Even if the Trump administration is changing the way it cracks down on companies accused of being corrupt, corruption is common in India.
Getty
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to sue Boston-based Free Coinsurance, ending its investigation into bribery by its Indian subsidiary, but asked the company to “revoke” nearly $4.7 million in profits, which would be granted to the U.S. government.
This decision is important for two reasons.
This is the first public foreign corruption (FCPA) resolution since the Trump administration paused in early 2025. Trump’s Justice Department in a recent revision Company implementation and voluntary self-disclosure policies (“CEP”), which provides clear standards for the government, refuses to file charges against the company.
Second, it emphasizes the simple reality that India is still a high-risk jurisdiction for businesses operating there in terms of corruption – Washington has no change to make the risk disappear completely.
Bribery Program
Free mutual cases reflect the unique approach of the Trump administration’s prosecution of FCPA. The Justice Department said Freedom General Insurance paid approximately $1.47 million to officials of six state-owned banks in India in exchange for customer recommendations, covering up payments as marketing expenses and routing them through third parties. The program earns more than $9 million.
Liberty Mutual discovered the issue in an internal investigation and disclosed it to the Ministry of Justice in March 2024.
Doing so is decisive.
The Justice Department stressed that early reports by Liberty Mutual were crucial to his decision not to prosecute. The department described the company’s cooperation as “full and proactive.” Its remedies include thorough root cause analysis, reorganization to strengthen legal and compliance resources and new restrictions on how employees can use messaging applications for commercial purposes. The department cites all these factors in its decision.
By refusing to prosecute, the Justice Department avoids criminal charges against the company. But by demanding to stand out, foreign bribery still comes with real costs even in law enforcement environments where prosecutions seem to become more selective.
FCPA Enforcement under Trump II
Liberty Mutual is the first case ruled under the Trump administration’s revised law enforcement guidelines. In June, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that TGHE DOJ would focus the FCPA case on actions that impact U.S. national security and competitiveness, or involve serious transnational crimes.
Foreign bribery cases in early 2025 were combined with new law enforcement standards, and many believed that the FCPA was dormant (even if not dead) under the Trump administration.
This assumption is misplaced.
The Freedom Co-resolution shows that the Justice Department is still pursuing corporate misconduct abroad, even if it recalibrates how these cases should be resolved.
What changes are the solutions. Updated company execution and voluntary self-disclosure policies now provide clear guidance for companies: disclosure as early as possible, fully collaboratively, reliably correct and avoid aggravation. Criminal prosecution can then be taken from the table.
However, the Justice Department’s insistence on litigation also makes it clear that refusal is not tax exemption. The company will still make profits through misconduct, retaining deterrence while rewarding transparency.
Risk of corruption in India
This is important in markets like India where corruption is structural and persistent. Since 2015, India has lagged only China and Brazil in corporate FCPA resolutions, spanning sectors ranging from insurance and healthcare to defense and infrastructure.
Even if Washington’s law enforcement approach takes this reality, this reality has not changed.
The Free Mutual Case is the latest reminder of the structural challenges of Indian operations. The company joins a long list of companies that have triggered our law enforcement.
In 2011, Spirits Company Diageo paid more than $16 million to resolve allegations that its Indian subsidiary made illegal payments to Indian government officials.
In 2012, Oracle paid more than $2 million to resolve allegations of structured deals by its Indian subsidiary with fake suppliers, hoping to create muddy funds for potential bribery.
In 2017, Mondelez settled allegations that its Indian department used consultants to bribe government officials to obtain a permit.
In 2018, Stryker Corporation paid a certain fine for misconduct in India, where misconduct was paid as a discount and marketing expense.
The nature of the Indian market puts the company at risk. State-owned entities dominate key sectors from banks and insurance companies to energy and healthcare.
This means that routine business dealings often involve individuals classified as “foreign officials” under the FCPA, greatly increasing exposure.
Business development is often driven by recommendation, which inspires people to be loved among the gatekeepers of public institutions.
The severe reliance on intermediaries adds further pressure to oversight challenges and regulatory complexity, encouraging temptations to pay improper payments.
These risks are not theoretical: they are embedded in the operating environment. That’s why India is repeatedly in law enforcement docks and why it remains the priority jurisdiction of compliance and risk officials.
What does this mean for the business
The actual information of free mutual cases is dual.
First, under Trump, FCPA enforcement is still alive. It may look different, with fewer prosecutions and more relied on crime and voluntary disclosure incentives, but companies cannot assume that the risk has gone. The Justice Department has shown that even with political suspicion of regulations, it will still act in situations where misconduct is obvious.
Second, India continues to pose a serious risk of corruption to the companies operating there. Special, locally informed compliance control is essential. These include deeper due diligence of intermediaries, careful review of marketing and strict oversight of promotional spending and referral arrangements with public sector actors.
Without this, companies operating in India continue to face dangerous temptations of corruption and the risks of being caught.
