FCPA Enforcement Priorities Continue to Drive Outcomes: An Update on Developments in the Last Year

In remarks on September 30, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Tysen Duva, head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, stated that FCPA enforcement is “really ramping up” and that DOJ intends to increase its enforcement efforts under the framework established by then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2025 memorandum, issued before Blanche’s appointment as U.S. Attorney General. Those comments, coming more than a year after the issuance of the memorandum, provide a timely opportunity to assess how DOJ has applied those priorities in practice.

In June 2025, DOJ issued updated Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the FCPA Guidelines or the Blanche Memorandum), signaling a recalibration of FCPA enforcement priorities. As we previously discussed, the FCPA Guidelines identified four key areas of focus: eliminating cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs); addressing conduct detrimental to U.S. companies; protecting U.S. national security interests; and pursuing “serious misconduct.” The FCPA Guidelines also emphasized the Administration’s focus on individual accountability. 

DOJ further refined its approach in March 2026 through its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP), which offers enhanced incentives for companies that voluntarily disclose misconduct and cooperate with government investigations. (For further discussion of the CEP, see our prior analysis here.)

This article reviews a selection DOJ’s FCPA enforcement activity since the issuance of the Blanche Memorandum and CEP.  Although many of the matters discussed below originated before these policies were announced, they nonetheless  provide meaningful insight into DOJ’s current enforcement approach.  To date, the enforcement record reflects a range of corporate resolutions, a notable concentration on matters involving alleged bribery schemes in Latin America, and a continued emphasis on individual accountability. 

The Corporate Resolution Spectrum

Declinations: 

DOJ’s August 2025 decision to decline to prosecute Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) for paying $1.47 million to Indian officials marked the first resolution under the FCPA Guidelines. (See our prior discussion here.) DOJ declined to prosecute Liberty Mutual under a predecessor policy to the March 2026 CEP because it (1) voluntarily and timely disclosed the misconduct, (2) fully cooperated with DOJ, (3) did not engage in serious misconduct, (4) engaged in timely remediation, (5) made significant improvements to its compliance program, (6) did not present any aggravating factors, and (7) disgorged ill-gotten profits. 

In March 2026, DOJ declined to prosecute Balt SAS (Balt), a French medical device manufacturer, and its U.S. subsidiary for allegedly bribing a French official, marking the first declination under the March 2026 CEP. As part of the resolution, Balt agreed to disgorge approximately $1.2 million in ill-gotten profits and entered into a parallel resolution with French authorities. DOJ cited to several factors supporting the declination under the CEP, including Balt’s (1) timely, voluntary self-disclosure, (2) cooperation, (3) prompt remediation, and (4) lack of aggravating circumstances.  

Both the Liberty Mutual and Balt declinations highlight the potential benefits of timely and voluntary self-disclosure under the CEP. The Balt resolution also illustrates that cross-border cooperation with foreign enforcement authorities remains an important component of FCPA enforcement notwithstanding shifts in DOJ’s enforcement priorities.

Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA): 

In July 2026, DOJ announced a corporate FCPA resolution with the Scoular Company (Scoular), an Omaha-based agricultural supply chain company. (Please see our prior coverage here.) According to DOJ, Scoular directed third-party customs brokers to pay more than $400,000 to Mexican officials at the U.S. border to facilitate the importation of corn and other agricultural products into the United States and avoid more than $6.5 million in customs duties. 

Unlike Balt, Scoular did not receive credit under the CEP because it failed to make a voluntary and timely self-disclosure. DOJ nevertheless reduced the penalty by 25% from the bottom of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range and agreed to resolve the matter through a DPA based on Scoular’s subsequent cooperation and remediation efforts. 

The Scoular resolution provides insight into the benefits available to companies that meaningfully cooperate and remediate misconduct. More broadly, the resolution reinforces that compliance program enhancements, timely remediation, and meaningful cooperation remain important factors in DOJ’s resolution analysis, even when a company is ineligible for the full benefits available through voluntary self-disclosure.

