DOJ Corporate Fraud Enforcement Directive: New Priorities and Compliance Risks for Companies

Key Takeaways

• DOJ Directive 26-12 centralizes corporate fraud enforcement and prioritizes healthcare, government contracting, revenue evasion, tariffs, imports, and forced labor.
• Charging and resolution risk will turn on defined aggravating factors, including management involvement, concealment, duration, financial harm, geographic scope, and victim losses.
• Companies should accelerate internal investigations and disclosure decisions as DOJ expands data analytics, whistleblower incentives, and centralized post-resolution compliance monitoring.

On October 1, 2026, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General for the National Fraud Enforcement Division, issued Directive 26-12, “Corporate Enforcement in the Fight Against Fraud,” to all personnel in the Fraud Division. The memorandum establishes a centralized, “aggressive, all-tools approach” to corporate fraud enforcement, while pledging to guard against overbroad enforcement that could interfere with legitimate business activity.

Viewed in context, Directive 26-12 is part of a broader series of 2026 Department of Justice (“DOJ”) measures intended to centralize and standardize corporate-fraud enforcement. Those measures include the March 2026 department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, the April creation of the National Fraud Enforcement Division, the July DOJ-DHS Trade Fraud Resource Guide, and the August launch of the National Fraud Detection Center. Together, these initiatives pair uniform incentives for voluntary self-disclosure with centralized oversight, data-driven detection, and coordinated enforcement in priority fraud areas.

How DOJ Is Centralizing Corporate Fraud Investigations and Compliance Oversight

The directive formalizes the role of the newly created Corporate Enforcement Section. Fraud Division prosecutors must report ongoing corporate investigations to the Section Chief within seven days and promptly notify the Section of new investigations and significant developments. The Section will have primary responsibility for monitoring post-resolution compliance, including evaluating implementation of compliance programs and disclosure reporting. This structure is intended to allow prosecuting Sections to focus on pursuing additional matters.

DOJ’s Four Priority Areas for Corporate Fraud Enforcement

Prosecutors are directed to prioritize four categories of fraud:

1. healthcare fraud, controlled substances, and violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
2. procurement, government contracts, and other government functions affecting public trust;
3. significant revenue evasion, whether internal or external; and
4. tariff evasion, importation of goods, and forced labor.

According to McDonald, “These are areas that, more broadly, the Fraud Division is taking a much closer look at.”¹ Although the department has historically addressed these areas, McDonald stated that it will now do so “in a coordinated, comprehensive way in the Fraud Division.”²

Aggravating Factors That May Increase Corporate Charging and Resolution Risk

The directive identifies 10 non-exhaustive factors to which prosecutors must give “great weight” in charging decisions and plea negotiations. These factors include:

1. management knowledge or involvement;
2. efforts to conceal conduct from agencies or auditors;
3. conduct lasting three or more years;
4. threats to safety or military readiness;
5. substantial financial hardship to taxpayer-funded programs;
6. conduct affecting multiple taxpayer-funded programs;
7. conduct affecting three or more federal districts;
8. harm to 25 or more victims or losses of $25 million or more;
9. exfiltration of funds to foreign adversaries; and
10. immigration offenses.

How DOJ Will Use Data Analytics and Whistleblowers to Identify Corporate Fraud

The Fraud Division’s National Fraud Detection Center is using advanced data analytics to proactively generate investigative leads at a rapid pace. In addition, division leadership is directed to design and implement whistleblower-incentive programs, including incentives for culpable participants, to encourage the disclosure of credible information concerning fraud.

What Companies Should Do Now to Prepare for Increased DOJ Fraud Enforcement

Companies operating in healthcare, government contracting, imports and tariffs, or tax should assess their exposure in light of the directive’s priority areas and aggravating factors. The memorandum indicates heightened scrutiny rather than a routine policy update.

Companies should also strengthen compliance programs and internal reporting channels, with particular attention to training, escalation procedures, and related infrastructure. Centralized post-resolution monitoring and new whistleblower incentives — including incentives for culpable participants — may increase the likelihood that credible concerns reach the government.

The National Fraud Detection Center’s expanding use of data analytics to generate investigative leads also emphasizes the importance of promptly evaluating potential misconduct and the timing of any voluntary self-disclosure under the department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy. Companies should proceed on the assumption that the government may identify conduct before the company reports it and should recognize that prompt disclosure may support a more favorable resolution.

Internal reviews and investigations should evaluate the relevant conduct against the directive’s 10 non-exhaustive aggravating factors, including management involvement, concealment, duration, scope, victim or loss thresholds, and threats to safety or public programs, to anticipate how prosecutors may assess charging and resolution.

Finally, companies should expect the Corporate Enforcement Section to drive a more centralized and consistent enforcement posture, from intake through post-resolution monitoring, and potentially greater uniformity across jurisdictions in the handling and resolution of corporate-fraud matters.

For more information, please contact AGG Government Investigations attorneys Aaron Danzig, Gabe Scannapieco, and Jeremy Ritter-Wiseman.

[1] Phillip Bantz, “DOJ Outlines New Corporate Fraud Enforcement Priorities,” Law360, October 1, 2026.

[2] Id.