/>iOn May 12, 2025, Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Chief Matthew Galeotti issued a memorandum addressing the “Fight Against White-Collar Crime.” The memorandum lists several priorities for white-collar criminal prosecutions. While the first priority – healthcare fraud and federal program and procurement fraud – is not surprising, the second priority – trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion – is a new focus.
Emphasizing its new focus on trade and customs fraud, the Criminal Division is also amending the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program to add trade, tariff and customs fraud by corporations to the list of subject matters that whistleblowers can report for a potential bounty. Under this program, previously reported here, whistleblowers can recover a percentage of the government’s ultimate forfeiture amount.
Looking at previous trade and customs cases provides insight into both how the DOJ may be planning to pursue them and what whistleblowers are likely to report. The alleged misconduct in tariff evasion cases generally falls in three areas that affect the duties owed: (1) misrepresenting the classification/type of product, (2) undervaluing the product, and (3) misrepresentation of the country of origin and/or transshipment cases. Even well-intentioned companies may find themselves making missteps in these areas because the nuance in the governing regulations makes them surprisingly complicated. Appropriate classification of a product can be challenging, and the country of origin is often unclear when manufacturing occurs in multiple countries.
Civil False Claims Act Cases
As our regular blog readers know, the False Claims Act (FCA) is a federal law that imposes civil liability for submitting false claims to the federal government. The law imposes treble damages and civil penalties on those who submit false claims. In fiscal year 2024, FCA settlements and judgments totaled over $2.9 billion. Under the FCA, whistleblowers (called “relators”) can file cases under seal on behalf of the government. The government then opens an investigation to determine whether they should intervene in the case. Much like they can share in criminal forfeitures through the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program discussed above, the relators who bring FCA violations to the government’s attention share in the civil recovery obtained by the government.
International Vitamins Corporation
In January 2023, International Vitamins Corporation (IVC) entered a civil settlement for $22,865,055, admitting that it misclassified 32 of its products imported from China under the HTS as duty-free, over an almost five-year period. IVC also admitted that even after it retained a consultant in 2018 who informed IVC that it had been misclassifying the covered products, IVC failed to implement the correct classifications for over nine months and never remitted duties that it knew it had previously underpaid to the United States because of its misclassification. This case was originally brought as a whistleblower lawsuit by a former financial analyst at IVC (U.S. ex rel. Welin v. International Vitamin Corporation et al., Case No. 19-Civ-9550 (S.D.N.Y.)).
Samsung C&T America, Inc. (SCTA)
In February 2023, Samsung C&T America, Inc. (SCTA) resolved a FCA lawsuit that was initially filed by a whistleblower. SCTA admitted that, between May 2016 and December 2018, it misclassified imported footwear under the United States’ Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and underpaid customs duties. SCTA further admitted that it had reason to know that certain documents provided to its customs brokers inaccurately described the construction and materials of the imported footwear and that SCTA failed to verify the accuracy of this information before providing it to its customs brokers.
SCTA, with its business partner, imported footwear manufactured overseas, including from manufacturers in China and Vietnam. The tariff classifications for footwear depend on the characteristics of the footwear, including the footwear’s materials, construction, and intended use. Depending on the classification of the footwear, the duties varied significantly.
In the settlement agreement, SCTA specifically admitted and accepted responsibility for the following conduct:
- As the importer of record (IOR), SCTA was responsible for paying the customs duties on the footwear and providing accurate documents to the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to allow CBP to assess accurate duties.
- SCTA and its business partner provided SCTA’s customs brokers with invoices and other documents and information that purportedly reflected the tariff classification of the footwear under the HTS, as well as the corresponding materials and construction of the footwear. SCTA knew that its customs brokers would rely on the documents and information to prepare the entry summaries submitted to CBP, which required classifying the footwear under the HTS, determining the applicable duty rates, and calculating the amount of the customs duties owed on the footwear.
- SCTA had reason to know that certain documents provided to its customs brokers, including invoices, inaccurately stated the materials and construction of the footwear. SCTA failed to verify the accuracy of this information before providing it to its customs brokers. Thus, SCTA materially misreported the classification of the footwear under the HTS and misrepresented the true materials and construction of the footwear.
- SCTA, through its customs brokers, misclassified the footwear at issue on the associated entry documents filed with CBP and, in many instances, underpaid customs duties on the footwear.
This case makes clear that the company and/or IOR bears responsibility for accurately reporting to CBP and that the government will not allow an importer to pass the blame to the customs broker when it has reason to know that it is providing the customs broker with inaccurate information.
Ford Motor Company
In March 2023, Ford Motor Company (Ford) agreed to pay the United States $365 million to resolve allegations that it violated the Tariff Act of 1930 by misclassifying and understating the value of hundreds of thousands of its Transit Connect vehicles. This settlement is one of the largest recent customs penalty settlements.
While Ford did not admit to any wrongful conduct, the settlement resolves allegations that it devised a scheme to avoid higher duties by misclassifying cargo vans. Specifically, the government alleged that from April 2009 to March 2013, Ford imported Transit Connect cargo vans from Turkey into the United States and presented them to CBP with sham rear seats and other temporary features to make the vans appear to be passenger vehicles. The government alleged that Ford included these seats and features to avoid paying the 25% duty rate applicable to cargo vehicles instead of the 2.5% duty rate applicable to passenger vehicles. The settlement also resolves allegations that Ford avoided paying import duties by under-declaring to CBP the value of certain Transit Connect vehicles.
