White Collar Crime And Government Investigations – Global Round-up On Enforcement Trends And Legal Developments

Our global team brings you our six-monthly update on white collar crime enforcement trends, legal reforms and other developments in relation to government investigations.

We are pleased to bring you the latest edition of the HSF Kramer white collar crime and government investigations global round-up. This six-monthly publication calls on lawyers from around the world to provide updates from their jurisdictions on significant new developments and enforcement trends relevant to financial crime. Where available, the updates link to underlying posts with more detail. As ever, please do not hesitate to contact the authors, or your local HSF Kramer contacts, if you wish to discuss any of the issues raised.

For autumn 2025, we look at enforcement trends around the world and take stock of the steps being taken to combat money laundering and corruption in various different jurisdictions. This enforcement action takes place against a backdrop of increased regulation but also, taking the UK as an example, one of increased pressure on the criminal justice system, providing further impetus towards reform.

UK: the Leveson Report recommends reform of the criminal justice system

Backlogs in the Crown Court of England and Wales now exceed 75,000 cases, with fraud trials among the most affected due to the scale of disclosure and complexity of evidence. The average time to resolve fraud cases in the Crown Court has nearly doubled since 2019, outpacing increases observed in other offence categories. Against this backdrop, the Leveson Review (the Review, discussed further here), commissioned to address systemic delays and inefficiencies in the criminal courts, has recommended significant structural reforms. The following are points most relevant for our corporate clients (a second instalment of the Review focusing on operational efficiency is expected later this year):

• A key proposal is the introduction of judge-only trials for serious and complex fraud. The Review concludes that the volume of digital material and technical financial issues in such cases risks overwhelming juries and prolonging trials. The proposed models involve either a single, specialist judge determining both fact and law (reflecting practice in jurisdictions such as New Zealand), or a 'fraud panel' comprising a Crown Court judge and two expert lay assessors. Either party or the judge may raise the issue of a juryless trial at a preparatory hearing, with decisions subject to interlocutory appeal. The model would apply to any case meeting a defined complexity threshold, not only prosecutions led by the Serious Fraud Office.
• The Review also advocates for stronger incentives for early guilty pleas recommending enhanced sentence reductions and mandatory sentencing indications, signalling a broader move towards resolution-focused processes. This approach aligns with a separate UK consultation on financial sanctions enforcement, which contemplates greater incentives for civil settlements rather than criminal prosecutions. Both initiatives point to a gradual shift away from traditional jury trials in favour of mechanisms prioritising speed and certainty.

At the time of publication, press reports indicated that the government will announce a response to the recommendations in December 2025, with legislation to follow in 2026. Reports suggest that most of the recommendations in the Review will be enacted. For corporate defendants, changes to the criminal trial process would potentially require recalibration of litigation strategy in complex financial crime cases, placing greater emphasis on legal argument and expert evidence. The future of complex fraud prosecutions in the UK will also be shaped by Jonathan Fisher KC's ongoing review of fraud legislation and the criminal disclosure regime (discussed here), reflecting continued momentum towards reform.

EU: implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

Directive (EU) 2024/1760 (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, CSDDD) introduces a comprehensive framework of obligations for large companies, designed to ensure their contribution to sustainable development and to the broader economic and social transition. The CSDDD requires companies to prevent, mitigate and remediate adverse impacts that their business activities may have on human rights and the environment.

The CSDDD's scope extends beyond the company's own operations to include its subsidiaries, business partners, and entire value chain. For example, if a business partner fails to comply with the CSDDD and causes adverse impacts, the relevant company is required, as a measure of last resort, to terminate the business relationship.

The Directive's impact is therefore significant. Alongside potential civil liability, non-compliance may result in severe sanctions. Similarly to the penalty regime under Directive (EU) 2024/1226 (see our May Update for further details), fines may be calculated based on the company's worldwide turnover, with a maximum fine not lower than 5% thereof.

