On August 13, 2026, the Department of Justice’s new National Fraud Enforcement Division issued its first comprehensive statement of enforcement priorities.1 At first glance, much of the list looks familiar: government procurement fraud, health care fraud, tax offenses, trade and customs fraud, and corporate misconduct. Companies should not mistake familiarity for continuity.
The more consequential part of DOJ’s announcement is not what it intends to prosecute. It is how DOJ is reorganizing itself to find and prosecute those cases.
While still aspirational, the new Fraud Division describes a nationwide organization already approaching 500 attorneys and staff, with plans for continued and expansive growth along with a National Fraud Detection Center, data scientists, the Fraud Division’s directives include planned deployment around the country to work with U.S. Attorney’s offices. DOJ says the goal is to create the most sophisticated and data-driven white-collar law-enforcement organization in the world. That institutional change may ultimately matter more than any individual item on the priority list.
For companies, boards, and compliance officers, the message is straightforward: DOJ is trying to move from a largely case-driven fraud-enforcement model toward an increasingly data-driven detection model. At the same time, it continues to offer significant benefits to companies that find misconduct first, disclose it, cooperate, and remediate. Although in its infancy in concept, that combination changes the risk calculation.
The New Enforcement Architecture
The Fraud Division begins from an enormous premise. Citing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) from 2024, DOJ notes that the federal government may lose between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud.2 GAOs underlying estimate, based on fiscal years 2018 through 2022, puts annual fraud losses at approximately three to seven percent of average federal obligations during that period.
DOJ’s proposed response is institutional.
The Department is transferring substantial resources into the new Fraud Division.3 By August 24, 2026, the Division expects approximately 500 attorneys and staff, with further growth planned over the next two years. Prosecutors will be supported by asset-recovery personnel, appellate lawyers, a dedicated privilege-review team, corporate-enforcement specialists, data scientists, automated litigation support, and other technology resources.
The organizational chart attached to the memorandum makes the ambition even clearer. The Division announces a number of dedicated components, including units focused on Health Care Fraud, Public Trust and Financial Integrity, Tax, Global Trade & Commerce Enforcement, National Enforcement, Corporate Enforcement, Asset Recovery and Appellate units. It also establishes a National Fraud Detection Center and District Fraud Counsel Section, along with Strategic Analysis, Information Technology, Litigation Support and Criminal Investigation Sections.
This template appears to be more than bureaucratic rearrangement. DOJ is trying to integrate three things that historically have not always operated together seamlessly: data, subject-matter expertise, and prosecutors with nationwide reach. The practical consequence is potentially significant. The traditional corporate investigation often begins because someone reports something: a whistleblower complains, an agency inspector general makes a referral, a company self-discloses, or an investigation of one participant leads prosecutors to another. This new model increasingly contemplates the government finding the anomaly first.
Five Priorities - But One Common Theme
The memorandum identifies five principal enforcement areas: (1) public trust and financial integrity; (2) health care; (3) internal revenue; (4) global trade and commerce; and (5) corporate misconduct. Those categories are broad. But a common theme runs through them: DOJ is prioritizing misconduct for which large government or commercial datasets can help find suspicious patterns.
Government Programs and Procurement
Government procurement fraud receives explicit priority status. DOJ names defective pricing, bid rigging, self-dealing, bribery, product substitution, and billing fraud as particular concerns. It also emphasizes fraud involving government benefit and grant programs, including student loans, childcare, veterans' benefits, nutrition programs, disaster relief, and small-business programs.
For government contractors and recipients of federal funds, this makes representations made to the government increasingly important enforcement data. data that will be evaluated seemingly more carefully than ever before.
Pricing information, certifications, invoices, eligibility information, ownership records, subcontractor relationships, claims data, and performance information may exist across different agencies or databases. The Memorandum specifically declares DOJ is setting up partnerships designed to break down data barriers and eliminate government silos. Consequently, a representation that once existed principally inside one agency’s records may become part of a broader enforcement picture.
