FCPA Summer Review 2025
International Alert
Introduction
The landscape-altering February 10, 2025 executive order (E.O.) from President Trump "pausing" enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) and altering other key elements of the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) structure for investigating and prosecuting foreign corruption created a virtual hiatus on corporate enforcement for much of the second quarter of 2025. As of June 9, 2025, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Todd Blanche's memorandum providing new DOJ "Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the [FCPA]," has put corporate enforcement back on the table, but in the service of some of the current administration's broader goals. It is too early to tell how the new DOJ approach will develop, especially with the continuing reduction in force at the DOJ's Fraud Section and other resource restraints driven by administration policies.
There has been action in Q2 2025 related to several ongoing cases involving individuals, discussed below – including DOJ decisions to proceed to trial in several actions. We also discuss below various updates at the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), new U.K. guidance on corporate cooperation, a landmark anti-corruption ruling in Argentina, and other international developments. Overall, while many questions remain as to how the enforcement environment related to international anti-corruption will play out in the next few years, there remain many reasons for companies to remain vigilant of and to respond appropriately to FCPA risks.
DOJ Developments
The second quarter of 2025 saw significant changes to the DOJ's FCPA-related enforcement posture, including new guidance on restarting FCPA investigations consistent with the current administration's priorities.
Updated CEP and Other Criminal Division Policies
On May 12, 2025, as discussed extensively in this alert, the DOJ announced several important policy updates, including revisions to the DOJ's Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) and Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, and a new Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters that supersedes past policy documents regarding monitorships. The related enforcement plan includes "[b]ribery 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" as a priority. The enforcement memorandum contains sections directing prosecutors to "maximize efficiency in all corporate investigations" and requiring prosecutors to "move expeditiously to investigate cases and make charging decisions" and to "take all reasonable steps to minimize the length and collateral impact of their investigations."
The updated CEP attempts to clarify "its core components—the paths for potential declination, the available fine reductions for a company's cooperation and remediation, and relevant factors that determine the contours of a corporate resolution." Some of these changes provide significant potential new benefits for companies under investigation, including guarantees of a declination in certain circumstances, but the core requirements for such benefits – self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation – are largely unchanged. The main revisions to the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program reflect the addition of coverage for the types of cases that are now DOJ priorities. Finally, the new memorandum on monitorships adopts various steps to "narrowly tailor" the "use of [independent compliance] monitors" in DOJ dispositions, "to achieve the necessary [compliance remediation] goals while minimizing expense, burden, and interference with the business."
New Guidelines on FCPA Enforcement
On June 9, 2025, DAG Todd Blanche issued a memorandum providing new "Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the [FCPA]" that effectively restarted FCPA enforcement with steps responding to directives in the February 10 E.O. The June 9 memorandum establishes guidelines that govern all current and future DOJ FCPA investigations and enforcement actions, with the stated goals of "(1) limiting undue burdens on American companies that operate abroad and (2) targeting enforcement actions against conduct that directly undermines U.S. national interests." While some of the new guidelines echo long-held and publicly announced DOJ enforcement priorities, some changes could represent significant breaks with those priorities, including intentional decisions not to prioritize certain types of cases (such as cases without harm to "specific and identifiable U.S. entities or individuals" or matters involving "routine business practices in other nations") that previous administrations of both political parties would likely have prosecuted in the past.
Criminal Division Head Matthew Galeotti discussed the June 9 guidelines in a speech on June 10, noting that the new guidelines "require the vindication of U.S. interests" as a basis for bringing enforcement actions and that "[c]onduct that does not implicate U.S. interests should be left to our foreign counterparts or appropriate regulators." Galeotti also stated that the DOJ "has reviewed FCPA matters, closing certain cases and proceeding with others by applying the criteria set forth in the Guidelines" and that the DOJ "will enforce the FCPA — firmly but fairly — by bringing enforcement actions against conduct that directly undermines U.S. national interests without losing sight of the burdens on American companies that operate globally."
The potential impact of the DOJ's new FCPA policies must be read with an eye toward the department's actual capacity to implement them effectively. Our alert notes the significant decline in numbers at the DOJ's Fraud Section driven by several factors. In addition, the DOJ's 2026 budget request, issued on June 13, 2025, reduced attorney head count by 51 positions in the Criminal Division from FY 2025 levels, including personnel from the Public Integrity Section. The budget request also proposes to eliminate "eight DOJ attaché positions from the following locations: France, England, the Philippines, Italy, Brussels, Thailand, Germany, and the United Arab Emirates" while maintaining only the "DOJ attaché presence in Mexico City, Mexico and The Hague (Eurojust)." This step could adversely impact multilateral cooperation efforts related to anti-corruption and other criminal cases. In addition, the budget documentation and other DOJ public announcements have noted a desire to continue reductions in force through various methods.
It is worth noting that the February 10 E.O. raised some alarm among other countries at the mid-March 2025 plenary meeting of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery. The public summary of that meeting states that the Working Group "[h]eard other Parties express concerns regarding the Order's potential implications for implementation of the Convention [and] [i]nvited the United States to report back to the Working Group in June 2025." Media reports say that some of the concerns related to whether the February 10 E.O. violated U.S. obligations under the OECD Convention.
According to press reports, a DOJ delegation led by Galeotti attended the Working Group session in mid-June 2025. The Working Group's official agenda for that meeting included time for "the United States' ad hoc oral report" that likely discussed the May and June DOJ developments. It is unclear whether those briefings mitigated previous concerns, as the public summary of those meetings has not yet been released. The June 9 memorandum language on, for example, the DOJ pursuing only cases that only "result[] in economic injury to specific and identifiable American companies or individuals" or on supporting U.S. companies in economic sectors critical to national security could be alleged by other treaty signatories as a breach of Article 5 of the OECD Convention.
As referenced in Galeotti's June 10 speech, the second quarter of 2025 also saw further DOJ actions to close several corporate FCPA-related investigations, in line with – though not directly referencing – the directives of the February 10 E.O. The DOJ also ended four ongoing non-trial agreements with companies before the relevant agreements' stated duration period. However, investigations of at least two of the companies by non-U.S. authorities remain ongoing despite the conclusion of the DOJ inquiries.
Early Dismissal of DOJ DPA for Stericycle
On April 21, 2025, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss the information against waste management company Stericycle, Inc., thus terminating the company's deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) seven months prior to the DPA's stated expiration date in November 2025. Stericycle had agreed to the DPA in April 2022 after an investigation of alleged improper payments to foreign officials in Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina related to waste management contracts and related issues. The district court in the Southern District of Florida overseeing the case granted the motion and ordered the dismissal on April 25, 2025.
