On April 22, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil enforcement action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against an individual and several related parties, alleging a large-scale international securities fraud scheme involving crypto and Forex trading.  The SEC’s complaint details a multi-faceted operation that allegedly misappropriated over $57 million from investors through the offer and sale of unregistered securities, while operating what the SEC characterizes as a Ponzi-like scheme.

On March 28, 2025, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) Division of Market Oversight (“DMO”) and Division of Clearing and Risk (“DCR”) withdrew Staff Advisory No. 18-14, Advisory with respect to Virtual Currency Derivative Product Listings (“Advisory”) effective immediately.  CFTC Advisory Letter, CFTCLTR No. 25-07 (March 27, 2025). 

On April 2, 2025, the Department of Justice moved to dismiss with prejudice its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) case against two former executives of a technology solutions company (“Company”). The executives were accused of authorizing a $2 million bribe to an Indian official in 2014. The district court dismissed the matter with prejudice on Thursday, April 3, 2025.

On April 1, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint three individuals for allegedly defrauding investors in a $284 million municipal bond offering intended to finance a sports complex and family entertainment center in Mesa, Arizona (“Facility”).  SEC v. Randall J. Miller, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01234 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 1, 2025).

On March 26, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that a California-headquartered healthcare provider, Seoul Medical Group Inc. (“Seoul Medical”), its former president and majority owner, and a Seoul Medical subsidiary were ordered to pay over $62 million for violating the False Claims Act.  According to the DOJ, Seoul Medical allegedly submitted false diagnosis codes to increase payments from the Medicare Advantage Program.  A radiology group that also worked with Seoul Medical agreed to pay $2,350,000 for allegedly conspiring with Seoul Medical.

In an opinion that may complicate the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) efforts to enforce the False Claims Act (“FCA”), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in a unanimous opinion on February 18, 2025 that the DOJ must show that illicit kickbacks were the “but-for” cause that led medical providers to submit claims for reimbursement to federal health care programs.  United States v. Regeneron Pharms., Inc., No. 23-2086, slip op. (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2025).  

On February 27, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued a statement to provide clarity on the application of federal securities laws to crypto assets by declaring that “meme coins” do not fall under the definition of the term “security.”

On Monday, February 24, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”), in conjunction with the FBI, announced that a Seychelles-based cryptocurrency exchange (“the Exchange”) pled guilty to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business.  The Exchange agreed to pay over $504 million for violating U.S. anti-money laundering laws and facilitating over $5 billion in suspicious transactions.

On March 4, 2025, one day before a trial against former tech executives for alleged foreign bribery charges was set to commence, the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey requested 180-day adjournment.  The United States Attorney sought the adjournment to allow time to consider the application of President Trump’s executive order (“Executive Order”) related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), noting that he only assumed the position of US Attorney on March 3, 2025.

One day after her confirmation on February 4, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued two Memos addressed to the entire Department of Justice (DOJ), which curtailed enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) in favor of prosecution against Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs).  This shift in priorities comes in response to President Trump’s Executive Order on January 20, 2025, which Attorney General Bondi described as a directive that the federal government “revise existing national security and counter-narcotics strategies to pursue total elimination” of Cartels and TCOs.

On January 27, 2025, one of the largest global cryptocurrency exchange platforms (the “Exchange”) pled guilty to one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and agreed to pay $297 million in connection with a grand jury indictment (the “Indictment”) brought by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the Southern District of New York in March 2024. 

On January 8, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a stipulation and consent agreement between its Office of Enforcement and an energy company (the “Company”) to resolve a dispute pending since 2016 concerning allegations of market manipulation in violation of Section 4A of the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”). 

On January 16, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a settled enforcement action against a pair of related investment advisers (the “Investment Adviser”) for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties by failing to reasonably address known vulnerabilities in their investment models, and also for allegedly taking steps to impede employees from serving as whistleblowers in violation of SEC Rule 21F-17. 

