White Collar Litigation

Making payments , writing the check

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.

gavel on a money

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.

Judge's gavel on table in office

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.

Wooden blocks with words 'Attorney-Client Privilege'. Legal concept

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.