Key takeaway from Global Investigations Live in Singapore

The Future of US Investigations: Impact of the Trump DOJ

During the first panel, partners Keith Rosen, Kevin Harnisch, and Rajaee Rouhani discussed the significant changes to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and other law enforcement agencies in the second Trump administration, and identified key new compliance, investigations and enforcement trends, along with practical insights on their impact.

The speakers highlighted the key changes which include: (i) sweeping personnel changes in the DOJ and other US enforcement agencies; (ii) the DOJ’s new Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) policy; (iii) updates to the DOJ’s general corporate enforcement policies; (iv) expansion of the existing whistleblower programme; and (v) updates to the voluntary self-disclosure policy. 

While changes to enforcement policies and personnel following a change in administration are not unusual, the speakers noted that the changes made by the second Trump administration have represented a more significant disruption to the DOJ and other enforcement agencies than seen in recent times. They also discussed how the combination of personnel and policy changes have created a level of uncertainty for legal and compliance teams across sectors. 

A notable change highlighted by the speakers was in relation to a new enforcement policy of the FCPA, which placed emphasis on the need to prioritise cases where US companies are injured or unfairly deprived of access to foreign markets, or in sectors where American national security interests may be harmed (for instance, such as in the defence, intelligence, or critical infrastructure sectors). The policy also called for the prioritisation of prosecutions linked to cartel activity and transnational criminal organisations. 

The speakers also spoke about changes to the DOJ’s corporate enforcement priorities and identified the likely focus on “high impact areas” such as the healthcare sector, federal procurement programs, and sanctions/tariffs evasion affecting US markets. They explained that the DOJ also issued an updated voluntary self-disclosure policy designed to provide companies with greater clarity that a qualifying self-disclosure will result in a declination from prosecution, and further explained the new “near miss” provisions of the policy, intended to provide companies with comfort that a self-disclosure that does not count as “voluntary” can still result in a non-prosecution agreement for the misconduct.

At the same time, the speakers noted the importance of recognising what has not changed. In particular, they emphasised that FCPA enforcement is still being pursued, and the focus of US authorities remains on incentivising the early self-disclosure of misconduct. The DOJ’s policy on evaluation of corporate compliance programs has also remained the same – and the speakers explained why this is therefore not the time for companies to be scaling back or deprioritising their compliance programs in any way.

Keith, Kevin and Rajaee closed with the following insights and comments on implications for businesses:

• The new DOJ policies aim to protect US interests and are part of the broader Trump administration’s policy of “America First”.
• Given the continued focus on voluntary self-disclosures of misconduct and the expansion of the DOJ’s whistleblower programme, companies should be mindful of the timing of any self-reporting, given the premium placed on reporting misconduct early in order to obtain the relevant cooperation credit.
• Despite public statements that have been made about the Trump DOJ, businesses should note that the FCPA is still actively being enforced.
• However, where US interests are not implicated, the DOJ may be increasingly willing to defer investigations and prosecutions to foreign government agencies or regulators.
• In-house compliance teams should continue to prioritise corporate compliance programs and take note of the DOJ’s policy changes, ensuring that their internal policies and procedures relating to investigations are aligned with the enforcement policies and guidance.

The Force of Nature: Multifaceted Investigations in an ESG era

During the second panel, partners Sharon Oded, Abigail McGregor, Stuart Neely, Kevin Harnisch, and Rongxin Huang discussed the growing relevance of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues for businesses and the resultant impact on corporate investigations.

Sharon highlighted the heightened emphasis on ESG considerations in business transactions, in light of recent ESG-related regulatory developments and high-profile violations which have occurred in many jurisdictions involving issues such as greenwashing, environmental pollution and modern slavery. Sharon also referenced financial and consumer data indicating that: (i) 90% of S&P 500 companies publish ESG reports; (ii) 75% of consumers claim that they would cease transacting with a company that mistreats the environment, its employees, or the community; and (iii) an estimated $33.9 trillion would be made in ESG investments by 2026.

The speakers then discussed the significant developments across their various jurisdictions – both from a regulatory and stakeholder management perspective. Abigail shared that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has in recent years successfully prosecuted financial institutions for making misleading greenwashing statements when promoting their financial services and products. Stuart addressed the array of ESG related due diligence and reporting requirements to which companies are now subject, particularly in Europe, as well as emerging litigation risks in various jurisdictions as NGOs and activists deploy novel legal arguments to establish the liability of companies for ESG impacts in their value chains. Claimants in such litigation frequently seek disclosure of documents to ascertain if companies’ practices align with external reports and commitments. Rongxin added that in China, there has been an increase over the recent years in environmental litigation brought by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and activists against companies which have either caused pollution or contributed indirectly to other harms to the environment. 

