In depth
On February 10, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order pausing FCPA enforcement to "advance American economic and national security by eliminating excessive barriers to American commerce abroad." Under the Executive Order, the DOJ will not bring new FCPA enforcement actions and review its existing enforcement policies and guidelines for a period of 180 days. This review period may be extended by the US Attorney General as appropriate.
The Executive Order raised uncertainty about future FCPA enforcement actions. Citing the Executive Order, acting New Jersey US Attorney Alina Habba recently filed a motion requesting dismissal of a high-profile foreign bribery case against two former Cognizant Technology Solutions executives, which was set to begin trial on April 7. The executives were charged in 2019 for allegedly authorizing a USD 2 million bribe to secure construction permits for new offices in India. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice on April 3. Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Commission, which enforces the FCPA's books and records provisions, indicated it would follow the DOJ's lead regarding FCPA enforcement, and two senior leaders of the Commission's foreign corrupt practices unit have reportedly left the agency.
In response to the anticipated reduction in federal FCPA enforcement activity, both state and foreign agencies have indicated a continued commitment to enforcing anti-bribery and corruption related offenses. Specifically, Bonta emphasized "the need for all businesses and individuals to continue complying with all applicable laws, including the FCPA, regardless of the federal administration's pronouncements." The announcement previews how some state and foreign enforcers may seek to fill an enforcement gap while DOJ reviews its FCPA policies and guidelines.
In California, FCPA violations are actionable under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices. Indeed, violations of certain federal and criminal laws, such as the FCPA, serve as a predicate cause of action under the UCL, allowing the California Attorney General's Office to bring enforcement actions against businesses and individuals for such violations.1 The statute has limited reach, extending to conduct occurring outside of California only if the claim involves acts or injury in California or out of state conduct that affects in-state residents. Unlike the FCPA, the UCL also does not impose criminal penalties and only allows the state's Attorney General to seek civil remedies, such as financial or injunctive relief.
The California Attorney General's Office also appears to be ramping up its resources to support greater enforcement activities. Relatedly, a senior official recently reported that the California Attorney General's Office is adding personnel to its antitrust team to enhance its enforcement abilities addressing economic offenses. Although these anticipated personnel additions are not explicitly tied to the recent Advisory concerning use of the UCL to enforce against bribing foreign officials, the enhanced antitrust enforcement capabilities may be leveraged as necessary for FCPA-related enforcement activities as state antitrust violations are also prosecuted under the UCL.
While it is yet to be seen if other state attorneys general will make similar pronouncements during the DOJ's pause in FCPA enforcement, foreign governments also appear to be strengthening their commitments to enforcing anti-corruption laws. For example, the United Kingdom, France, and Switzerland have announced the creation of the International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce ("Taskforce"). The Taskforce, which was announced on March 20, 2025, intends to leverage the transnational anti-bribery legislation of each country and allows for the prosecution of overseas criminal conduct. Similar to the California statute, conduct must connect to the prosecuting country to be actionable.
In addition to the anti-corruption regimes of other foreign nations, multinational development banks including the World Bank, continue to pursue corruption cases as part of their broader sanctions regimes. Relatedly, the African Development Bank recently announced a new partnership with the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) designed to share expertise and enhance the bank's investigative capabilities in pursuit of financial crimes, including counter-terrorism financing, cybercrime, as well as public corruption cases.
Ultimately, even as we may see a decrease in federal enforcement of the FCPA, these state and international-level commitments to anti-corruption demonstrate that companies should remain committed to maintaining robust compliance programs and continue to investigate and remediate allegations of corruption in the countries where they conduct business.
* * * * *
Related alerts:
1 Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1144 (noting Court of Appeals' decision that UCL claim may be predicated on FCPA violation)
