As highlighted in this prior post, in April 2025, shortly after President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a “Legal Advisory” titled “Alert to Businesses on Violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” to remind businesses that “violations of the FCPA are actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law.”
As sure as dogs bark, some commentators pounced suggesting that a “new chapter of FCPA enforcement” has begun as California (and perhaps other states) may become a “new sheriff in town” and bring FCPA-related enforcement actions. (It is sometimes amusing to look back at certain commentary isn’t it).
As noted here, it was all a bit strange and the challenge was issued (and still remains) for anyone to identify any “FCPA-like” enforcement action ever brought by the Attorney General of California or any state for that matter.
Attorney General Bonta has struck again issuing this Legal Alert titled “Alert to Businesses on Violations of Federal Anti-Corruption Laws.”
The narrative continues, there is no Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement.
A recent example, in the aftermath of last week’s elections, was the hope that the “next administration can announce the immediate reinforcement of tools like … the FCPA.” (See here).
Set forth below is an update to a post previously published approximately six weeks ago which provided a brief overview of FCPA enforcement during the second Trump administration.
It is true, that on February 10, 2025 President Trump signed an Executive Order Titled “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security.” As highlighted in this post, several of the substantive issues discussed in the Executive Order had been festering in the FCPA space (and openly discussed by politicians in both parties) for approximately 15-20 years prior.
This recent post highlighted the FCPA enforcement action against Charles Finkel (a former executive of Sicpa (a Swiss technology company which provides governments with banknote security inks and secured identification, traceability and authentication solutions).
In October 2022, Charles Finkel was charged in a criminal complaint filed in the S.D. of New York with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in connection with an alleged bribery scheme in Brazil.
In October 2022, Finkel was arrested and appeared before a judge and released on bail. The judge issued an order directing that filings and docket entries be filed under seal and the case had remained under seal for over four years with numerous continuances filed.
This post highlighted the recent decision by Judge Kathleen Williams (S.D. Fla). granting in part Smartmatic’s Motion to Compel Discovery in connection with its previously filed Motion to Dismiss on the basis of “vindictive and selective prosecution.” (See here for additional background on the FCPA enforcement action).
In her order, Judge Williams stated that there is “some evidence tending to support” the motion to dismiss and listed several factors including the DOJ’s dismissal of the FCPA enforcement action against former Cognizant Technology Solutions executives Gordon Coburn and Steven Schwartz as well as “the Government also elected to close FCPA investigations into multiple companies.”
Much like certain recent FCPA commentary (see here for a prior post), Judge Williams’ reference to these two factors was a bit shallow.
In October 2025, Smartmatic was criminally charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering in connection with an alleged bribery scheme involving the former Chairman of the Commission on Elections of the Philippines. (See here for the prior post).
The allegations involved the same core conduct alleged in a 2024 FCPA enforcement action involving two company executives, among others.
The criminal indictment against Smartmatic was notable in that 2010 was the last time a business organization was criminally indicted for FCPA offenses (as opposed to a criminal information / complaint resolved through a plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement; non-prosecution agreement; or declination with disgorgement).
In March 2026, Smartmatic moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis of “vindictive and selective prosecution.”