For the first time, the U.S. Department of Justice's National Security Division has made good on the central promise of DOJ's new corporate enforcement policy by rewarding a company's voluntary self-disclosure with a full declination of criminal prosecution and demonstrating that the path from confession to resolution is now shorter, clearer and more favorable than at any point in the modern enforcement era.

The resolution provides an important real-world illustration of the benefits available to companies that voluntarily self-disclose potential criminal violations, fully cooperate with government investigations, and timely remediate identified misconduct.

What Happened

On June 17, 2026, the Department of Justice announced that it declined to prosecute Robert Bosch GmbH (Bosch) for export control violations involving shipments to Huawei Technologies Co., making this the first declination issued by DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) under the Department’s new Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (the CEP).

Bosch, a German engineering and technology company headquartered in Stuttgart, exported approximately $72.4 million in Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) sensor products and software to Huawei and its affiliates between September 2020 and September 2024 through two non-U.S. subsidiaries, Bosch Sensortec GmbH and ETAS GmbH.

The products were subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) under the Huawei Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), which extends U.S. jurisdiction to certain foreign-made items produced with covered U.S. technology when a listed Huawei entity is involved in the transaction. The shipments were made without required authorization from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).

The Declination Letter

DOJ’s declination letter described the compliance failure in pointed terms, noting that Bosch’s trade compliance personnel were not adequately equipped to provide accurate guidance on the FDPR, leading to years of violations. DOJ also noted that the investigation identified continued sales despite “missed opportunities” in which third-party companies flagged potential FDPR issues involving their products or equipment.

Critically, Bosch conducted an internal investigation, voluntarily disclosed the matter to both DOJ’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section and BIS, and began remediation while the internal review was still underway. Bosch made organizational changes, imposed discipline on responsible personnel, added 66 employees to its trade compliance organization, expanded U.S. trade compliance resources, and updated internal policies and procedures.

In light of Bosch’s timely disclosure, cooperation, remediation, and the lack of aggravating circumstances, DOJ declined prosecution under the CEP.

However, Bosch still faced significant monetary consequences. BIS imposed a civil penalty of $36,184,680 — roughly half the value of the unlicensed shipments — and Bosch agreed to disgorge $11,430,098 in pre-tax profits from the unauthorized sales. DOJ credited $7,829,069 paid to BIS against the disgorgement amount, resulting in an actual disgorgement payment of approximately $3.6 million.

Notably, the declination does not protect individuals, and DOJ stated it may reopen the investigation if later information changes its assessment or if Bosch fails to pay the disgorgement.

DOJ’s New Department-Wide Corporate Enforcement Policy

The Bosch resolution must be understood against the backdrop of DOJ’s new CEP, released on March 10, 2026, which establishes for the first time a single, uniform framework governing voluntary self-disclosure across nearly all DOJ criminal components (excluding only the Antitrust Division). The CEP supersedes all previously issued component-specific or U.S. Attorney’s Office-specific corporate enforcement policies, including NSD’s prior standalone Enforcement Policy for Business Organizations.

Under the CEP, DOJ will decline to prosecute a company for criminal conduct where four conditions are met:

• The company voluntarily self-discloses the misconduct to an appropriate DOJ component.
• The company fully cooperates with the investigation.
• The company timely and appropriately remediates the identified misconduct.
• No aggravating circumstances exist that, when weighed against the first three factors, would warrant prosecution.

This represents a meaningful improvement over the prior NSD policy. Under the earlier framework, NSD stated it would generally not seek a guilty plea and that there would be a presumption in favor of a non-prosecution agreement with no fine. Under the new CEP, the presumptive outcome shifts from an NPA to a full declination of prosecution — a materially more favorable result for companies.

Even where a company does not qualify for a full declination — for example, where aggravating circumstances are present — the CEP still provides substantial benefits, including resolution through an NPA of fewer than three years, no independent compliance monitor, and a fine reduction of at least 50% but not more than 75% below the bottom of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.

Why This Matters Now

The takeaways are clear and urgent:

Self-disclosure now carries concrete, demonstrable benefits. The Bosch resolution demonstrates that the CEP is not just an aspirational policy statement, but rather a proven pathway to declination. Companies that discover potential export control, sanctions, or other violations should evaluate self-disclosure as a front-line strategic option — not a last resort.

Monetary consequences persist, but criminal exposure is eliminated. Bosch still paid approximately $40 million in combined civil penalties and disgorgement. The resolution makes clear that self-disclosure does not eliminate financial consequences — but it separates companies from the existential risk of criminal prosecution, with all its collateral consequences including debarment, loss of export privileges, and reputational harm.

The reach of U.S. export controls continues to expand. This case involved a German company shipping products manufactured outside the United States to a Chinese buyer, yet the transactions fell squarely within U.S. jurisdiction under the FDPR. The MEMS sensors at issue have broad commercial applications in smartphones, wearable technology, and automobiles, underscoring that FDPR risk extends well beyond semiconductors. Multinational companies must assess their exposure even when products are made and shipped entirely outside the United States.

Compliance infrastructure must be fit for purpose. DOJ’s declination letter faulted Bosch for having compliance personnel who were not adequately trained on the FDPR, and for failing to act on third-party warnings. Companies should audit their export compliance programs to ensure personnel understand the full reach of U.S. extraterritorial controls.

Timeliness matters. The CEP defines voluntary self-disclosure to require that a company disclose conduct “within a reasonably prompt time after becoming aware of the misconduct, with the burden being on the company to demonstrate timeliness.” Bosch began remediation while its internal review was still underway — a fact DOJ credited positively. Companies that delay disclosure to conduct exhaustive internal investigations before engaging with DOJ risk losing declination eligibility.

Individual exposure remains. The declination expressly does not protect individuals. Companies considering self-disclosure should anticipate that DOJ will expect identification and information regarding culpable individuals as part of the cooperation obligation.

The Bosch resolution is the most significant data point yet demonstrating DOJ’s willingness to deliver on the CEP’s promise. Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg characterized the declination as reflecting “the clear benefits for companies that promptly disclose potential violations and fully assist in our investigations.” Companies would do well to take note and evaluate their internal policies to ensure alignment with the new CEP.

For more information, please contact Saverio Romeo at sromeo@foxrothschild.com or another member of Fox Rothchild’s national White-Collar Criminal Defense & Regulatory Compliance practice.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this alert should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this alert without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily this law firm or its clients.