An August 7, 2025 declination agreement published by the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Fraud Section—and the first bribery DOJ resolution of President Trump’s second term—provides initial insights into declinations under the DOJ’s revised Corporate Enforcement Policy. The company’s voluntary disclosure and full and proactive cooperation in the matter were highlighted among the reasons to decline prosecution, reinforcing the need for a strong compliance program.
In February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered federal prosecutors to scale back and reshape the DOJ’s approach to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement. The directive introduced a number of significant changes, including prioritizing investigations into only foreign bribery schemes that facilitate the operations of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and suspending certain provisions in Section 9-47.110 of the Justice Manual.
Contemporaneously, President Trump issued an executive order directing the DOJ to pause active FCPA investigations, framed as a “temporary recalibration.” The order further directed that future FCPA investigations and enforcement actions be governed by forthcoming guidance. Among other things, the order cited the burden of FCPA compliance on US businesses and the need to prevent overreach in regulating conduct abroad, and that as such the new guidance “promotes American competitiveness and efficient use of federal law enforcement resources.”
On June 12, Matthew R. Galeotti, head of DOJ’s Criminal Division, delivered remarks on how the recent memoranda impacting criminal enforcement guidelines fit with the DOJ’s efforts to address white collar and corporate misconduct. Of particular note, Galeotti identified “three key areas of change”: declinations in light of self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation; reduction of corporate monitors; and increasing the efficiency of DOJ investigations.
These changes include narrowing the definition of “aggravating factors” to further incentivize voluntary self-disclosures, reducing or terminating corporate monitors where appropriate, and increasing the speed for DOJ decisions to charge or decline. Recent DOJ policies have also emphasized that companies that self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate will receive declinations as opposed to the prior policy, which included a presumption (but not a promise) of declinations.
On August 7, DOJ’s Fraud Section published a declination agreement it had reached with Liberty Mutual. Avoiding prosecution, the global insurance company agreed to accept responsibility for and disgorge all profits from a bribery scheme perpetrated by some of its employees of its subsidiary in India, Liberty General Insurance (LGI).
According to the declination agreement, from in or around 2017 until in or around 2022 LGI paid bribes totaling approximately $1.47 million to officials at six state-owned banks in India, and in exchange the officials caused the state-owned banks to refer customers to LGI’s insurance products. In total, the bribe scheme resulted in $9.2 million in revenue and $4.7 million in profits.
The government provided seven reasons for its willingness to decline prosecution, which are in line with Galeotti’s June 2025 remarks regarding “self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation.” Most notably, the government highlighted the importance of Liberty Mutual’s voluntary self-disclosure of the misconduct in March 2024 and its full and proactive cooperation in the matter.
As a basis for the declination, the government specifically cited to “Liberty Mutual’s significant improvements to its compliance program and internal controls, including enhanced vetting, monitoring, and oversight of payments to third parties throughout its global markets, structural reorganization coupled with increased legal and compliance resources, and the implementation of enhanced compliance policies, including with respect to use of social media and ephemeral messaging applications for business purposes.”
This reinforces the need for a strong compliance program, which is also very much aligned with Galeotti’s June 2025 remarks; notably, “[y]ou are the first line of defense against these schemes—companies and particularly financial institutions with well-functioning compliance programs have a unique role to play in this fight.”
The government also cited the nature of the offense; the company’s timely remediation, acceptance of responsibility, and separation from personnel involved in the scheme; the absence of aggravating circumstances; and the fact that Liberty Mutual agreed to disgorge the full $4.7 million of “ill-gotten gains.”
This declination agreement was the first bribery DOJ resolution in President Trump’s second term and it should serve as a signal that corporate criminal enforcement at the DOJ is alive and well. Arriving at the heels of the FCPA’s “temporary recalibration” and Galeotti’s remarks, this agreement provides the first insight into declinations under the DOJ’s revised Corporate Enforcement Policy.
In light of the DOJ’s renewed corporate enforcement, companies that identify potentially corrupt or fraudulent behavior should consider the continuation of past DOJ policies in deciding whether to affirmatively disclose misconduct to the authorities. The DOJ may offer declinations to companies, like Liberty Mutual, that self-disclose misconduct, cooperate with investigations, remediate, and have no aggravating factors, including a recent history of similar violations.
While the prospect of such declinations is appealing, the decision to disclose is one that must be made in careful consideration of the shifting policy landscape and the host of collateral consequences that any criminal investigation invites.
Enforcement agencies will remain on the lookout. The DOJ is once again ready and interested in pursuing corporate actions, including in the FCPA space, and the second Trump administration may not prove to see declining FCPA enforcement as some initially predicted; indeed, even in situations that do not involve cartels or other DOJ priorities, the agency is clearly aiming to continue its muscular enforcement of the FCPA. Companies should remain attentive to anti-corruption enforcement and devote resources to compliance risks.
Visit our US Administration Policies and Priorities resource center and subscribe to our mailing list for the latest on programming, guidance, and current legal and business developments.
If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this LawFlash, please contact any of the following: