FCPA Autumn Review 2025
International Alert
Introduction
Though the third quarter of 2025 saw signs of renewed activity by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) area, it is clear that the current administration's international enforcement efforts largely are focused elsewhere – for example, targeting cartel and foreign terrorist organization (FTO) activity and investigating potential tariff evasion.
On the corporate side, the DOJ issued one declination in Q3 2025 (Liberty Mutual) – the first under the June 2025 FCPA guidelines. On November 10, 2025, Millicom International announced that a company subsidiary had entered a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the DOJ. In part, the DPA required the company to pay a $60 million fine and to disgorge over $58 million in profits from the alleged scheme. The DPA also reportedly contains a two-year self-reporting obligation regarding compliance program improvements. We will cover this case in more detail in the Q4 2025 Review.
There was action in Q3 2025 related to several ongoing cases involving individuals, including DOJ decisions to proceed to trial in several actions. In this issue, we also discuss other updates at the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as well as various international developments.
Cases Involving Individuals
Most FCPA-related case developments in the third quarter of 2025 related to ongoing prosecutions of individuals, though the DOJ charged individuals in one new case involving Mexico.
DOJ Files Notice of Additional Evidence of Bribery Against Ex-Smartmatic Executives
On August 1, 2025, the DOJ filed a notice detailing additional evidence it intends to use in its upcoming trial against former Smartmatic executives Roger Alejandro Pinate Martinez (Pinate) and Jorge Miguel Vasquez. The filing detailed several types of alleged corrupt payment schemes, including "kickback payments to defendant Vasquez funded by… 2016 Philippine election contracts"; "[s]lush [f]unds from non-Philippine election contracts [including from Venezuela and Los Angeles County election machine contracts and using shell companies]"; and bribery of a Venezuelan election official "with the title and use of… an upper-middle class home with a pool… in Caracas" that was "hidden" through transfers via a third party. The notice also makes several legal arguments as to why this evidence should be admitted.
FCPA-Related Charges Against Two Mexican Nationals Raise Questions Related to Cartel Allegations
On August 11, 2025, the DOJ unsealed its first FCPA indictment since the temporary pause on enforcement actions announced in February 2025. Brought in the Southern District of Texas, the case charged Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez (Rovirosa) and Mario Alberto Avila Lizarraga (Avila) with bribing officials in a scheme to secure business with Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the state-owned oil company of Mexico, and Pemex's wholly owned exploration and production subsidiary, Pemex Exploración y Producción (PEP). The indictment includes FCPA anti-bribery and related conspiracy charges. While Rovirosa has been arraigned and his case is moving forward, Avila remains at large.
According to the indictment, between 2019 and 2021, Rovirosa and Avila – both lawful permanent residents living in Texas – "offered, paid, promised to pay, and authorized the payment of, bribes in the form of cash payments, luxury items, and other things of value" to at least three Pemex and PEP officials. In exchange, the officials allegedly used their influence within Pemex and PEP to secure favorable business opportunities with Rovirosa and Avila valued at $2.5 million or more.
This case followed the DOJ's issuance of its revised FCPA enforcement guidance in June 2025, which reprioritized enforcement around four policy goals: eliminating cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), safeguarding American business competitiveness, advancing national security, and prioritizing misconduct as opposed to business practices in foreign nations. The indictment reads much like indictments from periods prior to the updated guidance, focusing on a recitation of evidence of payments and intent, including quotations from emails and other communications (such as WhatsApp exchanges) among the parties to the alleged crimes (including relevant Mexican officials). The indictment itself contains no specific references to linkages between the allegations or defendants to cartels and TCOs.
Nevertheless, in its first press release announcing the indictment, the DOJ wrote that "according to court documents, Rovirosa is alleged to have ties to Mexican cartel members." The docket on the case contained a DOJ Motion to Impose Certain Conditions of Release that contained the following language:
While the offenses with which he has been charged are non-violent in nature, there is evidence that Rovirosa has ties to Mexican cartel members and that he was previously involved in violent conduct in Mexico. Multiple sources and media accounts have also alleged another individual with a close business relationship to Rovirosa is associated with Mexican cartels. Given these alleged links to Mexican cartels, Rovirosa presents a uniquely heightened risk of flight.
The motion cites no factual evidence or sources for this allegation.
Interestingly, the DOJ's press release was updated on August 12, 2025, removing the earlier reference to alleged cartel ties. The release also included new language stating, "[b]ribery harms fair competition, erodes public trust, and will not be tolerated... [t]oday's indictment underscores the commitment of the FBI, and our law enforcement partners, to fairness for communities in Texas and beyond."
Rovirosa's defense team responded forcefully to the cartel allegations; in a motion to dismiss filed on September 8, 2025, Rovirosa's counsel argued that DOJ prosecutors were "weaponizing political messaging" and "turning a weak oil and gas Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case into a violent Mexican drug cartel case with a false narrative to make politicians happy and gain an unfair advantage." The motion further asserted that the DOJ motion of release conditions was a "false document" and that the prosecutors deliberately inserted a "cartel narrative" to distract from the underlying weakness of the evidence, which they argued was primarily a series of text messages sent and comments made outside of the FCPA statute of limitations.
In a September 18, 2025, response, the DOJ stated that the cartel-related "allegations at issue… are serious and supported by factual evidence from the Government's investigation." Details of this evidence are redacted in the public record filing. However, the motion stated that "[o]ut of an abundance of caution and in recognition of Rovirosa's expressed safety concerns, the sentence [related to cartel ties] was deleted from the [DOJ's initial] press release the next day." In a follow-up motion dated September 26, 2025, the DOJ refuted Rovirosa's arguments that the cartel label had undermined his right to a fair trial or indicated government misconduct, and further stated that:
The Government has not alleged any facts that would require evidence of Rovirosa's alleged cartel ties (or the absence thereof) [and] [t]he Government has no intention of raising this issue or introducing related evidence in its case-in-chief and sees no legitimate, probative reason why Rovirosa would need to do so in his defense. In fact, the Government has filed a motion in limine making this representation and asking the Court to prohibit Rovirosa from mentioning anything about cartels without previewing its relevance to the Court.
Other docket items have been filed under seal, so the complete facts are unavailable to allow for thorough evaluation of these issues.
Later filings show that the issue appears to have been resolved by the court. In its October 8, 2025, response to Rovirosa's third motion to dismiss, the DOJ noted that "the Court has already considered and resolved Rovirosa's 'cartel' arguments by ruling that 'such language and inferences will not be tolerated in this trial from either party.'"
Rovirosa's trial was set to start on October 20, 2025, but has been delayed due to the U.S. federal government shutdown and disputes between the parties on discovery issues. The current provisional trial date is December 1, 2025, though that could be further delayed.
DOJ Wins Conviction of Georgia Company CEO for Bribery in Honduras
On September 15, 2025, a federal jury in Miami, Florida convicted Carl Alan Zaglin, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and owner of Georgia-based company Atlanco LLC, for his role in a five-year-long scheme to bribe Honduran government officials to secure more than $10 million in contracts with a Honduran government entity. The verdict is the first conviction of an individual for violating the FCPA since the DOJ issued its revised FCPA guidelines for enforcement in June 2025.
The DOJ announced the indictment of Zaglin on December 22, 2023. Two other men, Aldo Nestor Marchena, an intermediary based in Boca Raton, Florida, and Franco Roberto Cosenza Centro, a former Honduran official, were indicted at the same time. While Marchena and Centeno ultimately both pled guilty in the run-up to the trial, Zaglin proceeded to contest his charges at trial before a jury that began on September 2, 2025. The jury convicted Zaglin on three counts: one count of conspiracy to violate FCPA, one count of violating the FCPA, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. He faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison for the FCPA-related counts and a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on the money laundering conspiracy count.
According to the DOJ press release, prosecutors established that, beginning in 2015, Zaglin and his co-conspirators laundered more than $2 million through Atlanco to secure procurement contracts from the Comité Técnico del Fideicomiso para la Administración del Fondo de Protección y Seguridad Poblacional (TASA), an entity responsible for providing uniforms and accessories to the Honduran National Police and other security agencies. The DOJ stated that these payments were disguised as "brokerage agreements" routed by Marchena through offshore bank accounts in Belize and the U.S., and occasionally in cash, to Honduran officials.
Zaglin argued in a motion to dismiss in late June 2025 that the payments were "gratuities," not bribes, relying on an expansive reading of the Supreme Court's decision on gratuities under U.S. domestic bribery laws in Snyder v. United States. In addition, Zaglin argued that President Trump's Executive Order (E.O.) 14209, which in part criticizes perceived overreach in FCPA enforcement, "[was] consistent with" dismissal of the indictment on "public policy" grounds. Zaglin's defense framed the prosecution as "emblematic of the abuse and overreaching under the FCPA denounced by the President," asserting that "no government interests were implicated or affected through the charged conduct" because "there were no American or foreign competitors for the uniform contracts."
In response, the DOJ asserted that "Snyder has no bearing on this case," noting that Zaglin was charged with bribery and that "a corrupt agreement was struck… before the first TASA contract was awarded." The DOJ also argued that the indictment properly alleged all of the elements of the referenced FCPA and money laundering law violations, as well as the related conspiracy charges. The DOJ further stated that neither E.O. 14209 nor the June 2025 DOJ FCPA enforcement guidelines conflicted with the Zaglin prosecution, noting that the order and guidelines "expressly state[]" that they do not create any substantive rights, and therefore cannot serve as grounds for dismissal. The DOJ noted that the case was specifically reviewed under the E.O. and approved for continued action.
Finally, the DOJ argued that Zaglin's motion had mischaracterized public remarks by the Head of the Criminal Division related to FCPA prosecutorial policies and that the case "merited prosecution." The DOJ noted that "Zaglin and his co-conspirators competed with other American companies for contracts with the Honduran government, depriving them of a fair playing field." This aspect of the case – which shows specific harm to American interests (even though by other American interests) – could well illustrate why the Zaglin prosecution survived the review under E.O. 14209 and places it within the categories prioritized under the DOJ's June 2025 FCPA guidelines.
On August 28, 2025, the court rejected Zaglin's motion to dismiss and the trial began on September 2, 2025.
