DOJ Establishes Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program for Criminal Violations of U.S. Economic Sanctions and Export Controls

Nov 16, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

What has the Guidance changed?

Prior to the Guidance, voluntary self-disclosures were initially filed with the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and/or the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), depending on the type of violation. Each agency would assess the disclosure and, where appropriate, could refer the matter to DOJ for further investigation.

Going forward, in order for a company to ensure that it receives full credit for disclosing violations that may be criminal, it will also need to submit a disclosure to DOJ. The voluntary self-disclosures should be submitted to the NSD’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES), which will coordinate with the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s Office and the relevant regulatory agencies. Importantly, such disclosures should be submitted in addition to any voluntary self-disclosure submitted to DDTC, BIS or OFAC for violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Export Administration Regulations (EAR) or U.S. sanctions regulations. The Guidance also memorializes DOJ policy on cases that involve voluntary self-disclosures, cooperation and remediation, and builds on the DOJ’s continued focus on individual liability in corporate cases.

Similar to the goals of the FCPA disclosure program, DOJ is attempting to incentivize companies to voluntarily self-report willful (i.e., potentially criminal) violations of export controls and economic sanctions, cooperate with DOJ and remediate the issues in order to receive benefits described in the Guidance. Although the Guidance attempts to make more transparent the factors it will consider when companies have disclosed criminal violations of economic sanctions and export controls and/or cooperated with DOJ investigations, DOJ reserves for itself significant discretion as to how to apply the factors to any given case.

Who is affected by the Guidance?

The Guidance applies to business organizations and their employees who have engaged in “willful” violations of U.S. sanctions and export control laws. If a company or its employees engages in potentially willful violations of U.S. sanctions or export control laws, the Guidance encourages voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation and timely remediation activities in order to be eligible for reduced criminal penalties, a nonprosecution agreement (NPA) or a deferred-prosecution agreement (DPA). Although the Guidance states that it does not apply to financial institutions, given their “unique reporting obligations under their applicable statutory and regulatory regimes,” it also cautions that this does not suggest that financial institutions cannot benefit from disclosing potentially willful violations of U.S. sanctions and export controls; it encourages financial institutions to disclose such potential willful violations to DOJ.

How will DOJ assess voluntary self-disclosures and cooperation?

DOJ confirmed in the Guidance its often-stated position that disclosures must be self-initiated, timely and complete. Full cooperation, as part of a disclosure submitted to DOJ, now requires companies to meet the threshold requirements set out in the DAG Memorandum on Individual Accountability (“Yates Memo”) (see Akin Gump Litigation Alert from September 17, 2015). DOJ provided within the Guidance a number of criteria through which it assesses the company’s cooperation and remediation. If cooperation is present, then remediation credit is available if the company (a) implements an effective compliance program; (b) disciplines responsible employees; and (c) takes steps that demonstrate recognition of the seriousness of the conduct, demonstrate acceptance of responsibility and implement measures to identify future risks.

The Guidance also outlines a number of elements of an effective compliance program, including dedicating sufficient resources to the compliance function, appropriately compensating compliance personnel, training, performing effective risk assessments and auditing the compliance program to assess its effectiveness.

While cooperation and remediation are mitigating factors identified by DOJ, the Guidance also notes a number of aggravating factors. These include exports of items controlled for nuclear nonproliferation or missile technology reasons to a proliferator country; exports of items known to be used in the construction of weapons of mass destruction; exports to a terrorist organization; repeated violations, including similar administrative or criminal violations in the past; involvement of senior management; and significant profits from the criminal conduct.

DOJ is encouraging disclosure as part of the Guidance and notes the benefits of disclosure, cooperation and remediation, including eligibility for a significantly reduced penalty, the possibility of an NPA, a reduced period of supervised compliance, reduced fine and forfeiture, and the ability to avoid an independent monitor. Where a company does not voluntarily self-disclose the violation, but nonetheless fully cooperates and remediates, the company may be eligible for a DPA, a reduced fine and forfeiture, and an outside auditor as opposed to a monitor. The Guidance notes that a company that does not voluntarily disclose will “rarely qualify” for an NPA.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Akin Trade Law

February 9, 2023

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2023-01-26

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2023-01-17

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2022-02-10

The United Kingdom just issued a new statutory instrument, effective immediately, which extends the authority to designate persons and entities under the U.K. sanctions against Russia.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2020-06-10

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2020-05-07

The clock is ticking down to the entry into force of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2020.  Leading up to that date, businesses have a unique advocacy opportunity to influence the implementing regulations and associated processes, such as legislative changes to Mexico’s domestic laws. Additionally, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), along with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts, have begun issuing guidance for the trade community seeking to obtain the benefits of the agreement. At this time, these guidance documents include a petition process for automakers to request alternative staging for the automotive rules of origin as well as general interim implementation instructions for USMCA entries. Still to come are regulations regarding the automotive labor value content requirements and Uniform Regulations regarding the customs provisions. Akin Gump and our partners at Dorantes Advisors in Mexico City have jointly developed brief summaries of these guidance documents and a timeline of key actions still to take place prior to entry into force. The materials are available here in both English and Spanish.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2020-03-02

Last week, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) concluded that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 does not offend the non-delegation doctrine. To most observers, the ruling does not come as a surprise, but the story on Section 232 and the non-delegation doctrine is not yet over.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.