Introduction

New York is at the centre of white-collar enforcement in the United States. New York is home to Wall Street and the country’s primary financial markets. As such, the prosecutors’ offices based in New York City – federal, state and local prosecutors – have historically brought the country’s most substantial white-collar investigations, regulatory actions and prosecutions. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the US federal prosecutor’s office, maintains two separate offices in New York City that function independently of each other: the Southern District of New York (SDNY), and the Eastern District of New York (EDNY). The New York State Attorney General’s Office (AG) also maintains a strong enforcement portfolio, as does the local New York County District Attorney’s Office (DANY), based in Manhattan. These four prosecutors’ offices all maintain jurisdiction over the financial sector – including the broader business community seeking to access New York’s financial markets. The layers of prosecutors’ offices with overlapping jurisdiction all but ensures the continuity of white-collar enforcement. When one prosecuting jurisdiction shifts focus, the others remain to close any regulatory voids.

Interested parties should thus expect continuity of white-collar enforcement in the coming year. Still, over the last year, the strategies of the four New York prosecutors’ offices have shifted. Federal prosecutors in the SDNY and EDNY have moved away from creative corporate prosecutions, and novel enforcement theories under the federal fraud statutes in favour of encouraging corporate self-disclosures accomplished by companies’ thorough internal investigations, and prosecution of individuals for corporate misconduct in the form of federal loan fraud, institutional federal programme fraud, and individual misconduct in online financial and betting markets. Meanwhile, the New York AG and DANY have moved to fill the gaps left by the federal prosecutors, initiating broad enforcement actions against online financial and betting marketplaces, and litigating cases of investor fraud and market manipulation.

Corporate Self-Disclosure

The DOJ’s recent emphasis on corporate enforcement, and corporate self-disclosure, are among the biggest indicators of shifting federal white-collar enforcement priorities. While the DOJ and its local prosecuting office in the SDNY reinforced their commitment to corporate accountability, the federal prosecutors have issued new policies providing companies with opportunities for self-disclosure as a means of avoiding criminal liability. Thus, companies that recognise wrongdoing committed within their ranks have a strong incentive to complete internal investigations, voluntary remediation and self-disclosure to avoid the potentially draconian criminal penalties that the DOJ could otherwise seek.

On 10 March 2026, the DOJ issued a corporate self-disclosure policy outlining potential outcomes, and requisite criteria for avoiding the worst criminal penalties.

First, federal prosecutors will decline prosecution against an entity otherwise eligible for prosecution if the following requirements are met:

• the company voluntarily self-discloses misconduct to DOJ criminal prosecutors;
• the company fully co-operates with the DOJ investigation;
• the company “timely and appropriately” remediates misconduct;
• no aggravating circumstances are present, including pervasive misconduct or corporate recidivism. Notably, however, the DOJ may still decline to prosecute in the presence of aggravating factors, based on the company’s co-operation and remediation efforts; and
• the company forfeits its ill-gotten gains, and pays restitution to any victims.

A prosecutorial declination is a true free pass, leaving behind no criminal history for any misconduct. However, the DOJ’s requirements are rigorous: full co-operation and total self-disclosure often require a searching internal investigation, as well as careful navigation of the DOJ’s inevitable requests for further information and explanations. Although the DOJ’s corporate self-disclosure policy is quite new, if past practice is any guide, prosecutors often require several rounds of materials and information to satisfy themselves that the requirements for declination are met. While the result is worthwhile, the path may be fraught, requiring real expertise in navigating corporate federal defence.

Second, if the company is ineligible for declination, the DOJ policy requires prosecutors to offer a non-prosecution agreement to a company undertaking self-disclosure but, that is only if the DOJ is satisfied that the company acted in good faith by self-reporting the misconduct. While a Non-Prosecution Agreement is technically a criminal resolution, it is highly favourable to the company, resulting in dismissal of all charges if the company abides by the agreement’s terms.

