Introduction

On July 29, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its decision to decline prosecution of Campus Eye Management Holdings LLC and Campus Eye Management LLC (Campus Eye) for alleged health care fraud, Anti-Kickback Statute violations, and related conspiracy offenses.¹ The declination, issued by DOJ’s newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, followed Campus Eye’s voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation.² Campus Eye also agreed to pay $1 million in victim compensation, while the founder of the business was charged with health care fraud and kickbacks in a seven-count indictment.³

Campus Eye is the third publicly announced corporate declination under DOJ’s recently adopted Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP), following declinations earlier this year involving Balt SAS by the Criminal Division and Robert Bosch GmbH by the National Security Division. It is also the first publicly announced health care fraud declination under the CEP and the first one issued in part by the National Fraud Enforcement Division. The resolution sheds light on how DOJ is applying its revised self-disclosure framework in a high-priority enforcement area and across the Department.

The Campus Eye Declination in Context

The Campus Eye resolution comes amid significant changes to DOJ’s corporate enforcement framework. As discussed in a prior alert, in March 2026, DOJ replaced its collection of component-specific voluntary self-disclosure policies with a unified Department-wide policy designed to create greater consistency and predictability across the Department. DOJ also recently created the National Fraud Enforcement Division, charged with investigating and prosecuting fraud targeting taxpayer-funded programs and the public fisc, as discussed in another prior alert. As part of that reorganization, DOJ placed the Health Care Fraud Unit within the new Division’s operational structure.

The declination also comes against a backdrop of increased DOJ focus on health care fraud. Since announcing its white collar enforcement priorities in May 2025, DOJ has consistently identified “waste, fraud, and abuse” involving federal health care programs as a priority. Initiatives over the past year include the creation of a multi-agency Health Care Fraud Data Fusion Center, a joint False Claims Act Working Group focused heavily on health care enforcement, the West Coast Health Care Fraud Strike Force described in a prior alert, and the broader Task Force to Eliminate Fraud. In June, DOJ announced its largest-ever National Health Care Fraud Takedown, charging 455 defendants in schemes involving over $6.5 billion in alleged fraudulent claims.⁴ DOJ highlighted the increasing use of Medicare payment suspensions in fraud investigations: as part of the “whole-of-government approach,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services suspended approximately 1,100 providers and revoked billing privileges for nearly 1,500 others.⁵ In announcing the Campus Eye resolution, DOJ also highlighted what it described as an “uptick” in corporate enforcement actions against health care companies in recent years.⁶

Campus Eye reflects DOJ’s dual focus on pursuing health care fraud while incentivizing companies to voluntarily disclose misconduct and compensate victims. Even in a heavily resourced enforcement area, the declination demonstrates DOJ’s willingness to offer meaningful benefits to companies that self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate.

The Alleged Campus Eye Scheme and Basis for Declination

The conduct at issue was neither isolated nor short-lived. DOJ alleged a nearly decade-long scheme involving medically unnecessary diagnostic testing, kickbacks, and millions of dollars in payments from Medicare and other insurers, orchestrated by the founder of an optometry practice and affiliated eye-surgery center.

According to DOJ, from approximately 2015 through March 2023, the founder caused the submission of claims for duplicative and medically unnecessary diagnostic testing and paid kickbacks, often disguised as sham consulting fees, to coconspirator providers in exchange for patient test referrals. The alleged scheme continued after outside investors acquired an equity interest and the Campus Eye entities were formed in 2021, with the alleged conduct continuing through March 2023. All told, Medicare and other insurers allegedly paid approximately $3.7 million in connection with the scheme. The founder now faces a seven-count indictment alleging health care fraud, Anti-Kickback Statute violations, and related conspiracy charges.

As described in the declination letter, DOJ declined prosecution of the corporate entities after crediting Campus Eye’s voluntary self-disclosure, full and proactive cooperation, and remediation efforts. DOJ specifically highlighted the company’s cooperation against culpable individuals, analysis of historical beneficiary and insurer data, and substantial compliance enhancements as meaningful to its resolution analysis. Although the scheme involved approximately $3.7 million in payments, DOJ accepted $1 million in victim compensation after conducting an independent financial analysis to determine that a larger payment would substantially threaten Campus Eye’s continued viability. 

Practical Takeaways

The National Fraud Enforcement Division is applying DOJ’s corporate disclosure incentives.

Campus Eye is the first publicly announced declination issued in part by the new Fraud Division, following earlier applications of the Department-wide policy by the Criminal and National Security Divisions. After early uncertainty regarding the Fraud Division’s place within DOJ and its reporting structure, the Fraud Division’s declination in Campus Eye signals its intention to apply DOJ’s unified CEP alongside other DOJ enforcement components.

Declinations remain available even in high-priority enforcement areas involving significant misconduct.

DOJ has identified health care fraud as a major enforcement priority and continues to invest heavily in specialized strike forces, interagency partnerships, whistleblower incentive programs, and data-driven investigative techniques. Yet DOJ granted a declination despite allegations of nearly a decade of fraud and kickbacks, millions of dollars in payments from Medicare and other insurers, and simultaneous criminal charges against the company’s founder. Campus Eye lends support to DOJ’s stated position that companies which “take responsibility for their misconduct” can earn a “clear path to a declination,” even in aggressively enforced sectors.⁷

Cooperation continues to focus heavily on individual accountability.

DOJ announced the Campus Eye declination simultaneously with charges against the company’s founder. Consistent with longstanding DOJ policies and priorities, companies seeking full cooperation credit should expect to provide evidence concerning the actions, knowledge, and decision-making of potentially responsible individuals. The resolution reinforces DOJ’s prioritization of holding individuals accountable within its broader corporate enforcement efforts.

DOJ expects cooperation and remediation to be substantive and tailored to the misconduct.

DOJ credited Campus Eye with analyzing historical patient and insurer data, revising billing, payment, and compensation practices, enhancing compliance resources, and implementing training and monitoring measures. Cooperating companies pursuing a declination must consider meaningful operational changes; lip-service compliance updates are unlikely to be sufficient.

A demonstrated inability to pay may affect the financial terms of a declination.

DOJ accepted $1 million in victim compensation despite identifying approximately $3.7 million in payments associated with the alleged misconduct. In its declination, DOJ specifically cited Campus Eye’s financial disclosures in determining that a larger payment would substantially threaten the company’s continued viability. The resolution suggests that companies seeking reduced payment obligations should be prepared to substantiate inability-to-pay claims with detailed financial evidence and analysis.

Conclusion

Campus Eye provides a notable example of DOJ’s revised CEP being applied in a major enforcement priority area. Nonetheless, the decision whether to self-disclose remains highly fact-specific and requires careful assessment of the conduct at issue, the individuals involved, the company’s potential exposure, and the likelihood that the Government will learn of the misconduct through other means. Health care fraud presents a unique calculus given DOJ’s growing prosecutorial resources and data-driven detection capabilities, but not all enforcement areas carry the same risk profile. Whatever conclusion a company reaches, promptly understanding misconduct, addressing its root causes, and reducing the risk of recurrence remain worthwhile objectives in their own right.