Insights

On July 14, 2026, the Trade Fraud Task Force, a joint initiative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), released A Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement.² The guide is directed at trade and enforcement professionals, businesses, more than 450,000 active Importers of Record (IORs) registered with CBP, and other parties involved in U.S. trade.

Its message is clear: federal trade and customs enforcement remains a coordinated DOJ and DHS priority, and violations can lead to far more than administrative fines, denied entry, or seizure of goods. Depending on the conduct, companies and individuals may also face civil and criminal enforcement.

The guide was released alongside two significant announcements signaling a broader expansion of DOJ trade enforcement. DOJ reported that the Trade Fraud Task Force had surpassed $1 billion in civil and criminal recoveries, penalties, forfeitures, and publicly charged losses in less than one year. Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald said the Department is bringing its “full weight” to these cases.³ DOJ also announced the creation of the Global Trade & Commerce Enforcement Section (GTCES) within the National Fraud Enforcement Division, which will investigate and prosecute criminal import and trade fraud that harms U.S. businesses, deprives the government of revenue, threatens consumers, benefits foreign adversaries, enables forced labor, or otherwise violates U.S. trade laws.

Enforcement Does Not Stop at the Border

One of the guide’s most important points is that trade compliance enforcement extends throughout the domestic supply chain to importers, wholesalers, transporters, distributors, purchasers, and others who knowingly facilitate or profit from illegally imported goods. For businesses, this means compliance programs should address the entire lifecycle of a product, not only the border transaction.

A single shipment can also create separate obligations under different agencies and statutes. For example, a medical device may meet the requirements for entry but later trigger FDA reporting obligations if the importer learns the device caused or contributed to a death or serious injury. Similar post-entry reporting requirements apply to certain foods, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, pesticides, and vehicles.

CBP also identifies several administrative tools it may use against systemic compliance failures, including liquidated damages against customs bonds, restrictions on in-bond privileges, increased audits, and maximum penalties for customs brokers who repeatedly fail to conduct required due diligence or respond appropriately to CBP requests.

Customs brokers must exercise due diligence when carrying out financial settlements, responding to correspondence, and preparing or filing customs records. If a broker knows, has reason to know, or suspects that a client has made an error or broken the law, they must notify the client, advise on steps to correct the situation, and keep a record of that communication.

What Businesses Should Take From the Guide

Several practical compliance lessons stand out:

• Customs release is not a finding that an entry was lawful. An inaccurate entry may clear customs and still become the subject of a later audit or enforcement action.

• An IOR cannot shift ultimate responsibility to its customs broker. Importers remain responsible for the accuracy of their entries and may be liable for underpaid duties or penalties even when a broker prepared the incorrect filing.

• Trade fraud can create liability well beyond customs law. The guide explains that proceeds from certain customs fraud schemes can create money laundering exposure. For example, a monetary transaction exceeding $10,000 involving proceeds derived from certain trade fraud may trigger separate criminal liability.

• For public companies, a customs violation can become a securities issue. Trade fraud may implicate federal requirements governing books and records, internal accounting controls, and truthful disclosures in periodic reports and public statements.

• Forced labor diligence should extend beyond government lists. Information supporting a Withhold Release Order or evidence of forced labor violations used by CBP can come from NGO reports, journalism, media investigations, and tips submitted to CBP. Companies should therefore monitor credible information concerning their suppliers and supply chains.

• The government looks beyond paperwork to economic reality. A technically plausible item description may still attract scrutiny when the underlying transaction makes little commercial sense. In one enforcement example, more than 2.2 million aluminum extrusions were represented as finished “pallets” after being spot-welded together. Investigators noted that no customers existed for the pallets and none had ever been sold.

• Shell-company IORs are a compliance red flag. Due diligence should examine whether an importer or trading partner has real operations, assets, and commercial substance, rather than simply confirming that the entity legally exists.

• A prior refusal can become evidence of knowledge. If FDA refuses a shipment and the importer attempts to enter the same goods through another port, the earlier refusal may serve as evidence that the importer knew the later entry violated the law.

Recent Enforcement Shows the Stakes

DOJ has highlighted several cases illustrating these risks. Surya International, Inc., a gold jewelry importer and wholesaler, was charged in connection with allegedly declaring jewelry from India and the United Arab Emirates as originating in Singapore, avoiding approximately $38 million in U.S. customs duties. Barkha Wholesale, Inc., another gold jewelry importer and wholesaler, was charged with falsely declaring goods as originating in Oman or Singapore, allegedly avoiding approximately $13.6 million in duties.⁴

On September 21, 2026, Tomás Niembro Concha, the chief executive officer of Nodus International Bank, was sentenced to 112 months' imprisonment after admitting guilt to charges of wire fraud conspiracy and conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).⁵ The prosecution stated that he helped divert no less than $24.9 million from the bank and then took part in prohibited transactions with an individual designated by OFAC through a front company. The court ordered him to forfeit over $16.9 million. This case shows that OFAC authorization for a single transaction does not extend to separate, unlicensed dealings. Executives can be held personally criminally liable if they knowingly arrange transactions to evade U.S. sanctions.

Taken together, the guide and recent enforcement actions show DOJ moving toward a broader conception of trade compliance. Businesses should be prepared to demonstrate that their suppliers, transactions, internal controls, post-entry practices, and downstream conduct remain compliant throughout the life of the transaction.

***

The attorneys at Torres Trade Law, PLLC regularly assist U.S. and foreign companies with customs compliance, import regulations, trade enforcement, sanctions, and supply chain due diligence. If you have questions about how the current trade enforcement framework may apply to your company’s import practices, customs filings, broker relationships, internal controls, or broader trade compliance program, please get in touch with our team for assistance.