Nigerian-American Lawyer Convicted of Charges Related to Bribes Received as National Oil Company Official
On August 28, 2025, a federal jury in California convicted Paulinus Iheanacho Okoronkwo, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Nigeria and an immigration and personal injury lawyer based in California, on multiple counts, including (per the DOJ press release) "three counts of transactional money laundering, one count of tax evasion, and one count of obstruction of justice." Okoronkwo was indicted in January 2024 and chose to go to trial.
At issue was a payment of $2.1 million made to Okoronkwo by Addax Petroleum (Addax), a Switzerland-based subsidiary of Sinopec – a Chinese state-owned oil company. The DOJ press release states that Okoronkwo "was a foreign official who served as the general manager of the upstream division of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. (NNPC)." Addax made the payment at issue in October 2015 "purportedly for his work as a consultant who negotiated and completed a settlement agreement with the NNPC with respect to Addax's drilling rights in Nigeria." However, the release asserts that "[t]he engagement letter that Addax signed that month with Okoronkwo's law office – with a fake address in Lagos, Nigeria – was a ruse intended to conceal the fact that its payment to Okoronkwo was a bribe in exchange for his influence in securing more favorable financial terms relating to its crude oil drilling in Nigeria."
Okoronkwo allegedly used $983,200 of the bribe payment to purchase a house in Valencia, California. The DOJ release notes that "Okoronkwo omitted the $2.1 million bribe payment from his 2015 federal income tax return [and] obstructed justice in June 2022 when he lied to federal investigators when he told them he did not use any of the $2.1 million to purchase a house and that the money represented client funds rather than income to his law office."
Okoronkwo was not the only party to take steps to conceal the payment (which was made to his U.S. firm's Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account (IOLTA) account to conceal the benefit to him). Of note for compliance personnel, the DOJ release states that evidence presented during the trial showed that Addax itself "falsely characterized the $2.1 million payment as a payment for legal services, lied to an auditor about the payment, and fired executives who questioned the payment's propriety." Media reports of the trial contain further details related to these allegations. These facts likely tie into a July 2017 settlement by Addax with Swiss prosecutors in Geneva in which the company paid 31 million Swiss francs (approximately $32 million) to settle a criminal investigation into suspected bribery of Nigerian officials, though without admitting fault. As noted in our coverage of that case, media reports at the time discussed the auditor's resignation in response to an inability to obtain "satisfactory explanations" during its 2015 financial audit regarding the amount of and basis for, among other things, more than $20 million in payments allegedly made to "legal advisers" in Nigeria. Press reports from late August 2017 suggested that the DOJ and SEC were making inquiries into the same issues, though there has been no further public information related to any investigation of Sinopec or Addax. It is likely, however, that the Okoronkwo indictment resulted from these inquiries.
Okoronkwo is scheduled to be sentenced on December 1, 2025, and is currently free on bond.
Convicted Oil Trader Denied New Trial
On August 11, 2025, a federal judge in Connecticut denied a motion by Glenn Oztemel for acquittal or a new trial following his conviction on September 24, 2024, by a federal jury on seven counts for his role in a Petrobras-related bribery and money laundering scheme. Oztemel is currently set to be sentenced on December 9, 2025.
The judge's order notes that Oztemel had argued, first, that "the prosecution is time-barred because the Government failed to prove that any illegal conduct occurred after… the agreed upon cut-off date under the applicable statute of limitations." Relatedly, he "challenge[d] the sufficiency of the evidence as to whether Defendant 'entered into an unlawful agreement in the first place.'" The judge sided with the DOJ's argument that a key witness at trial provided evidence of various actions by or related to Oztemel and the alleged bribery scheme that implicated Oztemel in "overt acts" during the period still within the applicable statute of limitations. Thus, "the jury could have concluded, crediting [that] testimony, that the events which undergird the substantive counts and the overt acts within the limitations period, were 'in furtherance of' the FCPA and money laundering conspiracies" for which Oztemel was convicted. The judge also noted that the same testimony, "if credited, established Defendant's knowing participation in the bribery and money laundering scheme" and that other arguments and evidence presented by the defense "were advanced at trial and rejected by the jury." The order also summarized other evidence presented at trial by the DOJ as to intent and knowledge.
Oztemel also asserted "that the jury instructions were incorrect, overly confusing and otherwise inadequate." The court's order addressed the various challenged instructions in detail, finding in various cases that they were legal and correct, or if in error, such error was harmless under relevant legal standards. The court also noted that Oztemel failed to raise some of the objections made in his motion for a new trial at the time the jury instructions were given, stating that "[a] defendant cannot now seek a new trial on the theory that the instruction to which he purposefully and unequivocally offered no objection, merits same."
DOJ Developments
The third quarter of 2025 saw the first corporate resolution and the first criminal charges issued by the DOJ under the Trump administration's June 2025 FCPA guidance. Not long after the end of Q3, the DOJ indicated Smartmatic, marking the first corporate charges related to the FCPA under the current administration. And on November 10, 2025, Millicom International announced a DPA with the DOJ to resolve an investigation dating from 2022; we will cover that disposition in detail in the Q4 2025 Review.
Two companies disclosed the ends of ongoing DOJ investigations, consistent with the general pattern since the February 10, 2025, executive order. Finally, developments in an FCPA-adjacent case and public statements by DOJ officials provided insight into the likely DOJ approach to corporate reporting obligations and the use of monitorships in negotiated corporate dispositions going forward.
