DOJ’s Trade Fraud Resource Guide: What It Means If CBP Is Already Investigating You

In July 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security jointly published A Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement, a 31-page document prepared by the Trade Fraud Task Force. It was released alongside an announcement that the Task Force had surpassed $1 billion in combined civil and criminal recoveries, penalties, forfeitures, and publicly charged losses since its launch in August 2025.

The Guide creates no new law. Every statute it describes was already on the books, and the Guide says plainly that it may not be relied upon to create any rights or defenses enforceable by any party. What it does is tell importers, customs brokers, and everyone downstream of them exactly how the government intends to look at their conduct — and the framing it uses should concern anyone who has treated customs compliance as a back-office paperwork function.

We are pleased to announce the publication of A Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement. This Guide is intended to provide information for businesses, individuals, and their attorneys as well as the public regarding customs, trade, and related fraud.

The Guide has been prepared by the Trade Fraud Task Force, a partnership of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including the National Fraud Enforcement Division, Criminal Division, Civil Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

This Guide is United States Government property. It is available to the public free of charge online.

U.S. Department of Justice, A Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement (July 2026)

What the $1 Billion Figure Actually Counts

The headline number deserves a closer read than it has generally received. The Task Force’s $1 billion is not a cash recovery total. It is a combined tally that folds together civil settlements, criminal penalties, forfeitures, and publicly charged losses — meaning alleged loss amounts in cases that have not been resolved and where the defendants are presumed innocent. A substantial portion traces to a single large settlement in a matter whose underlying conduct and related convictions predate the Task Force’s existence.

That does not make the number meaningless. It makes it a statement of priorities rather than a scorecard. The government is telling importers where it is spending investigative resources, and the answer is customs fraud — undervaluation, misclassification, transshipment, and AD/CVD evasion above all.

The Culpability Ladder Now Runs All the Way to Prison

Importers who have dealt with CBP penalties know the culpability framework under 19 U.S.C. 1592: negligence, gross negligence, and fraud, each carrying a different penalty ceiling tied to the loss of revenue or the domestic value of the merchandise. That is an administrative framework, and for most importers it has been the beginning and the end of the analysis.

The Guide explicitly rejects that as the outer boundary. It states that where a company fails to implement effective controls, DOJ will look closely at whether the failure resulted from negligence, reckless disregard, willful blindness to signs of fraud, or intentional criminality. Those four categories are not the Section 1592 ladder. Reckless disregard and deliberate ignorance are the knowledge standards under the civil False Claims Act, and willful blindness is a criminal doctrine. The Guide is describing a single continuum of conduct in which the same set of facts can be routed to an administrative penalty notice, a civil FCA complaint, or a criminal indictment, depending on what the investigation finds about the importer’s state of mind.

For an importer receiving a pre-penalty notice, that has a concrete consequence. The response to a Section 1592 pre-penalty notice is a document written under oath-adjacent conditions, submitted to an agency that coordinates routinely with HSI, which is the criminal investigative arm. The Guide notes that CBP does not possess independent criminal investigative authority and therefore refers matters to HSI, the FBI, and IRS-CI. A response that concedes facts in the hope of a mitigation credit can supply the knowledge element in a later criminal case.

18 U.S.C. 545 and Liability Beyond the Importer of Record

The single most significant section of the Guide for the broader trade community is its treatment of Title 18, Section 545. Most of the criminal customs statutes carry modest exposure: Sections 541 (false classification), 542 (entry by false statement), 548, 550, and 551 each carry a statutory maximum of two years. Section 545 carries a maximum of 20 years plus mandatory forfeiture of the goods or their equivalent value.

The Guide calls Section 545 the most expansive tool in DOJ’s arsenal, and its second paragraph is the reason. That paragraph reaches anyone who receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of merchandise after importation, knowing it was brought into the United States contrary to law. The Guide states flatly that Section 545 is not limited to the initial importer and cites prosecutions of resellers who never dealt with the customhouse at all.

