Over the past week, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") unsealed its first Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") enforcement action and issued its first declination since the pause in FCPA enforcement mandated by President Donald Trump's February 10, 2025 Executive Order ("February Executive Order")1 and the subsequent issuance of updated FCPA enforcement guidelines, the Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) ("June Guidelines").2
As we noted in our recent client alert,3 the June Guidelines directed FCPA investigations and enforcement actions to focus on a non-exhaustive list of factors that align with the administration's stated priorities: eliminating cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs); safeguarding U.S. business competitiveness; advancing U.S. national security; and prioritizing investigations of serious misconduct as opposed to routine business practices in other nations. The conduct involved in the indictment and in the declination does not appear to squarely fit into the four named factors, suggesting that the FCPA Unit will not be strictly confined by these factors in practice.
The post-pause declination also appears to follow the requirements of the DOJ's revised Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy ("CEP"),4 under which companies will receive a declination—not just a presumption of a declination—for voluntarily self-reporting, cooperating and remediating violations of the FCPA (although it is not clear that the matter would have been resolved differently under the prior version of the CEP).
Unsealing of First Post-Pause FCPA Indictment
On August 11, 2025, the DOJ unsealed its first FCPA indictment since the pause in FCPA enforcement mandated by the February Executive Order.5 The indictment describes conduct largely similar to matters that were pursued by the FCPA Unit prior to the pause, though aspects of the case align to some degree with the policy goals expressed in the June Guidelines.
The indictment charges two Mexican businessmen, Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez and Mario Alberto Avila Lizarraga, for their alleged involvement in a bribery scheme to retain and obtain more than $2.5 million in contracts with the state-owned Mexican oil company Petróleos Mexicanos ("PEMEX") and its exploration and production subsidiary, PEMEX Exploración y Producción ("PEP").6 Both of the individuals charged are Mexican citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States who reside in Texas.
A separate DOJ motion related to Mr. Rovirosa's conditional release notes that he has "ties to Mexican cartel members and that he was previously involved in violent conduct in Mexico," a claim that does not appear in the indictment itself and does not appear directly relevant to the bribery allegations.7
The indictment alleges that between approximately June 2019 and October 2021, Mr. Rovirosa and Mr. Avila, with the help of at least three unindicted co-conspirators, orchestrated several schemes to bribe officials of PEMEX and PEP to secure lucrative contracts for Mr. Rovirosa's businesses.8 Mr. Rovirosa owned, controlled or was otherwise associated with six privately owned Mexican energy companies.9 Mr. Avila worked for the benefit of Mr. Rovirosa and his companies.10
According to the indictment, at the direction of Mr. Rovirosa, Mr. Avila allegedly paid approximately $150,000 worth of bribes in the form of cash payments and luxury items—such as a Louis Vuitton handbag, Hublot watches and a $26,000 treadmill—to PEMEX and PEP officials with the goal of obtaining and retaining contracts for Mr. Rovirosa's companies.11 As a result of the bribe payments, PEMEX and PEP officials allegedly: (1) directed other PEMEX and PEP employees to favorably resolve an audit related to some of Mr. Rovirosa's companies so that those companies could obtain additional business with PEMEX and PEP; (2) ensured that certain of Mr. Rovirosa's companies were awarded a roads and platforms work contract with PEMEX and PEP; and (3) intervened in the bidding process to award a contract with PEMEX and PEP to other Rovirosa companies related to the mechanical integrity of ground installations.12 As a result, the indictment asserts that Mr. Rovirosa's companies were awarded approximately $2.5 million worth of PEMEX and PEP contracts.13
The indictment asserts jurisdiction over both defendants under the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA on the basis that they are "domestic concerns," as both defendants reside in Texas and are lawful permanent residents of the United States. A significant portion of the evidence described in the indictment is comprised of WhatsApp messages between Mr. Avila and PEMEX or PEP officials, many of which Mr. Avila allegedly sent or received at the direction of Mr. Rovirosa while Mr. Avila was within the Southern District of Texas. In the cited messages, Mr. Avila and the PEMEX and PEP officials discussed, among other things, securing a favorable audit resolution for Mr. Rovirosa's companies, awarding the roads and platforms contract to certain of Mr. Rovirosa's companies, and awarding the mechanical integrity contract to other of those companies—as well as the related payments from Mr. Rovirosa and Mr. Avila.14
First Post-Pause FCPA Declination Under DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy
Last week, the DOJ also issued its first FCPA declination pursuant to the CEP since the pause in enforcement, declining to prosecute a U.S.-based company for possible FCPA violations arising out of its agents' alleged activities in India.15 According to the letter, employees of the company's subsidiary authorized improper payments to officials at state-owned banks in India in order for the banks to refer their customers to the subsidiary's products. The DOJ issued the declination on the basis of the company's timely and voluntary self-disclosure (which occurred in 2024, during the prior administration); its cooperation with the DOJ; the nature and seriousness of the offense; the company's remediation efforts; the absence of aggravating circumstances; and the company's agreement to disgorge approximately $4.7 million in profits from the conduct. The declination letter describes conduct very much in the heartland of cases that would have received a declination prior to the June Guidelines.