Trump Administration Nominates Florida Prosecutor as Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Division
On July 30, 2025, the White House nominated Florida attorney Andrew Tysen Duva to be the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division. The nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for review. If confirmed, Duva would replace current acting Head of the division, Matthew Galeotti. According to Judiciary Committee materials, Duva is currently an assistant U.S. attorney in the Middle District of Florida, based in Jacksonville.
The Committee on the Judiciary held a confirmation hearing for Duva on October 22, 2025. As to FCPA enforcement, Duva responded to a question by stating that he would "abide by" the June 2025 guidelines and noting that "the focus will be on [TCOs] where bribes are involved." He further stated that he "look[ed] forward" to "progressing the good work of the men and women in [the Fraud Section]." He also expressed support for increasing the number of attorneys in the Public Integrity Section, which has seen substantial depletion under the current administration.
DOJ Issues Declination with Disgorgement to Insurer Liberty Mutual in First Formal Trump Era Corporate FCPA Resolution
On August 7, 2025, the DOJ issued a letter declining to prosecute Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) "despite evidence of bribery committed by certain employees of [Liberty Mutual's] subsidiary in India who were acting as agents of the [c]ompany." As noted, the declination is the first formal corporate disposition released since the issuance of the revised June 2025 FCPA enforcement guidance and the May 2025 updates to the DOJ's Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). The letter discusses the factors that led to the declination under the CEP, including Liberty Mutual's timely self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation efforts, but does not engage with some of the priorities articulated under the recent DOJ policies. It is quite possible that this matter would have been resolved in the same way under the previous administration's policies.
According to the declination letter, personnel at Liberty Mutual's Indian subsidiary "paid bribes totaling approximately $1.47 million to officials at six state-owned banks in India" "using third-party intermediaries" to induce the officials to "cause[] the state-owned banks to refer bank customers to [the Indian subsidiary's] insurance products." Certain employees "took steps to conceal the true nature of the payments, including by classifying the payments as marketing expenses." The DOJ letter states that "the bribe scheme resulted in revenue of approximately $9.2 million and profits of approximately $4.7 million."
The declination cites several factors supporting the DOJ's decision, including the company's "timely and voluntary self-disclosure of the misconduct to the [DOJ] in March 2024, which was identified during an internal investigation that was still ongoing at the time of the disclosure." The letter also notes "Liberty Mutual's full and proactive cooperation" and "timely and appropriate remediation, including… early and fulsome acceptance of responsibility, [a] thorough and systematic root-cause analysis, and… separation from personnel involved in the misconduct." The company also undertook "significant improvements to its compliance program and internal controls, including enhanced vetting, monitoring, and oversight of payments to third parties throughout its global markets, structural reorganization coupled with increased legal and compliance resources, and the implementation of enhanced compliance policies." As a sign that the DOJ's prior focus on company management of messaging applications remains in effect, the letter states that the enhanced policies covered "use of social media and ephemeral messaging applications for business purposes" – perhaps because these were an issue in the investigation.
The DOJ's letter also cites an "absence of aggravating circumstances" that would negate eligibility for declination under the CEP. Finally, Liberty Mutual agreed to disgorge almost $4.7 million, "which represents the profits to Liberty Mutual from its commercial relationships with the six state-owned banks."
Given that the investigation began under the previous administration, it is likely that this resolution represents further disposition of the DOJ's outstanding matters, and not a bellwether indicator as to the future direction of FCPA enforcement. However, this letter highlights the fact that, even under the current administration's changes to the CEP, the core analysis of whether a company should receive a declination remains the same. The "timely" self-disclosure likely was critical, as it has been for many years. The letter also focuses on the other two key requirements for declination eligibility – cooperation and remediation. Even with some changes – such as revisions to the scope of aggravating circumstances – the current CEP features significant continuity with past DOJ policies and that continuity is evident in this matter. As noted, this declination would not have been particularly noteworthy under the policies of the Biden and first Trump administrations. Companies are well-advised to continue to focus on the CEP's core requirements when facing a potential DOJ action.
Smartmatic Added to Superseding Indictment of Its Former Executives
In an unexpected move, on October 16, 2025, the DOJ filed a superseding indictment in its ongoing case against ex-executives of voting machine company Smartmatic, including former co-owner and senior executive Roger Alejandro Pinate Martinez. Pinate and others were indicted in August 2024, and the case has been moving toward trial since the DOJ indicated in April 2025 that it would continue the case after a review under President Trump's February 2025 E.O. The superseding indictment added Smartmatic to the case, charging the company with one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and multiple money laundering-related counts. The accompanying DOJ press release asserts that Smartmatic was added to the previous individual indictments "for participating in a scheme to pay and launder more than $1 million in bribes to a Philippine government official in connection with contracts related to the 2016 Philippine national elections."
In response, as reported in various media outlets, Smartmatic issued a statement that the company "categorically" denies the allegations, adding that "we believe the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida has been misled and politically influenced by powerful interests, despite our extensive cooperation with the government. This is again, targeted, political and unjust." The statement noted that the company will contest the claims in court – one of the few times that a company has signaled that it will fight an FCPA case at trial. Notably, Smartmatic has been at the center of several defamation cases the company filed against various conservative media groups such as Newsmax and One America News, including an ongoing case against Fox News for $2.7 billion in damages tied to the reporting of false claims related to the 2020 U.S. federal elections.
