DOJ’s New National Fraud Enforcement Division: What These Sweeping Priorities and the Department-Wide Corporate Enforcement Policy Mean for Companies   

PDF

The last few months have been a busy time for the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the fraud arena. Since March of this year, the DOJ has: (1) issued a Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (the “CEP”); (2) created a new National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED” or the “Division”); (3) announced the NFED’s five enforcement priorities; and (4) published a final rule transferring DOJ’s criminal health care, tax, and trade fraud portfolios to the new Division. Together, these actions consolidate federal fraud enforcement into a single, rapidly growing, data-driven litigation unit division. They also give companies a clearer, but time-sensitive path to receive credit for voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation.

Creation of the NFED

Following a January 2026 White House announcement, then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche formally established the NFED on April 7, 2026. Blanche issued a memorandum directing the Division to “zealously investigate and prosecute those who steal or fraudulently misuse taxpayer dollars.” The NFED immediately assumed operational control of the Criminal Division’s Tax Section, Health Care Fraud Unit, and Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit—and Colin M. McDonald was subsequently named as the Assistant Attorney General leading the new division. The Blanche Memorandum also required each U.S. Attorney’s Office to assign an experienced prosecutor to NFED, created a National Fraud Detection Center to generate leads through data analysis, expanded FBI resources for fraud investigations, and established a Civil Division liaison so DOJ can deploy civil and criminal tools in tandem.

The McDonald Memorandum: A 500-Person, Data-Driven Division

On August 13, 2026, AAG McDonald issued a memorandum detailing NFED’s structure and agenda. Citing Government Accountability Office estimates that the federal government loses $233 billion to $521 billion annually to fraud, it reaffirms the Division’s mission “to prosecute fraud in the United States, no matter its size or complexity” and announces that NFED will reach approximately 500 attorneys and staff by August 24, 2026, with an “aggressive plan” to keep growing for two years. The Division will operate through specialized litigating sections (including Health Care Fraud; Public Trust and Financial Integrity; Tax; Global Trade & Commerce Enforcement; and Corporate Enforcement), supported by the National Fraud Detection Center and a dedicated data science team, with career prosecutors deployed nationwide alongside U.S. Attorneys’ Offices.

The NFED’s Five Enforcement Priorities

1. Public Trust and Financial Integrity. Government procurement fraud—defective pricing, bid rigging, self-dealing, bribery, product substitution, and billing fraud—is a “critical priority,” along with fraud on benefit and grant programs ranging from student loans and veterans’ benefits to disaster relief and small business programs.
2. Health Care. Using “cutting-edge data analysis,” NFED will target home health and hospice scams, kickbacks, illegal opioid prescribing, telemedicine fraud, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, controlled-substance diversion, and deceptive marketing —“supercharging” the Health Care Fraud Strike Force model.
3. Internal Revenue. Targeted enforcement areas include unethical return preparers, income concealment, and abusive promoters of illegal tax schemes, pursued with “the full arsenal of criminal tax tools” plus data analytics and financial forensics.
4. Global Trade and Commerce. Through the cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force with the Department of Homeland Security, NFED will prioritize “systemic, high-impact noncompliance” by focusing on illicit transshipment, country-of-origin fraud, undervaluation of imports, sanctions evasion, and forced labor in supply chains.
5. Corporate Misconduct. NFED reports a “strong pipeline of ongoing corporate matters” and will hold accountable organizations that break the law while “rewarding those that voluntarily self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate.”

The Final Rule: Consolidated Jurisdiction

On August 18, 2026, DOJ published a final rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 53357, codifying NFED’s functions within 28 C.F.R. Part 0. These include criminal fraud matters (other than antitrust), all criminal internal revenue matters, trade fraud, monies owed to or paid by the United States, and health plan fraud and controlled-substance diversion schemes, while removing tax and health plan fraud from the Criminal Division’s mandate. One open question is where corporate matters will land: DOJ recently renamed the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section the White Collar and Corporate Enforcement Section, suggesting that foreign bribery and private-sector financial fraud may stay with the Criminal Division while NFED focuses on fraud against government programs. Companies should watch which component assumes control.