The DOJ highlighted several factors in its motion that led to the DOJ's early dismissal request. The motion stated that the Independent Compliance Monitor (Kathryn Cameron Atkinson of Miller & Chevalier) on May 20, 2024, "certified… that Stericycle's compliance program, including its policies and procedures, is reasonably designed and implemented to prevent and detect violations of the anti-corruption laws." This certification formed the basis for ending the company's two-year monitorship, after which, by the terms of the DPA, the company was subject to a year of self-reporting obligations. The motion also noted that the company's CEO certified on April 11, 2025, "that Stericycle had met its disclosure obligations pursuant to paragraph 6 of the DPA." The company also fully cooperated with the DOJ (two former executives were separately charged by the DOJ in 2024) and "also made significant changes to its business model to reduce its anticorruption risk profile, which greatly reduced the likelihood of recurrence of the [charged] misconduct." Stericycle was acquired by Waste Management in November 2024; the company also exited operations in several countries in 2022 and 2023.
The DOJ's motion did not mention the February 10 E.O., rather citing two DPA provisions as the basis for its "determin[ation] that early dismissal of the Information with prejudice is appropriate." First, the DOJ motion cited the DPA's paragraph 3, which granted the DOJ the "sole discretion" to end the DPA early "in the event the [DOJ] finds… that there exists a change in circumstances sufficient to eliminate the need for the monitorship… and that the other provisions of this Agreement have been satisfied." Second, the DOJ motion cited paragraph 17 of the DPA, which the motion summarized as "provid[ing] that the Government would not continue the criminal prosecution against Stericycle and would move to dismiss the Information within six months of the expiration of the DPA if Stericycle fully complied with all of its obligations under the DPA."
DOJ Agrees to Early Conclusion of NPA for Albemarle
In a 10-Q filed on May 1, 2025, Albemarle Corporation disclosed that "[i]n April 2025, the Company concluded its non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice ('DOJ') prior to the end of its term in recognition that the terms of the agreement had been satisfied." As discussed previously, Albemarle had entered a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) in September 2023 to resolve claims against the company for alleged violations of the FCPA's anti-bribery and accounting provisions in several different countries. The NPA had a three-year term, and thus concluded at about the halfway point.
At the time of the case's disposition, the DOJ had praised the company for "engag[ing] in extensive and timely remedial measures," including employee discipline and "transforming its business model and risk management process to reduce corruption risk in its operation and to embed compliance in the business." Later, DOJ officials publicly stated that the company likely would have received a formal declination had it self-reported sooner. These factors, along with the general direction given to the DOJ under the February 10 E.O. (which was not cited in Albemarle's disclosure), likely contributed to the DOJ's agreement to end the NPA early.
Judge Grants DOJ Motion to Dismiss ABB DPA
On June 20, 2025, Judge Michael Nachmanoff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the DOJ's unopposed motion to end its DPA with ABB Ltd. six months prior to the agreement's scheduled end date. ABB entered the DPA on December 2, 2022, as part of a coordinated resolution of investigations by U.S., South African, and Swiss authorities regarding alleged bribery of a South African official to win a large construction and engineering contract from the South African state-owned power company Eskom.
The DOJ motion cited two DPA provisions as the basis for the DOJ's "determin[ation] that early dismissal of the Information with prejudice is appropriate. The motion noted paragraph 3, which stated that if the DOJ "find[s], in [its] sole discretion, that there exists a change in circumstances sufficient to eliminate the need for the reporting requirement in Attachment D, and that the other provisions of this Agreement have been satisfied, the Agreement may be terminated early." The motion also cited paragraph 14, which the motion summarized as stating that the DOJ "would move to dismiss the Information within six months of the expiration of the DPA if ABB fully complied with all of its obligations under the DPA." The motion noted that ABB had made the requisite compliance program and disclosure certifications on June 2, 2025, and ABB's compliance with the DPA had been "proactive and thorough."
Judge Grants DOJ Motion to Conclude Honeywell DPA Early
On July 8, 2025, Judge Gray Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the DOJ's unopposed motion to end its DPA with Honeywell UOP six months prior to the agreement's scheduled end date. Honeywell UOP entered the DPA on December 19, 2022, as part of a coordinated resolution of investigations by U.S. and Brazilian authorities regarding the company's alleged misconduct in Brazil and Algeria, in part related to corrupt activities involving Petrobras and Unaoil.
Like the Stericycle and ABB motions described above, the DOJ cited two specific provisions of the DPA as a basis for early dismissal. First, the motion noted paragraph 3, which stated that "in the event the [DOJ] find, in their sole discretion, that there exists a change in circumstances sufficient to eliminate the need for the reporting requirement in Attachment D, and that the other provisions of this Agreement have been satisfied, the Agreement may be terminated early." Second, the motion cited paragraph 15, which, per the motion, authorized the DOJ to "move to dismiss the Information within six months of the expiration of the DPA if the Company fully complied with all of its obligations under the DPA." The motion noted that Honeywell had made the requisite compliance program and disclosure certifications on July 1, 2025, and would continue to cooperate in any related investigations.
DOJ Ends Investigation of Stryker
Medical device manufacturer Stryker Corporation released a 10-Q on May 2, 2025, stating, "[o]n April 1, 2025 we were informed by the DOJ that it had closed its inquiry into potential FCPA violations without further action." Stryker disclosed an FCPA investigation by the DOJ and SEC in May 2023, and the company was the subject of two prior SEC-only FCPA dispositions in 2018 and in 2013. The May 2 10-Q noted that the company was conducting an internal investigation into "certain business activities in certain foreign countries" and that the company was cooperating with the DOJ, SEC, and "certain other regulatory authorities." The disclosure noted only the closure of the DOJ inquiry; it appears that the investigations by the SEC and "other regulatory authorities" remain open. Indeed, the disclosure stated, "we are unable to predict the outcome of the remaining investigations or the potential impact, if any, on our financial statements."
Unlike the earlier announcements by PetroNor and Digicel regarding the closures of their DOJ investigations, the Stryker disclosure did not specifically cite the February 10 E.O. as a basis for the DOJ's decision.
Bombardier Announces Closure of Two DOJ Investigations, Though Parallel Foreign and World Bank Inquiries Remain Ongoing
In a filing dated May 1, 2025, Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier announced that the DOJ had "closed" two investigations into the company. One issue involved "allegations concerning a 2013 contract for the supply of signaling equipment and services to Azerbaijan Railways ADY (the 'ADY Contract')" – an issue also investigated by Swedish authorities and the subject of ongoing inquiries by the World Bank. The disclosure noted that the company's internal review involving "external counsel" and "external forensic advisors," launched in 2016, remains ongoing, though to date "there is no evidence that suggests a corrupt payment was made or offered to a public official or that any other criminal activity involving Bombardier took place." Bombardier initially disclosed the DOJ inquiry in a May 2021 filing.
The issues under review occurred at Bombardier's transportation business, which was sold to Alstom in January 2021. The new Bombardier disclosure states that the company "remains liable to Alstom, as acquirer of [the transportation business], in the event of any damage suffered in connection thereof" – presumably as a contractual provision in the purchase agreement.
