Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Carrot Replaces Stick: Corporate Crime Enforcement In the Trump Administration
Elections have consequences, and the election of President Trump has resulted in a significant shift in law enforcement priorities. Corporate enforcement activity is at lows not seen in decades, despite an overall increase of almost 40% in federal criminal cases. This is a product of a change in priorities, both in terms of types of offenses and types of offender: more focus on prosecuting individuals instead of entities and more emphasis on drug, violence, and immigration offense rather than business crimes. In a couple of areas where there may be increased business crime enforcement activity reflected in some of the aggregate numbers — Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and crypto currency — the actual cases nonetheless reflect the administration's reordered priorities. So, for the time being, there will be almost unprecedented opportunity to achieve favorable resolutions for corporate clients.
The New Policies By the Numbers
In April 2017, then Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Trevor N. McFadden announced at the ACI Annual FCPA Conference that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was going to be focusing on violent crime, and in September 2018, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo saying that the DOJ has "set clear goals … reducing violent crime, homicides, opioid prescription and drug overdose deaths." These are primarily individual offenses, so by shifting resources to these areas, enforcement activity against corporate entities looks to be reduced.
For those corporate crimes DOJ chose to pursue, it also signaled a more conciliatory approach to resolutions. In March 2018, at the ABA White Collar Crime National Institute Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein declared that the DOJ wanted to "avoid imposing penalties that disproportionately punish innocent employees, shareholders, customers and other stakeholders" and promised that the DOJ would try to stop multiple law enforcement agencies from "piling on" corporate fines. Section 1-12.100 of the United States Attorneys' Manual was updated reflecting this approach.
This premium content is locked for Business Crimes Bulletin subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.