Kevin noted that the legal position toward ESG-related issues in the US is presently more nuanced. He mentioned that there are no federal laws governing ESG-related disclosures, and that in any event, the implementation or enforcement of such laws might vary depending on the governing administration. Kevin pointed out that most ESG-related disclosures (e.g. on issues such as climate-related disclosures or diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) matters) are voluntary and market-driven – although certain state regulators such as the California Air Resource Board have taken the lead in enacting state laws and guidelines to help companies comply with mandate climate-related disclosures. Nevertheless, Kevin shared examples of how businesses making voluntary ESG or DEI-related disclosures have encountered potential legal and reputational risk when their internal businesses processes were revealed to contradict their public statements. 

The unanimous takeaway was that companies which do not keep up with relevant ESG-related developments (whether in the form of express legal obligations, soft law guidance, industry best practices or otherwise) will be increasingly blindsided by reputational and legal risks. It is therefore critical that companies implement robust internal compliance and investigations processes that are adequately resourced and equipped in the fast-changing landscape.

In closing the discussion, the speakers provided the following insights to all attendees:

• Businesses may run the risk of incurring liabilities for publishing inaccurate or misleading statements on ESG issues, with modern slavery or ethical practices being key areas of risk. 
• Public-facing ESG / DEI statements must align with internal compliance standards in order to minimise legal and reputational exposure – given the increasing willingness of stakeholders such as NGOs and minority shareholders to hold companies accountable.
• Internal compliance teams must proactively adopt crisis management playbooks to minimise legal or reputational risks. 
• Global companies must also be alive to shifting attitudes in some jurisdictions which have varied their ESG / DEI-related polices – a one-size-fits-all blanket approach may not be sufficient.

The Failure to Prevent: Extraterritorial Effects of Fraud by Associated Persons

On 1 September 2025, the UK’s new corporate criminal offence of “failure to prevent fraud” (FTPF) came into force under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Partners David Harris and Stuart Neely provided a timely and practical overview of the offence, its extraterritorial reach and impact on companies in the APAC region, and what in-house counsel should be doing now.

David and Stuart echoed the sentiment among lawyers in the UK of the FTPF offence as a genuine “game changer” and highlighted the strong rhetoric from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) regarding active enforcement. The SFO, under its new Director, has signalled a more aggressive posture, with increased dawn raids and a renewed focus on Deferred Prosecution Agreements.

David and Stuart pointed out for legal and compliance professionals in the audience that while the FTPF offence in part mirrors the structure of existing failure to prevent offences under the UK Bribery Act 2010 and Criminal Finances Act 2017, it is broader in scope, with more bite. For example, the concept of “associated persons” under the FTPF offence is broader than under the Bribery Act as employees, agents, and subsidiaries are automatically treated as associated persons. The nine specified predicate offences – including fraud by false representation and false accounting (which can encompass the falsification of even a single document) – further add breadth and complexity not seen with its predecessor failure to prevent offences.

Running through a hypothetical scenario, David and Stuart demonstrated the extraterritorial implications of the offence for legal and compliance professionals in Singapore and the wider APAC region. Any entity, even one based entirely outside the UK, can be prosecuted if the underlying fraud offence has a UK nexus. This includes acts of fraud committed in the UK, fraud targeting UK victims, or fraud intended to benefit a UK branch, subsidiary or client. Companies with no UK operations may also have additional or more onerous contractual obligations imposed by counterparties with a UK nexus.

To avoid liability, organisations must demonstrate that they had “reasonable procedures” in place to prevent fraud. Stuart emphasised that the six core principles underpinning “reasonable procedures” will be familiar to those who have been involved in reviewing compliance programs under the Bribery Act, but should be applied in the context of the new offence with a focus on conducting a comprehensive risk assessment to identify the fraud risks specific to business operations, sectors and jurisdictions.

David and Stuart closed by noting that while the offence is not retrospective, companies may need to revisit prior risk assessments. With enforcement of the new FTPF offence imminent, in-house counsel can take the following preparatory steps:

• Conduct a jurisdictional assessment to determine exposure based on UK nexus, especially if you have UK subsidiaries, employees, or counterparties.
• Conduct a comprehensive risk assessment, including setting up cross-functional working groups to evaluate fraud risks across business lines, functions and jurisdictions.
• Leverage existing compliance programmes and frameworks, but ensure that they address outward fraud risks and are responsive to the nine specified predicate offences.
• Update key documents, including anti-fraud policies, training modules, due diligence processes, and contractual arrangements.
• Familiarise yourself with the statutory guidance published by the UK Home Office and UK Finance, which notably incorporate US corporate compliance principles.