Several prior posts (here, here, here) have discussed various aspects of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) – a law enacted in 2023 to – as the narrative goes – fill a “gap” in the FCPA given that the FCPA only captures the-so-called “supply” side of foreign bribery and not the so-called “demand-side” of foreign bribery.
Whether FEPA was even needed was an open question as the DOJ has long used other criminal statutes (most often money laundering laws) to criminally charge “foreign officials” in connection with alleged bribery schemes.
Even so, if you advocated for a new law and marshalled it through the legislative process, you probably want to see the law enforced.
Recently, thirteen members of Congress sent this letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. The letter states:
“We urge the Department of Justice to robustly enforce the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), a vital tool to protect American businesses from extortion, ensure that foreign officials who demand bribes from U.S. companies abroad are held to account, and advance the United States’ global leadership in the fight against corruption.
Unanimously adopted in the House and the Senate, FEPA authorizes the Department to prosecute any foreign official who demands a bribe from a U.S. company, an American, or from any company listed on a U.S. stock exchange. Under FEPA, prosecutors can target foreign officials who demand bribes from U.S. companies abroad, ensuring American firms are not punished for refusing to pay bribes and can operate on a level playing field.
Robust enforcement of FEPA is central to advancing key Administration priorities, including those outlined in President Trump’s February 2025 Presidential Memorandum on “Defending American Companies and Innovators from Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties” and the Department’s May 2025 white-collar crime enforcement plan, “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime.”
Aggressively prosecuting FEPA cases can have positive impacts across the entire U.S. economy, but especially on the energy, mining, and defense sectors by reducing their longstanding and significant exposure to foreign demands for bribes.
We urge the Department to urgently and fully realize its commitment to prioritize FEPA cases with national security implications, including those involving foreign adversaries, sanctions evasion, and corruption that undermines U.S. firms abroad. By bringing early and visible cases, the Department can demonstrate our national resolve to end foreign corruption and deter future abuse.
Not surprisingly, there is no mention in the letter that since FEPA was passed the DOJ has brought several enforcement actions against alleged “corrupt” foreign officials using other criminal statutes. See here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Here is what I would like to see regarding FEPA.
The law states that “not later than 1 year after the date of enactment … and annually thereafter, the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of State as relevant, shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and post on the publicly available website of the Department of Justice, a report:
“(A) focusing, in part, on demands by forein officials for bribes from entities domiciled or incorporated in the United States, and the efforts o foreign governments to prosecute such cases;
(B) addressing United States diplomatic efforts to protect entities domiciled or incorporated in the United States from foreign bribery, and the effectiveness of those efforts in protecting such entities;
(C) summarizing major actions taken under this section in the previous year, including enforcement actions taken and penalties imposed;
(D) evaluating the effectiveness of the Department of Justice in enforcing this section; and
(E) detailing what resources or legislative action the Department of Justice needs to ensure adequate enforcement of this section.”
A few times, I have reached out to the DOJ asking for such a report or the link to such a report on the DOJ’s website and never received a response.