However, the implementation of the CSDDD has faced delays amid resistance from several Member States — most notably Germany and France — which have called for major revisions and longer implementation timelines, against the backdrop of recent shifts in the European political landscape. As a result, only a few Member States have initiated transposition, and the recent adoption of the so-called "Stop-the-Clock" Directive (EU 2025/794) has: (i) postponed the transposition deadline to 26 July 2027, and (ii) deferred certain dates of application for due diligence requirements, effectively delaying the initial application of the Directive to July 2028 for larger companies and July 2029 or later for all other entities. The debate among EU institutions is still ongoing; a European Parliament vote in November 2025 endorsed reduced reporting duties and due diligence requirements for companies. At the time of publication, negotiations with EU governments were due to begin, with the aim of finalising the legislation by the end of 2025.

Larger companies that are currently subject to the CSDDD are advised to continue to monitor its implementation in preparation of the review and adaptation of their internal policies and compliance frameworks as deadlines approach.

A closer examination of the position in Germany and Spain follows:

• Germany already has a law that sets out both human rights and environmental due diligence obligations. The Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz, (LkSG)) has applied since 1 January 2023 to companies with at least 3,000 employees and, since 1 January 2024, to those with at least 1,000 employees. It remains the governing framework until the CSDDD is transposed into German law. The Federal Government will implement the CSDDD with the aim of reducing bureaucracy and facilitating enforcement.
  • During the transition period to July 2027, the LkSG will be amended to reduce administrative burdens for companies and facilitate application and enforcement. On 3 September 2025, the Federal Government introduced an amendment that, inter alia, retroactively abolishes the annual reporting obligation and limits fines to serious breaches of human rights-related duties, while environment-related violations are no longer subject to fines.
  • On 17 October 2025, the Federal Council welcomed these relief measures but called for further simplifications and a one-to-one implementation of the CSDDD at national level in order to avoid legal uncertainty during the transition period. The Federal Government must now respond to this proposal before the German Parliament begins its deliberations, with a final vote by the Federal Council to follow.
• In Spain, the CSDDD has not yet been implemented and there is no equivalent national legislation. However, on 26 March 2025, the Advisory Committee of the Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV) (a consultative body by market participants but with an independent opinion from the CNMV) issued a statement welcoming the simplification and reduction of administrative burden, while maintaining support for the EU's environmental objectives and stressing that any simplification initiative must be consistent with such objectives and, therefore, not discourage the integration of sustainability aspects in companies.

Please see here and here for further background on the CSDDD.

Middle East: UAE intensifies AML/CTF enforcement in 2025

In the first eight months of 2025, UAE regulators imposed over AED 380 million (~USD 104 million) in fines on businesses for failures in anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) compliance. Authorities such as the Dubai Financial Services Authority have adopted a zero-tolerance approach, warning that serious violations will attract substantial penalties to reinforce deterrence and bolster market confidence.

Common compliance failures identified in these cases include inadequate customer due diligence, poor transaction monitoring, failure to report suspicious activity, outdated risk assessments, insufficient staff training, and poor record-keeping. Consequences extend beyond financial penalties to include licence revocation, reputational damage, and potential criminal liability. Repeat offenders face the harshest sanctions.

The UAE Central Bank has significantly ramped up enforcement, issuing steep penalties across the financial sector for AML/CTF breaches:

• Two exchange houses were fined AED 100 million (~ USD 27.2 million) and AED 200 million (~ USD 54.5 million) respectively, with the branch manager in the latter case being personally fined AED 500,000 (~ USD 136,000) and permanently banned from working in a UAE-licensed financial institution.
• Fines totalling AED 12.3 million (~ USD 3.35 million) were imposed on six exchange houses.
• Two international bank branches were fined AED 18.1 million (~ USD 5 million).
• Administrative and financial sanctions were imposed on five insurance brokers operating in the UAE for failure to comply with their own AML/CTF frameworks.

Regulatory scrutiny has expanded beyond traditional financial institutions. The Ministry of Economy imposed over AED 42 million (~ USD 11.5 million) in fines across the real estate, corporate services, metals, and gemstones sectors, including AED 2.25 million (~ USD 613,000) on three firms operating in gold and property. The Securities and Commodities Authority also issued AED 1.15 million (~ USD 313,000) in fines for market-related AML violations. In the digital asset space, Abu Dhabi regulators fined cryptocurrency platform HAYVN Group USD 12.45 million for serious AML breaches, and banned the firm's former CEO from working in the sector.

