DOJ's New Fraud Directive Tells Prosecutors to Seize Assets Before Indictment: What Florida Targets Need to Know

If you are under federal investigation for fraud, the first thing the government takes may not be your liberty. It may be your bank account. On October 8, 2026, the Justice Department's National Fraud Enforcement Division announced Directive 26-13, a memorandum telling every fraud prosecutor to seize assets early, before charges are filed, to recruit cooperators, to seek arrest and detention where appropriate, and to push for the heaviest supported sentence. For anyone in South Florida who has received a grand jury subpoena or a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office, the timeline just got shorter.

Under Directive 26-13, the seizure can come before the indictment.

Key Takeaways

• Directive 26-13, signed October 7, 2026, tells federal fraud prosecutors to seize bank and cryptocurrency assets before any indictment is filed.
• Prosecutors are directed to use 18 U.S.C. § 1345 civil injunctions and restraining orders to freeze proceeds of health care and banking offenses.
• Cooperators must forfeit property and pay restitution under the directive, and any substantial assistance credit still runs through U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.
• Prosecutors are told to seek arrest and detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142, a change Southern District of Florida fraud targets will feel first.
• Every sentencing presentation must now argue general deterrence and seek all supported enhancements, upward variances, full restitution and forfeiture.

What the Justice Department Announced

The directive is short and direct. Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald signed Directive 26-13 on October 7, 2026, under the title "A Comprehensive Approach in the Fight Against Fraud," and the Department released it the next day. It builds on the Division's August 13 enforcement priorities memo and on Directive 26-12, the October 1 corporate enforcement directive. Its priority areas are health care fraud, fraud against government programs and procurement, tax, and trade.

Three parts of the memo matter most to an individual. Part I directs the Asset Recovery Section to work with prosecutors on early seizure and disruption, including restraining orders and seizure letters for funds at banks and cryptocurrency exchanges, and warrants and in rem forfeiture actions against alleged proceeds before charges are filed. Part IV tells prosecutors to assess flight risk and danger throughout a case, build a record on the defendant's means and ties, and seek arrest warrants and detention where appropriate. Part V sets six sentencing principles, starting with a requirement that every sentencing presentation argue for general deterrence.

Part I of the directive targets funds at banks and cryptocurrency exchanges before charges are filed.

What the Government Is Building Now

Read as a whole, the directive describes a case that starts with money, not with an indictment. The memo lists six tools: bank and exchange restraining orders, pre-charge seizure warrants and in rem forfeiture, warrants for websites, domains and online accounts, civil restraining orders under 18 U.S.C. § 1345, civil injunctions under the same statute, and prejudgment remedies such as attachment, garnishment and receiverships under 28 U.S.C. §§ 3101 to 3105.

Section 1345 is the one to watch in health care cases. It lets the government ask a federal judge, in a civil proceeding, to freeze property obtained through a federal health care offense or a banking law violation, with no indictment and often before the target knows a case exists. In the Southern District of Florida, Medicare, DME and telemedicine investigations already start from claims data, and any healthcare fraud attorney in the region has seen providers learn about a case only when payroll fails to clear.

The memo also tells prosecutors to develop proactive cooperators and to use undercover operations. In practice, the government wants insiders recording conversations before it wants anyone charged. Billers, marketers, office managers and lab sales representatives are the people who get that call.

Billers, marketers, office managers and lab sales representatives are the people who get the call.

Exposure and Charges Under the Directive

Directive 26-13 creates no new crimes. It changes how early and how hard the existing ones are pursued. The workhorse charges remain wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, with a 20-year maximum; health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347, with a 10-year maximum that rises if a patient is injured; and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, which carries the same maximum as the fraud that was its object. Money moved after the fact can add a laundering count under 18 U.S.C. § 1956.

Pre-charge seizure rests on civil forfeiture authority in 18 U.S.C. § 981 and the claim procedures of 18 U.S.C. § 983. After indictment, restraint runs through 21 U.S.C. § 853. The Supreme Court has held that the government may not freeze untainted assets a defendant needs to pay counsel of choice, but it may restrain traceable proceeds, and a defendant cannot use a restraint hearing to relitigate the grand jury's probable cause finding. That is why the tracing fight, and the timing of it, matter so much. For more on how these cases unfold, see our analysis of federal asset forfeiture in Florida.

