White Collar Defense and Investigations Update

Clear and Present Danger: How DOJ Trade-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Priorities Show Trade & Customs Risks Are Here to Stay

December 9, 2025

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has signaled a renewed and sharpened focus on trade and customs-related misconduct, including tariff evasion. While DOJ’s emphasis on this enforcement area is notable in its own right, this Update highlights how DOJ’s prioritization of trade and customs fraud also brings Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) exposure back to the forefront of risks for multinational companies. Recent policy updates¹ and enforcement initiatives reflect DOJ’s readiness to pursue trade and tariff-evasion misconduct not only through such traditional tools as the False Claims Act (FCA), the wire fraud and money laundering statutes, smuggling statutes, and false statements offenses but also under the FCPA when interactions with foreign customs officials involve corrupt conduct, particularly in regions permeated by cartels. Companies should keep trade and corruption risks top of mind for at least the following reasons:

Criminal Division Enforcement Priorities²: In its May memorandum, “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime³,” and subsequent public statements, including this week at the American Conference Institute’s annual FCPA conference in DC, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and DOJ Criminal Division expressly identified trade fraud, cartels, and the “demand side” of foreign bribery as well as FCPA matters as top enforcement priorities. In the FCPA Unit’s first deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) following the announcement of revised FCPA guidelines, a subsidiary of Millicom agreed to a $118 million resolution of allegations that the company used drug-trafficking proceeds to bribe Guatemalan officials.⁴
Trade Fraud Task Force Relaunch⁵: DOJ has relaunched its Trade Fraud Task Force, enhancing coordination among the Civil Division, Criminal Division, Homeland Security Investigations, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)⁶ to pursue tariff- and duty-evasion schemes more aggressively. Importantly, this signals added resourcing for such cases.
Increased Incentives for Whistleblowers: In 2025, DOJ Criminal Division broadened its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program to include trade fraud, actively soliciting tips — and offering the prospect of financial awards — to individuals who report potential trade crimes (as well as FCPA and Foreign Extortion Prevention Act offenses). DOJ is likewise encouraging whistleblowers to file suits under the qui tam provisions of the FCA, an additional avenue for potential referrals and investigations.⁷
Active Enforcement Docket Against Individuals and Companies: Recent DOJ actions underscore an increasingly active enforcement pipeline focused on customs- and tariff-evasion schemes, including matters involving customs brokers and other intermediaries. In 2024 and 2025, notable civil and criminal trade and customs fraud cases range from a large FCA settlement with a corporation to a criminal indictment of multiple individuals and companies alleged to have used fraudulent documents, shell companies, bribes to public officials, and kickbacks to Mexican drug cartels to smuggle billions of dollars’ worth of goods from the United States into Mexico, defrauding Mexico out of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of duties owed.⁸
Use of Data Analytics to Identify Cases: DOJ Criminal Fraud Section has long touted its data analytics capabilities and has developed capacity to identify red flags of trade and customs fraud. This builds on past (i) work within the FCPA Unit to map indicia of corruption and (ii) use of algorithms to comb large datasets by the newly renamed Market, Consumer, and Government Fraud Unit, which includes trade fraud in its remit.
A Risk for Today and the Future: This enforcement priority is not likely to recede given the bipartisan appetite to pursue trade fraud matters.⁹ Companies should appreciate that the statute of limitations for trade-related and FCPA offenses, while generally five years, will not start to run until the offense and benefits from the offense cease and that DOJ may be able to toll it for up to three years if it needs to collect foreign evidence pursuant to mutual legal assistance treaties. While a Supreme Court ruling on the validity of International Emergency Economic Powers Act–based tariffs is pending, the government maintains other statutory and regulatory authorities for imposing tariffs; furthermore, regardless of the lawfulness of the authority for imposing tariffs, unlawful evasion of tariffs remains a crime. Finally, DOJ’s recent enforcement actions underscore a willingness to pursue trade-related corruption and tariff-evasion matters victimizing other countries, not just the U.S.

Panalpina as Precedent

Even before these recent initiatives, DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) jointly pursued matters that highlight how corrupt payments made to secure customs clearances or influence import/export requirements can trigger significant FCPA exposure. One of the most notable examples is United States v. Panalpina.¹⁰

In that case, Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., a Swiss freight forwarder, along with several oil-and-gas service companies and their subsidiaries, faced charges arising from a widespread bribery scheme involving customs officials in at least seven countries: Angola, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Russia and Turkmenistan. As the companies admitted in DPA and plea documents, over several years, thousands of illicit payments were made — totaling more than $27 million — to expedite the importation of goods, materials, and commercial products, falsify shipping documentation, and avoid local taxes and duties.

