On October 1, 2026, the Department of Justice’s National Fraud Enforcement Division (“Fraud Division”) released Directive 26-12 (“Directive”).  The Directive reshapes how federal prosecutors approach corporate fraud.  Focusing on the priority areas the Fraud Division announced in a previous memorandum authored by Assistant Attorney General, Colin McDonald,  the Directive introduces ten factors prosecutors “must place great weight” on when considering corporate fraud charges, and formalizes the central coordinating role of the Corporate Enforcement Section (“CES”) in the investigation and prosecution of alleged fraud. The Directive further reminds the public of an era of more aggressive, yet targeted, corporate fraud enforcement.

On September 11, 2026, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “the Commission”) announced that it had approved a final rule amending its whistleblower rules to increase presumptive payouts for smaller awards.

On July 17, 2026, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (the “DPA”) with a United States-based agricultural supply chain company (the “Company”) for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).

On January 8, 2026, a new U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Division for National Fraud Enforcement was announced.  According to the announcement and accompanying fact sheet, the initiative aims to centralize strategy, strengthen coordination, and accelerate fraud enforcement actions involving federally funded programs and benefits, as well as matters affecting private citizens.  

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has named Judge Margaret “Meg” Ryan as the new Director of the Division of Enforcement.  Judge Ryan will succeed Acting Director Sam Waldon, who has served as Acting Director of the Division of Enforcement since January 2025, following Sanjay Wadhwa’s departure from the agency.

On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge brought by a member firm against the enforcement power given to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).  The Court’s decision to turn away the petition for certiorari permits FINRA to proceed with an enforcement action against the member firm for allegedly stealing over $54.5 million in customer funds, but because the challenge was presented as part of a petition from a partial denial of a preliminary injunction rather than from a final order, it may not be the last word as to the constitutionality of FINRA’s enforcement powers.

On May 22, 2025, in a significant decision that clarifies the scope of the federal wire fraud statute and resolves a circuit split, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a pair of wire fraud convictions that had been premised on a fraudulent-inducement theory without a showing that defendants intended to cause, or in fact caused, their victims a net economic loss.  Kousisis v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1382 (2025).

On June 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released new guidelines for investigating and enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), in response to President Trump's February 10, 2025 Executive Order 14209 pausing FCPA enforcement (the Executive Order) pending the issuance of new guidance.  The new, more restrictive enforcement guidelines recalibrate FCPA enforcement to more closely align with the enforcement objectives set out in the Executive Order.

On May 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced an $8.4 million settlement agreement with several defense contract companies (“companies”) resolving alleged violations of the False Claims Act.  The settlement addresses allegations of non-compliance with federal cybersecurity requirements over government contracts and submitting false claims for work on government contracts due to the failure to meet mandated security standards.

On March 26, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that a California-headquartered healthcare provider, Seoul Medical Group Inc. (“Seoul Medical”), its former president and majority owner, and a Seoul Medical subsidiary were ordered to pay over $62 million for violating the False Claims Act.  According to the DOJ, Seoul Medical allegedly submitted false diagnosis codes to increase payments from the Medicare Advantage Program.  A radiology group that also worked with Seoul Medical agreed to pay $2,350,000 for allegedly conspiring with Seoul Medical.