On March 9, 2026, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Reinforcement Act was introduced by a coalition of 14 Senate Democrats, spearheaded by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Dick Durbin. This proposed legislation seeks to double the statute of limitations for criminal bribery violations under the FCPA from five to ten years.[1] If passed, the legislation would allow prosecution of current conduct for up to a decade, signaling to companies that they should continue to review anti-corruption compliance programs and conduct timely investigations of any potential misconduct, regardless of perceived shifts in enforcement priorities.
The FCPA Reinforcement Act is not merely an extension of the statute of limitations—it is a clear warning to the private sector that the FCPA remains fully in force, and that misconduct will continue to be investigated and prosecuted in the years ahead, regardless of where enforcement focus may lie in the short term.
Notably, the bill includes an eight-year sunset clause. Unless renewed, the statute of limitations for criminal FCPA bribery violations would revert to the traditional five years at the end of that 8-year period. This structure is deliberate: it effectively grants two future administrations the ability to pursue offenses that occur during the current administration, underscoring that the legal risks associated with foreign bribery are long-term and cannot be avoided simply because enforcement priorities shift.
For Democrats, the bill also serves as a political marker—signaling that any future Democratic administration would likely place renewed emphasis on foreign bribery enforcement. And, even if immediate passage is unlikely in a divided Congress, the bill reinforces that transnational anti-corruption enforcement is not fading.
Why This Matters Now: Implications for Compliance Programs
Despite any perceived “pause” in FCPA enforcement, the message from these legislative efforts is clear: companies that scale back anti-corruption compliance efforts in the short-term may face significant consequences in the medium- and long-term.
The bill’s sponsors argue that a narrower enforcement posture has had unintended consequences for US companies operating overseas by weakening their ability to resist bribe demands. By extending the statute of limitations and publicly reaffirming the FCPA’s force, the legislation aims to preserve the law’s deterrent effect, signaling that bribery will be investigated and prosecuted, even if the current administration’s enforcement priorities have shifted. It is also worth noting that even without the proposed legislation, the statute of limitations for FCPA offenses often stretches beyond the baseline five-year period. This occurs, for example, when prosecutors identify a subsequent overt act in furtherance of conspiracy, or when companies enter tolling agreements with the DOJ or SEC—mechanisms that already allow enforcement agencies to pursue older conduct.
Against this backdrop, companies should consider approaching the FCPA in a manner consistent with historical interpretations and practices, notwithstanding perceived or actual shifts in enforcement priorities across different administrations. In evaluating their compliance posture, companies may consider a range of elements, including those referenced in the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, such as:
- Maintaining and periodically reviewing anti-corruption compliance policies and procedures to support their effectiveness in preventing, identifying, and responding to potential misconduct.
- Having clear and accessible reporting mechanisms for suspected misconduct, including training and confidential or anonymous channels.
- Conducting timely, proportionate preliminary inquiries into suspected corruption-related misconduct.
- Preserving and collecting documents and information that may become relevant to future government inquiries or internal reviews.
- Continuing to invest in proactive and risk-based compliance efforts, including evaluating how emerging technologies like artificial intelligence may assist with due diligence, monitoring, testing, and investigations.
- Reinforcing corporate values and expectations of ethical conduct through clear, consistent communication across the organization.
Ultimately, independent of the FCPA Reinforcement Bill’s prospects, the potential for extended timelines in foreign bribery enforcement highlights the value of sustaining vigilance in managing corruption risk.
[1] Even if the bill passes, most civil SEC FCPA cases will remain subject to a five‑year statute of limitations, with a ten‑year period applying to scienter‑based disgorgement (and other equitable relief) under the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. The SEC may seek disgorgement subject to a ten‑year limitations period. However, the practical significance of that change for the SEC is more limited, because most SEC FCPA enforcement actions primarily seek civil penalties rather than disgorgement. By comparison, the proposed expansion of the criminal statute of limitations would have far greater impact, materially extending DOJ’s ability to pursue long‑tail bribery conduct and increasing exposure for current conduct well into the future.
