The US Department of Justice’s first Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) declination in almost a year marks more than just the resolution of a single bribery investigation. It is the first such case since President Donald Trump, in February 2025, temporarily halted enforcement of the anti-bribery law, later resuming it in a narrower form. This makes the Liberty Mutual matter an important early signal of how the DOJ’s scaled-back approach will work in practice, and what lessons compliance professionals can draw from it.
In its letter, the DOJ noted that Liberty Mutual’s cooperation extends to “any ongoing Government investigations and any prosecutions that have resulted or might result in the future.” That wording hints that individual prosecutions could possibly follow. Compliance teams should watch closely for any such developments, as they would further clarify the personal liability landscape under the recalibrated FCPA regime.
If the Liberty Mutual case is any indication, the first FCPA declination of Trump’s second term reaffirms the enduring reality of FCPA compliance: even in a narrowed enforcement environment, the fundamentals of corporate anti-bribery have not changed. Timely self-disclosure, genuine cooperation, and concrete remediation remain the keys to avoiding prosecution, and they are as relevant today as they were before February 2025.
The Liberty Mutual case in brief
The DOJ announced on 7 August 2025 that it would decline prosecution of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for FCPA violations tied to misconduct by employees of its Indian subsidiary, Liberty General Insurance (LGI). According to the declination letter, between 2017 and 2022, LGI paid approximately $1.47 million in bribes to officials at six state-owned banks in India. In exchange, those banks referred customers to LGI’s insurance products, generating around $9.2 million in revenue and $4.7 million in profit.
The scheme was concealed by recording payments as marketing expenses and routing them through third-party intermediaries. These are very typical FCPA violations. The DOJ found sufficient evidence to prosecute but ultimately exercised its discretion under its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy.
Instead of criminal charges, Liberty Mutual agreed to disgorge the $4.7 million in profits, continue to cooperate with ongoing investigations, and maintain the compliance enhancements it has already implemented.
Why a declination for Liberty Mutual?
The DOJ’s decision aligns closely with the factors in its revised May 2025 Corporate Enforcement Policy. The letter cites:
Voluntary self-disclosure: Liberty Mutual reported the misconduct in March 2024 while its internal investigation was still in progress. The DOJ emphasises that disclosure at the “earliest possible time” is a key element in securing declination consideration.
Full and proactive cooperation: The company shared all known facts, including details on individuals involved, and agreed to continue cooperating with any related prosecutions.
Timely and appropriate remediation: Liberty Mutual separated from the personnel involved, conducted a thorough root-cause analysis, and made “significant improvements” to its compliance programme and internal controls. This included enhanced third-party payment vetting, structural reorganisation, increased compliance resources, and new policies covering social media and ephemeral messaging for business purposes.
No aggravating circumstances: The DOJ found no evidence of factors such as recidivism, executive-level involvement in the misconduct, or systemic failures.
Disgorgement: The company agreed to surrender its full profits from the scheme.
Political backdrop and enforcement scope
This resolution is the first public FCPA action since Trump resumed enforcement in June 2025 after a four-month pause. The administration’s narrowed enforcement focus emphasises cases linked to national security, critical infrastructure, transnational criminal organisations, or conduct that undermines US competitiveness.
On its face, the Liberty Mutual matter doesn’t neatly fit these new priority categories. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has stated, however, that the criteria are not exhaustive, leaving room for prosecutorial discretion. This case may have been pursued to demonstrate that while the FCPA’s reach is narrower, it is not dormant, particularly when a US multinational self-reports clear-cut bribery involving foreign state-owned entities.
Lessons for compliance professionals
Early disclosure matters more than ever
The DOJ underscored that Liberty Mutual came forward while its own investigation was still ongoing. In the new enforcement climate, waiting for a complete internal report before approaching prosecutors could risk losing the opportunity for a declination.
Cooperation must be proactive and complete
Liberty Mutual’s willingness to identify individual wrongdoers and agree to ongoing cooperation was essential. The DOJ is signalling that companies must help build cases against individuals, not just clean up their own house.
Remediation is about structural change, not just firing wrongdoers
The compliance upgrades cited here are specific and operational: tightening third-party oversight, reorganising reporting lines, adding compliance staff, and addressing modern communication risks such as ephemeral messaging. These are measurable, auditable changes that regulators can point to as evidence of reduced future risk.
Declinations still come with consequences
Even though Liberty Mutual avoided criminal prosecution, the disgorgement obligation is significant, and the public nature of the letter ensures reputational accountability.
Political uncertainty makes self-reporting a calculated risk
With shifting DOJ priorities, companies might be tempted to gamble on reduced enforcement. This case suggests that, at least for now, voluntary disclosure coupled with robust remediation still provides a clear path to a favourable outcome.
