Media Center

December 5, 2025
Publications

On May 12, 2025, Matthew R. Galeotti, Acting Assistant Attorney General (AAG) of DOJ’s Criminal Division, issued a memorandum to all Criminal Division personnel. The subject of that memorandum was “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime.”

In the memo, the AAG initially highlighted several priorities of the Second Trump Administration, including the following: the Criminal Division’s efforts to “pursue the Total Elimination of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs), dismantle human smuggling organizations, curb the flow of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs, and neutralize child predators and violent criminals[.]”¹ In addition to these priorities, he noted that “[w]hite-collar crime also poses a significant threat to U.S. interests.”² In particular, “[u]nchecked fraud in U.S. markets and government programs robs hardworking Americans and harms the public fisc.”³ And “[t]he deadly activities of Cartels and TCOs are enabled by international money laundering organizations and other financial facilitators.”⁴

But the AAG cautioned that “overbroad and unchecked corporate and white-collar enforcement burdens U.S. businesses and harms U.S. interests.”⁵ He reminded federal prosecutors that “[t]he vast majority of American businesses are legitimate enterprises working to deliver value for their shareholders and quality products and services for customers” and that “[p]rosecutors must avoid overreach that punishes risk-taking and hinders innovation.”⁶ Because of these countervailing interests, he directed that the Criminal “Division’s policies must strike an appropriate balance between the need to effectively identify, investigate, and prosecute corporate and individuals’ criminal wrongdoing while minimizing unnecessary burdens on American enterprise.”⁷

To help strike that balance, the Criminal Division was “to be guided by three core tenets: (1) focus; (2) fairness; and (3) efficiency.”⁸ This article discusses: 1.) What these “core tenets” mean and 2.) What impact these core tenets may have on white-collar criminal defense strategy.

Core tenet #1: focus

The first principle is focus. In the memo, the AAG stated that “the Criminal Division will prioritize investigating and prosecuting corporate crime in areas that will have the greatest impact in protecting American citizens and companies and promoting U.S. interests[.]”⁹ He then listed the following ten “high-impact areas” that “the Criminal Division will prioritize investigating and prosecuting:”¹⁰

1. Waste, fraud, and abuse, including health care fraud and federal program and procurement fraud.
2. Trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion.
3. Fraud perpetrated through “variable interest entities (VIEs), which are typically Chinese-affiliated companies listed on U.S. exchanges,”¹¹ including, but not limited to, offering fraud, “ramp and dumps,” elder fraud, securities fraud, and other market manipulation schemes.
4. Fraud that victimizes U.S. investors, individuals, and markets including, but not limited to, Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, elder fraud, servicemember fraud, and fraud that threatens the health and safety of consumers.
5. Conduct that threatens the country’s national security, including threats to the U.S. financial system by gatekeepers, such as financial institutions and their insiders that commit sanctions violations or enable transactions by Cartels, TCOs, hostile nation-states, and/or foreign terrorist organizations.
6. Material support by corporations to foreign terrorist organizations, including recently designated Cartels and TCOs.
7. Complex money laundering, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations, and other organizations involved in laundering funds used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs.
8. Violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including the unlawful manufacture and distribution of chemicals and equipment used to create counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl and unlawful distribution of opioids by medical professionals and companies.
9. Bribery and associated money laundering that impact U.S. national interests, undermine U.S. national security, harm the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and enrich foreign corrupt officials.
10. Crimes (1) involving digital assets that victimize investors and consumers; (2) that use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct; and (3) willful violations that facilitate significant criminal activity. Cases impacting victims, involving cartels, TCOs, or terrorist groups, or facilitating drug money laundering or sanctions evasion shall receive highest priority.¹²

The dominant focus of the ten high-impact areas is on crimes associated with foreign policy, immigration enforcement, and international affairs. In other words, they are overwhelmingly external-facing—aimed at countering actual or perceived threats from foreign malign actors. Tax fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud, and other types of standard white-collar prosecutions are not included as specific areas of focus. That omission may signal a lighter touch when it comes to enforcing standard criminal statutes in the domestic context. It may also mean that DOJ prosecutors may be more willing to negotiate resolutions to alleged illegalities (whether that be through a plea or through voluntary compliance), rather than prosecute alleged traditional white-collar violations.

Core tenet #2: fairness

The second principle is fairness. The AAG highlighted the work of “the Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP)[,]” which “has applied across the Division since 2018.”¹³ He noted that the CEP was developed “because justice demands the equal and fair application of criminal laws to individuals and corporations who commit crimes.”