The second investigation closed by the DOJ – also announced in May 2021 – involved procurement of aircraft by Indonesian national carrier Garuda Indonesia. The disclosure stated that, following the May 2020 convictions of Garuda's former CEO and others in Indonesia for "corruption and money laundering in connection with five procurement processes involving different manufacturers, including the 2011-2012 acquisition and lease of Bombardier CRJ1000 aircraft by Garuda," Bombardier opened an internal review. The DOJ became aware of these issues at some point and launched an investigation. However, as with the ADY investigation, "the DOJ [had] informed [Bombardier] that… based on the information the DOJ had learned to date" and "following a review of the… matters," the Indonesian inquiry was closed. Even though the DOJ investigation is done, the May 1 filing stated that the investigation of the Garuda issues by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) that began in 2021 "is ongoing."
The May 1, 2025, filing discussed a third corruption-related inquiry involving issues in South Africa, which began after the "media reported allegations of irregularities with respect to multiple procurements regarding the supply of 1,064 locomotives by South African train operator Transnet Freight Rail in 2014." The South Africa National Prosecution Authority (South Africa NPA) began an investigation of those issues in 2018 and the Bombardier filing noted that the South Africa NPA inquiry is ongoing, though an internal review to date has found "no reason to believe that [Bombardier] has been involved in any wrongdoing with respect to the procurement by Transnet of 240 TRAXX locomotives from [the company's transportation business]." As with the ADY issues, while "Alstom has been managing" the South Africa issues, Bombardier "remains liable to Alstom… under certain circumstances." The filing stated that the DOJ had requested information on the South African contracts, and based on the information in the filing, that inquiry appears to be continuing for now.
As with the other Q2 disclosures noted above, the Bombardier filing does not directly mention the February 10 E.O., though the referenced DOJ "review" of the ADY and Garuda matters could have occurred as a result of the E.O.'s requirements.
Toyota Discloses Closure of DOJ Investigation of Thai Subsidiary
In its Form 20-F filed on June 18, 2025, Japanese carmaker Toyota Motor Corporation noted that "[i]n April 2020, Toyota [had] reported possible anti-bribery violations related to a Thai subsidiary to the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice ('DOJ') and [that the company had] been cooperating with these investigations." The filing then stated that "[i]n June 2025, the DOJ informed Toyota that it has closed its investigation into the matter." The filing further says that "[i]nvestigations by governmental authorities related to these matters could result in the imposition of penalties, fines or other sanctions, or litigation [and] Toyota cannot predict the scope, duration or outcome of these matters at this time."
Telkom Indonesia Discloses 2023/2024 FCPA Investigations, Though Current Status Unclear
On April 18, 2025, Telkom Indonesia, which is majority-owned by the Indonesian government but also is a "foreign issuer" under U.S. law, disclosed that the company had received inquiries from the SEC in October 2023 and the DOJ in March 2024 related to FCPA compliance and other issues centered on contracts with the Indonesian Ministry of Communication and Informatics. The disclosure noted that the company was cooperating with both agencies and that it had retained external counsel to conduct an internal investigation. The disclosure stated the investigations were ongoing as of the end of 2024; however, the current status of these inquiries in light of the February 10 E.O. is unclear.
Individual Developments
Regarding the various cases involving individuals that the DOJ is pushing forward after review under the February 10 E.O., we discuss several developments below, including the DOJ's response to a defendant's invocation of the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in U.S v. Snyder. In addition, the judge overseeing the long-running Tuna Bonds scandal cases, which resulted in the sentencing of Manuel Chang, the former Finance Minister of Mozambique, to eight and a half years in jail, ordered the various defendants to pay a combined total of more than $352 million in restitution to "investor-victims" of the fraud. Finally, a key participant in the massive 1MDB scandal, former Goldman Sachs banker Tim Leissner, was sentenced to two years in prison despite his substantial cooperation with the DOJ.
Ex-Smartmatic Executive Files New Motions Challenging DOJ Case, Including Invocation of Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Snyder
In the aftermath of the DOJ's April 9, 2025, decision to proceed toward trial in the prosecution of two former Smartmatic executives and others, one defendant, Roger Alejandro Pinate Martinez (Pinate), filed multiple motions on April 28, 2025, challenging the DOJ's case. The motions and the DOJ's responses make clear that the other defendant, Jorge Miguel Vasquez, adopted at least some of Pinate's legal arguments. The motions included: a motion to dismiss the indictment in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Snyder, arguing that the alleged bribes were actually "gratuities" not covered by the FCPA and also did not violate Philippines law; a motion to dismiss certain money laundering charges for lack of venue and other reasons; and a motion to dismiss certain charges for "failing to state an offense" because the "plain text" of the relevant money laundering statute does not reach the international money transfers that occurred.
The DOJ responded to each of these motions in mid-May. With regard to Pinate's arguments on gratuities and the effect of Snyder, the DOJ argued in a May 14, 2025, response that "Snyder was not an FCPA case and did not alter the elements of the FCPA." Rather, Snyder's "holding with regard to an entirely different statute — 18 U.S.C. § 666 — has no impact on the elements of the crimes charged in this case." Further, the DOJ argued, "the instant case [against Pinate] — as pled — does not rest on a 'gratuities' theory"; instead, "the indictment sufficiently pleads bribery conduct — a corrupt bargain predating the acts sought to be influenced."
The DOJ also argued that the relevant Philippines law "contains the necessary elements to serve as the money laundering [specified unlawful activity] SUA," since the relevant U.S. statute (18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)) "defines the term 'specified unlawful activity' to include 'an offense against a foreign nation involving — bribery of a public official, or the misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official.'" The DOJ's brief cited the Ninth Circuit decision in United States v. Chi, 936 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2019), as the only relevant appellate-level authority related to the defendant's argument; a decision that the DOJ asserted rejects Pinate's "fundamentally flawed premise that the elements of the Philippine law SUA and 'U.S. bribery law' must be coterminous." Instead, per the DOJ, Chi "held that a foreign bribery statute qualifies as an SUA under Section 1956(c)(7)(B) if it comports with the common meaning of 'bribery of a public official' at the time Congress enacted § 1956." The DOJ addressed this question in part by attaching a foreign law declaration by a Philippines legal official that "demonstrates that [the Philippine law] contains [the] three elements" of the "common meaning" of such bribery as established under Chi.
The DOJ also responded to Pinate's claims related to venue in a May 6 filing and to the "failure to state an offense" motion on May 15. As to the latter, in response to the defendants' argument "that the wire transfers alleged in these counts moved through a U.S. correspondent bank, and therefore do not constitute transfers 'to' or 'from' a place in the United States under [the relevant money laundering provision]," the DOJ argued that "every court confronted with this argument — in response to motions to dismiss, Rule 29 arguments, and on appeal — has found that Section 1956(a)(2)(A) covers transfers through domestic correspondent accounts."
