Illinois Employers: Navigating New E-Verify and I-9 Compliance Requirements
Effective January 1, 2025, Illinois employers face updated regulations under Public Act 103-0879, altering the landscape of E-Verify and Form I-9 compliance. This law applies to companies located in Illinois and any employer with employees working in Illinois, regardless of where the company is headquartered. It does not extend to employees working outside of Illinois for an Illinois-based company. The Illinois Department of Labor has clarified that the law does not prohibit private employers from using E-Verify. However, it does reaffirm current federal E-Verify requirements and impose several additional obligations to protect workers and ensure fair practices.
Key Compliance Updates:
Expanded Employee Protections:
Employers must notify employees when their work eligibility or documentation is questioned.
Employers are required to inform the entire workforce in case of a federal I-9 audit.
Prohibited Practices:
E-Verify cannot be used to prescreen applicants.
Employers cannot act on tentative non-confirmations without following federal procedures.
Employers must follow specific state and federal guidelines if they receive tentative non-confirmation notifications to ensure fair treatment and due process for all their employees.
State Penalties for Non-Compliance:
Violations of the law may lead to penalties, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence.
Conclusion:
Contrary to some misconceptions, the law does not prevent private employers from using E-Verify. Rather, it regulates its use to uphold anti-discrimination policies, safeguard worker rights, and protect businesses. A number of the law’s provisions mirror those that have always been part of the E-Verify program, but employers (especially those in Illinois or with employees working in Illinois) should review their practices to ensure compliance with the state and federal requirements.
In First Major Speech as Acting CFTC Chairman, Pham Describes Policy Priorities
In a fireside chat at the ABA Futures & Derivatives Law Committee Winter Meeting on January 30th, Acting Chairman Caroline Pham shared her industry-friendly agenda for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). She described specific goals for the agency in the coming months (discussed below) and encouraged listeners to read her past dissenting statements for even more context about her priorities.
Back to Basics
To achieve her first priority—back to basics—Pham will hold weekly senior staff meetings and focus on “the 3 Ms” when considering an initiative:
Mission: Does it serve the CFTC’s mission?
Markets: Does it serve the markets?
Mindset: Is the CFTC looking at the initiative with a growth mindset?
Reorganizing the CFTC
Years ago, one division was responsible for overseeing clearing houses and intermediaries. After Dodd-Frank, this division was split into two, and Pham is now proposing to reunite them (with FCMs and DCOs having shared oversight). She also contemplated the creation of a Division of Examinations, which would engage with registrants on issues of non-compliance and remediation, rather than the Division of Enforcement.
Industry Roundtables
Industry engagement was a clear priority for Pham, and she announced that the CFTC will host roundtables on three key areas of interest: (1) Digital Assets; (2) Affiliation and Conflicts of Interest; and (3) Prediction Markets. Pham clarified that she does not intend to act on digital assets until receiving direction from President Trump.
Enforcement Priorities
Acting Chair Pham stated unequivocally that her top enforcement priority will be fraud and misconduct that leads to actual consumer harm, where there is a reasonable probability of making consumers whole again. In a more recent statement, she announced the creation of two new task forces: one on Complex Fraud, and one on Retail Fraud and General Enforcement, reflecting the agency’s new priorities and replacing the prior task forces.
Corporate Transparency Act Recent Update
As previously reported, in early December, the District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction against the enforcement of the CTA [1]. The government quickly appealed. Just a few weeks later, on December 23, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s emergency motion to stay the nationwide injunction — effectively lifting the injunction and allowing the enforcement of the CTA to proceed. Given there was a January 1, 2025, deadline for millions of small business owners to file, FinCEN graciously decided to extend the filing deadline to January 13, 2025.