But he reminded prosecutors that “[t]he Department’s first priority is to prosecute individual criminals. It is individuals—whether executives, officers, or employees of companies—who commit these crimes, often at the expense of shareholders, workers, and American investors and consumers.”¹⁵ He underscored that “[n]ot all corporate misconduct warrants federal criminal prosecution. Prosecution of individuals, as well as civil and administrative remedies directed at corporations, are often appropriate to address low-level corporate misconduct and vindicate U.S. interests.”¹⁶ “Prosecutors in the Criminal Division must consider additional factors when determining whether to charge corporations, including whether the company reported the conduct to . . . D[OJ], its willingness to cooperate with the government, and its actions to remediate the misconduct.”¹⁷

As noted by the AAG, one way to remedy wrongs committed is for a company to “enter into agreements with the Criminal Division” which means the company “agree[s] to implement corporate compliance programs, report relevant misconduct, cooperate with the government, and more.”¹⁸ “But where corporate criminal resolutions are necessary, prosecutors should consider all forms—non-prosecution agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, and guilty pleas—in making a case-by-case analysis about the appropriate disposition.”¹⁹

In addition to favoring alternatives to prosecution, the AAG stated that he had ordered a “review [of] the length of terms of all existing agreements with companies to determine if they should be terminated early.”²⁰ “Factors that may lead to early termination include, but are not limited to, duration of the post-resolution period, substantial reduction in the company’s risk profile, extent of remediation and maturity of the compliance corporate program, and whether the company self-reported the misconduct.”²¹ That review was “ongoing.”²²

Further, in the future, “when entering into a corporate resolution with companies that cooperate and remediate, Criminal Division prosecutors must impose a term that is appropriate and necessary in light of, among other things, the severity of the misconduct, the company’s degree of cooperation and remediation, and the effectiveness of the company’s compliance program at the time of resolution.”²³ “These terms should not be longer than three years except in exceedingly rare cases, and Criminal Division prosecutors should assess these agreements regularly to determine if they should be terminated early.”²⁴

Under this principle, if your client is a corporate target, an alternative form of resolving the alleged wrongdoing is not only likely—it seems favored. In negotiations with DOJ prosecutors, it would be worthwhile to propose all available alternatives: a compliance program, a non-prosecution agreement, or a deferred prosecution agreement. The fairness principle seems to signal a certain solicitude for corporate defendants that can be maximized for the client’s advantage.

Core tenet #3: efficiency

The third principle is efficiency. The AAG noted that while investigation and prosecution of white-collar crime is essential for the well-being of the nation, “federal investigations into corporate wrongdoing can be costly and intrusive for businesses, investors, and other stakeholders, many of whom have no knowledge of, or involvement in, the misconduct at issue.”²⁵ “Federal investigations can also significantly interfere with day-to-day business operations and cause reputational harm that may at times be unwarranted.”²⁶

To remedy this problem the AAG stated that “prosecutors must take all reasonable steps to minimize the length and collateral impact of their investigations, and to ensure that bad actors are brought to justice swiftly and resources are marshaled efficiently.”²⁷ He committed that his “office will work closely with the relevant Sections to track investigations and ensure that they do not linger and are swiftly concluded.”²⁸

He further noted that “[i]ndependent compliance monitors must only be imposed when they are necessary, i.e., when a company cannot be expected to implement an effective compliance program or prevent recurrence of the underlying misconduct without such heavy-handed intervention.”²⁹ “When imposed, monitorships must be narrowly tailored to achieve the necessary goals while minimizing expense, burden, and interference with the business.”³⁰ He “announc[ed]” a new monitor selection memorandum³¹ and stated that “the Criminal Division . . . ha[d] undertaken an individualized review of all existing monitorships” to assess whether “each monitor is still necessary.”³²

Depending on the posture of your case, this final principle may be the most significant of the three. DOJ’s aspiration to move cases along more quickly might be able to be leveraged into persuading prosecutors to reach resolutions early in an investigation. Considering the enormous volume of data typically seized with contemporary search warrants and the even greater amount of government time and resources needed to sift through that data to understand the fullness of the evidence, prosecutors can be reminded of the AAG’s concern about causing irreparable reputational harm and interfering in ongoing operations of law-abiding companies. If defense counsel can identify, research, investigate, and analyze the issues under investigation, these principles espoused by the AAG might lead to earlier conversations about alternative resolutions. Finally, if your client has a case involving a compliance monitor instituted under a prior Administration, the Criminal Division’s new commitment to closely scrutinize the applicability of the monitor may provide you with an opportunity to have the monitor removed.

Conclusion

Under the Second Trump Administration, vigilance and adaptability are the watchwords for navigating DOJ’s shifting white-collar enforcement priorities—for defense counsel and for their clients. It is invaluable to retain an experienced white-collar practitioner to help you navigate these uncertain waters. Further, to the extent possible, it is prudent—based on the current posture of the Criminal Division—to cultivate connections and working relationships with DOJ personnel and seek to resolve any alleged violations via negotiation and voluntary compliance. Finally, any criminal defense lawyer should monitor news from the courts, Congress, and the Justice Department in Washington, with the expectation of further updates and policy adjustments throughout Trump 2.0.

Click here to view and/or print the full notes section of this article.