Governance must operate in practice, not merely on paper.
Executive Summary
The 2025 ACI FCPA Conference took place during a moment of profound uncertainty in federal corporate enforcement. After a period marked by political directives that suggested a reorientation of prosecutorial priorities, many questioned whether the long-standing United States commitment to white collar enforcement, especially under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, would diminish. This question became even more pressing after the temporary pause directed earlier in the year, which caused practitioners to reconsider the trajectory of international anti corruption enforcement. The keynote address delivered by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche provided clarity on these questions and simultaneously reaffirmed the foundations of modern Department of Justice corporate enforcement philosophy.
Blanche’s remarks demonstrated continuity rather than disruption. His speech emphasized enduring principles, including the centrality of individual accountability, the necessity of admissible evidence to support criminal enforcement, the distinction between genuine and performative corporate cooperation, and the importance of a credible corporate compliance program that operates effectively in practice rather than merely existing in form. His clear statement that people go to jail and companies do not anchor his broader message in the enforcement philosophy that has defined DOJ practice for more than two decades. His blue tie, a detail easily overlooked in the crowded conference hall, symbolized continuity with institutional values rather than alignment with political currents.
Blanche’s remarks take on greater meaning when viewed through the historical arc of DOJ corporate enforcement policy. This writing provides that historical foundation. It offers a timeline beginning with the Holder memo in 1999 and progressing through the Thompson, McNulty, Filip, Yates, and Monaco eras, culminating in the 2025 DOJ Guidelines that define the new enforcement landscape. Each development in this timeline has shaped the modern expectations placed upon corporations, boards, executives, compliance functions, and internal audit. This timeline allows a deeper understanding of how Blanche’s speech fits within the broad continuum of enforcement policy.
This writing analyzes Blanche’s remarks as a contemporary inflection point. It assesses his discussion of the global enforcement environment, the Department’s willingness to decline matters lacking meaningful United States nexus, the Department’s evaluation of cooperation, and the Department’s modern approach to remediation and monitorships. It provides a full examination of DOJ’s recent enforcement activity across health care fraud, foreign bribery, digital assets, and trade fraud to illustrate that despite speculation to the contrary, the enforcement apparatus remains active, disciplined, and strategically focused.
This writing concludes with a reflection directed at boards, executives, compliance professionals, and internal auditors. Blanche’s message makes clear that compliance cannot be treated as a static accomplishment. Culture, governance, tone, and risk oversight demand continuous reinforcement. The final section draws implicitly on principles reflected in the COSO Fraud Risk Management Guide, particularly the importance of governance structures that work in practice, clear accountability, continuous monitoring, and an organizational culture that supports ethical behavior under pressure.
Taken as a whole, the analysis demonstrates that Blanche’s keynote did not announce a departure from traditional principles. Rather, it reaffirmed the intellectual and practical foundations of DOJ’s enforcement philosophy and clarified that the Department’s commitment to accountability remains intact, even as enforcement becomes more focused and more globally coordinated. The speech confirmed that although enforcement priorities may evolve, the expectations placed on corporations remain consistent and unmistakable.
Introduction
I attended the ACI FCPA Conference at the Gaylord National Harbor in Washington DC at a time when many practitioners sought clarity on the future of white-collar enforcement. The keynote speaker was Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, whose background in federal prosecution and white-collar defense allows him to speak with unusual credibility on the operational realities of corporate enforcement. His speech provided a critical insight into the Department’s posture following a period marked by speculation, political commentary, and uncertainty. Blanche did not rely on rhetorical flourish. Instead, he offered a substantive reaffirmation of the principles that guide enforcement decisions, reinforced by the long arc of Department of Justice corporate policy.
When Blanche stepped onto the stage, he wore a blue tie. In the immediate context, it appeared unremarkable. Yet given the broader environment in which the Department operates, the tie carried symbolic weight. Blue signaled continuity with the institutional heritage of the Department rather than a reflection of shifting political priorities. This subtle visual cue foreshadowed the intellectual stance of Blanche’s remarks, which emphasized evidence, fairness, culture, and accountability rather than politics.
