DOJ Announces Policy to Promote Fairness When Multiple Authorities Investigate the Same Misconduct

22 May 2018 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Rohan A. Virginkar Hayley K. Wells

On May 9, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a policy related to resolutions of criminal and civil corporate enforcement. The new “Policy on Coordination of Corporate Resolution Penalties” was issued by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and instructs prosecutors to “consider the totality of fines, penalties, and/or forfeiture imposed by all [DOJ] components as well as other law enforcement agencies and regulators in an effort to achieve an equitable result.”  While the policy appears to largely codify existing practice and contains few specifics, the new policy will likely encourage coordination between DOJ and other law enforcement agencies, both in the United States and abroad, when resolving both civil and criminal corporate enforcement actions against a company being investigated by multiple authorities for the same misconduct.

The Rosenstein Policy Discourages “Piling On” by Multiple Authorities

In describing the policy, Rosenstein noted that, while it is important for DOJ to aggressively pursue wrongdoers, DOJ should seek to discourage “piling on” by multiple governmental authorities, which can ultimately result in punishment that is disproportionate to the conduct at issue.  By encouraging coordination among multiple agencies, Rosenstein expressed hope that DOJ will be “better able to detect sophisticated financial fraud schemes and [to] deploy adequate penalties and remedies to ensure market integrity.”  Where companies are accountable to multiple regulatory bodies, or where conduct may be civil or criminal, such “piling on” can result in disproportionate penalties that go beyond remedying harm and deterring future misconduct.  The risk of repeated investigations and punishments by multiple authorities, both in the United States and abroad, creates uncertainty and can deprive companies of the finality associated with the resolution of government investigations.

The New Policy’s Impact on Health Care

The new policy encourages cooperation between both the criminal and civil components of DOJ, as well as between DOJ and other U.S. regulatory agencies.  This cooperation will particularly affect highly regulated industries where multiple agencies have overlapping investigation authority.  For example, in the healthcare arena, this new policy will encourage cooperation between not only DOJ attorneys in the Criminal and Civil Divisions, but also between DOJ and other regulatory bodies that investigate false claims, such as the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services.[1]

Coordination and Cooperation Globally

The policy also memorializes the recent trend toward increased coordination and cooperation between the United States and foreign law enforcement authorities, particularly in corruption cases.  In his remarks announcing the policy, Rosenstein referenced the December 2017 bribery charges brought in United States v. Keppel Offshore and Marine Ltd.  That case involved simultaneous resolutions among authorities in the United States, Brazil, and Singapore – the first time there had been such coordination with the Singaporean authorities.  Keppel continued a trend over the last several years, in which DOJ’s FCPA Unit has announced coordinated global resolutions in foreign bribery investigations.  Since the beginning of 2016, when authorities in the United States and the Netherlands announced the resolution of the investigation into the telecom company VimpelCom, DOJ has announced multiple coordinated global resolutions with Dutch authorities as well as authorities in Brazil, Sweden, and elsewhere.  All indications are that this multi-jurisdictional investigation and resolution trend will continue, and the policy simply requires consideration of the potential for extra-jurisdictional “piling on.”

Four Features of the New Policy

Specifically, the new policy has four fairly general features that are familiar to the enforcement landscape:

  1. It addresses concerns made by critics that prosecutors are seen to use the threat of criminal prosecution to exact larger civil settlements in related cases by reminding DOJ attorneys that the federal government’s criminal enforcement authority should not be used “unfairly to extract, or attempt to extract, additional civil or administrative monetary payments.”
  2. It directs DOJ components to coordinate with one another, and to focus on reaching an equitable result. Such coordination may include crediting and apportionment of financial penalties, fines, and forfeitures.
  3. It enshrines in policy the practice, growing in recent years, of encouraging enforcement authorities to engage in global coordinated resolutions by encouraging DOJ attorneys to coordinate with other federal, state, local, and foreign enforcement authorities as they investigate and resolve a case with a company for the same misconduct.
  4. Most specifically, it identifies factors that DOJ attorneys may use to evaluate whether multiple penalties serve the interests of justice: (1) the “egregiousness of the wrongdoing”; (2) whether there are “statutory mandates regarding penalties”; (3) the “risk of delay in finalizing a resolution”; and (4) the “adequacy and timeliness of a company’s disclosures and cooperation” with DOJ. These factors are intended to allow prosecutors to balance the desire for “reasonable” penalties with concerns regarding holding culpable corporations and individuals fully accountable, leaving DOJ with a potential ability to avoid a coordinated resolution if the circumstances warrant (particularly if doing so would unduly prolong a domestic investigation).

For more information on health care enforcement actions, including the team, publications, and other materials, visit Foley’s Government Enforcement Defense and Investigations Group.

[1] In 2014, DOJ announced that it had implemented a practice to encourage coordination between the civil and criminal components of DOJ in the investigation of false claims.  As soon as a new qui tam complaint is filed, the complaint is shared by the civil component with the criminal component to determine whether to open a parallel criminal investigation. By directing DOJ components to cooperate, the new policy also appears to codify this practice.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services