It is unusual for a company that cooperates with a DOJ FCPA investigation to be criminally charged, and the DOJ's revised CEP encourages cooperation as a key component for companies' eligibility for certain presumptive benefits under the policy. It is not clear whether Smartmatic voluntarily disclosed the facts at issue in the case, and neither the superseding indictment nor the DOJ press release contains any details regarding actions by the company beyond the allegations recited by previous documents in the cases against the individuals. Thus, the reasons for the company indictment are murky for now and only future events can provide further insight into this development.
Speech by Head of Criminal Division and Developments Related to DOJ Use of Monitors
On September 18, 2025, the acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, Matthew Galeotti, delivered a speech at the Global Investigations Review (GIR) Live conference in New York City. On the FCPA front, he noted the Liberty Mutual declination as an example of the benefits of the revised CEP, which he asserted "crystallizes the benefits to companies that voluntarily self-report, cooperate, and remediate – they will receive a declination, not just a 'presumption.'" Galeotti also highlighted the Rovirosa indictment and the Zaglin conviction.
In a discussion at the same event reported on by GIR, Galeotti stated that the DOJ would take on a more active compliance oversight role than previously, in part because of concerns about the efficiency and structure of independent compliance monitorships – which the current administration had already curtailed in its revised Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters in May 2025. Galeotti stated that "[o]ur intent is to take more of a government active role in ensuring compliance" as "[t]he government shouldn't slough off its obligations to ensure compliance to a third party without proper oversight." He noted that the DOJ favored company reporting on compliance upgrades or direct prosecutorial involvement, noting, "[i]f there are things that can't be done either because of a resource issue or because it's just an area where the government or the company wouldn't have visibility, that's an area where a monitor probably could add value that we're not otherwise able to replicate."
This change in the DOJ's approach was signaled shortly before Galeotti's speech when a DOJ plea agreement with NatWest Markets LLC (NatWest) related to wire and securities fraud charges was amended in a joint motion dated August 29, 2025. Under the initial terms of the plea agreement, NatWest had retained an Independent Compliance Monitor in November 2022 for a three-year term. The amendment to the plea agreement filed with the joint motion stated that "[b]ased on… the progress of [NatWest's] remediation under the Independent Compliance Monitor" and other factors, the DOJ had "determined that a Monitor was no longer necessary, but that enhanced self-reporting provides an appropriate degree of oversight" going forward.
NatWest agreed to various additional obligations under the amended plea agreement. First, the amendment "extend[ed] the term of [NatWest's] obligations under the Plea Agreement until December 2I, 2026 – five years from the date it was originally signed." The amendment extended the company's period of organizational probation for the same period. The company agreed to a new Attachment D-1 that established revised requirements for the "enhanced self-reporting." The amended agreement also incorporated a new reporting certification (Attachment G) that required the company's CEO and Global Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) to certify that NatWest "has implemented a compliance program that meets the requirements set forth in Attachment C to the Plea Agreement" – a certification designed in part to replace the former Monitor certification requirement. It bears noting that the Attachment C requirements for the compliance program itself remained unchanged.
Under the new Attachment D-1, the company must report on its compliance remediation activities to the DOJ "at no less than three-month intervals" during the remaining term of the amended plea agreement. This requirement will place the company in direct contact with DOJ prosecutors on a more frequent basis than was often the case under a traditional monitorship. NatWest must also "implement[], test[], and incorporat[e]… the outstanding recommendations and findings in the Monitor's written reports," which limits the company's ability to redirect its efforts now that it is not subject to the monitorship process. Attachment D-1 also requires the company to develop and implement work plans in a process that is similar to the operation of a monitorship. The agreement additionally obligates NatWest to "make [any] third-party consultants or advisors [retained to assist in the various processes] available to communicate with the [DOJ] upon request, subject to applicable privilege and local law."
It remains to be seen how effective or efficient this new model will be, as the DOJ has lost or re-assigned many (though not all) of its prosecutors with experience related to complex monitorships and how compliance programs operate in actual business conditions. However, it is likely that – absent extraordinary circumstances – the DOJ will use the company self-reporting model, rather than an independent compliance monitorship, in any future FCPA corporate disposition requiring extensive compliance program remediation.
GE Healthcare Discloses End to DOJ and SEC Investigations
In its Form 10-Q filing dated July 30, 2025, GE Healthcare Technologies Inc. (GE Healthcare) disclosed that the DOJ and SEC had ended investigations of the company. Specifically, the disclosure stated that GE Healthcare "made voluntary self-disclosures to the [SEC and DOJ] beginning in 2018 regarding tender irregularities and other potential violations of the FCPA relating to our activities in certain provinces in China." The company initially disclosed these investigations in October 2023, after GE Healthcare was spun off from its former corporate parent and listed separately on the NASDAQ.
The July 2025 disclosure added that "[w]e fully cooperated with the reviews by these agencies and implemented, and continue to implement, enhancements to our compliance policies and practices." Thus, the disclosure concluded, "[w]e received letters from the SEC on May 16, 2025 and the DOJ on May 28, 2025 closing their respective investigations without further action."
