A significant new enforcement update was provided by the US Department of Justice on 19 March 2026 involving Balt SAS, a French medical device company.
What happened?
Balt SAS was the subject of a DOJ investigation into alleged bribes paid to a senior physician at a French state-owned hospital between 2017 and 2023. The alleged scheme involved disguising corrupt payments as consulting fees and bonuses, routed through a third-party consultant, to induce the hospital to purchase Balt’s endovascular products.
Balt voluntarily self-disclosed the misconduct, identified during an internal investigation that was still ongoing at the time of disclosure, fully cooperated with the DOJ’s investigation, and remediated the wrongdoing, including disciplinary action against relevant personnel and improvements to its compliance program. The DOJ declined to prosecute Balt, which agreed to pay approximately $1.2 million in disgorgement. Critically, this is the first ever resolution under the DOJ’s department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP), making it a landmark case for understanding how voluntary self-reporting translates into concrete enforcement outcomes under US law.
Corporate accountability did not mean individual immunity, however. Two individuals, David Ferrera, a Balt US subsidiary executive, and Marc Tilman, a sales consultant, were separately indicted on conspiracy and FCPA charges, with potential penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment on money laundering counts. The resolution was also coordinated with French authorities (the Parquet National Financier).
Why does this matter for Australian businesses?
Australia’s foreign bribery framework is about to come under the microscope again. The statutory review of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Act 2024 is anticipated next month, and the Balt case speaks directly to questions that review will likely consider:
⚖️ Do our self-reporting incentives work?: These developments in the US will help inform further consideration of whether Australia should introduce a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) scheme. The Balt case is a real-world demonstration of what a credible and transparent policy can achieve, encouraging companies to surface hidden misconduct, rather than conceal it.
🏢 Corporate liability vs individual accountability: The Balt resolution illustrates a model the DOJ has refined over many years: resolve with the company, pursue the individuals. Australia’s new “failure to prevent” foreign bribery offence imposes corporate liability for the conduct of associates, but do the tools exist in Australia for the AFP and CDPP to constructively resolve matters with businesses while pursuing culpable individuals?
🌐 Coordinated international enforcement: The simultaneous US-France resolution demonstrates the value of cross-border enforcement cooperation. It is a timely reminder that the AFP’s new Taskforce Solaris is working closely with its law enforcement partners in Australia and overseas to strengthen the integrity of institutions in Australia and abroad. This includes the International Foreign Bribery Taskforce (IFBT), who recently published its ‘Indicators of Foreign Bribery’ to assist in identifying foreign bribery red flags. The AFP is also a partner in the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre (IACCC), which provides coordinated support for law enforcement agencies to investigate grand corruption offences, such as bribery of public officials.