DOJ fraud directives and company records
DOJ’s October fraud directives link government-contract facts, corporate oversight and early disruption of fraud. For companies, the practical question is whether procurement, finance and compliance teams can trace the same facts.
Compliance · 10 Oct 2026
On October 8, 2026, the Department of Justice announced Directive 26-13, dated October 7, for its National Fraud Enforcement Division. It builds on the October 1 corporate-enforcement directive, Directive 26-12. Together, the documents explain how the division intends to investigate corporate fraud and disrupt its proceeds and infrastructure. For companies supplying the U.S. government, the relevance extends beyond the document submitted with a bid.
Procurement facts and financial reporting
Directive 26-13 identifies a connection between fraud against the government and harm to investors. Its example is a publicly traded federal contractor whose conduct can deceive both the government and investors relying on its financial statements. The division plans to correlate federal program, contract and funding data with market activity to generate investigations.
This is a specific government-funding and market-integrity focus, not an announcement that every accounting discrepancy establishes fraud. The company-side implication is practical: a representation checked by procurement may depend on the same underlying facts used by finance, with information held elsewhere in a corporate group.
Corporate oversight and early disruption
Directive 26-12 directs division prosecutors to involve the Corporate Enforcement Section throughout corporate investigations. That section will also lead the division’s assessment of compliance with corporate criminal resolutions, including compliance-program improvements and reporting obligations under those agreements.
The directive gives substantial weight to a non-exhaustive set of factors when prosecutors recommend corporate outcomes. They include management’s knowledge or involvement, efforts to conceal fraud from agencies or auditors, and conduct continuing for three years or more. These are prosecutorial considerations, not a universal company checklist or a promised resolution.
Directive 26-13 adds emphasis on early seizure of fraud proceeds and disruption of fraud infrastructure. Its listed tools include freezing stolen funds shortly after theft and seeking warrants for websites, domains and online accounts used for fraud. DOJ’s August delegation rule had already assigned related injunction, seizure and forfeiture functions to the division under adopted § 0.70(i), 91 FR 53359. The October memo describes priorities for using those tools; it does not dispense with the conditions governing each remedy.
Practical questions for company controls
The following are our observations drawn from the directives, not controls DOJ mandates in them.
Reconcile representations with supporting records. Who owns the facts behind a procurement representation, and can finance identify the records supporting it? For a cross-border group, identify the affiliate that holds the information and who checks changes before the next submission. A sign-off should lead back to evidence, not merely another team’s assurance.
Escalate inconsistent accounts. What happens when procurement, finance or an auditor finds conflicting information? The directives’ focus on management knowledge and concealment makes a documented escalation path particularly relevant. Record what was raised, who assessed it and how the discrepancy was addressed.
Preserve payment and access evidence. Can the company reconstruct the relevant payment path and identify who controlled associated accounts or systems? The early-disruption focus supports checking retention and access arrangements before an incident, then preserving relevant records when a concern arises. Preservation is distinct from restricting access to stop ongoing harm.
Track agreed remediation separately. Where a company has a corporate resolution, assign each actual reporting or remediation obligation to an owner and retain evidence of completion. The Corporate Enforcement Section’s oversight role does not create the same obligations for every company.
Directive 26-13 is internal prosecutorial guidance and expressly disclaims enforceable rights or benefits. Directive 26-12 also limits its directions concerning cases assigned to a U.S. Attorney’s District Fraud Counsel without division supervision. These documents explain enforcement priorities; they are not a new company certification standard.
Sources: DOJ announcement, October 8, 2026. Directive 26-13, § I.B p.3, § I.D pp.4–5, § III p.6 and footnote1 p.2. Directive 26-12, §§ II–III pp.2–4 and footnote2 p.3. Published August delegation rule, adopted § 0.70(i), 91 FR 53359; Official PDF, p.53359.
This post is for general information and is not legal advice.
Attorney Advertising. Zimmermann Law PLLC · New York · +1 (917) 426-4625 · contact@zimmermann-law.com