DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Announces Directives for Corporate Enforcement: What Companies Need to Know

The U.S. Department of Justice continues to expand its focus on corporate fraud enforcement through new directives issued by the National Fraud Enforcement Division. The guidance highlights the types of cases that will receive enhanced scrutiny and reinforces the importance of effective compliance programs and timely self-disclosure for companies operating in regulated industries and government-facing sectors.

Background

As we shared back in June, the Department of Justice’s National Fraud Enforcement Division was set to begin its work to aggressively investigate and prosecute those who steal or fraudulently misuse taxpayer dollars. Later that month, the Department announced the results of its 2026 National Heath Care Fraud Takedown, which resulted in charges against 455 defendants, including 90 doctors and other licensed medical provisions.

Two months later, DOJ launched its National Fraud Detection Center, bringing together the FBI, federal law enforcement agencies, Offices of Inspector General, and state partners in a first-of-its-kind effort to identify fraud across taxpayer-funded programs.

Directive 26-12: Corporate Enforcement in the Fight Against Fraud

Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald’s recent memorandum seeks to build on this momentum by setting forth directives aimed at enhancing the Divisions’ efforts to investigate and prosecute corporate fraud. Fraud Division prosecutors have now been directed to work closely with the Department’s Corporate Enforcement Section at all phases of corporate investigations. These prosecutors have also been tasked with reporting any ongoing and new corporate investigations to the Chief of the Corporate Enforcement Section.

For its part, the Corporate Enforcement Section will now have primary responsibility for evaluating a company’s compliance with the terms of any corporate resolution, freeing Fraud Division prosecutors to continue their pursuit of individual and corporate cases.

McDonald’s directives also detail what type of cases prosecutors will prioritize and the factors that will carry significant weight when determining whether to bring charges and negotiate criminal and civil resolutions.

Types of Corporate Investigations being Prioritized

• Fraud schemes involving the health care industry, including health care fraud, distribution of controlled substances, and violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
• Fraud schemes involving the public trust or financial integrity of Americans and markets related to procurement, government contracts, and other government functions
• Fraud schemes involving significant evasion of internal or external revenue
• Fraud schemes involving tariff evasion, importation of goods or services, or forced labor

Important Factors in Charging and Resolution Decisions

• Knowledge of or involvement in fraud scheme by corporate management
• Efforts to conceal fraud from government agencies or auditors, or otherwise impede or obstruct a government function or oversight activity
• Conduct furthering a scheme lasting three years or more
• Actions that threaten the safety or security of Americans, including military readiness
• Conduct causing substantial financial hardship to a taxpayer-funded program or government function
• Conduct affecting multiple taxpayer-funded programs or government functions
• Conduct affecting three or more federal districts
• Conduct resulting in financial harm to 25 or more victims or $25 million or more in losses
• Conduct involving the exfiltration of American dollars to support foreign adversaries
• Conduct involving immigration offenses

Self-Disclosure Remains Important

The memorandum reinforces DOJ’s commitment to designing and implementing policies that promote corporate self-disclosure of misconduct. Companies that timely disclose and remediate fraud are best positioned to receive a declination of criminal charges or receive a favorable civil or criminal resolution that may not otherwise be available if the fraud is first discovered by the Department.

In short, as the National Fraud Division continues to ramp up its efforts, companies must understand if their business will be under stricter scrutiny due to these new directives. Equally important, companies must continue to invest in effective compliance programs so that they can timely identify and address any instances of fraud or misconduct. Given the potential benefits available through DOJ’s self-disclosure policy, failing to do so could result in avoidable adverse consequences.

The Government and Special Investigations Team at Woods Rogers can help companies ensure their internal reporting, compliance, and investigation processes are well positioned to address these evolving enforcement priorities. And if your business identifies potential fraud or misconduct, our attorneys have the experience and judgment to evaluate whether a disclosure is required and, when appropriate, assist in reporting the misconduct to DOJ and advocating on your behalf.