Global Anti-Corruption Insights: Summer 2025

With the return of President Donald Trump to the White House came a new approach to enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). In February 2025, President Trump issued an executive order “pausing” most FCPA enforcement for a period of 180 days. Then, in June, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued new guidelines for FCPA enforcement, effectively lifting the pause while signaling the types of criminal FCPA violations on which the DOJ would and would not focus its attention.

So far this year, neither the DOJ nor the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has announced any new FCPA enforcement actions. Some previously initiated FCPA prosecutions against individuals have been dropped, as others have moved forward. On the corporate side, some compliance monitorships and deferred prosecution agreement terms have ended early and certain investigations of corporate misconduct reportedly have closed, though others reportedly remain open.

Below, we highlight significant policy and case developments concerning the FCPA and other federal laws used in bribery cases, along with a few anti-corruption updates from around the world.

FCPA Enforcement in the Trump Administration: Back With a Twist? DOJ Issues New FCPA Guidelines Following Trump Executive Order

On June 9, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the Guidelines). These new Guidelines came on the heels of a February 10, 2025 Executive Order by President Trump Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security. Although the Guidelines do not officially lift President Trump’s 180-day “pause,” they suggest that FCPA enforcement now may move forward, albeit in a manner consistent with the administration’s priorities and new DOJ procedures.

At a conference on June 10, 2025, the Head of DOJ’s Criminal Division, Matthew R. Galeotti, summed up the “through-line” of the Guidelines as “requir[ing] the vindication of U.S. interests.” Indeed, the Guidelines attempt to tailor FCPA enforcement to limit “undue burdens” on U.S. companies operating abroad and to prioritize enforcement actions involving conduct that “directly undermines U.S. interests.” To that end, the Guidelines provide a “non-exhaustive” list of factors that prosecutors must consider when evaluating whether to pursue FCPA investigations and enforcement actions, many of which track DOJ’s stated white-collar enforcement priorities. Galeotti made clear that DOJ’s FCPA considerations are not limited to the enumerated factors, and that “[n]o one factor is necessary or dispositive.”

Key focus areas of the Guidelines include:

• Elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, consistent with prior directives from President Trump and Attorney General Bondi
• Safeguarding U.S. companies’ competitiveness, including by prioritizing the prosecution of FCPA violations that harm U.S. businesses and enforcing the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, which criminalizes the receipt of bribes by foreign officials (i.e., the “demand side” of foreign bribery)
• Threats to U.S. national security, such as when “corruption occurs in sectors like defense, intelligence, or critical infrastructure”
• 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,” rather than “alleged misconduct involving routine business practices or the type of corporate conduct that involves de minimis or low-dollar, generally accepted business courtesies”

The Guidelines require that all new FCPA investigations and enforcement actions be authorized by the head of DOJ’s Criminal Division or by a more senior DOJ official. Additionally, the Guidelines emphasize that prosecutors should “proceed as expeditiously as possible” and “consider collateral consequences, such as the impact on a company’s employees, throughout an investigation, not only at the resolution phase.”¹

SEC Chair Paul Atkins told a U.S. Senate subcommittee in June that the SEC is not “directly affected” by the DOJ’s new FCPA Guidelines. However, earlier in the year, the Acting Deputy Director of SEC’s Enforcement Division suggested that new leadership within the Enforcement Division may follow the DOJ’s lead with respect to FCPA enforcement. Public reports by companies under FCPA scrutiny suggest that both DOJ and SEC have taken the president’s executive orders into account in their handling of investigations this year.²

DOJ Ends Corporate Compliance Monitorship, Deferred Prosecution Agreements Early

In April, DOJ terminated the three-year independent corporate compliance monitorship for Glencore, a global commodity trading and mining firm that had pleaded guilty in 2022 to conspiracy to violate the FCPA, among other charges, in connection with business in multiple African and Latin American countries.

