Skipping the Conference But Heard Loud and Clear: DOJ’s “Department-Wide” Message to the White Collar Bar

On Day 1 of the ABA White Collar Crime Institute — where U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials traditionally address the defense bar directly — DOJ was notably absent for the second year in a row. But even as attendees were picking up their badges, DOJ still managed to command the room. In a press release issued on March 10, 2026, DOJ announced its “first-ever Department-wide corporate enforcement policy” (the Department-Wide Policy) applicable to all corporate criminal cases, per Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. No podium required.

Conference panels poised to debate voluntary disclosures, corporate cooperation, and enforcement trends suddenly have something new to dissect and discuss: a Department-Wide Policy that may change the landscape entirely — or not at all.

A Department-Wide Playbook

Historically, several DOJ components each ran their own corporate enforcement policies (CEPs), with varying terms and incentives. But now it appears the old component-specific policies are gone, as the new policy supersedes those currently in effect (with a carve-out for those relating to antitrust). The Department-Wide Policy builds squarely on the foundation of the Criminal Division’s CEP, taking the framework developed over the past decade and applying it across the board to all corporate criminal cases. The core premise remains familiar: companies that voluntarily self-disclose misconduct, fully cooperate, and undertake timely remediation may receive declinations, meaningful sentencing credit, or other reduced penalties.

The policy sets up three tiers of outcomes.

At the top sits the full declination. The Department-Wide Policy states that DOJ will not prosecute a company when it voluntarily self-discloses to an appropriate DOJ criminal component, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately remediates, and faces no aggravating circumstances. Aggravating factors — think serious or pervasive misconduct, significant harm, or a recent prior resolution for similar conduct — can knock a company out of this tier, although prosecutors retain discretion to recommend a declination anyway if the cooperation and remediation are strong enough. One catch: even companies that earn a declination must still disgorge ill-gotten gains and pay restitution or other compensation to victims.

The middle tier covers “near miss” situations where companies cooperate and timely remediate but otherwise fall short of a full declination, including because of delayed disclosures or the presence of aggravating factors. To encourage even imperfect cooperation, the Department-Wide Policy provides benefits to such companies including a non-prosecution agreement (absent particularly egregious circumstances), a term under three years, no independent compliance monitor, and a fine reduction of 50% to 75% off the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines range.

At the bottom sits the third tier, covering companies that do not voluntarily self-disclose but still cooperate or remediate to some degree. Prosecutors keep discretion over the form and terms of any resolution, but the policy creates a presumption that reductions come off the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines range. In considering monetary penalties for these companies, DOJ will weigh the effectiveness of the company’s compliance program, the quality and timing of cooperation, and the steps taken to fix the underlying problem.

Reinforcing DOJ’s Emphasis on Collaboration and Consistency

DOJ frames its Department-Wide Policy as “promoting uniformity, predictability, and fairness” throughout white collar enforcement. This echoes DOJ's recent emphasis on collaboration and coordination across components.

For corporations, the shift to a Department-Wide framework may have practical implications. Companies weighing voluntary disclosure have historically faced a frustrating uncertainty: will the DOJ component that receives a disclosure reward cooperate the same way as the one that ends up prosecuting the case? By adopting a uniform policy, DOJ signals that similar conduct should yield consistent outcomes regardless of where within DOJ a case ultimately lands. The Department-Wide Policy drives the point home by specifying that a company’s good faith disclosure to one component still qualifies for a declination even if another component later inherits or pursues the matter.

The policy also underscores DOJ’s continued reliance on voluntary self-disclosure as a central enforcement tool and turns up the pressure on companies to act fast. Companies confronting potential misconduct now face even greater incentive to evaluate disclosure decisions quickly and structure internal investigations with DOJ’s expectations in mind. The message is clear: build a compliance program that detects problems early — and come forward before DOJ comes knocking.

In Absentia — But Unmistakably Present

Coincidental or not, DOJ’s announcement of a major new enforcement policy on the opening day of the ABA White Collar Crime Institute will likely shape — if not dominate — conference discussions. Panels debating voluntary disclosure, corporate cooperation, and enforcement trends suddenly have a new Department-Wide Policy to analyze. In that sense, DOJ delivered its message to the white collar bar without stepping onto the stage — announcing a policy designed to promote coordination and transparency while leaving practitioners to interpret its implications on their own. In absentia — but unmistakably present.

We will continue to monitor DOJ’s corporate enforcement policies and priorities here on Enforcement Edge. For questions about this case or its implications, please contact the authors or any member of Arnold & Porter’s White Collar Defense & Investigations practice group.

* Bryan Borodkin contributed to this Blog. Bryan is an associate in Arnold & Porter’s New York office.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 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.