For years, the Department of Justice has tried to sharpen a simple message: companies that voluntarily disclose misconduct, cooperate fully, remediate effectively—and identify responsible individuals—can earn significant credit, including declinations.

The recent Balt matter is one of the clearest examples yet of that policy in action.

On the one hand, DOJ issued a declination to Balt, a medical device company, despite a multi-year bribery scheme involving a physician at a French state-owned hospital. On the other hand, DOJ simultaneously pursued criminal charges against two individuals—David Ferrera and Marc Tilman—allegedly responsible for orchestrating the misconduct.

This is not coincidence. It is strategy.

The facts underlying the Balt matter are familiar. Between approximately 2017 and 2023, payments were made to a physician at a public hospital in France to influence purchasing decisions for embolization coils and related medical devices. The scheme allegedly relied on a third-party consultant, sham agreements, fake invoices, and disguised “bonus” payments. It generated meaningful revenue and profits.

Under any objective measure, this is serious FCPA misconduct.

And yet, the company received a declination.

Why?

The answer lies in Balt’s response once the misconduct came to light. As reflected in DOJ’s declination letter, Balt satisfied the core requirements of the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy: timely self-disclosure, full and proactive cooperation, and timely and appropriate remediation.

But there is an additional—and critical—component that deserves emphasis.

Balt identified and provided evidence regarding the individuals responsible for the misconduct.

That is the through-line connecting the declination and the individual prosecutions.

DOJ has been increasingly explicit on this point. Corporate cooperation is measured, in significant part, by whether the company identifies culpable individuals and provides the facts necessary for DOJ to prosecute them. It is not enough to disclose a problem in the abstract or produce documents without context. DOJ expects companies to “connect the dots” and help build cases against individuals.

The Balt matter demonstrates how that expectation operates in practice.

Balt disclosed the misconduct while an internal investigation was ongoing. It then provided full cooperation, which—under DOJ standards—includes identifying all individuals involved, providing non-privileged evidence, facilitating access to witnesses, and supporting the government’s investigative efforts.

At the same time, DOJ moved forward with charges against Ferrera and Tilman, alleging that they orchestrated the bribery scheme through a Belgian consulting entity, used coded communications, and concealed payments through sham documentation.

Put simply, the company earned a declination, while the individuals face prosecution.

This is precisely the outcome DOJ has been trying to incentivize.

The Corporate Enforcement Policy is designed to create a clear set of trade-offs. Companies that act quickly, cooperate fully, and remediate effectively can avoid criminal charges. But that outcome is closely tied to individual accountability. DOJ is not interested in corporate resolutions that obscure or protect responsible actors. The policy is built to ensure that misconduct is attributed to individuals, not just absorbed by the organization.

The Balt matter shows that this framework is not theoretical—it is operational.

There are several important takeaways for companies and compliance professionals.

First, self-disclosure remains a powerful tool—but timing matters. Balt disclosed while its internal investigation was still underway. That kind of early disclosure is exactly what DOJ is trying to encourage.

Second, cooperation must be proactive and complete. DOJ’s standards require companies to provide facts, not narratives—to identify individuals, attribute conduct, and produce evidence in a way that advances the investigation.

Third, and most importantly, individual accountability is central to earning credit. Companies should expect that cooperation will include identifying employees, agents, and third parties involved in misconduct. This is not optional. It is a core expectation.

Fourth, declination does not mean no consequences. Balt agreed to disgorge over $1.2 million in profits derived from the misconduct. The company also remains obligated to cooperate in the ongoing investigation, including with respect to individual prosecutions.

Finally, this is the model going forward. DOJ is aligning its enforcement program around a clear principle: reward companies that help the government prosecute individuals.

For boards and compliance officers, this raises practical questions that should be addressed now, not during a crisis. Does the company have the ability to conduct fast, credible internal investigations? Can it identify responsible individuals and preserve key evidence? Is it prepared to make difficult decisions about disclosure and cooperation early in the process?

The Balt case provides a roadmap.

Companies that follow it—disclose early, cooperate fully, remediate effectively, and hold individuals accountable—can achieve meaningful outcomes, even in the face of serious misconduct.

And DOJ has made clear that it is willing to deliver on that promise.