This is the exposure most companies have not priced in. A domestic distributor, a wholesaler, a retailer, or a warehousing company that buys goods from an importer running a transshipment scheme is not a bystander under Section 545 — it is a potential defendant, provided the government can establish knowledge. And the Guide’s repeated emphasis on willful blindness signals how the government intends to establish it: through pricing that does not make commercial sense, through documentation inconsistencies the buyer chose not to investigate, through the absence of any supply chain diligence at all.

Section 545 also functions as a hub. Because Sections 542 and 545 are specified unlawful activities under the money laundering statutes, a single monetary transaction over $10,000 involving proceeds from a trade fraud scheme can support a charge under 18 U.S.C. 1957. Section 545 is also a RICO predicate, which means two qualifying acts within ten years can expose executives who never touched an entry document to conspiracy liability, 20-year maximums, and mandatory forfeiture. The Guide walks through each of these connections deliberately.

The False Claims Act and the Whistleblower Problem

The Guide devotes substantial attention to the civil False Claims Act as applied to customs duties through the reverse false claim theory — knowingly failing to pay money owed to the United States. Treble damages plus per-claim penalties make FCA exposure routinely larger than the equivalent Section 1592 penalty, and the FCA’s knowledge standard reaches deliberate ignorance and reckless disregard, not just actual knowledge.

The structural point importers should absorb is who brings these cases. Qui tam suits are filed under seal by private relators — most often former employees, disgruntled competitors, or customs brokers who walked away from a client. The company typically learns of the case only when the seal lifts, sometimes years after the investigation began. Every large settlement listed in the Guide’s typology chapter, from the $549.5 million aluminum extrusion resolution to the $54.4 million tungsten carbide transshipment case to the $12.4 million quartz surface products matter, reflects an enforcement model in which the government does not have to find the fraud itself.

What the Guide Does Not Discuss — and Why That Matters

For a document aimed at helping companies comply, the Guide is conspicuously thin on the remedies available to an importer who discovers a problem. There is no chapter on prior disclosure under 19 U.S.C. 1592(c)(4), no discussion of petitions for mitigation, and no explanation of how a self-reporting importer earns credit. Voluntary self-disclosure appears once, in a case citation.

That omission should not be read as suggesting prior disclosure has lost value. It remains the single most effective tool available to an importer who finds a classification, valuation, or origin error in its own entries: a valid prior disclosure caps the Section 1592 penalty at the interest on the unpaid duties for negligence and gross negligence cases, and at one times the loss of revenue for fraud. What the omission does signal is that the Guide was written from the enforcement side of the table, and that an importer relying on it as a compliance manual is reading the government’s charging theory rather than its own defense.

Timing is the entire game here. A prior disclosure is only valid if it is made before, or without knowledge of, the commencement of a formal investigation into the disclosed violation. Once HSI has opened a file, the window is gone. That is why the practical response to this Guide is not to wait and see whether CBP notices — it is to audit the entries that carry the most risk and decide, with counsel, whether to disclose.

CBP’s Administrative Escalation Runs in Parallel

The Guide also confirms that CBP is tightening its own administrative enforcement, citing Executive Order 14411, “Strengthening Customs Enforcement,” issued June 3, 2026. The specific measures the Guide identifies include stricter enforcement of liquidated damages claims against bonds, restrictions on in-bond privileges, an increase in audits, and maximum penalties against customs brokers who fail to conduct due diligence, repeatedly represent noncompliant clients, or fail to respond promptly to CBP requests for information.

Brokers in particular should note the Guide’s summary of their obligations under 19 C.F.R. 111.29 and 111.39. A broker who knows, has reason to know, or suspects that a client has not complied with the law must inform the client, advise on corrective action, and retain a record of that communication. That record is discoverable. A broker who papers the file correctly protects itself; a broker who says nothing has created evidence of its own reckless disregard.

