Case Explained: Anticorruption Enforcement and the FCPA: 2026 Year in Preview | White Collar Law and Investigations – Legal Perspective

2025 saw fundamental shifts in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement priorities under the first year of the second Trump Administration. FCPA and global anti-corruption landscape enters 2026 amid continued recalibration in U.S. enforcement priorities, a thinned but active federal enforcement apparatus, and increasingly assertive international counterparts filling perceived gaps left by shifting U.S. policy. 

U.S. Enforcement Backdrop and Policy Direction

The defining story of 2025 was the White House–directed “pause” in new criminal FCPA cases and a subsequent DOJ review that closed some matters, allowed others to proceed, culminating in the June 2025 Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the FCPA (2025 FCPA Guidelines) issued by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Those Guidelines steer prosecutors toward cases that vindicate U.S. interests—corruption cases involving international drug cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs), harm to identifiable U.S. competitors, and matters implicating national security sectors, such as corruption in the defense sector. The 2025 FCPA Guidelines also emphasize DOJ’s interest in pursuing matters showing strong indicia of corrupt intent rather than low-dollar matters involving common business courtesies. DAG Blanche reiterated at the December 2025 ACI FCPA Conference that enforcement “is not slowing down,” but will be disciplined, trial-ready, and centered on conduct that “matters to the American people.” DOJ has also signaled it will not stretch the FCPA to reach conduct involving marginal U.S. connections, with deference to foreign authorities where appropriate. 

The new FCPA Guidelines will be applied in tandem with DOJ’s new guidance on corporate enforcement, issued in May 2025, which includes new guidance on crediting voluntary disclosures to encourage companies to self-report. The Criminal Division’s updated Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) provides a declination when a company (1) voluntarily self-discloses to the Criminal Division, (2) fully cooperates, (3) timely and appropriately remediates, and (4) there are no aggravating circumstances related to the offense. Prosecutors may still recommend a declination in their discretion even if aggravating factors exist, but any declination will require payment of disgorgement and restitution and will be made public. When a company either made a good faith report that does not technically qualify as a voluntary self disclosure because DOJ was already aware of the criminal activity or the conduct has aggravating factors that warrant a resolution, DOJ may still offer a non prosecution agreement (NPA) that will allow a term under three years, will not require a monitor, and will grant a 75% reduction off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) fine range. In other cases where these options are not available, prosecutors retain discretion on form, term, and compliance obligations, but any monetary penalty reduction will be capped at 50% off the USSG fine. The starting point in the Guidelines range may vary based on case-specific facts, including recidivism. This additional guidance regarding credit even for partial or imperfect disclosures is intended to encourage disclosures, but it underscores that any disclosure decision requires many factors to be considered.

We will watch to see, in 2026, how DOJ’s application of its new FCPA Guidelines plays out in terms of the type and number of new cases charged and investigations opened.

In late 2025, DAG Blanche articulated five charging principles that will also affect FCPA cases: (1) individual accountability; (2) charging only where admissible evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (3) rewarding cooperation; (4) streamlining investigations; and (5) orderly internal elevation. DOJ has previewed a department-wide corporate enforcement policy to harmonize incentives and expectations across components, which should further codify the 2025 shifts. 

Monitorships are being recalibrated to limit their scope to address the issues at the heart of the underlying matter. The Administration also seeks to lower the costs associated with previously expansive monitorships. Under new guidelines issued in May 2025, DOJ will review existing monitors to ensure they meet the Department’s new narrowly tailored approach. DOJ will also impose budget and fee caps requirements for new monitorships, aiming to keep costs proportionate to the severity of the underlying conduct, the profits of the culpable entity, and the scale of the organization. In parallel, DOJ’s May 2025 white-collar enforcement memorandum set criteria for early termination of post-resolution reporting obligations, emphasizing progress, risk reduction, and remediation maturity—considerations that will influence corporate strategy in 2026. Shortly before the onset of the new guidelines, DOJ terminated the monitorship of Glencore, which stemmed from FCPA violations, three months early. Later in the year, DOJ reportedly terminated another corporate monitorship over 15 months early.

