Corporate Prosecution Reform Act

Bill Number

H.R. 8860

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-05-15: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-07-07T05:08:21Z

AI-Generated Summary

Corporate Prosecution Reform Act (H.R. 8860)

Purpose

This legislation amends Title 18 of the United States Code to strengthen the prosecution of corporate crimes. It aims to ensure that corporate offenses are handled with the same rigor as individual crimes, while restricting the use of deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) to cases that serve the public interest, promote reforms, compensate victims, and deter future misconduct.

Key Provisions

• Definitions and Scope: Introduces definitions for "business entity" (including corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies) and "corporate offense" (violations by entities or their employees in occupational roles, or as designated by the Attorney General).
• Deferred Prosecution Agreements: Amends the Speedy Trial Act to require court approval for DPAs in corporate cases, with prohibitions on approval for offenses involving loss of life, serious bodily injury, treason, espionage, terrorism, or certain other serious crimes. Agreements are barred if the defendant has prior similar convictions or agreements.
• Court Oversight Requirements: Mandates that courts determine DPAs are in the public interest, include sufficient penalties for accountability and deterrence, and respect victim rights (including 15-day notice and opportunity to confer or testify).
• New Office of Corporate Enforcement: Establishes a dedicated office within the Department of Justice (DOJ), led by a Director reporting to the Deputy Attorney General, to monitor compliance with agreements and report violations.
• Transparency Measures: Requires public posting of DPA and NPA details on the DOJ website, including text, parties, terms, fines, and references to prior agreements or convictions. Historical agreements back to 1993 must be disclosed within set timelines.
• Prohibition on NPAs: Bans NPAs for corporate offenses (except court-approved DPAs), with any violating agreements declared void. Exceptions allow advisory opinions, immunity deals, civil consent decrees, and plea bargains.
• Guidance and Reporting: Directs the Attorney General to issue and publish DOJ guidance on agreement use, ensure parity across similar offenses, and submit annual reports to Congress on agreements, compliance, and terminations.
• Related Amendments: Updates references in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act from "white collar crime" to "cyber and financial crime."

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Expands judicial involvement in approving and overseeing corporate DPAs, adding new restrictions and victim protections not previously required.
• Creates a standalone Office of Corporate Enforcement, separate from other DOJ components.
• Imposes broad transparency and publication mandates for both current and historical agreements.
• Prohibits most NPAs involving monetary considerations for corporate offenses, shifting enforcement toward formal prosecutions or court-supervised DPAs.
• Standardizes internal DOJ policies on voluntary disclosures and agreements to promote consistency and deterrence.

Potential Impacts

• Government Agencies: Increases administrative burdens on the DOJ through new monitoring, publication, and reporting requirements; enhances oversight via the new office and court reviews.
• Citizens: Strengthens victim involvement in proceedings and may lead to greater accountability for corporate misconduct, potentially improving compensation and deterrence.
• International Relations: Could affect multinational corporations by limiting lenient resolution options, though no direct international provisions are included.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Business entities and corporations subject to federal investigations.
• The Department of Justice and Attorney General's office.
• Victims of corporate offenses.
• Federal courts responsible for approving agreements.
• Congress, through required annual reporting.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Enhances separation of powers by increasing judicial review of executive prosecutorial decisions in corporate cases.
• Raises potential due process considerations for defendants through stricter limits on agreement flexibility and mandatory disclosures.
• Promotes greater public accountability in white-collar enforcement without altering core constitutional prosecutorial discretion.

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 (9)

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17], Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12]

Recent Actions

• 2026-05-15: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2026-05-15: Introduced in House
• 2026-05-15: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Corporate Prosecution Reform Act — issued 2026-05-15 — PDF (17 pages)