Photo of Jonathan Porter

Jonathan Porter

Jonathan uses his years of experience as a federal prosecutor to guide clients through the challenges associated with government investigations and regulatory compliance.

Jonathan brings to clients a thorough working knowledge of how the U.S. government targets and pursues criminal and civil investigations, particularly those involving the healthcare industry. He is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, and in that capacity, he brought charges against numerous individuals and companies under federal law, including criminal charges of health care fraud, wire fraud, and violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, and civil complaints alleging violations of the False Claims Act.

At the Department of Justice, Jonathan was a key member of multiple international health care fraud takedowns, in which Jonathan charged dozens of doctors, nurses, and other licensed medical professionals, along with marketers and health care executives for alleged participation in healthcare fraud schemes involving billions of dollars in false billings. In total, these charges resulted in more than 30 guilty pleas plus a conviction in the nation’s first trial of a medical professional charged as part of Operation Brace Yourself, which Jonathan first-chaired. Jonathan also was active in dozens of civil investigations brought under the False Claims Act. Jonathan resolved tens of millions of dollars in civil settlements and judgments for False Claims Act violations.

Jonathan also advises clients on a range of regulatory issues, along with the development and implementation of corporate compliance programs. He uses his unique perspective as a former AUSA, providing a prosecutor’s eye for detail in helping clients understand how DOJ and other agencies view compliance, particularly in light of the changing standards for compliance as outlined in the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) and implemented in the Department’s white-collar crime enforcement initiative.

We just released Episode 35 of the False Claims Act Insights podcast where I discussed the growing amount of state-level False Claims Act enforcement with Husch Blackwell partners Rebecca Furdek and Todd Gee.

State FCA enforcement varies widely from state to state, but an increasing number of states are using FCA to combat different

In white-collar criminal cases, forfeiture is one of the most consequential sentencing components, yet it remains overlooked and misunderstood by practitioners. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Ng Chong Hwa demonstrates why a thorough understanding of forfeiture is essential.

2025 has been a landmark year for False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement, marked by record-breaking settlements, evolving legal theories, and a broadening scope of government priorities. The FCA remains one of the federal government’s most potent tools for combating fraud, with billions recovered annually and an ever-expanding reach into new sectors and compliance areas. This roundup synthesizes the year’s most significant developments—drawing on recent case law and shifting enforcement priorities—and provides actionable insights for businesses navigating the FCA landscape.

We just released Episode 34 of the False Claims Act Insights podcast where I had a great conversation with Jody Rudman about the new Zafirov oral argument into whether qui tams are unconstitutional. We discuss how the role of whistleblowers in the False Claims Act is unique among government whistleblower rewards programs, in that False

In Episode 33 of False Claims Act Insights, Claire Postman and I tackle a critical challenge for healthcare providers: balancing HIPAA compliance with civil investigative demands (CIDs) in False Claims Act investigations. Claire explains HIPAA’s general prohibition on disclosing protected health information and the key exceptions that permit disclosure when required by law, such as

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has made it abundantly clear: healthcare fraud remains at the top of its enforcement priorities for 2025 and beyond. In a May 2025 memorandum, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti outlined the Criminal Division’s renewed commitment to “focus, fairness, and efficiency” in the fight against white-collar crime—with healthcare

Episode 32 of the False Claims Act Insights has posted. In it, Julia Kopcienski and I discuss a recent report published by Husch Blackwell that explores the Trump administration’s demonstrated commitment to enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws through novel and varied mechanisms, like the False Claims Act. We talk about why the use of the FCA

As two defendants in an alleged cryptocurrency fraud case are finding out, what you search for on the internet could find its way into the courtroom and be used against you. The use of internet search history as evidence in federal criminal cases is relatively new. In this case, prosecutors are seeking to introduce defendants’ post-trade internet searches as evidence of fraudulent intent. Their searches allegedly ranged from “top crypto law firms” and “wire fraud statute” to “can your device be searched without a lawyer” and “crypto theft deductible.”

The critical question: should internet search history be admissible as evidence at trial? The answer is far from simple. Defendants generally have moved to exclude them, and the arguments for and against exclusion highlight the complex interplay between relevance, prejudice, ambiguity, and privilege.

Recent Settlements

On July 31, 2025, the DOJ announced that a California-based defense contractor, and its private equity owner Gallant Capital Partners agreed to pay $1.75 million to resolve allegations that they knowingly failed to comply with cybersecurity requirements in a contract with the Department of the Air Force. The government acknowledged that the companies

We’ve just put the wraps on Episode 31 of the False Claims Act Insights podcast where I had a great conversation with longtime healthcare law veterans Brett McNeal and David Traskey covering advisory opinions from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General. We discuss how the highly qualified and sometimes equivocal