The US Department of Justice’s March 2026 declination in the case of Balt SAS offers a clear illustration of how the DOJ’s new Corporate Enforcement Policy is intended to operate in practice. While the outcome was favourable for the company, the underlying misconduct reflects familiar compliance failures that continue to appear in FCPA enforcement.
The Balt declination is yet another clear sign that there is no relaxation of FCPA enforcement. The underlying conduct was serious and involved sustained bribery over several years. However companies that detect misconduct, act quickly, cooperate fully and remediate effectively can materially reduce enforcement outcomes.
What conduct resulted in the declination?
Balt SAS, a French medical device company, was investigated for a bribery scheme spanning roughly six years, from 2017 to 2023. According to the DOJ, the company paid approximately $602,000 in bribes to a senior physician at a state-owned hospital in France to secure business for its products.
The payments were routed through a third-party consultant in Belgium. These payments were disguised through sham consulting agreements, fake invoices and bonus payments, with internal approval processes used to conceal their true purpose. The scheme generated around $1.68 million in revenue and $1.21 million in profit.
Two individuals connected to the company, including a senior executive from its US subsidiary and an external consultant, have been charged with FCPA and money laundering offences. Despite these facts, the DOJ declined to prosecute Balt. Instead, the company agreed to disgorge approximately $1.2 million and undertake compliance improvements.
The case is also cross-border in nature. Balt has been cooperating with the French Parquet National Financier since 2023 and is expected to enter into a CJIP, the French equivalent of a deferred prosecution agreement, which typically includes financial penalties and compliance obligations.
Why the DOJ declined to prosecute
The declination was based on the application of the DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy. Several factors were central:
Balt voluntarily self-disclosed the misconduct while its internal investigation was still ongoing. It provided full and proactive cooperation, including identifying individuals involved and committing to ongoing cooperation.The company undertook remediation measures, including disciplinary action, terminating problematic third-party relationships, and enhancing its compliance programme and internal controls.
There were no significant aggravating factors such as involvement of senior corporate leadership or prior misconduct. Balt accepted responsibility and agreed to disgorge profits derived from the misconduct. This aligns closely with the DOJ’s stated position that companies meeting these criteria can expect a declination rather than a criminal resolution.
What were the compliance failures?
The conduct itself reflects several well-established risk areas in anti-bribery compliance.
Third-party risk management failures
The use of a consultant to channel improper payments remains one of the most common features of FCPA cases. In this instance, the consultant arrangement appears to have been used as a vehicle for bribery, supported by insufficient oversight and ineffective due diligence.
Breakdown of financial controls
The approval of fake invoices and bonus payments indicates weaknesses in internal accounting controls. Either controls were not properly designed to detect such anomalies or they were overridden without sufficient scrutiny.
Inadequate monitoring of high-risk markets and relationships
Sales involving state-owned hospitals create clear FCPA exposure, since employees can qualify as foreign officials. The failure to recognise and manage this risk is a recurring issue in healthcare-related enforcement.
Individual misconduct operating within corporate structures
The involvement of a senior executive and a consultant highlights the importance of monitoring not only employees, but also agents and intermediaries who operate with commercial autonomy.
Practical anti-bribery lessons for compliance teams
The Balt case reinforces several practical points for compliance teams.
Self-disclosure is becoming a decisive factor
The timing of Balt’s disclosure is notable. The company approached the DOJ while its internal investigation was still ongoing. This suggests that waiting for complete certainty may reduce the benefits available under the CEP. Firms need clear escalation pathways and decision-making frameworks to assess when disclosure is appropriate.
Third-party controls need to go beyond onboarding
Due diligence at the start of a relationship is not sufficient. Ongoing monitoring, transaction testing and scrutiny of unusual payment structures are essential, especially where consultants are tied to sales outcomes.
Financial controls must be operational, not theoretical
The presence of fake invoices suggests that controls either failed in practice or were not embedded effectively. Compliance and finance functions need to test controls regularly and ensure that red flags are escalated rather than normalised.
Cross-border enforcement is now the norm
The coordination between the DOJ and French authorities illustrates how enforcement risk increasingly spans jurisdictions. Companies operating internationally should expect parallel investigations and ensure their compliance frameworks are aligned across legal systems.
Focus on individuals remains central
Even where a company secures a declination, individuals may still face prosecution. This creates a strong incentive for companies to cooperate fully and to demonstrate that misconduct is not tolerated at any level.
