Corporate Crime Database Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance transparency and accountability for corporate offenses by centralizing and publicizing data on federal enforcement actions.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to establish and maintain a public, searchable database of federal enforcement actions related to corporate offenses. It broadly defines 'corporate offense' to include violations by business entities or individuals in their occupational role, and mandates data collection from all relevant federal agencies, including historical data.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that a centralized, public database will significantly enhance transparency, provide invaluable data for researchers and policymakers, and improve public understanding of corporate crime and its impact. They contend it will aid in identifying patterns of recidivism and inform legislative or administrative actions to deter corporate offenses more effectively.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the substantial administrative burden on federal agencies to collect and submit comprehensive historical and ongoing data, the potential costs of establishing and maintaining such a database without explicit appropriations, and potential privacy implications for individuals identified in connection with alleged violations. They may also argue that the broad definition of 'corporate offense' could lead to overreach or inconsistent application.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions and implications quickly.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Corporate Crime Database Act of 2025,' which is how the bill would be commonly referred to if enacted into law.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill's purpose immediately identifiable.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the establishment of a short title for legislation.
Section 2(b) of the new Section 305 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Establishment and Publication of Corporate Crime Database
This provision directs the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to establish, within one year of the bill's enactment, a public online database. This database will collect, aggregate, and analyze information regarding federal enforcement actions taken with respect to corporate offenses, making the data publicly available on the BJS website.
Section 2(a), adding Section 305(a)(2) to 34 U.S.C. 10131 et seq.
Broad Definition of 'Corporate Offense'
This section defines 'corporate offense' broadly to include any violation or alleged violation of federal law committed by a business entity, or by an individual employed by a business entity within their occupational role. Crucially, it also includes 'any other violation determined by the Director to be a corporate offense,' granting the BJS Director significant discretion.
Section 2(c) of the new Section 305
Required Data Fields for Database
This provision specifies the detailed information that must be included for each enforcement action in the database. This includes identifying the business entity or individual, their employer and parent company (if relevant), the type of offense, relevant statutes/regulations violated, the federal agency bringing the action, the outcome and all relevant documentation, and a unique identifier for each entity.
Section 2(d) of the new Section 305
Mandate for Federal Agency Data Submission and Historical Data Inclusion
This section requires the BJS Director to establish guidance for federal agencies on how, when, and with what frequency they must submit information on corporate offense enforcement actions. It explicitly mandates cooperation from identified federal agencies and requires the database to include historical data 'before, on, or after' the enactment date, to the extent such information is available.
Section 2(f) of the new Section 305
Annual Report to Congress
This provision requires the BJS Director to submit an annual report to Congress, starting one year after the database's publication. The report must include an analysis of corporate offense data, recidivism, enforcement actions, an estimate of the impact on victims and the public, and recommendations for legislative or administrative actions to improve monitoring, response, and deterrence of corporate offenses.
The definition of 'corporate offense' includes 'any other violation determined by the Director to be a corporate offense.'
Section 2(a), adding Section 305(a)(2)(B) to 34 U.S.C. 10131 et seq.
Why it matters:While it provides flexibility, such broad discretionary language in definitions can be seen as a way to expand the scope of the database without explicit legislative detail, potentially avoiding direct debate on specific types of offenses.
Case for: Supporters argue this flexibility allows the database to adapt to evolving forms of corporate misconduct and ensures comprehensive coverage without needing constant legislative updates.
Case against: Critics might contend this grants excessive power to an unelected official to unilaterally expand the scope of what is considered a 'corporate offense' for tracking purposes, potentially leading to inconsistent application or overreach.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it allows the BJS Director to unilaterally broaden the types of offenses included in a public database, influencing public perception and policy focus.
The database 'shall include the information described in subsection (c) on each enforcement action with respect to corporate offenses taken by a Federal agency before, on, or after the date of enactment... To the extent to which information is available.'
Section 2(d)(3) of the new Section 305
Why it matters:This provision is crucial for the database's analytical power but could impose a massive, potentially unfeasible, retroactive data collection burden on federal agencies. Its placement might obscure the scale of this undertaking.
Case for: Proponents argue that historical data is vital for identifying trends, assessing recidivism rates, and understanding the long-term impact of corporate offenses, making the database far more valuable for research and policy.
Case against: Opponents would point to the immense administrative and financial burden on federal agencies to retrieve, standardize, and submit potentially decades of historical data, much of which may not be in a readily accessible digital format or may require significant resources to compile.
Estimated impact: Potentially very high administrative cost and resource allocation for federal agencies, with uncertain completeness of historical data.
Adds a new duty to the Chief Data Officer Council to 'identify ways in which a Federal agency... can improve the collection, digitalization, tabulation, sharing, and publishing of information under that section, and the standardization of those processes, in order to carry out that section.'
Section 2(b) of the bill, amending Section 3520A(b) of title 44, United States Code
Why it matters:This is a technical, coordinating amendment, often placed at the end of bills. However, it's crucial for the successful implementation of the database by ensuring inter-agency data standardization and efficiency.
Case for: Supporters argue this amendment is essential for the long-term success and efficiency of the corporate crime database, ensuring that data collection and sharing are standardized and improved across federal agencies.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against inter-agency coordination mechanisms, though some might view it as adding another layer of bureaucracy.
Estimated impact: Facilitates the operational effectiveness and data quality of the corporate crime database, potentially reducing long-term costs and improving data utility.