May 26, 2022

Volume XII, Number 146

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 26, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 25, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 24, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

US Deputy Attorney General Signals Aggressive DOJ Focus on Corporate Crime

At an October 28, 2021, speech before the American Bar Association’s Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, US Deputy Attorney General (Deputy AG) Lisa Monaco re-emphasized the priority placed by current leadership within the US Department of Justice (DOJ) on prosecuting white-collar crime at both the individual and corporate level. Deputy AG Monaco also announced three new actions that DOJ will be taking—effective immediately—to strengthen the way DOJ responds to corporate crime.

While Deputy AG Monaco emphasized that DOJ will continue to focus on individual accountability in white-collar criminal investigations and prosecutions, all of the changes announced focus on the manner in which corporations will be expected to behave—and will be evaluated—in the context of a DOJ investigation.

  • First, to be eligible for any cooperation credit, corporations will now be required to provide DOJ “with all non-privileged information about individuals involved in or responsible for the misconduct at issue.” It will no longer be sufficient for companies to limit such disclosures to those individuals who were “substantially involved” in the misconduct.

  • Second, in evaluating a corporate resolution, prosecutors are now directed to consider “the full range” of prior state or federal “criminal, civil and regulatory” misconduct by a company, rather than limiting such consideration to misconduct of the same type or that is factually related to the misconduct at issue.

  • Third, corporations will once again be regularly subject to the prospect of independent monitorships as part of corporate resolutions. Prosecutors will be free to require monitorships as a condition of resolutions “whenever it is appropriate to do so to satisfy [DOJ] that a company is living up to its compliance and disclosure obligations.”

Taken collectively, the newly announced actions suggest that DOJ will be aggressive in pursuing corporations and underscore the need for companies to “actively review their compliance programs to ensure they adequately monitor for and remediate misconduct.”

IN DEPTH


DOJ’s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations (Principles), first promulgated in 1999 and amended multiple times since, provide the framework by which the conduct of a corporation—including its efforts to cooperate with a federal criminal investigation—are evaluated. Those Principles include guidance on how a corporation’s “past history,” “compliance programs” and efforts at cooperation are assessed, and they provide parameters on the nature and scope of information that a corporation may be required to provide to earn cooperation credit.

While both the Principles themselves and Deputy AG Monaco’s October 28 remarks emphasize DOJ’s focus on individual wrongdoers and “individual accountability,” the new guidance focuses exclusively on how corporations will be evaluated by DOJ in the context of ongoing criminal investigations.

In particular, and in addition to a promised “surge of resources” to help prosecutors investigate and prosecute white-collar crime, Deputy AG Monaco announced three changes to the Principles effective immediately that collectively have the potential to impose substantial new burdens on corporations and create heightened risk of increased penalties and oversight.

1. Companies Must Now Provide Information on All Individuals Involved in the Conduct at Issue

To be eligible for any cooperation credit, corporations will now be required to provide DOJ “with all non-privileged information” about “all individuals involved in the misconduct, regardless of their position, status or seniority.” It will no longer be sufficient for companies to provide information related to those individuals who were “substantially involved” in the conduct at issue. Corporations and their counsel will thus no longer have discretion to draw distinctions based on the magnitude, significance or scope of an employee’s conduct or withhold information about modest or peripheral participants in the conduct under investigation.

As a practical matter, this means that corporations should expect DOJ to heavily scrutinize any disclosures made to the government during a corporate investigation. While prosecutors are not permitted to demand privileged information, they are still more likely to press corporate counsel for additional information, particularly as to the scope of any internal investigation or the identities of employees believed to have knowledge of the alleged misconduct at issue. Prosecutors may also threaten to withhold cooperation credit if they feel that a company has failed to disclose sufficient information regarding any potential wrongdoers or witnesses.

2. Prosecutors Must Now Consider Any Prior Criminal, Civil or Regulatory Issue

In evaluating a corporate resolution, prosecutors will now be directed to consider “the full range” of prior state or federal “criminal, civil and regulatory” misconduct by a company, rather than limiting such consideration to misconduct of the same type or that is factually related to the misconduct at issue. When evaluating a company in the context of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation, for example, DOJ will no longer focus principally on the company’s prior FCPA compliance but will instead look at any prior federal, state or local criminal, civil or regulatory matters the company may have faced and will “assume[] all prior misconduct is potentially relevant.”

As a result, companies with any prior civil, criminal or regulatory issues—however minor or seemingly unrelated to the alleged misconduct at issue—will now likely face increased obstacles, particularly when seeking or negotiating non-prosecution or deferred-prosecution agreements. DOJ’s focus on “repeat offenders” will present particular risks for corporations operating in heavily regulated industries—such as healthcare, finance and energy—where prior regulatory actions may now present obstacles to resolving seemingly unrelated criminal investigations.

For example, DOJ may now look at a healthcare company’s prior dealings with the US Department of Health and Human Services in addressing an unrelated matter when evaluating the fine or penalty to be imposed in resolving a criminal tax investigation. Prosecutors could also look to a financial institution’s prior resolution of a matter with the US Department of the Treasury (or even a state regulator) in determining how to resolve an unrelated criminal FCPA investigation.

Such prior, unrelated civil, criminal or regulatory matters may not only impact the fines and penalties imposed by DOJ in reaching a criminal resolution, but they may also determine the type of resolution DOJ is willing to offer, or, as discussed below, inform DOJ’s decision to require the imposition of a monitor.

