DOJ uses new ‘near miss’ policy in export-control resolution
Extreme Networks accepted responsibility for sanctioned sales and agreed to criminal penalties, forfeiture, compliance reporting and a separate OFAC settlement.
The agreement is the first of its kind under the 2026 policy
The Justice Department has entered a three-year non-prosecution agreement with Extreme Networks, resolving a criminal sanctions and export-control investigation through the first “near miss” outcome under its department-wide corporate enforcement policy. The company agreed to a $487,860.92 fine and equal forfeiture, producing a total criminal monetary penalty of $975,721.84.
A near miss is not a declination. The department said the company’s disclosure was too late to qualify as fully voluntary because it came when publication of allegations was imminent. Officials nevertheless credited the company’s investigation, cooperation and remediation, and decided on a non-prosecution agreement rather than criminal charges against the corporation, subject to the agreement’s conditions.
The signed document states that Extreme Networks admits responsibility for conduct described in an attached statement of facts and acknowledges that it constituted violations of law. The agreement does not protect individuals from prosecution, does not cover future conduct and permits prosecution of the company if the department determines that specified obligations are breached.
The underlying transactions involved a sanctioned Russian manufacturer
According to the agreement, employees in a Russia-based subsidiary processed orders for networking equipment and services for Moscow Machinery Building Plant Avangard, a producer of S-300 and S-400 air-defense systems. Its owner, Almaz-Antey, had been placed on the Treasury Department’s blocked-persons list in 2014. The sales occurred through a distributor between 2018 and 2022.
Justice said certain employees concealed the end user from the company’s global trade-compliance group and caused false export information to be filed. The criminal resolution attributes approximately $487,860.92 in revenue to the conduct. The company agreed to annual reporting, continued cooperation and maintenance of an export-control and sanctions compliance program during the agreement term.
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control separately announced a $1,529,685 administrative settlement covering nine exports and related services. That amount is distinct from the Justice Department’s criminal fine and forfeiture. The parallel actions apply different authorities, and the non-prosecution agreement explains how the payments and obligations fit together.
Timing now matters as much as cooperation
The resolution gives companies a practical example of the new policy’s incentive structure. Cooperation and remediation can reduce consequences, but a disclosure made only after an imminent external revelation may not receive the treatment available to a timely voluntary report. The agreement records almost 400,000 documents produced, employee interviews and improvements to screening and acquisition diligence.
For compliance teams, the lesson is narrower than a promise of leniency: investigate credible internal reports promptly, preserve evidence, identify end users behind distributors and decide on disclosure before outside events remove the voluntary element. Each resolution remains fact-specific. This agreement shows how Justice applied the policy once; it does not guarantee the same result for another company or another sanctions violation. Boards and compliance officers also must track the agreement's three-year reporting and cooperation obligations.