A robust FCPA compliance program is often seen as a safeguard for both companies and executives. Implement the right controls, train your staff, and document procedures, and exposure to risk should decrease.
However, Charles Hunter Hobson's recent conviction suggests this view is incomplete and potentially misleading.
The Misconception
The issue isn't that compliance programs are irrelevant. It's that compliance officers and executives have been misled into believing a single approach offers protection, which doesn't align with enforcement realities. The relationship between corporate outcomes and individual liability is not straightforward. It's separate and governed by different criteria.
In 2023, Corsa Coal received a declination with disgorgement, paying $1.2 million against an estimated $33 million in profits. The DOJ noted that demanding more would threaten the company's viability. This seemed like a win for compliance, validating cooperation and remediation.
Conversely, Hobson, Corsa's former vice president, was convicted on seven counts and faces a maximum sentence of 65 years. The DOJ prevented him from presenting Corsa's favorable resolution to the jury, arguing it was irrelevant to his conduct.
Same scheme. Same facts. Radically different outcomes.
If your compliance messaging suggests a strong program protects everyone equally, you're not preparing your leadership for the reality of enforcement.
Diverging Paths
The Hobson case illustrates how corporate and individual paths diverge during investigations.
The DOJ completed its FCPA enforcement review after the February 2025 executive order pause and proceeded with Hobson's prosecution. His defense sought a continuance, hoping the review might lead to dismissal, but the government opposed it. The jury deliberated for five hours before convicting on all counts.
What made this case "survivable" under a changed enforcement regime? Three factors stand out. First, both the intermediary and the foreign official were prosecuted by Egyptian authorities, showing the conduct wasn't acceptable even in the host country. Second, Hobson didn't just facilitate bribes; he took a cut, adding a kickback element that aggravated the charges. Third, the scheme disadvantaged other American companies competing for the same contracts.
Meanwhile, Frederick Cushmore Jr., another Corsa executive, pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge in 2021 and cooperated with authorities. His testimony at trial was damaging to Hobson's defense. Cushmore awaits sentencing, but his outcome will reflect early cooperation and credible testimony. The contrast between the two executives' choices will be stark.
This pattern repeats in FCPA enforcement history. Companies negotiate. Individuals who cooperate early fare better than those who go to trial. Those who go to trial face high conviction rates due to well-resourced prosecutions and compelling insider testimony.
Strategic Compliance
Stop treating compliance as a unified shield. Develop distinct risk mitigation strategies for the organization and individuals in high-exposure roles.
For the organization, your compliance program must address both FCPA and money laundering risks. The Hobson prosecution included two FCPA violations, conspiracy to violate the FCPA, money laundering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Money laundering charges extend the legal tail of bribery conduct. Internal controls focused on tracing and documentation for foreign transactions, especially commission payments through overseas accounts, are critical. You're not just preventing bribery; you're preventing secondary offenses prosecutable under multiple statutes.
For executives, the message must be explicit: the company's resolution doesn't protect individuals. The Hobson declination letter made this clear. If an investigation begins, executives need independent counsel immediately. Their interests and the company's interests may diverge, and in-house counsel represents the company alone.
Train your leadership team on the calculus of cooperation versus trial. The federal conviction rate in white-collar cases is high, especially with cooperating insiders, coded language, clear financial motive, and corroborating statements from the defendant. Going to trial creates a damning record for sentencing. Cooperating early and acknowledging wrongdoing produces measurably different outcomes.
Document your third-party due diligence, understanding that prosecutors will scrutinize whether bribery conduct was "business as usual" in the host country or whether local authorities also view it as criminal. The Egyptian prosecutions of the intermediary and foreign official in the Hobson case mattered to the DOJ's decision to proceed.
Recognize that harm to law-abiding domestic competitors is now a priority under current enforcement guidance. If your compliance risk assessments don't model competitive harm alongside traditional corruption metrics, you're missing a variable that influences prosecution decisions.
The Role of Compliance Programs
Compliance programs are not mere theater. A strong program still matters significantly.
Corsa's declination reflected cooperation and remediation. The company's favorable resolution, even if it didn't prevent eventual bankruptcy, demonstrated that the DOJ values self-disclosure, investigation support, and control improvements. Without that cooperation, Corsa's outcome would have been worse.
Compliance programs also prevent schemes from starting. The Hobson prosecution succeeded because of coded language, insider testimony, and clear financial trails. Effective monitoring, transaction controls, and whistleblower channels catch these patterns early, before they escalate into multi-count indictments.
For executives who don't engage in misconduct, a functioning compliance program provides genuine protection. The issue isn't whether compliance works. It's whether compliance officers are honest about what it protects and what it doesn't.
Your program won't save an executive who takes kickbacks, routes bribes through foreign accounts, and goes to trial. It will help the company negotiate a resolution. These are different outcomes, governed by different factors, and your messaging should reflect that reality.
This is only the 26th FCPA jury trial in the statute's history. The overwhelming norm remains negotiated resolutions. But when prosecutors investigate, they build cases through the lens of trial, not settlement. If your compliance function operates as though enforcement is primarily a corporate negotiation, you're preparing for the wrong scenario.
The Hobson verdict came after the FCPA pause, after two delay attempts, and after a nine-day trial. Compliance didn't die. But the illusion that it protects everyone equally should.
