Top 10 International Anti-Corruption Developments for May 2025

Designed for busy in-house counsel, compliance professionals, and anti-corruption lawyers, this newsletter summarizes some of the most important international anti-corruption law and enforcement developments from the past month, with links to primary resources. This month we ask: What major policies were announced or revised by the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and how will they impact enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? Why did the World Bank debar companies in China and the Philippines? When can a company be held liable for its employees’ bribery under Singapore law? The answers to these questions and more are here in our May 2025 Top 10.

1. DOJ Criminal Division Outlines White Collar and Corporate Enforcement Priorities, Revises Key Policies

On May 12, 2025, the DOJ Criminal Division announced its white-collar enforcement priorities in a memo titled Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime (Enforcement Priorities Memo), revised its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) and Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program (Whistleblower Program), and released a new Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters (Monitor Selection Memo). 

• One of the 10 priorities listed in the Enforcement Priorities Memo is “[b]ribery and associated money laundering that impact U.S. national interests, undermine U.S. national security, harm the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and enrich foreign corrupt officials[.]” Notably, this means that the Criminal Division intends to continue to prioritize FCPA enforcement, albeit potentially in narrower fashion: the Enforcement Priorities Memo cites President Trump’s February 2025 Executive Order titled “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security” (“FCPA Pause Order”), which calls for new FCPA enforcement guidelines, and the Attorney General’s February 2025 Memo directing prosecutors to focus on FCPA cases involving cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs).
• According to Head of the Criminal Division Matthew Galeotti, the revisions to the CEP are intended to “simplify the policy and clarify the outcomes that companies can expect.” Rather than creating a presumption of a declination that can be overcome in the presence of aggravating circumstances, the revised CEP states that the Criminal Division will decline if the company voluntarily self-discloses, fully cooperates, and timely and appropriately remediates the misconduct and there are no aggravating circumstances. Companies that are not eligible for a declination—because either (1) the self-report does not meet the requirements for a voluntary self‑disclosure or (2) aggravating circumstances warrant a criminal resolution—will be eligible to receive a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with a term of less than three years, a 75% reduction off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range, and no compliance monitor.
• The Whistleblower Program, which came into effect late in the Biden Administration, was expanded to include four new areas for which whistleblowers can receive awards. Not surprisingly, the types of tips eligible for awards are consistent with the 10 priorities set out in the Enforcement Priorities Memo. Notably, FCPA tips remain eligible for awards.
• The Monitor Selection Memo supersedes prior Criminal Division guidance on monitors, including the March 2023 guidance released under the Biden Administration. The new Monitor Selection Memo seems to create an implicit presumption against monitors. The Memo reduces the number of factors that prosecutors must consider when determining whether a monitor is appropriate from 10 under the March 2023 guidance to four. Notably, the memo states that a monitor may be appropriate when there is the potential for recurrence of “foreign bribery that significantly impacts U.S. interests[.]” The Memo also provides DOJ with more control over the monitor’s work, particularly the monitor’s rates and budgets, and effectively prohibits consideration of DEI factors in the monitor selection process.

(For a more detailed analysis, see our client alert, “DOJ Criminal Division Revises Its Corporate Enforcement Policy, Monitor Selection Policy, and Whistleblower Award Program.”)

2. Michigan-Based Medical Device Company Announces DOJ Declination in FCPA investigation

In a May 2, 2025 securities filing, Stryker Corporation disclosed that DOJ had informed the company that “it had closed its inquiry into potential FCPA violations without further action.” The filing disclosed that the investigation related to “certain business activities in certain foreign countries” but did not provide additional detail about the activities or countries. The filing also stated that the company had been contacted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about the investigation but could not predict the outcome of the SEC investigation. The company previously resolved FCPA cases in October 2013 and September 2018.  