These enforcement actions reflect a broader national crackdown on financial crime, which contributed to the UAE's removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) greylist in March 2024 and the EU's high-risk countries list in July 2025. Notably, the UAE has recently introduced Federal Decree-Law No. 10/2025 on Anti-Money Laundering, Combating the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing, repealing and replacing the 2018 AML law. The new law expands the scope of predicate offences to include tax evasion, introduces standalone offences for proliferation financing, and explicitly covers digital systems and virtual assets. It also lowers the evidentiary threshold for establishing AML offences, allowing liability to arise from circumstantial evidence or reasonable inference, and strengthens supervisory powers and enforcement mechanisms.

The recent enactment of this new AML law further strengthens the UAE's momentum, aligning the UAE's AML framework with the FATF's standards and international best practices. As the UAE prepares for the FATF's next mutual evaluation in 2026, it continues to demonstrate its commitment to strengthening the resilience and integrity of its financial systems.

South Africa: FATF greylist exit: a progressive step on the continued path towards integrity?

On 24 October 2025, South Africa was officially removed from the FATF greylist, following almost three years of intensive reform efforts to address critical concerns identified by the FATF. South Africa was first placed on the greylist in February 2023 based on several strategic deficiencies in its AML/CTF frameworks.

These shortcomings were largely attributed to institutional weaknesses arising from the period of state capture (a term used colloquially to refer to the illegitimate use of state control for corrupt and improper purposes in South Africa) which resulted in an erosion of law enforcement and regulatory bodies' capacity to detect, investigate, and successfully prosecute financial crimes. The FATF identified 22 action items that South Africa needed to address, including improving the verification and accuracy of beneficial ownership information, enhancing inter-agency coordination, and demonstrating effective enforcement of AML/CTF laws.

In response, the National Treasury, along with key law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies, has adopted several reforms such as amendments to the Tax Administration Act to facilitate information sharing, the rollout of a Traveller Management System to monitor cross-border financial flows, and the introduction of beneficial ownership reporting obligations for legal entities and trusts.

While the delisting marks a significant milestone and laudable achievement, the removal from the greylist should not be viewed as a panacea indicating that South Africa's financial crime problems are under control. Now more than ever, it is not the time for self-congratulation or backslapping; the focus must remain on accountability and action. As the National Treasury and other stakeholders have noted, the delisting reflects a vote of confidence but sustained vigilance and accountability will be key to preserving South Africa's financial integrity and global credibility. To achieve this, measurable outcomes should be pursued and the gap between paper and practice addressed through action such as securing the successful prosecution of serious financial crimes, asset recoveries and sanctions for transgressions of anti-financial crime laws.

In 2025 South Africa has been rocked by several high-profile corruption scandals, specifically in the Department of Health and police services, which have revealed the looting of billions of Rands from government departments.

This seems an all too familiar tale in a South African context and begs the question, "will anything be done about it?". Staggering amounts of money have moved from government institutions, through financial institutions and ultimately into the hands of the perpetrators. Will the enhancements made during the efforts made to be removed from the greylist assist in tracing the proceeds of corruption and preventing future plundering of South Africa's public finances? If South Africa hopes to receive a positive result from the next FATF mutual evaluation, surely progress needs to be demonstrated and the responsible parties held to account.

South Africa's anti-corruption blueprint: turning point or tired promise?

As South Africa continues to confront deep-rooted corruption and institutional decay, the National Anti-Corruption Advisory Council (NACAC) has released its Final Report – a bold blueprint aimed at restoring integrity and accountability in public life. The report arrives amid the Madlanga Commission's investigation into political interference and criminality within the justice system, offering a timely intervention in the country's ongoing struggle against state capture.

At the heart of NACAC's recommendations is the proposed creation of the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability (OPI) – a constitutionally protected Chapter 9 institution designed to lead systemic investigations, support whistleblowers, and recover stolen assets. The OPI would absorb and expand the powers of the Special Investigating Unit, operating independently with its own budget and leadership.

