In a major policy address delivered yesterday at the Security Industry and Financial Markets Association’s (SIFMA) Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference in Washington, D.C., Matthew Galeotti, Head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Criminal Division, announced a significant shift in how DOJ approaches white collar enforcement. The changes reflect a broader recalibration toward “focus, fairness, and efficiency,” and emphasize DOJ’s intent to partner with law-abiding companies rather than punish them indiscriminately.
Galeotti outlined revisions to three of DOJ’s corporate enforcement frameworks: (1) a streamlined voluntary self-disclosure policy, (2) tighter limits on corporate monitorships, and (3) new whistleblower priorities tied to national security and financial crime. Each signals a continued DOJ focus on serious criminal conduct—especially conduct tied to cartels and other transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), state actors, and fraud against Americans—while offering companies clearer incentives and guardrails in navigating corporate enforcement.
“We are here to prosecute criminals, not law-abiding businesses,” Galeotti said. “Effective white-collar prosecution requires focus, fairness, and efficiency—three principles that will guide the work of Criminal Division prosecutors going forward.”
A Clearer Path to Declinations for Companies That Self-Disclose
At the center of DOJ’s new approach is a revised Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). The policy clarifies when companies can expect to receive a declination (meaning DOJ does not pursue criminal charges or a criminal resolution) and offers a streamlined framework for doing so if companies self-disclose misconduct promptly.
Galeotti acknowledged that in the past, the benefits of coming forward were too uncertain, and the risks too high: “Too often, businesses have been subject to unchecked and long-running investigations that can be costly. . . . These costs and uncertainty have deterred companies from working with the Department.”
To address that, DOJ will soon publish a flowchart and supporting guidance materials making the benefits of self-disclosure easier to navigate. Notably:
- Companies that voluntarily self-disclose misconduct, fully cooperate, and appropriately remediate will receive a declination—not just a presumption of one—so long as no aggravating circumstances exist.
- Even where aggravating circumstances do exist, prosecutors may still grant a declination based on an assessment of the severity of the aggravating circumstances and the company’s cooperation and remediation.
- Where companies self-disclose but DOJ has already independently learned of the misconduct, those companies may still be eligible for significant benefits, including the possibility of a resolution with (1) a term of less than three years, (2) a 75% reduction in criminal fines, and (3) no compliance monitor.
Monitorships: Narrowed, Cost-Conscious, and Reserved
DOJ also unveiled a revised monitorship policy intended to prevent overreach and ensure monitors are only used when proportionate to the misconduct at issue. Galeotti emphasized that poorly scoped monitors can undermine DOJ’s goals: “At times, the money companies spend on their monitor would be better spent investing in their compliance programs or, if they haven’t already, making victims whole. In short, the value monitors add is often outweighed by the costs they impose.”
Under the updated policy, to impose a monitorship following a corporate resolution a determination must be made that the benefits of the monitorship outweigh its burdens, including the financial cost to the company and the interference with business operations. Any costs must be proportionate to the severity of the conduct and the company’s size, profits, and risk profile. To make that determination, DOJ will consider the following factors:
- The nature and severity of the conduct and the risk of recurrence. In considering this factor, DOJ will focus primarily on the harm to Americans and American businesses.
- The existence of overlapping regulatory oversight.
- The strength of the company’s existing compliance program and the company’s “culture of compliance.”
- The ability of the company to test and update its compliance program.
DOJ also introduced measures aimed at accountability and transparency when monitors are required following a corporate resolution, including required budget approvals and biannual meetings between DOJ, the company, and the monitor. Further, Galeotti stated that DOJ will be reviewing existing monitorships, and may narrow or terminate the requirement where appropriate.
Whistleblower Priorities Aligned with National Threats
Finally, Galeotti announced the expansion of DOJ’s corporate whistleblower program to better support current priorities around national security and transnational crime. Priority areas of enforcement for the expanded corporate whistleblower program include:
- Procurement and federal program fraud.
- Trade, tariff, and customs violations.
- Sanctions and national security violations.
- Financial facilitators of TCOs, including money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) violations.
For whistleblowers to be eligible for financial rewards under the updated whistleblower program, tips must still lead to forfeiture, but DOJ is making it clear that information provided in these priority areas will receive increased attention and resource allocation.
Takeaways for Companies
DOJ is signaling to the market that law-abiding companies are partners in public safety and national security, not adversaries. The Criminal Division’s updated enforcement plan provides (1) greater transparency around the benefits of corporate cooperation, especially in the context of corporate self-disclosures, (2) a narrower and more proportionate use of monitors following corporate resolutions, and (3) revised areas of interest for the corporate whistleblower program that aligns with current DOJ priorities.
These changes mark a meaningful shift in the white-collar enforcement landscape, and offer companies a clearer framework for engaging with DOJ. For legal and compliance teams, now is the time to assess internal reporting channels, revisit voluntary disclosure protocols, and ensure alignment with the revised CEP.
“Never before have the benefits of self-reporting and cooperating been so clear,” Galeotti said. “Now is the time to report, remediate, and strengthen compliance to ensure American prosperity.”