On October 1, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) unveiled its new corporate fraud enforcement priorities in a nationwide memorandum to its prosecutors working in the newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division. The memorandum emphasizes the Division’s focus on corporate cases involving healthcare, government contracts, tax, trade/tariff fraud, and—notably—administration priorities such as immigration offenses and national security. The memorandum also sets forth a new set of factors that Division prosecutors must place great weight on when deciding whether to charge or resolve corporate fraud cases. Finally, it expands the role of the Division’s Corporate Enforcement Section and reiterates the importance of self-disclosing misconduct by linking it to new investments in data analytics that will help the DOJ uncover fraud.

In light of this new directive, companies that interact with the U.S. government or have cross-border operations should reassess their compliance programs and risk profiles.

Background: DOJ’s 2026 Corporate Fraud Ramp-Up

The memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald follows then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s April 7, 2026, announcement creating the National Fraud Enforcement Division, whose core mission is to investigate and prosecute fraud involving taxpayer dollars. Over the following months, roughly 500 attorneys and staff were moved into the Division from elsewhere in the DOJ, including from the Criminal Division’s Tax Section, Health Care Fraud Unit, and parts of the Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit.

The October 1 memorandum builds on this reorganization by centralizing many corporate accountability decisions under the Division’s Corporate Enforcement Section. For example, the memorandum mandates that Division prosecutors must now report any ongoing corporate investigations to the Chief of the Corporate Enforcement Section, and the Corporate Enforcement Section will also take primary responsibility for assessing companies’ compliance with the terms of any corporate criminal resolution.

Key Takeaways from the October 1 Memo

On top of these logistical changes, the memorandum also articulated several major directives to federal prosecutors that will affect current and forthcoming corporate investigations and resolutions.

1. Fraud Division prosecutors are being directed to prioritize investigations involving:
   • healthcare fraud, including controlled-substance distribution and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act violations;
   • fraud touching government contracts, procurement, or other government functions;
   • tax evasion; and
   • tariff evasion, import fraud, or forced labor.
2. Prosecutors were also given a list of 10 non-exhaustive factors that they must place great weight on when deciding whether to bring charges or negotiate resolutions involving corporations. These factors include:
   • management’s knowledge of or involvement in the fraud;
   • efforts to conceal the fraud;
   • the duration of the scheme (three years or more);
   • whether the conduct threatens national security or military readiness;
   • harm to taxpayer-funded programs or government functions;
   • whether the conduct impacts multiple taxpayer-funded programs or government functions;
   • geographic reach (three or more federal districts);
   • the number of victims (25 or more) or amount of loss ($25 million or more);
   • whether it involves the exfiltration of U.S. dollars to foreign adversaries; and
   • whether it involves immigration offenses, which we have seen specifically connected to foreign corruption based on cartel-linked conduct.
3. The memorandum also mentions the Division’s growing use of data analytics and its National Fraud Detection Center’s ability to proactively generate leads and open new individual and corporate fraud investigations at a rapid pace. The emphasis on data analytics ties into the memorandum’s final point: that the Division will create new policies that encourage self-disclosure and incentivize whistleblowers—including people who participated in misconduct—to reach out to the DOJ.

What Companies Should Do Now

This directive signals that corporate enforcement may become more centralized, data-driven, and faster. Companies should not wait for an investigation before evaluating their risk profiles. Based on these new priorities, we recommend that companies consider the following:

1. map their fraud risk profile against the memo’s priority areas and 10-factor test, with particular attention to any immigration or national security concerns;
2. use data analytics and artificial intelligence as part of their compliance programs to detect and escalate issues quickly, given the DOJ’s new emphasis on these tools;
3. review internal whistleblower and anti-retaliation policies ahead of new DOJ incentive programs; and
4. revisit their voluntary self-disclosure strategy, given that the newly empowered Corporate Enforcement Section will now oversee both charging recommendations and post-resolution compliance monitoring. In some cases, self-disclosure can benefit companies seeking favorable resolutions, especially given the probable uptick in whistleblower activity. Companies should also ensure that employees understand internal reporting channels and anti-retaliation protections. Encouraging internal reporting can help companies investigate potential problems and decide whether to self-disclose to the DOJ instead of having the DOJ contact them first, losing the potential for a declination under the DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy.

For more information on these evolving DOJ enforcement priorities, including establishing or strengthening a compliance program, responding to a government investigation, or any related matter, please contact a member of Wilson Sonsini’s White Collar Crime, Government Investigations, or Regulatory practices.