Beyond institutional reform, the report calls for societal mobilisation through national dialogues, youth engagement, and targeted campaigns to shift public attitudes toward corruption. It also outlines a strategy to strengthen law enforcement, with clearer mandates for agencies like the Hawks and the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, and improved coordination under the National Prosecuting Authority.

However, the report acknowledges the risk of "reform fatigue." South Africans have seen ambitious plans before – many of which failed to deliver real change. The success of the OPI will depend not just on its legal mandate, but on its ability to act decisively, resist political interference, and earn public trust.

In short, the NACAC blueprint offers a compelling vision – but whether it becomes a turning point or another false dawn will depend on urgent, sustained action. South Africa doesn't need another institution; it needs accountability that is no longer optional.

Asia: Chinese regulators continue to impose penalties on pharmaceutical companies for improper speaker fees

Jointly issued by the PRC National Health Commission (NHC) and 13 other government departments, the "2024 Key Points for Correcting Unhealthy Practices in Pharmaceutical Purchasing and Sales and Medical Services" (the 2024 Key Points) placed significant scrutiny on speaker fees paid by pharmaceutical companies during medical events. NHC issued the 2025 Key Points in June 2025, which updated the 2024 Key Points, showing a continued commitment to anti-corruption efforts across China's healthcare sector.

Since the issuance of the 2024 Key Points, multiple regulatory bureaus have pursued enforcement actions against pharmaceutical companies for improper speaker fees. Two recent trends have emerged:

1. Extended look-back periods: Regulators have demonstrated a willingness to investigate historical conduct. In one widely reported 2024 case, a domestic pharmaceutical company was investigated by the State Administration Market Regulation (SAMR) for providing improper speaker fee payments from as far back as 2016, which resulted in a fine of RMB 1.5 million (~USD 210,549) and the confiscation of over RMB 270,000 (~USD 37,898).
2. Adoption of substantive review standards: In July 2025, a state-owned pharmaceutical enterprise was fined RMB 500,000 (~USD 70,183) for paying a total of RMB 276,300 (~USD 38,783) in "expert fees" to multiple physicians over recent years. Separately, in June 2025, an international pharmaceutical company was fined RMB 500,000 (~USD 70,183) for similar violations. In both cases, SAMR deemed the speaker fees improper because: (i) the payments were excessively high; (ii) the speakers played a marginal role (i.e., acting as hosts instead of substantive speakers); or (iii) the speeches lacked sufficient academic substance.

Companies should review speaker fee policies and controls to ensure they align with regulatory expectations. Strengthening these processes supports both regulatory adherence and sustainable business practices.

US: update on enforcement priorities

In recent months, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have advanced the new Administration's white-collar enforcement priorities on various fronts.

In September 2025, DoJ announced the first declination under its revised Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy in a matter involving Bank of America Securities (BoAS). According to the declination letter, two BoAS employees separately schemed for at least seven years to manipulate the secondary (or "cash") market and to manipulate futures markets by entering spoof orders. In support of the declination, DoJ pointed to BoAS's: (1) timely and voluntary self-disclosure after first becoming aware of information related to the schemes from a securities exchange; (2) "full and proactive cooperation" and agreement to continue to cooperate; (3) remediation, which included termination of the employees and various internal reviews and controls improvements; (4) absence of "aggravating" factors; and (5) agreement to disgorge ill-gotten gains and compensate victims, amounting to approximately USD5.5 million.

In August 2025, the DoJ announced its first resolution of a corporate FCPA case after a six-month "pause" in FCPA enforcement. The DoJ announced it would decline prosecution of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, for "bribery committed by certain employees of the Company's subsidiary in India who were acting as agents of the Company." The declination decision was based on Liberty Mutual's: (1) timely and voluntary self-disclosure; (2) full and proactive cooperation and its agreement to continue to cooperate; (3) the nature and seriousness of the offense; (4) timely and appropriate remediation; (5) improvements to its compliance program and internal controls; (6) absence of aggravating circumstances; and (7) agreement to disgorge the amount of its ill-gotten gains in the amount of approximately USD4.7 million.

