DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED)

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented its most sweeping structural reorganization in two decades: the establishment of the National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED), commonly referred to as the Fraud Division. Representing the first major standalone litigating division added to the DOJ since the creation of the National Security Division in 2006, this new component centralizes federal anti-fraud, tax, healthcare, and trade investigations under a single, nationwide umbrella.

For individuals, business owners, and corporate executives facing federal scrutiny, the most consequential aspect of this reorganization is the establishment of the dedicated Asset Recovery Section within the Fraud Division. The federal government is no longer treating asset forfeiture as an afterthought following a conviction; instead, aggressive civil and criminal forfeiture, pre-judgment asset freezes, and forensic tracing are now deployed on day one of an investigation.

If your bank accounts, cryptocurrency wallets, real estate, or business assets have been frozen, seized, or targeted by federal prosecutors, understanding the statutory mechanics of this new division is critical to protecting your liberty and property.

Finding an Experienced Federal Asset Forfeiture Attorney

Facing a federal investigation spearheaded by the DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division requires defense counsel with an in-depth understanding of federal criminal procedure, forensic accounting, and complex asset forfeiture litigation.

At Sammis Law Firm, our attorneys represent business owners, professionals, and individuals targeted in federal white-collar investigations and civil asset forfeiture actions across Florida state and federal courts. We intervene early to challenge unlawful seizures, oppose administrative forfeitures, and protect our clients’ liberty and property from federal overreach.

If your assets have been seized or you have received a federal grand jury subpoena or target letter, contact our office for a confidential consultation.

Call 813-250-0500.

The Mandate of the National Fraud Enforcement Division

Headed by Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald, the Fraud Division consolidates over 500 attorneys, investigators, and data scientists. By reallocating core units previously housed within the Criminal Division—including the Health Care Fraud (HCF) Unit, the Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud (MGC) Unit, and Criminal Tax—the Fraud Division operates with nationwide jurisdiction across six primary enforcement pillars:

• Government Program & Procurement Fraud: Investigating alleged fraud targeting federal grants, government contracts, emergency relief programs, and taxpayer-funded subsidies.
• Health Care Fraud: Targeting telemedicine networks, clinical laboratories, hospice programs, compounding pharmacies, and alleged Medicare/Medicaid overbilling.
• Criminal Tax Offenses: Deploying criminal tax charges in tandem with financial forensics to prosecute offshore holdings, high-net-worth tax evasion, and corporate reporting violations.
• Trade & Customs Fraud: Investigating tariff evasion, import-export violations, and customs duty fraud.
• Securities, Market & Consumer Frauds: Prosecuting complex investment schemes, wire fraud, commodities fraud, and illicit fintech operations.
• Controlled Substance Offenses: Focusing on white-collar pill mill operations and illegal distribution networks linked to healthcare practices.

Crucially, the Fraud Division pairs these substantive charges with the National Fraud Detection Center, utilizing advanced data analytics, artificial intelligence, and transaction monitoring to detect irregularities and initiate multi-district grand jury probes before targets even know they are under review.

NFED’s Asset Recovery Section

At the center of the Fraud Division’s financial assault is its new Asset Recovery Section. While the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS) in the Criminal Division continues to oversee broad policy, the Fraud Division’s Asset Recovery Section is embedded directly alongside trial prosecutors to execute nationwide forfeiture and judgment enforcement strategies.

Federal law grants prosecutors immense statutory power to seize assets. Under 18 U.S.C. § 981 (civil forfeiture) and 18 U.S.C. § 982 (criminal forfeiture), the government routinely moves to forfeit any property “derived from proceeds traceable to” alleged offenses, as well as property “involved in” money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957.

Pre-Trial Seizure Warrants & Restraining Orders

Prosecutors frequently utilize ex parte restraining orders under 21 U.S.C. § 853(e) or federal seizure warrants under 18 U.S.C. § 981(b) to freeze business operating accounts, investment accounts, and personal liquid funds before an indictment is unsealed. The objective is often twofold: preserving funds for eventual restitution or forfeiture, and depriving defendants of the financial liquidity needed to mount a vigorous legal defense.

Substitute Assets & Forfeiture Money Judgments

If direct proceeds cannot be located—or have been commingled, transferred, or depreciated—the government aggressively pursues substitute assets under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). This allows prosecutors to target entirely untainted property, including personal real estate, legitimate business equity, and pre-existing investment portfolios, to satisfy large forfeiture money judgments.

Digital Asset & Cryptocurrency Tracing

The Asset Recovery Section heavily focuses on on-chain analytics, tracking digital assets across blockchain ledgers. When cryptocurrency is involved in alleged fraudulent transactions, federal agents use clustering algorithms to freeze entire unhosted wallets and centralized exchange deposits, frequently sweeping in legitimate funds owned by innocent third parties.

Strategies for Defending Against Federal Asset Forfeiture

When the Fraud Division initiates an asset freeze or files a civil forfeiture complaint, swift, specialized intervention is required to challenge the government’s overreach:

• Challenging Probable Cause & the Nexus: In both civil and criminal proceedings, the government must establish a substantial connection between the specific asset seized and the underlying illegal conduct. Demonstrating that funds originated from lawful business revenue, legitimate personal loans, or pre-existing capital defeats the statutory nexus.
• Innocent Owner Defense (18 U.S.C. § 983(d)): In civil forfeiture actions governed by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), non-culpable business partners, spouses, and third-party property owners can assert the innocent owner defense to force the immediate release of their property interest.
• Third-Party Ancillary Hearings (21 U.S.C. § 853(n)): If assets are seized pursuant to a criminal indictment, third parties with legal interests in the property cannot intervene until post-trial ancillary proceedings. Experienced forfeiture counsel must preserve these claims early through protective filings.
• Unconstitutional Excessive Fines (Eighth Amendment): Under United States v. Bajakajian, forfeitures that are grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense violate the Eighth Amendment. We challenge excessive forfeiture demands that bear no reasonable relationship to actual economic harm.
• Modifying Pre-Trial Restraints to Fund Legal Counsel: Under Luis v. United States (2016), the federal government cannot use pre-trial restraint orders to freeze legitimate, untainted assets needed by a defendant to retain counsel of choice. Forcing a prompt evidentiary hearing can unlock frozen funds.

This article was last updated on Wednesday, September 16, 2026.