As of late July 2025, the court had not yet issued any public decision as to these issues.
Ex-Corsa Coal Executive's Trial Set for February 2026
Following the DOJ's notice on April 11, 2025, that it intends to proceed with its case against former Corsa Coal executive Charles Hunter Hobson, the judge in the case issued an order on May 19 setting February 9, 2026, as the date for opening statements in the trial. Per the order, other preparations will occur in the December 2025-January 2026 timeframe. The DOJ charged Hobson in March 2022 with FCPA, money laundering, and wire fraud violations in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for his alleged role in a scheme to illegally pay $4.8 million to Egyptian government officials through a third-party intermediary to secure $143 million in coal contracts for Corsa Coal.
Former Finance Minister of Mozambique and Swiss Bankers Ordered to Pay $352 Million in Restitution Related to "Tuna Bonds" Scandal
On May 16, 2025, a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York ordered former Finance Minister of Mozambique Manuel Chang and three other defendants – all ex-Credit Suisse employees – in the so-called Tuna Bonds corruption scandal to pay a combined total of $352.2 million in restitution to "investor-victims" of the fraud. The court's determination was based on its interpretation of the facts and circumstances under the U.S. Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), which, per the court, "provides that, upon the sentencing of a defendant for a certain subset of specific offenses, 'the court shall order... in addition to or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense.'"
The order follows the January 17, 2025, sentencing of Chang to an eight-and-a-half year prison term for his role in the fraudulent scheme, as well as an order that Chang "forfeit $7 million in illicit payments he received as part of his criminal scheme." The new order requires Chang to pay over $42.2 million in restitution to "investor-victim" VTB Capital (VTBC), which had lent money to state-owned Mozambican companies based on allegedly fraudulent representations by Chang and the other defendants ordered to pay restitution.
The new order also requires the payment of restitution to VTBC by three former Credit Suisse bankers who participated in the scheme. The largest amount will be paid by Andrew Pearse, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud conspiracy in 2019 and cooperated with the DOJ's investigation and testified at Chang's trial. This cooperation earned Pearse a sentence of "time-served" – thus avoiding prison – on March 6, 2025. However, because Pearse received by far the largest kickbacks in the scheme – $45 million by his own admission – the restitution order requires him to pay the largest amount to VTBC, a total of over $264 million based on the court's calculations. Former banker Surjan Singh, who the order notes pleaded guilty to money laundering conspiracy, was ordered to pay over $32.2 million based on his receipt of almost $5.7 million in bribes. Finally, former banker Detelina Subeva, who also pleaded guilty to money laundering conspiracy, is required to pay over $10.5 million. In late May, Singh and Subeva filed documents signaling that they will request reconsideration of the court's decisions.
Among other legal arguments, Chang asserted that "the fact that VTBC's parent company, VTB Bank, is currently under United States sanctions [was] another reason why the court should not order restitution." The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC) sanctioned VTB Bank on December 15, 2022 as "part of the U.S. government's efforts to further limit the [Russian government]'s ability to fund its unconscionable war of choice against Ukraine." However, the court determined that "this argument conflates two distinct issues," noting that "[s]o long as VTBC is a 'victim under the MVRA… it is entitled to restitution." The court stated it could so rule, "'whether [or not], in light of U.S. sanctions, the Clerk of the Court can actually transfer to VTBC the money it may be awarded in restitution.'"
Another investor, Stone Harbor Investment Partners, claimed restitution for over $40.6 million in investments related to the scheme. However, Stone Harbor failed to convince the court that it was a victim deserving of restitution under the MVRA. Both Chang and the DOJ had argued against such status, noting that Stone Harbor made early gains on the investment that exceeded the claimed later losses.
Court Sets September 2025 Date for Honduran Bribery Trial; Defendant Marchena Changes Plea to Guilty
At a May 28, 2025, hearing, a federal trial judge in Miami set a date of September 2, 2025, for the start of a trial for three men that the DOJ alleged took part in a scheme to bribe Honduran public officials to obtain government contracts with the national police force. Like other cases, the trial was delayed so that the DOJ could review the proceeding under the February 10 E.O. The DOJ stated in April 2025 that it intended to continue the case after conducting that review.
On June 5, 2025, defendant and Florida resident Aldo Nestor Marchena pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering related to his alleged participation in the scheme. He previously pleaded not guilty. Per the terms of Marchena's plea agreement, he could be sentenced to a prison term of up to 10 years, together with other potential monetary penalties, forfeitures, and supervised release conditions. Marchena is also required to fully cooperate with the DOJ's efforts, including testifying at trial, making it possible that he will serve as a prosecution witness against the two other defendants.
The trial of the other two defendants, Carl Zaglin and Francisco Roberto Cosenza Centeno (Cosenza), for charges of conspiracy, violating the FCPA, and money laundering is scheduled to begin on September 2, 2025. A July 28, 2025, court order stated that there will be a “change of plea” hearing for Cosenza on August 11, 2025; if that (presumably guilty) plea is accepted, Cosenza could be obligated to testify against Zaglin at trial. Another defendant, Juan Ramon Molina Rodriguez (Molina), the former Honduran official alleged to have received bribes from the other defendants, pleaded guilty in September 2024 to conspiracy to commit money laundering. The plea agreement, which was unsealed for the trial of the other defendants, commits Molina to testify for the prosecution at trial consistent with the factual proffer related to his plea.
Ex-Goldman Sachs Banker Tim Leissner Sentenced to Two Years in Prison for Role in 1MDB Scandal
On May 29, 2025, Federal District Chief Judge Margo Brodie of the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) sentenced former Goldman Sachs executive Tim Leissner to two years in prison for his role in the massive 1MDB bribery and fraud case. According to media reports, during the hearing Judge Brodie referred to Leissner's "brazen and audacious" illegal conduct and stated that "your cooperation does not completely make up for the harm and devastation you knowingly caused through your conduct, which was completely selfish… [s]o some punishment is warranted." Because Leissner is German and not a U.S. citizen, the judge noted that he could face deportation after serving his sentence.
The DOJ announced on November 1, 2018, that Leissner had pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and one count of conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and internal-accounting-controls provisions of the FCPA in August 2018. As part of his plea bargain, Leissner was ordered to forfeit $43.7 million allegedly earned from his crimes, in addition to any additional penalties he may be required to pay after his sentencing. Leissner also became a key witness for the DOJ in the subsequent trial of former banker Roger Ng, which resulted in Ng's conviction on three conspiracy counts in April 2022: to violate the bribery provisions of the FCPA, to violate the FCPA's internal accounting controls provision, and to commit money laundering. Ng was sentenced to 10 years in prison in March 2023.