Calavo Growers Notes End of DOJ FCPA Investigation
In an SEC filing dated September 9, 2025, food distributor Calavo Growers disclosed that, "[o]n September 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice officially notified us that it has closed its [FCPA] inquiry related to our operations in Mexico." The disclosure gave no further details. This announcement follows an earlier disclosure in 2025 noting that the SEC had postponed that agency's parallel inquiry.
DOJ FEPA Report Missing in Action
In July 2024, Congress amended the Foreign Extortion Protection Act (FEPA) in several ways. In addition to substantive changes, the amendment extended the statutory deadline for the Attorney General's required report to Congress on various bribery-related issues to July 22, 2025 (one year from the date of passage for the amendment). FEPA, as amended, also requires that the DOJ post this report on its public website.
As of the date of publication of this edition of the Review, no such report is on the DOJ's website. As has been extensively discussed over the past several months, the DOJ has re-focused its enforcement priorities, including those regarding the FCPA and FEPA. However, there has been no public statement regarding why this statutorily mandated report has not been published.
Update on FIFA Bribery Cases
Though not directly implicating the FCPA, litigation involving alleged bribery related to Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) continues. The highest profile case involves Hernán Lopez, the former CEO of Fox International Channels, and Full Play Group SA (Full Play), an Argentinian company. In March 2023, a federal jury convicted Lopez and Full Play of "wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies" related to "their participation in schemes to bribe executives of soccer's highest governing bodies – FIFA, CONMEBOL, and, in Full Play's case, CONCACAF – for the media and broadcasting rights to lucrative soccer tournaments." However, in September 2023, the federal judge presiding in the case threw out those convictions, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous judgments in Percoco v. United States and Ciminelli v. United States that narrowed the scope of federal wire fraud prosecutions involving honest services fraud.
The DOJ appealed the district court's ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in January 2024. On July 3, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit reinstated the convictions and remanded the case to the district court for further action. The panel disagreed with the district judge's fundamental premise, stating that neither Percoco nor Ciminelli "controls here nor abrogates [other] binding precedent." The court also stated that the defendants' action remained within the ambit of the honest services fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1346), which can cover foreign commercial bribery under certain circumstances. The panel determined that various cases, including the Supreme Court's decision in Skilling v. United States and Second Circuit cases United States v. Bahel and United States v. Napout, apply and allow for the type of prosecution advanced against Lopez and Full Play. The panel discussed in detail the parallel facts in the Bahel case, "in which the defendant, a foreign employee of the United Nations [UN] who, in contravention of the organization's rules, had accepted bribes from a foreign vendor" in violation of U.N. rules and in a breach of fiduciary duty.
Because the trial judge's dismissal of the charges had not addressed the defendants' alternative contention that the DOJ had failed to present sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to deceive CONMEBOL as part of its case, the Second Circuit panel remanded that question to the trial court for further action.
On September 30, 2025, Full Play filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court asking for a reversal of the Second Circuit ruling. Full Play asked the Court to rule as to whether section 1346 "allows the government to secure a conviction based on the breach of a private code of conduct without proving that the asserted fiduciary duty has the force of law" and "[w]hether the 'intangible right of honest services' [covered by section 1346] extends to foreign commercial bribery schemes."
SEC Developments
The SEC still has not concluded or announced any new FCPA enforcement actions in 2025. As previously noted, the agency is expending its efforts in other priority areas.
In September 2025, Judge Margaret Ryan became the Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division. A long-serving judge on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Judge Ryan appears to have little experience in SEC-related matters, though she has an extensive litigation background. In his August announcement of the appointment, SEC Chair Paul Atkins stated that "Judge Ryan will lead the Division guided by Congress' original intent: enforcing the securities laws, particularly as they relate to fraud and manipulation."
On September 5, 2025, the SEC announced "the formation of a task force that will strengthen and enhance the Division of Enforcement's efforts to identify and combat cross-border fraud harming U.S. investors." The announcement further stated that "[t]he Cross-Border Task Force will focus initially on investigating potential U.S. federal securities law violations related to foreign-based companies, including potential market manipulation, such as 'pump-and-dump' and 'ramp-and-dump' schemes." The SEC noted that "[in] addition, [the task force] will examine potential securities law violations related to companies from foreign jurisdictions, such as China, where governmental control and other factors pose unique investor risks." It remains to be seen whether the SEC will use the FCPA's broad accounting provisions to support this effort.
International Developments
The third quarter of 2025 featured several notable international developments, including the indictment of a former Argentine president, resolutions in an ongoing Lava Jato investigation, actions by French, U.K., and Swiss authorities, and a new cooperation mechanism signed by Argentina and Ecuador designed to enhance anti-corruption investigations.
Former Argentine President Alberto Fernández Indicted for Abuse of Authority and Conflict of Interest in State Insurance Scheme
On July 10, 2025, Federal Judge Sebastián Casanello formally indicted former Argentine president Alberto Fernández for alleged violations of public ethics laws in connection with a scheme involving the centralized contracting of insurance services by state agencies. The indictment, which charges Fernández with abuse of authority and conflict of interest, stems from a broader investigation into irregularities in the administration of public insurance contracts during his presidency (related to bribery and directing the award of public contracts to his friends).
