Top Menu

As We Say, Not As We Do


In its “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” the Department of Justice lists various factors it will use to assess “whether, and to what extent, the corporation’s compliance program was effective at the time of the offense, and is effective at the time of a charging decision or resolution, for purposes of determining the appropriate (1) form of any resolution or prosecution; (2) monetary penalty, if any; and (3) compliance obligations contained in any corporate criminal resolution (e.g., monitorship or reporting obligations).”

Among the questions the DOJ will ask pursuant to the CEP are: does a company have a process for tracking various information relevant to compliance; does a company monitor various aspects relevant to compliance; and does a company measure various aspects relevant to compliance.

Several other DOJ policy documents could also be cited which stand for the same propositions and in recent months the DOJ “onboarded” an individual into its Corporate Enforcement, Compliance & Policy Unit (a dedicated group within the Fraud Section) who “brings incredible expertise in the use of data analytics.”

Ironic then that the Government Accountability Office (GAO – a legislative branch agency that provides auditing, evaluative, and investigative services for Congress) recently issued a report in which it found the DOJ deficient in all of the above areas in responding to Congressional inquiries.

Continue Reading

Deputy Attorney General Monaco Releases A Memo Titled “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group”


Last week Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco issued a 15 page memo to DOJ personnel titled “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group.” (See here for Monaco’s related speech and see here for a recent speech by Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite which discussed, in part, the memo as well).

A future post will provide analysis and commentary regarding the memo, but first this post summarizes the memo.

Continue Reading

Is It Too Much To Ask For The DOJ FCPA’s Website To Be (Reasonably) Current And Thus Accurate?


The DOJ has a specific website devoted to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

On the page you will find a purported chronological list and alphabetical list of Enforcement Actions.

With any free website (let alone a government website), there is probably not an expectation that the website be updated every day or perhaps every week as developments occur.

However, is it asking too much for the DOJ to keep its FCPA website reasonably current – and thus accurate?

As highlighted below, there have been several developments to individual FCPA enforcement actions that happened several months ago, in some cases, years ago that simply are not reflected on the DOJ’s FCPA website.

Continue Reading

Time Spent On The DOJ’s FCPA Website


I recently spent some time on the DOJ’s FCPA Website and looked at all “Enforcement Actions” involving individuals from 2018 to the present.

Many of the separately listed “Enforcement Actions” involve multiple individual defendants and some individual enforcement actions are listed in more than one year.

By my estimation though, the DOJ’s FCPA website – from 2018 to the present – contains information about 175 individuals and set forth below are some interesting statistics.

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes