1. Introduction

In March 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) unveiled its first-ever Department‑wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self‑Disclosure Policy (“CEP”), a transformative framework intended to standardize how corporate criminal matters are handled across the Department. This new approach reflects DOJ’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and consistency in addressing corporate misconduct. The CEP arrives at a time when corporations face increasing scrutiny over compliance failures, and when DOJ is emphasizing the importance of prompt reporting, individual accountability, and corporate remediation. The policy is designed to clarify expectations and align incentives in ways that benefit the public, companies, and the justice system.

1. Background and Evolution of DOJ Corporate Enforcement

The CEP represents the culmination of decades of DOJ experience in prosecuting sophisticated white‑collar crime. Historically, corporate enforcement policy varied across DOJ components, resulting in inconsistencies and uncertainty for companies facing potential criminal exposure. The Criminal Division’s earlier corporate enforcement policies—dating back to 2016 and significantly revised in 2025—served as a key foundation for the Department‑wide expansion. These earlier frameworks championed themes of disclosure, cooperation, and remediation.

The newly announced Department‑wide policy consolidates those principles across all DOJ divisions (except antitrust), harmonizing expectations and creating a uniform enforcement landscape. DOJ believes this modernization will not only enhance fairness but also strengthen its ability to investigate wrongdoing quickly and pursue culpable individuals efficiently.

III. Importance of the New Corporate Enforcement Policy

The DOJ’s CEP is important not merely because it is a new document, but because it reshapes the relationship between corporations and federal prosecutors. The Department has emphasized that transparency and fairness are central pillars of this policy. Companies that voluntarily self‑disclose misconduct, fully cooperate with DOJ investigators, and meaningfully remediate wrongdoing will be treated equitably and rewarded for their responsible conduct.

Senior DOJ leadership—specifically Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva—underscored that responsible corporations will benefit from uniformity and predictability. The CEP’s nationwide applicability minimizes the unevenness that previously came from differing component‑level policies and ensures that companies can expect consistent treatment across DOJ offices. This clarity allows legal counsel and compliance officers to navigate enforcement risk with greater conviction and foresight.

1. Purpose and Scope of the Policy

The CEP’s purpose is multifaceted. DOJ seeks to encourage responsible corporate conduct by offering meaningful incentives for early disclosure of misconduct, robust cooperation with investigations, and timely remediation. By fostering transparency, the policy aims to reduce harm to victims, promote accountability for individual wrongdoers, and ensure that corporate penalties are tied to conduct and remediation efforts rather than bureaucratic disparities.

The scope of the CEP is correspondingly broad: it applies to all corporate criminal matters handled by DOJ (with the sole statutory exception of matters arising under 15 U.S.C. § 138). Importantly, the policy defines “company” expansively to include corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government entities, and unincorporated associations. This ensures that the policy’s principles apply uniformly across varied business structures.

To reduce uncertainty for companies, the CEP requires prosecutors to obtain factual details promptly and communicate eligibility determinations when appropriate. Resolutions must be approved by senior DOJ leadership, further reinforcing consistency and Department‑wide coherence.

1. Core Structure of the CEP

The CEP outlines three potential resolution pathways, each reflecting DOJ’s desire to balance incentives with accountability.

1. Overview of the Three‑Tier Resolution Framework

Part I – Declinations:
Companies that voluntarily self‑disclose, fully cooperate, and timely remediate misconduct—and that lack disqualifying aggravating circumstances—may receive a formal declination. Although the company must still pay disgorgement, forfeiture, and restitution, DOJ will decline prosecution. This incentive aims to accelerate DOJ’s ability to investigate crimes and pursue individuals.

Part II – Self‑Disclosure With Technical Deficiencies or Aggravating Factors:
Even when a company falls short of Part I requirements, it may obtain significant benefits, such as reduced terms, non‑prosecution agreements, or avoidance of compliance monitorships, provided it fully cooperates and remediates. This recognizes that responsible conduct should still be rewarded even when a full declination is not warranted.

Part III – Other Resolutions:
When a company is ineligible for Parts I and II, DOJ retains broad discretion in determining the appropriate resolution, penalty range, and compliance obligations. The policy ensures prosecutors maintain flexibility while applying consistent evaluative principles.

