On 30 April 2025, K2 Integrity, Dentons, and PLG (Potomac Law) sponsored a webinar focused on the impact of the halt on FCPA and FEPA enforcement by the Trump administration and what it means for the Middle East in terms of investigations and regulatory impact. The panel included Ghazanfar Shah, head of the Investigations and Disputes practice in the Middle East at K2 Integrity; Zeena Saleh, partner at Dentons; and Daanish Hamid, partner at PLG. It was moderated by William Da Costa, director in the Investigations and Disputes practice at K2 Integrity. Click here to view a recording of the session.
The enactment of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) in early 2024, and the subsequent executive pause on enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 2025, have significantly reshaped the global anti-bribery and corruption enforcement landscape. Nowhere is this shift more consequential than in the Middle East—a region experiencing intense foreign investment, large-scale infrastructure developments, and growing regulatory maturity. While the U.S. pause on FCPA enforcement creates uncertainty, other jurisdictions, such as the U.K. and local Middle Eastern authorities, are moving to fill the enforcement gap.
FCPA and FEPA: Two Sides of the Anti-Corruption Equation
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA) both aim to combat international bribery but focus on opposite ends of the transaction:
- FCPA: Enacted in the 1970s, it targets the supply side of bribery by criminalizing the offering or paying of bribes by U.S. individuals and entities to foreign government officials.
- FEPA: Enacted in 2024, it targets the demand side, criminalizing the solicitation or acceptance of bribes from U.S.-linked persons and companies by foreign officials.
Previously, there was no clear statutory authority to prosecute foreign officials who solicited bribes from U.S. companies—enforcement relied on anti-money laundering statutes, which were often difficult to apply due to jurisdictional constraints. FEPA closes this long-standing gap in U.S. law.
Impact of the FCPA Pause
In February 2025, President Trump signed an executive order suspending Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement of the FCPA for 180 days. The pause allows time for new enforcement guidelines that promote American competitiveness and efficient use of federal resources. The order also permits a further 180-day extension, injecting significant uncertainty into global compliance expectations.
Key impacts of the pause:
- Delayed or dropped cases: Some prosecutions, such as those against Cognizant executives and Stericycle, have been dismissed or deferred. Others, like monitorships (e.g., Glencore), have ended early.
- Muted DOJ activity: Several legal teams report delays in responses and movement on active cases, with companies attempting to settle under the current discretionary framework.
- Statute of limitations risk: The FCPA remains federal law with a five- to eight-year statute of limitations. This means companies may still face enforcement down the line for actions taken during the pause.
While enforcement is on hold, the law remains active, and prosecutorial discretion creates a risk environment where inaction or weak compliance programs may prove costly in the long term.
A Shifting Global Enforcement Environment
United States
While FCPA enforcement is paused, FEPA remains untouched—and may see increased use. FEPA provides U.S. prosecutors a new mechanism to target foreign officials who solicit bribes, especially in countries where demand-side corruption has historically been under addressed. Additionally, state-level enforcement (e.g., California’s Unfair Competition Law) may fill gaps left by federal inactivity.
United Kingdom and European Alignment
The UK Bribery Act continues to be enforced, with its extensive extraterritorial reach allowing for prosecution of non-UK entities that maintain a U.K. nexus. The Serious Fraud Office, under new leadership, has emphasized its intent to pursue high-profile, international cases.
In a notable development, enforcement agencies from the U.K., France, and Switzerland launched the International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce in early 2025. This coalition seeks to:
- Exchange case strategies and operational insights
- Coordinate cross-border investigations
- Enhance prosecutorial collaboration across jurisdictions
While not explicitly created in response to the FCPA pause, the establishment of the taskforce reflects a broader global desire to maintain momentum in anti-corruption enforcement.
Middle East
The Middle East presents a dual enforcement scenario: one focused on inbound multinational compliance and another led by increasingly assertive local regulators. Highlights include:
- Saudi Arabia: The Nazaha anti-corruption authority has investigated and arrested thousands since 2021. A new anti-corruption law targeting civil servants took effect in late 2024.
- UAE: Regulatory bodies such as the DFSA and ADGM are now issuing formal internal investigation guidance and encouraging prompt self-reporting.
- Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon: Prosecutions and arrests of high-profile officials continue, demonstrating broader regional commitment to tackling bribery.
This maturation of local enforcement, combined with ongoing international scrutiny, reinforces the need for robust regional compliance strategies.
Strategic Recommendations for Multinational Companies
Despite the FCPA enforcement pause, the global risk environment is intensifying. Businesses operating in or with ties to the Middle East should consider the following actions:
- Strengthen internal investigations and controls: Ensure internal processes for detecting, investigating, and responding to bribery allegations are rigorous and documented. Companies should preserve evidence, engage legal counsel early, and assess exposure before regulators come calling.
- Reassess the organization’s voluntary disclosure strategy: Increased ambiguity around FCPA enforcement may discourage self-reporting to U.S. authorities. Companies may shift toward internal resolution strategies; however, this must be weighed against long-term enforcement risk once guidance is issued.
- Monitor FEPA and state-level enforcement: As DOJ priorities shift, FEPA may become a preferred tool—especially in cases involving corrupt foreign officials. Meanwhile, states like California may use state laws to pursue their own enforcement agendas.
- Understand regional regulatory trends: Middle Eastern countries are no longer passive recipients of foreign compliance standards. They are building and enforcing their own. Companies must navigate both U.S. extraterritorial laws and increasingly robust local frameworks.
- Engage expert advisors: In complex cases involving cross-border risk, legal privilege, and data preservation, reliance on multidisciplinary teams—legal counsel, forensic investigators, and local specialists—is crucial to compliance success.
Conclusion
The 180-day FCPA enforcement pause does not signal the end of anti-corruption enforcement. Rather, it represents a shift in power and priorities. Enforcement is not only expected to continue but to grow through European prosecutors forming cross-border alliances, and Middle Eastern regulators becoming more assertive.
Companies must remain proactive as the cost of complacency is steep. A dynamic, uncertain enforcement environment demands that companies protect their reputations and future operations by doubling down on ethics, transparency, and sound internal governance—regardless of any temporary policy suspensions.