In the sentencing process, the DOJ submitted a letter on May 15, 2025, that summarized Leissner's "substantial assistance provided" to the DOJ's investigation of "one of the largest financial crimes in history" and requested "the Court, in its discretion, to impose a sentence below the otherwise applicable advisory [U.S. Sentencing] Guidelines range." The DOJ stated that "Leissner's [seven years of "extensive and extraordinary"] cooperation gave the government a vast array of evidence that only someone in Leissner's position could [and that] [t]hroughout, Leissner was clear about his significant criminal conduct, the greed that fueled it, and the tremendous harm it caused." Finally, the DOJ noted that "[i]n addition to the criminal cases and forfeiture proceedings directly related to the 1MDB scheme, Leissner also provided information about other crimes investigated by the government" that are still the subject of ongoing criminal inquiries.
On the other hand, Goldman Sachs submitted a letter on May 21, 2025, highlighting the harm that Leissner's actions created for the firm and his alleged lack of remorse for his admitted crimes – information that the letter requested the court to consider in its decision on Leissner's sentence. The Goldman letter stated that "Leissner's serial lies, fraud, and deception at Goldman Sachs continued from the day he first brought the [1MDB-related] transactions to the firm through the day he left the firm" and that "absent [these] extensive lies to Goldman Sachs, the 1MDB transactions would not have occurred." The letter asserts that Leissner's fraud and deception "culminat[ed] in the only criminal case filed against Goldman Sachs in its 156-year history." Finally, the letter notes that Leissner has consistently fought "Goldman Sachs' efforts to claw back compensation he received while working on the 1MDB bond transactions" and has to date not returned those monies, even in the face of an arbitral decision that he must do so.
According to media reports, the government of Malaysia is seeking Leissner's extradition so that he may be charged there for his actions in the 1MDB scandal.
Intermediary in Ecuador Reinsurance Cases Sentenced to Time Served
On June 24, 2025, Judge Kathleen Williams of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida sentenced businessman Cristian Patricio Pintado Garcia (Pintado) to five months of time already served, with three years of supervised release, based on his role as an intermediary assisting two U.K. reinsurance companies in paying bribes to state-owned insurance companies in Ecuador. Pintado was originally indicted in July 2022 with two others for, among other charges, conspiracy to pay bribes to officials of Ecuador's state-owned and -controlled insurance companies Seguros Sucre S.A. and Seguros Rocafuerte S.A. At the time, he was a fugitive and resident in Costa Rica.
According to Pintado's sentencing memorandum and media sources, Pintado was arrested in Costa Rica and spent time in jail there before being extradited to the U.S. He then entered into a plea agreement in April 2025 in which he conceded that he made and facilitated payments to gain an improper advantage in obtaining and retaining business for his employer, Royal Re, and the two U.K.-based reinsurance brokers. The plea agreement noted that "the defendant will request sentence of time served and that the government will not object to that request." The court also imposed a $100 special assessment and forfeiture of $2,653,720 – representing the total amount that Pintado received through the scheme, less $303,000 transferred to a co-defendant.
The two U.K. companies involved in the scheme, Tysers Insurance Brokers Limited and H.W. Wood Limited, each entered into separate three-year DPAs with the DOJ on November 20, 2023.
SEC Developments
While not directly covered by the February 10 E.O., media sources have cited at least one SEC official stating that the SEC would "follow the lead" of the DOJ as to FCPA enforcement. Developments during the second quarter of 2025 have largely been consistent with, at minimum, a reduced SEC enforcement effort related to FCPA issues. That said, statements by new SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and the maintenance of language on the agency's website that cites FCPA enforcement as a "high priority area" raises some questions as to whether the DOJ and SEC will remain on parallel tracks. Even so, it is clear from other SEC Commissioner public statements that other regulatory areas and agendas, such as regulation of crypto assets and changes to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures, continue to be key areas for this SEC under Chairman Atkins.
At a June 3, 2025, hearing of the Senate Committee on Appropriations related to the SEC's fiscal year 2026 budget, Senator Chris Coons (D-CT) asked Chairman Atkins whether the February 10 E.O. had caused the SEC to decrease FCPA enforcement efforts, to which Atkins responded, "to my knowledge, nothing has been directly affected" by the E.O., but that he would have to revert back with further information. Atkins also declined to discuss specific cases, including as to whether the DOJ had rejected any evidence on FCPA issues conveyed by the SEC.
With regard to actions involving specific companies and individuals, the SEC's public steps in the FCPA space during Q2 2025 have exclusively involved the closing of ongoing investigations without enforcement action.
Medical Device Company in Talks to Resolve China-Related Investigation
On April 24, 2025, Utah-based medical device company Merit Medical disclosed that the company was in discussions with the SEC regarding the disposition of an investigation of "business activities of Merit's subsidiary in China, including interactions with hospitals and health care officials in China." The disclosure noted that Merit received inquiries from the SEC on the issue starting in January 2022 and that the company was cooperating with the SEC's requests and investigating the issues itself.
Medical Research Company Inotiv Announces Closing of SEC FCPA Investigation with No Action
In a disclosure on June 4, 2025, clinical research company Inotiv, Inc. stated that "[o]n June 2, 2025, the SEC provided notice to the Company… that the SEC's Division of Enforcement (the 'Division') has concluded its investigation and, based on the information available to the Division as of the date of its letter, the Division does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company." Inotiv disclosed in August 2023 that the SEC was seeking documents and information regarding the company and two of its subsidiaries' importation of non-human primates (NHPs) from Asia, including information relating to whether their importation practices complied with the FCPA. The June 4 disclosure noted that the SEC issued a formal order of investigation into the matter in March 2024. Neither the disclosure nor any SEC public documents provide details as to the reasons behind the SEC's decision in the case, though the agency as a general rule does not discuss such matters publicly.
In November 2022, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida charged employees of Inotiv's principal supplier of NHPs, along with two Cambodian government officials, for conspiring to illegally import NHPs into the U.S. from Cambodia.
Another medical research company, Charles River Laboratories, announced that in February and May 2023, the company had been notified that it was the subject of a federal investigation (involving the DOJ, SEC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) regarding "shipments of non-human primates from Cambodia." The company's latest 10-Q filing, from May 7, 2025, appears to show that inquiry as ongoing, stating, "the Company's Audit Committee has retained counsel to conduct an independent investigation into certain issues raised in the investigations, and that work is ongoing." The recent disclosure goes on to say, "[t]he Company is not able to predict what action, if any, might be taken in the future by the DOJ… SEC or other governmental authorities [and] [n]one of the [agencies] has provided the Company with any specific timeline or indication as to when these investigations or… discussions regarding resolution and future processes and procedures, will be concluded or resolved."
SEC Agrees to Dismissal of Case Against Former Cognizant Executives
As a follow-up to the DOJ's dismissal of its case against former Cognizant Technology Solutions President Gordon Coburn and former Chief Legal Officer Steven Schwartz, the SEC and defendants' counsel filed a letter on June 16, 2025, with the federal district court in New Jersey stating that the parties had reached a "settlement in principle" to resolve the SEC's action against the two men. The SEC requested a stay of 60 days to allow for Commission approval of the draft terms of the deal. The SEC requested that the case be restored to the court's active docket on April 10, 2025, "to allow the Parties to explore a potential resolution."
On July 15, 2025, the SEC and the defendants filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with the court. As justification, the SEC merely stated that "in the exercise of its discretion and as a policy matter, the Commission believes the dismissal of this case is appropriate."
Assuming approval by the court, this motion ends a long and sometimes contentious set of U.S. enforcement actions against the two executives. On the same day of Cognizant's February 15, 2019, settlement with the SEC (and just after the company's declination with the DOJ), the SEC filed a complaint in federal court alleging that Coburn and Schwartz violated the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, aided and abetted Cognizant's violation of the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, aided and abetted the company's books-and-records and internal-accounting-controls violations, falsified books and records, and made or caused to be made false or misleading statements to auditors in connection with the preparation or filing of required documentation and reports. The complaint demanded a jury trial.
In a related case, in September 2019, the SEC settled FCPA charges with Cognizant's former Chief Operating Officer, Sridhar Thiruvengadam. According to the SEC's cease-and-desist order, Thiruvengadam promised to fully cooperate with the SEC in any related investigations and paid a civil penalty in the amount of $50,000.
SFO Issues New Guidance to Companies on Cooperation
On April 24, 2025, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO) issued new "External Guidance on Corporate Co-Operation and Enforcement in relation to Corporate Criminal Offending." The guidance discusses factors the SFO intends to consider in "deciding whether or not to charge a corporate or invite it to Deferred Prosecution Agreement ('DPA') negotiations." It is designed to operate alongside other policies governing SFO and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) charging decisions related to companies, such as the 2018 Code for Crown Prosecutors and the 2021 CPS Legal Guidance on Corporate Prosecutions.
The SFO's main takeaway is "[i]f a corporate self-reports promptly to the SFO and co-operates fully we will invite it to negotiate a DPA rather than prosecute unless [undefined] exceptional circumstances apply." The new guidance aligns significantly with the DOJ's CEP, which was recently updated.
Focusing first on self-reporting, the SFO guidance asserts that "[f]ailure [by a company] to notify the suspected offending within a reasonable time of it coming to light is a specific public interest factor in favour of prosecution." Self-reporting is considered "a mark of a responsible organization." That said, the guidance acknowledges that "[w]hat amounts to a reasonable time will depend on the circumstances" and that "responsible corporates may consider it necessary to investigate suspicions of suspected offending before a self-report in order to understand the nature and extent of any offending." The SFO further states, "[w]e do not expect a corporate to fully investigate the matter before self-reporting" but "[i]f there is direct evidence of corporate offending, we would expect a corporate to self-report soon after learning of that evidence." On the other hand, if the evidence is "less clear-cut we recognise that some further investigation may be necessary."
The new guidance instructs companies to self-report "directly to the [SFO's] Intelligence Division," including through a secure online reporting form linked in the guidance document. Similar to the DOJ's CEP, the SFO only credits direct reports to the agency: "Reporting offending through a Suspicious Activity Report or to another agency, whether domestic or foreign, is not considered a self-report to the SFO unless the offending is also reported to us simultaneously or immediately thereafter." As to the contents of a qualifying self-report, the guidance states that a company "should identify all relevant known facts and evidence concerning the suspected offences, the individual(s) involved (both those inside and outside the organisation), and the relevant jurisdiction(s)" such that the "information provided to us should enable us to understand the nature and extent of the suspected offending." The guidance also emphasizes that the SFO would "expect at this stage to be told about the whereabouts of key material and any risks associated with the destruction of key evidence or the dissipation of relevant assets."
Regarding cooperation, the new guidance states, "[t]he degree to which a corporate co-operates with our investigation is a key factor when deciding how a case is resolved and the level of penalty" and "[o]nly a genuinely co-operative corporate will be invited to engage in DPA negotiations." The guidance then discusses "a non-exhaustive list of co-operative conduct," including:
- Preservation of all relevant hard copy and digital evidence
- "Collecting and identifying to us documents and information likely to be relevant to the investigation," including "[p]roviding a list of relevant document custodians and the location of material," "[i]dentifying and/or producing relevant overseas documents within [the company's] control," and "[i]dentifying potentially relevant third-party material"
- "Presenting the facts on the suspected criminal conduct, including identifying all persons involved, both inside and outside of the organization"
- Providing information on and coordinating with the SFO regarding any internal investigation, including "not taking any step which might prejudice our investigation"
- Coordinating on interviews of witnesses and "[p]roviding non-privileged records of interviews"
- "Notifying [the SFO] of any other regulator, law enforcement or prosecutor involvement or interest"
- "Providing information on any disciplinary action taken and changes to personnel made as a result of the offending"
- "Providing financial information regarding the benefit and/or harm the offending has caused"
- "Presenting a thorough analysis of the corporate's compliance programme and procedures in place at the time of offending and how the corporate has remediated, or plans to remediate, any ongoing deficiencies."
Again, these factors generally align with similar considerations in the DOJ's CEP.
The guidance also lists several examples of uncooperative behavior, including "'forum shopping' by unreasonably reporting offending to another jurisdiction for strategic reasons," "[s]eeking to exploit differences between international law enforcement agencies or legal systems," "[a]ttempts to obfuscate the involvement of individuals," a factor likely aimed at company attempts to shield specific executives, and "[t]actically delaying providing information or material." A final factor is "seeking to overload our investigation by providing unnecessarily large amounts of material that may hinder the effectiveness of the investigation" – a likely allusion to the SFO's limited resources.
The guidance concedes that "[a] corporate which maintains a valid claim of legal professional privilege ('LPP') over relevant material will not be penalised for doing so." However, the guidance goes on to state that the SFO "consider[s] a waiver of LPP to be a significant co-operative act and it can help expedite matters."
Finally, the new guidance sets out timeline goals to which the SFO says it will hold itself related to key points in an investigation. Notably, the SFO "will seek to":
- "Contact a self-reporting corporate within 48 business hours of a self-report or other initial contact"
- "Decide whether or not to open an investigation within six months of a self-report"
- "Conclude our investigation within a reasonably prompt time frame" – there is no further elaboration as to what timing might be "reasonably prompt"
- "Conclude DPA negotiations within six months of sending an invite"
Argentina's Supreme Court Upholds Former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's Corruption Conviction in Landmark Ruling
On June 10, 2025, in a historic decision with far-reaching implications for Argentina's anti-corruption efforts, the country's Supreme Court upheld the 2022 conviction of former president and vice president of the Republic of Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, for "fraudulent administration" in connection with the long running Causa Vialidad investigation. The ruling, which rejected all remaining appeals, confirms a six-year prison sentence and a lifetime ban from holding public office for Fernández de Kirchner, and marks the culmination of nearly a decade of complex judicial proceedings involving dozens of witnesses, multiple expert reports, and extensive evidentiary analysis.
