DOJ Fraud Division Announces Top Enforcement Priorities

Highlights

• The Fraud pision is well-resourced and growing. With more than 500 attorneys and support staff — and plans to expand — companies should expect heightened enforcement activity across all priority areas.
• Compliance programs should be tailored to the stated priorities. Organizations in the government contracting, healthcare, tax, and international trade spaces should evaluate whether their compliance frameworks adequately address the specific fraud schemes identified in the memorandum.
• Voluntary self-disclosure remains the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) preferred path. Consistent with the Corporate Enforcement Policy, the memorandum reiterates that companies that identify and self-report misconduct, cooperate with investigations, and remediate will receive more favorable treatment.
• Data analytics will drive enforcement. The Fraud pision’s emphasis on data-driven investigation means that patterns detectable through billing, claims, or trade data are likely to trigger scrutiny — even absent a whistleblower or tip.

On Aug. 13, Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald, the head of the Department of Justice’s National Fraud Enforcement pision (Fraud pision), issued a memorandum laying out the Fraud pision’s organizational structure, resources, and enforcement priorities. This memorandum provides valuable insights into the topics at the top of DOJ’s enforcement list and areas likely to become more prominent for fraud enforcement in the future.

Earlier this year, the White House announced the creation of the Fraud pision as part of a broader reorganization of the Department of Justice. The Fraud pision has the mandate of investigating and prosecuting claims of fraud againstfederal government programs and federally funded benefits programs. To do so, the Fraud pision specifically relies on data-driven investigation, coordination with other agencies across the federal government, and developing advanced technology to identify and pursue criminal and civil claims of fraud. 

The memorandum explains that, as a result of the reallocation of resources from other DOJ components, the Fraud pision now employs more than 500 attorneys and support staff—with aggressive plans to further increase headcount over the next two years. Under the Fraud pision’s organizational plan, prosecutors have direct access to specialized resources within the pision, including dedicated asset recovery attorneys and investigators, appellate counsel, and electronic discovery resources. 

The memorandum lays out five specific priorities for the Fraud pision’s enforcement work across all sectors:

• Public Trust and Financial Integrity: As its first priority, the memorandum focuses on procurement fraud and other schemes involving government contracts, including bid-rigging, bribery, billing fraud, self-dealing, and product substitution. The Fraud pision intends to look across the spectrum of the federal government to unearth these schemes wherever the government pays money. Notably, the memorandum identifies student loans, child care, veterans’ benefits, disaster relief, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as benefits programs that may be under scrutiny by DOJ. 
• Healthcare: Next, the memorandum emphasizes the federal government’s continued commitment to investigating healthcare fraud. Historically, healthcare matters have comprised the overwhelming majority of DOJ’s fraud enforcement efforts, so it comes as no surprise that the memorandum includes this as one of the Fraud pision’s top priorities. The memorandum calls out some of the most prominent areas of enforcement (home health aid and hospice scams, telemedicine schemes, and the illegal distribution of opioids), suggesting these areas will continue to yield considerable scrutiny, while also emphasizing the government’s expanding reliance on data analytics technology to identify targets. Tax Fraud. With the Tax Section under the umbrella of the Fraud pision, the memorandum notes that DOJ intends to aggressively pursue tax fraud. It notes that many fraudsters who steal from government programs are simultaneously violating the Internal Revenue Code and pledges to pursue intra-pision and interagency coordination in response. 
• Tax Fraud: With the Tax Section under the umbrella of the Fraud pision, the memorandum notes that DOJ intends to aggressively pursue tax fraud. It notes that many fraudsters who steal from government programs are simultaneously violating the Internal Revenue Code and pledges to pursue intra-pision and interagency coordination in response.
• Global Trade and Commerce: The memorandum also emphasizes the Fraud pision’s interest in prosecuting trade fraud and customs evasion matters. The Fraud pision intends to lead DOJ’s coordinated criminal enforcement strategy, focusing on “systemic, high-impact” violations of the trade laws that threaten American economic interests and national security. The memorandum specifies transshipment schemes, country-of-origin fraud, undervaluation of imported goods, sanctions evasion, and foreign forced labor schemes as high-priority areas.
• Corporate Misconduct: Finally, the memorandum emphasizes the Fraud pision’s focus on prosecuting corporate misconduct and notes that the Fraud pision “has a strong pipeline of ongoing corporate matters” that it is examining. Echoing points from the newly revamped Corporate Enforcement Policy that was unveiled earlier this year, the memorandum states that the Fraud pision will reward companies that voluntarily self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate fraud, and encourages companies with evidence of fraud to come forward. 

The memorandum underscores DOJ’s deepening reliance on cross-government coordination and data-driven investigation efforts. Organizations with exposure to government contracts, healthcare reimbursement, international trade, or tax compliance should reassess the adequacy of their existing compliance frameworks. DOJ’s stated commitment to rewarding voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation reaffirms that proactive engagement with authorities remains a mitigating factor in enforcement decisions.