In July 2026, the DOJ/DHS Trade Fraud Task Force published its first joint Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement. Although the Guide creates no new legal authority, it consolidates the government’s enforcement framework in a single public document and, in doing so, signals how DOJ and DHS intend to investigate, charge, and resolve trade fraud matters. Publications of this kind are infrequent and rarely incidental; the Guide should be read as a statement of enforcement intent.

Three aspects of the Guide warrant particular attention.

First, liability extends across the supply chain. The Guide makes clear that exposure does not end with the importer of record. For example, under 18 U.S.C. § 545, any party that receives, buys, sells, or facilitates goods imported “contrary to law”—with the requisite knowledge—faces a statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment and mandatory forfeiture. Distributors, wholesalers, and retailers that have historically viewed customs risk as an upstream issue should revisit that assumption. In the Guide’s own framing, the era in which a company can claim ignorance of its upstream partners’ activities is over.

Second, trade fraud is increasingly charged in combination with other offenses. The Guide describes how customs violations serve as predicates for wire fraud, money laundering, RICO, and securities law theories, converting what might once have been a duty dispute into substantially broader criminal and civil exposure. The prominence of the False Claims Act—with treble damages and qui tam provisions—also means that enforcement referrals may originate with employees, competitors, or other private parties.

Third, forced labor is treated as a criminal enforcement priority, not merely a detention risk. The Guide devotes a full chapter to Section 307, the UFLPA, and the Chapter 77 peonage statutes, including criminal liability for any party that knowingly benefits financially from forced labor or acts in reckless disregard of it. The list of high-priority sectors has grown to twelve and continues to expand.

Taken together, the Guide reflects the consolidation of revenue collection, national security, and human rights concerns into a single, coordinated enforcement mandate—at a moment when tariff revenue carries genuine fiscal significance.

A&M Perspective

The July 2026 Guide should prompt companies to reassess whether their trade compliance programs are calibrated to today’s enforcement environment. At a minimum, companies should identify high-risk import flows; validate classification, valuation, and origin positions; test supplier and broker controls; review exposure to Section 301, Section 232, AD/CVD, forced labor, and sanctions-related requirements; and ensure procurement and commercial teams have a clear process for escalating pricing, routing, sourcing, or documentation anomalies.

That reassessment should extend beyond the traditional customs function. M&A diligence should test whether target companies rely on aggressive origin positions, unsupported valuation methodologies, high-risk suppliers, or unvalidated duty-savings structures. Private equity sponsors, portfolio companies, and downstream purchasers should likewise confirm that supplier certifications are supported by underlying records and that supply-chain economics make sense in light of applicable duties and trade restrictions.

A&M’s view is that leading companies should move from reactive customs compliance to proactive trade risk management. The companies best positioned for this environment will be able to explain not only their entry records, but also the commercial rationale, legal support, documentation trail, and internal controls behind their import positions. That enforcement perspective helps translate DOJ priorities into practical steps companies can take before an inquiry, subpoena, or whistleblower allegation arises.

The DOJ Guide and the Task Force’s enforcement posture should be understood as both a warning and an opportunity. Trade fraud risk now reaches across the supply chain and may implicate civil, criminal, FCA, and reputational exposure; but companies can reduce that risk through targeted diligence, prompt remediation, informed governance, and documented support for key import positions. In the current environment, trade compliance is no longer a back-office customs function; it is a board-level enterprise risk issue.