DOJ (Re-)Expands Northeast Health Care Fraud Strike Force to Philadelphia and Charges 19 Defendants in Medicaid Home Care Schemes
On August 4, 2026, DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division (“Fraud Division”) announced a significant expansion of its Northeast Health Care Fraud Strike Force into Philadelphia. The expansion will reunite the Fraud Division’s Health Care Fraud Section with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; in 2018, the same teams launched what was then known as the Philadelphia-Newark Regional Strike Force, before reducing its operations to Newark-only in more recent years. Nationally, since its inception in 2007, the Health Care Fraud Strike Force program has been responsible for prosecuting more than 6,200 defendants who collectively billed federal health care programs and private insurers more than $45 billion.
DOJ Grants First Healthcare Declination Under New Corporate Enforcement Policy While Indicting Founder
On July 29, 2026, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that, consistent with Part I of DOJ’s Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (“CEP”), it declined to prosecute Campus Eye Management Holdings LLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Campus Eye Management LLC (collectively, “Campus Eye”), a management services organization that provided billing and other services to an optometry practice and ambulatory surgery center. DOJ had been investigating Campus Eye for alleged healthcare fraud, including illegal kickbacks. This is the first declination involving a healthcare company under the new, Department-wide CEP. And it is only the second healthcare fraud declination under any voluntary self-disclosure policy in DOJ history—the first being the HealthSun Health Plans, Inc. matter handled by the same team (i.e., the Health Care Fraud Unit) when they were part of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, prior to creation of the National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED”) earlier this year. Click here to read the full blog post.
DOJ Expands Trade Fraud Enforcement After $1 Billion Milestone
The U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security announced on July 14, 2026, that the Trade Fraud Task Force had surpassed $1 billion in criminal and civil recoveries, penalties, forfeitures, and publicly charged losses less than one year after its launch. The announcement confirms a fundamental shift in the federal government’s approach to customs and trade enforcement, reflecting increased emphasis on rigorous criminal prosecution and civil enforcement under the False Claims Act.
Beyond AML: FinCEN and FDIC Clarify That Section 314(b) Safe Harbor Extends to Fraud Prevention
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s (FinCEN) June 12, 2026 guidance, along with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) July 9, 2026 Financial Institution Letter, signal a significant shift in how regulators expect financial institutions to use Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Historically viewed as an anti-money laundering (AML) information-sharing tool, Section 314(b) is now expressly recognized as a mechanism for combating fraud. The updated guidance confirms that financial institutions may rely on the provision’s safe harbor to share information relating to suspected fraud, encourages real-time collaboration among institutions, and highlights the role of Section 314(b) in improving suspicious activity reporting and detecting illicit activity more quickly.
Our latest blog post examines the agencies’ expanded interpretation of Section 314(b), including the broader range of fraud-related information that may be shared, FinCEN’s encouragement of joint suspicious activity report (SAR) filings and proactive information sharing, and the governance, compliance, and supervisory considerations for institutions evaluating or expanding their Section 314(b) programs. The post also explores how the guidance reflects the continued convergence of fraud prevention and AML compliance and what these developments may mean for financial institutions’ information-sharing practices and supervisory expectations. Read the full post here.
HHS-OIG Decertifies New York Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Escalating Federal Scrutiny of State Medicaid Fraud Enforcement
The Administration has taken another significant step in its effort to increase pressure on state Medicaid Fraud Control Units (“MFCUs”). On July 2, 2026, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York announced the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”) denied recertification of New York’s MFCU and suspended its federal funding effective July 1. The decision follows the Administration’s announcements earlier this year that it would closely scrutinize state MFCU performance, including through funding consequences for states perceived as failing to aggressively investigate and prosecute Medicaid fraud.
DOJ’s 2026 Health Care Fraud Takedown Highlights Increased Coordination and Data-Driven Enforcement
This week, DOJ announced the results of its 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, which involved charges against 455 defendants, including 90 medical professionals, in connection with alleged schemes involving more than $6.5 billion in false claims submitted to Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs. The Takedown involved the participation of 50 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units and included cases in 56 federal districts and 45 U.S. states and territories.
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.
Tariff Enforcement at the Forefront: Importer Agrees to Pay $549.5 million in Largest-Ever Trade-Related False Claims Act Settlement
On May 12, 2026, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a $549.5 million settlement with Perfectus Aluminum Acquisitions LLC and four affiliated companies to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by evading customs duties. This settlement is the largest trade-related settlement under the FCA.
The action was initiated by qui tam cases brought by individuals who worked for U.S.-based competitors and the Aluminum Extrusion Counsel and ultimately coordinated through the DOJ’s Trade Fraud Task Force, which involved cooperation between DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security. This case highlights the increasing use of the FCA to hold importers liable for the underpayment of customs duties, the Administration’s commitment to enforcing U.S. customs laws, and the potential for competitors and former employees to harness the FCA to motivate federal investigations into allegations of trade fraud.
This post examines the settlement and discusses its implications for importers, manufacturers, and other companies facing customs and trade enforcement risk.