Then, just three days later, on December 26, 2024, in a short, one-page order, a different panel of judges from the same Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the injunction, again placing the CTA and its enforcement provisions on hold. The government again quickly responded, petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction. On January 23, 2025, the Supreme Court did precisely that — granting the government’s motion. The Supreme Court’s order, however, only applied to the injunction issued by the federal judge in Texas. Since a separate nationwide order issued by a different federal judge in Texas [2] was still in place, FinCEN posted a new update to its website one day later, stating:
“Reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN despite the Supreme Court’s action in Texas Top Cop Shop. Reporting companies also are not subject to liability if they fail to file this information while the Smith order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports. [3] “
Opinions vary regarding whether reporting companies should file voluntarily. At the very least, reporting companies should be prepared to file quickly if and when the “red light” turns green once again. In the meantime, we continue to watch for any additional rulings. To stay up to date, please check our website regularly or contact a member of our Corporate Transparency Team for advice.
[1] Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. McHenry
[2] Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury
[3] https://www.fincen.gov/boi (last accessed February 3, 2025)
False Claims Act Exposure in Focus: President Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting DEI Programs
On January 21, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “EO”), which aims to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and programs across the federal government and within companies that do business with the federal government.
Importantly, the EO revokes Executive Order 11246, which, since 1965, has mandated affirmative action in employment from government contractors and required implementation of affirmative action programs.[i]
Federal contractors and grant recipients have until April 21, 2025 (90 days from the issuance of the EO) to comply with the EO’s provisions.
Below, we summarize the False Claims Act (FCA) implications of the EO.[ii] Briefly stated, federal contractors and grant recipients, including certain health care organizations, should pay close attention to the EO’s required certifications since they directly tie to potential FCA liability premised on false certification of compliance with the federal anti-discrimination laws.
Key Provisions of the EO
Directs that federal contractors “shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation’s civil rights laws.”
Instructs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to (1) review and revise, as appropriate, all governmentwide processes, directives, and guidance; (2) remove references to DEI and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) from federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures; and (3) terminate all “diversity,” “equity,” and analogous mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.
Directs the head of each agency to include “in every contract or grant award” a (1) “term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of [the FCA]” and (2) “to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
Instructs the Attorney General, within 120 days of the EO (by May 21, 2025), in consultation with other agency heads, to submit a report containing a “proposed strategic enforcement plan” that outlines, among other things, “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern” and “specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles … that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.”
Pertinent FCA Background
Unlike other federal laws that are enforceable only by the federal government, the FCA is unique in that it also allows private whistleblowers, known as relators, to file qui tam actions on behalf of the government in exchange for a share of the recovery (ranging between 15 and 30 percent of the recovery). The FCA imposes mandatory per-claim statutory penalties that are adjusted annually (currently ranging from $13,946 to $27,894 for each false claim) as well as treble damages.
There are a variety of actionable theories under the FCA beyond the scenario where a company bills the government for products or services that were never provided. One such theory, known as “false certification,” occurs when a party certifies compliance with a required contractual provision, statute, regulation, or governmental program in connection with the submission of a claim.
In false certification cases, noncompliance with applicable legal requirements must be “material” to the government’s payment decision. Materiality is often a contested, focal issue in FCA cases. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar that the materiality standard is “rigorous” and “demanding” because the FCA is not “a vehicle for punishing garden-variety breaches of contract or regulatory violations.”[iii]
FCA Implications
The mandates set forth in the EO will require a clause in all contracts and grant awards with the federal government where the contractor or grant recipient certifies that it does not have any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws and acknowledges that such compliance is material to the government’s payment decision.
With the new certification and materiality requirements, whistleblowers are likely to be further incentivized to bring FCA actions on the belief that it may be easier to prove a violation. It is unclear how that will play out in the courts. For example, while the EO will require that contracts and grant awards contain a clause stating that compliance with the federal anti-discrimination laws is “material” to the government’s payment decision, that does not end the materiality inquiry. The U.S. Supreme Court in Escobar noted how “the Government’s decision to expressly identify a provision as a condition of payment is relevant, but not automatically dispositive.”[iv]
Additionally, it remains to be seen how uniformly courts will apply the “rigorous” and “demanding” materiality standard in FCA cases predicated on DEI programs while adhering to Escobar’s direction that “the False Claims Act is not a means of imposing treble damages and other penalties for insignificant regulatory or contractual violations.”[v] Indeed, federal contractors, particularly certain health care organizations, that submit many claims to the federal government could face billions of dollars in potential exposure—largely due to the FCA’s per-claim penalties—stemming from a particular program that was indisputably lawful prior to the second Trump administration and unrelated to the nature of the contracted items or services.
