Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

On June 17, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Robert Bosch GmbH (Bosch), a German-based technology firm, received the first <a href="https://www.justice.gov/d9/2026-06/bosch_-_executed_declination.pdf">criminal declination</a> under DOJ’s recent Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (the Policy), issued in March 2026. The <a href="https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1430731/dl?inline">Policy</a> applies to corporate criminal matters and outlines factors that DOJ will consider in declining corporate prosecution entirely or entering into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with more favorable terms than DOJ would historically consider. Those factors include:

core/paragraph

Whether the company voluntarily disclosed the misconduct to the appropriate DOJ criminal component (i.e., division);

core/list-item

core/list

Whether the company fully cooperated with DOJ’s investigation;

Whether the company timely and appropriately remediated the misconduct; and

Whether there are aggravating circumstances involved in the misconduct (e.g., a history of criminal misconduct, egregious and pervasive misconduct, or severe harm).

Note that the Policy applies to corporate prosecutions and does not apply to prosecutions of individuals, which have been a DOJ enforcement priority under several government policies and memoranda for over a decade.

As outlined in a <a href="https://www.bis.gov/media/documents/robert-bosch-gmbh-final-order-6-16-2026.pdf">parallel administrative settlement</a> with the Department of Commerce (DOC), DOJ alleged that over a four-year period between September 2020 and September 2024, Bosch — without a license — exported over $70 million worth of sensor products and automotive software to Huawei Technologies and certain of its non-U.S. affiliates that were listed on DOC’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Entity List and subject to restrictions under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). DOC noted that while Bosch had established export compliance processes, the company’s team “did not have sufficient expertise or resources” to adequately address August 2020 changes to the EAR; specifically, the Foreign-Direct Product Rule that concerns items produced in plants outside the U.S. “when the plant or major component of a plant . . . itself is a direct product of U.S.-origin ‘technology’ or ‘software’ subject to the EAR . . . .”

DOJ identified the following factors in declining to criminally prosecute Bosch for its export control violations:

Bosch discovered the violations, “conducted an internal investigation, voluntarily self-disclosed the matter to CES [DOJ’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section] and BIS while still conducting its internal investigation, and promptly and appropriately remediated.”

Bosch cooperated with DOJ “including [through] its disclosure of relevant facts about the conduct, the preservation, collection, and disclosure of relevant documents, and its prompt and voluntary responses to CES’s requests following Bosch’s voluntary disclosure”;

Bosch timely and appropriately remediated the issue, including by adding over 60 employees to its trade compliance team, expanding its U.S. trade compliance resources, and updating its internal policies and procedures to provide a clearer explanation of U.S. export controls”;

DOJ did not believe Bosch’s mistakes “rose to the level of acting willfully”;

DOJ believed that administrative remedies — specifically, BIS’s imposition of a $36 million civil penalty — were adequate to address the issue; and

Bosch agreed to disgorge over $11 million in pre-tax profits from the subject transactions.

DOJ clarified that its declination “does not provide any protection against prosecution of any individuals” and “if we learn information that changes our assessment of any of the factors outlined above, or disgorgement is not timely paid, we may reopen our investigation.”

Here’s what companies should take from DOJ’s declination:

Independent Internal Investigations Companies may believe that they know what led to noncompliance, but independent internal investigations—conducted by counsel who understand DOJ and its expectations—establish credibility and are a foundational element of any response to corporate misconduct.

Timeliness Matters The timeliness of a disclosure is measured from the date of discovery, not the date of investigation. Bosch voluntarily disclosed the export compliance issue before it completed its internal investigation. Notably, DOJ considered that point in allowing Bosch to complete its investigation and—based on the quality of the internal investigation—deciding not to investigate the matter further.

Showing Your Work Drawing on decades of experience working for and with DOJ, Warner attorneys know the importance of transparency in internal investigations. That does not mean waiving the attorney-client privilege, but it does involve a company showing its work and telling DOJ what it’s done and how and why it took those steps in its internal investigation. DOJ specifically noted, in Bosch’s case, that the company informed the government about the processes it followed to preserve, collect, and produce information.

Meaningful Remediation There are no shortcuts to persuading DOJ that a company has successfully remediated a problem. The “head and the hand” approach—firing responsible employees and offering money—is not enough. DOJ expects companies to understand root causes at a granular level through an internal investigation and to take holistic and meaningful action in response.

Parallel Remedies Criminal declinations are important because convictions often lead to downstream, business-threatening consequences like suspensions, debarments, and exclusions in addition to heightened government scrutiny. Still, criminal declinations are not a free pass and companies should expect to pay civil or administrative fines and penalties. In fact, DOJ made clear, in Bosch, that a company’s willingness to settle a matter civilly or administratively is a significant factor in declining criminal prosecution.

Warner attorneys have deep experience working for and with DOJ and conducting internal investigations in federal matters. We can help you effectively respond to compliance issues that may arise and can counsel you on your options, including whether it makes sense to seek a corporate criminal declination under DOJ’s Policy. Please contact Adam Townshend, Madelaine Lane, Alexia Jansen or your Warner attorney with any questions.

The First Chair: Defense and Compliance

Aerospace and Defense

Health Care

Partner

Adam B. Townshend

Madelaine C. Lane

Associate

Alexia A. “Alex” Jansen

Health Care Litigation

White Collar Criminal Defense

Lessons From DOJ’s First Criminal Declination Under Its New Corporate Enforcement Policy

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000.

Lessons From DOJ’s First Criminal Declination Under Its New Corporate Enforcement Policy

professionals