On October 7, 2026, United States Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald issued Directive 26-13, “A Comprehensive Approach in the Fight Against Fraud,” (Comprehensive Approach Memo) to all personnel in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Fraud Enforcement Division. The directive builds on the National Fraud Enforcement Division’s August 13, 2026, enforcement-priorities memorandum and describes how prosecutors are to use asset seizure, forfeiture, and civil injunctive tools against fraud proceeds. Read alongside a string of recent DOJ forfeiture actions, the directive describes early pursuit of assets as a priority area, rather than a step reserved for later in a criminal case.

For companies, counterparties, and individuals operating in spaces where government funds, government contracts, or government-adjacent trust relationships are involved, the directive describes the DOJ’s stated approach to asset recovery, including with respect to parties who are not themselves targets but hold, transact in, or facilitate the movement of relevant funds.

The Directive’s Asset Seizure Framework

The Comprehensive Approach Memo prioritizes “early seizure of fraud proceeds and early disruption of fraud schemes” and directs prosecutors to involve the National Fraud Enforcement Division’s Asset Recovery Section throughout their work. The directive identifies six categories of tools available at different stages of a case:

  • Orders or letters seeking prompt freezes of recently stolen assets at banks or cryptocurrency exchanges;
  • Pre-charge seizure warrants and in rem proceedings targeting proceeds in bank accounts or digital wallets, as well as securities and other financial assets;
  • Warrants targeting digital infrastructure connected to a fraud scheme or the concealment of its proceeds, including domains, websites, online accounts, communications terminals, and related U.S.-based service accounts;
  • Civil proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2) seeking to preserve proceeds from banking-law violations or federal health care offenses, including restraints on property of equivalent value when the statute’s conditions are satisfied;
  • Civil proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(1) seeking injunctions to stop covered fraud, banking-law violations, or federal health care offenses; and
  • Prejudgment measures under 28 U.S.C. §§ 3101–3105, such as attachment, receivership, garnishment, and sequestration, in civil actions to collect debts owed to the United States, where the applicable statutory conditions are satisfied.

The directive also addresses cooperation and sentencing, describing an expectation that cooperating defendants forfeit property with a nexus to the offense and make restitution, and referencing a goal of seeking “restitution, forfeiture, fines, and other financial penalties that reflect the full scope of the offense.”

Recent Enforcement Actions Illustrate the Trend

Several recent DOJ press releases demonstrate the asset recovery posture described in the Comprehensive Approach Memo already in practice, spanning both civil and criminal forfeiture tools.

On June 18, 2025, lawyers in the DOJ filed a complaint seeking civil forfeiture in federal court in the District of Columbia involving cryptocurrency worth more than $225.3 million and allegedly linked to investment scams. DOJ’s announcement quoted a Secret Service official describing the seizure as “the largest cryptocurrency seizure in U.S. Secret Service history.” According to the release, investigators analyzed blockchain records to follow the funds, and the complaint alleged that a laundering network used hundreds of thousands of transfers across cryptocurrency addresses to obscure their source. The complaint’s filing was not itself a final forfeiture determination or a distribution of funds to victims.

On April 22, 2026, the DOJ filed a civil forfeiture complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking to forfeit a Beverly Hills mansion allegedly purchased and renovated with approximately $30 million in proceeds of a scheme to defraud the Defense Logistics Agency and bribe a foreign official. As the DOJ’s release on that case notes, a civil complaint is merely an allegation, and the government bears the burden of establishing that assets are subject to forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence.

On September 17, 2026, the DOJ announced that it was transferring roughly $29.7 million to Curaçao through three installments. The funds arose from an eight-year scheme involving fraud, laundering, and unpaid taxes. At Curaçao’s request, DOJ obtained U.S. court orders giving effect first to a Curaçao pretrial restraint and then to its final forfeiture order. The example illustrates how international cooperation can support recovery and the return of assets to a foreign government harmed by a scheme.

On October 6, 2026, a former federal employee pleaded guilty to a scheme causing roughly $194 million in losses to the government. His plea agreement included forfeiture of gold, currency, properties, watches, and vehicles acquired with the proceeds. DOJ reported 298 recovered gold bars and identified 30 watches and two vehicles among the assets covered by the agreement. The case illustrates how a criminal resolution can encompass assets purchased with fraud proceeds, rather than only funds remaining in financial accounts.

