Designed for busy in-house counsel, compliance professionals, and anti-corruption lawyers, this newsletter summarizes some of the most important international anti-corruption law and enforcement developments from the past month, with links to primary resources. This month we ask: Why did the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) decide to proceed to trial, or to dismiss charges, in four Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases? How can U.S. State Attorneys General fill any foreign anti-bribery void created by President Trump’s Executive Order pausing FCPA enforcement? How can healthcare companies operating in Shanghai mitigate corruption risk? The answers to these questions and more are here in our April 2025 Top 10.
1. DOJ Decides to Proceed with Three FCPA Trials and to End Another FCPA Trial Following the President’s FCPA Pause Order
Last month, we reported that several FCPA trials had been postponed to allow DOJ to consider whether to proceed under President Trump’s February 2025 Executive Order titled “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security” (“Pause Order”). In April 2025, DOJ stated that it had conducted a “detailed review” “as contemplated by the Executive [Pause] Order” and “intends to proceed to trial” in FCPA trials alleging bribery of officials in Egypt,[1] Honduras,[2] and the Philippines[3] but had decided to dismiss charges alleging bribery of officials in India “based on the recent assessment of the Executive [Pause] Order’s application to [that] matter.”[4] Other than announcing the results of its reviews, DOJ did not provide any explanation of its decision-making process. One potential inference from these decisions is that DOJ concluded that it would proceed to trial in cases involving allegations that bribes had been paid to obtain business and would drop a case that was more on the operational side of the company’s business (obtaining authorization to construct facilities for the company’s business). Interestingly—and perhaps significantly—within days of DOJ’s decision to drop criminal charges, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the defendants in the India case jointly moved to restore the civil FCPA case to the active docket to allow the parties to explore a potential resolution.[5] The civil case had been paused while the criminal case went forward. Also notable is that one of the defendants in the Philippines case decided that he would not go to trial quietly. He filed three separate motions on April 28, 2025, arguing that the indictment fails to state a money laundering offense, fails to establish venue for the money laundering counts, and fails to state either an FCPA or money laundering offense under the Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Snyder v. United States.[6] We previously predicted that defendants would use the holding in Snyder in FCPA cases to argue that DOJ had improperly charged conduct that amounted to a gratuity rather than a bribe.
2. DOJ Reportedly Declines FCPA Charges against Norwegian Energy Company
On April 2, 2025, PetroNor announced that it had been informed by DOJ that “based on the information that the DOJ has learned to date, and in the light of a recent executive order, its inquiry relating to the Company has been closed.” PetroNor also noted that a concurrent investigation by Norway’s anti-corruption agency, the National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime in Norway (“Økokrim”), remains ongoing. It is not immediately apparent how the Pause Order, which is ostensibly intended to restore American competitiveness and security, resulted in a declination in this matter, but it could suggest that the Pause Order’s admonition against “wast[ing] limited prosecutorial resources” could be interpreted more broadly and militate in favor of a DOJ declination when a company’s home country is investigating the same foreign bribery allegations. According to a previous company announcement, the DOJ investigation began sometime in or before April 2022.
3. DOJ Moves for Early End to Waste Management Company’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement
On April 28, 2025, a judge in the Southern District of Florida granted DOJ’s motion to dismiss FCPA charges against Stericycle, Inc., seven months before the scheduled expiration of the company’s three-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA).[7] In April 2022, DOJ announced that the company had agreed to the DPA to resolve allegations that it had bribed officials in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico to obtain and retain government contracts for waste management services. As part of the DPA, the company agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for two years. The DPA was scheduled to end three years from the later of the date on which the Information setting out the charges against the company was filed or the date on which the independent compliance monitor was retained. According to DOJ’s motion to dismiss, the independent compliance monitor was retained in November 2022 and certified in May 2024 that the company had fulfilled the DPA’s enhanced compliance requirements. In other words, although the DPA was technically dismissed seven months ahead of schedule, it was also dismissed nearly a year after the compliance monitor stated that the company had fulfilled its compliance obligations. In this way, the Stericycle dismissal is quite different from DOJ’s March 2025 decision to release Glencore from its compliance monitorship 15 months ahead of schedule. Both might be related to the Pause Order, but the Stericycle decision is much less dramatic.
