DOJ Reaffirms Anti-“Piling On” Policy for Corporate Defendants — With an Exception

Last week, the Head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Criminal Division, Matthew R. Galeotti, instructed DOJ personnel to continue the first Trump administration’s anti-“piling on” policy. Galeotti’s memorandum, titled “Guidance on Coordinating Corporate Resolution Penalties in Parallel Criminal, Civil, Regulatory, and Administrative Proceedings,” in large part echoes the policy on corporate enforcement coordination that was established in 2018, but with a significant caveat.

Corporations often are subject to parallel enforcement by multiple federal agencies, federal and state authorities, and even multiple countries. In May 2018, during President Trump’s first term, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein explained in a speech that federal prosecutors should avoid “piling on” corporations — a football reference to jumping on the pile when the opponent is already tackled — in order to avoid unnecessary and duplicative monetary penalties. To avoid instances of piling on, he directed that federal prosecutors should coordinate with other DOJ components and other federal, state, local, or foreign enforcement authorities in resolving corporate misconduct. The 2018 policy was added as section 1-12.100 of the Justice Manual.

Galeotti’s memorandum now provides a sequel, which addresses the same subject of coordinating corporate resolutions and is largely in stride with the 2018 policy. Galeotti does not break with Rosenstein’s anti-“piling on” approach and, in fact, uses portions of the six-page directive to cheer DOJ’s coordination with other authorities. For example, the memorandum states that coordination with foreign authority “not only enhances the global fight against transnational crime but it can also serve to effect justice in the United States and in jurisdictions in which the harm caused by these crimes is most acutely experienced.”

However, the thrust of Galeotti’s pronouncement is to highlight a significant caveat to Rosenstein’s policy: victim compensation. The memorandum advises federal prosecutors that, while it is well and good to coordinate across the DOJ and with other authorities to avoid levying unnecessary penalties against corporate defendants, such coordination may not come at the cost of victim compensation. “[P]rosecutors should prioritize recoveries for and assistance to victims of crime,” says the Criminal Division Head, and follow two guiding principles when coordinating with other U.S. enforcement authorities: (1) prosecutors should not credit penalties by other authorities if it would forego restitution or other compensation for victims of the underlying crime with compensable losses; and (2) prosecutors should not credit penalties by other authorities that would — if paid to DOJ — be placed into a victim support mechanism like the Crime Victims Fund, unless the other authority would place the funds into the same or similar victim support mechanism.

The memorandum takes a similar approach for coordinating with foreign authorities, instructing prosecutors not to credit penalties in cases where DOJ is best equipped to channel the funds to the victims of the underlying crime or to a crime victim support fund. The policy does, however, provide for additional consideration of the interests of the foreign jurisdiction where the crime occurred and the effects of the crime may be most acute, and sets forth seven “additional non-exhaustive” factors for federal prosecutors to balance, such as the equities of authorities involved and DOJ’s general enforcement practices and priorities.

In any circumstance, Galeotti’s pronouncement makes clear that corporations wishing to benefit from the anti-“piling on” policy bear the responsibility to timely and proactively coordinate with DOJ and other authorities. These efforts by the company must be “meaningful” and occur “well before” resolutions by any authority are finalized.

In sum, the newest Head of the Criminal Division has crafted a policy update that is generally aligned with DOJ policy under the first Trump administration but with an emphasis on restitution, signaling that victim compensation will be prioritized and protected when it comes to resolving criminal matters. Corporations under criminal investigation should take note, particularly those investigated in areas like healthcare fraud, where cross-authority resolutions and significant victim compensation are common outcomes.

We here at Enforcement Edge will continue monitoring enforcement policy. Please reach out to the authors or any of their colleagues in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice group with any questions.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2025 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.