DOJ Unveils New Corporate Fraud Enforcement Priorities, Emphasizes Whistleblower Protections
On October 1, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald issued a memorandum outlining the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Fraud Enforcement Division’s new corporate enforcement priorities. The directive, titled Corporate Enforcement in the Fight Against Fraud, establishes a framework for investigating and prosecuting corporate misconduct, strengthens oversight of corporate enforcement actions, and calls for new policies to encourage whistleblowers to report fraud.
The memorandum comes as the federal government continues to confront substantial losses from fraudulent schemes. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government loses an estimated $233 billion to $521 billion annually to fraud, underscoring the importance of effective enforcement mechanisms to protect taxpayer dollars.
The Four Corporate Fraud Enforcement Priorities
The memorandum directs Fraud Division prosecutors to prioritize investigations involving four categories of misconduct:
- Health care fraud: Schemes involving the health care industry, including fraudulent billing, unlawful distribution of controlled substances, and violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
- Government and procurement fraud: Schemes undermining public trust or financial integrity involving government contracts, procurement, and other government functions.
- Revenue evasion: Schemes involving significant evasion of internal or external revenue.
- Trade and customs fraud: Schemes involving tariff evasion, the importation of goods or services, or forced labor.
Beyond identifying these priorities, the memorandum outlines ten factors prosecutors must give substantial weight when determining whether to bring corporate charges or negotiate resolutions.
These include: whether corporate management knew of or participated in the fraud; whether the company concealed misconduct from government agencies or auditors; and whether the fraudulent conduct continued for three years or longer. Prosecutors must also weigh whether the scheme affected multiple taxpayer-funded programs, spanned at least three federal districts, or caused financial harm to 25 or more victims or losses of at least $25 million.
Other considerations include threats to public safety or national security, significant financial harm to government programs, support for foreign adversaries, and immigration-related offenses.
Although these factors are not exhaustive, they provide greater transparency into the circumstances that may warrant aggressive corporate enforcement.
New Emphasis on Whistleblower Incentives and Protections
Perhaps the memorandum’s most consequential development for the whistleblower community is its explicit recognition of whistleblowers’ essential role in uncovering corporate fraud.
The DOJ acknowledges that government investigations benefit from individuals willing to disclose wrongdoing, even when those individuals participated in the underlying misconduct, writing, “The Fraud Division’s policies must encourage and protect the disclosure of information by whistleblowers, including by those who participated in the criminal conduct.”
To advance this objective, McDonald directs Fraud Division leadership, in consultation with law enforcement partners, to design and implement policies and programs that appropriately incentivize whistleblowers to provide credible information about fraud. These initiatives are intended to uncover criminal misconduct, strengthen investigations, prevent financial losses, and help DOJ respond to emerging fraud threats. The memorandum also calls for public transparency regarding these policies and programs to the greatest extent possible.
This directive builds on DOJ’s existing efforts to encourage whistleblower participation, including its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, launched in August 2024 to incentivize reporting of corporate criminal misconduct that might otherwise escape detection. However, the October memorandum does not establish a new whistleblower award program, specify monetary incentives, or announce additional anti-retaliation protections. Rather, it directs DOJ leadership to develop policies addressing whistleblower incentives and protections, leaving important details to be determined.
For potential whistleblowers, those details will matter. Meaningful protections against retaliation, clear reporting procedures, and predictable financial incentives can make the difference between exposing misconduct and remaining silent.
A More Coordinated Approach to Corporate Accountability
The memorandum also establishes a central role for the Fraud Division’s newly created Corporate Enforcement Section (“the Section”), which will help coordinate corporate investigations and prosecutions nationwide.
Under the directive, Fraud Division prosecutors must work closely with the Section throughout corporate investigations, from initial case intake through resolution or litigation. Prosecutors were also instructed to report ongoing corporate investigations within seven days of the memorandum’s issuance and promptly notify the Section of new investigations and significant developments.
The Section will additionally oversee companies’ compliance with corporate criminal resolutions, including evaluating improvements to compliance programs and ensuring adherence to reporting obligations.
DOJ intends this centralized approach to promote consistency across corporate enforcement matters while allowing prosecutors to focus additional resources on pursuing individual and corporate wrongdoing.
The memorandum also reiterates DOJ’s commitment to the Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, which provides incentives for companies that voluntarily disclose misconduct, cooperate with investigations, and undertake remediation.
What the Directive Means for the Fight Against Fraud
The memorandum signals DOJ’s intention to pursue corporate fraud through a coordinated enforcement strategy that combines aggressive prosecution, corporate accountability, voluntary self-disclosure, and whistleblower participation.
Its emphasis on whistleblowers is noteworthy. Individuals with firsthand knowledge of misconduct can help identify fraudulent schemes that government investigators might otherwise struggle to uncover, especially when wrongdoing is concealed within complex corporate operations.
Whistleblowers have already demonstrated their value through the False Claims Act (FCA), which allows private individuals to bring qui tam lawsuits on behalf of the government. In fiscal year 2025, FCA settlements and judgments totaled more than $6.8 billion, including approximately $5.34 billion attributable to whistleblower-initiated actions.
Although the memorandum focuses on corporate criminal enforcement rather than changes to the FCA’s civil enforcement framework, its recognition of whistleblowers reinforces a longstanding lesson: effective fraud enforcement depends not only on government investigative resources, but also on empowering those with knowledge of wrongdoing to come forward.
The ultimate impact of DOJ’s new directive will depend on how its priorities are implemented, particularly whether the promised whistleblower policies provide meaningful incentives and safeguards. For now, the memorandum represents an encouraging acknowledgment that whistleblowers remain indispensable partners in protecting taxpayers and holding corporate fraudsters accountable.
Since announcing the memorandum outlining the National Fraud Enforcement Division’s new corporate enforcement priorities, the White House announced a “Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program.” The program, administered by the Justice Department, will award between $10,000 and $30,000 for successful tips that lead to convictions for fraud or enforcement action. President Trump stated that he will award a 1 percent commission to successful tipsters.
