Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

Skip to Content

New Department of Justice Memo to Increase Prosecutions of White Collar Executives and Other Employees

Pillars

New policy changes implemented by the Department of Justice have potentially significant implications for companies and individuals facing DOJ investigations. The new policy may create additional obstacles for companies attempting to resolve cases with the DOJ. It places increased pressure on companies to develop and present evidence of wrongdoing by senior executives and other employees in order to get credit for cooperation. The new policy also puts additional pressure on prosecutors to charge individuals and thereby increase the exposure of senior corporate executives to government scrutiny. The key policy changes outlined in the DOJ memo are as follows:

  1. To be eligible for any cooperation credit, corporations must provide to the Department all relevant facts about the individuals involved in corporate misconduct. This is the most significant aspect of the new policy for corporations and their attorneys. 
  2. Both criminal and civil corporate investigations should focus on individuals from the inception of the investigation. Prosecutors are instructed to prioritize cases against individuals early on in an investigation. 
  3. Criminal and civil attorneys handling corporate investigations should be in routine communication with one another. Civil and criminal attorneys are to communicate early on in an investigation and should discuss civil referrals when a prosecutor decides not to pursue a criminal case due to challenges in showing criminal intent or otherwise meeting burdens of proof. 
  4. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no corporate resolution will provide protection from criminal or civil liability for any individuals. Under the new policy, DOJ attorneys may not agree to a corporate resolution that includes an agreement to dismiss charges against, or immunity for, individual officers or employees. 
  5. Corporate cases should not be resolved without a clear plan to resolve related individual cases before the statute of limitations expires and declinations as to individuals in such cases must be memorialized.
  6. Civil attorneys should consistently focus on individuals as well as the company and evaluate whether it brings suit against an individual based on considerations beyond that individual’s ability to pay. 

Implications of the new policy:

  • This policy incentivizes corporations to provide the government with information about individuals who engage in misconduct and reinforces that corporations and their boards must carry out thorough investigations when they become aware of misconduct and especially when the misconduct rises into the ranks of management. 
  • The new DOJ policy requires a clear plan to resolve related individual cases before the statute of limitations expires and declinations as to individuals in such cases must be memorialized. This appears to be a clear message that individual prosecutions are now a priority and that corporate prosecutions may no longer be the primary focus of the DOJ but prosecutions against individuals may be.
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.