*This is the fifth in a series of blog posts that examines seven FAQs issued by the DOJ in response to questions the Yates Memo raised. The fourth of these questions concerns when a company should voluntarily disclose misconduct. Question: When should a company report misconduct? Let’s investigate what the DOJ’s response tells us about voluntary disclosure: It is fair to say that the Yates Memo focuses on a company’s cooperation with the DOJ, focusing primarily on a company providing information about culpable individuals. For example, five of the seven FAQs refer to “cooperation” or “cooperating.” Yet, FAQ No. 4 relates to reporting misconduct and does not specifically mention cooperation. Similarly, the DOJ’s response to FAQ No. 4 makes only a brief, but important, reference to cooperation. The only explicit mention of company cooperation in the DOJ’s response to FAQ No. 4 refers to how there is “significant value [in] early reporting” and that it is important to recognize that voluntary disclosure of misconduct is not the same as cooperation. Another part of the department’s response touches on cooperation, albeit in an indirect reference: “…it is expected that, in circumstances where the company self-discloses before all facts are known, the company will continue to turn over additional information to the government as it becomes available.” The DOJ’s response to FAQ No. 4 clarifies that voluntary disclosure is not the same as cooperation, but that the two are related. Portions of the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual (USAM) convey the same message. The potentially significant difference between voluntary disclosure and cooperation is illustrated, in part, by virtue of the USAM having separate sections on both factors: USAM § 9-28.700 (The Value of Cooperation) and § 9-28.900 (Voluntary Disclosures). There will be more about the relationship between voluntary disclosure and cooperation in part two of this blog. Turning Over Additional Information A company may still receive “mitigation credit for voluntary self-disclosure” even if it makes the disclosure at a time when the company had not “learned certain relevant facts by the time it made its initial disclosure.” Company counsel should keep in mind that if that happens, the department expects that additional information will be turned over. The triggering event for a company to report misconduct arises when a “preliminary assessment” has been made by a company that “criminal conduct has likely occurred.” The assessment does not have to be, and probably should not be, a final or complete assessment of possible misconduct by all individuals. That is true in large part because of the time and resources that would be needed to reach a final or complete assessment. Thus, a significant decision for the company will be to figure out the point at which the company has sufficient information (even as information is being gathered) to determine whether criminal conduct has likely occurred and, therefore, whether the company should or should not make a disclosure. A “preliminary assessment” clearly contemplates a situation where not all the facts are known. This is in line with the DOJ “encourag[ing] early voluntary disclosure of criminal wrongdoing, see USAM 9-28.900, even before all facts are known to the company” and the department “not expect[ing] that such early disclosures would be complete.” USAM 9-28.700 n.1. However, in such situations, the DOJ expects that “the company will move in a timely fashion to conduct an appropriate investigation and provide timely factual updates to the department.” Id. In light of the DOJ’s use of the word “likely” in its response, counsel for a company might consider the standard to be one akin to a preponderance of the evidence. That is, the “measuring stick” for a company’s assessment (albeit a preliminary one) that criminal conduct has “likely occurred” could be deemed to be once it appears more likely true than not that criminal conduct has taken place. Because of the almost limitless range of factual situations, there is no one-size-fits-all date by which a company should voluntarily disclose misconduct. It is worth keeping in mind that the government, as the recipient of a voluntary disclosure, will have its own opinion as to when the company had sufficient information to determine whether criminal conduct has likely occurred. Thus, company counsel would be wise to do his or her best to assess the information as it becomes available from the perspective of the government and not just from the perspective of counsel for the company. The department will deem a company’s voluntary disclosure to be of little value, and therefore, of little value to the company, if it is not made “promptly after” a “preliminary assessment that criminal conduct has likely occurred.” Because of the relationship between voluntary disclosure and cooperation, it is possible that a belated voluntary disclosure could also adversely impact a company’s effort to get cooperation credit. Further, a belated voluntary disclosure could jeopardize a meaningful reduction in the company’s culpability score if it is convicted. These considerations must be balanced against the prospect of placing a company on the government’s radar because of a prompt but preliminary voluntary disclosure. Of course, in some situations the potential benefits of voluntary disclosure will outweigh the risks. In other situations, the scale will tip the other way. The decision to voluntarily disclose, or not voluntarily disclose, should not be made in the dark. A company is well-advised to have the benefit of an internal investigation before making the decision. It is difficult to envision a scenario where a company could intelligently and prudently make a decision that it has a "preliminary assessment that criminal conduct has likely occurred” without a sufficiently in-depth internal investigation. Check back soon for a post about what the DOJ’s response to FAQ No. 4 tell us about cooperation.
