On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Division issued a memorandum (available here) outlining its updated enforcement priorities and policies for prosecuting corporate and white-collar crimes. While the DOJ is clearly signaling a more business-friendly approach to corporate investigations, it nonetheless is making clear that the most pressing threats to U.S. interests will still be actively investigated and prosecuted.

Key Enforcement Priorities

To that end, the DOJ identified ten “high-impact areas” on which it intends to focus its white-collar investigations:

1. Waste, fraud, and abuse, including health care fraud and federal program and procurement fraud that harm the public fisc; 
2. Trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion;
3. Fraud perpetrated through VIEs [variable interest entities] including offering fraud, “ramp and dumps,” elder fraud, securities fraud, and other market manipulation    schemes; 
4. Fraud that victimizes U.S. investors, individuals, and markets including Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, elder fraud, servicemember fraud, and fraud that threatens the health and safety of consumers; 
5. Conduct that threatens the country’s national security, including threats to the U.S. financial system by gatekeepers, such as financial institutions and their insiders that commit sanctions violations or enable transactions by Cartels, TCOs [transnational criminal organizations], hostile nation-states, and/or foreign terrorist organizations; 
6. Material support by corporations to foreign terrorist organizations, including recently designated Cartels and TCOs;
7. Complex money laundering, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations, and other organizations involved in laundering funds used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs; 
8. Violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including the unlawful manufacture and distribution of chemicals and equipment used to create counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl and unlawful distribution of opioids by medical professionals and companies; 
9. Bribery and associated money laundering that impact U.S. national interests, undermine U.S. national security, harm the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and enrich foreign corrupt officials; and
10. Crimes involving digital assets that victimize investors and consumers, use them in furtherance of other criminal conduct, or willfully facilitate significant criminal activity (e.g., involving cartels, terrorist groups, or facilitating drug money laundering or sanctions evasion).

These identified “high-impact areas” are consistent with the Trump Administration’s previous pronouncements regarding the scope and focus of DOJ enforcement priorities and places an emphasis on offenses that otherwise harm government programs, the economy and national security.  Non-US entities should therefore be extra vigilant in their internal compliance to avoid this heightened enforcement risk.

Notably, the widely reported ‘FCPA pause’ (described here) is also reflected in the new priorities.  But, while a slightly lower priority in overall ranking, it remains in the top 10 and should remain a top enforcement concern for (1) non-US companies competing in international markets, and (2) US companies selling sensitive or controlled technologies and materials, at risk of interacting with designated foreign terrorist organizations or criminal organizations, and/or operating in jurisdictions in conflict with current foreign policy interests.  We will provide further analysis when the updated FCPA enforcement guidance is announced.

Self-Reporting Incentives

The DOJ also announced a new Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) (available here, with a decision flowchart) that has been refined to clarify benefits for companies that self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate misconduct, including the possibility of shorter resolution terms and a declination path even if DOJ receives a whistleblower submission provided the company voluntarily discloses within 120 days of being alerted internally.  

The DOJ is seeking to continue to incentive self-reporting by allowing companies to earn a declination of charges, rather than just a presumption of one, if certain requirements are met, each of which reserve significant discretion in determining whether the conduct involved “aggravating circumstances” and whether remediation efforts were “timely and appropriate.” 

While it remains to be seen how the policy will work in practice, this is a clear signal from the DOJ to the business community that self-policing of illegal and improper conduct will go a long way in avoiding potential criminal charges. To that end, internal compliance and remediation should be a paramount priority to all companies, especially those in high regulated industries or that otherwise may implicate the “high-impact areas.”

Streamlined Investigations  

Finally, the DOJ stated that it will be implementing measures intended to expedite and streamline corporate investigations:

• Prosecutors are directed to move expeditiously in investigating and making charging decisions, with oversight to prevent unnecessary delays including the Criminal Division working with the relevant sections to track the status of pending investigations to “ensure that they do not linger and are swiftly concluded.”
• The use of independent compliance monitors will be limited to situations where the company’s future risk profile remains heightened, existing regulatory oversight is deemed insufficient to protect against future violations, and/or the company’s compliance program requires additional time to improve.  (Memorandum available here).  To provide oversight and consistency in application of these factors, imposing an independent compliance monitor will require internal DOJ approval up to the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) level within the Criminal Division.  
• Existing corporate monitorships will be proactively reviewed to determine their continued necessity on a case-by-case basis, with early termination made available. 
• The DOJ will conduct individualized assessments in each case, considering the severity of misconduct, the company’s cooperation, and the effectiveness of its compliance program.
• Corporate resolutions—such as non-prosecution agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, and guilty pleas—will be tailored to the facts of each case, with terms generally not exceeding three years except in rare circumstances.
• Ongoing reviews of existing agreements may result in early termination for companies demonstrating substantial remediation and reduced risk profiles since the misconduct occurred.

The DOJ’s recognition of the harsh impact of prolonged investigations on an ongoing business is significant.  While it is not clear whether prosecutors will be able to move more expeditiously in investigating complex frauds, which often involved millions of pages of documents and many witnesses, it is notable that the DOJ is at least recognizing the burden on companies. 

It is also significant that DOJ seems to be less inclined to require costly and invasive monitorships as part of a corporate resolution.  Again, it appears that a company’s ability to show it can effectively self-police and remediate will be well positioned to avoid the costly impact of having a DOJ-imposed monitor. 

Implications for Businesses
  
Businesses operating in high-risk sectors—such as health care, financial services, pharmaceutical, international trade, and digital assets—should pay particular attention to these developments and ensure their compliance frameworks are up to date. The DOJ’s continued emphasis on efficient investigations underscores the importance of proactive risk management and timely response to potential issues raised through internal reporting channels.   There will be a premium on credible and timely internal investigations. 

While pursuing this approach will require an upfront commitment of time and resources, DOJ’s stated goal of minimizing the undue burdens on legitimate businesses provides a path to reducing the length, overall expense, and disruption of federal criminal investigations.  

ABOUT BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Baker Botts is an international law firm whose lawyers practice throughout a network of offices around the globe. Based on our experience and knowledge of our clients' industries, we are recognized as a leading firm in the energy, technology and life sciences sectors. Since 1840, we have provided creative and effective legal solutions for our clients while demonstrating an unrelenting commitment to excellence. For more information, please visit bakerbotts.com.