Gibson Dunn’s 2025 Year-End FCPA Update

2025 was the weirdest kind of FCPA year: the rules didn’t change, but the way Washington talks about using them definitely did.

Early in the year, the U.S. government effectively hit “pause” on new and ongoing FCPA moves while it reviewed how (and why) to enforce. Then, mid-year, DOJ came back with a clearer message: FCPA enforcement isn’t going away, but it’s being steered toward cases that directly connect to U.S. interests.

Here’s what that means in plain English.

The new enforcement filter: “Why should the U.S. care?”

DOJ is signaling it wants FCPA cases that fit at least one of these buckets:

• Organized crime / cartel overlap (think bribery that’s financed through dirty money or tied to sophisticated laundering networks)
• Clear harm to U.S. economic interests (real, identifiable losses—not abstract “market integrity” arguments)
• National security or critical infrastructure angles (defense, intelligence, strategic industries, sensitive supply chains)
• Strong evidence of individual intent (not just “bad controls,” but people making knowingly corrupt decisions)

Translation: the “generic overseas bribery” case is a tougher sell unless it’s connected to something DOJ can frame as a direct U.S.-interest issue.

Fewer corporate cases, more focus on people

Enforcement volume dropped sharply in 2025, which tracks with the early-year pause. But the more important shift is where the spotlight landed: individual cases and fact patterns that make the story easy to tell to a jury.

If you’re running compliance, this is the uncomfortable but useful takeaway: prosecutors want cases that come with a villain, a motive, and a clean narrative.

The money trail is the headline now

One of the year’s most prominent corporate resolutions leaned hard into the how of the payments—cash generation, intermediaries, laundering dynamics—not just the bribe itself.

That’s a trend worth taking seriously. In 2026, “third parties” and “consulting invoices” aren’t just compliance checkboxes; they’re the plot.

Post-settlement reality check: you can earn your way out sooner

Another notable development: DOJ showed more willingness to end certain post-resolution obligations early (think reporting/monitor-like burdens) when companies could demonstrate real compliance maturity and reduced risk.

That’s a meaningful incentive: investing in controls and testing isn’t just defensive—it can be an exit strategy.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world didn’t take a timeout

Even if U.S. enforcement felt quieter, global anti-corruption enforcement didn’t go on vacation. Cross-border coordination continues to tighten, and non-U.S. authorities look increasingly comfortable taking the lead.

So the risk calculus stays the same: a matter can be “not a U.S. case” and still become a very expensive case.

What companies should do now

If 2025 reshuffled priorities, 2026 is where the reshuffle becomes operational. Practical steps:

1. Re-map your risk around DOJ’s new framing
   Identify which parts of your footprint could plausibly touch U.S. victims, national security, cartel/TCO finance, or high-intent behavior.
2. Treat payment mechanics as core risk
   Cash, distributors, “success fees,” marketing funds, customs brokers, and “local consultants” deserve more scrutiny than your policy binder.
3. Make investigations prosecution-ready
   Faster decision-making, cleaner documentation, sharper escalation thresholds—because DOJ is looking for cases that can move.
4. Don’t mistake quieter headlines for lower exposure
   Global enforcement and information-sharing remain active. The venue may change; the risk doesn’t.

2025’s bottom line: the FCPA didn’t disappear—it just got a new GPS and is driving toward cases with a stronger “why this matters to the U.S.” storyline.

‍