Also in August, DoJ, in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, announced the launch of a Trade Fraud Task Force "to aggressively pursue enforcement actions against any parties who seek to evade tariffs and other duties, as well as smugglers who seek to import prohibited goods into the American economy."

The SEC, for its part, announced in September the launch of a Cross-Border Task Force, aimed at investigating potential violations of U.S. securities laws related to foreign-based companies. Additionally, in a significant development for companies facing SEC scrutiny, in October, Chairman Paul Atkins announced procedural reforms to the "Wells" process whereby SEC Enforcement staff notifies potential defendants of charges to be recommended and offers a chance to provide a submission laying out the respondent's views. Among the points of emphasis announced by the Chairman are for staff to, inter alia: (1) be forthcoming about information in the investigative file to the extent possible; (2) provide at least four weeks for respondents to make Wells submissions; and (3) provide submissions to Commissioners in an expanded set of cases.

Australia: AML/CTF regulator busier than ever

This past quarter, Australia's AML/CTFregulator has been putting to good use its largest budget and staffing numbers to date. It has been busy on several fronts: finalising, and preparing current and 'soon-to-be' reporting entities for, the Amended AML/CTF Act, New AML/CTF Rules and new guidance, with substantive reforms coming into effect in March and July 2026 (you can find our various articles on the reforms here, here and here); commencing various new enforcement actions aligned with its latest Fintech and cash intensive sector regulatory priorities; and, preparing for its new role as a partial sanctions regulator alongside the Australian Sanctions Office (ASO).

In July, AUSTRAC released its regulatory priorities for the 2025-26 financial year that included improving risk management within the digital currency exchange sector, virtual asset service providers, and by entities whose exposure to cash creates particular vulnerabilities. This has subsequently translated into various recent enforcement actions including:

• commencing in July civil penalty proceedings against pokies operator, Mount Pritchard District and Community Club;
• issuing infringement notices in September against Revolut Payments Australia Pty Ltd for failure to submit international funds transfer instruction reports on time and in October against Cryptolink for late reporting of threshold transactions;
• directing Binance Australia, Western Union, and casino operators in the Northern Territory and Queensland to appoint external auditors; and
• undertaking close scrutiny of various crypto ATM operators.

Another recent development is the imposition of new obligations on reporting entities with respect to sanctions compliance, and the consequential expansion of AUSTRAC's remit into this space (see recent comments by the ASO here).

We expect AUSTRAC's regulatory and enforcement activity to continue at pace in the coming years as it and industry try to keep up with the intensity of global technological change and the consequential, but often under-appreciated, financial crime risks.

Australia: two years of the National Anti-Corruption Commission: quiet or quietly active?

On 1 July 2025, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) marked its two-year anniversary by publishing a reflection on the period. The NACC was established by the National Anti‑Corruption Commission Act 2022 (Cth)with the mandate to investigate and report on serious or systemic corruption in the Commonwealth public sector, refer evidence of criminal corrupt conduct for prosecution, and undertake education and prevention activities regarding corruption.

As outlined in the reflection, since commencing operations, NACC's operational activities have included:

• assessing over 4,500 referrals;
• issuing over 329 'Directions' or 'Notices to Produce';
• monitoring over 40 internal corruption investigations by public agencies;
• commencing more than 55 preliminary investigations and 40 substantive corruption investigations;
• conducting hearings in eight investigations, involving 43 witnesses; and
• securing 11 convictions, with a further three matters currently before the courts (as of 29 October 2025).

Core recurring themes over the past two years include:

• the interface between government and its use of private consultants or contractors;
• favouritism in awarding government contracts and supplier relationships;
• nepotism and cronyism; and
• recruitment.

In its reflection, the NACC conveys that it is not unusual for its work to be occurring out of the public gaze. It notes that other anti-corruption commissions rarely hold public hearings and draws attention to the comparable approach of Victoria's IBAC and South Australia's ICAC (while noting that New South Wales' ICAC can hold public hearings in certain circumstances). While there is no indication of future reform to its approach, it seeks to assure that "behind the scenes...the Commission has been very busy".

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.