While it is not clear precisely which specific DEI/DEIA programs or initiatives would be prohibited, the Trump administration’s position is clear that contractors or grant recipients found to have submitted requests for payment while maintaining unlawful DEI programs could be subject to significant FCA liability.
Best Practices for Mitigating FCA Risk
DEI and DEIA initiatives, including policies, programs, and plans, should be promptly and carefully evaluated to determine whether they may violate federal anti-discrimination laws, as federal contractors and grant recipients will need to certify compliance with those laws. Remedial measures should be promptly implemented, as appropriate, to the extent any initiatives are likely to violate federal anti-discrimination laws.
Companies should monitor agency publications for guidance on which initiatives remain permissible under the EO. Courts are also expected to play an important role in clarifying the reach of the anti-discrimination laws, especially following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, where it held that “agency interpretations of statutes—like agency interpretations of the Constitution—are not entitled to deference.”[vi] This is especially true here, where the new EO interpretation of DEI activities as unlawful is a radical shift from the Biden administration’s position as expressed in both guidance and regulations.
Documentation of compliance with anti-discrimination laws is essential. Records reflecting policy reviews, trainings, and remedial program changes, as appropriate, will be critical in the event of a government investigation or whistleblower claim.
Because the FCA’s anti-retaliation provisions prohibit adverse employment actions against employees for engaging in protected activity, which could include investigating perceived violations of the FCA stemming from unlawful DEI programs, anti-retaliation compliance protocols and training programs to address this heightened whistleblower risk are recommended.
While the EO is not binding on private-sector organizations that do not contract or do business with the federal government, the EO is still valuable insofar as it shows the Trump administration’s view that various DEI programs and policies may be considered illegal under the anti-discrimination laws.
Private-sector organizations should promptly review any DEI/DEIA plans, programs, and policies, as well as their affirmative action programs, to determine whether they contain any aspects that could be deemed unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other federal, state, or local civil rights law, and consider whether to take any action to modify such plans, programs, or policies, including the names of such plans, programs, or policies.
ENDNOTES
[i] Exec. Order 11246, 3 C.F.R. § 339 (1964–1965).
[ii] Members of our labor and employment team have prepared an employment law-focused analysis of the EO in this blog post.
[iii] See 579 U.S. 176, 194 (2016). More information on materiality and how courts have grappled with Escobar over the years is available in our prior blog post.
[iv] Id. at 178.
[v] Id. at 196.
[vi] See 603 U.S. 369, 392 (2024).
Looking Back at the False Claims Act in 2024 as the Government Keeps its Sights on Cybersecurity in 2025
In 2024, the government and whistleblowers were party to 558 settlements and judgments collecting over $2.9 billion. The government continued its effort to combat cybersecurity threats through its Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative, which is dedicated to using the FCA to ensure that federal contractors and grantees are compliant with cybersecurity requirements. Settlements in 2024 included allegations against companies for their failure to provide secure systems to customers, failure to provide secure hosting of personal information, and failing to properly maintain, patch, and update the software systems. The Justice Department has made clear that cybersecurity is one of its key enforcement priorities in 2025 and moving forward, meaning all federal contractors must be particularly mindful of federal cybersecurity requirements. To keep you apprised of the current enforcement trends and the status of the law, Bradley’s Government Enforcement & Investigations Practice Group is pleased to present the False Claims Act: 2024 Year in Review, our 13th annual review of significant FCA cases, developments, and trends.
