See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(1). "Proceeds" is broadly defined as "any property derived from or obtained or retained, directly or indirectly, through some form of unlawful activity," and the list of crimes that constitute SUA is similarly broad, including bribery when prohibited under state law, 18 U.S.C. §1961(1), or bribery of a public official prohibited under foreign law, 18 U.S.C. §956(c)(7)(B)(iv). As a result, laundering "proceeds" of a bribe can subject a defendant to liability under the money laundering laws, even if the bribe itself may escape FCPA scrutiny.
The ongoing prosecution of Linda Sun, who served in roles in New York state government, including as deputy chief diversity officer for Andrew Cuomo and deputy chief of staff to Kathy Hochul, illustrates the scope of money laundering liability. Sun is alleged to have acted on behalf of the Chinese government while in those roles; for example, Sun allegedly "worked...to shape the public statements of Politican-1 and Politician-2 to align with the PRC government's political priorities" and "obtained and publicly presented an official NYS proclamation for PRC Official-1 without authorization from her employer." United States v. Sun, 2025 WL 1296456, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025).
In exchange, Sun is alleged to have "received substantial economic and other benefits from representatives of the PRC government and the CCP, including the facilitation of millions of dollars in transactions for the PRC-based business activities of SUN's husband," after which she "laundered the monetary proceeds of this scheme to purchase" real estate and various luxury automobiles. See Sun, Superseding Indictment, ¶ 16. Among other things, DOJ indicted her for conspiracy to commit money laundering in connection with money transfers stemming from these bribes.
Sun moved to dismiss, noting that "the specific [New York] statute cited in the superseding indictment [as the money-laundering SUA] criminalizes giving bribes, but not the receipt of bribes." Sun, 2025 WL 1296456, at 13. As a result, Sun argued, the funds with which she was alleged to have been bribed could not constitute "proceeds" of an SUA defined only as bribe-giving, as opposed to bribe-receiving, and because the funds were therefore not "proceeds" of an SUA, the alleged transactions involving those funds cannot constitute money laundering. The court acknowledged the "common sense to this argument," but found that because "proceeds" is defined as "any property derived from . . . some form of unlawful activity," any funds "used to bribe a public servant" like Sun are "certainly money 'derived from' a form of unlawful activity, namely, bribing a public servant."
Although the Sun case presents the inverse of an FCPA claim (a foreign actor bribing a U.S. official), the court's application of the broad definition of "proceeds" in a money-laundering prosecution serves as a clear reminder that money laundering remains a hook for prosecutors to pursue charges related to bribery schemes involving foreign actors.
Conclusion
Only time will tell exactly what FCPA enforcement will look like in the remaining years of the Trump Administration, but DOJ's revised guidelines make clear that there is no hall pass for conduct involving the international payment of bribes.
The Lopez and Sun cases also serve as reminders that the FCPA is not the only statute at play when prosecutors bring charges based on foreign bribery.
Companies who do business internationally—especially if that business has any nexus to regions in which cartels operate or critical national security sectors—should be cognizant of these other avenues of criminal exposure and should continually vet their compliance programs to ensure that they are not running the risk of liability for their overseas dealings.
--
This article first appeared in the August 14, 2025 edition of the "New York Law Journal" © 2025 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
Resources
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.
