Three Potential Benefits, One Powerful Incentive: NDIL’s New Individual Self-Disclosure Program
On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois (NDIL) announced a new Individual Self-Disclosure Program offering qualifying individuals three potential forms of relief in exchange for voluntary self-disclosure and cooperation: letter immunity, a deferred or non-prosecution agreement, or criminal prosecution with substantial sentencing relief. The Program’s express three-tier structure distinguishes it from many other federal self-disclosure programs, which generally focus on the possibility of a non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreement. To qualify, individuals must provide a complete and truthful proffer, cooperate fully with law enforcement, testify if required, and disgorge any criminal proceeds, among other requirements. This post summarizes the Program’s key features and highlights how it compares to similar self-disclosure initiatives adopted in other jurisdictions.
“Don’t Wait”: DOJ Criminal Division Chief Signals Faster Disclosure Expectations and Uptick in Corporate Enforcement
On May 7, 2026, Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva used his first major speech to the compliance community since DOJ’s March 2026 rollout of its department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) to deliver a clear message: corporate enforcement activity is expected to increase, companies should self-disclose misconduct early—even before completing internal investigations—and robust compliance programs remain central to DOJ’s expectations.
The First Prediction Market Insider Trading Case: SDNY and CFTC Test the Limits of Fraud and Commodities Law
On April 23, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) announced parallel criminal and civil actions against a U.S. Army service member accused of using classified military information about a planned operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to place profitable trades on Polymarket, a prediction market platform. The case, the first to apply traditional insider trading and fraud theories to prediction markets, signals a shift in how the government will regulate this emerging market. In response to this news, companies should consider reviewing company policies on insider trading and compliance to address prediction markets and the use of confidential information in connection with event-based trading.
DOJ’s FOCUS Initiative: An Invitation or a Warning to Data Miner Relators?
On April 30, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Civil Division announced the Fraud Oversight through Careful Use of Statistics, or FOCUS, initiative. The initiative is aimed at a fast-growing category of False Claims Act relators that exploded in the aftermath of the pandemic and the Paycheck Protection Program: “data miners” who analyze publicly available government data to identify potential fraud and then file qui tam complaints. DOJ’s message to these non-traditional relators is twofold. First, the Department seems to have accepted that data-miner relators are here to stay, and so has invited sophisticated, well-supported data analysis that can help identify fraud that might otherwise go undetected. But second, DOJ intends to prioritize data-miner relators who can demonstrate meaningful pre-filing diligence, analytical rigor, familiarity with the governing program rules, and legally sufficient allegations.
For companies in sectors with substantial government funding or reimbursement, including healthcare, life sciences, defense, education, technology, and other government contractors, the practical takeaway is straightforward. Companies should evaluate their own publicly available data with the same skepticism and sophistication that a relator, short seller, or agency analyst might apply. Leveraging enhanced analytics and AI to match and front-run potential data miner-driven qui tams will allow companies to quickly assess the likely source of government interest, and explain it.
New Division Continues Time-Tested Model: DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Launches West Coast Health Care Fraud Strike Force
In another signal that health care fraud enforcement remains a top priority for DOJ, on April 30, 2026, the newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division (the “Fraud Division”) announced the launch of the West Coast Health Care Fraud Strike Force, a multi-district initiative targeting health care fraud across the District of Arizona, the District of Nevada, and the Northern District of California. This expansion is consistent with the time-tested model of Main Justice-based health care matters that has existed since 2007. Like its predecessor strike forces, the West Coast Strike Force will use dedicated agent and prosecutorial resources in the region to combat schemes identified based on data analytics and traditional law enforcement techniques. This announcement is independently notable because it makes clear that while the Health Care Fraud Unit—rebranded as the Health Care Section of the new Fraud Division—is no longer part of the Criminal Division, it will continue with the same career leadership and approach to enforcement: use of data to expand prosecutorial pipelines, solicitation of whistleblowers, and aggressive pursuit of corporate and individual prosecutions.
Clear and Present Danger: DOJ Trade Fraud and Anti-Corruption Priorities Signal Lasting Compliance Risk
This article, “Clear and Present Danger: How U.S. Department of Justice Trade-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Priorities Show Trade and Customs Risks Are Here to Stay,” published in The Global Trade Law Journal, examines the DOJ’s increased focus on trade fraud, tariff evasion and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act risks. The authors highlight key enforcement trends, including expanded whistleblower incentives and renewed use of the Trade Fraud Task Force, and explain how these developments are driving more aggressive investigations. The article also outlines practical steps companies can take to strengthen trade compliance, enhance oversight of third-party intermediaries and reduce enforcement risk.
New Guidance on U.S. Procurement Raises Risk to Federal Contractors From Potentially Discriminatory Practices
The Trump Administration is advancing a coordinated effort to tie federal funding and contracting eligibility more closely to its interpretation of antidiscrimination law. Recent Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) guidance directs agencies to incorporate a new contract clause prohibiting practices the Administration deems discriminatory, while proposed revisions to System for Award Management (SAM) certifications would require recipients of federal grants and other financial assistance to affirm compliance with similar standards. These developments build on earlier Department of Justice guidance outlining the types of conduct the Administration views as unlawful and are reinforced by a recent False Claims Act (FCA) settlement signaling a willingness to pursue enforcement in this area. Together, the FAR changes and proposed SAM revisions point to a more integrated enforcement framework—one that expands certification and disclosure obligations, links compliance more directly to FCA materiality, and increases oversight and reporting expectations. For federal contractors and grant recipients, the result is a heightened risk environment requiring careful reassessment of policies, internal controls, and subcontractor compliance in anticipation of greater scrutiny from both contracting agencies and enforcement authorities.
DOJ and DEA Loosen Medical Marijuana Restrictions and Move Toward Broader Rescheduling
On April 22, 2026, DOJ and DEA took two coordinated steps that could reshape—though not resolve—the federal treatment of marijuana. First, they issued a final order placing certain FDA-approved and state-licensed medical marijuana products in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. At the same time, DEA announced an expedited hearing on a separate proposal to reclassify marijuana more broadly from Schedule I to Schedule III, with proceedings set to begin in late June. Together, these actions signal movement toward a less restrictive federal framework, but their immediate impact is narrower than it may appear: the final order applies only to a limited subset of medical marijuana products and leaves most cannabis activity subject to existing federal controls. For industry participants, the developments introduce a more compliance-driven, state license-dependent pathway today, while setting the stage for potentially more significant changes in the months ahead.
