NEW YORK — In a significant shift in federal enforcement policy, the United States Attorney in Manhattan has announced that companies willing to fully cooperate with criminal investigations may avoid prosecution altogether under a renewed incentive framework for corporate cooperation.
Speaking at a legal forum in New York, U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton outlined a strategy to expand the use of non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) — arrangements in which prosecutors agree not to bring criminal charges against a company that provides meaningful assistance in ongoing federal probes.
What the Policy Change Means for Businesses
Under the updated enforcement approach, firms that self-disclose wrongdoing, deliver relevant evidence, and actively help federal prosecutors identify responsible individuals could be eligible for NPAs rather than traditional prosecution.
This marks a notable evolution in how criminal investigations involving corporate misconduct are handled. By offering NPAs early in the process, authorities hope to expedite resolutions, reduce litigation complexities, and accelerate financial recovery for victims.
Legal experts note that this cooperative model allows companies to protect shareholder value and corporate reputation by avoiding lengthy trials while still assisting law enforcement, which could reshape how internal compliance teams manage potential misconduct.
Policy Shift Reflects Broader Enforcement Trends
The decision aligns with broader trends in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) approach to corporate enforcement, which over recent years has increasingly emphasized incentives for self-reporting and cooperation under revised enforcement plans.
Clayton, a former chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has stressed that this emphasis on cooperation isn’t limited to one type of case. While prioritizing the uncovering of complex fraud and wrongdoing, his office is also focusing on crimes affecting retail investors and market integrity — areas where early cooperation can help identify individual wrongdoers more efficiently.
The move comes amid broader debates about the scope of federal criminal enforcement and the balance between holding companies accountable and encouraging transparency and remediation.