Listen to this post
The False Claims Act in 2024: A Government Enforcement Update
This past year, the False Claims Act (FCA) continued to be a key tool for the Justice Department and whistleblowers to bring suits against companies, including those in the financial services sector. The Justice Department secured 558 FCA settlements and judgments and collected $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2024. Whistleblowers were responsible for 979 qui tam suits — a record number — and collected over $400 million for filing actions to expose fraud and false claims. With a constant focus on FCA enforcement, the risk to corporations of huge financial penalties under the FCA remains. Companies in the financial services sector must continue to take the necessary steps to prevent FCA violations and be particularly mindful of potential whistleblowers who stand to have significant paydays in the event of a successful FCA claim. To keep you apprised of the current enforcement trends and the status of the law, Bradley’s Government Enforcement & Investigations Practice Group is pleased to present the False Claims Act: 2024 Year in Review, our 13th annual review of significant FCA cases, developments, and trends.
Listen to this post
False Claims Act: 2024 Year in Review
In 2024, the government and whistleblowers were party to 558 False Claims Act (“FCA”) settlements and judgments, just slightly fewer cases than last year’s record. As a result, collections under the FCA exceeded $2.9 billion, confirming that the FCA remains one of the government’s most important tools to root out fraud, safeguard government programs, and ensure that public funds are used appropriately. As in recent years, the healthcare industry was the primary focus of FCA enforcement, with over $1.67 billion recovered from matters involving managed care providers, hospitals, pharmacies, physicians, laboratories, and long-term acute care facilities. Other areas of focus in 2024 were government procurement fraud, pandemic fraud, and enforcement through the government’s Cyber-Fraud Initiative.
To keep you apprised of the current enforcement trends and the status of the law, Bradley’s Government Enforcement and Investigations Practice Group is pleased to present the False Claims Act: 2024 Year in Review, our thirteenth annual review of significant FCA cases, developments, and trends.
Giovanni P. Giarratana, Gregory G. Marshall, Jack W. Selden, Erin K. Sullivan, Rico Falsone, Lyndsay E. Medlin, Tara S. Sarosiek, Anna M. Lashley, Ocasha O. Musah, Brianna Rhymes, and Virginia C. Wright contributed to this article.
More Whistleblower Suits Filed Than Ever Before: The False Claims Act in 2024
As in recent years, the False Claims Act (FCA) continued to serve as a tool utilized by the federal government against government contractors in 2024. The government collected more than $2.9 billion as a result of 558 FCA settlements and judgments. Although procurement fraud was not as large a driver of the government’s recoveries as it has been in prior years, matters involving the military’s purchase of goods and services, including allegations related to the procurement process, failing to comply with contract requirements, and paying kickbacks have and will continue to be a significant concern for the government. In addition, the government’s effort to root out COVID-19-related fraud resulted in more than 250 FCA settlements and judgments, and the government collecting more than $250 million. To keep you apprised of the current enforcement trends and the status of the law, Bradley’s Government Enforcement & Investigations Practice Group is pleased to present the False Claims Act: 2024 Year in Review, our 13th annual review of significant FCA cases, developments, and trends.
Listen to this post
Netflix Content Becomes Federal Evidence: EDNY’s OneTaste Prosecution Faces Scrutiny Amid DOJ Transition
Recent developments in the Eastern District of New York’s prosecution of wellness company OneTaste in U.S. v. Cherwitz have raised novel questions about the intersection of streaming content and criminal evidence.1 Defense motions filed in December of 2024 and January 2025 challenge the government’s use of journal entries originally created for a Netflix documentary as key evidence in its forced labor conspiracy case. This occurs during a sea change in DOJ priorities entering a new presidential administration.
After a five-year investigation, EDNY prosecutors in April of 2023 filed a single-count charge of forced labor conspiracy against OneTaste founder Nicole Daedone and former sales leader Rachel Cherwitz. The government alleges the conspiracy unfolded over a fourteen-year span, but in a prosecutorial first did not charge a substantive crime. Over the course of the prosecution, the defendants filed repeated motions with the court asking it to order the government to specify the nature of the offense. Most recently, Celia Cohen, newly appointed defense counsel for Rachel Cherwitz, highlighted in a January 18 motion the case’s unusual nature: “The government has charged one count of a forced labor conspiracy…without providing any critical details about the force that occurred and how it specifically induced any labor.”
