DOJ Signals an Aggressive New Approach to Fraud Prosecutions

On October 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED) announced the release of Directive 26-13: A Comprehensive Approach in the Fight Against Fraud. Arriving a week after the Division’s corporate enforcement directive (Directive 26-12), the Directive, issued to all NFED personnel, directs prosecutors to use “every available tool” – criminal, civil, forfeiture, and sentencing – when pursuing fraud involving health care, government programs and procurement, tax, and trade. DOJ describes the Directive as “a significant operational shift, requiring the Division’s prosecutors to attack fraud from all angles using the Division’s tax, securities fraud, consumer fraud, and cybercrime authorities.”

The Directive follows the Division’s April 2026 launch (see our alert here), its August 2026 enforcement priorities and rapid buildout memorandum (see our alert here), and Directive 26-12 (see our alert here). Those documents described what the Division would prioritize. This Directive tells prosecutors how to investigate, charge, and resolve cases.

The message is clear: NFED prosecutors are being directed to pursue fraud cases more aggressively at every stage of the enforcement process. The Directive encourages prosecutors to expand charging theories, seek restraints and forfeiture of assets earlier in an investigation, and take a more assertive approach from the initial investigation through sentencing and, where warranted, appeal.

For companies and executives, three features of the Directive matter most. First, asset restraints will come earlier. Prosecutors are told to freeze bank and cryptocurrency accounts, seize domains and online accounts, and pursue civil injunctions and receiverships before charges are filed, which can disrupt payroll, vendor payments, and operations long before any court tests the government’s theory. Second, a single fraud allegation will not stay a single allegation. Every case now carries a tax review, and public companies with federal contracts, program revenue, or agency approvals will face data-driven securities scrutiny. Third, the exit is harder. Cooperation credit requires full forfeiture and restitution, and prosecutors are told to seek every supportable sentencing enhancement, upward variances where the Guidelines fall short, and appeals of sentences they view as unreasonable.

Attacking Fraud from All Angles

The Directive instructs prosecutors to “use every available tool to identify the full scope of the fraud schemes” and to “identify and hold accountable all persons and entities that knowingly enable, facilitate, conceal, or profit from those schemes.” While traditional charges such as wire fraud, health care fraud, and major fraud against the United States will often suffice, the Directive calls on prosecutors to bring additional charges where doing so will dismantle fraud networks and maximize recoveries. The Directive identifies four areas for particular attention.

• Tax offenses. In each case, prosecutors must assess whether a tax violation has occurred – on the premise that fraudsters rarely report or pay tax on illicit proceeds. Where tax charges “may materially advance the investigation, prosecution, or recovery of assets,” prosecutors are to invite IRS Criminal Investigation (“IRS-CI”) to evaluate the matter and work with the Division’s Tax Section to bring appropriate charges, prioritizing recovery of unpaid taxes on fraudulently obtained or unreported income. Subjects should expect a parallel IRS-CI inquiry to become routine, and executives involved in the allegation should expect their personal returns to be part of it. For DOJ, tax charges also supply a second route to the same money through tax restitution.
• Securities fraud. The Public Trust and Financial Integrity Section (“PTFI Section”) “will target and prioritize securities fraud schemes and market misconduct” related to government programs or contracts, schemes to defraud the federal government, foreign investment schemes aimed at the federal government, schemes directed at U.S. service members, and health care, tax, or trade fraud. The Directive expressly identifies publicly traded government contractors and companies that rely on federal agency approvals, such as those from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), as presenting risk to both the government and investors. Notably, the PTFI Section will draw on the Strategic Analysis and Criminal Investigation Sections and the National Fraud Detection Center to “correlate federal program, contract, and funding data against market activity,” which the Directive describes as “an unprecedented intelligence function to generate proactive matters.” In practice, a public company’s contract awards, reimbursement patterns, or FDA approval timeline can be matched against its filings and trading activity, and an inquiry may begin with a data anomaly rather than a complaint.
• Consumer fraud and cybercrime. The Directive asks prosecutors to consider consumer-focused charges, such as mail, wire, and bank fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity theft, and access-device fraud, where fraud against the public fisc also harms individual consumers. Prosecutors are directed to coordinate with relevant civil and regulatory counterparts where possible to address consumer harm, preserve evidence, identify potential victims of fraud schemes, and pursue parallel legal remedies.
• Early asset seizures and injunctions. The Directive instructs prosecutors to “prioritize early seizure of fraud proceeds and early disruption of fraud schemes,” coordinating with the Division’s Asset Recovery Section “at all stages” of the investigation and prosecutorial process. The Directive contemplates both pre-indictment and post-indictment actions, including restraining orders and seizure letters to freeze funds at banks and crypto exchanges; warrants and in rem forfeiture proceedings to seize accounts, digital assets, and securities before charges are filed; seizure of websites, domains, online accounts, and other digital property; and civil actions for restraining orders, injunctions, and prejudgment remedies (attachment, garnishment, receivership) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1345 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 3101–3105). For a business, this is the change with the most immediate operational consequence. A restraining order or seizure warrant can reach operating accounts, payment processors, and web domains before the company knows it is under investigation, leaving it to litigate for the release of funds while trying to keep the business running.

