TheCorporateCounsel.net

In February, Liz blogged about the Trump Administration’s announcement of a 180-day suspension of new FCPA investigations while the DOJ reviews cases & revises its enforcement guidelines. Her blog focused on why companies still benefit from maintaining their anti-corruption compliance programs during this pause and beyond. If that wasn’t enough, California and Europe have chimed in with two more reasons to add to Liz’s checklist.

California – As Gibson Dunn reports: In a press release and legal alert issued on April 2, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta reminded businesses operating in California that making payments to foreign officials to obtain or retain business remains illegal [and] “[v]iolations of the FCPA remain actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)”—and that California may step up corruption-related enforcement if federal authorities’ priorities shift to other areas.

Broadly speaking, the UCL prohibits “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” behavior across nearly all business practices.[1] For purposes of “unlawful” conduct, the UCL “borrows” violations of other laws, including federal laws such as the FCPA, and treats them as “independently actionable as unfair competitive practices.”[2] But under the UCL, even foreign bribery that does not meet all the elements of an FCPA violation may be actionable if it constitutes an unfair or fraudulent business act and has the requisite connection to California . . . Both the Attorney General and private parties are authorized to pursue claims . . .

There is some limited precedent for pursuing cases under the UCL that are based on a violation of the FCPA[; however, one] practical limitation to California-based anti-corruption enforcement may lie in the requirement of injury in California, as the UCL does not apply extraterritorially.

Europe – From this McGuireWoods blog: United Kingdom, France, and Switzerland have formed a new cross-border alliance: the International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce. Announced on March 20, 2025 by the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the taskforce is designed to deepen cooperation among these three countries on bribery and corruption investigations—at a time when the Trump Administration is reshaping the United States’ approach . . .

For multinational companies, this shift reinforces a critical message: anti-bribery compliance cannot be paused simply because U.S. enforcement is in a state of transition. The U.K. Bribery Act, France’s Sapin II, and Swiss anti-corruption laws all carry significant penalties for bribery, and each country has broad jurisdiction to prosecute foreign companies operating or headquartered in their territory. Importantly, these laws are not carbon copies of the FCPA and some penalize conduct that would not fall within scope of the FCPA.

Noting that “criminal enforcement of the FCPA by DOJ is only one risk of committing bribery abroad, and the global anti-corruption landscape is shifting,” the blog gives these recommendations:

– Companies that operate internationally should not limit their anti-bribery compliance efforts. European authorities appear to be filling the gap left by the pause in FCPA enforcement. Companies that scale back compliance efforts risk becoming easy targets for cross-border investigations.

– Expect more multi-agency investigations. Increased use of taskforces and JITs means that misconduct discovered in one country could quickly become the basis for enforcement elsewhere.

– Tailor your compliance program to multiple regimes. One-size-fits-all compliance may not satisfy the requirements of U.K., French, or Swiss authorities. Programs should be evaluated and adapted accordingly.

– Stay alert to future developments in the U.S. The Order pausing FCPA enforcement is a policy decision that may be rescinded by this or a subsequent administration and the FCPA is still a valid law. Further, the pause does not fully foreclose the possibility that an FCPA investigation can be initiated and carried through to an enforcement action, so long as it is approved by the Attorney General. In addition, misconduct which occurs during the current presidential administration may be prosecuted during the next administration.

– Meredith Ervine