EPA Criminal Enforcement, Fiscal Year 2019

Criminal cases developed by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division and referred for prosecution, plus resulting defendants charged and sentenced.

Criminal enforcement is EPA's smallest but highest-stakes enforcement category, reserved for cases where the agency's Criminal Investigation Division and DOJ conclude that the conduct — knowing violations, falsified records, or conduct causing serious harm — warrants prosecution rather than civil resolution. The volume here is a fraction of the administrative and civil judicial tracks in any given fiscal year, but the exposure for the individuals and companies involved is categorically different: criminal referrals carry the possibility of custodial sentences for individual defendants, not just monetary penalties for the corporate entity.

Duration in criminal environmental matters is the longest of any EPA enforcement category, driven by the higher evidentiary standard, grand jury process, and the frequent involvement of multiple individual defendants each represented by separate counsel with separate incentives to litigate or cooperate. A company whose employee or executive becomes a subject of a criminal environmental investigation should plan for a multi-year overhang that is largely outside the company's control once the referral is made, distinct from the negotiated-settlement dynamic that dominates the civil tracks.

For insurers, criminal environmental exposure interacts with D&O and general liability coverage in ways that mirror insider-trading exposure in the securities context: individual defendants are often the named subjects, criminal-conduct exclusions can be triggered depending on how the matter resolves, and the parallel civil exposure — which frequently accompanies a criminal referral for the same underlying conduct — needs to be modeled jointly with the criminal track rather than treated as a separate, independent risk.

Resolution paths split between negotiated plea agreements, which resolve the bulk of criminal environmental cases, and the smaller share that proceed to trial, typically where an individual defendant has strong incentive to contest personal criminal liability even where the corporate entity has separately resolved its own exposure through a civil or administrative settlement. That divergence — corporate settlement paired with individual criminal defense — is a resolution-path pattern specific to this category and one that a portfolio-level exposure model needs to capture explicitly rather than assume away. Criterica Intelligence frames criminal environmental referrals as a distinct, individual-liability-driven duration and resolution problem, separate from the corporate civil exposure that frequently runs alongside it.

Figures on this page are drawn from official agency publications, cited individually below, and reflect the agency’s own reporting as of the date shown for each figure. They are not Criterica Intelligence model outputs, are not predictions, and are not a measure of any party’s legal exposure or liability. Agencies periodically revise prior-year figures; where a revision is known, both figures are shown with their sources. This page does not constitute legal, investment, or compliance advice.