Third, even when a company’s self-disclosure does not qualify for a declination or a Non-Prosecution Agreement, the DOJ corporate self-disclosure policy encourages prosecutors to take self-disclosure, internal investigation and remediation efforts seriously in fashioning a resolution. The policy gives prosecutors broad discretion as to the form, term, compliance obligations and penalties in any corporate resolution. This least favourable resolution may still result in tangible benefits for a company with a history of misconduct. But that is only if it has conducted a fulsome internal investigation, and can successfully navigate the pitfalls of DOJ follow-up questioning, often designed to simultaneously ensure a company’s complete good faith self-disclosure, and further the DOJ’s own investigation.

On 1 October 2026, the DOJ’s Assistant Attorney General of the National Fraud Enforcement Division reiterated the DOJ’s corporate enforcement priorities, continuing to encourage self-disclosure, and outlining several factors for prosecutors to evaluate the seriousness of corporate misconduct for recommending resolution.

SDNY Corporate Self-Disclosure Policy

In February 2026, the SDNY issued its own corporate self-disclosure policy, complimentary to the broader DOJ policy, that requires the following for a company to qualify for declination:

• timely and voluntary self-disclosure;
• full co-operation with federal law enforcement;
• remediation;
• prompt restitution to injured parties; and
• absence of aggravating circumstances.

While the DOJ and SDNY corporate self-disclosure policies were issued only recently, their messages are unequivocal: a company that learns of corporate misconduct stands to tangibly benefit from conducting a full internal investigation, participating in self-disclosure, corporate co-operation, and remediation, in line with the policies and stated goals of the DOJ and SDNY corporate self-disclosure policies. Thorough internal investigations will likely remain best practices in white-collar corporate investigations going forward over the next year.

Federal Fraud Priorities: Enforcement Actions Against Individuals

The SDNY and DOJ policies also strongly suggest an additional shift in white-collar enforcement priorities towards individual accountability, even for wrongdoing accomplished through corporate entities. 

After a slow-down in white-collar cases and investigations at the start of the current presidential administration, in May 2025, the DOJ Criminal Division announced an updated policy approach to white-collar enforcement with its White Collar Enforcement Plan (the “2025 White Collar Enforcement Plan”), which identified several specific “high impact” areas for the DOJ Criminal Division’s focus, including:

• government waste, fraud and abuse, including healthcare fraud;
• customs fraud and tariff evasion;
• market manipulation schemes, securities fraud and fraud with tangible harm to US investors or markets;
• conduct that jeopardises consumer health and safety;
• complex money laundering;
• bribery and money laundering that impact US national interests; and
• digital asset-related crime.

In 2026, the DOJ reinforced the focus first outlined in 2025. In April 2026, the DOJ announced the creation of a National Fraud Enforcement Division (the “Fraud Division”), intended to consolidate and expand the DOJ’s white-collar enforcement capabilities under a single, dedicated division. On 13 August 2026, the DOJ announced the new Fraud Division’s priorities, including:

• public trust and financial integrity;
• healthcare;
• internal revenue;
• global trade and commerce; and
• corporate misconduct.

In its 1 October 2026 memorandum, the Assistant Attorney General of the National Fraud Enforcement Division reiterated its focus on healthcare and public benefits fraud, misconduct jeopardising public trust or financial integrity of Americans and markets, as well as other government programme and procurement fraud. 

The Fraud Division’s priorities signalled the DOJ’s consistent focus on prosecutions of individuals for government benefits fraud, and attendant financial crimes like money laundering. The Fraud Division also expanded the DOJ’s focus to encompass investigations and prosecutions of more complex business frauds, including “Contracting fraud schemes, including... defective pricing, bid rigging, self-dealing, bribery, product substitution, and billing frauds”. And indeed, the last year has seen an increase in investigations and prosecutions of individuals in accordance with the 2025 While Collar Enforcement Plan, and the Fraud Division priorities.

Federal Benefits Fraud: Transnational and Institutional Investigations and Prosecutions

In the last year, federal prosecutors’ offices in the SDNY and EDNY have focused heavily on investigations of healthcare and other public benefits fraud by a broad range of individuals and entities, including: individual doctors, educational institutions, large ambulatory service care, and transnational organisations. For example, in a series of cases, federal prosecutors charged a network of companies and individuals, both in the United States and abroad, with conspiracy, healthcare fraud, wire fraud and money laundering crimes for billings to federal health insurance programmes, Medicare and Medicaid, for services and equipment allegedly provided improperly or not at all. See – eg, United States v Khan, No 24-cr-409 (E.D.N.Y.) (senior centre operator sentenced to 76-months in prison for a USD56 million corporate kickback scheme).