Health Care
Health care is perhaps the clearest illustration of the model. The Fraud Division specifically promises to use innovative data analysis to find schemes involving telemedicine, Medicare and Medicaid, controlled-substance diversion, home health and hospice services, and deceptive marketing of unsafe products and services. It also plans to expand the Health Care Fraud Strike Force model with added resources, analytics, and technology.
For health care providers this is particularly noteworthy. They already work in one of the most data-rich regulatory environments in the economy. Claims volume, referral relationships, prescribing patterns, procedure codes, geographic concentrations, patient utilization, and reimbursement patterns can all produce anomalies. An anomaly, of course, is not a crime. Data can find correlation, it can’t prove knowledge or intent. But it can identify where prosecutors should look. That distinction is important. The increasing use of analytics does not lower the government’s burden of proof. It can, however, dramatically improve the government’s ability to decide which transactions, providers, companies, and relationships call for investigation.
Tax
The same approach appears in tax enforcement. The memorandum says the Division will combine the full arsenal of criminal tax tools with data analytics, financial forensics, and nationwide coordination to find tax misconduct earlier and pursue offenders more efficiently. The placement of criminal tax enforcement inside a broader fraud architecture is noteworthy for another reason: tax charges can go with underlying fraud cases.
DOJ expressly recognizes that people who defraud government programs or private victims may simultaneously violate the internal revenue laws. The Division therefore envisions an “all-tools” response in which tax, fraud, money laundering, forfeiture, and related authorities can be brought together. Companies evaluating potential misconduct should therefore resist analyzing the underlying conduct in isolation. A billing, procurement, kickback, or revenue-recognition problem may generate collateral tax, money-laundering, false-statement, or forfeiture exposure.
Trade and Customs
Global trade is another area where the August memorandum confirms an enforcement direction DOJ announced in 2025. That preceding White-Collar Enforcement Plan specifically named trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion, as a priority.5 The new Fraud Division now has a dedicated Global Trade & Commerce Enforcement Section and says it will lead DOJ’s coordinated criminal strategy involving trade and customs violations. The identified conduct includes illicit transshipment, country-of-origin fraud, undervaluation of imported goods to evade duties, sanctions evasion, and forced-labor supply chains.
This will broaden the traditional conception of corporate criminal risk. Customs classifications, country-of-origin certifications, valuation decisions, supplier representations, sanctions screening, and supply-chain diligence can no longer comfortably be treated as matters residing only with trade specialists. In the right circumstances, DOJ is expressly signaling that they may become criminal fraud issues.
Corporate Enforcement Is Still Very Much Alive
Perhaps the most important paragraph for companies appears near the end of the memorandum.
DOJ states that the Fraud Division already has a strong pipeline of ongoing corporate matters, will prioritize anti-fraud corporate enforcement, and will work through a dedicated Corporate Enforcement Section. At the same time, it promises to reward companies that voluntarily self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate and to apply DOJ's corporate-prosecution policies consistently.
That language matters because it connects the new enforcement machinery directly to DOJ’s broader corporate-enforcement policy. In March 2026, DOJ adopted its first Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy.[v] With limited exceptions, that policy now supplies a common framework across DOJ. A company that voluntarily self-discloses, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately remediates, and lacks aggravating circumstances generally should receive a declination. Even when a declination is unavailable, qualifying cooperation and remediation can produce substantial benefits. The August 2026 Memorandum does not retreat from that policy. It reinforces it. And that produces an important dynamic: DOJ is simultaneously improving its ability to discover misconduct independently and preserving substantial incentives for companies that reach out to DOJ before DOJ reaches them.