His opening statement set the tone. He reminded the audience that people go to jail and companies do not. This simple statement anchors the Department’s philosophy in the principle of individual accountability, which has been the center of DOJ corporate enforcement for a decade. It reflects the enduring belief that deterrence requires personal responsibility, and that corporate misconduct cannot be addressed solely through financial penalties levied against entities. Blanche’s remarks reaffirmed that this principle remains central and that it will continue to guide prosecutorial discretion.
To appreciate the significance of Blanche’s remarks, one must situate them within the broader evolution of DOJ corporate enforcement policy.
An Overview of DOJ Corporate Enforcement Policy
The development of DOJ’s corporate enforcement framework is the product of a twenty-five-year evolution. The following timeline provides an academically rigorous narrative of the major policy developments, key memoranda, and structural shifts that shaped the landscape Blanche addressed in 2025. Each entry is provided in narrative form rather than as a list and is intentionally expansive for the benefit of readers seeking historical context.
The Holder Memo of 1999 marked the beginning of the modern era of corporate enforcement policy.
Eric Holder, then serving as Deputy Attorney General, issued the first memorandum designed to guide prosecutors in evaluating corporate wrongdoing. The memo acknowledged that corporate criminal liability carries unique implications because a corporation acts only through its agents, and yet penalties often fall on shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders rather than on individuals responsible for misconduct. The Holder memo introduced the first structured set of factors for prosecutors to consider. These factors included the nature and seriousness of the offense, the pervasiveness of misconduct within the corporation, the company’s history of wrongdoing, the timeliness and quality of its cooperation, the existence and adequacy of its compliance program, the remedial actions taken, and the potential collateral consequences associated with prosecution. This memo established the principle that enforcement should be grounded in a balanced evaluation rather than mechanical application of liability theories.
The Thompson Memo of 2003 expanded the Holder framework but introduced new controversy.
In the wake of major corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom, DOJ tightened expectations for cooperation. The Thompson memo required corporations seeking cooperation credit to disclose all relevant facts promptly and explicitly raised the question of privilege waivers. Although not framed as mandatory, the memo suggested that the willingness to waive attorney client privilege could influence prosecutorial decisions. It also called for corporations to avoid indemnifying employees implicated in misconduct. The Thompson memo intensified scrutiny of corporate behavior in investigations but generated significant criticism from the defense bar, corporate leaders, and legal scholars who argued that it undermined privilege and pressured companies to act against the interests of their employees.
The McNulty Memo of 2006 sought to correct the excesses of the Thompson memo.
Paul McNulty, who served as Deputy Attorney General, issued new guidance to address persistent concerns surrounding privilege waivers. The McNulty memo introduced a tiered process for acquiring privileged material, requiring prosecutors to seek approval from the Deputy Attorney General before requesting the production of privileged information. While this attempted to restore balance, the memo remained controversial because many believed it continued to place inappropriate pressure on companies to disclose privileged material. The McNulty era highlighted the ongoing tension between prosecutorial information needs and the preservation of core legal protections.
The Filip Memo of 2008 marked a critical turning point toward balance and clarity.
Mark Filip, as Deputy Attorney General, issued a comprehensive memorandum that reshaped the landscape. The Filip memo removed privilege waiver from the criteria for evaluating cooperation and required prosecutors to assess cooperation based on the disclosure of facts rather than privileged communications. The memo standardized expectations and placed the prior guidance into the United States Attorneys Manual, giving it the force of departmental policy. It reaffirmed that factors such as compliance program effectiveness and remediation could significantly influence prosecutorial decisions. The Filip memo restored confidence in the fairness of DOJ’s approach and provided companies with clearer pathways to cooperation.
The Yates Memo of 2015 fundamentally transformed the focus of DOJ corporate enforcement.
Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates issued a memorandum that placed individual accountability at the center of enforcement decisions. The Yates memo required corporations seeking cooperation credit to identify all individuals involved in misconduct and provide all non privileged facts about their actions. It directed prosecutors to focus on individuals from the outset of investigations and made clear that corporate resolutions would not preclude future prosecution of individuals. The memo reshaped internal investigations across the corporate landscape. Companies increased rigor in fact finding, documentation, and escalation because cooperation credit depended on comprehensive disclosure about individuals. The Yates memo also highlighted the Department’s belief that deterrence requires personal consequences rather than entity level penalties.
