How Corporations Are Beating the Rap Under Trump

Under the Trump Justice Department, fewer corporations are being convicted of wrongdoing, while prosecutions of their executives are falling, too.

Brian Daitzman is the Editor of The Intellectualist. Subscribe to his Substack.

The Justice Department under President Donald Trump has emphasized prosecuting individual wrongdoers, even as The Wall Street Journal has documented a sharp retreat from charging companies. Several recent corporate resolutions were not accompanied by publicly announced cases against executives or employees.

Alibaba and its U.S.-based payment processor, AUS Merchant Services, illustrate the tension. The companies agreed in June 2026 to pay a combined $600 million to resolve allegations involving illegal pharmaceuticals, controlled substances, listed chemicals and pill presses sold through Alibaba.com and AliExpress.com. Both accepted responsibility for conduct detailed in agreed statements of facts and received nonprosecution agreements. No corresponding individual case was publicly announced.

Dave Michaels and Sadie Gurman of the Journal examined whether the department’s pullback from corporate charges had been accompanied by more cases against executives and employees.

They reported that companies had received nonprosecution agreements, deferred prosecutions or no charges in several investigations, including some in which prosecutors believed executives or managers had participated in wrongdoing. In several of those matters, people whom prosecutors considered connected to the underlying conduct were not charged when the corporate resolutions were announced.

Public Justice Department records confirm several of the resolutions. They do not reveal the internal charging debates, recommendations or confidential assessments described by the Journal.

EagleBank, a Maryland lender, entered a nonprosecution agreement after accepting responsibility for Bank Secrecy Act violations connected to a check-kiting scheme. The Justice Department said the conduct caused nearly $6.3 million in losses to another financial institution. EagleBank agreed to pay more than $9.7 million in fines and forfeiture. No individual charge was announced with the agreement.

Assistant Attorney General Tysen Duva told the Journal that the cases were “driven by the facts, the evidence, and the law,” rather than by a preference for any particular outcome. The Alibaba and EagleBank agreements required acceptance of responsibility, substantial payments, cooperation and compliance obligations.

The resolutions came as the department was making its broader enforcement policy more explicit, although that policy does not by itself explain any particular case. In March 2026, the department issued what it described as its first department-wide corporate-enforcement policy for criminal matters. The policy offers possible declinations or reduced penalties to companies that voluntarily disclose misconduct, cooperate with investigators and remediate violations. The department said the approach was intended to make enforcement more uniform, predictable and fair.