The value of self-assessment, internal investigation, and early detection hence increases. The practical issue for companies is no longer simply whether DOJ has become more or less aggressive toward corporate America. The better question is: Who will understand the problem first? The company or the government? DOJ’s May 2025 white-collar plan emphasized focus, fairness, and efficiency. It warns against enforcement that unnecessarily burdens legitimate businesses, emphasizes individual accountability, directs prosecutors to move investigations more quickly, and looks to limit monitorships to circumstances where they are genuinely necessary. Those principles are still important. But the new Fraud Division structure adds a powerful enforcement capability to this framework. A government that can combine claims data, tax information, procurement records, customs information, financial intelligence, investigative databases, whistleblower information, and other datasets, particularly with the use of expected artificial intelligence tools, may find patterns that no individual employee or even an individual company can see. Companies should be asking whether their compliance systems are capable of doing something similar with their own data.
If DOJ can find unusual billing concentrations, suspicious vendor relationships, anomalous reimbursement patterns, improbable customs valuations, repeated overrides, or unusual payment relationships through analytics, sophisticated companies should consider whether their own systems can identify those signals first. That does not mean every anomaly requires an internal investigation. It means compliance increasingly needs the ability to distinguish ordinary variance from potentially meaningful misconduct.
What Companies Should Be Doing Now
The August 2026 National Fraud Enforcement Division Memorandum suggests several immediate questions for boards, legal departments, and compliance teams:
- Map the company's exposure to DOJ’s five priority areas. A company need not consider itself a traditional government contractor or health care provider to have exposure. Federal grants, customs obligations, government reimbursement, tax positions, regulated products, government customers, and supply chains can all create touchpoints.
- Identify the data the government possesses about the company. Companies often focus on their own records. They should also consider the information they routinely provide to Medicare, Medicaid, Customs and Border Protection, the IRS, contracting agencies, regulators, and other government entities.
- Test whether internal analytics can find some of the anomalies DOJ may see. Compliance monitoring should increasingly ask not only whether policies exist, but whether available data can reveal suspicious patterns.
- Revisit escalation procedures. Data is useful only if meaningful anomalies reach people capable of evaluating them. Companies should know when a compliance signal becomes a legal issue and when counsel should become involved.
- Preserve the ability to make a voluntary-disclosure decision quickly. DOJ disclosure incentives are still substantial, but their value depends upon timing. A company that spends months deciding internally what the government already knows may discover that its strategic options have narrowed, sometimes considerably.
- Look beyond the obvious offense. Potential fraud should be evaluated for related tax, money-laundering, false-statement, sanctions, customs, forfeiture, and other related exposure.
- Document remediation. DOJ's corporate policy continues to reward companies that respond effectively to misconduct. The record of what management and the board did after discovering a problem may become almost as important as how the problem arose.
The Bottom Line
DOJ’s August 13, 2026, Memorandum is easy to read as another announcement that the Department intends to prosecute fraud aggressively. But stopping there would understate DOJ’s claimed path forward. The more important development is its structural intent. DOJ is concentrating hundreds of lawyers and professionals inside a specialized national organization, creating dedicated sections around major fraud risks, building a National Fraud Detection Center, integrating data science and technology, coordinating prosecutors across districts, and pairing traditional prosecution with tax, forfeiture, corporate-enforcement, appellate, and investigative resources. At the same time, it has not abandoned the corporate-enforcement bargain announced before: companies that find misconduct, disclose it appropriately, cooperate, and remediate can receive substantial benefits.
The government is investing heavily in proactive tools to detect and prosecute fraud. The corporate enforcement policy gives companies a reason to become better at finding it first. For boards and management teams, that may be the most important compliance lesson in DOJ’s new enforcement architecture.
1. See https://www.justice.gov/d9/2026-08/fraud_division_priorities_memo_final.pdf.
2. See GAO-24-105833 at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105833.
3. See https://www.justice.gov/d9/2026-08/fraud_division_priorities_memo_final.pdf at 2-3.
4. See https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400046/dl?inline at 4-5.
5. See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-releases-first-ever-corporate-enforcement-policy-all-criminal-cases.
Related Attorneys
Counsel
Partner
