The Department of Justice (DOJ) is reshaping the Criminal Division’s white-collar program to focus on tariff and trade fraud. In the past months, DOJ has significantly narrowed the scope of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement. Now, DOJ is dedicating significant additional resources and attention to tariff evasion. On July 10, acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division Matt Galeotti announced that the Department of Justice’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit will be renamed and will expand its focus to include investigating and prosecuting tariff evasion schemes and other trade fraud. Galeotti told Bloomberg that DOJ is also shifting “significant personnel” from a consumer protection branch to the criminal division as part of this reorganization.

The addition of resources, including assigning experienced white-collar prosecutors to tariff evasion cases shows DOJ’s commitment to rooting out trade fraud and signals a heightened risk of criminal prosecution for companies importing goods into the United States that are misclassified, undervalued, or declared with the incorrect country of origin.

Background

In May 2025, DOJ identified trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion, as one of the Criminal Division’s top enforcement priorities. Galeotti directed prosecutors to hold individual wrongdoers accountable and “prioritize schemes involving senior-level personnel or other culpable actors, demonstrable loss, and efforts to obstruct justice.”

DOJ also announced an expansion of its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program. Under the expanded program, tips that lead to forfeitures in corporate cases involving “trade, tariff, and customs fraud” are now eligible for monetary awards, increasing the likelihood of insiders or competitors tipping off prosecutors. DOJ has indicated that they are already receiving whistleblower tips and voluntary disclosures related to trade fraud.

What companies can do

In addition to helping importers comply with their reasonable care expectations under the customs regulations, the following steps can also help mitigate potential criminal enforcement risks:

  • Review the country of origin, valuation, and classification of the company’s imports. Although negligent errors in these areas have always created civil enforcement risks, as well as an obligation to pay unpaid duties, origin, valuation, and classification decisions that may have seemed advantageous but have not been appropriately vetted could create criminal enforcement risks. Individual employees who approved these decisions could also be personally exposed.
  • Ensure the company has appropriately designed internal controls. A well-designed customs compliance program, including periodic, independent audits, can help prevent and detect potential issues. An effective whistleblower program also encourages internal reporting, allowing the company to investigate and remediate potential issues. Additionally, these types of controls can mitigate potential penalties if a violation occurs. A focused risk assessment along with periodic testing of operating effectiveness of controls can help bolster compliance with applicable regulations.
  • Train employees to identify and escalate potential “red flags.” Whether the company serves as the importer of record or receives foreign-origin goods after they are imported, employees should be trained to identify potential “red flags” that may indicate tariff evasion is occurring, such as the relabeling of shipping containers or repackaging of goods. Those “red flags” should be escalated within the company’s legal and compliance structure and appropriately investigated. Companies that have reason to know the importer is taking steps to evade tariffs but fail to take steps to further inquire could be subject to criminal investigation.
  • Ensure routine inquiries from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are escalated for review. In many instances, operations personnel may receive and respond to Requests for Information (CF-28s) and Notices of Action (CF-29s) from CBP without escalating those items to the compliance or legal departments for further review. Although these may be routine inquiries, CBP’s questions can also help the company proactively identify errors and evaluate whether to file a prior disclosure to mitigate potential penalties.