The case centers on Decree 823/2021, issued by Fernández during his term, which required all national public entities to contract insurance services exclusively through Nación Seguros S.A., a subsidiary of Banco Nación. The decree effectively eliminated competitive bidding and opened the door to the systematic use of intermediaries – so-called "brokers" – who allegedly received substantial commissions for facilitating these contracts. Among the brokers identified in the investigation was Héctor Martínez Sosa, a personal friend of Fernández and the husband of María Cantero, the former president's private secretary.
Prosecutors initiated the investigation in early 2024 following formal complaints filed before the Federal Chamber by legislators and the Ministry of Human Capital. These complaints were prompted by a media exposé alleging the existence of a "black box" of political financing within Argentina's national social security agency (ANSES).
According to the 662-page report prepared by Argentina's Prosecutor's Office for Economic Crime and Money Laundering (PROCELAC), the relationship between Fernández and Martínez Sosa dates back to at least 2010. The report includes references to invoices issued by Fernández for consulting services – such as political and economic analysis – rendered to Martínez Sosa's firm during periods when Fernández was not holding public office. The last of these invoices was dated December 4, 2019, just days before Fernández assumed the presidency. Prosecutors argue that this longstanding commercial relationship raises serious questions about the impartiality of the insurance contracting scheme implemented during his administration.
The financial scope of the case is significant. The court imposed an asset embargo of ARS 14.63 billion (approximately $11.47 million) on Fernández. Between 2020 and 2024, Nación Seguros paid over ARS 3.66 billion ($2.63 million at today's exchange rate, but a much greater figure if considering the exchange rate applicable at the time of each transaction) in commissions, with nearly ARS 2.3 billion ($1.8 million) directed to the group led by Martínez Sosa. His firm alone received ARS 366.6 million ($287,500) in commissions from 19 public entities, including ministries, ANSES, and the Argentine Supreme Court.
In addition to Fernández, the court also indicted 33 other persons, including several former officials and executives of Nación Seguros, such as former company president Alberto Pagliano and former directors Gustavo García Argibay, Sebastián Díaz Bancalari, Fernando Arana, Mauro Tanos, and Carlos Soria. All were charged without pretrial detention. The court is investigating whether these individuals participated in a coordinated effort to steer contracts toward preferred brokers in violation of public procurement rules.
Fernández has denied any wrongdoing and defended the legality of the decree, arguing that it was intended to streamline and centralize insurance procurement for efficiency and cost control. He has appeared twice before the court to provide testimony, most recently responding to questions from the judge and prosecutors. His legal team maintains that the services he provided to Martínez Sosa were legitimate and properly documented.
The case remains in the pretrial phase. Judge Casanello has ordered additional financial audits and witness testimony to determine the extent of the alleged damage to the state and whether the scheme constituted a broader pattern of abuse of office. No trial date has been set, but the indictment marks a significant escalation in Argentina's ongoing efforts to investigate corruption at the highest levels of government.
Singaporean Shipbuilder Agrees to Nearly $190 Million Penalty to Settle Lava Jato-Related Probes
On July 30, 2025, Seatrium Limited (Seatrium) confirmed the resolution of two Lava Jato-related probes, agreeing to pay a combined penalty of approximately $190 million to Brazilian and Singaporean authorities. The Brazilian government's press release commenting on the resolution asserted that the underlying misconduct relates to "payment of undue advantages to Brazilian public officials in the context of contracts with Petrobras, as well as linked unlawful acts." Seatrium is the result of the 2023 merger of two Lava Jato-implicated companies, Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd. (Keppel) and Sembcorp Marine (Sembcorp). In 2017, Keppel reached a global disposition totaling more than $420 million with the DOJ, Brazilian authorities, and Singaporean authorities, as discussed in our 2018 FCPA Winter Review. In 2020, Brazilian authorities indicted two executives at Sembcorp's Brazilian subsidiary on money laundering and bribery charges. Both individuals were acquitted in 2023 due to lack of evidence.
According to Seatrium's press release, the company executed a Leniency Agreement with Brazilian authorities, agreeing to pay a penalty of R$ 728,933,258.58 (approximately $133 million), and entered into a DPA with Singaporean authorities, consenting to pay a penalty of $110 million. The DPA allows Seatrium to offset up to $53 million from the Brazilian penalty, such that the final payable amount to Singaporean authorities is $57 million. The DPA only becomes effective upon approval of the High Court of Singapore. Both agreements contain requirements for upgraded compliance program efforts by Seatrium.
This is the first use by Singapore of a corporate DPA since such dispositions were authorized by legislation in 2018.
SURYS Settles With French Authorities Over Ukraine-Linked Corruption Case
On September 3, 2025, French prosecutors announced that cybersecurity company SURYS agreed to pay €18,363,007 (approximately $21 million) to settle allegations of embezzlement, corruption of a foreign public official, and money laundering. According to the Judicial Public Interest Agreement (CJIP), SURYS developed holograms for passports produced by Ukrainian state-owned entity Polygraph. In 2013, SURYS allegedly agreed to invoice an Estonian third-party, Ou Feature, for services SURYS rendered directly to Polygraph. Ou Feature then invoiced Polygraph for triple the amount charged by SURYS and funneled the overage to benefit Polygraph's executives.