At sentencing, Part V tells prosecutors to seek every supported Guidelines enhancement, oppose unwarranted reductions, and request upward variances where they consider the Guidelines inadequate. Expect more contested loss amount and role disputes, and more government memoranda built on general deterrence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The defense answer has to be a full 3553(a) variance case, prepared early.

A defendant cannot use a restraint hearing to relitigate the grand jury's probable cause finding.

Critical Mistakes People Make Early

• Treating no indictment as no urgency. Under this directive the seizure can come first. A frozen operating account is often the first notice a business owner gets.
• Moving money after learning of an investigation. Transfers to relatives, new accounts or crypto wallets look like dissipation. They invite a § 1345 restraining order, feed a detention argument, and can become a separate money laundering count.
• Talking to agents at the door. Anything said without counsel becomes the record on means, ties and intent. A misstatement can also become its own charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
• Missing a forfeiture deadline. Civil forfeiture claim deadlines under § 983 run in weeks. Miss one and the money can be forfeited without anyone ever proving a crime.
• Walking into a proffer without a plan. The directive requires cooperators to accept full responsibility, forfeit property and pay restitution. A proffer session attorney has to know what the government already has before a client says a word.

A Strategic Defense Approach

Early counsel changes the sequence. A federal criminal defense attorney, or an asset forfeiture attorney working alongside one, retained at the subpoena stage can do things that become far harder after a freeze or an arrest. Trace the money first: separate legitimate income, retirement funds and inherited assets from anything the government can call proceeds, and document it before a seizure warrant issues. If an account has already been frozen, a seized bank account attorney should file the claim and press for release of untainted funds immediately, and the same goes for a cryptocurrency seizure at an exchange. Prepare to oppose a § 1345 application on the merits, including the nexus between the property and the alleged offense.

Prepare the detention question before it is asked. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142, the issues are flight risk and danger. Foreign ties, offshore accounts, cryptocurrency and large cash holdings are what drive detention requests in Miami federal criminal defense practice. Documented family, property, employment and a negotiated self-surrender instead of an arrest can take the issue off the table.

Make the cooperation decision on information, not fear. Substantial assistance credit under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 is valuable, but only the government can file the motion, and under this directive it comes with forfeiture and restitution attached. Sometimes cooperation is the right call. Sometimes a pre-charge negotiation with the AUSA, or a firm decision to litigate, protects the client better.

Why Timing Matters Right Now

The directive took effect when issued, and fraud prosecutors are now under written instruction to move against assets before charges. The practical window for federal investigation defense, the stretch between the first subpoena or target letter and the first seizure, is shrinking. That window is where a white collar defense attorney can still shape what gets charged, what gets frozen and whether a client walks into court or is brought there.

If you are a Florida provider, business owner or employee who has received a grand jury subpoena, a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office, or a visit from agents, the time to act is before the bank calls. Waiting for the indictment is now the riskiest choice available.

Common Questions

Under Federal Investigation in Florida?

AMC Defense Law represents individuals and businesses in federal fraud investigations, asset seizures and prosecutions in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida and nationwide. If you have received a subpoena, a target letter or a seizure notice, or agents have contacted you, a confidential consultation is the place to start. Call 561.542.5494 or request a confidential consultation. Aaron M. Cohen is a Boca Raton federal criminal lawyer who handles these matters personally.

If you or your loved ones have been arrested or are under federal investigation for fraud, call Aaron M. Cohen, 24 hours a day to get help.

Aaron M. Cohen, AMC Defense Law

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. If you are facing a federal investigation or charges, consult a qualified attorney about your specific situation.

About the author: Aaron M. Cohen is the founder and principal attorney of AMC Defense Law, a criminal defense firm in Boca Raton, Florida, with more than 30 years of experience in state and federal courts. He is admitted to practice in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, and before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, the Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, and the Northern District of Texas. He appears pro hac vice in other federal districts nationwide. The firm represents clients in federal investigations and prosecutions involving healthcare fraud, Anti-Kickback Statute matters, DME and telemedicine fraud, peptide and compounded-drug enforcement, controlled-substance and drug conspiracy cases, financial crimes, and complex federal litigation, in Florida and nationwide.