White Collar Enforcement Briefing: DOJ Priorities and What Organizations Should Do Now

At the 2025 ACI FCPA Conference in Washington, DC, Assistant Attorney General Todd Blanche delivered one of the most explicit statements of the current posture of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on corporate enforcement. His remarks cut through speculation about shifting priorities, potential de-escalation of enforcement, and reaffirmed core principles that have guided the department for more than two decades. Blanche opened with a reminder that shaped the discussion that followed: Books, records, or systems do not commit corporate misconduct; It is committed by people whose decisions are shaped by culture, incentives, pressures, and oversight. That framing anchored his message and aligned with an extensive line of DOJ policy beginning with the Holder Memorandum and continuing through Thompson, McNulty, Filip, Yates, and Monaco.

Evidence and Cooperation Drive Outcomes

During his speech, Blanche further reiterated that investigating a long-standing American business is not the same as going after a drug cartel. The DOJ is bringing a renewed commitment to fairness, transparency and discipline in how corporate and financial crime is pursued. 

Accordingly, he laid out five principals that the DOJ has applied in the past year and will continue to apply to its enforcement philosophy going forward:

1. Enforcement will continue to be a primary goal of individual accountability in a corporate criminal investigation.
2. The department will not pursue corporate criminal resolutions without admissible evidence to prove a case that is argued in court concluding a case beyond a reasonable doubt and only where evidence supports it. 
3. Cooperation matters. Companies that go the extra mile, voluntarily self-disclose, producing information that is located abroad, and otherwise difficult to obtain, will receive more credit. Non-cooperation, providing only surface level assistance, when the DOJ must gather evidence through alternative means will result in proposing appropriate resolution that reflects lack of cooperation. 
4. Investigations must be efficient and disciplined. The DOJ will not allow matters to “drift”, causing unnecessary delays based on the company’s own action or when cooperation is deemed performative. 
5. Recognition that significant decisions require a fair and orderly process. The DOJ will follow a well-defined process that clearly outlines major decision points, the roles of prosecutors and component heads and only raises the most significant questions to department senior leadership. 

Blanche explained that the department will pursue cases only when the evidence supports them. Prosecutors will not rely on theoretical exposure or the possibility of harm to pressure a company into a resolution. The government expects admissible evidence, factual clarity, and timely, substantive cooperation. Blanche was explicit that the department will not threaten an indictment when it cannot prove a case in court. This not only reflects how this administration’s DOJ has treated the current FCPA enforcement docket of individual and corporate cases but also conveyed continuity. The guiding principles have not changed. Evidence drives outcomes.

Cooperation remains a meaningful factor in enforcement decisions. Blanche said companies that voluntarily disclose misconduct, remediate promptly, and provide timely factual information can expect cooperation credit. Companies that deny, delay or limit access should not expect the same consideration. He emphasized that a delay caused by a company cannot later be characterized as government delay. Investigations must move efficiently because fairness requires it and because extended uncertainty harms all parties involved.

Culture Is the Key to Compliance

Blanche also addressed monitorships. He acknowledged concerns that some monitorships in the past expanded beyond their intended scope or imposed unnecessary costs. He described a more defined approach. The department will impose monitorships only when needed and only when the benefits cannot be achieved through the company’s own remedial efforts. Monitorships will have explicit scopes and budgets. Companies will not be penalized for challenging unreasonable fees. Blanche underscored that the goal is not the existence of a monitor. The goal is an effective compliance program that functions without external oversight. Culture remains central. Structures and policies matter, but values, incentives, and leadership determine whether compliance takes hold.

Enforcement is Active, Targeted, and Risk-Based

Blanche devoted time to the global enforcement landscape. Foreign regulators have become more capable and active in addressing corruption, sanctions violations, market misconduct, and cross-border fraud. When a matter is better addressed abroad, the department may defer to foreign authorities. This reflects a mature understanding of global enforcement. It also signals that multinational companies must evaluate risk through a broader lens. When misconduct affects American investors, markets, or national interests, the department will act. When foreign authorities are better positioned to address the issue, the department may allow that pathway to proceed.

Blanche described enforcement activity in several key areas:

• Healthcare fraud remains significant. 
• Digital asset misconduct continues to draw scrutiny when it involves fraud, sanctions evasion, or illicit finance. 
• Trade fraud is receiving greater attention because misrepresentations about imported goods can implicate national security. 
• Securities fraud involving foreign issuer structures has produced notable cases.

He also addressed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Following an executive directive earlier this year, the department conducted a comprehensive review of FCPA matters and updated its internal guidance. Blanche explained that closing investigations based on evidence, age, or case management considerations is normal and necessary. Internal guidance exists to support prosecutors. It does not create rights for companies. The department will enforce the FCPA firmly, fairly, and within the bounds of reason. It will not stretch statutes. It will not pursue minor customary practices with a limited nexus to the United States. It will act decisively when corruption distorts markets, harms American companies, or empowers malign actors.

Blanche announced that the department will introduce a unified corporate enforcement policy in the next couple of weeks. This policy will align expectations across DOJ components and integrate principles that have shaped enforcement for more than 20 years with the core tenants of incentives for good corporate conduct and accountability. Companies can expect greater consistency, clearer expectations, and a more coherent application of established standards.

Implications Are Significant for Boards and Senior Leadership

Blanche’s remarks confirm that white collar enforcement remains active and principled. The environment is not set-and-forget. Compliance programs must evolve with risk. Fraud risk assessments should be refreshed regularly to reflect current business models, technology, third-party networks, and regulatory expectations. Whistleblower systems should be tested to ensure that concerns are properly escalated and reach the proper channels quickly. Investigative protocols should support timely, credible fact-finding. Culture should be evaluated honestly through incentives, leadership tone, and employee behavior. Controls should be tested through real scenarios rather than assumptions. Compliance and internal audit functions should have the authority and resources they need. Leadership should reinforce expectations consistently through communication, example, and consequence.

Blanche’s opening remarks provide a valuable frame for these actions, stating that individuals go to jail, companies do not. It is a reminder that human choices drive misconduct. Culture, incentives, and oversight shape the decisions that create exposure. Modern enforcement recognizes this. It is why the department continues to focus on individual accountability, remediation, and culture.