DOJ

Subscribe to DOJ via RSS

In our prior notes of December 4, 9, and 13, 2024, we reported that (1) a district court in Texas issued a nationwide injunction halting implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), (2) the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) acknowledged that companies need not file CTA mandated disclosures while that injunction remained in effect. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to stay the injunction pending appeal. The district court rejected that motion, but on December 23, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the government’s motion, staying the district court’s injunction and expediting briefing of the appeal. In so doing, the Court concluded that the government had “made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits in defending CTA’s constitutionality.” In addition, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ warnings that “lifting the . . . injunction days before the compliance deadline would place an undue burden on them,” reasoning that the plaintiffs filed suit only months ago and the injunction had been in place mere weeks, whereas businesses have had “nearly four years . . . to prepare since Congress enacted the CTA, as well as the year since FinCEN announced the reporting deadline.”Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Pauses District Court CTA Injunction; FinCEN Extends Filing Deadline to January 13, 2025

As outlined in our prior update, on December 3, 2024, a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementing regulations from taking effect nationwide. Continue Reading DOJ Appeals CTA Injunction; FinCEN Suspends Filing Requirement

We want to make you aware that yesterday, a Texas federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the effectiveness of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementing regulations, which require certain companies (including certain non-U.S. companies registered to conduct business in the United States) to disclose beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.Continue Reading Federal District Court Enjoins Enforcement of U.S. Corporate Transparency Act

September 23, 2024, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri announced revisions to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Criminal Division’s compliance guidance, known as the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (“ECCP”), which is used by DOJ prosecutors to assess the effectiveness of a company’s compliance program in the context of a corporate investigation.[1]  The updated compliance guidance incorporates changes that will focus on a company’s use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”)[2] and other technologies, its use of data analytics as part of the compliance function, the incorporation of “lessons learned” to continuously enhance corporate compliance programs, and whistleblower reporting.[3] Continue Reading DOJ Announces Revisions to Compliance Guidance Focused on AI, Whistleblower Reporting, and Other Areas

There were significant developments last week in two recent criminal enforcement initiatives that were first announced earlier this year.  First, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) outlined the details of its long-anticipated whistleblower bounty program.[1]  Second, on July 30, 2024, President Biden signed into law a number of amendments to the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (“FEPA”).[2]  Both of these developments underscore the importance of investing in robust compliance programs and conducting timely investigations of potential misconduct.Continue Reading Two Enforcement Developments: DOJ Launches Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program and Amendments to the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act Are Passed into Law

On April 15, 2024, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) launched the Pilot Program on Voluntary Self-Disclosure for Individuals (“the Individual VSD Pilot Program”), which represents the latest in a string of announcements by DOJ focused on catching companies and individuals that engage in corporate crime.Continue Reading DOJ Announces New Pilot Program Seeking Voluntary Self-Disclosures from Culpable Individuals Aimed At Uncovering Corporate Misconduct 

On February 22, 2023, the Department of Justice announced a new corporate Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy for U.S. Attorney’s Offices nationwide (the “USAO Policy”).Continue Reading U.S. Attorney’s Offices Issue Nationwide Corporate Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy

On December 29, 2022, in a closely-watched insider trading case, the Second Circuit decided United States v. Blaszczak (“Blaszczak II”).[1]  The Supreme Court in January 2021 had vacated and remanded the Second Circuit’s prior decision in light of Kelly v. United States (also known as the “Bridgegate” decision).  On remand, a divided panel of the Second Circuit found that trading on the basis of certain confidential government information related to pending regulation does not give rise to violations of the criminal wire fraud and securities fraud statutes.Continue Reading Second Circuit Decision Limits the Ability to Prosecute Instances of Trading on Confidential Government Information

As discussed in our prior blog post, earlier this year the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Second Circuit’s decision in a high-profile insider trading case, United States v. Blaszczak,[1] for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s “Bridgegate” decision in Kelly v. United States.[2]  In Blaszczak, the Second Circuit had previously found that a government agency’s confidential pre-decisional information constituted “property” under Title 18, and that therefore the Blaszczak defendants had committed fraud under the applicable statutes when they obtained the information and traded on it.[3]  However, following that decision, the Supreme Court held in Kelly that a government regulatory interest did not constitute “property” for the purpose of Title 18 fraud statutes.[4]  The Blaszczak defendants filed a petition for certiorari, contending that the Second Circuit’s reading of Title 18 could not be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s holding.[5]  After the Blaszczak defendants filed their petition, the government consented to a remand to the Second Circuit.
Continue Reading DOJ Concedes Error In Title 18 Insider Trading Convictions After Supreme Court’s “Bridgegate” Decision

Corporate investigations under the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are expected to increase in the coming months.  Navigating such investigations can be complex, distracting, and costly, and comes with the risk of prosecution and significant collateral consequences for the company.  Recently, Cleary Gottlieb partners and former DOJ prosecutors, Lev Dassin, Jonathan Kolodner, and Rahul…