3. Monitorships May Be Imposed More Frequently

Corporations will once again be subject to the prospect of independent monitorships as part of corporate resolutions. Citing a shift from the 2018 announcement by then-head of the Criminal Division Brian Benczkowski that “the imposition of a monitor will not be necessary in many criminal resolutions”—and what Deputy AG Monaco described as a sense that “monitorships are disfavored or the exception”—prosecutors will now be free to require monitorships as a condition of resolutions “whenever it is appropriate to do so to satisfy [DOJ] that a company is living up to its compliance and disclosure obligations.”

This is a significant change. Companies will again face the prospect of the scrutiny and expense associated with the imposition of corporate monitorships, which are almost certain to increase in 2022 after several years in which numerous high-profile corporate resolutions did not require imposition of a monitor. For example, in the context of FCPA resolutions, despite record-setting fines and penalties in 2020, not a single monitorship was imposed as part of any resolution (down from nine monitorships imposed as part of FCPA resolutions in 2016). More broadly, no other monitorships were imposed by other units of DOJ’s Fraud Section in 2020, and just one has been imposed in 2021 by the Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit. Deputy AG Monaco made clear she expects that monitorships will be imposed much more routinely.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

First, Deputy AG Monaco’s remarks confirm that corporations and their executives should expect increased DOJ enforcement activity in the white-collar space. Among other things, Monaco noted that DOJ will be “surging resources” to DOJ prosecutors to assist with complex corporate investigations and referenced DOJ’s ongoing and increased use of sophisticated data analytics to investigate and prosecute corporate wrongdoing. Deputy AG Monaco also announced the formation of the “Corporate Crime Advisory Group,” which will provide recommendations regarding additional resources to “assist more rigorous enforcement.”

Second, the need for corporations to actively review compliance programs to ensure they are appropriate to the company’s risk profile and adequate to ensure ongoing compliance has never been greater. Deputy AG Monaco specifically directed companies to undertake such reviews, adding that a failure to do so would “cost them down the line.” She further emphasized the importance of effective corporate compliance programs and warned that DOJ “will ensure that the absence of such programs inevitably proves a costly omission for companies who end up the focus of department investigations.”

Third, companies with any history of regulatory misconduct will need to be particularly cautious as such misconduct—however minor or unrelated to the matter at hand—may now be considered by DOJ should a new issue arise. In particular, such companies may now be subjected to increased DOJ scrutiny, and they may similarly face additional challenges in negotiating a corporate resolution.

Companies should consider taking a number of immediate steps to respond to these significant updates. Companies should proactively assess whether their compliance programs are appropriately designed to address significant areas of risk and whether those programs are operating as intended in practice. Companies should take particular account of any recent litigation, investigation or regulatory matter (as well as their ongoing compliance with any recent resolution of such matter) or ongoing agreement with any state or federal regulator. Finally, companies should also consider whether any ongoing internal investigations need to be adjusted in scope to ensure they are capturing information that DOJ now expects to receive in order to receive cooperation credit.

Co-authored by  Michael S. Stanek, Paul M. Thompson, Sarah E. Walters.

© 2022 McDermott Will & EmeryNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 302
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Edward Diskant Trial Lawyer McDermott Will Emery Law Firm
Partner

Edward (Ted) B. Diskant is a former federal prosecutor and experienced trial lawyer who focuses his practice on representing companies and individuals in a wide range of white collar and regulatory enforcement matters and in complex civil litigation. Ted has extensive experience handling sensitive investigations, with particular expertise in matters involving the anti-bribery laws including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), wire fraud, healthcare fraud, money laundering, and the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). Ted also consults on compliance matters and helps clients design, implement and...

212-547-5754
Julian André Litigation Attorney McDermott Will Emery Law Firm
Partner

Julian L. André focuses his practice on litigation with a particular emphasis on government prosecutions, enforcement actions and investigations, internal investigations, complex civil litigation and appellate matters. He is an experienced trial attorney and former federal prosecutor.

 

Prior to rejoining McDermott, Julian spent six years as an Assistant US Attorney in Los Angeles. While an AUSA, Julian served in the Major Frauds Section, where he investigated and prosecuted complex financial crimes, including embezzlement, securities fraud, healthcare fraud, bank fraud,...

310-551-9335
Benton Curtis Corporate Litigation Attorney McDermott WIll & Emery Law Firm
Partner

Benton (Ben) Curtis is a former federal prosecutor and experienced trial attorney who represents individual and corporate clients in government investigations, as well as in related civil and criminal proceedings that typically involve allegations of health care fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations, and kickback violations.  Ben likewise represents corporations that have been victimized through internal or third-party misconduct, often in the form of an exceptional theft or fraud.  Ben has tried more than 25 federal...

+1 305 329 4442
Justin P. Murphy Regulatory Attorney McDermott Washington DC
Partner

Justin P. Murphy is a partner in the firm’s Regulatory Practice Group. A former federal prosecutor, Justin counsels and represents corporate and individual clients involved in government enforcement of complex antitrust, fraud and all phases of white-collar criminal and related civil matters, including internal corporate investigations, False Claims Act (FCA), Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), e-discovery, data privacy, cybersecurity, securities enforcement, federal grand jury, inspector general investigations and trials and appeals. His focus in criminal antitrust...

202-756-8018
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement