Two ongoing cases in US federal court could redefine the reach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Both are testing whether the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Snyder v. United States, which distinguished bribes from after-the-fact “gratuities”, should apply to FCPA enforcement. While the outcome may reshape anti-bribery legislation, compliance professionals should nevertheless stay vigilant and maintain robust gifts and entertainment compliance programs.
Background: The Snyder Decision and Its Ripple Effect
In Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal program bribery statute (18 U.S.C. §666) covers only true bribery (payments made or promised to influence an official act) and not gratuities, or rewards given after the fact. The Court emphasized that criminal laws must be read narrowly, requiring prosecutors to show a clear quid pro quo that existed before any official decision or action.
This narrower reading has encouraged two FCPA defendants, Carl Zaglin and Roger Piñate Martínez, to push for the same standard under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Both are accused of making payments to foreign officials after receiving favorable business results: Zaglin to Honduran officials tied to police uniform contracts, and Piñate to officials from the Philippine Commission on Elections following election-related contracts.
How the Two Cases Could Narrow the FCPA
In United States v. Zaglin and United States v. Piñate, the defendants argue that the FCPA, like Section 666, should apply only to bribes and not gratuities. Because the FCPA doesn’t explicitly mention after-the-fact payments, they claim that prosecuting such conduct goes beyond what Congress intended. They also raise due process concerns, suggesting that stretching the statute too far could blur legal boundaries and risk punishing conduct that falls outside clear statutory language.
If courts adopt this line of reasoning, the government would need to prove that any alleged bribe involved a contemporaneous exchange, an explicit agreement to influence a decision or action as it happens. That shift could significantly limit how far prosecutors can extend the FCPA’s reach.
Implications for Enforcement and Corporate Risk
Should appellate courts carry the Snyder logic into the FCPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) could lose one of its more flexible tools for pursuing so-called “after-the-fact” benefits, such as travel, gifts, or bonuses. This would align with the current administration’s focus on more targeted, interest-driven enforcement efforts that hinge on clear evidence of corrupt intent.
Still, the FCPA’s purpose to prevent bribery of foreign officials remains central to responsible global business conduct. Even if criminal enforcement tightens, companies must remain alert to the broader reputational, contractual, and regulatory risks that come with any form of improper payment.
What This Means for Compliance Programs
For compliance leaders, the message is clear: potential judicial narrowing of the FCPA is not a signal to relax controls. The FCPA’s provisions (the anti-bribery and accounting requirements) remain powerful compliance benchmarks. The DOJ and SEC continue to expect programs that demonstrate proactive risk management, internal controls, and timely gifts reporting mechanisms.
Even if the courts tighten the definition of “bribery,” many behaviors traditionally addressed by FCPA-compliant policies, such as lavish gifts, excessive hospitality, or charitable donations made in proximity to official actions, still pose significant regulatory and ethical risk.
Staying the Course
While Snyder and its ripple effects may reshape prosecutorial boundaries, the fundamental principles of anti-corruption compliance are unchanged. Companies that maintain transparent, well-documented gifting compliance programs will be better positioned to adapt to evolving enforcement landscapes, whether the FCPA’s reach narrows or not.
This is a pivotal moment in anti-bribery law. As appellate courts weigh whether to extend Snyder’s logic, the outcome may refine how prosecutors prove corrupt intent, but it does not alter the underlying need for strong ethical cultures, clear expectations, and a preventive compliance mindset.
Hannah Tichansky is the Content and Social Media Manager at GAN Integrity. Hannah holds over 13 years of writing and marketing experience, with 8 years of specialization in the risk management, supply chain, and ESG industries. Hannah holds an MA from Monmouth University and a Certificate in Product Marketing from Cornell University.