New FCPA landscape — Implications of the DOJ’s Enforcement Reset

In a new Financier Worldwide Q&A, BDO principals Didier Lavion and Jonathan T. Marks discuss how the DOJ’s enforcement reset signals a push for stronger cases backed by stronger evidence—and what that means for compliance programs, investigations, remediation, and reporting.

Overview

The DOJ’s current posture reinforces long-standing expectations: programms and investigations must be built to identify decision points, preserve evidence, and clearly establish individual accountability early. Companies also need credible escalation pathways and investigative readiness—so they can explain when they learned of an issue, how it was escalated, and what response followed.

Core Insights from the Discussion

1) Investigations designed for individual accountability

The DOJ’s focus on individual accountability should shape both compliance program design and investigative execution. Investigations should track who knew what, when, and under what circumstances, supported by documentation that captures approvals, ignored warnings and behavioral indicators. Boards should expect reporting that names individuals clearly and explains the basis for accountability.

2) Whistleblower programs that drive action—not siloed reporting

A strong whistleblower program requires surgical triage and escalation, transparency with reporters, appropriate updates, meaningful disciplinary action for retaliation, and integration with other data sources. Hotline trends, audit observations, cultural insights and anonymous tips should inform each other rather than sit in isolation.

3) Escalation pathways and investigative readiness

Compliance officers should ensure escalation routes credible concerns directly to decision makers. Siloed escalation and whistleblower processes can lead to stalled or unaddressed non-compliance or fraud. Organizations should be able to describe escalation, evidence preservation, and how they evaluated facts and circumstances—recognizing that management, boards, audit committees, investors and auditors may have different expectations for response and remediation.

4) Remediation without expansive monitorships

The shift toward narrower oversight places responsibility for remediation back with the company, with monitorships used when benefits outweigh costs and budgets constrained by fee caps. Effective remediation starts with root-cause analysis (structural and behavioral contributors such as pressure, rationalization, competence and arrogance), testing controls, addressing culture through tone and incentives, and using continuous monitoring to demonstrate sustained effectiveness. Companies that remediate early and substantively often avoid monitorships.

Need to strengthen FCPA and anti-corruption readiness in a DOJ environment that rewards timeliness, evidence preservation, clarity and discipline—not optics? BDO’s Forensics & Investigations professionals can help you:

• Mobilize quickly when concerns arise: preserve evidence immediately, map custodians, run disciplined document collection, and conduct structured interviews.
• Make internal reporting channels work globally: ensure reporting functions across languages and jurisdictions, enforce non-retaliation, and apply surgical triage so high-risk allegations reach qualified investigators fast.
• Build defensible investigative documentation: clearly document timelines, methodology, custodial decisions, and remediation steps in a manner you can walk regulators through.
• Recalibrate risk assessments to today’s enforcement focus: map exposure across US markets and touchpoints; assess supply chains, distribution, payment flows and government interactions; enhance third-party diligence in high-risk environments.
• Strengthen detection for evolving risk indicators: improve monitoring for trade-fraud and supply-chain vulnerabilities and potential links to cartels/TCOs, shell companies and money laundering signals.