It’s an example of zero derivation. This means deriving a new word from another word while bypassing the usual derivation rule that involves adding a prefix or suffix such as ‑ify or ‑ize. To illustrate zero derivation, here is an example from the exploding penguin sketch:
(1) Oh, intercourse the penguin. [Emphasis added]
Monty Python derive ?intercourse (trans) from intercourse (subj), creating a funny euphemism for fuck (trans). This is a zero derivation because it takes place without a verb-creating suffix. (Zero-deriving a verb from a noun is also known as “verbing” the noun.)
Your example is a zero derivation of a new word, not just a figurative use of an existing word. This can be seen from the fact that the new word has different restrictions on how it can be used. The existing word,
(2) violate (trans), to treat with violence or dishonor
takes as its object the target of the violence or dishonor. It can be a person, but it can also be a law, regulation, or custom.
The new word,
(3) violate (trans), to sanction (a person, for a rule violation)
takes as its object the person being sanctioned.
(4) Harry violated Sally.
(5) Harry violated Texas law.
(6) The investigator will violate Harry for police misconduct.
(7) *The investigator will violate Texas law for Harry’s misconduct.
The difference is apparent in the ambiguity of (4) and the absence of ambiguity of (5). Violated in statement (4) could be either violate (2) or violate (3). It may mean Harry sanctioned Sally for a rule violation, or that Harry committed a violent act upon Sally. But violated in statement (5) unambiguously means violate (2), Harry dishonored the law. This is because only violate (2) can take a law, regulation, or custom as its object.
Another example of zero derived professional slang is
(8) KA (trans), to identify a person’s “known associates”, from KA (subj), a person’s “known associates”.
(9) I’ll KA the victim.
Besides the references linked above, the article “Verbing Nouns” by John Lawler was very helpful in writing this answer.
The lawler weight of this answer is