DOJ Enforcement to Trend Even More Towards White Collar?

by Moore & Van Allen PLLC

Moore & Van Allen Litigation Member Scott Schools is serving as a contributing author.  Schools' article below initially published on on July 11.

On April 29, 2009, just weeks after being sworn in as the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer testified before Congress that “[t]he Administration believes Congress’s goal should be to completely eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.”1  This testimony was significant to Department prosecutors at the time in part because in courtrooms across the country they were obligated to advocate for sentences that reflected current law at the same time defense counsel argued, based on Mr. Breuer’s testimony, that even the Department’s highest level officials thought that existing law was unfair.  What was perhaps less obviously significant from Mr. Breuer’s testimony was that it represented the beginning of a shift in enforcement priorities for the Department.

Multiple factors underlie the shift.  The current administration entered duty in 2009 on the heels of the financial crisis that was perceived as the crime problem du jour, no less than violence and addiction associated with the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s was the crime problem of that jour.  Although crack cocaine use and distribution had not disappeared entirely in 2009,2 the national violent crime rate had dropped precipitously.  The FBI’s 2012 Annual Report on Crime in the United States shows, by way of example, that the rate of violent crime per 100,000 citizens dropped from 747.1 in 1993 to 431.9 in 2009, or a 42.2 percent decrease—a trend that has continued since.3  The administration’s view on marijuana enforcement has likewise evolved over time as reflected in memoranda issued in 2009, 2011, and 2013, the latter of which—issued after the legalization referenda in Colorado and Washington—exhibited a decidedly more deferential view toward state marijuana laws.  Then, in August 2013, the Attorney General announced his Smart on Crime Initiative that provides inter alia for less frequent filing of drug-related charges that carry mandatory minimum sentences including less frequent filing of prior conviction sentencing enhancements.  In short, the Department has at virtually every turn de-emphasized narcotics enforcement.

Although the narcotics policies are consistent with the Attorney General’s enforcement priorities, budgetary issues also influenced the Department’s enforcement agenda.  One quarter of the Department’s budget represents spending on federal prisons that are thirty percent over occupied,4 and imposition of lengthy sentences in narcotics cases has driven those numbers.  As of September 30, 2012, 51.4 percent of federal inmates had been convicted of narcotics offenses.5 This fact combined with the budget realities borne of the financial crisis and exacerbated by the sequester has also led the Department to emphasize federal interest as a primary driver of federal prosecutorial charging decisions.  In fact, the Attorney General issued a memorandum on enforcement priorities contemporaneous with his Smart on Crime announcement.  The listed priorities are identical to those he announced in a speech to Department employees in April 2011, to wit, “(1) protecting Americans from national security threats; (2) protecting Americans from violent crime; (3) protecting Americans from financial fraud; and (4) protecting the most vulnerable members of our society.”However, the Smart on Crime priorities memorandum announces a change in the charging decision calculus.  The priorities memorandum notes that the Principles of Federal Prosecution provide that federal charges should be initiated only when “prosecutors . . . determine not only that [an individual’s] conduct constitutes a federal offense and admissible evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, but also that the prosecution serves a substantial federal interest, the person is not subject to effective prosecution elsewhere, and there is no adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.”7  However, signifying renewed emphasis on federal interest, the memorandum declares that “it is of primary importance to assess whether the prosecution serves a substantial federal interest.”8 This emphasis should result in a reduction in the number of cases filed because it would cause prosecutors to refrain from filing cases that do not clearly further federal enforcement objectives – in other words, cases that can be prosecuted effectively in local courts.

Whether the 2013 Smart on Crime initiative will have a meaningful impact on charging decisions within the United States Attorneys’ Offices, which always must seek to balance local law enforcement needs with Washington-based priorities, remains to be seen.  Examination of the United States Attorneys statistical reports from 2009 and 2013 suggests a shift in emphasis up to this point, but not a radical one.  The 2013 report shows that the number of cases filed dropped 9.3 percent from 2009 to 2013.  Whether that reduction is a result of resource constraints or emphasis on more complex prosecutions is not clear.  The 2009 and 2013 statistical reports reflect that narcotics offenses constituted 22.6 percent of cases filed in 2009 and 21.8 percent of cases filed in 2013.  White collar offenses and official corruption made up 9.5 percent of cases filed in 2009 and 11 percent in 2013.  As is often stated in the halls of Justice, the Department is like a steam ship, not a race car—when it turns it turns slowly.  Nonetheless, it does appear that it may be turning.  The Attorney General’s public pronouncements of his intention to continue to focus on financial crisis crimes,his continued emphasis on protecting Americans from financial fraud as a Department priority, and his 2013 memorandum emphasizing the importance of federal interest in charging decisions portend  that charging decisions will trend even more towards white collar prosecutions in the future.  Time will tell.


[1] Restoring Fairness to Federal Sentencing: Addressing the Crack-Powder Disparity, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime and Drugs of the S. Committee on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 10 (2009) (statement of Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Att’y Gen., Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice), available at

[2] The 2009 Annual Report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission reflects that 22.1% of all drug cases for which sentences were imposed that year involved crack cocaine.  2009 U.S. Sent. Comm. Ann. Rep., p. 39-40.

[3] Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2012 (2013), available at

[4]Statement of Eric H. Holder, Jr. Att’y Gen. of the United States, Before the Sub Comm. On Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the H.R. Comm. On Appropriations, 113th Cong. 9 (2014) (statement of Eric H. Holder, Jr., Att’y Gen. of the United States) available at

[5] Fed. Bureau of Prisons, State of the Bureau 2010, p. 3 (2010), available at

[6] Memorandum from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Att’y Gen. of the United States, to Heads of Dep’t of Justice Components and United States Attorneys on Consideration of Collateral Consequences in Rulemaking (Aug. 12, 2013), available at

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] See e.g. Devlin Barrett, Justice Department Plans New Crisis-Related Cases, Wall St. Journal, Aug. 20, 2013, available at


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Moore & Van Allen PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.