In recent defense filings, the prosecution has faced mounting scrutiny over the authenticity of journal entries attributed to key government witness Ayries Blanck. Prosecutors had previously moved in October of 2024 for the court to admit the journal entries as evidence at trial for their case in chief. In a December 30 motion, Jennifer Bonjean, defense counsel for Nicole Daedone revealed that civil discovery exposes that the journal entries presented by the government as contemporaneous accounts from 2015 were actually created and extensively edited for Netflix’s 2022 documentary “Orgasm Inc” on OneTaste.
“Through metadata and edit histories, we can watch entertainment become evidence,” Bonjean argued in her motion. Technical analysis from a court-ordered expert showed the entries underwent hundreds of revisions by multiple authors, including Netflix production staff, before being finalized in March 2023 – just days before a sealed indictment was filed against defendants Cherwitz and Daedone. The defense has argued that this Netflix content was presented to the grand jury to secure an indictment.
The government’s handling of these journal entries took a dramatic turn during a January 23 meet-and-confer session. After defense counsel challenged the authenticity of handwritten journals matching the Netflix content, prosecutors abruptly withdrew them from their case-in-chief. While maintaining the journals’ legitimacy, this retreat from evidence previously characterized as central to their case prompted new defense challenges.
“This prosecution is a house of cards,” argued defense counsel Celia Cohen and Michael Roboti of Ballard Spahr in a January 24 motion to dismiss. Cohen and Roboti, who joined Rachel Cherwitz’s defense team earlier this month, highlighted how the government’s withdrawal of the handwritten journals “exemplifies the serious problems with this prosecution.” Their motion notes that defense witnesses in a parallel civil case have exposed government witnesses as “perjurers” who “have received significant benefits from the government and from telling their ‘stories’ in the media.”
The matter came to head during a January 24 hearing before Judge Diane Gujarati, who had previously denied prosecutors’ request to grant anonymity to ten potential witnesses. When Cohen attempted to address unresolved issues regarding the journals, she was sharply rebuked by the court, which had indicated it would not address the new filing during the scheduled hearing. Gujarati stated that she did not intend to schedule any further conferences before trial. The trial date is scheduled for May 5, 2025.
The case’s challenges coincide with significant changes at DOJ and EDNY under the new Trump administration. EDNY Long Island Division Criminal Chief John J. Durham was sworn in as Interim U.S. Attorney for EDNY on January 21, following former U.S. Attorney Breon Peace’s January 10 resignation. Peace spearheaded the OneTaste prosecution. Durham will serve until the Senate confirms President Trump’s nominee, Nassau County District Court Judge Joseph Nocella Jr.
The timing is particularly significant given President Trump’s January 20 executive order “Ending The Weaponization of The Federal Government.” The order specifically cites the EDNY prosecution of Douglass Mackey as an example of “third-world weaponization of prosecutorial power.” This reference carries special weight as EDNY deployed similar strategies in both the Mackey and Cherwitz cases – single conspiracy charges without substantive crimes, supported by media narratives rather than traditional evidence.
As Durham takes the helm at EDNY, this case presents an early test of how the office will handle prosecutions that blend entertainment with evidence, and whether novel theories of conspiracy without specified crimes will survive increased scrutiny under new leadership. The transformation of Netflix content into federal evidence may face particular challenges as the Attorney General reviews law enforcement activities of the prior four years under the new executive order’s mandate.
The government’s position faces further scrutiny as mainstream media begins to question its narrative. A January 24 Wall Street Journal profile by veteran legal reporter Corinne Ramey presents Daedone as a complex figure whose supporters call her a “visionary,” while examining the unusual nature of prosecuting wellness education as forced labor. The piece’s headline – “She Made Orgasmic Meditation Her Life. Not Even Prison Will Stop Her” – captures both the prosecution’s gravity and Daedone’s unwavering commitment to her work despite federal charges.