On January 13, 2025, one week before Chair Gary Gensler is expected to step down as Chair, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced settlements with twelve additional regulated entities for alleged recordkeeping failures related to off-channel communications. 

On December 12, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a litigated complaint (the “Complaint”) in United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against a hedge fund manager (the “Firm”) registered with the SEC as an investment adviser alleging that the Firm violated Section 204A and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) by failing to maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material non-public information (“MNPI”), particularly as to a consultant the Firm utilized who allegedly acted upon both the public and private side of the Firm’s information barriers in connection with information received from creditors’ committees. SEC v. Silverpoint Capital L.P., 24-cv-2018 (D. Conn.). 

On December 11, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a 9-8 en banc decision, vacated NASDAQ’s Board Diversity Rules (the “Rules”) in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC, finding that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) exceeded its authority under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) when it approved the Rules.

On December 13, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Virginia and the District of Massachusetts, along with the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Consumer Protection Branch (collectively, “the United States”) filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia with a global consulting firm (“Consulting Firm”) to settle charges that it conspired with a pharmaceutical company (“Pharmaceutical Company”) to aid and abet the misbranding of prescription drugs and knowingly destroyed and concealed records and documents to impede and obstruct the investigation.  United States v. McKinsey & Co., Inc. United States, No. 1:24-cr-00046, Doc. 2 at 6 (W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2024).  A corresponding civil case, United States v. McKinsey & Co., Inc. United States, No. 1:24-cv-00063, Doc. 2 (W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2024), was settled the same day.  The Consulting Firm agreed to pay $650 million to resolve the criminal and civil investigation.  A former Consulting Firm senior partner also separately pled guilty to a charge of knowingly destroying and concealing records and documents to impede and obstruct the investigation.

On December 5, 2024, the Divisions of Clearing and Risk, Data, Market Oversight, and Market Participants of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) issued an advisory on the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in CFTC-regulated markets by registered entities and registrants (“Guidance”). The Guidance anticipates areas wherein CFTC-regulated entities may deploy AI to perform regulated activities and fulfill regulatory requirements. It then reminds the audience of the statutory and regulatory requirements that may be implicated as a result.

On November 26, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) exceeded its authority by adding an entity that pools and anonymizes crypto transactions to OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list (“SDN list”).  Van Loon, et al. v. Dep’t of Treasury, et al., No. 23-50669, — F.4th — (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024). 

On November 22, 2024, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the Financial Institution Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) from expelling a member firm without Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) review.  Alpine Securities v. FINRA, No. 23-5129, ECF Doc. No. 2086156 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 22, 2024).  

On November 12, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) awarded nearly $4 million to two whistleblowers who provided information leading to a successful enforcement action. In awarding the sum, the CFTC considered the timeliness of the disclosures, ultimately granting a larger sum to the whistleblower who reported first and a lesser sum to the second whistleblower. In re of Claims for Award by [Redacted], CFTC Whistleblower Award Determination No. 25-WB-01 (Nov. 8, 2024). 

On October 22, 2024, the SEC announced that it had entered into settlements with four separate companies for making allegedly misleading disclosures about how they were impacted by the SolarWinds data breach in 2019. The SEC’s approach to the SolarWinds data breach has already been recognized as very aggressive, and these actions, which elicited a pointed dissent from two Commissioners, will only further the debate. The companies at issue were each charged with violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and certain rules thereunder, and, without admitting or denying liability, agreed to pay civil monetary penalties ranging from $990,000 to $4 million.

On October 2, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the former chief executive officer of a carbon credit project developer. The CFTC complaint alleges that the CEO, from approximately 2019 to December 2023, reported false and misleading information to at least one carbon credit registry and to third-party reviewers, presenting a misleading impression of the quality of emissions-reduction projects to obtain carbon credits above what the company was entitled to receive, and sold them to others.

On October 10, 2024, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint in Illinois federal district court, alleging that diversified trading firm (“Company”) has operated as an unregistered securities dealer by buying and selling more than $2 billion worth of crypto assets. SEC v. Cumberland DRW LLC, 24-cv-9842 (N.D. Ill. 2024). 

