DOJ Announces First FCPA Corporate Resolution of Second Trump Administration

On November 10, 2025, the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced the first corporate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) resolution of the second Trump Administration. This resolution is notable because of the uncertainty around continued FCPA prosecution in light of the February 2025 Executive Order pausing the FCPA, as well as the unpausing of the FCPA and announcement of new FCPA prosecution guidelines.

Importantly, the DOJ emphasized links to narcotrafficking in this resolution, which is significant given the current Administration’s focus on combatting narcotics trafficking. Notably, however, DOJ did not allege that employees at the company at issue, TIGO Guatemala, knew that the bribe proceeds were connected to narcotics trafficking. This suggests that even a tangential connection to narcotics trafficking will be scrutinized by the Administration. 

Specifically, Comunicaciones Celulares S.A., doing business as TIGO Guatemala (the “Company” or “Comcel”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Millicom International Cellular, S.A., paid over $118 million to resolve an investigation into a long-running scheme to bribe Guatemalan government officials, resulting in a two-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) and substantial compliance commitments. The criminal resolution includes a $60 million criminal penalty and $58.2 million in administrative forfeiture. The resolution reflects a 50% reduction from the bottom of the applicable guidelines range due to the Company’s significant cooperation and remediation during DOJ’s investigation, which is consistent with the DOJ’s new voluntary self-disclosure policy.  

Background

According to criminal information filed in the Southern District of Florida, from 2012 to 2018, TIGO Guatemala participated in widespread and systematic bribery scheme orchestrated by its then-Guatemalan shareholder and other then-senior personnel. The conduct involved monthly cash bribes to numerous members of Congress or their security teams to secure support for, in part, legislation benefitting the Company. Some funds used to pay these bribes were laundered narcotrafficking proceeds, elevating the seriousness of the conduct and the DOJ’s response. As a result, the DOJ charged TIGO Guatemala with one count of conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.

Investigation Trajectory and DOJ’s Charging Considerations

In 2015, Millicom made an initial voluntary and timely self-disclosure, which DOJ credited as significant. DOJ, however, closed its first phase of the investigation in 2018 after TIGO Guatemala’s then-Guatemalan shareholder allegedly used operational control to block Millicom’s access to critical information to prevent cooperation and remediation by TIGO Guatemala personnel. In 2020, DOJ developed new evidence from sources other than TIGO Guatemala and Millicom and reopened the investigation, determining that misconduct had continued during and after the first phase of the investigation, and had involved narcotrafficking proceeds.

Cooperation and Remediation Driving the Outcome

Despite the DOJ’s determination that TIGO Guatemala did not qualify for a resolution under Part I or II or the Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy because of the continued misconduct after the first phase of the investigation, the DOJ credited TIGO Guatemala for affirmative acceptance of responsibility and substantial cooperation in the reopened phase. This included Millicom’s self-reporting, extensive internal fact development, forensic collections across jurisdictions, facilitation of US-based interviews of foreign employees, detailed factual presentations, and proactive disclosure of previously unknown evidence with Spanish translations.

Remediations post-2021, after Millicom obtained full ownership and control of TIGO Guatemala, were also significant. Remediation measures included a root cause analysis, comprehensive risk assessment, termination of culpable personnel, installation of new management and compliance leadership, strengthened third-party onboarding and transaction monitoring with centralized oversight, deployment of data analytics and automated continuous monitoring with periodic control testing on more than 250 transactions, and a new ephemeral messaging policy with preservation and analysis of such communications. Millicom also significantly expanded its global compliance program over the last 10 years, including an 800% increase in dedicated compliance headcount, continuous monitoring and testing, and direct reporting from TIGO Guatemala’s compliance function to Millicom. These steps supported the 50% penalty reduction and the two-year DPA term.

Alignment with DOJ’s Post-“Pause” FCPA Priorities

The outcome closely tracks with the DOJ’s recalibrated FCPA posture following the June 2025 guidelines and subsequent public guidance: a focus on cases that implicate US national interests, ties to narcotrafficking or transnational criminal organizations, and meaningful individual misconduct backed by strong indicia of corrupt intent. The DOJ’s approach also emphasizes limiting undue burdens on companies while pursuing conduct that directly undermines U.S. interests, and considering collateral consequences and foreign enforcement capacity—factors visible in the DOJ’s investigation of TIGO Guatemala.

Key Takeaways

• After a period of uncertainty, DOJ is once again prosecuting FCPA cases and entering into corporate resolutions. 
• The case underscores that voluntary self-disclosure is not a shield if misconduct continues or cooperation is impaired; DOJ will reassess and escalate where evidence shows ongoing violations or obstruction.
• Third-party governance and shareholder control risks are acute: operational control by a local partner that impedes access to information or undermines cooperation can negate the benefits of early disclosure and jeopardize favorable resolution.
• The use of narcotrafficking proceeds to fund bribes highlights the intersection of FCPA risks with money laundering exposure; robust financial controls and source-of-funds diligence are essential in cash-intensive or high-corruption environments.
• Despite significant aggravating factors, meaningful cooperation and remediation can yield material penalty reductions, but not a declination.