But in many ways, the new rules are an exercise in public messaging, substantive in some respects but symbolic in others. Because the memo lays out guidelines, not laws, its effect will be determined largely by how Justice Department officials interpret it. And several of the points in the memo merely codify policy that is already in place.
"It's a good memo, but it states what should have been the policy for years," said Brandon L. Garrett, a University of Virginia law professor and the author of the book "Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise With Corporations." "And without more resources, how are prosecutors going to know whether companies are still burying information about their employees?"
It is also unknown whether the rules will encourage companies to turn in their executives, but Ms. Yates said the Justice Department would not allow companies to foist the blame onto low-level officials.
"We're not going to be accepting a company's cooperation when they just offer up the vice president in charge of going to jail," she said.
Under Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., the Justice Department faced repeated criticism from Congress and consumer advocates that it treated corporate executives leniently. After the 2008 financial crisis, no top Wall Street executives went to prison, highlighting a disparity in how prosecutors treat corporate leaders and typical criminals. Although prosecutors did collect billions of dollars in fines from big banks like JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, critics dismissed those cases as hollow victories.
More from the New York Times:
Jefferies may be canary in Wall Street's shuttered mine
Attorney General Eric Holder's mixed scorecard
In corporate crimes, individual accountability is elusive
Justice Department officials have defended their record fighting corporate crime, saying that it can be nearly impossible to charge top executives who insulate themselves from direct involvement in wrongdoing. Ms. Yates's memo acknowledges "substantial challenges unique to pursuing individuals for corporate misdeeds," but it says that the difficulty in targeting high-level officials is precisely why the Justice Department needs a stronger plan for investigating them.
The new rules take effect immediately, but they are not likely to apply to investigations that are far along, such as one into General Motors over defects. Prosecutors in New York are struggling to charge company employees over problems linked to the deaths of more than 100 people, partly because the laws governing car companies require that prosecutors show that the employees intended to break the law, a higher standard than in other industries like pharmaceuticals and food.
Ms. Yates, a career prosecutor, has established herself in the first months of her tenure as the department's most vocal advocate for tackling white-collar crime. She foreshadowed plans for the new policy in a February speech to state attorneys general, in which she declared that "even imposing unprecedented financial penalties on the institutions whose conduct led to the financial crisis is not a substitute for holding individuals within those institutions personally accountable."
Read MoreThe Bloomberg terminal, a Wall Street fixture, face upstarts
A criminal case last year against BNP Paribas, France's biggest bank, demonstrated the gap between charging a bank and its employees. Even as officials extracted a record $8.9 billion penalty and made the company one of the first giant banks to plead guilty to a crime, no BNP employees faced charges. The Justice Department said the bank insulated its employees by withholding records until after a deadline had passed to file individual charges.
While the idea of white-collar investigations may conjure images of raids of corporate offices by federal agents, the reality is much different. When suspected of wrongdoing, large companies typically hire lawyers to conduct internal investigations and turn their findings over to the Justice Department. Those conclusions form the basis for settlement discussions, and they are likely to take on greater significance now that companies will be expected to name names.
Whatever its practical implications, the memo is likely to resonate on the presidential campaign trail. In a speech this summer, Hillary Rodham Clinton seized on the sentiment that too many executives were escaping accountability, declaring that, if she were elected, her administration would "prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud."
Read MoreApple and other tech companies tangle with US over data access
For the Justice Department, corporate prosecutions have a long history of political implications and judicial second-guessing. Ms. Yates's memo is the latest in a series of guidelines drafted and tweaked over the years, often in the period leading to presidential elections. The effort started in 1999 with Mr. Holder, the deputy attorney general at the time.
But two cases that followed chipped away at the guidelines and had a chilling effect on corporate prosecutions: the Supreme Court's reversal of a conviction against the accounting firm Arthur Andersen in the Enron scandal, and a federal court's rejection of a case against KPMG employees linked to tax shelters. Prosecutors began to shift from indictments and guilty pleas to deferred-prosecution agreements — essentially a form of corporate probation.
The memo from Ms. Yates, which took shape in recent months through a Justice Department working group that started during Mr. Holder's tenure, tries to place a new emphasis on individual prosecutions without running afoul of those court rulings.
Still, even if the Justice Department's effort succeeds, it will not automatically put more executives behind bars. Mr. Garrett, the University of Virginia law professor, analyzed the cases in which corporate employees had been charged.
More than half, he said, were spared jail time.