3. Former Bank Executive Sentenced to Two Years Following Conviction for Malaysia Bribery Scheme

On May 29, 2025, former Goldman Sachs partner, Tim Leissner, was sentenced in the Eastern District of New York to two years’ imprisonment for violating the FCPA and money laundering statutes in connection with his alleged involvement in a conspiracy to embezzle over $2.7 billion from the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund, 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). DOJ announced Leissner’s guilty plea in October 2018. Leissner testified against another former bank executive, Roger Ng, who was convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of New York on related charges in April 2022 and sentenced in March 2023 to 10 years’ imprisonment. Despite his cooperation against Ng, the sentencing judge determined that a custodial sentence was appropriate to reflect the severity of Leissner’s conduct. (For more on the 1MDB investigation, see our July 2016, August 2016, June 2017, December 2017, May 2018, June 2018, August 2018, October 2018, February 2019, May 2019, April 2020, August 2021, September 2021, December 2021, February 2022, April 2022, March 2023, April 2023, December 2023, and June 2024, January 2025, and February 2025 Top 10s.) 

4. Austrian Banker Pleads Not Guilty to Laundering Brazilian Bribe Money After Being Extradited to United States

On May 9, 2025, Peter Weinzierl, the former chief executive of an Austrian bank, pleaded not guilty to money laundering charges after being extradited to the United States from the United Kingdom. DOJ announced charges against Weinzierl and another Austrian banker in May 2021 related to their alleged role in helping Brazilian construction company Odebrecht SA launder more than $170 million in bribes from bank accounts in New York to public officials in multiple countries. A London court ruled in June 2023 that Weinzierl should be extradited to the United States, over objections that Weinzierl was unfairly lured to the UK by a U.S. intelligence agent posing as a business associate who wanted a lunch meeting, and London’s High Court affirmed the ruling last month. The other charged banker, Alexander Waldstein, remains at large.

5. “Tuna Bonds” Defendants Ordered to Pay Over $350 Million in Restitution

On May 16, 2025, four individuals allegedly involved in the Mozambique ”tuna bonds” scandal were ordered by a judge in the Eastern District of New York to pay a total of $352 million in restitution to VTBC, a UK-based lender.[1] The defendants include former bankers Andrew Pearse, Surjan Singh, and Detelina Subeva, as well as former Mozambique Finance Minister Manuel Chang, who was convicted by a jury in August 2024 of conspiring to commit wire fraud and money laundering. Chang allegedly received $7 million in bribes in exchange for signing guarantees to secure a total of $2 billion in loans issued to state-controlled companies for three maritime projects, including one related to tuna fishing. The bank defendants, all of whom pleaded guilty to related wire fraud or money laundering charges, also allegedly received millions of dollars in illicit profits from the loans. (Defendant Jean Boustani, whose employer won the contracts to perform the projects, was acquitted by a jury on related charges in December 2019.) In January 2025, Chang was sentenced to 102 months’ imprisonment and ordered to forfeit $7 million, but the court deferred imposing restitution at that time. The court ultimately found that VTBC had suffered losses as a result of the defendants’ conduct and rejected several arguments by Chang, including an argument that VTBC should not receive restitution because it was complicit in the wrongdoing. The court accepted Chang’s argument, however, that the restitution amount should be apportioned among the defendants and ordered restitution amounts proportionate to the amount of illicit payments that each defendant received in connection with the scheme. Chang was thus ordered to pay approximately $42.3 million of the $352 million total restitution award. The court rejected a restitution claim by another investor on the grounds that it had actually made a profit on its investments.

6. “ComEd Four” Lose Bid to Set Aside FCPA Accounting Convictions in Domestic Bribery Case

On May 28, 2025, a judge in the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion for a new trial brought by four Commonwealth Edison executives who were convicted in May 2023 on, among other counts, four counts of violating the FCPA’s books-and-records provision in connection with a scheme to bribe the former Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives to assist in passing legislation favorable to the electric utility company. DOJ alleged that the defendants falsified books, records, and accounts related to a contract between ComEd and a third-party consultant used to pay bribes to the Speaker. Because both ComEd and its parent company were issuers, the indictment alleged that these acts violated the FCPA’s books-and-records provision, which prohibits the knowing falsification of any book, record, or account required to be maintained by an issuer. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Thomson v. United States applies to the “falsification” element of the FCPA’s books-and-records provision. In Thompson, the Court held that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 requires proof that the defendant made false—not merely misleading—statements to certain federal agencies. But even if Thompson did apply, the court found that the evidence at trial supported a finding that the defendants falsified the company’s books and records. The defendants also told the court that the FCPA Pause Order could result in their convictions being set aside. But the prosecutors informed the court that DOJ had instructed them to proceed in this case. As we have previously written, the ComEd case is a reminder that the FCPA’s accounting provisions cover more than foreign bribery. (For more on the ComEd Case, see our February 2025, September 2023, and May 2023 Top 10s.)