King Kong Tools LLC (King Kong)
In November 2023, a German company and its American subsidiary agreed to pay $1.9 million to settle allegations of customs fraud under the FCA. The government alleged that King Kong was falsely labelling its tools as “made in Germany” when the tools were really made in China. By misrepresenting the origin of the tools, King Kong avoided paying a 25% tariff.
This case began when a competitor of King Kong filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that King Kong was manufacturing cutting tools in a Chinese factory (U.S. ex rel. China Pacificarbide, Inc. v. King Kong Tools, LLC, et al.,1:19-cv-05405 (ND Ga.) ). The tools were then shipped to Germany, where additional processing was performed on some, but not all, of the tools. The tools were then shipped to the United States and declared to be “German” products.
Homestar North America LLC
In December 2023, Homestar North America LLC (Homestar) agreed to pay $798,334 to resolve allegations that it violated the FCA by failing to pay customs duties owed for furniture imports from China between September 2018 and December 2022. The government alleged that the invoices were created and submitted to the CBP containing false, lower values for the goods. The settlement resolved allegations that Homestar and its Chinese parent company conspired to underreport the value of imports delivered to Homestar following two increases on Section 301 tariffs for certain products manufactured in China under the HTS.
This case was filed by a whistleblower in the Eastern District of Texas under the FCA, and the government subsequently intervened (U.S. ex rel. Larry J. Edwards, Jr. v. Homestar North America, LLC, Cause No. 4:21-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex.)).
Alexis LLC
In August 2024, women’s apparel company Alexis LLC agreed to pay $7,691,999.63 to resolve a FCA case also initially filed by a whistleblower (U.S. ex rel. CABP Ethics and Co. LLC v. Alexis et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-21412-FAM (S.D. Fla.)). The settlement, which was not an admission of liability by Alexis, resolved claims that from 2015 to 2022 Alexis materially misreported the value of imported apparel to CBP and thereby avoided paying the customs duties and fees owed on the imports. Alexis did, however, admit and acknowledge certain errors and omissions regarding the value and information reported on customs forms. Specifically, the errors related to failure to include and apportion the value of certain fabric and garment trims, discrepancies between customs forms and sales-related documentation, misclassifying textiles, and listing incorrect ports of entry.
In negotiating this settlement, Alexis and its senior management received benefits for its cooperation with the government. For example, Alexis voluntarily and timely submitted relevant information and records to the government. These submissions assisted the government in determining the amount of losses. Also, Alexis and its management implemented compliance procedures and employee training to prevent future issues.
Criminal Case
Kenneth Fleming and Akua Mosaics, Inc. (Akua Mosaics)
Kenneth Fleming and Akua Mosaics, Inc. plead guilty to a conspiracy to smuggle goods into the United States under 18 U.S.C. §§371 and 545. According to the plea agreements, from 2021 through June 2022, the defendants conspired to defraud the United States by smuggling and importing porcelain mosaic tiles manufactured in China by falsely representing to the CBP that the merchandise was of Malaysian origin. This was done with the intent to avoid paying antidumping duties of approximately 330.69%, countervailing duties of approximately 358.81%, and other duties of approximately 25%.
Fleming and Akua Mosaics conspired with Shuyi Mo, a citizen and resident of China who was arrested when he was attempting to flee the United States. They caused “Made in Malaysia” labels to be placed on boxes containing tiles manufactured in China and then caused a container with tiles manufactured in China to be shipped from Malaysia to Puerto Rico, misrepresenting the country of origin as Malaysia. The amount of unpaid duties and tariffs on this shipment was approximately $1.09 million. At sentencing, Fleming was ordered to pay restitution of $1.04 million and was sentenced to two years of probation.
Takeaways
Based upon DOJ’s new prioritization of trade and customs fraud, companies that import or export goods should ensure that they have the resources and training for employees working in jobs related to customs. Even simple errors and omissions could have more significant monetary consequences with increased tariffs. Companies should implement compliance programs to properly train employees and to identify and correct any issues as they occur.
Companies should also work with experienced trade counsel to determine if they are following the law. Failure to heed trade counsel’s advice could potentially put a company in a worse situation, like in the IVC matter discussed above.
If there is any indication of a criminal or civil investigation, companies should be proactive in retaining counsel with expertise in this area. Regardless of whether they dispute or settle the matter, experienced counsel is key in reaching a favorable resolution. Counsel can help determine when and how best to cooperate with the government to maximize cooperation credit in any settlement, as discussed above in the Alexis LLC matter.
Finally, companies should be diligent in their employment law practices. That means not only complying with applicable employment law when dealing with whistleblowers, but also ensuring that personnel files are appropriately documented when there are employee issues. FCA whistleblowers are often former, disgruntled employees who were terminated for performance issues. However, the employees’ files often do not reflect their poor performance, which can create unnecessary challenges in defending whistleblower claims. Companies that import or export goods should expect to see more whistleblowers come forward, both as traditional FCA relators and because DOJ has now added trade, tariff, and customs fraud issues to the Criminal Division’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program. All such companies will be best served by being diligent and prepared for DOJ’s new focus in this area.