On October 8, 2024, a crypto exchange (the “Exchange”) sued the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Chair of the SEC Gary Gensler, and four SEC Commissioners, challenging the SEC’s jurisdiction over the secondary sale of network tokens, a type of digital asset, on the crypto platform. Foris DAX Inc. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Case No. 6:24-cv-00373 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2024). Essentially, the Exchange is challenging the SEC’s jurisdiction to regulate the cryptocurrency industry. The Exchange, as a secondary-market purchaser, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to estop the SEC from “expanding its jurisdiction” to reach the sale of network tokens on the platform.

A groundbreaking decision out of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, if affirmed and adopted by higher courts, could impact the ability of private citizens to file suit against those attempting to defraud the United States Government (the “Government”). On September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), holding that the FCA’s qui tam provision is unconstitutional. U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024). 

On September 30, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a settled enforcement action against a former director of a public company (the “Company”) over claims that the director had failed to disclose his close personal friendship with a senior executive at the Company, leading to alleged misstatements in the Company’s proxy materials identifying him as an independent director from 2019 to 2023. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Craigie, Docket No. 1-24-cv-07382 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2024). Without admitting or denying the allegations, the former director agreed to settle the claims which impose a five-year bar on him serving as an officer or director of a public company and require him to pay a civil penalty of $175,000. The Court approved this settlement on October 1, 2024.

In September 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “the Commission”) resolved three separate actions against corporate entities for reaching agreements with employees, potential employees, and clients that, according to the SEC, impeded an individual’s ability to report violations of the securities laws to the Commission in violation of Rule 21F-17(a) (the “Rule”). This trio of resolutions is the latest in a series of actions focused on protecting whistleblowers and follows the SEC’s first-ever application of the Rule in January 2024 to an agreement reached with a customer or client,[1] rather than an employee, and the first-ever enforcement action by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) for alleged violations of its similar whistleblower rules. See CFTC Resolves First Action for Impeding Whistleblowers Over Objections of Two Commissioners.

On September 26, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “the Commission”) charged a sports-betting company (the “Company”) with violating Regulation Fair Disclosure (“Reg FD”) by disclosing material, nonpublic information to investors via posts to the Company’s CEO’s social media accounts without simultaneously disclosing that same information to all investors via a press release or Form 8-K. The Company agreed to pay a $200,000 civil penalty to settle the SEC’s charges without admitting or denying the allegations.

While 2023 saw a slight increase in the number of FCPA enforcement actions from 2022, there was a marked decline in total penalties from the prior year. Last year, the DOJ and the SEC resolved a total of 14 corporate enforcement actions under the FCPA—four more than 2022—but yielded total penalties of approximately $571 million, as compared to $1.68 billion in 2022. As in previous years, the geographic reach was generally diverse, with corporate enforcement actions targeting activity in Latin and Central America, Asia, and Africa.

On August 27, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued an order filing and simultaneously settling charges against a Swiss energy trader (the “Company”), for allegedly attempting to manipulate the European gasoline market in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and CFTC regulations. The order imposes a $48 million civil monetary penalty against the Company, which the CFTC claimed improperly sold gasoline at below-market prices to benefit certain short positions it held in gasoline-linked futures contracts.

On September 4, 2024, Judge John Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed on jurisdictional grounds the first post-Jarkesy constitutional challenge to FINRA’s disciplinary proceedings in Blankenship v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

On August 7, 2024, a digital asset infrastructure company (the “Company”) was ordered to pay a $125 million civil penalty for its failure to register institutional sales of its XRP token with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).  SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., 20-cv-10832-AT (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2024).

