The U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Criminal Division has placed trade fraud and tariff evasion squarely in its core white-collar enforcement priorities and has publicly flagged an active pipeline of criminal cases that will surface in the near term. Senior DOJ officials have urged the business community to “watch this space,” signaling that indictments and resolutions will follow a series of recent actions targeting falsified origin, classification, valuation, transshipment schemes, and smuggling. This article synthesizes the latest DOJ enforcement narrative, explains how the new Trade Fraud Task Force (“Task Force”) is generating cases, highlights recent matters that foreshadow what is coming, and translates these developments into concrete implications for companies with supply chains in China and across Asia. The analysis reflects public statements and enforcement developments through December 9, 2025.
- DOJ’s Updated Enforcement Narrative: From a Border Issue to a Top White-Collar Priority
The renewed DOJ narrative treats trade and customs fraud as high-impact white-collar crime rather than a technical border-compliance problem. In recent public remarks at American Conference Institute’s 42nd Annual Conference on FCPA and Global Anti-Corruption, Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) Todd Blanche and Criminal Division Senior Counsel, Cody Herche emphasized that customs and tariff evasion are priority areas alongside cartels and the “demand side” of foreign bribery. DOJ has underscored that traditional white-collar criminal statutes —wire fraud, money laundering, false statements, conspiracy—as well as the civil False Claims Act (“FCA”) will be used to prosecute import-related misconduct. Importantly, DOJ also has connected trade-fraud risk to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) in settings where interactions with foreign customs officials involve corrupt payments or improperly influenced clearances.
Herche highlighted that DOJ has a pipeline of trade-fraud and tariff-evasion cases under active investigation and explicitly advised the audience to watch for near-term developments. That message builds on DOJ’s broader shift toward proactive case-generation, marrying cross-agency data sources with field investigations and whistleblower referrals. The narrative is unambiguous: customs misrepresentations are fertile ground for criminal prosecution, not merely civil penalty assessments.
Further, DOJ’s emphasis on corporate culpability for trade crimes reflects an intent to cast a wide net for potential liability. DOJ has stated that it plans to use age old charges of aiding-and-abetting, conspiracy, and other liability theories and has reminded companies that the collective knowledge doctrine can impute to the corporation facts scattered across sales, logistics, finance, and operations. To respond effectively, tariff-risk management must be enterprise-wide, with documentation, controls, and governance documents designed to reflect that reality.
- The Trade Fraud Task Force and the Case‑Generation Engine Behind the Surge
The cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force, launched in late August 2025 by DOJ in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, is the institutional backbone for the anticipated surge in investigations and prosecutions. The Task Force integrates DOJ’s Criminal and Civil Divisions with Homeland Security Investigations and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and is expressly directed to bring robust criminal and civil enforcement against importers and other actors who defraud the United States through tariff-evasion and smuggling schemes. DOJ has made clear that it will pursue parallel tracks: criminal charges under Title 18’s trade-fraud and conspiracy provisions; civil actions, including FCA matters; and CBP administrative duty and penalty actions.
This Task Force will deliberately import DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Unit’s data-driven playbook to the trade context. That approach includes analytics to identify red flags of misclassification, undervaluation, and suspicious country-of-origin patterns at scale. DOJ’s newly organized Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit now includes trade fraud in its remit, reinforcing the use of algorithms and large datasets to detect anomalies in customs filings and supply-chain flows.
Whistleblower incentives are a second pillar of the Task Force. DOJ expanded its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program in 2025 to cover trade, tariff, and customs fraud, and it has encouraged the use of the FCA’s qui tam mechanism for customs-related misrepresentations. Officials have openly invited tips from industry and have confirmed that the Criminal Division is receiving competitor referrals. This channel materially raises the likelihood that investigations will be triggered by third-party reporting rather than by routine border inspections alone.
- The Active Docket: Recent Cases Foreshadow What’s Coming
Recent matters preview the forms of misconduct the Task Force and Criminal Division are pursuing and illustrate the statutes being charged. In August 2025, two Denver-area companies and several executives were indicted for allegedly importing Chinese-manufactured forklifts, concealing their origin, representing them as U.S.-made, and undervaluing them in customs documentation to reduce tariffs. The charges include conspiracy and entry of goods by means of false statements, demonstrating DOJ’s willingness to couple customs offenses with traditional fraud counts, and to reach individuals as well as companies.
In November 2025, prosecutors charged an Indonesian jewelry manufacturer, its co-owner, and employees in a two-part scheme alleged to have evaded more than $86 million in duties and tariffs by transshipping through a third country and by falsely claiming U.S. origin. The case, charged as a wire-fraud conspiracy, underscores the focus on origin falsification and transshipment designed to avoid both baseline duties and newer tariffs. In a separate case later that month, a European infant formula company pleaded guilty to felony offenses tied to smuggling and false documentation aimed at evading detection and detention, reinforcing DOJ’s readiness to charge 18 U.S.C. § 545 in import-adjacent contexts beyond classic tariff disputes.
