Executive Summary
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) recent Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) resolution with the Scoular Company signals heightened enforcement attention to cartel-linked conduct, even where a company has no direct knowledge of the cartel connection. Companies operating in Mexico and other high-risk jurisdictions should reassess third-party due diligence, sanctions screening, and off-channel communications policies in light of this resolution.
Background
On July 17, 2026, the DOJ announced a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the Scoular Company, an American agricultural supply chain company based in Omaha, for violating the FCPA. Scoular bribed Mexican border officials through its customs brokers to ensure that its shipments of corn and other products successfully made it across the border, regardless of whether the shipments passed inspection. Scoular knew that it was paying bribes, but did not know that a portion benefited a cartel operating at the U.S.-Mexico border. As part of the DPA, Scoular paid over $10 million in fines and forfeiture. One of its customs brokers, who paid the bribes, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Several facts indicate that the DOJ might not have brought this case if the payments had not benefited a cartel. First, this was a small FCPA case—the bribes were between $2,000 and $3,000 each, totaling $400,000, with profits totaling $6.5 million. Second, the conduct took place several years ago, ending in 2019. Finally, the DOJ’s FCPA Guidelines, issued in June 2025, signaled that the DOJ would focus its enforcement efforts on larger cases.
However, as this announcement illustrates, the current administration is focused on cartels and transnational criminal organizations and has spent the past 16 months incorporating this enforcement priority across the executive branch. From former Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s February 5, 2025, memo to the Treasury Department’s designations of individuals and companies affiliated with cartels, targeting these criminal organizations has become a whole-of-government priority.
These new enforcement priorities necessitate meaningful updates to corporate compliance programs for organizations operating in high-risk jurisdictions. Below are four key takeaways for companies to consider in light of the Scoular resolution.
1. Review Your Business for Cartel Connections
Cartels have embedded themselves throughout the economies of Mexico and other Latin American countries. Mexico has always been considered a high-risk country for corruption, but the DOJ’s renewed focus on cartel activity increases its risk profile. Companies with operations in Mexico (or elsewhere in Latin America) should make cartel connections a primary consideration when analyzing their compliance programs.
The cartels’ traditional illegal activities such as selling drugs, collecting “tolls,” stealing merchandise and vehicles, and extorting protection payments are still prevalent. As the DOJ noted in its press release, “[n]othing crosses into or out of Mexico without the approval and payment to Mexican drug cartels. American businesses that engage in any cross-border trade bear a significant amount of responsibility to do so without benefiting those cartels and without threatening our national security.”
Beyond this, cartels have integrated their operations into the wider economy. For instance, cartels have infiltrated local and state governments through donations, allowing them to effectively control regulatory licenses and permits to operate in certain areas. Cartels also operate in traditional commerce through companies, requiring firms to conduct due diligence on counterparties.
Cartels are also prevalent in infrastructure industries such as construction, fuel, labor, and building materials, and we expect cartel-related investigations to focus on construction related to the AI data centers boom. Specifically, we expect cartel risk to increase with the surge in new data centers, which require not only land acquisition, construction, and security, but also government interaction for permits, power, and water rights. Companies often rely on third-party intermediaries for many facets of these projects, which further exposes them to books and records issues, such as recording bribes as “reinspection fees,” as Scoular did.
The DOJ has made clear that it views any cartel connections, even minimal links of which the company is unaware, as a factor in bringing FCPA charges. In light of this resolution, companies should closely review their compliance programs and internal controls to ensure they are effectively managing their anti-corruption risk. Companies doing business in jurisdictions with known cartel activity are exposed to heightened FCPA risk in ways the DOJ had not previously emphasized. While early assessments about the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement priority against cartels were speculative, recent DOJ cases, including United States v. Rovirosa and United States v. Tigo Guatemala, demonstrate an emerging pattern in which any cartel connection could be considered sufficient to warrant an investigation.
2. Conducting Due Diligence on Third Parties Is Not Enough—Monitoring Is Also Required
In the Scoular matter, the bribes were between $2,000 and $3,000 each and were invoiced back to the company for reimbursement as legitimate fees, regardless of whether a payment was necessary to import a specific shipment to Mexico. As part of the scheme, a third-party corporate entity was involved so that Scoular would not be directly invoiced for bribes.
Engaging third-party vendors carries inherent risk, and potential cartel connections heighten the need for additional payment review and strong compliance-based contract provisions to ensure vendor compliance with the law.
3. Consider Your Sanctions Risk
Had the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated the cartel at issue—as it has done with numerous cartels recently—Scoular could also have incurred sanctions liability. U.S. companies can face civil liability for OFAC sanctions violations on a strict liability basis. Accordingly, a payment to a sanctioned cartel could trigger OFAC liability even if the payor was unaware of the recipient’s cartel connection.
Thus, companies must also analyze their cartel exposure risk from a sanctions perspective. Simply running a third party against OFAC’s designation lists is not enough. Rather, meaningful due diligence must also account for geography and functional cartel knowledge to properly assess risk.
4. Draft a Policy for Using Other Off-Channel Communications Platforms and Implement It
Scoular’s broker used encrypted messages on a third-party communication application to discuss the bribes with company employees to conceal the nature of the communications. While it is unclear whether these communications violated Scoular’s policies, the resolution signals that the DOJ will continue to scrutinize off-channel communications.
It is difficult to prohibit employees from using off-channel messaging applications entirely. However, companies should determine which platforms to approve and how messages will be preserved, then train employees on those platforms and their retention obligations.
The DOJ explained in its press release that these bribes were being paid “unbeknownst to the company or its employees.” If Scoular had better controls over its third-party communications, this conduct may have been detected years earlier.
Conclusion
For more information or guidance on these evolving DOJ and OFAC enforcement priorities, including establishing or bolstering your compliance program and internal controls, responding to a government investigation, or any related matter, please contact a member of Wilson Sonsini’s White Collar Crime, Government Investigations, and National Security and Trade practices.