On August 1, 2024, the Department of Justice issued guidance outlining its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which offers financial incentives to whistleblowers who bring original and truthful information regarding corporate criminal conduct to the attention of the Department. This pilot program, which was previewed in March and is described in the Department’s Program Guidance, resembles other enforcement agencies’ whistleblower rewards programs, such as that of the Securities Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) is now facing a second litigation challenging the constitutionality of its use of disciplinary tribunals to impose sanctions on FINRA members. A broker filed a complaint in federal court in Pennsylvania on the heels of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S.Ct. 2117 (2024). The case, Blankenship v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Docket No. 2:24-cv-03003 (E.D. Pa. Jul 10, 2024), seeks both preliminary and permanent injunctions to halt disciplinary proceedings brought against him by FINRA’s Department of Enforcement. FINRA had previously charged the broker with allegedly engaging in unsuitable mutual fund trading practices including, among other things, recommending short-term holds for Class A mutual funds designed to be long-term investments which allegedly resulted in unnecessary charges to customers and excess commissions to the broker.

On July 18, 2024, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a comprehensive 107-page opinion that may have significant implications for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) enforcement strategy for alleged disclosure and accounting and disclosure controls violations by public companies and their executives. In particular, the decision may affect the Enforcement Division’s efforts to extend the application of existing requirements for public companies to maintain a system of internal controls over financial reporting to cover situations that are not directly related to financial reporting or accounting matters. 

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6-3 ruling, held that when the Securities Exchange Commission seeks civil monetary penalties from defendants for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment gives such defendants a right to demand a jury trial, making it unconstitutional to force them into an administrative proceeding administered by one of the SEC’s own Administrative Law Judges. While the Court did not invalidate the use of administrative proceedings for other rule violations, it is clear that this decision will have an impact far beyond the SEC. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. SEC v. Jarkesy, et al., No. 22-859, 603 U.S. ____ (2024).

On June 26, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, held that 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) (“§ 666”) does not prohibit gratuities made to state or local government officials for past official acts. Rather, the Court clarified that § 666 only forbids state or local officials from accepting or agreeing to accept bribes (i.e., future payments for future official acts). Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. Snyder v. United States, No. 23- 108, 603 U.S.  ____  (2024).

On June 17, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “the Commission”) issued a groundbreaking order against an energy, metals, and minerals commodity trading company (the "Company”) registered in Singapore. The Order resolved three separate alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”) and related CFTC regulations, and resulted in fines totaling $55 million. While the resolution primarily focused on allegations that the Company misappropriated nonpublic information and manipulated the gasoline market, the Order also encompassed the Company’s alleged interference with whistleblowers through its use of nondisclosure clauses that did not explicitly exempt disclosures to regulators. This component of the resolution, which the CFTC announced as its “First Action Against an Entity for Impeding Whistleblower Communications,” was publicly criticized by two CFTC Commissioners who suggested the Enforcement Division had enlarged the scope of Regulation 165.19(b). 

On April 5, 2024, a jury in the Southern District of New York found cryptocurrency startup Terraform Labs PTE Ltd. (the “Company”) and its co-founder, Do Kwon, liable for securities fraud. The jury sided with the SEC in determining that the Company lied to investors about the stability of their digital assets to raise billions of dollars by selling digital securities, many of which were unregistered. The verdict was delivered following a two-week long trial, providing a significant win to the SEC in its campaign to regulate the cryptocurrency sector and continuing a split among judges related to how to evaluate whether a cryptocurrency is a security.

On April 5, 2024, a jury in the Northern District of California found that Matthew Panuwat had misappropriated his employer’s confidential information and committed insider trading. The closely followed case represented the SEC’s first action under the so-called “shadow trading” theory. The SEC alleged that Panuwat possessed material nonpublic information (“MNPI”) that his employer, Medivation, would soon be acquired by Pfizer. The SEC further alleged that this information influenced his decision to purchase call options in a Medivation competitor—Incyte Corporation—because Panuwat believed the announcement of the Medivation acquisition would increase the stock prices of competitors. Despite the almost certain appeal of this decision to the Ninth Circuit, this verdict could strengthen the SEC’s resolve to bring more claims under the shadow trading theory and leaves open questions concerning whether legal and compliance officers should revise their insider trading policies and procedures to account for this development.