7. Businessperson Charged in the UK in Connection with Malawi Corruption Scheme

On May 30, 2025, Zuneth Sattar appeared in Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 18 counts of bribing foreign public officials between December 2020 and September 2021. Sattar is accused of bribing Malawi’s former Vice President, the former Director-General of Malawi’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), the former director of Malawi’s public procurement agency, and several other high-ranking officials in exchange for government contracts related to anti-riot equipment, armored personnel carriers, and food rations packages, worth a total of $56 million. According to reporting, the Sattar prosecution resulted from cooperation between the UK’s National Crime Agency and the ACB. Sattar was arrested in the UK in 2021, apparently with the initial intention to extradite him to Malawi.

8. World Bank Debars Chinese Company for Bribery in Flood Control Contract

On May 16, 2025, the World Bank released a notice of uncontested sanctions proceedings against Hunan Zhongge Construction Group Corporation Ltd. Among other things, the company allegedly paid bribes to public officials to influence decisions on a flood control contract under the China Guangxi Laibin Water Environment Project. The World Bank’s Chief Suspension and Debarment Officer determined that these actions violated the World Bank’s Sanctions Procedures and recommended debarment with conditional release. As a result, the company was debarred for four and a half years.

9. World Bank Debars Philippine Construction Firm for Improper Payments in Farm and Fishery Contract

On May 28, 2025, the World Bank announced that Philippine construction firm LSD Construction & Supplies had been debarred for four and a half years for engaging in fraudulent practices related to the Philippine Rural Development Project, which aims to increase rural income and enhance farm and fishery productivity in targeted areas in the Philippines. According to the Bank, the company secretly subcontracted work and “made a payment to improperly ensure its receipt of one of the contracts and to secure the timely processing of invoices during contract implementation.”

10. Acquittal of Chinese Company of Corruption Charges Upheld in Singapore Following Bribery Convictions of Individual Employees

On May 29, 2025, the Singapore High Court upheld the acquittal of the Singapore branch of a Chinese state-owned company, China Railway Tunnel Group Co. Ltd, on corruption charges under Singapore’s Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). Courts in Singapore and China had already separately sentenced the Singapore public official, a former Land Transport Authority deputy group director who allegedly took about $1.24 million in bribes in the form of loans from contractors and sub-contractors whom he oversaw, and the Chinese company’s employees involved in the bribery scheme. The High Court’s judgment centered on whether the Chinese company’s employees’ corrupt acts and knowledge could be attributed to the company. The court held that they could not. In reaching its decision, the court considered whether the Singapore law principles governing attribution of criminal liability to a company, set out by the High Court in Tom-Reck Security Services Pte Ltd v PP [2001] 1 SLR(R) 327, should be reconsidered in favor of a more expansive approach to allow courts to craft “special rules of attribution” in a context-sensitive manner as had been adopted by the U.K. Privy Council in Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500. The court declined the latter suggestion and affirmed the Tom-Reck test, i.e., an employee’s acts and knowledge may be attributed to the company if the employee may be regarded as the “embodiment of the company,” or if the employee’s acts fall within the scope of a function of management properly delegated to them.[2] The court commented that using the Tom-Reck approach, culpability may be attributed if the company’s senior management knew that the illegal acts were being carried out but chose to do nothing because the illegal acts “benefited the company or at least did the company no harm.”[3] The court noted that creating special rules of attribution (including in the PCA context) may lead to uncertainty.[4] The court further pointed out that in the context of the PCA, Parliament, not the courts, should decide whether to expand the ambit of corporate criminal liability.[5] Although the court declined to develop special rules to attribute criminal liability, the court did observe (in obiter) that it may be appropriate to develop special rules of attribution where regulatory offences are concerned. The court noted that in such circumstances, attribution would usually be more likely if the company does not have proper internal control measures.[6]

[1] Memorandum & Order, United States v. Manuel Chang, Case No. 1:18-cr-681-NGG-CLP, ECF No. 803 (E.D.N.Y. May 16, 2025).

[2] Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co. Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025] SGHC 101, at [21].

[3] Id., at [60].

[4] Id., at [50].

[5] Id., at [57].

[6] Id, at [61].