Enforcement Themes for 2026

DOJ’s FCPA work will continue to prioritize cases with meaningful U.S. touchpoints while aligning with broader white-collar priorities in trade fraud, sanctions/money laundering, and integrity of U.S. markets. The 2025 guidance explicitly targets conduct intertwined with cartels and TCOs; companies with supply chain exposure in high-risk corridors—particularly those with unavoidable “touchpoints” to cartels—should expect intensifying diligence expectations and investigative interest. At the same time, DOJ messaging underscores restraint against over-criminalizing de minimis business courtesies, focusing resources on provable, high-impact schemes. 

Beyond classic bribery patterns, practitioners should monitor adjacent 2026 risk areas that can intersect with foreign bribery investigations: trade and tariff evasion schemes, government contract fraud, and misuse of digital assets for sanctions evasion or payments laundering. 

The Enforcement Cadence and the SEC

After a near four-month silence during the pause, DOJ returned to a more “traditional cadence” in late 2025, with the FCPA Unit previewing a mix of corporate and individual matters to be announced in 2026. Even so, staffing remains lean—roughly a dozen prosecutors at DOJ’s FCPA Unit—and SEC’s specialized FCPA Unit appears to have been effectively dissolved, with no SEC FCPA actions publicly observed in 2025 and former leadership departed. To date, under the current administration, there have been no foreign bribery resolutions announced by the SEC. This may be reflective of the administration’s intent to turn away from charging some of the lower-dollar business courtesies cases that were often charged by the SEC as books and records violations.

Case Generation and Whistleblowers

Case intake should remain robust in 2026 from voluntary self-disclosures, a stepped-up whistleblower pipeline, and interagency referrals. DOJ reports that is has received more than 1,100 submissions under the Criminal Division’s Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program since its launch in 2024. As originally launched, the program included referrals for FCPA cases.  In 2025, DOJ expanded the scope of this program to include referrals involving trade and customs fraud and international criminal cartel activity. Given that these areas have the possibility to overlap with international corruption matters, we will look to see whether the expanded scope of the program will generate new FCPA leads and investigations. 

Doctrinal Developments

There were meaningful developments in FCPA jurisprudence in 2025:

• U.S. v. Ng Chong Hwa, 161 F.4th 127 (2d Cir. 2025): The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction of Goldman Sachs Director Roger Ng under the FCPA in a bribery scheme related to 1 Malaysian Development Bank (1MDB). The court confirmed a broad venue holding, with conspiracy-related telecommunications and travel sufficient to permit venue in EDNY. 
• U.S. v. Leissner, 18-CR-439 (MKB), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102348 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2025). In another 1MDB case, the district court denied restitution to a third party following the Defendant’s guilty plea on FCPA-related charges. The victim purported to suffer political recriminations after sharing information leading to FCPA enforcement. The court held that the victim was not entitled to restitution because his harms were not tied directly to the crimes of conviction, narrowing available restitution for FCPA violations under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. 
• U.S. v. Oztemel, 23-cv-00026 (KAD), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154283 (D. Conn. Aug. 11, 2025). A court rejected a defendant’s post-conviction challenge to jury instructions that implied that the defendant could be simultaneously an “agent of domestic concern” under section (a)(1) and a “person” under section (a)(3), holding that the Government was not required to elect at trial on which sub-section of the FCPA the defendant was charged.
• Rycar Tr. v. Yates Fam. Invs., 23-CV_00732-TC-DAO, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177853 (D. Utah Sept. 8, 2025). In granting a motion to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit, the district court held that there is generally no duty to disclose uncharged FCPA investigations.

2025 DOJ Enforcement Aligns with New FCPA Priorities, Signaling the Same for 2026

Several 2025 matters set up inflection points in 2026. The indictment of Smartmatic, the voting machine company, was the first the first corporate FCPA indictment in 15 years—added to preexisting individual charges tied to alleged bribes in the Philippines—and foreshadows a contested corporate case with political overtones. The superseding indictment alleges an over-invoicing slush fund, encoded communications, and laundering through accounts in Asia, Europe, and the United States, with multiple individual defendants and fugitives. We expect that Smartmatic may make pretrial motions that may raise issues regarding jurisdiction and extraterritoriality, among other issues.