1 U.S. v. Cherwitz, et al., No. 23-cr-146 (DG).
Human Trafficking Monitoring for Telehealth Providers
Overview: Telehealth providers are uniquely positioned to monitor for human trafficking when interacting with patients. Survivor records indicate that health services are among the most common points of access to help trafficked persons, and nearly 70% of human trafficking survivors report having had access to health services at some point during their exploitation. While there’s limited data regarding trafficked persons’ use of telehealth services, empirical evidence demonstrates that a greater proportion of trafficked persons completed telehealth appointments during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic than pre-pandemic. To enable telehealth providers to assist trafficked patients, this article discusses the legal landscape surrounding human trafficking and lays out best practices for telehealth providers.
Background: Telehealth providers are subject to a patchwork of legal requirements aimed at reducing human trafficking. If the patient is under the age of 18 or is disabled, many states require telehealth providers to report instances in which they know or reasonably believe the patient has experienced or is experiencing abuse, mistreatment, or neglect. Some states, such as Florida and New Jersey, also require telehealth providers partake in anti-trafficking education.
Online platforms that offer telehealth services are also subject to federal legislation regarding sex trafficking monitoring. In 2018, US Congress passed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Trafficking Act of 2017 (FOSTA). The law was enacted primarily in response to unsuccessful litigation against Backpage.com, a website accused of permitting and even assisting users in posting advertisements for sex trafficking. Before FOSTA’s enactment, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act essentially shielded online platforms from liability for such conduct. FOSTA, however, effectively created an exception to Section 230 by establishing criminal penalties for those who promote or facilitate sex trafficking through their control of online platforms. These penalties, generally limited to a fine, imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both, may be heightened for aggravated violations, which are violations involving reckless disregard of sex trafficking or the promotion or facilitation of prostitution of five or more people. State attorneys general and, in cases of aggravated violations, injured persons also may bring civil actions against those who control online platforms in violation of the law.
Since FOSTA’s inception, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought at least one criminal charge under the law. In 2021, after being charged by DOJ, the owner of the online platform CityXGuide.com pleaded guilty to one count of promotion of prostitution and reckless disregard of sex trafficking, a violation of FOSTA’s aggravated violations provision. According to DOJ officials, more charges have not been brought under FOSTA because the law is relatively new and federal prosecutors have had success prosecuting those who control online platforms by bringing racketeering and money laundering charges. Nonetheless, it is possible that prosecutors will pursue FOSTA violations more regularly during the Trump administration, particularly because US President Donald Trump signed it into law during his first term in office, calling it “crucial legislation.”
Best Practices for Telehealth Providers
Telehealth providers and online platforms that offer telehealth services should consider adhering to the following best practices when monitoring for human trafficking:
Complete Anti-Trafficking Training. Telehealth providers should complete an anti-trafficking training or educational program on a regular basis, regardless of whether they are legally required to do so. One such program is the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond (SOAR) to Health and Wellness Training program. Telehealth providers may attend SOAR trainings in person or online and, depending on the program, may receive continuing education credit for their participation.
Implement a Referral Network. Prior to monitoring patients, telehealth providers should prepare a comprehensive referral list with detailed procedures for assisting identified individuals who have been trafficked or are vulnerable to trafficking. Referral lists should help patients access services that meet various immediate, intermediate, and long-term needs. Referral lists also should include information about how to connect with both national and local anti-trafficking resources.
Be Aware of Indicators of Human Trafficking for Adults. The National Human Trafficking Training and Technical Assistance Center has developed indicators of adult human trafficking. Indicators that may arise during a telehealth visit include instances where:
The patient is not in control of personal identification or does not have valid identification as part of the visit
The patient does not know where they live (or their geolocation does not match their stated location)
The patient’s story does not make sense or seems scripted
The patient seems afraid to answer questions
The patient appears to be looking at an unidentified person offscreen after speaking
The patient’s video background appears to be an odd living or work space (may include tinted windows, security cameras, barbed wire, or people sleeping or living at worksite)
The patient exhibits or indicates signs of physical abuse, drug or alcohol misuse, or malnourishment.