Key Takeaways for Companies From These Recent FCPA Enforcement Actions
As we noted in our client alert regarding the DOJ's June Guidelines,16 the DOJ appears poised to continue some FCPA enforcement activity under the current administration. In light of the first indictment and declination following the FCPA enforcement pause, companies should consider:
- Given the DOJ's stated prioritization of cartels and TCOs, the recent indictment may be an indication that conduct in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America will receive greater scrutiny by U.S. law enforcement authorities. Companies should ensure that appropriate compliance resources are devoted to their activities in the region.
- The relatively small total value of the alleged bribe payments in the indictment—$150,000—is a reminder that U.S. authorities are not limiting their attention to "blockbuster" matters but rather will still pursue run-of-the-mill cases similar to those that were pursued prior to the pause.
- While the June Guidelines noted that FCPA enforcement should not penalize "routine business practices in other nations,"17 the indictment relating to the provision of a Louis Vuitton handbag, Hublot watches and a $26,000 treadmill suggests that "routine business practices" do not include luxury gifts, and U.S. enforcers will continue to pursue such cases where gifts are of a value that arguably could influence the behavior of the recipient.
- The DOJ's reliance on Mr. Avila's WhatsApp messages as the primary source of evidence in the indictment should serve as a reminder of the importance placed on "off channel" communications sources by the DOJ and that companies need to maintain clear policies on the use of messaging applications for business purposes and retain records of appropriate communications.18
- Interestingly, there is no explicit indication in the indictment that the relevant companies were competing with U.S. companies or that U.S. companies were harmed in any way, despite the June Guidelines' emphasis on limiting undue burdens on American companies that operate abroad.19 And, as noted above, any alleged connections to cartels seem unrelated to the conduct at issue.
- Similarly, the declination bolsters the conclusion that the DOJ will continue to pursue enforcement actions for conduct that falls outside the factors outlined in the June Guidelines.
- Finally, the declination demonstrates that the DOJ will continue to issue declinations under the CEP for companies that self-disclose potential FCPA violations, fully cooperate, remediate and disgorge profits relating to the improper conduct.
Future enforcement actions will no doubt provide additional insight into the DOJ's considerations for opening, investigating and resolving FCPA cases as well as how such considerations may or may not relate to the factors outlined in the June Guidelines.
Footnotes
1. Exec. Order, Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Enforcement to Further American Economic and
National Security (February 10, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/pausingforeign-corrupt-practices-act-enforcement-to-further-american-economic-and-national-security/.
See WilmerHale, President Trump and Attorney General Bondi
Announce Significant Shift in FCPA and Other Corporate Enforcement
Priorities (February 11, 2025), https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20250211-president-trump-and-attorney-general-bondi-announce-significant-shift-in-fcpa-and-other-corporate-enforcement-priorities.
2. Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General, Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (June 9, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1403031/dl.
3. WilmerHale, Department of Justice Announces FCPA Guidelines (June 10, 2025), https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20250610-department-of-justice-announces-fcpa-guidelines.
4. DOJ, Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, JUSTICE MANUAL § 9-47.120 (Updated May 12, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400031/dl?inline.
5. Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa, 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1.
6. Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa, 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1.
7. Mot. To Impose Certain Conditions of Release, United States v. Rovirosa, 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2025), ECF No. 11. See also Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa; Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Two Mexican Nationals Charged for Bribing State-Owned Energy Officials (August 11, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-mexican-nationals-charged-bribing-state-owned-energy-officials.
8. Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa, 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1, ¶ 12.
9. Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa, 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 4-5.
10. Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa, 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 4-5.
11. Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa, 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 12, 15-16.
12. Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa, 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1, ¶ 13.
13. Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa, 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1, ¶ 14.
14. Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa, 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 18-21, 23-26, 29, 31-35, 40-51, 54-58.
15. U.S. Department of Justice Letter (Aug. 7, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1410761/dl?inline.
16. WilmerHale, Department of Justice Announced FCPA Guidelines (June 10, 2025), https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20250610-department-of-justice-announces-fcpa-guidelines.
17. Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General, Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (June 9, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1403031/dl.
18. DOJ, Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, JUSTICE MANUAL § 9-47.120 (Updated May 12, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400031/dl?inline.
19. Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General, Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (June 9, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1403031/dl.
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.