Corporate Enforcement

The Directive reaffirms that the Corporate Enforcement Section will lead the Division’s work combatting corporate criminal fraud under the framework of Directive 26-12, including its ten aggravating factors for charging and resolution decisions as well as its emphasis on voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation under the Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy ("CEP"). The Directive emphasizes how corporate enforcement efforts are meant to “promote a culture of compliance and integrity…and appropriately credit those that demonstrate a willingness to disclose misconduct, cooperate, and remediate.”

Sentencing Advocacy

The Directive identifies sentencing as “a critical tool” and sets out six principles. Prosecutors must:

1. Avoid “mechanical” presentations and recount the deception and harm in detail; 
2. Argue general deterrence in every case, with each Section Chief maintaining a set of best-practice deterrence arguments; 
3. Seek all Sentencing Guidelines enhancements that the facts support, oppose unwarranted reductions and departures, and seek approval for upward variances where the Guidelines range understates the offense;
4. Seek restitution, forfeiture, and fines reflecting the full scope of the offense; 
5. Request supervised-release conditions that protect victims and government programs; and 
6. Build a complete sentencing record and consult the Appellate Section about appealing sentences the government views as unreasonable.

For individual defendants, the combination of enhancements, upward-variance requests, and government appeals raises the cost of trial and shifts the calculus toward early resolution. For companies, expect fines, forfeiture, and restitution demands sized to the full scope of the offense.

Key Takeaways

• Expect broader investigations. DOJ is encouraging prosecutors to expand fraud matters beyond the original allegations, including tax, securities, consumer protection, cybercrime, and other related offenses. Every case now carries a tax assessment, and a single fraud allegation against a company can quickly become a multi-count, multi-agency matter. 
• Public companies face heightened risk. Companies with government contracts, federal funding, or significant regulatory exposure should expect increased scrutiny of disclosures, program performance, and trading activity, as DOJ now intends to match contract awards, reimbursement patterns, and FDA decisions against filings and trading data. Disclosure controls and insider trading policies should account for federal program milestones. 
• Assume DOJ may know before you do. Expanded use of cooperators, whistleblowers, and undercover techniques increases the likelihood that the government uncovers potential misconduct before it is reported internally, and cooperation credit rewards whoever reaches DOJ first. By the time a company learns of a problem, its self-disclosure credit under the CEP may no longer be available, which makes prompt internal escalation critical. 
• Prepare for early asset restraints. DOJ is emphasizing pre-charge seizure and forfeiture tools that can disrupt operations and restrict access to funds, including operating accounts, payment processors, and web domains, at the outset of an investigation and potentially before a company knows it is under investigation. Companies should know which accounts fund payroll and critical vendors and have a response plan in place before it is needed. 
• Strengthen compliance and response protocols. Companies should reassess enterprise-wide fraud risks (including tax exposure on revenue tied to federal programs), enhance internal reporting and investigation procedures so that hotline reports are triaged within days, review disclosure controls, and increase diligence over third parties and intermediaries, such as billing companies, marketers, subcontractors, customs brokers, and payment processors, that touch federal money. 
• Engage counsel early. Early decisions regarding cooperation, asset preservation, and investigative strategy may have an outsized impact on the outcome of an enforcement matter. Companies should involve counsel early enough to preserve privilege and evaluate disclosure, particularly given the Directive’s push for fines, forfeiture, and restitution sized to the full scope of the offense.

Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP’s White Collar Defense and Criminal Investigations Team navigates domestic and international clients in all manner of white collar, regulatory, corporate, and congressional investigations. Our team includes a distinguished roster of veteran defense attorneys, former federal prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys who served at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and at leading United States Attorneys’ Offices. Our team includes Chambers Ranked (Band 1) lawyers and alumni of the U.S. Department of Justice, the SEC’s Enforcement Division, the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and in-house compliance specialists of publicly traded companies.