The case traces its origins to a 2008 complaint filed by several then-members of Congress, who alleged irregularities in the awarding of public works contracts in the province of Santa Cruz to companies owned by businessman Lázaro Báez, a close associate of the Kirchner family. Although the initial investigation stalled and was partially archived in 2012, the case was revived in 2013 following a new complaint by legislator Graciela Ocaña. It gained renewed momentum in 2016, when Javier Iguacel, then head of Argentina's National Highway Directorate (Vialidad Nacional), filed a formal complaint that led to the indictment of Fernández de Kirchner and several former officials. That same year, Federal Judge Julián Ercolini ordered their prosecution and froze assets totaling ARS 10 billion (approximately $650 million USD at the historical exchange rate).
The judicial process unfolded over nearly a decade and involved multiple procedural stages and judicial bodies. In 2017, the Federal Court of Appeals confirmed the indictments, and later that year, the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation ratified the decision, paving the way for trial. The oral proceedings began in May 2019 before the Tribunal Oral Federal No. 2. The trial spanned more than 100 hearings and included testimony from dozens of witnesses, including sitting President Alberto Fernández and other senior officials. Despite delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the court continued to gather evidence, including forensic audits and testimony from related corruption cases.
On December 6, 2022, the tribunal convicted Fernández de Kirchner of fraudulent administration and sentenced her to six years in prison and permanent disqualification from public office. The court found that between 2003 and 2015, the Argentine federal government awarded 51 roadwork contracts — representing 86 percent of all such projects in Santa Cruz — to Báez's companies under irregular and preferential conditions. According to the tribunal, many of the projects were overpriced, incomplete, or never executed. The tribunal concluded that Fernández de Kirchner orchestrated the scheme, which resulted in significant financial harm to the state. The tribunal acquitted Fernández de Kirchner of the more serious charge of illicit association by a 2-1 vote.
The Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation upheld the conviction in November 2024 and the Supreme Court's June 2025 ruling rendered the sentence final. In addition to Fernández de Kirchner, the Court confirmed convictions against eight other individuals, including Báez, former Secretary of Public Works José López, and former National Highway Director Nelson Periotti, each of whom received six-year sentences. Former Planning Minister Julio De Vido and Carlos Kirchner, a relative of the former president, were acquitted.
In another significant development, the Supreme Court approved a recalculation of the financial damages based on updated forensic accounting. The court revised the total amount to be repaid to the Argentine state to ARS 684.99 billion — approximately $540 million USD at current exchange rates. This amount will be enforced jointly and severally among the convicted parties. The court emphasized that the damage extended beyond financial loss, citing the erosion of public trust and the diversion of resources from critical infrastructure projects.
The ruling is widely regarded as a watershed moment in Argentina's legal and political history. While other senior Argentine officials have been convicted of corruption-related offenses, Fernández de Kirchner is the first former head of state to receive a final, enforceable conviction confirmed by the Supreme Court. Legal analysts have noted that the decision reflects a growing institutional capacity to investigate and prosecute complex financial crimes, even when politically sensitive. While Fernández de Kirchner is expected to serve her sentence under house arrest due to her age and health, the political and symbolic consequences of the ruling are profound. The decision bars her from seeking elected office and may reshape the political landscape ahead of upcoming elections.
The case also highlights the increasing sophistication of Argentina's judicial system in handling large-scale corruption cases. The use of forensic accounting, the integration of evidence from parallel investigations, and the sustained engagement of multiple judicial bodies over more than 15 years underscore the country's evolving approach to accountability and rule of law.
Other International Developments
SFO Charges UK Insurance Broker for Alleged Bribery in Ecuador
On April 17, 2025, the SFO announced that it had charged U.K. insurance broker United Insurance Brokers Limited (UIBL) with "failing to prevent associates from bribing state officials in Ecuador between October 2013 and March 2016" – potentially the first "'failure to prevent bribery' case [to be] heard by a jury." The SFO alleged that "UIBL's U.S.-based intermediaries for Ecuador paid bribes in return for the awarding of re-insurance contracts worth $38 million USD," including contracts "covering parts of the Ecuadorian public sector, including the state water and electricity companies."
On May 7, 2025, according to the SFO's status page on its website, "[r]epresentatives of UIBL faced Westminster Magistrates Court, where they were ordered to attend Southwark Crown Court on 4 June 2025." According to press reports, at the June 4 hearing, the court scheduled the company's trial for June 7, 2027; the company did not enter a formal plea at the hearing.
U.K. SFO Joins IACCC
On June 26, 2025, the SFO announced its accession to the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre (IACCC), an organization led by the U.K. National Crime Agency that aims to counter transnational "grand" corruption. The move follows the SFO's recent effort to establish a joint taskforce with French and Swiss authorities to counter international bribery. By joining the IACCC, the SFO aims to improve its intelligence gathering capacity and facilitate further cooperation with global law enforcement partners.
Dutch Shipbuilder Charged by Dutch Authorities with Bribery and Sanctions Violations
On April 25, 2025, the Dutch Openbaar Ministerie (OM) announced that the agency was moving ahead with charging shipbuilding company Damen Shipyards with "bribery, forgery and money laundering" related to alleged "payment of high commissions to agents" connected with sales of ships "to various countries in Africa, Asia and South America" from 2006 to 2016. The OM further asserted that "[o]ver a number of years, a large number of false documents were probably drawn up in order to conceal the high commission payments to agents and to frustrate control thereof, including in applications for export credit insurance." The OM announcement stated that a trial of the company on these charges would begin in the second half of 2025. The agency also noted that "([f]ormer) directors are also being prosecuted for actually directing these criminal acts." Some media reports state that those charged include company founder Kommer Damen and his son, Arnout.
Damen issued a press release on the same day stating that the company "has assessed the file and concludes that [OM] does not have a feasible case... Damen is disappointed in the long duration of the investigation and foresees a long legal battle." The company also noted the existence of the company's compliance program, which it stated has been in place "for over ten years" and "is ISO-certified."
In March 2016, the World Bank debarred Damen for 18 months after finding that the company "engaged in a fraudulent practice by failing to disclose an agent and the amount of commissions due to the agent when it submitted its bid for the supply of" boats under a Bank program in Sierra Leone.
