On October 22, 2026, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Civil Division and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a six-month Healthcare False Claims Act Self-Disclosure Pilot Program […]
The U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Fraud Enforcement Division has issued a new directive calling for more aggressive fraud investigations and prosecutions, including broader charging strategies, earlier asset seizures, and increased use of cooperating witnesses. Released on October 8, 2026, Directive 26-13 builds on the Division’s recently announced enforcement priorities and provides prosecutors with specific instructions for pursuing fraud cases.
The Directive instructs prosecutors to consider tax, securities, and consumer fraud charges alongside traditional fraud offenses, while emphasizing the use of asset freezes, forfeiture proceedings, and other measures to disrupt suspected misconduct before criminal charges are filed. It also encourages proactive investigations through data analysis, cooperating insiders, and undercover operations, and directs prosecutors to seek stronger sentences where warranted.
Although the Directive does not create new criminal offenses or expand DOJ’s existing authority, it signals a more coordinated and aggressive approach to fraud enforcement. Companies operating in priority sectors, including health care, government contracting, and trade, should assess potential exposure across multiple legal regimes, prepare for enforcement actions that could disrupt operations before indictment, and evaluate credible allegations promptly, particularly where voluntary self-disclosure may be an option. Click here for the full post.
On September 23, 2026, Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, announced the creation of a new Fraud and Asset Recovery Division. The new Division will be […]
On September 17, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the government may manually search a traveler’s cellphone at the border without a warrant or any individualized suspicion. In United States v. Alisigwe, the court concluded that manual cellphone searches qualify as routine border searches, resolving a split among district courts within the Second Circuit.
The decision could have significant implications beyond traditional customs and immigration enforcement. Cellphones can contain communications, financial records, and other evidence relevant to government investigations, and the court reaffirmed that border searches may be conducted for investigative purposes unrelated to border enforcement. Individuals involved in government investigations—and companies whose employees travel internationally—should consider what privileged or sensitive information is accessible on devices carried across the border.
Important questions remain. Alisigwe addressed only a manual search and did not decide whether suspicion is required for more intrusive forensic searches or whether the government may compel a traveler to provide a passcode or biometric authentication. Those issues remain unsettled and are likely to be the subject of further litigation. Click here to read the full blog post.
In a move with substantial implications for federal enforcement generally and the False Claims Act (“FCA”) in particular, the U.S. Department of Justice (“the Department”) on September 18, 2026 announced […]
On August 10, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that the Criminal Division’s longstanding Fraud Section has been renamed the White Collar and Corporate Enforcement Section. The change follows the creation of the National Fraud Enforcement Division, which absorbed more than half of the legacy Fraud Section’s personnel and its longstanding mandate to combat fraud against government programs.
The renaming marks a notable development for a Section that has played a central role in DOJ’s corporate and financial crime enforcement for decades. The Section’s roots date to the World War II-era “War Frauds Unit,” and its prosecutors have since handled significant matters involving securities and commodities fraud, health care fraud, foreign bribery, market manipulation, and other complex economic crimes.
The key question is whether the new name reflects a rebranding or signals broader changes in DOJ’s white collar enforcement strategy. Click here to read the full post.
On August 5, 2026, DOJ announced a $5.15 million settlement with a Taiwanese light-emitting diode (“LED”) manufacturer and its Texas-based subsidiary to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), […]
On July 30, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) revised its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, expanding the pool of individuals who may qualify for an award. Most notably, DOJ eliminated the prior rule that automatically disqualified whistleblowers who could have been eligible for an award under another U.S. government whistleblower program, such as those administered by the SEC or CFTC. Instead, a whistleblower is now disqualified only if he or she actually receives an award from another program for reporting the same or substantially the same misconduct, while DOJ retains discretion to reduce or deny duplicative awards.
The revised guidance also includes several administrative updates, including confirmation that the program is now administered by the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering, Narcotics, and Forfeiture Section (formerly the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section) and that submissions will be made through a dedicated online intake portal. The covered subject-matter areas remain unchanged from the May 2025 expansion and continue to include, among other areas, financial institution crimes, bribery, healthcare fraud, trade and customs fraud, procurement fraud, immigration offenses, and sanctions-related misconduct.
For companies, the revisions further strengthen incentives for whistleblowers to report directly to DOJ, including in matters that may also be eligible for other agency whistleblower programs. At the same time, DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy continues to provide a pathway to a declination for companies that promptly self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate misconduct, reinforcing the importance of effective internal reporting mechanisms and careful consideration of self-disclosure decisions in the face of potential whistleblower reports. Click here to read the full post.