DOJ Trade Fraud Task Force broadens scrutiny across supply chains

The DOJ Trade Fraud Task Force, operating with the Department of Homeland Security, said on July 14 that it had exceeded $1 billion in combined civil and criminal recoveries, penalties, forfeitures and publicly charged losses since its August 2025 launch. The announcement signals more forceful customs enforcement across supply chains, while payment records may become useful investigative evidence rather than a new compliance mandate for banks.

The Department of Justice said the total is a combined measure, not a figure for cash collected alone. It includes publicly charged losses, alongside recoveries, penalties and forfeitures. DOJ described its approach as a move toward criminal prosecutions and civil cases under the False Claims Act.

The task force investigates alleged material misrepresentations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, including transshipment, mislabeling and false declarations. Its stated priorities include evasion of Section 301 tariffs, antidumping and countervailing duties, forced-labor concerns, and imports that threaten public health and safety.

DOJ said its mandate reaches importers, customs brokers, downstream distributors, industrial and commercial end-users, and other supply-chain parties that knowingly profit from merchandise imported contrary to law. That scope places the focus on the commercial chain surrounding an import, rather than solely on the entity submitting a customs entry.

What does the DOJ trade fraud task force mean for payments?

Payment data can help establish whether the commercial records behind an import fit its customs declaration. PYMNTS reported that supplier payments, invoices, ownership information and shipping documents can reveal inconsistencies in an investigation, such as a declared value that does not appear to match the economics reflected in commercial transactions.

Such a mismatch is not proof of fraud. A payment may cover freight, insurance, services or multiple orders, and a transaction alone cannot establish criminal intent. PYMNTS also noted a practical constraint: banks may lack complete customs records, while customs authorities may not have access to every payment connected to a shipment.

No customs-fraud-specific bank reporting regime was identified in the materials. PYMNTS said Washington has not created one, and cautioned that financial institutions should not regard every tariff dispute as evidence of criminal conduct. The immediate significance is evidentiary: payment and trade documents may be compared where investigators have access to both.

What cases is the task force pursuing?

DOJ pointed to charges filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Raj Kohli and Veena Kohli, operators of Surya International, a gold-jewelry importer and wholesaler. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants falsely represented jewelry as originating in Singapore rather than India and the United Arab Emirates.

According to DOJ, the allegations cover about 563 entries between August 2020 and May 2024. The department alleged that the goods had an estimated value exceeding $693 million and that more than $38 million in customs duties were avoided. The charges are allegations, not findings of guilt.

For banks, trade-finance providers and companies managing cross-border purchasing, the enforcement development does not establish a new payment-reporting duty. It does indicate that records held across customs, logistics and payment systems may be more relevant when authorities assess alleged duty evasion or misstatements about goods entering the United States.

This story draws on original reporting from PYMNTS.