Quarterly Compliance Round-up: April 2026

DOJ Uniformity: New Department-wide Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy Takes Effect

On March 10, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the first-ever Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). The expanded CEP states that it applies to all corporate criminal matters handled by the Department, except for antitrust violations. DOJ’s press release announcing the new CEP goes further, stating that it supersedes “all component-specific or U.S. Attorney’s Office-specific corporate enforcement policies currently in effect.” The expanded CEP closely tracks the DOJ's Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self Disclosure Policy published on May 12, 2025 (Criminal Division’s CEP) and discussed in our June 2025 Quarterly Update. It also includes a helpful flow chart outlining how the CEP is meant to work in Appendix A. 

The key goal of both CEPs is rewarding self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation. In essence:

• Companies that self-disclose legal and regulatory violations, fully cooperate, and timely remediate misconduct “will” receive a declination of prosecution.

• “Near miss” disclosures (those that fall short of a voluntary disclosure) are eligible for non-prosecution agreements and reduced penalties.

• If there are aggravating circumstances such as senior leadership involvement, obstruction of justice, repeat offenders, or large dollar amounts, the DOJ will decide whether a company will receive a CEP declination on a case-by-case basis.

There are minor differences between the Expanded CEP and May Criminal Division CEP. Among them, the Expanded CEP makes reductions in guaranteed benefits for “near miss” disclosures, tightens whistleblower timing requirements, and requires more detailed explanations of cooperation credit and penalty decisions in corporate resolutions. 

The Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program Exception remains unchanged, but now the definitions section notes that to receive credit in the case of a whistleblower submission, a company must “self-report the conduct to the Department as soon as reasonably practicable but no later than 120 days after receiving the whistleblower’s internal report,” whereas the Criminal Division’s CEP only required a self-report “within 120 days.” As noted below, the DOJ recently made its first whistleblower award under the pilot program.

Ethena tip: The expanded CEP’s emphasis on timeliness is a focal point for other regulators as well as DOJ. Our January 2026 update noted that the new UK Serious Fraud Office's revised Guidance on Evaluating a Corporate Compliance Programme emphasizes the importance of a proactive approach to compliance, including beginning remediation as soon as possible after a breach. Be sure to document internal timelines carefully.

DOJ Whistleblower Award

A whistleblower received a $1 million award in conjunction with the U.S. Postal Service, the first such award under the DOJ's Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program launched in July 2025. The whistleblower identified a $16 million scheme by EBlock Corporation in violation of antitrust and fraud laws that involved fake bids to inflate sales prices for used cars. 

Ethena tip: We expect to see more such awards as awareness grows regarding the potential reward for whistleblowers. The best defenses are a proactive, impactful E&C program and vibrant speak-up culture.

Export Controls: Applied Materials Hits $252 Million Record Settlement

We’ve been predicting for over a year that export controls would turn out to be the “new FCPA” when it comes to enforcement and we are sorry to be right:

Applied Materials, Inc.

On February 11, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a $252.5 million civil settlement with Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) and its Korean subsidiary, Applied Materials Korea (AMK). The settlement involved allegations that the companies violated the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by reexporting controlled semiconductor manufacturing equipment to restricted Chinese entities without the required authorizations. 

• What makes the allegations more egregious and puts the fines in context is that AMAT was informed by BIS by letter in 2020 that a license was required to sell the equipment to the Chinese customers. 

• Worse yet, a few months later, the customers in question were put on the prohibited entity list by BIS. A prior license is required to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) any items subject to the EAR when any listed entities are a party to the transaction. AMAT apparently assumed that U.S. origin parts assembled into the final product were substantially transformed and fell outside the EAR rules, but the regulators did not see it that way.

Ethena tip: It’s important to have a clear-cut policy consistent with recordkeeping obligations that addresses using personal devices for work and preserving communications.

Exyte

In a similar case also, in January, BIS imposed a $1.5 million civil penalty on Exyte Management GmbH, a Germany-based engineering and construction firm, for export-control violations tied to semiconductor projects in China. According to the settlement, Exyte also shipped U.S. origin parts to a customer in China on the prohibited list.

Teledyne

Earlier in March, Teledyne, a major U.S.-based manufacturer of thermal imaging technology, admitted to a series of export control violations involving shipments of sensitive camera systems to China and a Hong Kong address believed to be linked to the onward transshipment of controlled goods to Russia.

BIS imposed a $1 million civil penalty, noting that the case underscores the risks multinational technology groups face when integrating global supply chains and subsidiaries without maintaining rigorous oversight of export-control classification, valuation methods, and recordkeeping.

Ethena tip: Make sure your internal controls, processes and monitoring in the export control area are consistent with best practice and that business teams are following the rules.

OFAC Sanctions

Sanctions and money laundering remain another active risk area. Two recent cases illustrate the broad reach of U.S. sanctions regulations:

• In February 2026, OFAC announced a $1.7 million settlement with IMG Academy, a sports performance academy, for receiving tuition payments from Mexican cartel-related sanctioned parties over the course of several years. OFAC observed that this case “highlights the pervasiveness of sanctions risk across a wide variety of sectors and institutions,” even for entities “operating largely domestically.” 
  
  OFAC went on to say that schools and universities that often enroll or host students and faculty from other countries and collaborate with foreign institutions should be attentive to sanctions risk and implement appropriate sanctions screening. 

• Also in February, OFAC announced a $3,777,000 settlement with an unidentified U.S. person who resides abroad for violations of Syrian sanctions regulations by providing management and consulting services to Syrian resort developments. This case is a reminder that liability remains even if sanctions are later lifted or violations do not take place in the U.S.

Ethena tip: Perform a consolidated screening against the lists of prohibited parties of your customer base and faculty, even for domestic operations, to ensure your automated screening tools are capturing all prohibited parties and be aware of any red flags. Even if your business is largely domestic, ensuring that it does not deal with prohibited entities or individuals is required under U.S. laws and other jurisdictions.

FCPA, SEC Recordkeeping Prosecution

No new corporate anti-bribery prosecutions have been announced in this quarter, but a Pennsylvania jury found Charles Hobson, a former vice president of Corsa Coal guilty of violating the FCPA. Hobson was convicted of bribing officials at an Egyptian state-owned company in connection with coal supply companies. Prosecuting culpable individuals appears to be part of the Administration’s shift in FCPA priorities.

In an FCPA adjacent area, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)’s accounting scandal is a reminder of the need for accurate books and records, a frequent FCPA enforcement area for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In January, ADM agreed to pay $40 million to settle regulatory claims that it defrauded investors by artificially boosting profits at its nutrition business after disclosing the results of an internal investigation to the SEC. The January settlement also ended a long-running DOJ investigation of the company.