Corporate Crime Database Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 4724
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-07-23: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2026-04-01T18:05:16Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Corporate Crime Database Act of 2025 aims to improve transparency and accountability in addressing corporate wrongdoing by requiring the creation of a public database that tracks federal enforcement actions against businesses and their employees for violations of law. This helps monitor patterns of corporate offenses, such as fraud or environmental violations, and supports better policy-making to prevent recidivism (repeated offenses).
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- Business entity: Includes corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, or similar legal structures.
- Corporate offense: A violation (or alleged violation) of federal law by a business entity or an employee acting in their job role; the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics can expand this category as needed.
- Enforcement action: Covers completed administrative, civil, or criminal cases, as well as settlements, deferred prosecution agreements (arrangements to delay charges if conditions are met), or decisions not to prosecute.
- Federal agency: Any U.S. government department or body with enforcement powers.
- Database Establishment:
- Within one year of enactment, the Director must collect, analyze, and publish data on enforcement actions related to corporate offenses via an online database on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website.
- The database must be searchable, downloadable, and publicly accessible, with updates whenever new information is received.
- It includes historical data (pre-enactment), current, and future actions where available.
- Required Data Elements:
- Names of involved businesses, individuals, their employers, and parent companies (if relevant).
- Type of offense, violated laws or regulations, and the federal agency involved.
- Outcomes, including all related documents (e.g., fines, guilty pleas).
- Unique identifiers for entities and individuals to track patterns.
- Any other details the Director deems useful.
- Data Collection Process:
- Within 180 days of enactment, the Director issues guidance specifying which agencies must report, what data to provide, and how/when to submit it.
- Federal agencies must comply and share information promptly.
- Reporting to Congress:
- Starting one year after database publication, and annually thereafter, the Director submits a report analyzing collected data (e.g., recidivism rates, offense trends), estimating harm to victims and the public, and recommending laws or administrative changes to better detect and deter corporate offenses. Recommendations are developed with input from the Attorney General.
- Amendments to Existing Data Framework:
- Updates the Chief Data Officer Council (a group coordinating federal data practices) to advise on improving data collection, digitization, sharing, and standardization specifically for this corporate offense database.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Adds a new Section 305 to Part C of Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (a key law on crime statistics and justice data), mandating the first centralized federal database focused solely on corporate offenses.
- Expands the role of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to include corporate enforcement tracking, which was previously decentralized across agencies without a unified public repository.
- Modifies the Chief Data Officer Council's duties under Title 44 of the U.S. Code to prioritize data improvements for corporate crime monitoring, integrating it into broader federal data management.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Increases administrative workload for enforcement bodies (e.g., Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency) to report data regularly, potentially straining resources but enabling better coordination and analysis of enforcement effectiveness.
- On Citizens: Enhances public access to information on corporate misconduct, empowering consumers, investors, and advocacy groups to hold companies accountable and understand patterns of harm (e.g., financial losses or health risks from violations).
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though greater transparency on U.S. corporate enforcement could influence foreign perceptions of American business regulation and encourage similar global standards.
- Overall, it could lead to stronger deterrence of corporate crime by highlighting repeat offenders and outcomes, potentially reducing public harm from such offenses.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: Enforcement-focused ones (e.g., DOJ, SEC, FDA) must submit data; the Bureau of Justice Statistics leads implementation.
- Businesses and Corporations: Directly tracked for offenses, facing increased scrutiny and potential reputational damage from public data.
- Public and Victims: Gain access to information on corporate harms, aiding lawsuits, policy advocacy, or awareness.
- Congress and Policymakers: Receive annual reports to inform future laws on corporate accountability.
- Employees and Individuals: Those involved in offenses (as actors or identifiers) may have personal details exposed in the database.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Promotes transparency under existing federal data laws without creating new penalties; ensures compliance through agency mandates but lacks explicit enforcement mechanisms for non-reporting (relying on inter-agency cooperation). Unique identifiers protect privacy by avoiding full personal data dumps while enabling tracking.
- Constitutional: Aligns with First Amendment values by increasing public access to government-held information on enforcement; no apparent conflicts with due process or privacy rights, as it focuses on concluded actions and public records.
- Political: Could heighten bipartisan focus on corporate accountability, appealing to progressives seeking stronger oversight while providing conservatives data-driven evidence for efficient regulation. May spark debates on business burdens versus public interest, potentially influencing future corporate reform bills.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]
Cosponsors (5)
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12]
Recent Actions
- 2025-07-23: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-07-23: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-07-23: Introduced in House
- 2025-07-23: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Corporate Crime Database Act of 2025 — issued 2025-07-23 — PDF (7 pages)