On May 12, 2025, Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Criminal Division, delivered a speech at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s (SIFMA) Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Financial Crimes Conference in Washington, D.C. From robbing hardworking Americans through unchecked fraud to aiding deadly cartels, Galeotti discussed how international money laundering negatively impacts the U.S. To combat these crimes, the Criminal Division launched an enforcement plan targeting white collar-crime, which revised three existing corporate compliance policies.
The first policy the DOJ updated is the Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). Specifically, the benefits for companies that self-report were expanded to incentivize them to come clean and cooperate with the government’s prosecutions. The CEP also provides guidelines on when a company discloses misconduct even though the Department has already been made aware.
The monitor selection policy was also revised. An imposed monitor is an independent individual, paid by the sanctioned company, who acts as a public liaison and ensures the assigned company’s compliance with not reoffending. The monitor would be selected and imposed by the DOJ after the company agrees to a settlement.
However, the DOJ found the monitor’s value as a “watchdog” was outweighed by the costs imposed on the company. Therefore, moving forward, while the monitor’s necessity is under review on an independent basis, its role will be reduced. If the monitor is deemed essential, biannual tripartite meetings will be held to align the goals of the monitor, the company, and the Department. A fee cap on the monitor’s hourly rates will be imposed.
Lastly, and most importantly, changes were made to the DOJ’s corporate whistleblower program. The following priority areas were added for whistleblower tips: procurement and federal program fraud; trade, tariff, and customs fraud; and violations involving sanctions. Yet, these tips must result in forfeiture一where the government can successfully seize the company’s assets一to be eligible for a monetary award. Different awards are possible depending on the type of violation, with one of the most popular being through the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Whistleblower Program. The SEC’s Program was established under the Dodd-Frank Act, making whistleblowers eligible to receive 10% to 30% of the money collected.
Despite the significance of federal agencies disseminating guidance for AML compliance and urging people to report misconduct, their efforts are not as practical as they believe, due to the complexity of the matter. The U.S. audit conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) offered a more effective “solution,” which heavily emphasized that organizations and departments should receive Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) training.
This variety of training is imperative as there are many different types of coverage一 the protection against retaliation一 depending on who you report to, and how you do it. For instance, under AML or similar sanctions laws, such as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the statute protecting whistleblowers broadly excludes persons who work for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured institutions. Particularly regarding anti-retaliation, an employee is most likely not covered. Likewise, an employee can be fired for going to a corporate compliance program, highlighting the exclusion of coverage for internal whistleblowing. Lastly, any person has120 days to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as stated in the DOJ’s CEP. If not followed, the person will lose the case, no matter how truthful their claim might be.
Even with Galeotti’s announcement of policy changes, meeting the DOJ’s goals of aiding whistleblowers proves more difficult than simply providing a tip line or their own corporate award program.
Galeotti remarks, “We are here to work with you. Our goal is practicality. Root out criminal conduct in the most cost-effective ways.”
Despite having good intentions, this plan could negatively impact the very whistleblowers the DOJ hopes to aid and incentivize. One of the main problems is that a whistleblower loses their confidentiality when they self-report to the DOJ.
While the Dodd-Frank Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Act do permit anonymous filings, the DOJ has not implemented these provisions on its own accord. Their regulations require that anytime the Justice Department requests, an anonymous whistleblower must be identified: “The Department reserves the right to require information regarding your identity at any time the Department, in its sole discretion, deems it necessary to the prosecution of a case or to meet the Department’s legal obligations, policies, or procedures.”
Rather than “practicality,” as Galeotti asserted, the current framework sparks confusion on how to report, where to report, and the potential risks of doing so.
One of the leading whistleblower attorneys, Stephen M. Kohn, stated, “Despite DOJ and FBI investigators acting in good faith, they are not aware of the preexisting traps in legislation. Whistleblowers must seek counsel before they make a disclosure. You do not want to be stripped of coverage. Instead, understand your different levels of protection. A simple tip line is not effective enough and can be potentially detrimental to your goals.”