4. Business Owner Pleads Guilty In Connection with Ecuador Bribery Scheme
On April 24, 2025, Christian Patricio Pintado Garcia pleaded guilty in the Southern District of Florida to conspiracy to commit money laundering in connection with an alleged scheme to bribe officials of Ecuadorian state-owned insurers Seguros Sucre S.A. and Seguros Rocafuerte S.A.[8] DOJ announced charges against Pintado and two other individuals in July 2022. Pintado, a dual Ecuadorian-Italian citizen and former general manager of intermediary companies based in Miami, admitted that he used his companies to assist UK-based reinsurance brokers in securing business with the Ecuadorian state-owned insurers in exchange for a commission. He is scheduled to be sentenced on June 24, 2025.
5. Wife of Former U.S. Senator Convicted in Egyptian Bribery Scheme
On April 21, 2025, DOJ announced that Nadine Menendez had been convicted “for her critical role in a corruption and foreign influence scheme involving her husband, convicted former Senator Robert Menendez.” According to DOJ, “Nadine Menendez agreed to accept and accepted all sorts of bribes – including gold bars, cash, a Mercedes-Benz convertible, and a no-show job – all in exchange for the Senator’s corrupt official acts.” At trial, DOJ argued that she communicated with bribe payers, collected bribes, and assisted in providing political favors to benefit Egyptian government officials. Ms. Menendez was convicted on all 15 counts against her, including bribery, conspiracy, extortion, fraud, and obstruction of justice. She is scheduled to be sentenced on June 12, 2025. (For more on the Menendez case, see our September 2023, October 2023, January 2024, July 2024, and January 2025 Top 10s.)
6. Federal Judge Permanently Dismisses Bribery Charges Against Current New York Mayor
On April 2, 2025, Southern District of New York Judge Dale Ho dismissed with prejudice federal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. DOJ announced charges against Adams in September 2024, alleging that he had accepted benefits from Turkish nationals in exchange for official favors. In December 2024, Judge Ho denied Adams’ motion to dismiss a bribery charge, finding that the indictment sufficiently alleged a quid pro quo in relation to Adams’ alleged acceptance of travel benefits from a Turkish official and others in exchange for influencing a fire inspection for the Turkish consular building in New York City. In February 2025, Emil Bove, the Acting Deputy Attorney General, directed the U.S. Attorney’s Office to dismiss all pending charges against Adams without prejudice, arguing that the prosecution hindered Adams’ ability to cooperate with President Trump’s immigration agenda. Judge Ho determined that the dismissal should be with prejudice because allowing DOJ to reserve the right to refile charges “would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration.” Judge Ho further noted that DOJ’s request, “if granted, would leave Mayor Adams under the specter of reindictment at essentially any time, and for essentially any reason.” Adams, who had pleaded not guilty to the charges, reiterated his innocence and announced his intention to seek re-election for office.
7. California Attorney General States Intention to Fill Void Created by Pause in FCPA Enforcement
On April 2, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a legal advisory warning businesses operating in California that bribing foreign government officials to obtain or retain business remains illegal under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), despite the Trump administration’s FCPA Pause Order. The advisory cited a 2003 case in which the California Supreme Court held that the FCPA could serve as the legal standard for unlawful conduct under the UCL, even if the federal statute itself is not the basis of the lawsuit. In that case, a commission agent representing a military technology company sued a competitor for allegedly securing a weapons system contract from a foreign government through bribery and sexual favors. Through the legal doctrine of parens patriae, state attorneys general have the authority to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents to protect the public welfare, meaning that other state attorneys general could also bring enforcement actions based on FCPA offenses. Nevertheless, states generally lack the investigative resources of the federal government and so might be limited in their ability to investigate and bring enforcement actions based on foreign bribery offenses. Regardless, it will be interesting to see whether states can fill any enforcement void created by the Pause Order. (See our article in the New York Law Journal for a more in-depth analysis of the California AG advisory.)