The Rosenstein refinements of 2018 introduced nuance while preserving the Yates focus.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein adjusted the Yates framework to allow cooperation credit even when companies could not provide all information about individuals, provided they made a good faith effort. This shift acknowledged practical limitations in corporate investigations while maintaining the emphasis on accountability. Rosenstein also clarified expectations for compliance program evaluation and remediation. These refinements provided flexibility without altering the core philosophy established by Yates.
The Monaco Memos of 2021 and 2022 modernized corporate enforcement significantly.
Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco issued a series of important memoranda that expanded the Department’s expectations and introduced new dimensions of accountability. The first Monaco memo restored the pre 2018 standard requiring full factual disclosure about individuals as a condition for cooperation credit. It also emphasized recidivism, directing prosecutors to evaluate a corporation’s entire enforcement history rather than limiting consideration to similar misconduct. The second Monaco memo refined the Department’s approach to monitorships, voluntary self disclosure, and compliance program evaluation. It clarified that monitorships should be imposed only when necessary and that companies could avoid them through robust remediation. It underscored the expectation that compliance programs incorporate data analytics, whistleblower protections, and real time monitoring capabilities. The Monaco period strengthened DOJ’s commitment to modern oversight and placed additional weight on proactive compliance functions.
The 2025 DOJ Guidelines represent the latest evolution in this long trajectory.
Following a directed pause in FCPA enforcement, DOJ conducted a comprehensive review of existing matters and issued updated guidelines on June 9, 2025. These guidelines recalibrated enforcement to prioritize cases that materially impact United States interests. The guidelines direct prosecutors to focus attention on matters involving national security sectors, cartels, transnational criminal organizations, critical infrastructure, and substantial bribery schemes. They instruct prosecutors to deemphasize low dollar courtesies and matters lacking meaningful United States nexus. They also require the elevation of new matters to senior Criminal Division leadership and reinforce the expectation that cooperation, remediation, and compliance program effectiveness must be evaluated with rigor. The guidelines represent a strategic shift toward disciplined prioritization rather than a retreat from enforcement.
Viewed as a complete timeline, these developments illustrate a steady maturation of DOJ’s approach. The Department has moved from early frameworks focused on discretionary factors to sophisticated models that balance individual accountability, compliance expectations, global enforcement realities, and practical cooperation. Blanche’s remarks must therefore be read not as a standalone speech but as the latest articulation of a deeply rooted enforcement philosophy.
Blanche’s Speech as a Contemporary Inflection Point
When Blanche delivered his address at the ACI FCPA Conference, he spoke into the context defined by this historical evolution. His remarks reinforced established principles while interpreting them for the current legal and political climate.
Blanche began by emphasizing that DOJ will not threaten indictment without admissible evidence capable of proving a case at trial. This reaffirmed that enforcement must be grounded in factual support rather than leverage. Blanche positioned this not as a new standard but as a restatement of a foundational expectation that has guided DOJ since at least the Filip memo. His stress on evidentiary sufficiency distinguished responsible enforcement from punitive symbolism.
Blanche then addressed the concept of cooperation. He distinguished between genuine cooperation and performative cooperation. Genuine cooperation requires speed, accuracy, access, and transparency. Companies must disclose facts promptly, produce documents without delay, facilitate interviews, and identify individuals responsible for misconduct. Performative cooperation involves delay, selective production, or tactical maneuvering intended to benefit the corporation rather than promote truth. Blanche made clear that DOJ will differentiate between these two forms of cooperation and will reward only the former.
Blanche spoke to the issue of delay directly. He noted that companies sometimes cause delays in investigations and later claim that DOJ took too long to resolve the matter. He stated unequivocally that such arguments will not be persuasive. The Department will not be criticized for timelines when delay originates with the company. This reflects DOJ’s view that cooperation requires urgency and good faith.
Blanche also spoke candidly about monitorships. He acknowledged concerns that monitors have at times expanded beyond their intended scope or imposed excessive costs. He stated that DOJ will impose monitorships only when necessary and will define scope and budget clearly. He highlighted the Department’s recent decisions to terminate some monitorships early when companies demonstrated effective remediation. These examples, referenced in public commentary and enforcement summaries, reflected DOJ’s willingness to adapt when companies demonstrate authentic improvement. Blanche emphasized that a monitor cannot substitute for culture. Real remediation requires leadership commitment and internal accountability.
