DOJ’s Fraud Division Directs Broader Charging Strategies and Earlier Asset Seizures in New Memorandum
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.
DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues First Corporate Enforcement Priorities
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.
DOJ Rule Filing Helps Make White Collar Fraud Enforcement Restructuring Final
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.
DOJ Ends 15-Year-Old Economic Espionage Case—With Prejudice
In a surprising development, on July 13, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice dismissed with prejudice its landmark economic espionage prosecution against Pangang Group Company, Ltd. and its subsidiaries—a Chinese state-owned enterprise accused of stealing DuPont trade secrets for the benefit of the Chinese government. The dismissal came just one week after trial began, bringing to an end one of the longest-running and most consequential prosecutions under the Economic Espionage Act.
Although the case itself is over, its legal legacy remains. Over more than a decade of litigation, the prosecution produced significant rulings on service of process, foreign sovereign immunity, and the treatment of foreign state-owned enterprises under the Economic Espionage Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Those decisions, together with amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4 prompted by the litigation, will continue to shape future prosecutions.
SDNY Signals Increased Scrutiny of Private Market Valuations
In remarks delivered at the Bloomberg Global Credit Forum on June 3, 2026, Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), signaled increased scrutiny of private-market valuations. While emphasizing the importance of private credit to the U.S. economy, Clayton identified inconsistent asset valuations as a key area of concern and called for greater transparency around firms’ valuation practices. He specifically noted that significant discrepancies in the valuation of the same assets may raise concerns, particularly where valuations affect fee generation.
Clayton further stated that he has directed SDNY prosecutors to examine valuation discrepancies and outlier marks when assessing cases. This focus may represent a shift from the private-credit cases currently pursued by SDNY, which have largely centered on borrower-side fraud, and suggests increased attention on the conduct of lenders, asset managers, and investors.
Our blog post examines what Clayton’s comments may signal about future enforcement priorities, the types of valuation-related conduct likely to draw scrutiny, and practical steps firms can take to strengthen their valuation frameworks.
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. 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.
The remarks largely confirm earlier expectations that DOJ would eventually provide greater clarity regarding the respective roles of the Criminal Division and NFED following NFED’s creation. We examine what Duva’s comments reveal about DOJ’s enforcement priorities, staffing changes, and the implications for future enforcement activity.
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.
U.S. DOJ Shifts Focus in Digital Asset Enforcement
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) has announced a significant shift in enforcement priorities concerning digital assets. On April 7, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum (Memorandum) announcing that the Department is not a “digital assets regulator” and will no longer pursue litigation or enforcement actions that “have the effect of superimposing regulatory frameworks on digital assets.” Instead, the Memorandum directs DOJ to focus on the prosecution of conduct that victimizes investors or uses digital assets in furtherance of crimes such as terrorism, narcotics trafficking, hacking, and human trafficking.