Separately, Dutch authorities also accused Damen of "violation of the [Dutch] Sanctions Act" related to "goods and technology that could contribute to the military and technological strengthening of Russia and/or to the development of the defense and security sector." The company's press release also contested these charges. Media reports noted that Damen sued the Dutch government in October 2023 over economic damages the company incurred as a result of Dutch cooperation with the EU's sanctions against Russia over the invasion of Ukraine.
Three Brazilian Agencies Announce Technical Cooperation Agreement in the Fight Against Corruption
On April 25, 2025, Brazil's Federal Prosecution Service (MPF), Comptroller General of the Union (CGU), and Attorney General's Office (AGU) announced an agreement to coordinate their actions when conducting negotiations and concluding leniency agreements with companies regarding corruption and other "illicit acts" that misappropriate state funds and divert government resources. Described by the minister of the CGU as "the missing step" and "final link" of "a process of institutional maturation," the agreement responds to situations where shared jurisdiction between the agencies resulted in companies settling with one agency years after settling with another regarding the same conduct. The cooperation agreement states that negotiations and leniency agreements will be "conducted in a coordinated and joint manner" between the agencies. The cooperation agreement also states that the agencies will "promote, implement and facilitate" better information sharing between one another. Importantly, the agreement recognizes the MPF's constitutionally mandated independence and preserves their power to "use an autonomous leniency agreement term" in some cases. This development is significant for multinational companies, as it removes the uncertainties associated with institutional fragmentation and the risk of multiple fines for the same violation.
French Court Fines SPIE Group for Bribery and Sentences Two SPIE Executives for Related Conduct
On April 29, 2025, the Paris Criminal Court imposed a €3 million (roughly $3.3 million USD) fine on two subsidiaries of the French energy services company SPIE Group in relation to the company's alleged efforts to bribe a senior Indonesian police official in early 2015 related to a dispute involving a former manager of the company's Indonesian operations. According to a Ministry of Justice press release published by Le Monde, the court also imposed prison sentences on two SPIE Group executives for bribery of a foreign official and conspiracy to commit extortion.
The court sentenced Pascal Colbatzky, SPIE Group's current legal director and head of compliance, to three years in prison, 18 months of which would be spent under house arrest, with the remainder suspended. The court also sentenced Andi Budianto, current manager of the group's Indonesian subsidiary SPIE OGS Indonesia, to two years in prison. The release stated that Budianto was absent from the hearing and that an arrest warrant had been issued for him. In addition to his prison sentence, the court ordered – provisionally – that Colbatzky should be subject to "a 5-year ban on exercising any legal or compliance function at or for the SPIE group."
According to the release, the two SPIE executives attempted to offer a 1 billion Indonesian rupiah (approximately $77,000 USD) bribe to a senior Indonesian police officer through a local lawyer. The executives reportedly aimed to convince the officer to detain the former SPIE manager, who had been dismissed in September 2014, to coerce him to relinquish any claims against SPIE Group and pay an undetermined sum in damages. The court release stated that the bribe was not paid and the detention did not actually occur, but that the court "judg[ed] the facts sufficiently serious and the defendants likely to repeat them," so that it determined that the sentences were appropriate. The court release also noted that the sentence imposed on the two executives was "the subject of an appeal before the Paris Court of Appeal."
SPIE Group issued a press release on April 30, 2025, acknowledging the judgment and accompanying fine but "contest[ing] the alleged facts" and noting its intent to appeal the findings and penalties.
Mexican Supreme Court Decisions Expands Potential Corporate Liability
The Mexican Supreme Court issued a signficant decision on April 30, 2025, holding in Leonardo Poblete v. UBS that individual Mexican state legislatures may establish their own frameworks for corporate criminal liability without identifying or enumerating specific offenses that give rise to corporate liability. This case represents challenges for companies operating in Mexico, as the ruling creates risks of broader exposure to corporate criminal liability through state-level actions as well as potential variations in criminal legal standards across different Mexican jurisdictions. This alert discusses these and other potential impacts of this decision in more detail.
Recent World Bank Debarments Relating to Corruption
The World Bank announced two notable debarments in the second quarter of 2025 that involved corrupt and fraudulent practices, both of which qualify for cross-debarment by other multilateral development banks.
First, on May 16, 2025, the World Bank announced a four-and-a-half-year debarment with conditional release for Chinese company Hunan Zhongge Construction Group Corporation (Hunan Zhongge) for "corrupt and fraudulent practices" in relation to two flood control projects in southern and southwestern China. The charges include bribes to public officials, obstruction of Bank inspections and audits, and fraudulent misrepresentation of the firm's ability to handle the projects. In calculating the debarment period, the Bank considered the "significant" passage of time since the sanctionable practices as a mitigating factor.
On May 28, 2025, the World Bank announced a four-and-a-half-year debarment with conditional release for Philippine construction company L.S.D. Construction & Supplies (L.S.D.) for "collusive, fraudulent, and corrupt practices" in relation to the Philippine Rural Development Project. The Bank debarred L.S.D. for bidding on two World Bank-financed contracts under the L.S.D. name and, in exchange for a fee, secretly subcontracting work to unqualified entities. Additionally, the Bank stated that L.S.D. also made improper payments to secure one of the contracts and ensure swift processing of related invoices. The settlement included a reduced debarment period due to L.S.D.'s cooperation and voluntary remedial actions.
Swiss Authorities Prosecute Pictet Bank and Former Employee for Money Laundering Related to Petrobras Bribery
On June 17, 2025, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) secured convictions against Banque Pictet et Cie SA (Pictet Bank) and one of its former relationship managers in relation to the long-running Lava Jato inquiries centered in Brazil. The OAG's investigation established that between June 2012 and May 2013, Pictet Bank's former relationship manager approved the execution of 54 transfers to accounts in Switzerland and abroad, from an account at Pictet whose beneficial owner was a Petrobras employee. According to the OAG, the assets (totaling more than $4.1 million USD) originated from corrupt payments made by an intermediary on behalf of SBM Offshore in relation to contracts with Petrobras. The OAG states that the 54 transfers served to conceal the criminal origin of the assets.
The OAG found the former relationship manager guilty of aggravated money laundering for his role in overseeing the transfers. He received a six-month suspended custodial sentence with a two-year probationary period. The sentence considered the time elapsed since the offence was committed and his cooperation during the proceedings as mitigating factors. The OAG fined Pictet Bank two million Swiss francs (approximately $2.48 million USD) for breaching anti-money laundering rules by failing to properly monitor the 54 transfers and for failing to classify the respective accounts as high risk. The fine considered the time elapsed since the offence, Pictet Bank's "very good" cooperation, and corrective measures taken by the bank in the interim as mitigating factors. The OAG could not prove and thus dropped charges of complicitly in the bribery of foreign public officials against the former manager and Pictet Bank.
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, Ann Sultan,* Alexandra Beaulieu
Contributors: Franco Jofré, Eva Kahan,** William Ricks**
*Former Miller & Chevalier attorney
**Summer Associate
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.