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.
D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office Announces Creation of Standalone Division Focused on False Claims Act Enforcement
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 dedicated to investigating and pursuing fraud against the federal government with a “particular focus” on the False Claims Act (“FCA”). This represents a significant reorganization—and expansion—of that Office’s affirmative civil enforcement capacity.
The Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Private Credit: Key Considerations for Lenders
Private credit has grown rapidly — and enforcement authorities are paying attention. The Department of Justice, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, has identified the private credit markets as an area of focus, with pending cases involving alleged borrower fraud, multiple pledges of the same collateral, and false financial information. Recent reporting also suggests scrutiny may extend to lenders themselves, including how private credit assets are valued and disclosed.
The enforcement risks extend beyond criminal investigations. SEC examination priorities include valuation practices, fees and expenses, conflicts of interest, and products with limited liquidity, while recent private litigation has challenged portfolio valuations, disclosures concerning credit quality, and adviser compensation. These developments highlight an increasingly important white collar and enforcement issue: the same valuation decisions, disclosures, diligence processes, and contemporaneous governance records can be tested by regulators, prosecutors, and private litigants.
In a new Sidley Global Finance Update, “The Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Private Credit: Key Considerations for Lenders,” our colleagues examine the changing regulatory and enforcement environment and practical steps private credit firms can take to mitigate risk — including strengthening valuation governance, disclosure consistency, data controls, and collateral diligence. Click here to read the full Update.
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’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues Inaugural Memorandum: Four Key Takeaways
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.
DOJ Renames Criminal Division’s Fraud Section as the “White Collar and Corporate Enforcement” Section
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.
New SEC Unit Signals Continued Focus on Accounting and Auditing Misconduct
On August 5, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced it is establishing the Financial Reporting and Accounting Unit (Unit) as a new unit within its Division of Enforcement. The Unit will be led by Timothy Zimmerman, who served as Deputy General Counsel of accounting firm RSM US following twelve years in private practice. It will focus on investigations of accounting and financial reporting fraud and general accounting and auditing misconduct. Establishing the Unit institutionalizes a priority area that both Chairman Paul Atkins and Enforcement Director David Woodcock highlighted in their prior public remarks.