Panalpina also underscores key trade-related compliance risks: books-and-records violations stemming from improperly characterized customs payments and heightened exposure associated with the use of third-party intermediaries, including customs brokers and logistics agents.

UBS Gold, Mohamed’s Enterprise, Alvelais and Sports LA Inc. as Foreshadow

Enforcement actions from 2025 underline the rising compliance and enforcement risks in this area for both companies and individuals.

In November, federal prosecutors charged Indonesian jewelry company UBS Gold, the company’s co-owner, and two employees with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in a multiyear scheme to evade more than $86 million in U.S. customs duties and tariffs on over $1.2 billion in jewelry imports.¹¹ According to the complaint, defendants misclassified the country of origin and used transshipping through a third country to avoid duties and recent tariffs imposed on importation of goods into the U.S. These charges and subsequent arrests exemplify heightened government scrutiny over country-of-origin markings, transshipment practices, and other potential forms of duty evasion.
In October, federal prosecutors charged Guyanese opposition leader Azruddin Mohamed and his son with fraud and money laundering, accusing the men of reusing customs and gold board seals to export gold from the U.S. without paying required taxes while bribing Guyanese officials to ignore these illegal shipments — resulting in $50 million in unpaid taxes and royalties to Guyana.¹² The year prior to the indictment the pair faced sanctions from the U.S. Department of the Treasury after authorities seized a shipment of $5.3 million in gold bars sent from their company. The charges could see the expected next leader of the opposition for Guyana’s National Assembly facing up to 20 years in prison, reinforcing that even when an FCPA violation is not charged, the government will robustly use wire fraud and money-laundering charges to combat corruption attendant to trade fraud. The case also shows DOJ’s commitment to cracking down on tariff evasion even when the financial effects are felt primarily by governments abroad.
Later that same month, Carlos Leopoldo Alvelais Alarcón, the joint head of Agencia Aduanal Alvelais Alarcón, a customs brokerage based in Chihuahua, Mexico, and Alvelais Forwarding & Logistics, a freight forwarder based in El Paso, Texas, pleaded guilty to DOJ charges of conspiring to violate the FCPA.¹³ Alvelais, a licensed customs broker, had publicly remarked prior to his charges that he would meet customs officials in bars to discuss shipments and secure approvals over drinks.
In May, the CFO and CEO of Los Angeles–based shipping company Sport LA, Inc., were arrested and charged in connection with an alleged yearslong smuggling and fraud scheme. DOJ and multiple partner agencies, including Department of Homeland Security, CBP, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, uncovered alleged bribes to public officials and kickbacks to Mexican drug cartels in a scheme allegedly involving billions of dollars in goods smuggled from the U.S. to Mexico. Both executives and the company face a range of charges, including knowingly submitting false and misleading export information, wire fraud for false submissions to CBP, and international promotional and concealment money laundering.¹⁴ Although the charges do not include FCPA violations, the indictments reflect DOJ’s emphasis on trade-focused enforcement, particularly where customs manipulation, bribery, or illicit payments intersect with cross-border commerce.

Takeaways for Companies

With DOJ signaling a heightened willingness to pursue trade-related misconduct through the FCPA and other enforcement tools, new resourcing for these investigations, robust calls for whistleblowers, and arguably an increased motive to evade tariffs (higher tariffs), companies should proactively reassess controls around customs, logistics, and cross-border trade operations.

In an era of little consensus, it is remarkable that there has been bipartisan support for trade-fraud enforcement dating back to the first Trump administration and continuing during the Biden administration through the present. DOJ will face ongoing pressure to deter tariff evasion given the breadth of tariffs recently announced — thus, even if enforcement regarding newly announced tariffs will not occur for some years, expect to see trade fraud and related corruption investigations robustly initiated in the present and future based on current and past tariffs.

Strengthening internal accounting systems, refreshing risk assessments, and tightening diligence and oversight of third-party intermediaries can meaningfully reduce potential exposure — now and for the foreseeable future.

¹ https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1403031/dl.

Attorney Advertising—Sidley Austin LLP is a global law firm. Our addresses and contact information can be found at www.sidley.com/en/locations/offices.

Sidley provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking advice from professional advisers. Sidley and Sidley Austin refer to Sidley Austin LLP and affiliated partnerships as explained at www.sidley.com/disclaimer.

Explore Sidley

White Collar Defense and Investigations Update

Clear and Present Danger: How DOJ Trade-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Priorities Show Trade & Customs Risks Are Here to Stay

Capabilities

Suggested News & Insights