Entries by Lisa H. Miller

23 10 '26

DOJ’s Fraud Division Launches Fast-Track Whistleblower Awards, With a Focus on Health Care Fraud

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a new whistleblower incentive program designed to accelerate fraud investigations by offering cash awards of $10,000 to $30,000 for tips that lead to criminal charges. Announced on October 20, 2026, the Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program (WHIP) departs from traditional whistleblower programs by providing awards when criminal charges are filed, rather than waiting for the final resolution of a case. The Program targets federal health care offenses, related crimes, and fraud involving government programs and benefits administered by eight federal agencies.

The new Program reinforces DOJ’s emphasis on health care fraud enforcement. It follows the National Fraud Enforcement Division’s recent directive identifying health care fraud as its top enforcement priority, as well as a joint voluntary self-disclosure policy with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). Together, these initiatives suggest a coordinated approach to investigating and prosecuting fraud involving federal health care programs.

By rewarding whistleblowers at an earlier stage of criminal proceedings, DOJ is creating greater incentives for individuals to report suspected misconduct directly to the federal government. Click here to read the full post.

16 10 '26

DOJ’s Fraud Division Directs Broader Charging Strategies and Earlier Asset Seizures in New Memorandum

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

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.

02 10 '26

DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues First Corporate Enforcement Priorities

/in , , , , , , /by

On October 1, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald issued Directive 26-12, “Corporate Enforcement in the Fight Against Fraud,” setting out the recently established National Fraud Enforcement Division’s corporate enforcement strategy. The Directive calls for an “aggressive, all-tools approach” to corporate fraud and identifies four priority areas: health care; fraud affecting public trust or the financial integrity of Americans and markets; significant tax and revenue evasion; and tariff evasion, import fraud, and forced labor.

The Directive also provides an early look at how the Fraud Division will decide which corporate cases warrant particular attention. Prosecutors are instructed to place “great weight” on ten factors, including management involvement, concealment from government agencies or auditors, misconduct lasting three years or more, conduct spanning at least three federal districts, and conduct causing harm to at least 25 victims or losses of at least $25 million. The Directive also formalizes the involvement of the Division’s Corporate Enforcement Section throughout corporate investigations and resolutions.

At the same time, the Directive preserves DOJ’s broader corporate enforcement framework, including the Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy. It also directs Fraud Division leadership to develop additional incentives for whistleblowers—including participants in misconduct—to come forward with credible information. For companies operating in the Division’s priority areas, the Directive provides important new guidance for assessing enforcement risk, conducting internal investigations, and evaluating potential voluntary disclosures. Click here to read the full post.

25 08 '26

DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel Broadens Scope of Executive Privilege to Apply to Presidential Communications with Private Advisers

/in , /by

On August 10, 2026, DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion concluding that executive privilege may protect certain presidential communications with private advisers who hold no formal government role.

The opinion establishes a generally applicable Executive Branch position that private status alone does not place communications outside the presidential communications privilege. Instead, the analysis turns on whether the communications concern official presidential decision-making, involve the President or his direct advisers, and remain confidential.

We examine the opinion’s reasoning, its limits, and the implications for congressional investigations seeking testimony or records from private presidential advisers.  Click here to read the full post.