“Don’t Wait”: DOJ Criminal Division Chief Signals Faster Disclosure Expectations and Uptick in Corporate Enforcement
On May 7, 2026, Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva, the Senate-confirmed head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, delivered a keynote address at Compliance Week’s National Conference—his first appearance before the compliance community since DOJ unveiled its department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) on March 10.[1] Duva predicted an “uptick” in DOJ’s corporate enforcement activity, urged companies to disclose misconduct before completing internal investigations, and emphasized the Criminal Division’s intent to serve as a partner to corporate compliance teams.
His remarks come amid continuing uncertainty surrounding DOJ’s white collar enforcement priorities and apparatus. In particular, key personnel from the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section have been reassigned to the newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED), and Sidley expects that DOJ will soon release guidance regarding the delineation of responsibilities for fraud prosecutions between the Criminal Division and NFED. Additionally, companies must navigate potentially overlapping self-disclosure frameworks, including differences between the CEP and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York’s own disclosure framework which Sidley has addressed in prior updates.
Early Disclosure as Paramount
“When you have something concrete enough to make the disclosure, do it. Don’t wait,” Duva told the audience, underscoring DOJ’s continued emphasis on prompt voluntary self-disclosure. He cautioned companies against delaying disclosure until the completion of a full internal investigation, warning that DOJ may learn of the misconduct through other channels in the interim, potentially making the company ineligible for voluntarily self-disclosure credit.
Illustrating the point with a hypothetical involving employees making payments to cartels to facilitate the transportation of goods, Duva asked: “If you learn that it happened a few times, do you really need to learn that it happened 100 [times] before you tell somebody?”
An “Uptick” in Enforcement Is Coming
Duva also addressed the perception that white collar enforcement has slowed following President Trump’s February 2025 Executive Order imposing a 180-day pause on enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), as well as then-Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s memorandum directing prosecutors to prioritize FCPA matters involving cartels and transnational criminal operations (TCOs), both of which Sidley previously covered here. Duva stated that “we’re seeing an uptick” in corporate prosecutions and emphasized that FCPA enforcement has once again become a central focus of the Criminal Division.
Compliance as a Key Risk-Mitigation Tool
Consistent with past DOJ leaders, Duva further stressed that investing in robust compliance programs is not only DOJ’s expectation, but also a sound business decision. “This is the best time to have a robust compliance department. It can save your company a lot of money,” he said.
According to Duva, DOJ increasingly views corporate compliance functions as critical partners in identifying misconduct and facilitating early self-disclosure. Effective compliance programs, he suggested, can help companies detect issues earlier, position themselves for cooperation credit, and potentially avoid substantial penalties, including criminal fines, restitution, and forfeiture.
Implications for Companies
- The “Race to DOJ” Has Accelerated—and Companies May Be Racing Against External Parties
Duva’s repeated emphasis on speed—encouraging companies to disclose misconduct before completing an internal investigation and without waiting for a fully developed factual record—reflects DOJ’s recognition that companies are no longer competing solely against the government’s own investigative capabilities. They are also racing against financially incentivized third parties.
Under the DOJ’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, whistleblowers may receive up to 30% of the first $100 million in forfeiture proceeds, while companies that receive an internal report generally have only 120 days to self-disclose before potentially forfeiting eligibility for a declination. Duva’s remarks suggest that DOJ increasingly views delay itself as a significant risk factor, and that, in some circumstances, the cost of waiting for complete information may exceed the risks associated with making an earlier disclosure based on a more limited factual record.
- The Administration’s Focus on Cartels and National Security Has Implications for Compliance Functions
Duva’s use of a cartel-related hypothetical was likely deliberate. The Trump Administration has repeatedly signaled its intention to leverage white collar enforcement tools in support of broader national security and anti-cartel priorities, as reflected in the Bondi Memorandum and related DOJ guidance.
Although all forms of potential corporate misconduct may warrant investigation and, where appropriate, disclosure under the CEP, companies operating in jurisdictions with elevated cartel or TCO activity may face heightened scrutiny from DOJ. As a result, businesses with operations, supply chains, or third party relationships in high-risk areas may wish to reassess their compliance controls, including training, escalation procedures, and investigative protocols.
- Structural Uncertainty Within DOJ Continues
Duva’s remarks did not dispel all uncertainty regarding the future structure and operation of DOJ’s white collar enforcement apparatus. For instance, Duva did not address the recent creation of NFED or other ongoing organizational changes within DOJ.
Last month, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the Fraud Section’s Healthcare Fraud Unit and Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit (which had been renamed Market Government and Consumer Fraud) would be transferred to the NFED, shifting a substantial number of experienced prosecutors outside of the Criminal Division. In addition, as covered by Sidley in earlier updates, questions remain regarding the scope and practical application of DOJ’s department-wide CEP, particularly whether, and to what extent, it is intended to supersede or harmonize with existing disclosure policies followed by U.S. Attorney’s Offices, including SDNY’s framework, which differs in several respects from the CEP.
The timing in the memo creating NFED suggests that more news on its structure could be coming soon. We anticipate this guidance to provide more clarity regarding what portion of fraud schemes and what types of subject matter will continue to be the purview of the Criminal Division versus NFED, which appears focused, at minimum, on government program fraud.
Against this evolving backdrop, companies should work closely with counsel experienced in navigating DOJ investigations and voluntary self-disclosure decisions, particularly as enforcement priorities, organizational structures, and policy expectations continue to develop in the coming weeks.
[1] See CW Staff, Head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division to speak at CW National Conference, Compliance Week, Apr. 8, 2026, https://www.complianceweek.com/events/head-of-the-dojs-criminal-division-to-speak-at-cw-national-conference; Adrianne Appel, CW National: New DOJ policy based on partnership with corporate compliance, Compliance Week, May 7, 2026, https://www.complianceweek.com/regulatory-policy/aag-new-doj-policy-based-on-partnership-with-corporate-compliance
This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.