RELATED ARTICLES
Digital Asset Businesses Amp Up Their Compliance Measures to Avoid Insider Trading Actions
August 26, 2022 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice, SEC
Impact of Compliance Professional as New Fraud Section Chief
June 13, 2022 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice
DOJ Issues Expedited FCPA Opinion, Shows Willingness to Communicate With Requestors
February 7, 2022 | The GEE Blog, FCPA, Department of Justice
The Enforcement Climate is Changing for ESG Disclosures
January 26, 2022 | Environmental, The GEE Blog
Scope of DOJ’s Enforcement of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act After Van Buren
June 30, 2021 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice
Digital Asset Businesses Amp Up Their Compliance Measures to Avoid Insider Trading Actions
August 26, 2022 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice, SEC
Impact of Compliance Professional as New Fraud Section Chief
June 13, 2022 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice
DOJ Issues Expedited FCPA Opinion, Shows Willingness to Communicate With Requestors
February 7, 2022 | The GEE Blog, FCPA, Department of Justice
The Enforcement Climate is Changing for ESG Disclosures
January 26, 2022 | Environmental, The GEE Blog
Scope of DOJ’s Enforcement of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act After Van Buren
June 30, 2021 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice
DOJ Targets COVID-19 Fraud With Coordinated, Multi-District Law Enforcement Action
June 2, 2021 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice
CFTC Provides Guidance on Cooperation in Enforcement Actions
November 4, 2020 | The GEE Blog, Financial Regulation
Analyzing Price Gouging Under the Federal Defense Production Act
September 8, 2020 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice
DOJ’s First FCPA Opinion Release in Six Years Highlights Long-Standing Principles
August 21, 2020 | The GEE Blog, FCPA
Don’t Overthink It! Advocate for Easy to Understand Jury Instructions to Effectively Communicate Your Case
May 17, 2018 | Government Investigations, Jury Instructions, The GEE Blog
Don't Let DOJ Defections Fool You: Corporate Conduct Still in the Crosshairs
September 6, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 7
May 1, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 6
April 27, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 5
April 25, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 4 (Part 2)
April 7, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
DOJ’s Corporate Compliance Program Guidance Provides Succinct Resource for Companies
March 31, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 3
March 31, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
Recently Announced: DOJ Will Extend the FCPA Pilot Program
March 28, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 2
March 21, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question No. 1
March 17, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers
March 15, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
Department of Justice Rolls Out FCPA Enforcement Pilot Program
April 8, 2016 | Department of Justice, FCPA, The GEE Blog
DOJ Launches Targeted Elder Justice Task Forces
April 1, 2016 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
A New Approach: DOJ Antitrust Division in Wake of Yates Memo
March 23, 2016 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
DOJ Leaves Much Unsaid After Announcing Need for Corporate Certifications to Finalize Settlements
March 8, 2016 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The “Other Yates Memo:” DOJ to Enhance Workplace Safety Violation Prosecutions by Tacking On More Severe Charges Where Possible
February 8, 2016 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
“Hide No Harm Act Of 2015” Targets Employers, Directors and Officers
November 5, 2015 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY CHANGE TARGETS CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
September 11, 2015 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
What the DOJ Expects of 'Effective' Compliance Programs
August 12, 2015 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
U.S. v. Sigelman: Another FCPA Enforcement Setback for the DOJ
June 25, 2015 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
Justice Department Guidelines Seek to Focus Enforcement of Structuring Law on Most Serious Cases
June 8, 2015 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
THE BENEFITS OF COOPERATION – HYPERDYNAMICS AVOIDS INDICTMENT
May 29, 2015 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
RENEWED GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN ATTORNEY FEE ARRANGEMENTS?
May 28, 2015 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Extradition from Japan: The Gamble
May 5, 2015 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Self-Reporting: A Wise Strategy or Chasing Unicorns?
April 28, 2015 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Top 10 Takeaways from ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2015 (Part 2)
March 18, 2015 | The GEE Blog
Top 10 Takeaways from ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2015 (Part 1)
March 17, 2015 | The GEE Blog
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL URGES COMPANIES TO COOPERATE AND CONDUCT THOROUGH INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS OF FCPA VIOLATIONS
November 21, 2014 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
Bio-Rad Settlement Reinforces FCPA Trends
November 7, 2014 | FCPA, SEC, The GEE Blog
A Cozy Relationship: The DOJ and JFTC, and the Potential Risks of Taking Advantage of JFTC’s Leniency Program
October 31, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Supreme Court Passes on Esquenazi, Makes Instrumentality Test Settled Law
October 6, 2014 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
REDUCING THE COST OF FCPA MONITORING
June 11, 2014 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
Honest Services Fraud, Ray Nagin & "Big Easy" Money
March 28, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
My Partner Left Me for the Government! DOJ’s First Opinion Procedure Release of 2014 Approves Buyout of Minority Shareholder-Turned-Government Official
March 25, 2014 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
D.C. District Court Order Provides a Warning About Attorney-Client Privilege Protection for Internal Investigations
March 20, 2014 | Internal Investigations, The GEE Blog
Heightened SEC/DOJ FCPA Standards Offer Risks and Opportunities to Companies and Their Lawyers
March 18, 2014 | Financial Regulation, The GEE Blog
Top 10 Takeaways from ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2014 (Part 2 of 2)
March 13, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Top 10 Takeaways from ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2014 (Part 1 of 2)
March 12, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
The Department of Justice Continues to Bring the "HEAT" in Pursuing Health Care Fraud
March 5, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
The Position Of Assistant Attorney General For The Criminal Division May Be Filled In The Near Future
February 19, 2014 | The GEE Blog
DOJ Wins Big Insider Trading Case: Martoma Conviction; Bad News for Cohen and SAC
February 8, 2014 | Insider Trading, The GEE Blog
Going South: What U.S. Companies Need to Know About the FCPA and Doing Business in Latin America
January 30, 2014 | Criminal Procedure, Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center