Entries by Michael D. Mann

08 09 '26

Permission to Speak (and a Reason To): FinCEN and Banking Agencies Clarify SAR Confidentiality Rules for Customer Communications About Fraud and Account Closures

/in , , , , /by

Financial institutions have long approached communications about suspicious activity with caution given the strict confidentiality rules governing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). New

guidance from FinCEN and the federal banking agencies provides welcome clarity: institutions may discuss the underlying facts of potentially fraudulent or suspicious transactions with customers and third parties, so long as they do not reveal the existence of a SAR.

The guidance also addresses account restrictions and closures, confirming that institutions may tell customers that such actions relate to suspected fraud or suspicious activity — even if the customer might infer that a SAR was filed.

In our latest blog post, we break down the new guidance and what it means for fraud investigations, customer communications, account closures, and BSA/AML compliance. Click here to read more.

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.

21 08 '26

DOJ Rule Filing Helps Make White Collar Fraud Enforcement Restructuring Final

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

On August 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice published a final rule formally establishing the National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED”) within DOJ’s organizational regulations and defining the authorities of its Assistant Attorney General. The rule largely formalizes changes announced since April, when DOJ created NFED and began reallocating fraud enforcement responsibilities between the new Division and the Criminal Division.

The final rule gives NFED broad authority over criminal fraud matters, including criminal tax, trade fraud, fraud involving federal funds, healthcare fraud, and related offenses. At the same time, the Criminal Division retains broad fraud authority, leaving DOJ with a more flexible jurisdictional scheme than the public sector/private sector division of labor described by Department leadership in recent months.

We examine how the final rule institutionalizes DOJ’s new white-collar enforcement structure, what it means for the allocation of matters between NFED and the Criminal Division, and the practical implications for companies facing potential exposure across both enforcement portfolios.  Click here to read the full post.

20 08 '26

OCC Proposes Easing Non-Public Information Disclosure Rules and Removing Criminal Penalty References

/in , , /by

On August 3, 2026, the OCC proposed a significant overhaul of its rules governing the disclosure of non-public OCC information, including confidential supervisory information (CSI). The proposal would expand the circumstances in which financial institutions may share CSI without prior OCC approval—including with affiliates, service providers, M&A counterparties and certain advisers—and would remove the rules’ express reference to potential criminal liability for unauthorized disclosures.

While the changes could make navigating NPOI substantially easier, they may also create new compliance considerations. As institutions gain greater flexibility to share sensitive supervisory information, they may need to reassess contractual protections and controls designed to prevent recipients from misusing that information.

We examine the proposed framework, the OCC’s shift away from criminal enforcement, and the practical implications for financial institutions and their counsel.  Click here to read the full post.

14 08 '26

DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues Inaugural Memorandum: Four Key Takeaways

/in , , /by

On August 13, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED) issued a memorandum outlining the Division’s mission, organizational structure, and enforcement priorities (the Memo). The White House established NFED in April 2026. As discussed in a prior Sidley update, NFED is tasked with leading a whole-of-government effort to combat fraud “no matter its size or complexity.”

The Memo provides the most detailed public account to date of NFED’s mission, structure and enforcement approach and further underscores the Administration’s focus on anti-fraud enforcement as a signature initiative.

This blog post highlights four key takeaways from the Memo and offers observations for companies navigating this evolving enforcement landscape. Click here to read the full post.

12 08 '26

DOJ Renames Criminal Division’s Fraud Section as the “White Collar and Corporate Enforcement” Section

/in , , /by

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.