Insights | Kobre & Kim — Disputes and Investigations

A new law criminalizing the demanding or receipt of payments from U.S. individuals or entities gives the U.S. Department of Justice new tools to extend its targeting of non-U.S. individuals in corruption investigations.
This puts politically connected individuals at risk of becoming subject to aggressive U.S. investigations, initiated by politically motivated domestic rivals.
At-risk individuals should take proactive steps to protect their reputations, assets and liberty.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced a new policy promising companies leniency if they report uncovered misconduct within six months of a merger or acquisition.
Though this may at first appear to be “good news,” it demonstrates the DOJ’s increasing aggressiveness to companies – including non-U.S. companies – that did not commit any wrongdoing.
We look at why companies should be wary of cooperation, and how they can approach the DOJ more prudently.

The U.S. Department of Justice is continuing to extend its long arm jurisdiction into aggressively scrutinizing individuals in Latin America.
Many targets may become embroiled in what can be overstated allegations, threatening their assets, liberty and reputation.
Targets need to work with cross-border counsel knowledgeable in the DOJ’s tactics to push back as early as possible.

U.S. government antitrust agencies – including the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission – have become increasingly aggressive in their enforcement.
While this puts more multinational companies with U.S. links at risk, it could also present an opportunity.
Our team explains how the changing antitrust enforcement environment can provide tools for companies to keep their competitors in check.

The South Korean Police are expanding their extraterritorial activities, with many multinational companies now in their sightline.
Many companies are unfamiliar with handling Korean inquiries and investigations, but their next steps can be crucial to risks to their business.
Our cross-border team explores strategies to help companies mitigate their risks and stand up to prosecutorial overreach.

Recent comments by top U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials seem to signal an emphasis on leniency programs for companies cooperating on corruption and bribery investigations.
However, non-U.S. companies should not let their guard down – the DOJ continues to stretch the bounds of its jurisdiction to aggressively prosecute companies beyond the U.S.
We unpack counteroffensive strategies at-risk companies should consider to stand up to DOJ overreach and drive successful outcomes.

U.S. government regulators are ramping up enforcement actions against traders for alleged market manipulation and spoofing.
Exchanges and self-regulatory organizations are piling on, subjecting traders to their own investigations.
Traders should not be afraid to stand up to these entities, and there are effective counteroffensive measures that can drive successful outcomes.

Victims of large-scale and sophisticated fraud in Brazil may struggle to recover their assets by only using tools available in the domestic legal system.
However, a growing interest in fighting cross-border crime by U.S. authorities, together with the power of tools in the U.S., provide victims with a potentially better path to success.
Our cross-border team explains what strategies victims can deploy to achieve results.

The U.S. Department of Justice has released new guidelines that signal their aggressive prosecution of individuals and companies outside the U.S.
At-risk non-U.S. companies must understand the potential implications of the DOJ’s new position.
Our global Government Enforcement Defense team explains why internationally based former U.S. government lawyers are best positioned to address the issues.

The U.S. government has set its sights on market manipulation and “spoofing” among both traditional and digital currency traders.
For the trading firms and other market participants who could be in the government’s crosshairs, now is the time to plan how you will respond to a subpoena.
Traders and trading firms that find themselves on the receiving end of a subpoena related to spoofing or market manipulation should not immediately assume that cooperation is the best or only way to respond.