A Look At The “FEPA Report”

Key Takeaways

• FEPA enacted July 2024 to curb foreign extortion.
• DOJ integrates FEPA with existing FCPA enforcement framework.
• No FEPA prosecutions announced within first year.
• Investigations remain complex, time‑intensive, and non‑public.
• Companies face heightened compliance risk for overseas bribery demands.

Summary

The Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), effective July 2024, obligates the DOJ to submit an annual report on foreign officials’ bribery demands and related enforcement actions. In a recent DOJ letter, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ronald Lampard outlined how the Fraud Section has trained prosecutors, launched non‑public investigations, and coordinated with foreign law‑enforcement partners to apply FEPA alongside the FCPA. Despite these efforts, no FEPA prosecutions have been announced, reflecting the law’s complexity and its non‑retroactive scope. The agency also posted duplicate congressional letters on its website, highlighting the emerging focus on foreign extortion compliance.

Pulse Analysis

The Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) was signed into law in July 2024 to close a regulatory gap that left U.S. businesses vulnerable to extortion by foreign officials. Unlike the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which targets bribery, FEPA specifically criminalizes demands for money, goods, or services made by foreign governments or their agents. The statute also mandates an annual report to key congressional committees and public posting on the Justice Department’s website, signaling a transparent, bipartisan commitment to combatting foreign extortion.

Since its enactment, the DOJ’s Fraud Section has taken concrete steps to embed FEPA into its investigative playbook. Prosecutors and law‑enforcement partners have received targeted training on the law’s elements, and the department has opened several non‑public investigations into alleged extortion schemes involving U.S. companies. Coordination with foreign law‑enforcement agencies and State Department diplomatic missions has increased, ensuring that potential violations are flagged early. However, the DOJ has yet to announce any FEPA prosecutions, citing the intricate, time‑intensive nature of these cases and the statute’s non‑retroactive application, which limits actionable conduct to post‑enactment behavior.

For multinational corporations, FEPA introduces a new layer of compliance risk that dovetails with existing FCPA obligations. Companies should expand their anti‑corruption programs to include robust monitoring of foreign official interactions, mandatory reporting channels, and regular training that distinguishes between permissible facilitation and illegal extortion demands. Staying attuned to DOJ updates and the forthcoming annual FEPA report will be critical for risk managers seeking to avoid costly investigations and potential penalties as enforcement matures.