The Department-Wide Corporate Enforcement Policy

NFED’s corporate agenda operates against the backdrop of the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, announced March 10, 2026. The first corporate enforcement policy applicable Department-wide, the CEP governs all corporate criminal matters except antitrust, supersedes all component- and district-specific policies, and establishes a three-tier framework:

• Part I – Declination. DOJ will decline to prosecute a company that voluntarily self-discloses, fully cooperates, and timely remediates, absent aggravating circumstances (e.g., egregiousness, severity of harm, or recidivism within five years). Declinations are public, and the company must still pay disgorgement, forfeiture, and restitution.
• Part II – “Near Miss.” A cooperating, remediating company whose good-faith report missed the self-disclosure requirements—or that presents aggravating factors—receives a non-prosecution agreement with a term under three years, no compliance monitor, and a recommended 50–75% fine reduction off the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines range.
• Part III – All other cases. Fine reductions are capped at 50%, presumptively taken from the low end of the range for companies that fully cooperate and remediate.

Three features warrant particular attention: (i) voluntary self-disclosure is strictly defined. The disclosure must be reasonably prompt and precede any imminent threat of discovery, with the burden on the company; (ii) where a whistleblower reports both internally and to DOJ, the company can still earn a declination by self-reporting within 120 days of the internal report, putting a premium on rapid triage of complaints; and (iii) cooperation credit is earned through proactive, complete disclosure of non-privileged facts (no privilege waiver required), while remediation demands root-cause analysis, a well-resourced compliance function, employee discipline, and controls on “ephemeral” messaging platforms.

Key Takeaways for Companies

• More cases, from more places. A 500-person division with prosecutors detailed to every U.S. Attorney’s Office means that while the NFED will operate as a stand-alone unit to coordinate fraud enforcement on a national basis, these efforts will produce cases in all 93 judicial districts.
• Assume the government sees your data. The National Fraud Detection Center and data science team signal DOJ-generated cases built on health care billing, tax, customs, and benefit-program analytics—companies should find and fix anomalies first.
• Government-facing businesses carry the greatest exposure. Contractors, health care providers and payors, grant and benefit-program participants, and importers should benchmark compliance programs against the specific schemes the McDonald Memorandum identifies.
• Trade compliance is now white collar enforcement. Customs valuation, country-of-origin declarations, transshipment, sanctions, and forced-labor exposure are criminal priorities warranting supply chain audits now.
• The disclosure clock runs faster. The CEP’s benefits turn on speed. Prompt disclosure, before any imminent threat of discovery, and within 120 days of a whistleblower’s internal report. Companies identifying potential misconduct should engage counsel immediately.
• Compliance investments pay measurable dividends. The CEP’s remediation criteria are now a de facto checklist that prosecutors across the Department will apply.

Looking Ahead

These developments mark the most significant restructuring of federal fraud enforcement in decades. Companies in the priority sectors should use the coming months to pressure-test compliance programs, tighten internal reporting and investigation protocols, and establish a disclosure decision-making framework before an issue arises. Maynard Nexsen’s Government Investigations & White Collar Defense team will continue to monitor NFED’s rollout and its effects. For assistance with compliance assessments, internal investigations, or self-disclosure decisions, please contact the authors or any members of the team.

Please note that this alert is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship.

About Maynard Nexsen's Government Investigations & White Collar Defense Team

Our team includes former senior DOJ officials, experienced former federal prosecutors from multiple judicial districts, including a former United States Attorney from Alabama and a former Criminal Division Chief from South Carolina, a former Senate Judiciary Chief Counsel and Deputy Counsel to the Vice President, and veteran private-sector defense lawyers. Staffed with seasoned trial lawyers with decades of courtroom experience and national Chambers USA recognition, the team delivers authoritative counsel in high-stakes government investigations, enforcement actions, congressional investigations, False Claims Act matters, and federal and state criminal prosecutions.