8. SFO Charges Insurance Broker with Failure to Prevent Bribery in Ecuador
On April 16, 2025, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced charges against United Insurance Brokers Limited for “failing to prevent bribery” under Section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010 (UKBA). The SFO alleges that between October 2013 and March 2016, the company’s U.S.-based intermediaries bribed Ecuadorian state officials to secure reinsurance contracts worth approximately $38 million. If the case proceeds to trial, it would be the first time a jury is asked to consider a UKBA Section 7 offense. UK enforcement agencies have previously entered into several negotiated resolutions involving alleged UKBA Section 7 violations. (See, for example, our October 2020, July 2021, June 2022, November 2022, and December 2023 Top 10s.)
9. SFO Publishes 2025-26 Business Plan and Issues New Guidance to Combat Financial Crimes
On April 3, 2025, SFO published its 2025-26 Business Plan, emphasizing the SFO’s intent to leverage the new “failure to prevent fraud” offense under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, effective September 2025, and establish a new international taskforce targeting bribery and corruption in partnership with Switzerland and France. (See our October 2023 and November 2024 Top 10s for more on the failure to prevent fraud offense and our March 2025 Top 10 regarding the taskforce.) SFO Director Nick Ephgrave QPM pledged that the SFO will “increase the pace of investigations, make bolder and more pragmatic decisions” in the current national and international landscape. On April 24, 2025, the SFO issued new Guidance on Corporate Co-Operation and Enforcement in relation to Corporate Criminal Offending (“Guidance”). The Guidance clarifies cooperation standards and self-reporting procedures and outlines the SFO’s key considerations in deciding whether to prosecute a company or invite it to negotiate a DPA. The Guidance aims to promote transparency and encourage early and proactive engagement from companies under investigation. (See our client alert for more in-depth analysis of the Guidance.)
10. China Releases the First Case Handbook of Compliance Guidelines for Healthcare Companies
On April 18, 2025, Shanghai Municipal Administration for Market Regulation (“Shanghai AMR”) released the first Case Handbook for the Compliance Guidelines for Healthcare Companies to Prevent Commercial Bribery. China’s State Administration for Market Regulation issued draft Compliance Guidelines in October 2024 and finalized the Compliance Guidelines in January 2025. Drawing from real enforcement experience, the Shanghai AMR Case Handbook features 15 illustrative cases covering the nine categories of high-risk activities as specified in the Compliance Guidelines, including academic meetings, hospitality expenses, fee-for-service guidance for healthcare professionals, outsourcing services to vendors, sponsorships for healthcare organizations, and third-party discounts and rebates, among others. The Shanghai AMR Case Handbook is an important compliance reference for healthcare companies navigating through China’s increasingly stringent anti-corruption enforcement landscape. Notably, the Shanghai AMR stated that it would continue updating and publishing sector-specific enforcement case guidelines in the future.
[1] Government’s Notice of Authorization to Proceed and Motion for Status Conference, United States v. Hobson, Case No. 2:22-CR-86, ECF No. 105 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2025).
[2] Government’s Notice of Authorization to Proceed, United States v. Zaglin, et al., Case No. 1:23-cr-20454-JB, ECF No. 123 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2025).
[3] Notice of Authorization to Proceed, United States v. Bautista, et al., Case No. 1:24-cr-20343-KMW, ECF No. 135 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2025).
[4] Letter, United States v. Coburn, et al., Case No. 2:19-cr-120-MEF, ECF No. 1034 (D.N.J. Apr. 2, 2025).
[5] Letter, SEC v. Coburn, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-5820-MCA-MAH, ECF No. 76 (Apr. 10, 2025).
[6] Motions, United States v. Bautista, et al., Case No. 1:24-cr-20343-KMW, ECF Nos. 149-151 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2025).
[7] Order, United States v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cr-20156-KMM-1, ECF No. 22 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2025).
[8] Plea Agreement, United States v. Christian Patricio Pintado Garcia, Case No. 22-cr-20311-KMW, ECF No. 91 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2025).
[View source.]
