The Continuing Threat of Individual FCPA Enforcement Actions in 2026

Key Takeaways

• DOJ may settle companies, but still charges individuals
• Recent convictions show trial risk persists
• Global agencies coordinate, increasing cross‑border exposure
• Privilege rulings narrow protection for in‑house counsel
• SEC disgorgement debate adds civil enforcement pressure

Summary

The final quarter of 2025 saw a modest resurgence in FCPA activity after the June 2025 DOJ guidelines, but the key trend is that individual enforcement remains robust. While the revised Corporate Enforcement Policy encourages corporate leniency through self‑disclosure and cooperation, it does not shield executives, brokers, or intermediaries from prosecution. Recent convictions—including a Texas businessman, a customs broker, and former Goldman Sachs banker Asante Berko—illustrate that trials and severe penalties are still common. International coordination with agencies such as the OECD, UK SFO, and EU further amplifies exposure for individuals.

Pulse Analysis

The resurgence of FCPA activity in late 2025 underscores a strategic shift: agencies are more willing to negotiate corporate resolutions while maintaining a hard line on personal liability. Companies that self‑report, cooperate, and remediate can expect streamlined settlements, yet internal investigations often generate the evidence needed to target executives and intermediaries. This dual approach forces compliance officers to treat individual risk as a separate line item, integrating rigorous monitoring of personal conduct alongside corporate remediation plans.

Cross‑border cooperation has become a defining feature of modern FCPA enforcement. The OECD Working Group on Bribery, the UK Serious Fraud Office, and the EU’s new anti‑corruption directive all signal a coordinated push to pursue individuals wherever they operate. Such collaboration raises the likelihood of parallel investigations, extradition requests, and coordinated asset forfeiture, meaning that a misstep in one jurisdiction can trigger legal actions worldwide. Firms must therefore adopt globally consistent policies and ensure that local counsel is prepared for multinational scrutiny.

Meanwhile, evolving privilege doctrines and the SEC’s aggressive civil tactics add layers of complexity. Recent appellate rulings protect certain internal investigations in shareholder suits, yet foreign courts—particularly in France and India—are narrowing attorney‑client protections, exposing communications to authorities. The Supreme Court’s pending review of the SEC’s disgorgement authority could expand financial penalties for individuals, complementing criminal sanctions with civil bars and forfeitures. For businesses, this landscape demands a proactive compliance culture that safeguards both corporate and personal exposure, emphasizing transparent documentation, robust training, and swift response mechanisms.