The discussion of compliance programs in Blanche’s speech tied directly to the expectations developed through the Monaco memos and the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. Blanche reiterated that DOJ does not evaluate programs based on their written form but on their operational effectiveness. He emphasized the importance of data, whistleblower protections, consistent discipline, and resource allocation. He stressed that compliance cannot be cosmetic. It must inform behavior.
Blanche also addressed the global enforcement environment. He acknowledged that United States enforcement is no longer the sole mechanism for addressing foreign bribery. Other jurisdictions have strengthened their regimes, and international coordination has increased. Blanche stated that DOJ will focus its attention on cases that implicate United States interests and will decline matters that lack meaningful United States nexus. He also recognized that in some cases foreign authorities are better positioned to address misconduct. This reflects the Department’s shift toward strategic resource allocation.
Blanche noted that the Department has closed numerous matters as part of its recent review. He highlighted that DOJ has terminated monitorships early when companies have met their obligations. These actions reinforce that DOJ is actively applying its frameworks rather than merely discussing them.
Finally, Blanche addressed the defense bar. He observed that some practitioners publicly argue that DOJ is insufficiently active in enforcement while privately claiming that DOJ is overreaching in individual matters. He stated that DOJ notices such contradictions. This underscored the importance of credibility in interactions with the Department.
Blanche’s speech represents an inflection point because it synthesizes the historical development of DOJ corporate enforcement policy with the modern realities of political direction, global enforcement activity, and corporate expectations. His remarks are consistent with the long arc of policy but refined for the current moment.
The Global Enforcement Landscape and DOJ’s Modern Posture
Blanche emphasized the increasingly global nature of white-collar enforcement. He acknowledged that numerous jurisdictions now pursue corruption cases actively and effectively. The United Kingdom, Brazil, France, Singapore, and others have developed robust enforcement frameworks capable of addressing complex bribery and money laundering schemes. International coordination has become more common, and enforcement actions increasingly involve simultaneous resolutions across multiple jurisdictions.
The updated 2025 guidelines reflect this reality. They instruct prosecutors to focus on cases that materially affect United States interests and to decline matters where foreign authorities are well positioned to lead. The guidelines make explicit that enforcement should focus on conduct that undermines United States competitiveness, damages United States infrastructure, or supports cartels or transnational criminal organizations. They de emphasize minor courtesies, low dollar payments, or conduct lacking meaningful connection to the United States.
This does not signal retreat. It signals strategic alignment with global enforcement capabilities. DOJ continues to maintain global leadership in prosecuting complex white-collar matters but recognizes that enforcement must be coordinated, targeted, and focused on areas of greatest national significance.
Monitorships, Compliance Programs, and Cultural Realities
Blanche’s discussion of monitorships reinforces a broader lesson. Remediation requires culture. A monitor can test whether a compliance program exists, whether controls are implemented, and whether remediation is progressing. A monitor cannot create ethical leadership. It cannot replace tone at the top. It cannot generate accountability in an environment that tolerates exceptions. Blanche emphasized that real remediation requires companies to take ownership of culture.
Compliance programs must operate effectively in practice. DOJ expects programs to have structure, independence, authority, and resources. It expects companies to incorporate data analytics, monitor communications, protect whistleblowers, and apply discipline consistently. These expectations are embedded in the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs and were implicit throughout Blanche’s remarks.
The emphasis on culture aligns with the principles embedded in the COSO Fraud Risk Management Guide. COSO emphasizes governance structures, fraud risk assessment, control activities, reporting mechanisms, and monitoring. These principles require active oversight, continuous evaluation, and leadership commitment. They reflect the understanding that fraud risk management is not static. It requires ongoing vigilance.
Blanche’s remarks elevated culture to a central theme. He made clear that DOJ evaluates culture through actions, not statements. Companies that respond quickly and transparently to allegations of misconduct demonstrate credible culture. Companies that delay, obscure facts, or provide selective information demonstrate weak culture. Culture influences enforcement outcomes.
DOJ’s Year in Enforcement
To interpret Blanche’s remarks accurately, one must analyze DOJ’s enforcement activity during the year.