In November 2025, DOJ announced that it had entered into a two-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with TIGO Guatemala, a cellular network provider, in the Southern District of Florida—resulting in over $118 million in combined criminal penalty and forfeiture. The DPA resulted after DOJ re-opened its investigation into TIGO in 2020 with the emergence of new evidence that criminal conduct continued after the Department initially closed the investigation in 2018. The DPA describes a long-running cash-for-votes scheme aimed at Guatemalan legislators, with some payments funded by narcotrafficking proceeds, an area of high priority enforcement under the new FCPA Guidelines. In 2026, we will see whether the case signals DOJ’s readiness to charge corporations under the FCPA when the underlying corruption allegations relate to its new high priority areas.

Additionally, the December 2025 Houston jury conviction of a Texas-based executive for bribing officials at a foreign state-owned oil company underscores DOJ’s willingness to try individual FCPA cases to verdict. The evidence showed six-figure bribe payments and luxury items exchanged for contract advantages worth millions. The indictment was brought in August, only four months before the case went to trial. The speed at which the case progressed demonstrates DOJ’s serious commitment to efficient FCPA prosecutions under the new guidelines. In 2026, we will look to see how DOJ uses the new FCPA Guidelines in making charging decisions against individuals.

Compliance Implications for 2026

For multinational companies, 2026 planning should assume an active but more selective U.S. enforcement environment that rewards speed, proof, and tangible remediation while intensifying scrutiny of high-risk third parties, distributors, and logistics nodes with potential TCO and cartel interfaces. The practical consequences are clear: fortify third-party risk management and supply chain diligence; document investigative steps and remediation contemporaneously; be prepared for compressed timelines; and align incident response to support timely voluntary disclosures where warranted, particularly when the corporation can demonstrate it had implemented a robust compliance program and is prepared to provide evidence regarding problematic individual conduct to authorities. 

Finally, even if the SEC’s inactivity in FCPA enforcement continues (and we cannot predict that it will), private securities and derivative shareholder litigation remain active FCPA risks. In particular, companies should note that derivate shareholder litigation aimed at a public company board’s supervision of the scope and effectiveness of company compliance programs remains a risk for those companies that do not have a robust FCPA compliance program. 

Global Developments

In reaction to apparent US pullback from global anti-corruption efforts, international organizations took steps to fill the void. On March 20, 2025, the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, together with the Swiss Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) and the French National Financial Prosecutor (Parquet National Financier, “PNF”) announced the creation of an International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce. The taskforce’s mandate provides for exchange of information and coordination of strategy on cases between the cooperating countries’ enforcement authorities, while fostering cooperation and future operational collaboration.

In light of the Trump Administration “pause” on FCPA enforcement, and prior to the issuance of the June 2025 Guidelines, DOJ notably did not participate in the OECD Working Group on Bribery in March of last year, prompting concerns about future participation in the Anti-Bribery Convention. DOJ attended the OECD meeting in June, providing an update on developments including the issuance of the FCPA Guidelines and reaffirming the U.S. commitment to prosecuting foreign bribery. The OECD working group invited the U.S. to provide a written update in December 2025. That report remains pending.

Separately, the World Bank has continued to be active in enforcing sanctions on entities engaged in corrupt practices, which include fraud or corruption as related to Word Bank Group-financed projects. In 2025, the World Bank undertook at least twelve enforcement actions, including sanctions, debarment, or settlement agreements with individuals or entities engaged in such actions. Most recently, on December 11, 2025, the Bank announced a 24-month sanction of Turkish based Teknoloji Enerji Ve Muhendisilk A.S. for fabricating performance reporting documents and impeding the subsequent investigation. 

Key Takeaways

• 2026 will likely feature disciplined FCPA enforcement keyed to U.S. interests, with a premium on trial-ready cases, individual accountability, and demonstrable cooperation and remediation. 
• Expect heightened attention to supply chains intersecting with TCOs, cartels, adjacent trade fraud and money flows, and public-procurement touchpoints—especially in higher-risk geographies. 
• International authorities are coordinating more closely and sharpening tools, which will sustain global enforcement pressure even if U.S. volumes fluctuate. 
• Companies that invest early in risk-based controls, swift investigations, and voluntarily proffer evidence of wrongdoing by individuals, where applicable, will be best positioned for declinations, credit, or streamlined resolutions. 

Law Clerk Joshua Nacht contributed to this article.