Since 1934, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division has been responsible for handling both DOJ’s civil and criminal tax enforcement. The Tax Division works with the IRS to oversee criminal investigations and the prosecution of tax crimes (supervising and coordinating with local United States Attorneys) and engage in civil enforcement activities including
DOJ’s Revised Corporate Enforcement Policy in Action
On May 12, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced revisions to its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). As stated by Matthew Galeotti, head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, the purpose of the revised CEP is to incentivize companies to “come forward, come clean, reform, and cooperate with the government in efficient investigations
Be Careful What You Search For
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.
Voluntary Disclosure Leads to FCPA Declination
In August 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to prosecute an insurance company for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), marking the first action of its kind since the DOJ paused FCPA prosecutions earlier this year. DOJ’s decision came in response to the company’s voluntary self-disclosure. Importantly, this decision allows the company to avoid criminal charges in connection with bribes allegedly paid by employees of its foreign subsidiary for customer referrals for products. As part of the resolution with DOJ, the company will disgorge approximately $4.7 million in profits that are tied to the misconduct.
Cybersecurity Compliance Under the False Claims Act: DOJ Enforcement, CMMC, and What Contractors Need to Know
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
Check Out our New Monthly Webinar Series
On September 23, we launched our Government Enforcement, Compliance & Investigations webinar series, a new monthly webinar program covering Department of Justice criminal enforcement, False Claims Act, antitrust, and state attorney general topics.
In the kickoff webinar, Jody Rudman, Wendy Arends, Matt Diehr, and I joined in a broad discussion on government enforcement. Jody and I
PPP Loan Fraud Civil Enforcement through the False Claims Act
During the first eight months of 2025, our team has paid close attention to the Trump administration’s strategy for civil and criminal enforcement concerning fraud related to Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. In April, Jonathan Porter and Robert Peabody discussed the Department of Justice’s use of the False Claims Act (FCA)—a civil enforcement tool—to enforce potentially criminal COVID-related fraud. In May, Rebecca Furdek, Kyle Gilster, and Emily Loftis explained the framework for ongoing PPP loan audits and investigations, followed in August by a mid-year update regarding enforcement trends and notable cases.
These and other thought leadership pieces address the origination of the PPP loan landscape during COVID-19; the rise of audits, investigations, and enforcement actions through which these and similar loans have been scrutinized; and the basic elements of the civil and criminal enforcement frameworks used to prosecute fraudulent conduct in connection with these loans.
This post explores the federal government’s ongoing efforts to combat PPP-related fraud, focusing on emerging civil enforcement trends and theories of liability under the False Claims Act.
PPP Loan Fraud Enforcement through Criminal Enforcement
Over the course of 2025, the Husch Blackwell Thought Leadership team has closely tracked the Trump administration’s evolving approach to enforcing fraud related to Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. While our companion articles have detailed the latest trends in civil enforcement, including the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) use of the FCA and the role of whistleblowers, this post focuses on the rapidly developing landscape of criminal enforcement. In this article, we analyze recent DOJ charging theories, high-profile prosecutions, and the key risks facing both individuals and entities in the PPP fraud context.
Understanding 2703(d) Orders: What You Need to Know
When companies receive their first 2703(d) order from law enforcement, their response is usually a mix of confusion and terror. In the ever-evolving landscape of digital communications, understanding the legal mechanisms that govern data access is crucial. One such mechanism is the 2703(d) order, a powerful tool that law enforcement is using more and more as digital evidence becomes more robust and complex. This post examines the nature of a 2703(d) order and considers its implications for organizations, privacy officers, compliance professionals, and defense counsel.
Sixth Circuit Protects Attorney-Client Privilege Protections in Internal Investigations
A recent Sixth Circuit decision[1] provided clarity on the scope of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines, particularly as those rules relate to confidentiality and privacy of corporate records reviewed and analyzed as part of internal investigations. The decision is considered a victory for both the legal and the business worlds because it secured the longstanding and fundamental function of legal privileges that encourage complete and transparent sharing between attorneys and their corporate clients.