The DOJ has long talked about how “greater transparency benefits everyone” (see here).
In this May 2017 speech, a high-ranking DOJ official talked about “the importance of transparency in our anti-corruption prosecutions.”
In this August 2017 speech, a high-ranking DOJ official stated: “We are taking additional steps to enhance our enforcement of the FCPA against both corporate and individual actors, and to promote transparency in doing so.”
In announcing its November 2017 FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy (see here) the DOJ talked about greater “clarity about our decision-making process” and the “advantage of the policy for businesses is to provide transparency about the benefits available if they satisfy the requirements.”
Against this backdrop, if the DOJ is truly committed to transparency and clarity in the FCPA context, why does it continue to play cat and mouse games with the business community about terms and conditions it uses in describing its own enforcement policies?