In 2022, SURYS terminated its contract with Polygraph after its parent company raised integrity concerns about the relationship. According to the French Ministry of Justice's press release, SURYS also agreed to compensate the Ukrainian state for damages in the amount of €3,770,000 (approximately $4.3 million). The agreement requires SURYS to implement a compliance program under the supervision of the French Anti-Corruption Agency for a period of three years.
U.K. Prosecutors Charge Former Entain Executives with Violating Bribery Laws
As reported in our 2024 FCPA Winter Review, Entain, one of the world's largest sports betting and gaming companies, entered into a DPA with the U.K.'s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on December 5, 2023, and agreed to pay a financial penalty of over £465 million (approximately $620 million) to settle bribery allegations relating to its Turkey-facing business. On August 28, 2025, the CPS announced that it charged 11 individuals, including former Entain CEO Kenneth Alexander and ex-Entain chair Lee Feldman, with "bribery, conspiracy to defraud, fraudulent trading, cheating the public revenue, evasion of income tax, acting as a director of a company when undischarged bankrupt and perverting the course of justice."
The charges directly relate to Entain's gambling services in Turkey between 2011 and 2018. Entain's DPA obligated the company to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the CPS to produce information that would lead to criminal proceedings against "any person in connection with the conduct that is subject [to] the [DPA]." The CPS has not released more details on the underlying facts supporting the charges. In a press release, Entain stated that none of the charged individuals are currently employed by the company and that it has fully resolved its liabilities with the U.K. government. According to media sources, the defendants appeared in magistrate's court on October 6, 2025; the magistrate's court sent the case to the Southwark Crown Court that day and ordered the defendants to appear at that court on November 3, 2025. Media accounts of that hearing noted that the London judge set trial dates in 2028 and 2029 for various defendants.
Safra Fined by Swiss Authorities for Lava Jato-Related Misconduct
On August 22, 2025, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland announced that it had imposed a fine of CHF 3.5 million (approximately $4.3 million) against J. Safra Sarasin SA (Safra), a Swiss private bank, for having failed to take precautionary anti-money laundering measures for accounts linked to bribery offenses in Brazil. According to the Swiss press release, Safra's "disorganization enabled the commission of aggravated money laundering offences in the form of transfers for a total amount of approximately USD 42.5 million." These accounts were "used to receive or transfer corrupt payments from approximately ten companies operating in the oil and construction sectors." The money was then sent to senior executives at Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned oil and gas company at the center of Lava Jato, "to promote the interests of these companies in the award, negotiation and/or continuation of contracts entered with Petrobras and/or its subsidiaries."
As compensation for the wrongdoing, Safra agreed to pay CHF 16 million (approximately $20 million) directly to Petrobras. One Safra employee received a six-month suspended custodial sentence for aggravated money laundering related to the misconduct.
Ecuador and Argentina Sign Memorandum of Understanding on Anti-Corruption Efforts
On August 21, 2025, Ecuador and Argentina signed an MOU to increase anti-corruption efforts between the two countries. According to Argentina's press release, the MOU seeks to "strengthen cooperation in the prevention and fight against corruption, and to promote a culture of integrity while respecting the principles and objectives" of the U.N. Convention Against Corruption and the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. The MOU specifically refers to both countries' financial intelligence units and establishes different cooperation tools related to these units, including: reciprocal consultations; exchange of information on best practices related to the implementation of integrity policies, prevention, and the fight against corruption; the organization of joint seminars; and roundtables.
Recent OECD Convention Monitoring Tool
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery, which monitors the implementation and enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention through a country reporting system, has implemented – as a pilot program – a "Country Monitoring Dashboard." The dashboard "highlights where a country is in the evaluation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and related instruments that are a result of the phase-evaluation reports." The data also covers "countries [that] are subject to additional monitoring measures as a result of inadequate implementation of certain aspects of the Convention." The dashboard is designed to be updated after each plenary meeting of the Working Group.
The Working Group has requested comments on the pilot dashboard by stakeholders and notes that "[t]he Dashboard does not provide a comprehensive overview of the Convention's implementation by its Parties," but rather should be read in conjunction with other data. That said, the dashboard provides useful summary data on a country-by-country basis related to Convention implementation status and issues.
Miller & Chevalier Recent Publications and Podcasts
Podcasts
EMBARGOED! is intelligent talk about sanctions, export controls, and all things international trade for trade nerds and normal human beings alike, hosted by Miller & Chevalier. Each episode will feature deep thoughts and hot takes about the latest headline-grabbing developments in this area of the law, as well as some below-the-radar items to keep an eye on. Subscribe for new bi-monthly episodes so you don't miss out: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube
Recent Publications
Editors: John E. Davis, James G. Tillen
Contributors: Alexandra Beaulieu, Igor Sampley dos Santos, Arooshe Giroti, Franco Jofré
The information contained in this communication is not intended as legal advice or as an opinion on specific facts. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. For more information, please contact one of the senders or your existing Miller & Chevalier lawyer contact. The invitation to contact the firm and its lawyers is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new lawyer-client relationship will be confirmed in writing.
This, and related communications, are protected by copyright laws and treaties. You may make a single copy for personal use. You may make copies for others, but not for commercial purposes. If you give a copy to anyone else, it must be in its original, unmodified form, and must include all attributions of authorship, copyright notices, and republication notices. Except as described above, it is unlawful to copy, republish, redistribute, and/or alter this presentation without prior written consent of the copyright holder.