On February 22, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a Corporate Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (VSD Policy) to formalize its efforts to incentivize voluntary self-disclosure. The VSD Policy builds on DOJ’s revised Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) from January 2023, covered in detail here. The VSD Policy applies to all United States Attorney’s Offices (USAOs) and is effective immediately.
The new VSD Policy codifies a host of substantial benefits afforded to companies that voluntarily and timely self-disclose misconduct to DOJ. Perhaps unsurprisingly, companies seeking those benefits must meet exacting requirements. Companies should scrutinize whether the situation before them warrants disclosure to the government and, if so, should plan to make any such disclosure expeditiously.
Along with analyzing the rationale underlying the VSD Policy, the applicable standard, and potential benefits to the companies that engage in VSD, this Update also provides key considerations when assessing whether to voluntarily self-disclose known misconduct to DOJ.
The VSD Policy
Purpose of the VSD Policy — Consistent with DOJ pronouncements in September 2022 and January 2023, the purpose of the VSD Policy is a simple one: to incentivize companies to timely disclose misconduct by its employees or agents to DOJ. According to the VSD Policy, “Companies that voluntarily self-disclose misconduct to the USAO pursuant to this policy will receive resolutions under more favorable terms than if the government had learned of the misconduct through other means.” Prompt self-disclosures of information will be considered favorably even if the government may already have been aware of the misconduct through other means.
Applicable Standard — The VSD Policy requires the pertinent USAO to engage in a case-by-case analysis to determine whether a disclosure qualifies as a voluntary self-disclosure. While the decision is at the sole discretion of the USAO, the VSD Policy lays out foundational principles governing its application:
- Voluntary — Self-disclosures are credited only when they are truly voluntary (i.e., a disclosure made pursuant to a preexisting obligation, such as a regulation or contract, will not qualify).
- Timing — All three of the following timeliness criteria are credited:
a. The disclosure is made “prior to an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation,” U.S.S.G. § 8C2.5(g)(1);
b. The disclosure is made prior to public disclosure of the misconduct or to when the misconduct is otherwise known to the government; and
c. The disclosure is made within a reasonably prompt time after the company becomes aware of the misconduct. - Substance of the Disclosure — The disclosure must include all relevant facts concerning the misconduct that the company is aware of at the time. A disclosing company is permitted to make clear that the disclosure is based on a preliminary investigation or assessment of information. In the event that the company conducts an internal investigation, it will be expected to provide factual updates.
Benefits of Meeting the VSD Standard — The benefits of meeting the VSD standard can be substantial.
Absent aggravating factors, the USAO will not seek a guilty plea when the company has (1) voluntarily self-disclosed in accordance with the criteria set forth above, (2) fully cooperated, and (3) timely and appropriately remediated the criminal conduct. In addition, when a company meets the applicable standard, the USAO may choose to seek a lower criminal penalty or decline all criminal penalties. The company would still be required to pay all disgorgement, forfeiture, and restitution resulting from the misconduct.
When aggravating factors exist that lead the government to require a guilty plea, such as current executive management’s involvement in the misconduct, the USAO may recommend at least a 50% to 75% reduction to the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and may also decline to require appointment of a monitor if the company has a sufficient compliance program.
Key Takeaways
The VSD Policy raises a number of important takeaways for companies:
- Move quickly. If a company becomes aware of possible misconduct, it is in the company’s interest to move quickly to investigate. That may involve engaging outside counsel expeditiously to begin an internal investigation.
- Any disclosure must include all relevant facts known at the time. If a company discloses, it should be careful to disclose all relevant facts known at the time. The VSD Policy anticipates, and permits for the reality, that a company may learn additional facts after its disclosure. However, the failure to be comprehensive regarding known facts at the time of disclosure may disqualify a company from meeting the voluntary self-disclosure standard.
Timely preservation, collection, and production of evidence is key. As discussed in Sidley’s prior Update, DOJ and this VSD Policy continue to emphasize that a company must preserve, collect, and produce documents and evidence in a timely manner to reap the benefits of the VSD Policy.
Contacts
- Washington DC
- Karen A. Popp, kpopp@sidley.com
- Kristin Graham Koehler, kkoehler@sidley.com
- Frank R. Volpe, fvolpe@sidley.com
- Leslie A. Shubert, lshubert@sidley.com
- Angela M. Xenakis, axenakis@sidley.com
- Brian P. Morrissey, bmorriss@sidley.com
- Ellen Crisham Pellegrini, epellegrini@sidley.com
- Craig Francis Dukin, cdukin@sidley.com
- William R. Levi, william.levi@sidley.com
- Julia G. Mirabella, jmirabella@sidley.com
- Marisa S. West, marisa.west@sidley.com
- Chicago
- David H. Hoffman, david.hoffman@sidley.com
- Daniel D. Rubinstein, drubinstein@sidley.com
- Scott R. Lassar, slassar@sidley.com
- Geeta Malhotra, gmalhotra@sidley.com
- Joseph R. Dosch, jdosch@sidley.com
- Daniel C. Craig, dcraig@sidley.com
- Jacqueline Pruitt, jpruitt@sidley.com
- New York
- Timothy J. Treanor, ttreanor@sidley.com
- Michael A. Levy, mlevy@sidley.com
- Joan M. Loughnane, jloughnane@sidley.com
- Michael D. Mann, mdmann@sidley.com
- Alexa Poletto, apoletto@sidley.com
- Boston
- Jack W. Pirozzolo, jpirozzolo@sidley.com
- Doreen M. Rachal, drachal@sidley.com
- Los Angeles
- Douglas A. Axel, daxel@sidley.com
- Ellyce R. Cooper, ecooper@sidley.com
- Dallas
- Paige Holden Montgomery, pmontgomery@sidley.com
- David A. Silva, david.silva@sidley.com
- San Francisco
- Dave Anderson, dlanderson@sidley.com
- Sheila A.G. Armbrust, sarmbrust@sidley.com
- Naomi A. Igra, naomi.igra@sidley.com
- London
- Sara George, sara.george@sidley.com
- Singapore
- Yuet Ming Tham, ytham@sidley.com
- Margaret H. Allen, margaret.allen@sidley.com
- Shu Min Ho, shumin.ho@sidley.com
Sidley Austin LLPはクライアントおよびその他関係者へのサービスの一環として本情報を教育上の目的に限定して提供します。本情報をリーガルアドバイスとして解釈または依拠したり、弁護士・顧客間の関係を結ぶために使用することはできません。
弁護士広告 - ニューヨーク州弁護士会規則の遵守のための当法律事務所の本店所在地は、Sidley Austin LLP ニューヨーク:787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019 (+212 839 5300)、シカゴ:One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603、(+312 853 7000)、ワシントン:1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (+202 736 8000)です。