Cross-border benefits fraud, and money laundering have been a particular focus of New York-based federal prosecutors. See – eg, United States v Nakhmatullaev, No 25-cr-203 (E.D.N.Y.) (healthcare fraud and money laundering indictment for transnational healthcare billing conspiracy). With an increasing number of similar investigations opening, and building momentum, there is every reason to believe that this trend is likely to continue throughout 2026 and beyond.

Paycheck Protection Program Fraud: Investigations With an Emphasis on Multinational Conglomerates and Larger Corporate Entities

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US federal government, through the Small Business Administration (SBA), established a loan programme, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), to ensure that small businesses could continue to pay employees during the pandemic shutdown. Enforcement cases against individuals and entities alleged to have improperly received or improperly used the PPP funds remains a heightened area for investigations and prosecutions. In the last several months, the New York federal prosecutors’ offices at the SDNY and EDNY have brought PPP cases against hotel owners alleged to have misused PPP funds, and continued investigations into and prosecutions of individuals and entities responsible for PPP loans to ineligible corporations. See – eg, United States v Lichtenstein, No 25-cr-501 (S.D.N.Y.); United States v Beltre, No 25-cr-081 (E.D.N.Y.).

Paycheck Protection Program Fraud: Civil Enforcement Trends Under the False Claims Act

In addition to criminal sanctions, New York federal prosecutors have used the powerful False Claims Act (FCA) to target corporate and commercial entities, including large conglomerates and union benefits funds, that improperly received PPP loans. See – eg, United States v Shabsels, et al, No 24-cr-6494 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2026); United States v Home Healthcare Workers of America, et al, No 24-cv-1337 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 27, 2026).

The FCA allows the government to both disgorge improperly obtained government funds, and obtain treble damages from defendants. The FCA thus provides an additional enforcement tool for federal prosecutors to use in conjunction with criminal enforcement. Companies receiving government funds, including in healthcare, government contracting and grant-funded sectors face a heightened risk of dual civil and criminal enforcement. A single PPP loan, government funding stream, or set of facts more broadly could give rise to both a criminal investigation by the Fraud Division and a civil FCA action by the civil arms of the US Attorneys’ Offices in the SDNY and EDNY. That trend has continued into 2026, and remains a viable tool for federal prosecutors.

Financial Market Enforcements: A Focus on Betting and Prediction Markets, and Digital Assets

In the last year, the SDNY and EDNY prosecutors’ offices have reinitiated criminal investigations and prosecutions into fraudulent practices in the online betting markets. In the last few years, online betting markets – including sports betting, online casinos and prediction markets – have become common features of daily life for many. At the same time, prosecutors have alleged that opportunities for abuse, manipulation and outright fraud may be rampant on these platforms. The federal prosecutors in the SDNY and EDNY, with expertise in enforcement of the United States’ federal fraud laws, even in novel circumstances, have brought the first set of criminal prosecutions for abuses of these online financial platforms. There is every reason to believe that more cases will follow, as the targeted conduct continues apace.

For example, in the last year, the federal prosecutors in the EDNY brought two separate fraud cases against professional athletes, coaches and others related to alleged manipulation of online sports betting marketplaces. Current and former NBA basketball players and coaches, as well as professional baseball players were charged with wire fraud and money laundering for intentionally rigging games. According to prosecutors, the defendants pre-released medical information to insiders, and altered performance during games – actions that the prosecutors charged as material misrepresentations to the sports betting platforms – and subsequently laundered the allegedly ill-gotten gains. See – eg, United States v Earnest, et al, 25-cr-323 (E.D.N.Y.); United States v De La Cruz, No 25-cr-346 (E.D.N.Y.).

The pervasive use of betting markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket, has also attracted broader federal regulatory scrutiny, including via criminal charges for insider trading. On 23 April 2026, the US Attorney’s Office for the SDNY announced a five-count indictment against a US soldier for using classified information about the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to place trades on the prediction marketplace Polymarket, earning him over USD400,000. The indictment charged two counts of theft of non-public government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. See United States v Van Dyke, No 26-cr-156 (S.D.N.Y.).

