America First enforced: Recent FCPA action reflects administration priorities

On November 10, 2025, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a two-year deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with a foreign telecommunications company, marking the first criminal corporate resolution since the Trump Administration lifted its enforcement “pause” on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) earlier this year.¹ The DPA exemplifies the practical application of all the enforcement guidance released by the Administration this year, including the benefits available to companies under the recently revamped Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP).

The Bribery Scheme

Between 2012 and 2018, the Guatemalan subsidiary of a Luxembourg-based telecom company allegedly paid bribes to Guatemalan legislators and officials to secure favorable laws and government contracts for infrastructure and surveillance projects. The alleged bribes included monthly cash payments to those foreign officials, some of which were delivered in duffel bags via helicopter. The company allegedly funded and concealed its bribes using, among other mechanisms, inflated and backdated contracts with other companies controlled by its controlling shareholder and narcotrafficking proceeds that an external co-conspirator laundered through a US bank account.

The Investigation and Resolution

The Luxembourg parent—then the majority shareholder without operational control—became aware of the misconduct and voluntarily self-disclosed its findings to the DOJ and Swedish authorities in 2015. Both authorities, however, closed their initial investigations without further action. The DOJ reopened the matter in 2020 after new evidence regarding the Guatemalan subsidiary’s ongoing criminal conduct emerged, including the subsidiary’s use of narcotrafficking proceeds to fund bribes. In 2021, the Luxembourg parent acquired full ownership and control of the Guatemalan subsidiary and implemented remedial measures. 

The DOJ imposed a $60 million criminal penalty and ordered forfeiture of $58.2 million. The DPA notes that the subsidiary did not qualify for a declination or credit for a “near-miss” voluntary self-disclosure (VSD) under the CEP. Nevertheless, the subsidiary received certain benefits, including a term of less than three years and a 50% reduction from the bottom of the applicable fine range under the US Sentencing Guidelines. 

In reaching this resolution, the DOJ gave “significant weight” to the Luxembourg parent’s 2015 VSD, citing it as a key factor in resolving the matter through a DPA with a reduced two-year term instead of the typical three. In addition, the DOJ noted the Luxembourg parent’s substantial cooperation and “extensive timely remedial measures” after its assumption of control, including its facilitation of cross-border evidence collection, providing detailed reconstructions of cash-funding streams and political-payment routing, conducting a root-cause analysis, overhauling “the local culture of compliance,” increasing the compliance head count by 800%, and developing an ephemeral messaging policy.

Consistent with its May 12, 2025, Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters, the DOJ imposed a periodic compliance reporting requirement during the DPA term instead of an independent monitor due to the Luxembourg parent’s mature compliance program and its ability to test and update controls without outside supervision. 

Takeaways 

The DPA reflects the DOJ’s post-FCPA pause approach: targeting foreign bribery schemes involving allegedly egregious conduct by non-US companies in areas with national security implications while rewarding early self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation under the CEP.

• The DOJ has refocused, not retreated. The administration has not forgotten the FCPA. Rather, the DOJ has refocused its efforts on conduct that harms US interests, consistent with the administration’s “America First” priorities.²
• Foreign companies should remain on high alert because FCPA jurisdiction is broad. The alleged scheme did not involve a US company or persons. Instead, the DOJ brought this enforcement action relying on the FCPA’s extraterritorial jurisdiction provision, specifically citing the fund transfers routed through US accounts to facilitate or conceal alleged bribes.
• CEP credit requires early detection. While the company did not qualify for a declination, the DOJ did give “significant weight” to the Luxembourg parent’s 2015 VSD. Qualifying for this type of credit can only happen if and when companies implement effective compliance programs capable of detecting and investigating potential misconduct.
• Remediate fast, regardless of VSD posture. The DPA emphasizes the impact that swift and comprehensive remediation can have on obtaining a favorable resolution, specifically calling out the credit provided to the company for its root-cause analysis, disciplinary action, control redesign, and other remediation. Companies should consider how to promptly remediate, regardless of the decision to self-report.
• The statute of limitations means FCPA exposure can carry into the next administration. Companies must remain vigilant despite the statute of limitations. Although FCPA anti-bribery violations are generally subject to a five-year limitations period, that period may be longer if there is conspiratorial conduct, a company enters into a tolling agreement, or there are requests for foreign legal assistance. Thus, today’s priorities may lead to enforcement actions well into the future. In addition, FCPA investigations start and stop depending on a multitude of factors, and a new presidential administration does not necessarily mean existing investigations will be terminated. Between the 2015 VSD and the 2025 DPA, this matter spanned approximately ten years and four presidencies. 

Jeffrey W. Cottle | Partner | +1 202 383 0247 | Email
E. Patrick Gilman | Partner | +1 202 383 0195 | Email
Andrea L. Gordon | Partner | +1 202 383 0955 | Email
Jessica R. Rodgers | Associate | +1 202 383 0152 | Email
Deanna M. Alsbeti | Associate | +1 202 220 8294 | Email

__________

If you have any questions about this Legal Briefing, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed or the Eversheds Sutherland attorney with whom you regularly work.

_{1 See Executive Order signals major shift in FCPA enforcement—for now, Eversheds Sutherland (February 13, 2025), https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/en/united-states/insights/executive-order-signals-major-shift-in-fcpa-enforcement-for-now.
2 See DOJ releases new corporate crime enforcement guidance, telling companies what to expect—and how to avoid criminal penalties, Eversheds Sutherland (May 16, 2025), https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/en/united-states/insights/doj-releases-new-corporate-crime-enforcement-guidance-telling-companies-what-to-expect; FCPA goes “America First”: DOJ issues updated guidance focused on protecting US companies, Eversheds Sutherland (June 11, 2025), https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/en/global/insights/fcpa-goes-america-first-doj-issues-updated-guidance-focused-on-protecting-us-companies.}