On November 10, 2025, Comunicaciones Celulares S.A. (Comcel), a Guatemalan telecommunications services provider, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to resolve a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation into a multiyear bribery scheme involving Guatemalan officials. As part of the resolution, Comcel admitted its role in the bribery scheme and agreed to pay a $60 million criminal penalty and forfeit $58.2 million in profits from the scheme.
Although there has been other DOJ FCPA enforcement activity this year, this marks the first corporate criminal FCPA resolution since the DOJ ended its FCPA enforcement “pause” in June 2025; the announcement and discontinuation of this “pause” were the subjects of prior Alston & Bird client advisories available here and here. This DPA provides key insights into the DOJ’s current white-collar enforcement approach—including its continued emphasis on targeting transnational organized crime, cartels, and narcotrafficking—and underscores how voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation efforts can affect criminal resolutions.
The Scheme, Self-Disclosure, and Cooperation
As described in the Statement of Facts filed with the DPA, senior executives and shareholders of Comcel paid bribes to Guatemalan officials to influence legislative outcomes and obtain improper business advantages. The bribery scheme was long-running and used various methods to conceal the true origin and nature of the money. To fund the bribe payments, participants falsified and backdated contracts, used shell companies to obscure the purpose of the transactions, and at times delivered cash-filled duffel bags by helicopter. The DOJ also determined that certain bribe payments were made with the proceeds of narcotrafficking.
The DOJ’s assessment of Comcel’s eligibility for voluntary self-disclosure credit under its Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) was more complicated than usual. At the time of the misconduct, Comcel operated as a joint venture between its current parent company and a Panamanian company that had operational control of the joint venture. In 2015, Comcel’s current parent company voluntarily disclosed to the DOJ and Swiss authorities the existence of potentially improper payments made by Comcel. During the ensuing investigations, however, Comcel’s current parent company had little ability to cooperate with the DOJ due to its limited operational control over Comcel, and the DOJ and Swiss investigations were closed in 2016 and 2018. After Comcel’s current parent company obtained full operational control in 2021 and the DOJ reopened its investigation based on new evidence, Comcel fully cooperated with the DOJ’s investigation, which determined that Comcel’s criminal conduct continued after the initial investigation and generated more than $58 million in profits.
The Resolution
Comcel entered into a two-year DPA with the DOJ to resolve conspiracy charges under the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. The agreement requires Comcel to pay a $60 million criminal fine and forfeit $58.2 million in illicit gains. The resolution reflects the DOJ’s assessment of several factors: the seriousness of the pervasive bribery scheme involving senior personnel and instances where bribes were funded with cash from narcotrafficking proceeds, the 2015 voluntary self-disclosure made even when Comcel’s current parent company lacked operational control over Comcel, and Comcel’s subsequent cooperation and extensive remediation.
In arriving at the resolution, the DOJ applied its recently revised CEP (which was the subject of a prior Alston & Bird client advisory available here), categorizing Comcel as only eligible for a resolution under Part III of that policy. That designation precluded Comcel from receiving a declination but still allowed for a fine reduction of up to 50%. The DOJ gave significant weight to Comcel’s self-disclosure and cooperation and granted the company a 50% reduction from the bottom of the Guidelines range—the maximum discount Comcel could have obtained under the CEP. The DOJ also declined to impose an independent compliance monitor, citing the company’s “extensive timely remedial measures,” including termination of involved personnel, enhanced compliance controls, centralized oversight, use of continuous monitoring and data analytics (including in testing), ephemeral messaging policies, and expanded training. Comcel must provide annual compliance reports and certify program effectiveness at the end of the two-year DPA’s term.
Key Takeaways
- Alignment with Recent DOJ Guidance. As discussed in our prior advisory, the DOJ’s recently updated FCPA enforcement guidance directs prosecutors to consider whether a scheme has ties to narcotrafficking, money-laundering intermediaries, or other transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). The DOJ explicitly cited these factors in the Comcel resolution, highlighting in the criminal information, statement of facts, and DPA the scheme’s reliance on a corrupt banker who supplied cash for the bribe payments and laundered money for narcotraffickers.
- Any Link to Narcotrafficking and TCOs Increases Enforcement Risk. Although the DOJ emphasized the scheme’s use of cash traceable to narcotrafficking, notably absent was any allegation that Comcel or its agents knew the money’s origin or the intermediary’s broader criminal ties. This suggests that as the DOJ applies its new FCPA guidance to current and future cases, prosecutors may look for any connection—however indirect—between a company under investigation and narcotrafficking, TCOs, or criminal groups. Companies operating in higher-risk jurisdictions should approach intermediaries with great caution and thorough vetting, and implement and regularly test robust compliance programs commensurate with their risk.
- Consistency of CEP Application. Despite speculation following the FCPA enforcement “pause,” the DOJ’s approach in this case largely mirrors prior enforcement practices under the CEP, with a focus on familiar principles regarding voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation. The outcome indicates that despite the notable changes to DOJ FCPA enforcement policy over the past year, many (and likely most) of the same concepts and principles companies have looked to for compliance program planning and implementation for many years will continue to be of critical importance.
- Sustained Focus on Latin America. The DPA demonstrates that Latin America continues to be a critical focus for the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement efforts. Companies operating in this region are aware of this reality, given the numerous corruption-related corporate enforcement matters there over the past decade, and should continue to carefully and thoroughly assess the risk landscape when building and maintaining their compliance programs.
Going Forward
While it remains to be seen whether this DPA signals an uptick in DOJ FCPA enforcement activity, its announcement indicates the DOJ’s continued willingness to pursue complex cases that align with its evolving priorities. This and the dynamic nature of the FCPA enforcement environment in general make prioritization of regular review and enhancement of compliance programs even more critical as enforcement trends develop throughout the Trump Administration.
If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact one of the attorneys on our White Collar, Government & Internal Investigations team.
You can subscribe to future advisories and other Alston & Bird publications by completing our publications subscription form.