DOJ also has allowed other companies to exit deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) ahead of schedule this year: Honeywell UOP, a U.S.-based manufacturer and technology company whose DPA concerned FCPA issues in Brazil; ABB Ltd., a Swiss-based technology firm whose DPA concerned FCPA issues in South Africa; and Stericycle, a U.S.-based waste management company whose DPA concerned FCPA issues in multiple Latin American countries all had charges dismissed months before their DPA terms were set to expire.

DOJ’s move to curtail an FCPA compliance monitorship dovetails with changes to the department’s official policy regarding monitorships. In May, the DOJ Criminal Division revised its monitor selection policy to narrowly tailor — i.e., limit but not eliminate — the use of outside monitors. The guiding principle of the revised monitor policy is that the benefits of the monitor should outweigh its costs, in terms of both monetary expenditures and burdens on a company’s operations. Prosecutors, therefore, must consider the following factors when determining whether to impose a monitor: (1) the risk of recurrence of criminal conduct that significantly impacts U.S. interests, particularly national security interests; (2) the availability and efficacy of other independent government oversight; (3) the efficacy of the compliance program and culture of compliance at the time of the resolution; and (4) the maturity of the company’s controls and its ability to independently test and update its compliance program. If a monitor is imposed, the monitorship must be tailored to be proportionate with the severity of the misconduct and the company’s size and risk profile; must foster cooperation and collaboration among the monitor, company, and DOJ; must mitigate against monitor overreach; and must ensure appropriate DOJ oversight.³

Some Individual FCPA Prosecutions Dismissed, Some Continue

Since the announcement of new FCPA enforcement policies, DOJ has voluntarily dismissed some of its pending FCPA prosecutions against individuals, while other prosecutions continue to move forward.

For example, in April, DOJ moved to dismiss its case against former technology company executives Gordon Coburn and Steven Schwartz, who were slated to go to trial on FCPA charges related to their alleged participation in a scheme to pay bribes to help their employer build a campus in India. But also in April, DOJ notified a federal judge in Pennsylvania that, following a “detailed review” in accordance with President Trump’s executive order, the government still intends to proceed to trial against Charles Hunter Hobson, a former coal company executive accused of scheming to bribe Egyptian officials to obtain government contracts. In July, federal prosecutors told a court that, following a review, they obtained authorization to proceed to trial against Carl Zaglin on FCPA charges related to a bribery scheme to obtain lucrative contracts with the Honduran National Police. DOJ also secured a guilty plea earlier this year from Christian Patricio Pintado Garcia, who admitted to conspiracy to commit money laundering in connection with bribes paid to officials at Ecuadorian state-owned insurance companies.

State AG, U.S. Congressional Committee Signal Interest in Taking on FCPA Violations

Although only the DOJ and SEC have the power to enforce the FCPA, other authorities in the United States have suggested that they will step in to fill any enforcement gap that may result from the new administration’s policies.

In April, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a legal alert reminding businesses operating in California that, regardless of the Trump administration’s priorities for FCPA enforcement, it is illegal under California law to make payments to foreign government officials to obtain or retain business. The California AG noted that violations of the FCPA may be actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law, which was “enacted to preserve fair business competition and protect consumers, [and] prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices.”

In February, the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party sent a letter to the American Chamber of Commerce in the People’s Republic of China cautioning against FCPA violations during any pause in FCPA enforcement by the Executive Branch. The letter stressed that “Congress retains full authority to investigate corrupt acts by U.S. businesses in China” and stated that “any company contemplating relying on the recent executive order to loosen internal policies or procedures regarding improper payments to government officials in the PRC should think twice.”

Second Circuit Holds, in FIFA Case, That Honest Services Fraud Statute Can Cover Foreign Commercial Bribery

On July 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated the convictions of two defendants who had been acquitted, post-trial, of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud in connection with the “notorious FIFA corruption scandal.”

The Second Circuit ruled that the District Court was wrong to throw out jury verdicts on the ground that the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1346, does not cover foreign commercial bribery — here, bribes paid to international soccer officials in exchange for media rights. The appeals court explained that “the nature of Defendants’ conduct (bribery), coupled with the character of the relationship between the bribed officials and the organizations to whom they owed a duty of loyalty (employer-employee relationships), place the schemes presumptively within the scope of § 1346.” The court went on to say that “the foreign identity of certain organizations” — including FIFA and member associations — “does not remove the schemes from the ambit of § 1346, especially where, as here, relevant conduct occurred in the United States, for the benefit of United States-based executives and organizations …, and the victims were multinational organizations with global operations and significant ties to the United States.” United States v. Lopez, 23-7183-cr (L) (2d Cir. July 2, 2025). This case serves as a reminder that while FCPA does not proscribe commercial bribery, other U.S. criminal laws may.

DOJ Obtains Convictions in Domestic Bribery Cases

While the FCPA targets bribery of foreign officials, bribery of domestic government officials is of course also illegal in the United States. Despite dropping federal corruption charges against New York City’s mayor, DOJ has followed through on prosecutions of both bribe takers and payers this year.

In January, former U.S. Senator Robert Menendez was sentenced to 11 years in prison for bribery, foreign agent registration, and obstruction of justice offenses. His wife, who also was convicted on related federal bribery charges, awaits sentencing.

In February, a jury found Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan guilty of bribery, conspiracy, and wire fraud in connection with a scheme to help pass legislation favorable to Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), an electric utility company. ComEd previously had admitted to federal criminal and civil violations for having arranged jobs and contracts for associates of Speaker Madigan. Speaker Madigan has been sentenced to seven and a half years in prison.

In June, DOJ announced four individual guilty pleas and two corporate deferred prosecution agreements stemming from a decade-long scheme to bribe a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) government contracting officer in exchange for help with the award of more than $550 million in USAID contracts. Bribes funneled to the contracting officer included cash, laptops, expensive tickets to an NBA game, a country club wedding, down payments on residential mortgages, cell phones, and jobs for relatives. The officer pleaded guilty to bribery of a public official, while three businessmen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery of a public official, with one also pleading guilty to securities fraud. Vistant and Apprio, Inc. — the two contracting companies involved in the scheme — admitted to bribery, conspiracy, and securities fraud as part of their three-year deferred prosecution agreements. The companies also resolved related Civil False Claims Act investigations with DOJ.

International Developments

In March, following President Trump’s directive limiting FCPA enforcement, authorities in the United Kingdom, France, and Switzerland announced a new task force to strengthen collaboration on efforts to tackle international bribery and corruption. The U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO) subsequently announced that it also had joined the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre. The SFO also updated its guidance on corporate cooperation and deferred prosecution agreements.

On the enforcement front, in April, the SFO charged U.K.-based United Insurance Brokers Limited with failing to prevent international bribery in connection with reinsurance contracts in Ecuador, and disclosed an investigation into Blu-3 and former associates of the global construction firm Mace Group on suspicion of bribes paid in relation to the construction of a data center in the Netherlands. For more from the United Kingdom, see Arnold & Porter’s UK Economic Crime Group: Enforcement Update.

Brazil’s Comptroller General of the Union, a civil anti-corruption enforcement agency, announced a decision to fine the Japanese company Toyo Engineering and its Brazilian subsidiary the equivalent of nearly $100 million for bribery and fraud related to the “Operation Car Wash” corruption scandal involving Brazil’s state-owned energy company, Petrobras. The companies have said they will challenge the decision.

In other news from around the globe, Chinese authorities, in the first half of 2025, made revisions to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, China’s primary law for regulating commercial bribery. Their revisions include the introduction of long-arm jurisdiction over conduct outside China’s borders. Chinese authorities also published a final version of Compliance Guidelines for Healthcare Companies to Prevent Commercial Bribery Risks. For more information, see Arnold & Porter’s China Compliance Update.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2025 All Rights Reserved. This Newsletter 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.