In June 2025, DOJ announced the largest coordinated health care fraud enforcement action in its history. Prosecutors charged 324 defendants with schemes involving more than 14.6 billion dollars in fraudulent claims. Nearly one hundred medical professionals were charged. Authorities seized more than 245 million dollars in assets. The schemes involved telemedicine fraud, sham prescriptions, unnecessary procedures, and transnational networks that exploited vulnerable populations. This enforcement action demonstrates a sustained commitment to large-scale white-collar cases.
DOJ also resumed FCPA enforcement following the issuance of the updated 2025 guidelines. The Department closed numerous cases in accordance with the new priorities and focused attention on matters tied to national interests. Public commentary indicates that DOJ has prioritized cases involving significant bribe payments, critical infrastructure, national security sectors, and transnational criminal organizations.
The Department continues to pursue securities fraud, digital asset fraud, and trade fraud. DOJ has brought cases involving cryptocurrency markets, sanctions evasion, import misclassification, and national security threats. Enforcement has not weakened. It has become more disciplined.
Blanche’s remarks reflect the reality that DOJ continues to act vigorously in areas of strategic importance while narrowing its focus in areas of marginal significance.
Interpretation and Implications for Corporate Leadership
Blanche’s speech provides practical guidance for corporate leaders. The Department’s expectations remain clear. Compliance must be evaluated based on performance. Culture must be demonstrated through action. Cooperation must be genuine. Remediation must be meaningful. Leadership must take ownership of oversight.
Corporations must be prepared to escalate concerns rapidly. They must investigate misconduct thoroughly. They must identify individuals responsible and provide factual detail. They must ensure that compliance programs operate effectively under pressure. They must allocate resources to compliance functions and maintain independence in oversight roles.
Boards must engage actively in risk oversight. They must evaluate cultural indicators, incentives, compensation structures, reporting mechanisms, and disciplinary outcomes. They must ensure that management does not rationalize minor deviations from policy. They must understand that risk evolves and that controls must evolve accordingly.
The environment demands continuous engagement. Leadership cannot treat compliance as a static accomplishment. It is a dynamic system.
Final Reflection on Culture and Governance
Blanche’s remarks reinforce a truth that too many organizations forget when enforcement cycles appear to shift. Compliance is not a set-it-and-forget-it function. It requires steady reinforcement, active leadership, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable realities. Culture determines whether controls hold when pressure rises. Tone at the top influences behavior far more than any manual or policy. Employees watch what leaders tolerate, excuse, or ignore. Organizations that treat compliance as a procedural obligation rather than an ethical commitment create their own vulnerability long before regulators ever arrive.
The COSO Fraud Risk Management principles capture this dynamic with precision. Governance must operate in practice, not merely on paper. Fraud risk assessment must be continuous, not episodic. Control activities must evolve as threats evolve. Reporting mechanisms must be credible, trusted, and free of retaliation risks. Monitoring must test not only the existence of controls, but their effectiveness under real-world conditions. These are not annual tasks. They are ongoing disciplines that require persistence and vigilance.
The current enforcement environment demands leaders who remain engaged in these disciplines. Leaders must ask the difficult questions that others avoid. They must insist on independent validation of what management asserts. They must examine culture honestly rather than selectively. They must require accountability at every level, not only after a failure surfaces. They must recognize that the absence of reported issues is not proof of strength. It may signal fear, apathy, or a culture where concerns are suppressed before they reach the boardroom.
Nothing in Blanche’s speech suggested that white-collar enforcement expectations have diminished. The opposite message came through clearly. The Department expects corporations to demonstrate—through evidence, not rhetoric—that their compliance programs function, that their culture supports ethical conduct, and that leadership understands and fulfills its responsibility for risk oversight. Programs that exist only for optics will not withstand scrutiny.
This moment is not an invitation to relax. It is a mandate to lead. And that brings the narrative back to where Blanche began—his blue tie. On a stage framed by political directives and shifting external commentary, that choice signaled continuity and conviction. It was a quiet reminder that, regardless of the noise around enforcement cycles, accountability remains personal, culture remains central, and the Department will measure organizations by what they do, not what they display.
The blue tie opened the conversation. Its symbolism closes it. Blanche’s message was unmistakable. Compliance is a living system. Culture is a strategic asset. Leadership sets the conditions for both. Those who internalize that message will navigate the future with clarity. Those who do not will eventually confront the consequences.