On March 7, 2024, the Department of Justice announced a whistleblower rewards program intended to compensate individuals who assist the Department in discovering unknown significant corporate or financial misconduct with a portion of any resulting forfeiture. 

On February 28, 2024, the New York Attorney General filed suit against one of the world’s largest beef processing companies (the “Company”), alleging that the Company engaged in deceptive business practices and false advertising by misleading the public about its environmental impact. The People of the State of NY v. JBS USA Food Co., et al., (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Feb. 28, 2024). Of particular note, the complaint focuses not on statements by the Company about its current environmental impact, or presently measurable facts—instead, the complaint focuses on statements by the Company about its future plans and ambitions that the Attorney General claims were not realistic and not supportable. For instance, the complaint alleges that the Company claimed that it would reach “net zero” by 2040 when, in fact, it had not yet measured its emissions or made plans for how it would do so. While not the first “greenwashing” complaint to be brought, it could be one of the most significant, and could shape expectations for companies going forward.

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that whistleblower-plaintiffs need not prove that adverse employment actions were motivated by their employer’s retaliatory intent to obtain protection under the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”).  Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660 (Feb. 8, 2024).  This decision resolved a Circuit split and clarified the whistleblower’s burden under SOX is to prove that the protected activity was merely a contributing factor to the retaliatory act.

On November 21, 2023, the Cayman Islands registered cryptocurrency exchange, Binance Holdings Limited (the “Company”), pled guilty to criminal violations related to allegedly failing to register as a money transmitting business (“MTB”), failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program, and violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).  In connection with its plea agreement with the Department of Justice, the Company agreed to pay $4.3 billion in penalty, including $1.8 billion as a criminal fine and $2.5 billion in disgorgement.  The Company’s founder also pled guilty to similar AML violations and agreed to resign as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.

On November 14, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settled enforcement action against Charter Communications, Inc. (“Company”) imposing a $25 million civil penalty over allegations that the Company had used stock buyback plans that did not comport with Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The SEC claimed that the Company’s stock buyback plans did not comport with Rule 10b5-1 because the plans contained provisions that allowed the Company to change the total dollar amounts available to buy back stock and the timing of buybacks after the plans took effect; and while Rule 10b5-1 is a safe harbor rather than a standard that must be met, the SEC alleged that the use of buyback plans that did not meet the Rule 10b5-1 standard evidenced insufficient accounting controls in violation of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.

On October 30, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed claims against a software company (the “Company”) and its Chief Information Security Officer for alleged fraud and internal control failures relating to known cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities.  SEC v. SolarWinds Corp., et al., No. 23-cv-9518 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2023).  The SEC’s complaint alleges that the Company made misleading omissions, in connection with its disclosure in December 2020, that it had suffered a cyberattack that compromised its customers’ information.

On October 17, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Division of Enforcement released an advisory instruction to CFTC staff for future enforcement actions.  The advisory provided guidance on the following:  (i) whether proposed civil monetary penalties are sufficient; (ii) circumstances when the imposition of a corporate compliance monitor is appropriate; (iii) what duties and responsibilities of monitors should be; and (iv) whether admissions should be recommended in a particular enforcement action.  While the guidance leaves ample room for interpretation and development over time, the unambiguous thrust is to send a message that the CFTC is seeking to increase the severity of sanctions, both in terms of the size of monetary penalties and associated undertakings, continuing a trend that the CFTC has been pushing for several years.

On September 13, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought a settled enforcement action against Stoner Cats 2 LLC for raising approximately $8 million through an unregistered offering of Non-Fungible Tokens (“NFTs”) that the SEC alleged were securities.  This action is another example of the SEC alleging that crypto assets were securities based on the specific manner in which they were offered.

On September 11, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced settled enforcement actions against nine separate investment advisory firms for alleged marketing rule violations, assessing a total of $850,000 in combined penalties.  In each case, the SEC alleged that the firms improperly provided hypothetical performance information on their firm websites without following the requirements of the marketing rule.