The U.S. Department of Justice’s recent signals to scale back enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) have caught the attention of corporate compliance professionals worldwide. Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ is shifting focus from corporate bribery to cases linked to human trafficking, narcotics, and violent crime. The disbanding of the Corporate Enforcement Unit and reduced oversight of export controls have further fueled speculation that white-collar enforcement is no longer a top priority in the U.S.
But while the U.S. may ease its grip on corporate anti-corruption enforcement, Europe is unlikely to follow suit. In fact, this shift could spur more aggressive investigations and enforcement actions from regulators in the UK and EU. For multinational companies, the message is clear: compliance efforts must remain robust, regardless of the changing regulatory landscape in the U.S.
Why companies shouldn’t let their guard down
It may be tempting for organizations to view the DOJ’s retreat as an opportunity to scale back internal anti-bribery training or reduce resources dedicated to compliance programs. However, this approach is short-sighted and could expose companies to significant risks beyond U.S. borders.
Unlike the FCPA, the UK Bribery Act 2010 and emerging EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDD) regulations carry strict requirements and extraterritorial reach. These laws criminalize both public and private sector bribery and hold companies accountable for failing to prevent misconduct—not just for participating in it.
The UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and regulators across the EU are increasingly demonstrating their willingness to pursue companies independently of U.S. action. With the U.S. stepping back, Europe may feel emboldened to fill the enforcement void and tighten its grip on corporate behavior.
Global jurisdiction and cross-border risks
Multinational companies often operate in jurisdictions where anti-corruption laws overlap. A company might feel insulated from U.S. enforcement but still face legal jeopardy under the UK Bribery Act or France’s Sapin II, both of which have broad extraterritorial applications. For example, if a U.S.-based company engages in questionable practices while doing business in Europe, it could still face prosecution, even if the DOJ decides not to act.
Moreover, companies risk being caught in the crosshairs of multi-jurisdictional investigations, which can be costly, complex, and time-consuming. While the DOJ may deprioritize corporate enforcement, cross-border cooperation between European regulators is on the rise. This could lead to parallel investigations and compounded penalties for companies that neglect their global compliance obligations.
Supply chain scrutiny and due diligence
The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive represents a new frontier in regulatory enforcement. This legislation will require companies to scrutinize their entire supply chains for compliance with ethical standards, including anti-corruption measures. Companies that fail to perform proper due diligence on suppliers and third parties could face severe financial penalties, legal action, and reputational damage.
As the EU sharpens its focus on supply chain compliance, companies should view this as an opportunity to enhance training programs and integrate anti-bribery protocols into every level of their operations. From procurement to executive leadership, organizations must ensure that ethical practices are embedded throughout the value chain.
The cost of non-compliance: Financial and reputational risks
The consequences of weakening compliance efforts can be profound. European regulators are not hesitant to levy substantial fines for violations. For instance, the UK SFO has imposed penalties in the hundreds of millions of pounds for bribery-related offenses, and the EU’s due diligence laws propose fines based on a company’s global turnover, potentially amounting to billions for large multinationals.
Beyond financial penalties, companies also face reputational damage that can erode customer trust, undermine investor confidence, and limit market access. In today’s global marketplace, where consumers and stakeholders demand transparency and accountability, even the perception of corruption can be devastating.
A proactive approach to compliance
In light of these developments, organizations must recognize that compliance is not a box-checking exercise tied to a single jurisdiction’s enforcement priorities. Rather, it is a fundamental component of sustainable business practices and ethical leadership. Companies that proactively maintain strong compliance frameworks will be better positioned to navigate the evolving regulatory landscape and protect their reputation and bottom line.
Key steps include:
- Maintaining rigorous anti-bribery training programs that address both U.S. and international standards.
- Strengthening due diligence processes across supply chains, particularly in high-risk jurisdictions.
- Fostering a culture of ethical leadership that goes beyond mere legal compliance to emphasize integrity at all levels of the organization.
- Monitoring regulatory developments in the UK and EU to stay ahead of emerging enforcement trends.
Conclusion: Compliance is still non-negotiable
While the U.S. may be scaling back its FCPA enforcement, the broader global compliance landscape remains active and dynamic. UK and EU regulators will be watching, and their enforcement actions may become even more aggressive in response to the DOJ’s retreat. For multinational companies, this means that compliance efforts must remain steadfast. The risks of non-compliance, financial, legal, and reputational, are simply too great to ignore.
In an era of shifting enforcement priorities, companies that prioritize integrity and accountability will not only avoid legal pitfalls but also build resilient, sustainable businesses capable of thriving in the global marketplace.
