1. Investigation Scope and Government Response
International investigations proceed on a compressed timeline once the government opens an inquiry, making early internal investigation critical.
How Should a Company Define the Scope of an Internal Investigation?
Defining the scope of an internal investigation requires balancing the need to understand fully what occurred against the risk of expanding the investigation into areas regulators have not yet identified as concerns, and internal investigation services counsel must evaluate the specific allegations that triggered the review, identify the business units, geographies, and time periods most likely to contain relevant evidence, and establish a clear scope statement that can be presented to regulators as evidence of good faith and thoroughness.
How Should Companies Respond to Doj and Sec Investigation Requests?
When the Department of Justice or the Securities and Exchange Commission opens an investigation, the initial document requests set the tone for the entire relationship. SEC investigations counsel must evaluate whether the investigation is civil or criminal, negotiate document request scope, and manage company interactions to avoid inadvertent disclosures.
2. Cross-Border Data and Attorney-Client Privilege
International investigations create conflicts between gathering evidence for US regulators and data protection laws in the jurisdictions where the evidence is located.
How Are Gdpr and Data Privacy Laws Managed during Investigations?
The General Data Protection Regulation and similar laws restrict the transfer of personal data for investigative purposes, and data privacy counsel must evaluate whether transfers can be made under a GDPR-recognized mechanism, whether anonymization can reduce the volume of restricted data, and whether the applicable data protection authority has issued guidance on investigative transfers.
How Is Attorney-Client Privilege Protected Across Jurisdictions?
Attorney-client privilege protections vary significantly across jurisdictions, and a document clearly privileged under US law may not receive equivalent protection where the relevant subsidiary is located. White collar crime defense counsel must evaluate the privilege protections available in each relevant jurisdiction and structure document review protocols to maximize protection under the most favorable applicable privilege doctrine.
3. Employee Interviews and Digital Forensics
International investigations require employee interviews and digital forensic analysis that present distinct challenges across multiple legal systems.
How Should Upjohn Warnings Be Administered in Employee Interviews?
Before interviewing an employee, counsel must administer an Upjohn warning explaining that counsel represents the company, that the conversation is protected by the company's attorney-client privilege, and that the company may disclose the interview substance to authorities. Anti-corruption investigations counsel must also evaluate whether local law requires employees to have their own counsel present.
What Standards Apply to Digital Forensics in Cross-Border Cases?
Digital forensic evidence must be gathered, preserved, and analyzed using methods that satisfy the chain of custody requirements of each jurisdiction where the evidence may ultimately be used, and forensic accounting investigation counsel overseeing a cross-border forensic review must evaluate whether collection methods used in each jurisdiction produce evidence admissible in US proceedings.
4. Voluntary Disclosure and Settlement
International investigations involving FCPA violations or sanctions breaches typically conclude with a negotiated resolution, and voluntary disclosure decisions largely determine the eventual penalties.
How Should Companies Evaluate Whether to Voluntarily Self-Disclose?
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy and similar policies at the SEC, FinCEN, and OFAC provide significant credit to companies that voluntarily self-disclose violations and implement effective remediation before the investigation concludes. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act counsel must evaluate the strength of the government's existing evidence and whether potential penalty reductions outweigh the risk of disclosing conduct not yet identified.
When Should a Company Prioritize Remediation over Settlement?
A company that implements genuine remediation before concluding a settlement demonstrates a commitment to future compliance that influences the government's willingness to agree to reduced penalties and avoid requiring a corporate monitor. Corporate compliance counsel must evaluate which compliance program deficiencies are most material to the government's theory of liability and document remediation in sufficient detail for government verification.
08 Apr, 2026
