The announcement signaled that the new U.S. Attorney David Metcalf plans to exercise a degree of traditional autonomy when setting the priorities of his Office. 

Earlier this month, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced the formation of its White-Collar Justice Program. The Program is intended to promote “self-agency and autonomy for prosecutors,” empowering them to take the Initiative to identify and investigate wrongdoing. The announcement identified three specific components of the Program: (i) the Corporate Transparency Initiative, (ii) the Whistleblower Awards Program and (iii) the Government Fraud Alliance.

The announcement signaled that the new U.S. Attorney David Metcalf plans to exercise a degree of traditional autonomy when setting the priorities of his Office. The autonomy that U.S. Attorneys have historically enjoyed is something that we spotlighted in our recent article concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Kousisis. As we noted, the existence of this traditional autonomy highlights the critical importance of consulting with competent, experienced white-collar counsel that has its finger on the pulse not only of Washington, D.C., but also of your local federal jurisdiction. Still, we expect this autonomy—and its corresponding focus on white-collar enforcement—to be exercised in a manner that is consistent with the Trump administration’s priorities. For example, the White-Collar Justice Program is likely to focus on redressing tangible economic harm to domestic victims (as opposed to foreign victims or more intangible harms) and instances of fraud against the government (such as pandemic relief fraud and healthcare fraud).

Corporate Transparency Initiative

The Corporate Transparency Initiative builds on the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s May 12, 2025, Memorandum entitled “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime.” See our previous Alert. The initiative is designed to “incentivize[] companies to voluntarily self-disclose potential criminal conduct” to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in exchange for cooperation benefits. For “qualifying disclosures,” these benefits may include:

• The Office declining to seek a criminal guilty plea against the disclosing entity for the offense conduct subject to the disclosure.
• The Office declining to impose a criminal penalty that is more than 50 percent below the low end of the fine range, as set by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, or in some cases, not seeking a criminal penalty at all.

Notably, to qualify as a “voluntary self-disclosure” under the initiative, the disclosure must be (i) voluntary, in that the company is not under a preexisting obligation to make the disclosure pursuant to regulation, contract or prior resolution; (ii) timely, in that the disclosure is made promptly after the company becomes aware of the misconduct and not because the misconduct will imminently be disclosed to the government anyway; and (iii) thorough, in that the disclosure “include[s] all relevant facts concerning the misconduct that are known to the company at the time of the disclosure.” The Initiative also makes clear that the disclosing entity has an ongoing obligation to fully cooperate after self-reporting and to take steps to remediate the misconduct, including agreeing to pay all disgorgement, forfeiture and/or restitution resulting from the misconduct at issue, where appropriate.

There are important limitations on qualifying for voluntary self-disclosure benefits, particularly where “aggravating factors” are present. The Initiative provides three “scenarios” to “illustrate type of situations that will ordinarily be disqualifying”:

1. The conduct in question posed or poses a grave threat to national security, public health or the environment;
2. The relevant conduct was so extensive throughout the company that it reasonably reflected an approved practice of the company; or
3. The current executive management of the company had direct involvement in the conduct in question.

Nevertheless, the initiative still promises “meaningful benefits” for companies that disclose misconduct where aggravating factors are arguably present—which it terms “second tier” disclosures. Specifically, while the U.S. Attorney’s Office will “ordinarily require a guilty plea” for second tier disclosures, it will still (i) recommend to a sentencing court a reduction off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range of at least 50 percent and up to 75 percent and (ii) not require appointment of a monitor if the company has, at the time of resolution, demonstrated that it has implemented and tested an effective compliance program.

Given the discretion inherent in this initiative, it is crucial for companies to retain capable white-collar counsel to advocate for the company in connection with any self-report.

Whistleblower Awards Program

The second plank of the White-Collar Justice Program is the office’s participation in DOJ’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program. See our previous Alert. Pursuant to the Pilot Program, “an individual whistleblower (not a corporation) who provides original and truthful information about corporate misconduct that results in a successful forfeiture may be eligible for a monetary award.” Eligible misconduct includes certain crimes by financial institutions, foreign and domestic corruption, healthcare fraud schemes, fraud against the United States, trade, tariff and customs fraud, immigration fraud, as well as sanctions offenses.

Government Fraud Alliance

Lastly, the Program announced the formal institution of the Government Fraud Alliance, which is designed to foster collaboration between the Office’s criminal and civil attorneys and investigators on matters such as False Claims Act (FCA) investigations. The announcement explains that “[u]nder this Initiative, every qui tam filing or whistleblower complaint received under the FCA is immediately and jointly reviewed by teams of Assistant United States Attorneys from both the Criminal and Civil Divisions as well as our federal law enforcement partners.” These teams will coordinate and combine resources to maximize “effectiveness and efficiency.”

The purpose of the Alliance appears to be two-fold. First, it is designed to take advantage of the possible synergies inherent in the criminal and civil divisions working together. And relatedly, it is designed to avoid situations in which the divisions are investigating matters in separate silos and, possibly, at cross-purposes.

For More Information

If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact William M. McSwain, Mary P. Hansen, Michael J. Rinaldi, Nicholas A. DiMarco, any of the attorneys in our White-Collar Criminal Defense, Corporate Investigations and Regulatory Compliance Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.