Analysis of the Establishment of DOJ's New Anti-Fraud Division and Its Impact on Compliance Costs of Listed Companies

Based on the latest information I have collected, I will provide you with a comprehensive analysis of the DOJ’s new anti-fraud division and its impact on the U.S. financial markets and the compliance costs of listed companies.

According to an official White House statement, the Trump administration announced the establishment of the new

within the Department of Justice on January 8, 2026. The division will be led by an and is responsible for anti-fraud law enforcement nationwide [1].

The main responsibilities of the division include:

1. Unified Law Enforcement Leadership
   : Lead investigations, prosecutions, and remediation of fraud that affects the federal government, federally funded programs, and ordinary citizens

2. Cross-Agency Coordination
   : Oversee cross-regional, cross-agency fraud investigations, provide professional guidance to U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and assist in identifying and dismantling cross-jurisdictional organized complex fraud schemes

3. Policy Formulation
   : Develop national law enforcement priorities, propose necessary legislative and regulatory reforms to fill systemic gaps and prevent future fraud abuses

4. Senior-Level Decision-Making
   : Advise the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General on major, high-impact fraud investigations, prosecutions, and related policy matters [1]

From May to June 2025, the DOJ released two important policy documents, establishing new core directions for white-collar crime law enforcement with the principles of “Focus, Fairness, Efficiency” [2].

Area	Details
National Security and Economic Competitiveness	Sanctions violations, trade fraud, tariff evasion, government procurement fraud
Cross-Border Crimes	Money laundering and financial crimes related to cartels, transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), Chinese money laundering groups, illegal drug enterprises, and foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs)
Bribery That Harms U.S. Interests	Corrupt procurement schemes that harm U.S. economic competitiveness [2]

The DOJ has made significant adjustments to its enforcement policy for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA):

• New FCPA cases require approval from the leadership of the DOJ’s Criminal Division and must be directly related to U.S. economic harm or national security impacts
• Routine hospitality or “grease payments” will rarely be prosecuted, while corrupt procurement schemes that harm the interests of U.S. enterprises will be prioritized
• Self-disclosure, remediation, and cooperation can qualify for incentives such as non-prosecution or reduced penalties
• The term of corporate criminal resolutions shall not exceed 3 years, and the scope of compliance monitoring must be strictly limited [2][3]

The DOJ’s new anti-fraud division will significantly strengthen the federal government’s crackdown on financial fraud. According to 2025 law enforcement data, SEC enforcement actions dropped to a 10-year low (313 cases), but the DOJ is filling this gap by imposing harsher crackdowns on white-collar crimes [4].

According to analysis from Fried Frank, the following sectors will face increased scrutiny from the DOJ:

• Healthcare Sector
  : Including false claims and antitrust violations
• Financial Services Sector
  : Providing financial facilitation to Qatari organizations and foreign terrorist organizations
• Trade Compliance Sector
  : Tariff and customs evasion
• Cybersecurity Sector
  : Data security violations [5]

The new enforcement priorities may have the following impacts on financial markets:

• Increased legal risks and uncertainties for listed companies
• Improved efficiency in the detection and prosecution of financial crimes
• Greater compliance pressure on enterprises involved in international trade

According to analysis from Corporate Compliance Insights, the DOJ’s new enforcement policies will significantly increase enterprises’ compliance costs [6]:

:

• Enterprises are required to report accepted and prohibited data brokerage transaction offers to the DOJ within 14 days
• Violations may face civil penalties of up to $368,136 per violation or twice the value of the transaction, as well as criminal penalties of up to 20 years of imprisonment and a $1 million fine

: Susie Lloyd of Parker Poe stated, “Compliance is not just a paper policy; it also requires demonstrating data mapping, supplier due diligence, and contract terms” [6]

In May 2025, the DOJ revised the Corporate Whistleblower Reward Pilot Program, expanding the scope of reportable conduct to [2]:

• Corporate sanctions violations
• Trade/tariff/procurement fraud
• Terrorism financing
• Immigration law violations
• Conduct related to cartels or transnational criminal organizations

These changes may significantly increase the number of reports, exposing enterprises to higher internal whistleblower risks.

