Collaboration Is Crucial to Navigate White Collar Enforcement

With every development in white collar enforcement, multinational companies aim to interpret how the government’s evolving policy priorities might alter their risk exposure.

Reading the tea leaves is never an exact science. But in 2026, some signals are becoming clearer, especially those involving anticorruption, sanctions, and anti-money laundering.

Regulators increasingly view these enforcement areas through a new framework aimed at advancing the Trump administration’s larger “America First” national security initiatives. As multinationals weigh the emerging risks and opportunities, they would be wise to calibrate their compliance programs in response.

Anticorruption

FCPA enforcement in a new light: President Donald Trump’s February 2025 executive order pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act introduced substantial uncertainty for US multinationals, leading some observers to project that the country’s primary foreign bribery statute could lose its sting.

Yet developments since, especially the America First approach outlined in Department of Justice policy memos from May and June 2025, coupled with recent statements by senior DOJ officials, make clear that the DOJ isn’t relaxing anti-corruption enforcement—it’s refocusing.

The refocus centers on activity that harms US economic competitiveness, undermines US national security, or connects to cartels and transnational criminal organizations, primarily cases alleging egregious misconduct.

Further altering the environment are the DOJ’s stated openness to revisiting enforcement decisions from previous administrations and its commitment to granting declinations to companies that voluntarily self-disclose misconduct—rather than merely a presumption of a declination before.

Taken together, this new environment may have finally moved the needle and present the best opportunity ever for companies to proactively engage with the DOJ.

Companies that frame any internal issues they find in a way that aligns with the administration’s policy priorities—and show how enforcement against them would harm US interests—can be more confident in their chances at securing a speedy declination. For companies under supervision or investigation, early termination of an existing deferred prosecution agreement or corporate monitorship is now a very real prospect.

The DOJ has signaled that it soon will be harmonizing voluntary self-disclosure policies across the department, including the numerous Main Justice components and 93 US attorney’s offices around the country. This effort should provide better clarity for companies to ensure uniform treatment, and that all companies can avail themselves of the benefits of the new DOJ policies whenever faced with a criminal investigation, no matter the district or division charged with investigating the alleged misconduct.

With the DOJ focusing primarily on foreign competitors, US-based multinationals are best positioned to capitalize on this new environment. But engagement opportunities could be available for thoughtful foreign companies as well, including those that aren’t competing directly with US companies or whose failure could invite a Chinese company to fill the vacuum.

Sanctions

From bark to bite: The three most recent administrations have each threatened more robust sanctions enforcement, issuing statement after statement that warn evaders of serious penalties—financial and otherwise. With few exceptions, the tough talk hasn’t often translated to heavy fines. But this year, there’s reason to believe that the government’s bark will turn into bite.

Nearly every day, and sometimes more frequently, new names enter the US’ various sanctions lists, and rising geopolitical tensions—including in Venezuela, Iran, and elsewhere—suggest that the pace will only pick up this year. Energy companies exposed to high-risk jurisdictions will be particularly vulnerable, as will similarly situated financial institutions, technology firms, exporters, and others.

Adapting will require multinationals to strengthen their supply-chain diligence. To that end, rescreening counterparties frequently—not just at onboarding—will be paramount. So too will being more alert to unusual shipping routes and frequent trans-shipments through high-risk ports, and ensuring that supplier and distributor agreements include termination rights for sanctions breaches and obligations to notify of changes in ownership or control.

Anti-Money Laundering

Sharpening scrutiny. In both the US and Europe, authorities have ramped up their efforts to enforce AML laws and track questionable money flows, proposing and adopting a range of laws, regulations, and programs that aim to elevate compliance expectations on multinationals.

Some of the most important initiatives have yet to come into full force. For example, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s proposed rule to strengthen financial institutions’ AML and countering the financing of terrorism programs is still pending, and the core provisions of the EU’s final AML Regulation won’t apply until July 2027.

Nevertheless, corporate compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and its substantial obligations remains important, especially for financial institutions servicing higher-risk markets in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.

For forward-thinking companies, the priority should be to get ahead of the sharpening scrutiny, by developing a muscular AML compliance framework in 2026. Multinationals operating in or around high-risk jurisdictions or as part of complex supply chains can especially benefit from this work.

No two companies will have identical frameworks, and specifics should be developed with experienced counsel. But in general, companies whose frameworks center on clear and consistent policies will be well positioned to mitigate AML risk in the years ahead. Examples of such policies include comprehensive screening tools, strict thresholds to flag unusual payment structures and transaction routes, and rapid escalation procedures for any troubling findings.

Advantage to the well-advised: Multinational companies face no shortage of risks, but few risks carry more weight than the threat of white-collar enforcement. Even for companies never found to have committed a violation, investigations are extremely disruptive and expensive, likely to discourage investment, jeopardize contracts, and inflict serious reputational harm.

In 2026, navigating white collar developments won’t be straightforward. It seldom is. But advantages will accrue to well-advised multinationals that can separate the signals from the noise—those that seek regulatory engagement in opportune moments, that gather deep insight into their supply chains, and that pursue sound compliance protocols at every level of the organization.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Fry Wernick is a partner in Vinson & Elkins’ government investigations and white collar practice group.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines