Entries by Michael D. Mann

03 08 '26

DOJ Loosens the Whistleblower Program’s Bar on “Other Program” Claimants in Latest Revision

/in , , , , /by

On July 30, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) revised its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, expanding the pool of individuals who may qualify for an award. Most notably, DOJ eliminated the prior rule that automatically disqualified whistleblowers who could have been eligible for an award under another U.S. government whistleblower program, such as those administered by the SEC or CFTC. Instead, a whistleblower is now disqualified only if he or she actually receives an award from another program for reporting the same or substantially the same misconduct, while DOJ retains discretion to reduce or deny duplicative awards.

The revised guidance also includes several administrative updates, including confirmation that the program is now administered by the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering, Narcotics, and Forfeiture Section (formerly the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section) and that submissions will be made through a dedicated online intake portal. The covered subject-matter areas remain unchanged from the May 2025 expansion and continue to include, among other areas, financial institution crimes, bribery, healthcare fraud, trade and customs fraud, procurement fraud, immigration offenses, and sanctions-related misconduct.

For companies, the revisions further strengthen incentives for whistleblowers to report directly to DOJ, including in matters that may also be eligible for other agency whistleblower programs. At the same time, DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy continues to provide a pathway to a declination for companies that promptly self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate misconduct, reinforcing the importance of effective internal reporting mechanisms and careful consideration of self-disclosure decisions in the face of potential whistleblower reports. Click here to read the full post.

20 07 '26

Beyond AML: FinCEN and FDIC Clarify That Section 314(b) Safe Harbor Extends to Fraud Prevention

/in , , , , , /by

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s (FinCEN) June 12, 2026 guidance, along with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) July 9, 2026 Financial Institution Letter, signal a significant shift in how regulators expect financial institutions to use Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Historically viewed as an anti-money laundering (AML) information-sharing tool, Section 314(b) is now expressly recognized as a mechanism for combating fraud. The updated guidance confirms that financial institutions may rely on the provision’s safe harbor to share information relating to suspected fraud, encourages real-time collaboration among institutions, and highlights the role of Section 314(b) in improving suspicious activity reporting and detecting illicit activity more quickly.

Our latest blog post examines the agencies’ expanded interpretation of Section 314(b), including the broader range of fraud-related information that may be shared, FinCEN’s encouragement of joint suspicious activity report (SAR) filings and proactive information sharing, and the governance, compliance, and supervisory considerations for institutions evaluating or expanding their Section 314(b) programs. The post also explores how the guidance reflects the continued convergence of fraud prevention and AML compliance and what these developments may mean for financial institutions’ information-sharing practices and supervisory expectations. Read the full post here.

17 07 '26

DOJ Ends 15-Year-Old Economic Espionage Case—With Prejudice

/in , , , /by

In a surprising development, on July 13, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice dismissed with prejudice its landmark economic espionage prosecution against Pangang Group Company, Ltd. and its subsidiaries—a Chinese state-owned enterprise accused of stealing DuPont trade secrets for the benefit of the Chinese government. The dismissal came just one week after trial began, bringing to an end one of the longest-running and most consequential prosecutions under the Economic Espionage Act.

Although the case itself is over, its legal legacy remains. Over more than a decade of litigation, the prosecution produced significant rulings on service of process, foreign sovereign immunity, and the treatment of foreign state-owned enterprises under the Economic Espionage Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Those decisions, together with amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4 prompted by the litigation, will continue to shape future prosecutions.

17 06 '26

China’s New Supply Chain Security Regulations: Key Takeaways for Companies With China Operations or China-Linked Supply Chains

/in , , /by

China’s new Regulations on Industrial and Supply Chain Security, which took effect on April 7, 2026, add another significant layer to the country’s expanding countermeasures framework. The regulations give Chinese authorities broad powers to monitor activities that could be viewed as threatening China’s industrial or supply chain security, creating new compliance challenges for companies with China operations or China-linked supply chains.

From increased scrutiny of key sectors and supply chain due diligence to heightened risks around supplier transitions, customer terminations, and sanctions-driven business decisions, the regulations underscore a growing reality: actions taken to comply with foreign trade restrictions may carry legal consequences in China.

In this blog post, we examine the regulations’ key provisions, identify four principal risk areas for multinational companies, and discuss practical steps companies should consider as conflict-of-laws risks become increasingly difficult to avoid.

15 06 '26

Cracking Open the Grand Jury Black Box: Recent Cases Show Prosecutorial Misconduct Can Lead to Dismissal of Charges

/in , /by

Recent federal cases in Wyoming and Illinois involving judicial findings of prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury have resulted in dismissed indictments. In Wyoming, three federal judges dismissed nine felony indictments after concluding that the interim U.S. Attorney made inflammatory and prejudicial remarks to grand jurors that compromised the integrity of the proceedings. In Illinois, the prosecution of the so-called “Broadview Six” collapsed after a federal judge authorized disclosure and review of grand jury materials amid allegations of serious misconduct during the charging process, leading the government to dismiss the remaining charges with prejudice.

These outcomes are remarkable because courts rarely agree to scrutinize what occurs before the grand jury. Grand jury proceedings are cloaked in secrecy, and courts generally presume that prosecutors properly present evidence and accurately instruct grand jurors on the law. As a result, efforts to challenge indictments based on misconduct in the charging process face a steep uphill battle. The Wyoming and Illinois cases nevertheless demonstrate that, where defense counsel can identify objective facts raising legitimate concerns about the integrity of the grand jury process, courts may be willing to look behind the curtain, authorize disclosure or review of grand jury materials, and, in extraordinary circumstances, dismiss indictments altogether. This blog post examines those cases, the legal framework governing grand jury secrecy, and the practical lessons they offer for defense counsel seeking to investigate and litigate potential grand jury misconduct.

12 06 '26

Prediction Market “Insider Trading” Revisited: Technology Employee Charged With Using Confidential Corporate Information to Profit from Event Contracts

/in , , , /by

On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission(“CFTC”) charged a Google software engineer with allegedly using confidential internal search data to profit from prediction market contracts on Polymarket. The case is the latest example of regulators applying insider trading-style theories outside traditional securities markets and raises important questions regarding confidential business information, prediction markets, and the scope of the CFTC’s enforcement authority.

For companies, the matter underscores increasing scrutiny of trading activity involving confidential corporate information and the need to assess whether existing insider trading and confidentiality policies adequately address emerging trading platforms.

Read the full blog post for an analysis of the allegations, the implications of United States v. Chastain, and key compliance considerations for companies navigating the rapidly evolving prediction market landscape.

11 06 '26

SDNY Signals Increased Scrutiny of Private Market Valuations

/in , , , /by

In remarks delivered at the Bloomberg Global Credit Forum on June 3, 2026, Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), signaled increased scrutiny of private-market valuations. While emphasizing the importance of private credit to the U.S. economy, Clayton identified inconsistent asset valuations as a key area of concern and called for greater transparency around firms’ valuation practices. He specifically noted that significant discrepancies in the valuation of the same assets may raise concerns, particularly where valuations affect fee generation.

Clayton further stated that he has directed SDNY prosecutors to examine valuation discrepancies and outlier marks when assessing cases. This focus may represent a shift from the private-credit cases currently pursued by SDNY, which have largely centered on borrower-side fraud, and suggests increased attention on the conduct of lenders, asset managers, and investors.

Our blog post examines what Clayton’s comments may signal about future enforcement priorities, the types of valuation-related conduct likely to draw scrutiny, and practical steps firms can take to strengthen their valuation frameworks.