DOJ’s pipeline also encompasses matters with corruption overtones at border interfaces. A Mexican customs broker pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the FCPA in connection with securing customs approvals, and a Los Angeles freight-forwarding case alleged bribes to officials and kickbacks to cartels tied to large-scale smuggling, even though FCPA counts were not charged there. These matters illustrate DOJ’s willingness to use the FCPA om certain circumstances when facts support it and to deploy wire-fraud and money-laundering statutes to address corruption-adjacent trade schemes, where appropriate.
- How DOJ, CBP, and Partners Will Proceed: The Integrated Enforcement Toolkit
The list below details the types of cases and likely enforcement methods to be used by the DOJ.
- Criminal Prosecutions:
- Lead Units: DOJ Criminal Division, Task Force, Homeland Security Investigations
- Principal Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 542 (false statements on entry); 18 U.S.C. § 545 (smuggling); 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343/1349, 1956/1957 (conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering); FCPA where applicable
- Typical Fact Patterns: Falsified country of origin; undervaluation; misclassification; transshipment to avoid duties and tariffs; smuggling; bribery at customs
- Illustrative 2025 Matters: Forklift-origin case; Indonesian jewelry transshipment; infant-formula smuggling; border-corruption–adjacent cases
- Civil Fraud Actions:
- Lead Units: DOJ Civil Division’s Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit; parallel Task Force coordination
- Principal Authorities: FCA (customs-related misstatements as false claims); treble damages; qui tam relators
- Typical Fact Patterns: Knowingly or recklessly inaccurate origin, classification, or value declarations that result in underpayment of customs duties owed (reverse false claim); failure to verify supply chains
- Illustrative 2025 Matters: Forklift-origin case; Uniform customs case; infant-formula smuggling; border-corruption–adjacent cases
- Border Enforcement:
- Lead Units: CBP; Enforce and Protect Act (“EAPA”); Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA”)
- Principal Authorities: 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (civil penalties for false statements); 19 U.S.C. § 1517 (EAPA duty-evasion probes); UFLPA detentions and exclusions
- Typical Fact Patterns: Entry suspensions; live-entry requirements; upstream document demands; entity-list screening; origin audits
- Illustrative 2025 Matters: Thousands of UFLPA detentions; EAPA cases across steel, chemicals, solar; upstream record requests in Asia
- Building a Defense-Ready Posture: Practical Steps That Matter Most
Companies should treat tariff and customs compliance as an enterprise risk with potential criminal exposure and align governance, controls, and documentation accordingly. Effective programs begin with refreshed, granular risk assessments that map trade flows, tariff classifications, valuation methodologies, and origin determinations across legal entities and business lines. Those assessments should drive targeted controls for high-risk areas.
Supply-chain traceability must be documentary and auditable. For origin claims and forced-labor rebuttals, contemporaneous records—invoices, bills of materials, production records, labor documentation, and logistics data—should be complete, consistent, and available in English. Contracts with suppliers and logistics providers should incorporate origin warranties, audit rights, data-sharing obligations, and termination triggers for noncompliance. Oversight of customs brokers, and freight forwarders should include diligence, clear scopes of authority, and monitoring, recognizing that intermediary misconduct can be imputed to the importer.
Data readiness is increasingly important in a world where DOJ and CBP use analytics to spot red flags. Companies should be able to reconcile customs entries to enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) and trade-compliance systems, explain pricing structures that affect declared value, and demonstrate controls around transfer pricing interfaces that intersect with customs valuation rules. Governance should embed tariff compliance across commercial, logistics, finance, and legal functions, with escalation paths and board-level visibility proportionate to the risk. Training should include sales and operations teams who make representations that flow into customs filings.
Investigation preparedness is essential given the likelihood of whistleblower-triggered inquiries. Companies should refresh investigative protocols for cross-border evidence collection, early hold and preservation, and privilege in multijurisdictional contexts. When issues are identified, timely scoping, remediation, and, where warranted, measured engagement with authorities can materially affect outcomes given DOJ’s emphasis on focus, fairness, and efficiency in white-collar resolutions.
- Why Early Investigation Matters
The current enforcement environment puts a premium on early, targeted internal investigations when trade‑risk red flags appear. DOJ has publicly emphasized speed and data‑driven case generation and has invited whistleblower and competitor referrals, which means the government may learn of a problem before a company appreciates its scope. An early investigation allows a company to understand what happened, identify whether any offending conduct is continuing, and implement immediate corrective actions that can reduce legal exposure. Taking action to stop a practice that presents legal risk can affect when statutes of limitations begin to run and limit damages in civil actions.
The timing of fact development influences outcomes because government assessments of cooperation and remediation are grounded in what a company actually did, and when. A well‑scoped early inquiry preserves and collects relevant records across trade, sales, logistics, and finance in a defensible manner and ensures that English‑language documentation exists to support classifications, valuations, and origin calls. Locating evidence and conducting interviews with company witnesses in proximity to the events under investigation is notably more efficient. Foreign‑based companies should address cross‑border evidence transfer constraints, language issues, and the reality that CBP and DOJ increasingly request upstream supplier records. Compliance and investigations discipline avoids later gaps that undermine credibility and prevents inadvertent spoliation when employees or third‑party brokers cycle systems or replace devices.
Early investigations also equip companies to make informed decisions about engagement with authorities. DOJ’s public guidance stresses focus, fairness, and efficiency in white‑collar resolutions, and those principles reward timely scoping, concrete remediation, and credible presentations of facts. In the trade context, that often means being ready to explain, with contemporaneous evidence, how the company determined origin and valuation, how it relied on third parties, what controls existed at the time, and what has been fixed. Where appropriate, a timely self‑disclosure that precedes imminent government or whistleblower discovery can materially affect charging decisions and penalty outcomes, while a disclosure that follows a government knock or competitor complaint may not.
The practical mechanics of early investigations deserve attention in foreign‑facing supply chains. Companies should plan for bilingual document reviews, structured interviews across jurisdictions, and targeted supplier outreach that anticipates CBP’s upstream documentation demands. They should assess the role of customs brokers and forwarders, recognizing that misconduct by intermediaries can be imputed to the importer and that books‑and‑records issues can arise where payments are mischaracterized. They should also align legal, trade, finance, and operations to ensure that corrective actions—such as reclassifying goods, updating origin determinations, or revising valuation and invoicing practices—are implemented and tracked in systems that align with customs filings.
Finally, early investigations put companies in a stronger position to deal with parallel track investigations. In EAPA matters, early control of the facts and records helps manage interim measures like entry suspension and live‑entry requirements. In Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA”) detentions, prompt production of credible, traceable documentation, including Tier 2 and Tier 3 supplier records where necessary increases the likelihood of timely release. In potential FCA exposure, an early, well‑documented remediation narrative can influence how relator‑initiated allegations are viewed and whether the Civil Division supports resolution on narrower terms. Across these tracks, the bottom line is that early fact‑finding enhances leverage.
- What to Expect Next: The Near-Term Outlook and Why “Watch This Space” Is Sound Advice
In the near term, companies should expect indictments that mirror the recent matters DOJ has spotlighted: origin falsification, transshipment through third countries, undervaluation schemes, and smuggling tied to evasion of both baseline duties and recent tariffs. Sectors that have seen active EAPA dockets—steel and pipe, chemicals, solar, and certain consumer goods—are likely to be featured prominently, alongside cases involving government procurement where false origin claims touch Buy American certifications.
The Task Force’s public statements and actions so far suggest that DOJ will continue to pair data analytics with competitor referrals and whistleblower tips, enabling faster, broader detection of schemes and more parallel civil-criminal activity. CBP will maintain aggressive use of interim measures like entry suspension and live entry and will continue to push upstream records demands that reach foreign-based suppliers.
Policy momentum points in the same direction. Legislative proposals to strengthen CBP’s evasion authorities and curb litigation that delays duty collection reflect bipartisan appetite for tougher trade enforcement. Even where trade-policy evolves, the bottom line for companies is the same: evasion of lawfully administered tariffs and duties is a crime, and DOJ has both the intent and the infrastructure to prosecute it.
- Conclusion
DOJ’s message is clear and consequential: customs and tariff evasion are top-tier white-collar enforcement priorities, and a pipeline of cases will turn that message into actions in the near future. The Task Force’s data-driven model, coupled with whistleblower incentives and cross-agency alignment, will yield more criminal charges, more parallel civil actions, and more aggressive border measures.
The prudent response is to act now. Companies should recalibrate risk assessments, reinforce supply-chain traceability, ensure data integrity across customs and finance systems, and elevate governance so tariff compliance is managed as an enterprise-wide control objective. They should also prepare for whistleblower-initiated scrutiny by strengthening investigative readiness and remediation playbooks. While uncertainties remain in the contours of certain trade-policy instruments and how particular standards will be applied in specific countries, those uncertainties do not diminish criminal exposure for evasion. With DOJ openly advising the market to watch this space, the cost of delay is likely to be measured not only in duties and penalties but in indictments and reputational harm.
For more information or assistance, please contact Bradley L. Henry, Anthony Rapa, or another member of Blank Rome’s Trade Enforcement, White Collar Defense & Investigations, or International Trade group.
