New Corporate Crime Database Mandates Public Tracking of Federal Enforcement Actions Within One Year

If you’ve ever wondered what happens when massive corporations break the law—beyond the occasional headline—this bill is for you. The Corporate Crime Database Act of 2025 establishes a brand-new, publicly accessible national database managed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Within one year of the law’s enactment, the BJS must launch this searchable online resource, which will centralize data on every “enforcement action” taken against a “business entity” for a “corporate offense.” This covers everything from formal criminal charges and lawsuits to settlements and non-prosecution agreements, giving the public a single source of truth on how the federal government handles corporate misconduct (SEC. 2).

Shining a Light on Corporate Misconduct

This bill is fundamentally about transparency and accountability, turning scattered government data into usable information. Right now, if a bank, a pharmaceutical company, or a major manufacturer settles a case with the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Environmental Protection Agency, that information is often siloed on different agency websites or buried in court filings. The new database changes that by requiring every federal agency to submit its enforcement data to the BJS, including historical actions where available (SEC. 2).

For everyday people, this means a massive leap in understanding who is breaking the rules and how often. If you’re a consumer, you could potentially check if a company you buy from has a history of environmental violations or fraud. If you’re an investor, you get a clearer picture of corporate risk. The database will track the specific law broken, the agency involved, the final outcome, and even the parent company structure (SEC. 2. What Information Goes Into the Database?). For instance, if a construction firm is repeatedly cited by OSHA for safety violations, that pattern will now be visible alongside actions taken by other federal agencies, giving a much clearer picture of repeat offenders.

The Fine Print: What Counts as an 'Offense'?

While the goal is clear, there are important details in the definitions. The bill broadly defines a “corporate offense” as a violation of a federal law by a business entity or an employee acting in their job role. Crucially, it also grants the BJS Director the power to define what else counts as a corporate offense (SEC. 2. Defining What We're Tracking). This means the director has significant discretion in determining the scope of the database, which could lead to some inconsistency if the standards aren't clearly communicated. Furthermore, the database will include a wide range of “enforcement actions,” including deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) where a company avoids conviction by meeting certain terms. While it’s important to track these, the BJS will need to be meticulous in how it presents the data so the public can easily distinguish between a DPA and a formal criminal conviction.

Data Sharing and Annual Report Cards

Beyond simply listing offenses, the BJS is required to submit an annual report to Congress. This isn't just a list; it’s an analysis that must look at trends, identify repeat offenses, and, most importantly, estimate the total damage these corporate crimes cause to victims and the public (SEC. 2. Making the Database Public and Reporting Requirements). This analysis will provide lawmakers with concrete data on the societal costs of corporate crime, which could drive future regulatory changes.

To make this whole system work, the law also requires the Chief Data Officer Council to standardize how all federal agencies collect and share this enforcement data (SEC. 2. Improving Data Sharing). In short, the government is finally committing to treating corporate crime data like the critical public resource it is, demanding better coordination and transparency from all the agencies involved. For the busy citizen, this means less time digging through bureaucratic weeds and more power to hold large organizations accountable.