The US Department of Justice has issued new guidance directing federal prosecutors on trade fraud enforcement, according to a Lexology report. The memorandum addresses how attorneys should pursue customs violations, export-control breaches, and schemes that target the US tariff system.

What is trade fraud enforcement?

Trade fraud prosecutions sit at the intersection of criminal law, customs regulation, and national security. Federal authorities pursue these matters under statutes including the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Export Control Reform Act. Money-laundering provisions also apply where proceeds cross borders.

The Department of Justice typically coordinates these cases through its National Security Division and the Criminal Division's Fraud Section. Partner agencies include Homeland Security Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, and the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security. Together, these bodies investigate importers who misclassify goods, exporters who evade licensing rules, and brokers who facilitate cross-border transactions.

Prosecutors treat trade fraud as a recurring priority. Common schemes include misclassification of imports to evade duties, transshipment to obscure country-of-origin rules, and falsified export licenses for controlled goods. US authorities collect tens of billions of dollars in customs duties each year. Schemes that evade duties represent both lost revenue and competitive distortions that disadvantage compliant importers.

Why does DOJ guidance matter for practitioners?

DOJ guidance documents serve three practical purposes. First, they signal enforcement priorities to defense counsel and corporate compliance officers. Second, they articulate charging criteria, helping prosecutors decide when a matter merits criminal referral rather than civil resolution. Third, they set expectations for inter-agency coordination.

Practitioners read such guidance for the language used to describe target conduct. A shift from "consider" to "should" or "must" carries weight. Changes in the framing of aggravating factors, including sanctioned-jurisdiction involvement, shell entities, or the scale of duties evaded, also matter. Compliance officers typically map those phrases against their internal control frameworks.

What does the guidance likely address?

Without the full text, attorneys should expect the document to address several recurring topics:

• Threshold criteria for criminal prosecution of tariff evasion
• Treatment of voluntary self-disclosure by corporate defendants
• Application of the US Sentencing Guidelines to corporations
• Coordination with parallel civil actions by CBP
• Enforcement priorities linked to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act
• Sanctions evasion tied to Russia and Iran
• Diversion of US-origin technology to restricted end users

Recent DOJ activity in this space has included prosecution of forced-labor supply chains, criminal charges against exporters of controlled technology, and task-force operations targeting duty evasion schemes involving high-value goods such as textiles, steel, and electronics.

What should lawyers do now?

Defense counsel handling customs matters should check whether the guidance changes charging thresholds. Companies operating international supply chains should reassess internal compliance programs against the department's stated priorities. In-house counsel should brief procurement, logistics, and finance teams on the conduct the department flagged, particularly any conduct involving higher-risk jurisdictions.

Counsel representing clients in pending investigations should consider whether the guidance affects ongoing negotiations with prosecutors. Voluntary-disclosure decisions often turn on whether a company expects credit under the terms set out in enforcement memos. The DOJ has, in recent years, expanded self-disclosure programs and tied cooperation credit to specific types of misconduct.

What should practitioners watch for next?

DOJ guidance on trade crime tends to coincide with broader policy shifts in Washington. Practitioners should monitor whether the new direction accompanies executive orders, Treasury actions, or Commerce Department rule changes. Guidance issued without companion regulation often signals coordination problems rather than unified policy across agencies.

The full text of the memorandum, once available, will tell practitioners exactly how much room prosecutors have to bring charges, decline matters, or seek alternative resolutions. Until then, attorneys should treat the document as a signal of priorities and adjust their advice accordingly.