Taken together, these actions reflect the civil and criminal forfeiture tools catalogued in the Comprehensive Approach Memo operating across a range of asset types, including cryptocurrency, real property, and physical commodities, and across both domestic and cross-border matters.

Civil Versus Criminal Forfeiture: A Brief Distinction

The actions above draw on two distinct forfeiture tracks. Criminal forfeiture is an in personam process imposed as part of a defendant’s sentence following conviction, as illustrated by the October 2026 guilty plea described above. Where applicable, third parties can assert ownership claims in a separate ancillary proceeding. Civil forfeiture, by contrast, is an in rem action directed at the property, and it does not require a criminal conviction or even a charge against its owner, as the mansion and cryptocurrency complaints illustrate. The Comprehensive Approach Memo describes using civil and criminal tools together, including seizure warrants before indictment and civil orders preserving assets.

Practical Takeaways for Companies: Assessing Exposure Before an Inquiry Arises

Even before any seizure, subpoena, or investigation touches their business, the Comprehensive Approach Memo and the enforcement actions described above suggest several areas companies should consider evaluating as part of a proactive risk assessment:

  • Companies that hold, transfer, or maintain custody of client or counterparty funds, including banks, cryptocurrency exchanges, and payment platforms, may want to consider reviewing how they would respond to a restraining order, seizure letter, or seizure warrant, as the directive references early freezes on bank and cryptocurrency exchange accounts as one of the tools available to prosecutors.
  • Companies that transact with government contractors or counterparties in heavily regulated industries, such as health care, defense, or government procurement, may want to evaluate their due diligence and anti-money-laundering screening. The enforcement actions described above illustrate how investigators may follow alleged fraud proceeds through accounts and trusts into real property acquisitions.
  • Companies that receive a grand jury subpoena, civil investigative demand, or informal government inquiry touching on a counterparty’s funds may want to consider engaging counsel promptly to assess preservation obligations and the scope of any related accounts referenced in the inquiry.
  • Companies that have received, hold, or are negotiating the acquisition of real property, luxury assets, or other property connected to a counterparty under investigation may want to evaluate the potential implications. Civil forfeiture can reach property traceable to fraud proceeds even after a transfer, subject to applicable ownership defenses and statutory limits.
  • Companies considering cooperation with a government investigation may want to discuss with counsel how forfeiture and restitution considerations are addressed in the directive, which describes forfeiture and restitution as elements that remain part of a cooperating party’s resolution.

Responding to an Active Seizure or Forfeiture Matter

The analysis shifts once a seizure or forfeiture action is no longer theoretical. For companies and individuals already facing an actual or threatened asset seizure or forfeiture action, three takeaways from the Comprehensive Approach Memo and the enforcement actions described above are worth highlighting.

First, timing can be a relevant consideration. The directive references early seizure as a priority, which means a government inquiry and any related restraint or seizure warrant may both become apparent to a company or individual around the same time. Second, civil and criminal exposure can arise from the same underlying facts, so a review limited to only the criminal or only the civil dimension of a matter may not address the full picture. Third, forfeiture can reach traceable property that has moved through multiple hands, meaning parties other than the original subject of an investigation may have an interest in how a matter develops. Those parties may also have defenses available, including an innocent-owner defense in civil forfeiture proceedings, depending on the facts and the applicable law.

Companies and individuals involved in or evaluating a potential asset seizure or forfeiture matter may want to consider the following, among other steps, as generally relevant to such matters:

  • Reviewing applicable deadlines promptly upon receiving notice of a seizure, restraining order, or related inquiry, as civil forfeiture proceedings generally involve short, defined deadlines for filing a claim and an answer.
  • Maintaining records relevant to the source and chain of title of the property at issue, including financial records, transaction histories, and documentation of the source of funds, which can be relevant to questions of ownership and the government’s tracing analysis.
  • Considering standing and ownership interests carefully, as civil forfeiture claimants generally bear the burden of establishing standing as part of any claim.
  • Considering how parallel civil and criminal proceedings may relate to one another, as a position taken in one proceeding can be relevant to the other.
  • Engaging counsel early, including in connection with a subpoena, civil investigative demand, or informal government request, so that preservation obligations, privilege considerations, and the range of available options can be assessed, and considering, in consultation with counsel, whether to retain a consultant with cryptocurrency-tracing capabilities where digital assets are involved.

If you have questions about these developments, contact Jeff Le Riche, Kip Randall, or other members of the Husch Blackwell team.