The Trump administration has made denaturalization a stated enforcement priority. Three cases from March 2026 show how a guilty plea, a false statement on a naturalization application, or post-naturalization criminal conduct can cost a naturalized citizen their U.S. citizenship and what defense counsel must do before the plea is entered.

Supreme Court IEEPA tariff case 2026 analysis

United States v. Aiello: EDNY illegal poker indictment.

The intersection of artificial intelligence and white-collar crime has emerged as one of the most consequential enforcement frontiers in 2025. Federal prosecutors are pursuing AI washing securities fraud and deepfake-enabled wire fraud cases aggressively, often seeking enhanced penalties. Dynamis LLP breaks down DOJ's enforcement priorities and defense strategies for businesses and executives.

Kousisis preserves limits on wire fraud

Frog embryos and smuggling

Department of Justice Revised Enforcement Priorities

Judge Dugan arrested for allegedly obstructing ICE

Crypto mixing services are under attack by law enforcement in the United States.

Boston federal prosecutors unannounced unsealing of a deferred prosecution agreement with McKinsey.

Explore the legal consequences of defendants' pre-trial media interviews in the Karen Read case, focusing on how unaired transcripts are utilized by the prosecution

Court rules that Tornado Cash not subject to OFAC regulations

Blog post by Dynamis attorney Lance Aduba on how to recover crypto from thieves

Title 18 Section 1348 “Materiality” Standard as compared with Title 15 securities fraud cases.

The 9th Circuit last week released its opinion in United States v. Milheiser, 16-CR-00076, in which the Court overturned six convictions of defendants who had been convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud arising from the defendants’ sales companies’ aggressive tactics in selling printer toner. The 9th Circuit adopted the “benefit of the bargain” theory of wire fraud, under which individuals cannot be convicted of wire fraud if the alleged victims received the “benefit of the bargain,” even if they were induced to make a purchase through misrepresentations.