New Clarity Emerges on DOJ’s Fraud Enforcement Reorganization

In remarks delivered on June 3, 2026, at the American Conference Institute’s Global Anti-Corruption, Ethics & Compliance Conference in New York City, Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva, the head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Criminal Division, provided the clearest public indication to date of how DOJ intends to divide fraud enforcement responsibilities between the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED”).

Under the emerging structure, NFED will focus on government program fraud, i.e., criminal offenses involving public payers and public systems, including taxpayer-funded programs, while the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section will remain focused on private-sector market, consumer, and corporate fraud matters—a traditional strength of the Unit previously known as Market Integrity & Major Frauds, which will remain part of the Criminal Division, as discussed further below. Duva further emphasized that the Fraud Section will be focusing on securities and major financial fraud schemes, global fraud, and prediction markets, and is actively looking to further build capacity by hiring talented lawyers.

Combined with Duva’s May 7 remarks at Compliance Week’s National Conference, Wednesday’s announcement makes clear that the Criminal Division remains committed to corporate enforcement and individual white-collar prosecutions.

Criminal Division and NFED: An Emerging Division of Labor Between Private and Public Fraud

DOJ is allocating fraud enforcement resources between the Criminal Division and NFED based on the nature of the victim and the source of the funds at issue.

Historically, the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section has handled a wide range of complex economic crime matters, including foreign bribery (FCPA), securities and commodities fraud, consumer fraud, and other sophisticated corporate misconduct. Prior to the creation of NFED, this also included offenses victimizing federally funded programs and agencies, such as health care fraud, procurement fraud, trade fraud, and pandemic fraud.

NFED, by contrast, appears positioned to be DOJ’s principal fraud enforcement vehicle for matters involving taxpayer-funded programs and public systems. Since its creation, DOJ has repeatedly described NFED’s mission as protecting federal government programs, federally funded benefits, and misuse of taxpayer dollars. DOJ has also emphasized NFED’s use of data-driven investigative tools, and its coordination with other federal anti-fraud initiatives. Further underscoring this development is yesterday’s announcement by DOJ of a new partnership between NFED and Ohio state prosecutors that uncovered $42 million in fraudulent schemes targeting various government programs. NFED remains distinct from the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, which operates within the Executive Office of the President and is chaired by the Vice President.

In his recent remarks, Duva described an ongoing internal reorganization in which the Fraud Section’s focus would move away from government program fraud and toward a structure more focused on (i) securities and major financial fraud and (ii) worldwide schemes and scams causing significant losses to individuals, including those with cybercrime elements, such as romance and “pig butchering” scams. Thus, going forward, while the Criminal Division’s Health Care Fraud Unit has moved to NFED (alongside the former Criminal Tax Division and detailed-in-place AUSAs), resources within the Fraud Section will be focused on significant private-sector and market-facing misconduct. This appears to include the legacy Market Integrity & Major Frauds Unit, which had been renamed “Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud” but may be further renamed to reflect its market and consumer fraud-related focus and the transfer of matters allegedly victimizing government programs to NFED.

Viewed in that context, Duva’s remarks confirm that Criminal Division is poised to remain focused on private-sector corporate and financial fraud, while NFED will target fraud involving public funds and government reimbursement systems.

Uptick in Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement Foreshadowed

Duva also signaled that the Criminal Division expects a meaningful increase in corporate enforcement activity; we may see as many as six corporate resolutions over the next year. That projection is consistent with his prior public statements indicating that DOJ expects an uptick in corporate enforcement and is dedicating resources accordingly.

In addition to extensively speaking about Criminal Division priorities in the FCPA context, Duva also highlighted the work of the Health and Safety Unit, a reorganization of a team formerly under the Consumer Protection Branch focused on criminal enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and related matters.

Implications for Companies

1. DOJ Has Two Fraud Enforcement Lanes—and Companies May Straddle Both. DOJ increasingly appears to view fraud enforcement through two parallel lenses: private-sector corporate and financial fraud on one side, and fraud involving public funds and taxpayer-funded systems on the other. Companies operating in heavily regulated sectors, including healthcare, government contracting, education, and financial services may find themselves implicated in both frameworks. Matters involving mixed reimbursement streams, federal benefits, procurement programs, or significant government funding may not fit neatly within either the NFED or the Criminal Division.

2. CEP Provides a Unified Framework for Disclosure, Despite Division of Authorities. For companies considering voluntary self-disclosure, identifying the appropriate DOJ component may become more important as responsibilities continue to evolve. Companies whose conduct touches both private-sector counterparties and public payers may face uncertainty regarding whether to approach the Criminal Division or NFED. That uncertainty may be mitigated, however, by DOJ’s Department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (“CEP”). Because NFED operates as a litigating division, the CEP will apply to both structures, regardless of which component ultimately handles the matter. As a result, companies should be able to seek the benefits of timely self-disclosure—including the presumption of a declination—without risking the loss of credit simply because they initially approach the wrong part of DOJ.

Summer Associate Kevin Kurian contributed to this post.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.