Be Aware of Indicators of Human Trafficking for Children. Indicators of human trafficking for children often differ from those for adults. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) has issued a list of risk factors useful for identifying possible indicators of child sex trafficking. Although NCMEC cautions that no single indicator can accurately identify a child as a sex trafficking victim, the presence of multiple factors increases the likelihood of identifying victims. Indicators that may arise during a telehealth visit include the following:
The child avoids answering questions or lets others speak for them
The child lies about their age and identity or otherwise responds to the provider in a manner that doesn’t align with their telehealth profile or account information
The child appears to be looking at an unidentified person offscreen after speaking
The child uses prostitution-related terms, such as “daddy,” “the life,” and “the game”
The child has no identification (or their identification is held by another person)
The child displays evidence of travel in their video background (living out of suitcases, at motels, or in a car)
The child references traveling to cities or states that do not match their geolocation
The child has numerous unaddressed medical issues.
Fraud Section’s 2024 Year in Review Shows Enforcement Uptick
The Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division published its Year in Review last month, which showed an uptick for white collar enforcement in foreign corruption, financial and health care fraud. The enforcement affected a range of industries including telecommunications, defense contracting, software services, aviation, consulting, and financial services. Below we highlight the enforcement trends and identify our key takeaways for 2025.
Foreign Corruption
DOJ resolved eight criminal corporate cases and entered into one declination pursuant to its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (“CEP”). The schemes involved bribery of officials in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and South and East Asia and over $1.1 billion on criminal fines and disgorgement. One of the matters included the first coordinated resolution with Ecuador and the third with South Africa. Four trials involving individuals charged with FCPA violations were held this year.
In late 2023, the DOJ created the Criminal Division’s International Corporate Anti-Bribery (“ICAB”) initiative aimed to grow the Department’s foreign law enforcement partnerships. Several prosecutors serve as regional ICAB representatives and DOJ has stated that ICAB members helped bring several of this year’s global FCPA resolutions.
Securities, Commodities & Cryptocurrency Enforcement
DOJ’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit resolved three corporate matters and one CEP declination involving over $200 million in criminal penalties. The unit also charged 75 individuals. The schemes involved alleged abuses of 10b5-1 trading plans, insider trading in the equities and commodities market, the largest cryptocurrency nonfungible-token scheme, and the first cryptocurrency open-market manipulation case.
Federal Procurement & Program Fraud
DOJ’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit also investigated and prosecuted fraud in federal procurement and programs. In 2024, DOJ also reached two corporate resolutions with major defense contractors for defective and fraudulent pricing, diversion of federal program funding, and counterfeit electronic parts used by the U.S. military in sensitive defense applications.
Health Care Fraud
DOJ charged 147 individuals for alleged scheme involving more than $3.26 billion in false and fraudulent claims. The Health Care Fraud Unit currently has strike force teams in 26 cities across the nation. Data analytics continues to be a major investigation predicate. The unit’s Data Analytics Team completed 3,229 data requests and 151 proactive investigative referrals. The schemes involved cardio genetic testing, amniotic wound grafts, controlled substance wholesalers, addiction treatment facilities, misbranded medication, laboratory testing, durable medical equipment, and telemedicine.
According to DOJ, telemedicine fraud schemes have “exploded” over the last five years and the Department has responded with seven nationwide enforcement actions. Pharmaceutical distributors also remain an area of focus with ten executives, sales representative, and brokers charged in October 2024 in four federal districts. DOJ also expanded its Sober Homes initiative to combat fraudulent addiction and rehabilitation schemes that targeted Native Americans in Arizona. The initiative has resulted in the over $1.2 billion in alleged false billings for fraudulent tests and treatments for drug and/or alcohol addiction. The Fraud Section has partnered with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona in this initiative.
False Claims Act
Although not a criminal statute, the False Claims Act is another tool used to combat federal procurement, federal program, and health care fraud. 2024 was a record year for False Claims Act settlements, which exceeded $2.9 billion. The government and whistleblowers were party to 558 settlements and judgments, the second highest total after last year’s record of 566 recoveries, and whistleblowers filed 979 qui tam lawsuits, the highest number in a single year. Settlements and judgments since 1986 exceed $78 billion.
