Key points

• US enforcement priorities under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act were reset in 2025, with emphasis on cartels and transnational criminal organizations, harm to US companies and national security, but the statute and its limitations periods are unchanged.
• Conduct from today can still be charged under a later administration, so cutting compliance spending on the basis of the current posture is a bet on the future.
• Other authorities are active, including the UK Serious Fraud Office, and the UK's new failure to prevent fraud offense is now in force.
• The Department of Justice's guidance on corporate enforcement continues to reward voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation.
• Compliance programs should be risk-based and effective, with particular attention to third parties, high-risk markets and accurate books and records.

Introduction

The past two years have changed the conversation about anti-corruption enforcement in the United States. A February 2025 executive order directed a pause and review of FCPA enforcement, and in June 2025 the Department of Justice issued new guidelines on how prosecutors should prioritize and open cases. Many companies have asked whether the risk has gone away. In our view it has changed in shape rather than disappeared. This note sets out what has changed, what has not and how companies should adjust.

What has changed

The June 2025 guidelines direct prosecutors to focus on conduct connected to cartels and transnational criminal organizations, conduct that deprives US companies of fair access to business, conduct that threatens national security, and serious misconduct involving substantial bribes or sophisticated concealment. They also encourage prosecutors to weigh the burden on companies and whether foreign authorities are already acting. New corporate FCPA resolutions have fallen from earlier levels, and some pending matters have been closed.

The Department has also continued to promote its policy on voluntary self-disclosure and cooperation, under which a company that reports misconduct promptly, cooperates and remediates can expect a declination or substantial reductions. Companies deciding whether to disclose should treat the policy as a real option, balanced against uncertainty about how matters will be handled.

What has not changed

The law

The anti-bribery and accounting provisions of the FCPA are statutes, and a change in priorities does not repeal them. Limitations periods for criminal anti-bribery violations are generally five years, longer in some circumstances, and the books and records and internal controls provisions apply to issuers whether or not a bribe is proved. A matter that is deprioritized now can be revived after a change in policy.

The SEC and private plaintiffs

The SEC enforces the accounting provisions against issuers, and its priorities may differ from the Department's. Derivative suits and securities claims relying on bribery allegations remain possible, and whistleblowers continue to report.

Other countries

Authorities elsewhere have increased activity and cooperation. The UK Bribery Act 2010 creates a corporate offense of failing to prevent bribery, with a defense for companies with adequate procedures. Since September 2025 the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 has also made large organizations liable where an associated person commits fraud intending to benefit the organization, unless it had reasonable prevention procedures. Prosecutors in France, Brazil and other countries have pursued corruption cases against multinational groups, sometimes where US authorities have stepped back.

Practical implications for compliance programs

The Department's guidance on evaluating corporate compliance programs asks whether a program is well designed, adequately resourced and empowered, and working in practice. That framework still applies. We see these priorities.

• Third parties. Agents, distributors and consultants remain the most common route for improper payments, so risk-based diligence, contractual rights and monitoring should continue.
• High-risk interactions. Government approvals, customs, licensing and sales to state-owned customers deserve closer review, particularly where tariffs and trade restrictions have increased the incentive to seek shortcuts.
• Mergers and acquisitions. Pre-closing diligence and post-closing integration remain the best protection against inheriting liability, and the Department's M&A policy rewards prompt remediation.
• Books and records. Gifts, hospitality and charitable payments should be recorded accurately, and controls tested.
• Data. Analytics that flag unusual payments are especially valuable when resources are limited.

Managing an investigation or a potential disclosure

When a concern arises, a company should preserve documents, engage counsel to lead a privileged investigation, assess any reporting obligation, including to auditors, and consider early whether self-reporting is advantageous. A company operating in several jurisdictions should consider the position in each, since disclosure in one country can prompt inquiries in others and a settlement with one authority may not preclude action by another.

Outlook

The prudent assumption is that enforcement will vary over time while corporate exposure persists. Companies that keep their programs effective can scale up or down without rebuilding. Julian Okonkwo-Hart and Corvane Ryle's white collar defense and investigations team advise companies, boards and individuals on anti-corruption compliance, internal investigations and government inquiries.