First, sanctions and export-control compliance should include anticorruption compliance tailored to your supply-chain risk areas. When, as here, an issue like sanctions becomes a DOJ priority, one might be inclined to focus surgically on that one issue. But it is not uncommon for some issues to go hand-in-hand with others. Consider the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), for example: An FCPA investigation often includes a money-laundering component. In a similar vein, a sanctions or export-control matter may – and in one recently publicized case did – include a foreign bribery piece. See recently publicized case.

Second, sanctions and export controls generally implicate weighty national-security interests; accordingly, companies under DOJ scrutiny may find themselves with little leeway in law and litigation – a strong reason to prioritize compliance ex ante. Consider the case of United States v. Shih, No. 23-3718 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2024). There, a university professor was convicted of violating a federal statute by exporting certain technology to China without the necessary license. The technology was used in connection with a Chinese enterprise that developed military weapons. The issue, in simplified terms, was whether Shih’s offense involved “national security controls.” Shih argued that the pertinent controls were “foreign policy controls,” not “national security controls,” thus counseling in favor of a lower sentence.