What Importers Should Do Now

• Audit the three data points that drive everything. The Guide states that CBP calculates financial liability for commercial entries based on HTS code, country of origin, and declared value. Those three fields are where nearly every typology in the Guide originates. Start there.
• Document the basis for aggressive positions. A classification or first-sale valuation position supported by a contemporaneous legal analysis or a binding ruling request is a defensible position. The same position with no file behind it looks like reckless disregard.
• Verify supplier representations rather than relying on them. The Guide is explicit that the importer of record cannot contract away its reasonable care obligation, citing United States v. Golden Ship Trading Co. Reliance on a broker or a foreign supplier is not a defense.
• Investigate pricing that does not make sense. If a supplier’s landed cost is materially below what the duty structure should permit, that is the fact pattern the government will use to establish willful blindness.
• Preserve records for the full five years. The retention obligation under 19 U.S.C. 1508 applies to importers and brokers alike, and recordkeeping failures carry their own penalties independent of any underlying violation.
• Involve counsel before responding to CBP. A Form 28 request for information, a Form 29 notice of action, or a pre-penalty notice is the point at which the administrative and criminal tracks are still separable. It is much harder to separate them afterward.

The Bottom Line

The Guide’s most quoted line is its declaration that the era when a company can claim ignorance of its upstream partners’ activities is over. That is enforcement rhetoric, but it accurately describes where the risk now sits. Trade fraud enforcement has moved from an administrative dispute over duty rates to a coordinated civil and criminal program with a dedicated litigating section, a standing task force, and a whistleblower pipeline feeding it cases.

Importers who have been treating a CBP penalty notice as a billing dispute should recalibrate. If you have received a Form 28, a Form 29, a pre-penalty notice, or an audit notification — or if an internal review has surfaced a problem you have not yet reported — the sequencing of what happens next matters more than the underlying error.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the DOJ Trade Fraud Resource Guide change the law?

No. The Guide states expressly that it does not create any rights or defenses enforceable at law and does not limit the enforcement intentions or litigating positions of DOJ, DHS, or any other agency. Every statute it discusses was already in force. Its significance is as a statement of enforcement priorities and of how the government intends to evaluate importer conduct.

Can a company be prosecuted for buying goods someone else imported illegally?

Yes, under 18 U.S.C. 545. The second paragraph of that statute reaches anyone who receives, conceals, buys, sells, or facilitates the transportation or sale of merchandise after importation, knowing it was brought into the United States contrary to law. The Guide states directly that Section 545 is not limited to the initial importer. The statute carries a 20-year statutory maximum and mandatory forfeiture.

Is a CBP penalty notice a sign that a criminal investigation is underway?

Not necessarily. Most Section 1592 matters are resolved administratively. But CBP has no independent criminal investigative authority and routinely refers matters to Homeland Security Investigations, and the Guide describes that coordination as standard practice. Because a response to a pre-penalty notice can supply facts usable in a later criminal case, the possibility should be assessed before anything is submitted.

Does the Guide affect whether I should file a prior disclosure?

It makes the timing more urgent. A prior disclosure under 19 U.S.C. 1592(c)(4) substantially limits penalty exposure, but only if it is made before or without knowledge of the commencement of a formal investigation into the disclosed violation. With more investigative resources directed at trade fraud, the window between an internal discovery and a government inquiry is narrower than it was.

What does the $1 billion Trade Fraud Task Force figure represent?

It is a combined tally of civil and criminal recoveries, penalties, forfeitures, and publicly charged losses since the Task Force launched in August 2025. It is not a cash recovery total, and the charged-loss component reflects allegations in matters that have not been resolved.

What are customs brokers’ obligations under the Guide?

The Guide summarizes existing regulations: a broker must exercise due diligence under 19 C.F.R. 111.29, and under 19 C.F.R. 111.39 a broker who knows, has reason to know, or suspects client noncompliance must inform the client, advise on corrective action, and retain a record of that communication. The Guide also confirms CBP intends to pursue maximum penalties against brokers who fail to conduct due diligence or repeatedly represent noncompliant clients.

Source document: The full 31-page Guide is a U.S. Government publication available to the public free of charge. Download A Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement (PDF) from the Department of Justice.

Related reading: Customs penalties for fraud, gross negligence, and negligence under 19 U.S.C. 1592 · Prior disclosure to CBP of 19 U.S.C. 1592 violations · Import compliance · Penalty and seizure defense