1. Key Policy Requirements and Company Obligations

The CEP’s benefits are conditional, and companies must meet stringent DOJ expectations across three pillars: voluntary self‑disclosure, full cooperation, and timely remediation.

1. Voluntary Self‑Disclosure Standards

To qualify as voluntary, a disclosure must be:

• Made in good faith;
• Provided to the appropriate DOJ component;
• Disclosing conduct not previously known to DOJ;
• Submitted without a preexisting obligation to report;
• Made before imminent threat of government discovery;
• Provided in a reasonably prompt manner after learning of the misconduct.

These criteria ensure DOJ can quickly investigate wrongdoing and hold individuals accountable. Companies bear the burden of demonstrating timeliness.

1. Cooperation Expectations

Full cooperation includes:

• Timely and complete disclosure of all non‑privileged facts;
• Identification of all individuals involved;
• Proactive updates on internal investigations;
• Preservation and production of relevant documents, including foreign‑based records;
• Providing employees and agents for interviews, even overseas;
• Coordinating internal investigative steps to avoid impairing DOJ’s investigation.

The policy makes clear that cooperation is earned—not presumed—and requires companies to be proactive partners in fact‑finding.

1. Remediation Requirements

To demonstrate timely and appropriate remediation, companies must:

• Conduct thorough root‑cause analyses;
• Implement effective compliance programs with adequate independence, resources, and risk‑based tailoring;
• Discipline culpable employees and supervisors;
• Implement reliable record‑retention practices, including controls on ephemeral messaging;
• Adopt additional measures demonstrating accountability and prevention of future misconduct.

These expectations ensure remediation is substantive and forward‑looking.

VII. Aggravating Factors and Their Impact

Aggravating factors serve as important limitations on a company’s eligibility for declinations under Part I. DOJ may consider:

• The seriousness and nature of the offense;
• The pervasiveness or egregiousness of misconduct;
• The degree of harm caused;
• Corporate recidivism, including prior criminal resolutions or similar past misconduct.

Even when such factors are present, DOJ retains discretion to weigh the company’s response—particularly its level of cooperation and remediation—in determining the appropriate resolution.

VIII. Practical Implications for Companies

The CEP significantly reshapes corporate risk management. Companies must prioritize early detection mechanisms and ensure their compliance programs are both operationally effective and well‑documented. Because timeliness plays a crucial role in eligibility for policy benefits, organizations must be prepared to escalate concerns rapidly and assess disclosure obligations promptly.

DOJ’s expectations around document preservation and cooperation also have far‑reaching implications. Companies must maintain strong controls over digital communication tools, especially those that complicate retention, such as encrypted or ephemeral messaging apps. At the same time, they must be prepared to produce foreign‑based documents and facilitate worldwide employee interviews, requiring internal coordination across jurisdictions.

1. Strategic Considerations for Counsel

Corporate counsel play a central role in navigating the complexities of the CEP. They must ensure the organization has robust processes to surface potential misconduct early and evaluate disclosure obligations under tight timelines. Counsel must also manage the interplay between internal investigations and DOJ de‑confliction requests, strategically sequencing investigative actions to preserve privilege and comply with regulatory obligations.

Another critical task is evaluating and strengthening compliance programs, as DOJ places heavy emphasis on program effectiveness and responsiveness. Counsel must guide leadership through the difficult decisions that accompany cooperation—such as producing sensitive information, facilitating employee interviews, and managing cross‑border discovery challenges.

1. Conclusion

The DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self‑Disclosure Policy marks a major shift in the Department’s approach to corporate criminal enforcement. By consolidating expectations across all DOJ components, the CEP establishes a uniform, transparent, and incentive‑driven framework for addressing corporate misconduct. For companies, the policy provides greater predictability and clearer incentives for responsible conduct—including voluntary disclosure, meaningful cooperation, and robust remediation.

For counsel and compliance professionals, the CEP represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Companies must act swiftly and decisively when misconduct arises, strengthen compliance infrastructures, and prepare for heightened expectations from federal prosecutors. Those who internalize and operationalize the CEP’s requirements will be better positioned to navigate enforcement risks and contribute to a stronger, more accountable corporate environment.