backIn March 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued its first ever Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). This policy, which created additional incentives for companies to make voluntary disclosures to DOJ promptly after misconduct is discovered, applies to all corporate criminal matters handled by DOJ except antitrust cases. Such antitrust cases will continue to be governed by the Antitrust Division’s separate and longstanding Corporate Leniency Policy. We have previously discussed the CEP here and here (bottom article).
Under the CEP, the Department “will decline to prosecute a company for criminal conduct” when four conditions are met: (1) the company voluntarily self-discloses the misconduct; (2) the company fully cooperates with the Department’s investigation; (3) the company timely and appropriately remediates the conduct; and (4) there are no aggravating circumstances (considering, for example, the severity of the offense). The CEP offers a range of lesser reductions for companies that do not meet the enumerated factors for declination.
Shortly following the announcement in March 2026, DOJ cited the CEP in declining to prosecute French medical device company Balt SAS and requiring it to pay approximately $1.2 million in disgorgement.
Healthcare Provider Receives a Declination
Last week, DOJ announced its first declination for a healthcare provider, declining to criminally charge Campus Eye Management pursuant to the CEP based on the company’s voluntary self-disclosure, full cooperation, and timely remediation. The company agreed to pay back $1 million to victims of its criminal scheme.
Individual Actors Still Have Risk
Despite these companies securing declinations, the same cannot be said for individuals accused of misconduct, who are not covered under the CEP, which continues to emphasize individual accountability. In the Campus Eye Management matter, DOJ unveiled a seven-count criminal indictment against the company’s founder alleging fraudulent billing and kickback practices. Similarly, in the Balt SAS matter, two associated individuals were charged with FCPA-related offenses. This distinguishes the CEP from other corporate self-disclosure programs like the Antitrust Division’s Corporate Leniency Policy, which extends immunity to cooperating employees of the leniency applicant under certain circumstances. This difference is rooted in the nature of most federal crimes compared to antitrust criminal cases, with the latter being conspiracy crimes where individuals at non-leniency companies still remain subject to prosecution, thus ensuring individual accountability. By contrast, many fraud and other types of cases covered under the CEP involve a single corporate actor, making the prosecution of individuals at the self-disclosing company necessary for DOJ to ensure individual accountability and deterrence.
Fraud Remains a Top Priority for the Department
In the most recent announcement, DOJ noted “an uptick of corporate enforcement actions against health care companies by the Department in recent years” and reiterated DOJ’s commitment to combat fraud.
