DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division sets out its approach to corporate enforcement

Background

DOJ established the National Fraud Enforcement Division (Fraud Division) in April 2026 to lead federal fraud enforcement in cases involving the misuse of taxpayer dollars or other impacts on government programs. The Fraud Division has quickly expanded to hundreds of attorneys, with plans to grow further over the next two years. In August 2026, the Fraud Division issued a memo identifying five principal enforcement areas: public trust and financial integrity, healthcare, internal revenue, global trade and commerce, and corporate misconduct. It also described a dedicated Corporate Enforcement Section and established a National Fraud Detection Center to identify cases through data analytics. The October 1 memo, “Corporate Enforcement in the Fight Against Fraud,” focuses on how the Fraud Division will investigate and resolve corporate cases.

Principles of corporate enforcement

The memo lays out principles of corporate enforcement consistent with the Administration’s priorities and messaging. It characterizes effective corporate enforcement as “a necessary component” of DOJ’s mission—noting that it “holds criminal entities accountable, furthers individual prosecutions, promotes a culture of compliance and integrity, and protects and fosters honest and good-faith markets and institutions.” The memo also emphasizes that DOJ “must protect law-abiding companies” and “appropriately credit” those that disclose misconduct, cooperate, and remediate.

The same principles will guide the Fraud Division. The memo states that the Fraud Division will “zealously prosecute corporate actors that defraud taxpayers.” At the same time, it will “firmly guard against overbroad corporate enforcement—rightly dividing between shades of corporate malfeasance—[to avoid] interfer[ing] with legitimate business operations.”

The memo makes clear that in implementing these principles, the Fraud Division will follow DOJ’s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations and the Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy announced in March 2026.

Priority areas for corporate investigations

The memo instructs prosecutors to prioritize four categories of corporate fraud in opening and conducting an investigation:

• Fraud schemes involving the healthcare industry, including healthcare 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; and
• Fraud schemes involving tariff evasion, importation of goods or services, or forced labor.

These categories track the priorities outlined in the Fraud Division’s August 2026 memo that created stand-alone sections to address each of these areas.

Factors that carry “great weight”

Under the memo, Fraud Division prosecutors must place “great weight” on 10 factors when deciding whether to bring charges and how to resolve cases against companies:

• Knowledge of or involvement in the scheme by corporate management;
• Efforts to conceal fraud from government agencies or auditors, or to obstruct government oversight;
• Conduct furthering a scheme that lasts three years or more;
• Actions that threaten the safety or security of Americans, including military readiness;
• Conduct that causes substantial financial hardship to a taxpayer-funded program or government function;
• Conduct that affects multiple taxpayer-funded programs or government functions;
• Conduct that affects three or more federal districts;
• Conduct that harms 25 or more victims or causes $25 million or more in loss;
• Conduct that involves the exfiltration of American dollars to support foreign adversaries; and
• Conduct that involves immigration offenses.

These 10 non-exhaustive factors add granularity to the existing considerations in the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations that all DOJ prosecutors must assess when considering how to resolve corporate matters. Several factors listed, such as management knowledge of or involvement in misconduct, are familiar considerations. Others, such as the numerical thresholds and the focus on immigration offenses, provide additional detail about the types of corporate resolutions the Fraud Division intends to pursue.

The Corporate Enforcement Section

The memo places the Fraud Division’s Corporate Enforcement Section at the center of the Division’s corporate work. It directs the Fraud Division’s prosecutors to work with the Section “at all phases of corporate investigations, from case intake through completion of any corporate resolution or litigation.” This approach will “maximize efficiency, consistency, and results” across the Fraud Division’s corporate portfolio.

By October 8, prosecutors must report all ongoing corporate investigations to the Chief of the Fraud Division’s Corporate Enforcement Section. Prosecutors in the Fraud Division must also promptly notify the Section of new corporate investigations and major developments in existing cases. These directives do not apply to cases that U.S. Attorneys’ Offices assign to District Fraud Counsel without Fraud Division supervision.  The memo also does not apply to other Department components, including the Criminal Division and its White Collar and Corporate Enforcement Section. 

After a corporate resolution with the Fraud Division, the Corporate Enforcement Section will take “primary responsibility” for evaluating a company’s compliance with its obligations. That work will include assessing compliance program enhancements and reporting under disclosure responsibilities.

Lead generation and whistleblowers

The memo indicates that the Fraud Division will value both its own lead generation and outside tips. It notes that the Fraud Division is “proactively generating leads and opening new individual and corporate fraud investigations at a rapid pace”—while recognizing that DOJ has long relied on “honest brokers,” including those who “share culpability for the misconduct.” The memo directs Fraud Division leadership to “design and implement policies and programs that appropriately incentivize whistleblowers.” 

Key takeaways

• Corporate fraud enforcement is expanding. The memo confirms that the Fraud Division will build a substantial corporate enforcement practice. Companies that receive federal funds or operate in healthcare, government contracting, tax, or trade may face heightened risk.
• The “great weight” factors signal how DOJ will seek to resolve cases. Several thresholds—three years of conduct, impact in three federal districts, 25 victims, or $25 million in loss—may capture many matters involving large companies. Companies investigating potential misconduct should assess these factors early.
• DOJ continues to emphasize self-disclosure. The memo reaffirms DOJ’s Department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy and encourages disclosure, cooperation, and remediation. The memo also calls for new whistleblower incentives. Combined with data-driven lead generation, those incentives raise the odds that DOJ learns of misconduct before the company reports it.  Companies that discover fraud should continue to weigh prompt disclosure.