Tarras Defense founding attorney David Tarras examines how the Department of Justice’s new National Fraud Enforcement Division could change federal fraud investigations, prosecutions and defense strategy.

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced an expansive new approach to federal fraud enforcement, with significant implications for individuals and businesses facing healthcare fraud, tax fraud, corporate misconduct and other financial crime investigations.

On August 13, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald issued a memorandum outlining the enforcement priorities of the DOJ’s newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division. The memorandum identifies five areas of focus: public trust and financial integrity, healthcare, internal revenue, global trade and commerce, and corporate misconduct.

In a new Law360 article, “Where DOJ’s Fraud Priorities Memo May Actually Matter,” Tarras Defense founding attorney David Tarras and Dynamis LLP partner Trevor C. Jones examine what the DOJ’s announcement could mean in practice for white collar investigations and federal criminal defense.

Their analysis focuses on an important question for companies, executives and defense counsel: How will the DOJ’s new structure actually change the way fraud cases are identified, investigated and prosecuted?

Data Analytics Could Reshape Federal Fraud Investigations

One of the most significant aspects of the DOJ memorandum is its emphasis on data analytics.

The National Fraud Enforcement Division intends to use advanced data analysis to identify potential fraud, particularly in healthcare and tax matters. That could allow investigators to identify statistical anomalies and unusual patterns much earlier than traditional investigative methods.

For individuals and businesses operating in data-intensive industries, this development is particularly important.

A federal fraud investigation may increasingly begin because a provider, company or taxpayer appears to be an outlier within a government data set. That does not necessarily establish criminal conduct. Statistical deviation can have legitimate explanations involving geography, specialty, patient population, referral patterns, business structure or other factors.

The distinction between an unusual data point and evidence of fraudulent intent may become a central issue in future federal fraud cases.

White Collar Defense May Need to Begin Earlier

Earlier detection can also mean earlier government intervention.

Subpoenas, agency audits, civil investigative demands and target letters may arrive sooner in the life of an alleged fraud scheme. That increases the importance of sophisticated preindictment advocacy.

Companies and individuals facing scrutiny may need to begin developing the factual and analytical record before prosecutors make a charging decision.

That can include examining:

• The data and methodology used to identify alleged misconduct
• The government’s comparator or peer group
• The assumptions underlying statistical models
• Legitimate explanations for billing, claims or financial patterns
• The source and tracing of business and personal assets
• Potential exposure arising from parallel civil, regulatory and criminal proceedings

Effective advocacy at this stage can be critical because the DOJ’s new structure is designed to reduce layers of internal review and make the Fraud Division more streamlined.

Asset Restraint and Financial Exposure Could Move to the Front of the Case

The DOJ memorandum also provides for asset recovery attorneys and investigators to work alongside prosecutors.

That structure could make asset tracing, restraint and forfeiture issues important much earlier in a federal fraud investigation.

For defendants, distinguishing between allegedly tainted and untainted assets can have enormous practical consequences, including the ability to retain counsel of choice. Businesses and individuals facing potential federal scrutiny should therefore understand the provenance of assets before a restraint or seizure issue arises.

Financial analysis may also play a larger role in determining sentencing exposure. In federal fraud cases, the government’s calculation of alleged loss can significantly affect the sentencing guidelines, restitution and forfeiture.

When a case originates through data analytics, the government’s initial loss calculation may itself depend on statistical modeling or extrapolation. Challenging the methodology behind that calculation may therefore become important both to the defense of the underlying allegations and to sentencing.

Healthcare Fraud and Other Data-Intensive Sectors May Receive Particular Attention

Healthcare fraud is expressly identified as one of the DOJ’s principal enforcement priorities and is particularly well suited to data-driven investigation.

Government agencies have access to enormous volumes of billing and claims information that can be analyzed for unusual patterns. Providers whose billing differs significantly from selected peer groups may face increased scrutiny even where legitimate clinical or operational factors explain those differences.

Organizations in healthcare and other heavily regulated industries should understand their own data before the government interprets it for them.

Preserving records, examining billing and claims patterns, identifying legitimate explanations for anomalies and responding carefully to audits or government inquiries can become important components of an early defense strategy.

What the DOJ Fraud Priorities Mean for Individuals and Businesses

The new enforcement framework may ultimately change the sequence of federal fraud investigations as much as the volume of prosecutions.

Tarras and Jones identify several practical considerations for attorneys and their clients:

• Understand and preserve relevant financial, billing, claims and tax data.
• Treat government audits, agency inquiries and civil investigative demands as potential precursors to criminal investigations.
• Address advancement and indemnification rights early when corporate employees or executives may require individual counsel.
• Document the origin of untainted assets before asset restraint becomes an issue.
• Evaluate the assumptions behind government statistical models rather than accepting an outlier designation at face value.
• Begin developing legitimate explanations for unusual data before prosecutors make charging decisions.

For businesses and individuals facing federal scrutiny, early strategic decisions can substantially affect the course of an investigation.

Federal Fraud and White Collar Criminal Defense

Tarras Defense represents individuals and businesses in complex federal criminal investigations and white collar matters, including healthcare fraud, financial fraud and other federal offenses.

Founding attorney David Tarras regularly handles high-stakes federal criminal matters involving complex financial evidence, government investigations and significant sentencing exposure.

His Law360 article with Trevor C. Jones, “Where DOJ’s Fraud Priorities Memo May Actually Matter,” provides a detailed examination of how the Department of Justice’s new fraud enforcement strategy could affect the way cases originate, develop and ultimately reach the defense table.

Read the full article in Law360