Takeaways
As we look back at the enforcement trends from 2024, there are several key takeaways to consider for the year ahead:
Data Analytics continues to be a mainstay tool for proactive detection and leads in foreign corruption, health care, and financial fraud enforcement. The Fraud Section’s data analytics team identifies outliers, trends, and patterns in federal health care benefit program billing, market activity against public filing disclosures, and even analyzes data compiled in public sources for foreign corruption matters.
Whistleblower and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Programs appear to be working. We previously wrote about each of these programs here and here. According to DOJ, the programs have resulted in 180 tips on new or existing investigations. Companies should implement a robust internal reporting system that allows employees to report potential misconduct comfortably and confidentially. Effectively responding to internal complaints can deter whistleblowers from bypassing the company’s reporting system and provides the company with a documented response to present to the DOJ if necessary.
Foreign Corruption enforcement will continue to expand its international footprint. 2024 resolutions included companies based in China, Germany, Brazil, Spain, Australia, Switzerland, and South Africa. Look to even more enforcement in 2025 with enhanced tools like the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, the Criminal Division’s International Corporate Anti-Bribery initiative, and the Administration’s renewed focus on Latin America.
Health Care Fraud enforcement provides an average return on investment of $73.04 per $1 spent and over $3 billion in projected savings. Telemedicine, genetic testing, pharmaceutical distributors, and durable medical equipment will remain areas of enforcement focus.
Cryptocurrency remains in focus as the market continues to be fertile ground of market manipulation and schemes that exploit decentralized finance and automated trading. Enforcement will likely continue to include domestic and international laundering of crypto-fraud proceeds.
A copy of the full Year in Review report may be found here.
Saint Paul, Minnesota Enacts “Wage Theft” Ordinance
Beginning January 1, 2025, the City of St. Paul, Minnesota’s Wage Theft Ordinance went into effect. The Ordinance largely incorporates the State of Minnesota’s existing wage theft legislation. However, similar to the Minneapolis Wage Theft Prevention Ordinance, effective in 2020, the City of St. Paul’s new Ordinance contains additional employer obligations for employers with employees working within the geographic boundaries of the City of St. Paul.
Employee Notice Information Required
Minnesota state law requires employers to provide detailed information, in writing, to Minnesota employees at the start of their employment and provide written notice of related changes to employees during employment. As of January 1, 2025, pursuant to Ordinance the notice for covered St. Paul employees must contain the following additional information:
The date on which employment is to begin;
A notice of the City of St. Paul’s minimum wage rates and an employee’s entitlement to such rates;
If applicable to the employee, a statement that the sharing of gratuity is voluntary; and
The overtime policy applicable to the employee’s position, if any, including when overtime must be paid and at what rate[s].
Under the Ordinance, employers may provide the information in the notice by reference to an employee handbook, collective bargaining agreement, or similar document, provided the employee is directed to the specific sections in which such information is contained.
In addition to providing the notice to all new hires, employers must provide the notice to all current, covered employees starting January 1, 2025, if the employer has not already provided the information contained in the notice to the employee. Similar to the state notice, the St. Paul notice must be signed by the employee and any change must be provided to the employee in writing before the change takes effect. Per the Ordinance, however, employers must additionally retain a copy of the initial notice as well as any written changes and records of when the employee received the notice(s).
Employers must provide employees with the notice in the language previously used for communication, or in a different language if the employer is aware the employee prefers it, as long as the Department has published notices in that language.
New Notice Poster Requirements
Annually, employers are required to notify employees of their right under the Ordinance. Employers are also required to post a notice of employees’ rights at the workplace/jobsite, in English and any language spoken by employees at the workplace/jobsite. Where the notice cannot be placed at the workplace/jobsite, employers may satisfy their obligations under the Ordinance by providing physical or electronic copies to each employee or posting the notice of rights on a web or app-based platform.
Additionally, employers must include a notice of employee rights in any handbook provided to employees.
Employers should assess their compliance obligations under the Ordinance and revise any existing handbooks and notices accordingly.