Corporate Indictment: 

In August 2024, DOJ indicted executives of Smartmatic, a voting technology company, for allegedly bribing an elections official in the Philippines. In October 2025, DOJ obtained a superseding indictment adding Smartmatic as a corporate defendant, marking the first corporate indictment for FCPA violations since 2010. Smartmatic has moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing, among other things, that the prosecution is inconsistent with the FCPA Guidelines.  

The Smartmatic matter is a rare example of a corporate indictment under the FCPA, illustrating the potential consequences when DOJ concludes that a company is not entitled to a resolution under the CEP. The matter also highlights ongoing questions regarding what DOJ considers “serious misconduct” under the FCPA Guidelines. Although recent resolutions provide some insight into the factors DOJ considers relevant, the precise contours of that category remain uncertain.

Focus on TCOs and Latin America 

Several recent enforcement actions highlight DOJ’s continued focus on bribery schemes, particularly where the conduct allegedly intersects with cartels or TCOs.

In November 2025, TIGO Guatemala (TIGO), a subsidiary of Millicom International Cellular, entered into a three-year DPA and agreed to pay over $118 million to resolve allegations that it made monthly cash payments to members of the Guatemalan Congress between 2012 and 2018 to secure telecommunications legislation favorable to TIGO. Notably, some of the funds used to pay the bribes were allegedly derived from narcotrafficking proceeds, placing the conduct squarely within DOJ’s stated enforcement priorities.

The July 2026 Scoular resolution (discussed above) is also noteworthy because DOJ alleged that some of the funds provided to Mexican customs officials ultimately flowed to Mexican cartels. In the press release announcing the DPA, DOJ expressly linked the conduct to the FCPA Guidelines, stating that “American businesses that engage in any cross-border trade bear a significant amount of responsibility to do so without benefitting those cartels and without threatening our national security.” 

Relatedly, Carlos Leopoldo Alvelais, a customs broker who paid bribes on Scoular’s behalf, was sentenced in July 2026 to 18 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a $250,000 fine. Alvelais has appealed. 

More broadly, several of the post-Blanche Memorandum enforcement actions have arisen in Latin America. While some of those matters have involved alleged cartel or TCO connections, others have not, suggesting that the region may continue to feature prominently in DOJ’s FCPA docket even outside the contexts most directly associated with the Blanche Memorandum’s enforcement priorities. For example, in April 2026, Alfonso Wilson, the Chief Executive Officer of Oil Technologies Consortium, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the FCPA. According to the criminal information, Wilson bribed employees of Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), Mexico’s state-owned petroleum company, and one of its subsidiaries to help a Texas company secure a $540 million drilling equipment contract. 

Similarly, on September 18, 2026, energy trader Javier Aguilar received a 48 month prison sentence and was required to pay over $7.2 million in connection with his February 2024 conviction for conspiracy to violate the FCPA, substantive FCPA violations, and money laundering. Aguilar bribed Ecuadorian officials and, like Wilson, made improper payments to PEMEX employees. Statements from U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Joseph Nocella and Assistant Attorney General Duva not only reinforce DOJ’s emphasis on Latin America, but also its focus on conduct that “tilts the playing field and threatens American businesses.” 

Enforcement Actions Against Individuals 

In addition to the prosecutions of Carlos Leopoldo Alvelais, Alfonso Wilson, and Javier Aguilar, recent developments underscore DOJ’s continued focus on individual accountability.  

Berko Found Guilty of Violating the FCPA

Asante Kwaku Berko, a former Executive Director in Goldman Sachs’ Investment Banking Division, was indicted in the Eastern District of New York in August 2020 for conspiracy to violate the FCPA, substantive FCPA violations, and conspiracy to commit money laundering relating to a Ghanaian power plant. Following a nine-day trial in July 2026, a federal jury returned a unanimous verdict convicting Berko on all counts. 

While Berko’s case began long before the current Administration took office, Berko sought dismissal based on the Administration’s February 10, 2025 Executive Order temporarily pausing certain aspects of FCPA enforcement. DOJ’s decision to proceed with the prosecution, and its post-trial statements, suggest that DOJ viewed the case as consistent with the priorities outlined in the FCPA Guidelines. 