For multinational enterprises, especially those operating in both the U.S. and Europe, the following challenges will arise [2]:

Challenge Area	Specific Issue
Conflicting Evidence Collection	The DOJ requires prompt provision of emails and chat records, but German data protection laws require notifying employees and consulting labor unions
Differences in Attorney-Client Privilege	The scope of privilege is broad in the U.S., while it is narrow under German law, which may lead to waiver of privilege
Differences in Compliance Monitoring Requirements	A compliance program that meets the requirements of one jurisdiction may not satisfy another
Blocking Statute Conflicts	The U.S. requirement for prompt document submission may violate Germany’s Foreign Trade and Payments Act

In May 2025, the DOJ announced the establishment of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, using the False Claims Act to investigate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs of enterprises receiving federal funds [7]. This means:

• Enterprises may face investigations into false certifications due to their maintenance of DEI policies
• Potential risk of treble damages and penalties
• Need to re-evaluate the compliance framework of federal contractors

According to law enforcement actions announced by the DOJ in December 2025, the following trends are evident [8]:

1. Tariff Evasion Cases
   :
   • A U.S. company agreed to pay $54.4 million to resolve allegations of evading Section 301 tariffs
   • An importer under a Chinese multinational group agreed to pay over $53 million, including more than $30 million in civil penalties

2. Strengthened Trade Enforcement
   :
   • A customs broker was sentenced to 51 months in prison for providing false customs tariff forms
   • More companies have been brought within the scope of CBP law enforcement

Based on the above analysis, it is recommended that listed companies take the following measures:

Conduct forward-looking risk assessments targeting the DOJ’s key enforcement areas (sanctions compliance, trade compliance, third-party due diligence) [2].

• Establish and update compliance policies and procedures
• Strengthen due diligence on suppliers and third parties
• Establish effective internal whistleblower channels

Document the board of directors’ participation in compliance oversight, including meeting minutes, risk assessment reports, and corrective actions [2].

Develop rapid evidence collection protocols and timelines to balance the timeliness requirements of DOJ investigations with compliance obligations in other jurisdictions.

Identify and segregate potentially tainted revenue streams, and establish a victim compensation framework [2].

The DOJ’s newly established National Fraud Enforcement Division marks a major upgrade of the U.S. federal government’s anti-fraud law enforcement. Through resource consolidation, expanded enforcement scope, and strengthened cross-agency coordination, the division will have a far-reaching impact on the U.S. financial markets and the compliance of listed companies.

:

Impact Area	Expected Changes
Compliance Costs	Significantly increased, particularly in trade compliance, data security, and DEI areas
Enforcement Risks	Increased, especially for enterprises involved in international trade or federal contracts
Cross-Border Compliance	Facing more complex cross-jurisdictional coordination challenges
Executive Accountability	Boards of directors and executives will face stricter accountability and oversight requirements

Listed companies should closely monitor the evolution of DOJ enforcement policies and adjust their compliance strategies in advance to respond to the increasingly stringent law enforcement environment.

---

[1] The White House - Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Establishes New Department of Justice Division for National Fraud Enforcement (https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-establishes-new-department-of-justice-division-for-national-fraud-enforcement/)

[2] JD Supra - Evolving US white collar enforcement priorities and cross-jurisdictional compliance challenges (https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/evolving-us-white-collar-enforcement-4856161/)

[3] Gibson Dunn - 2025 Year-End FCPA Update (https://www.gibsondunn.com/2025-year-end-fcpa-update/)

[4] Paul Weiss - SEC Enforcement: 2025 Year in Review (https://www.paulweiss.com/insights/client-memos/sec-enforcement-2025-year-in-review)

[5] Fried Frank - Areas of Heightened DOJ Scrutiny in the Second Trump Administration (https://www.friedfrank.com/news-and-insights/areas-of-heightened-doj-scrutiny-in-the-second-trump-administration-12761)

[6] Corporate Compliance Insights - Top Stories of 2025 (https://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/top-grc-stories-2025/)

[7] Mayer Brown - DOJ Pursues DEI Investigations of Federal Contractors (https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/01/doj-pursues-dei-investigations-of-federal-contractors)

[8] Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg - Trade Enforcement Actions Portend More in 2026 (https://www.strtrade.com/trade-news-resources/str-trade-report/trade-report/january/trade-enforcement-actions-portend-more-in-2026)