Jordann R. Conaboy

Given the new white collar prosecution and enforcement priorities and policies announced this year since the start of the second Trump administration, financial institutions face risks that targeted conduct will receive increased government scrutiny. At the same time, the policies present organizations with opportunities to position themselves to obtain favorable results when confronted with potential exposure. Read on for an overview of the risks and opportunities facing companies, along with strategies to use in the current environment.

DOJ and SEC White Collar Enforcement: What Changed in 2025?

In both the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), new enforcement priorities have resulted in adjusted criminal and regulatory investigations and charging policies. Changes include explicitly using criminal processes to advance policies described as benefiting U.S. interests and prioritizing individual enforcement over corporate prosecutions.

For example, the DOJ released new guidelines for investigations and enforcement actions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in June. The DOJ policy now explicitly prioritizes foreign bribery prosecutions where the alleged misconduct deprives specific and identifiable U.S. entities of fair access to compete, or results in economic injury to specific and identifiable American companies or individuals. For U.S. companies, this may mean that their wrongdoing will be a lower priority for DOJ prosecutors, while foreign companies that fall under federal prosecutors’ broad jurisdiction could find themselves targeted.  

The DOJ Data Security Program (DSP), which went into force in July, restricts cross-border transfers of sensitive U.S. personal and government-related data to “countries of concern” (e.g., China, Russia and Iran), including intracompany transfers. Financial institutions must now audit data flows, vendor relationships and compliance programs to avoid government enforcement. This is especially relevant for institutions with global operations or data-sharing practices involving foreign affiliates, counterparties and vendors.

At the SEC, leadership announced shifting enforcement priorities that focus more on protecting retail investors and holding individuals accountable, rather than pursuing corporate charges that do not involve direct investor harm. Frauds targeting individual investors, particularly senior citizens, are slated to receive greater resources and scrutiny. These are said to include insider trading, accounting and financial disclosures, and breaches of fiduciary duty.

Both the DOJ and the SEC are emphasizing prosecution and enforcement efforts focused on individual accountability in corporate investigations. A May memo from the DOJ’s Criminal Division stated that the department’s “first priority is to prosecute individual criminals … whether executives, officers, or employees of companies — who commit … crimes, often at the expense of shareholders, workers, and American investors and consumers.” The DOJ emphasized that it will “investigate these individual wrongdoers relentlessly to hold them accountable.”

While targeting the individuals who carry out and facilitate criminal conduct, prosecutors and regulators are enhancing the benefits to corporate entities that timely self-report and cooperate in the government’s investigations. This increases opportunities for corporations to obtain declinations in exchange for thorough, timely disclosure about the underlying circumstances and perpetrators.

Understanding the Current Risk Landscape

Third-party analysis of criminal and regulatory filings for 2025 to date demonstrate a notable decline in the number of white collar criminal prosecutions and SEC enforcement cases. Some of that is to be expected with a new administration, but the declines appear more significant than in the past. One explanation is that the regulators are not bringing “broken window” (minor offenses) prosecutions but are instead focused on genuine harm. Overall, this may mean that corporate entities have less to worry about than in the past.

However, those individuals and entities operating in prioritized areas may face increased scrutiny. As noted, prosecutors and regulators are now more explicitly flexing their muscles in support of specific administration priorities. For example, in conjunction with the Trump administration’s various China-focused initiatives, the DOJ highlighted in its May memo the “importance of investor protection against fraudulent practices connected to certain foreign adversary companies listed on U.S. exchanges.” The DOJ specifically addressed variable interest entities (VIEs), which it described as “typically Chinese-affiliated companies listed on U.S. exchanges that carry significant risks to the investing public.” It also singled out “[s]ophisticated money laundering operations, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations, [that] aid criminal actors by moving their tainted money across borders to conceal it from law enforcement and facilitate more crime.”

Similarly, the SEC announced in September the formation of a cross-border task force to combat U.S. federal securities law violations by foreign-based companies. The task force will target market manipulation such as “pump-and-dump” schemes. The SEC’s announcement specifically noted its plan to “examine potential securities law violations related to companies from foreign jurisdictions, such as China, where governmental control and other factors pose unique investor risks.” In addition to targeting the foreign-based companies, the SEC expressed its intent to focus its enforcement efforts on gatekeepers, particularly auditors and underwriters, which help these companies access the U.S. capital markets. Those gatekeepers will likely include U.S.-based actors such as law firms, accounting firms and investment banks.

How Can Financial Institutions Prepare for These Trends?

While the overall focus on white collar crime has waned in 2025, individuals and entities working in targeted sectors need to be extra vigilant in their compliance efforts. Investment banks, accounting firms and law firms that assist Chinese companies in accessing the U.S. markets are particularly at risk. Those organizations must take extra precautions to understand the ownership structure of entities with which they work to verify the legitimacy of those foreign actors.

U.S. companies doing business overseas, but particularly in China, must be familiar with the new DSP requirements to ensure compliance with the new rules. These new rules require the attention and buy-in of senior company leadership.

Foreign competitors to U.S. firms may also find themselves within the scope of regulators and prosecutors. If there is reason to believe that an organization has caught the attention of the DOJ or regulators, it is essential to immediately engage competent U.S. counsel in an effort to understand the genesis of the conduct that interests the government, and respond quickly and cogently to minimize the harm to the entity.

Looking Ahead

As we continue through the final quarter of 2025, financial institutions must remain agile in navigating a shifting enforcement landscape. While overall white collar enforcement may be less aggressive than in prior years, the DOJ and SEC are prioritizing cases that align with broader administration-defined national interests — particularly those involving foreign actors, data security and individual accountability. Institutions operating in cross-border contexts or serving as gatekeepers to capital markets should expect heightened scrutiny and prepare accordingly.

Proactive compliance, robust internal controls and early engagement with counsel remain essential tools for mitigating risk and positioning entities for favorable outcomes in this evolving regulatory environment.