In announcing the conviction, Assistant Attorney General Duva stated that Berko “abused his position at a world-renowned American investment bank by helping bribe Ghanaian officials, so he and his co-conspirators, including senior executives at a Turkish company, could make money. Today’s conviction makes clear that criminals who undermine our country’s interests by corrupting foreign governments and cutting off fair competition will face the full force of the Department of Justice.” 

SEC Enforcement

DOJ’s enforcement activity, however, is only part of the story. Recent remarks by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or the Commission) Enforcement Director David Woodcock suggest that predictions of a meaningful retreat from anti-corruption enforcement may be overstated. Although the SEC no longer maintains a standalone FCPA unit, Woodcock emphasized that the Commission will continue to pursue foreign bribery cases where they implicate agency priorities, including significant investor harm, substantial bribery, national security concerns, senior management involvement, recidivism, and meaningful books-and-records or internal controls failures. He also signaled continued scrutiny of related compliance and controls issues, including accounting and disclosure misconduct, anti-money laundering (AML) and sanctions-related controls, and broader governance and compliance failures. Together, recent DOJ and SEC statements point not to a withdrawal from anti-corruption enforcement, but to a more targeted deployment of enforcement resources toward high-impact misconduct.

Conclusion

The past year’s enforcement activity suggests that the FCPA Guidelines and the CEP are influencing charging and resolution decisions, even though many of the underlying investigations predated those policies. One year after the issuance of the FCPA Guidelines, DOJ’s enforcement activity generally aligns with our expectations that DOJ would seek to reorient, rather than substantially reduce, FCPA enforcement. Rather than abandoning traditional anti-corruption enforcement, DOJ appears to be directing enforcement resources toward matters that can be connected to the Administration’s stated priorities, including cartel activity and TCOs, national security concerns, significant economic harm, and broader compliance and governance failures. 

The past year has also revealed increasing convergence among anti-corruption, AML, sanctions, national security, accounting, and corporate controls enforcement, suggesting that regulators are increasingly focused on underlying misconduct and its consequences rather than traditional enforcement silos. At the same time, recent developments demonstrate that the scope and application of those priorities remain an active subject of debate. Recent enforcement actions have prompted questions regarding the interpretation of the priorities outlined in the Blanche Memorandum and the extent to which DOJ’s charging and resolution decisions align with its stated objectives. 

Companies operating in high-risk jurisdictions should remain vigilant. Recent developments suggest that FCPA exposure remains significant, even as DOJ’s enforcement priorities continue to evolve. Companies should continue to invest in risk-based compliance programs, promptly investigate potential misconduct, carefully evaluate self-disclosure options, and implement effective remediation when issues arise. As the past year’s resolutions demonstrate, voluntary self-disclosure may provide the greatest benefits, but meaningful cooperation, remediation, and compliance enhancements continue to play an important role in DOJ’s charging and penalty determinations.

If a defining trend has emerged from the first year of the Blanche Memorandum, it is not a retreat from enforcement, but a reorientation of anti-corruption enforcement toward broader financial crime, compliance, and national security objectives. 

* * *

This blog post is part of an ongoing series exploring the legal, commercial, and strategic complexities of operating in conflict zones and high-risk jurisdictions. Contributors to this series include Freshfields attorneys Daniel Cendan, Kate Cooper, Danny Grooms, Tim Harkness, Melissa Hodgman, Tim Howard, Joshua Kelly, Sylvia Noury, Dan Stein, Alexandra van der Meulen, Paige von Mehren, Carsten Wendler, Nabeel Yousef, Kim Zelnick, Matthew Haggans, Peter Linken, Maria Slobodchikova, Piusha Bose, Andrew Bulovsky, Allison Kowalski, Ian Allen, Sasha Aristotle, Omeed Askary, Heather Cameron, Elischke de Villiers, Karen Laska, Ian Maurer, Jordan McGuffee, Jackson Myers, Paloma Palmer, Keian Razipour, Miguel Serrano, and Sabrina Zhang. Stay tuned for upcoming posts, and please reach out with topics, questions, or experiences you would like us to cover as part of this ongoing conversation.

For a collection of related previous posts and webinars, please click this link.

To receive the latest insights on U.S. legal developments, subscribe to the Freshfields A Fresh Take Blog.

To receive the latest insights on US legal developments, subscribe to the Freshfields A Fresh Take Blog.