In February 2026, then-US Attorney for the SDNY, Jay Clayton, announced his expectation that SDNY prosecutors would scrutinise prediction markets, and initiate investigations and prosecutions based on manipulative conduct in the online prediction markets. The SDNY US Attorney was unequivocal that fraud on the online prediction markets is “a crime”, and that just “because it’s a prediction market doesn’t insulate you from fraud”.

The New York federal prosecutors have thus strongly signalled that regulation of the online financial and betting markets remains squarely within their criminal prosecution authorities, and their intention to pursue further enforcement actions accordingly.

Complementary and Supplemental Enforcement by New York State and Local Authorities

The New York State AG’s office, as well as the local prosecutors at DANY have continued to aggressively pursue white collar enforcement actions – some of which are synergistic with current DOJ priorities, and some of which fill enforcement gaps left by the DOJ’s present focus.

Like the SDNY and DOJ, the AG’s office has maintained a sharp focus on curbing the manipulation in online betting markets. In July 2026, the AG sued Kalshi, accusing the company of operating an illegal betting market, as defined by the New York State’s gambling laws. While the company is fighting the suit in court, according to the AG, the violations include Kalshi’s failing to register with the New York State Gaming Commission, as well as efforts to avoid New York’s regulatory scrutiny, and strict requirements. See New York v KalshiEx LLC. The AG seeks aggressive penalties of forfeiting all illegal gains, restitution to consumers harmed by Kalshi, and treble damages. Just weeks ago, on 24 September 2026, the New York AG’s office brought a materially identical suit against the online prediction market Polymarket. See People of the State of New York v QCX LLC (d/b/a Polymarket US). This year, the AG also brought similarly aggressive enforcement actions against the cryptocurrency companies Coinbase and Gemini Titan, which have recently expanded into the sphere of online betting and prediction markets.

While the federal government has begun to police fraud and manipulation occurring on cryptocurrency exchanges and online betting markets, it has shown little inclination to regulate the companies or the marketplace themselves. The New York AG has stridently stepped into that vacuum in 2026, demonstrating an appetite for New York to continue to set the regulatory agenda for financial markets – whether traditional or online. The next year is likely to bring similarly aggressive enforcement actions by the New York State AG, and other regulatory agencies against online betting markets, cryptocurrency markets, digital financial marketplaces, as well as the entities that participate in shaping those markets.

Additional New York State and Local White-Collar Enforcement

DANY and the AG have continued to pursue large-scale public corruption and creative financial enforcement that were once the primary purview of the SDNY and EDNY. 

The New York State Martin Act provides New York State enforcement authorities with the tools to police a suite of financial conduct ranging from ordinary investor fraud to complex insider trading. DANY and the AG have utilised its broad civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms just this year. Indeed, 2026 saw the first recent civil Martin Act enforcement action for insider trading against the ex-CEO of a large multinational pharma company, Emergent BioSolutions, and DANY has publicly reinforced its commitment to using the Martin Act in similar insider trading cases going forward, recognising that it can be “deploy[ed] to complement other regulators” and prosecute “cases that can’t be brought federally” at this time.

Thus, while the pace of insider trading prosecutions brought by the DOJ, SDNY and EDNY have slowed, practitioners, business people and market participants alike may very well see an increase in insider trading enforcement actions by the New York AG’s Office and by DANY.

Conclusion

2026 has been a year of increased white-collar investigations and enforcement by both state and federal New York prosecutors. The federal prosecutors’ offices at the SDNY and EDNY have begun to implement the DOJ’s policies with enforcement actions and investigations against individuals, particularly in the sectors of healthcare, government loans and online prediction markets. Simultaneously, the New York AG’s Office and DANY have increased their white-collar enforcement and regulatory actions in the burgeoning online financial sectors – both against large corporate entities and individuals allegedly involved in market manipulation. While it may take time for New York federal and state prosecutors to fill their dockets with these adjusted priorities, robust white-collar enforcement should be expected to continue in New York.