Royal

Department of Justice Incentivizes Voluntary Self-Disclosure

March 27, 2023

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently unveiled a new policy outlining the benefits that a company may be entitled to for the voluntary self-disclosure (VSD) of criminal conduct.



The purpose of the policy is to incentivize a company to proactively come forward when they discover misconduct. 


The new policy sets a nationwide standard for how the United States Attorney’s Offices (USAO) will determine if a company has made a voluntary self-disclosure.


Benefits of VSD

Absent an aggravating factor, a company that is considered to have made a VSD would receive the following benefits:

  • The USAO will not seek a guilty plea.
  • The company could potentially avoid a criminal penalty. Ultimately, it will not receive a criminal penalty that is greater than 50% below the low end of the U.S. Sentence Guidelines fine range.
  • The USAO will not require a third-party compliance monitor.


Conditions of a Voluntary Disclosure

A company can qualify for VSD benefits if the following conditions are met:

  • It discloses facts of misconduct before such conduct is publicly reported other or otherwise known to the DOJ.
  • It discloses all known relevant facts in a timely matter, prior to a threat of disclosure or government investigation.
  • It fully cooperates and appropriately remediates the criminal conduct.


Aggravating Factors

Under the VSD policy, the USAO may still seek a guilty plea if certain aggravating factors are present:

  • The misconduct poses a grave threat to national security, public health, or the environment.
  • The misconduct is deeply pervasive throughout the company.
  • The misconduct involved the company’s current executive management.


However, per the policy, the presence of an aggravating factor does not mean a guilty plea will necessarily be required. Rather, the USAO will consider the relevant facts and circumstances.


In the instance of an aggravating factor, the company can still receive benefits under the VSD policy, including a reduction (50-75%) off the low end of the USSG fine range. Likewise, the USAO will not require a third-party monitor if the company has implemented an effective compliance program.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: