by The contrasts between the previous administration and the current one could not be starker, and nowhere is this more evident than in law enforcement, particularly by the Department of Justice and the FBI.
For example, in the Biden administration, top-line priorities for the DOJ included civil rights and voting rights, domestic terrorism and public corruption. Now, deep into 2025, we see a DOJ agenda that prioritizes immigration prosecutions and tariff evasion.
Doing research for a column a few weeks back on the Charleston Nine firefighters and the Sofa Super Store fire, I stumbled upon a news item about a DOJ complaint against a South Carolina business furniture company, Global Office Furniture. The complaint charges Global for falsifying documents to avoid tariffs. Global imports office chairs from China to sell on Amazon.com.
We will skip the details of the False Claims Act complaint, which alleges that Global employed a double-invoice scheme to evade tariff costs to remain competitive, because the larger takeaway here is the prosecution and the DOJ’s shift to criminal charges from civil ones.
Centuries old, the False Claims Act authorizes the government to seek treble damages and penalties against anyone who knowingly submits or causes the submission of false claims to the government in connection with certain activities or programs, including importing furniture and furniture parts. The FCA also allows private parties, including whistleblowers, to file claims under seal and, depending on the outcome, to claim monetary awards for doing so.
Buyer beware
The nugget on Global led me to an article about a speech at the Securities Industries and Financial Markets Association’s Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference from Matthew Galeotti, head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, in May. In the speech, which presumably ran shorter than the title of the conference, Galeotti unveiled the DOJ’s “White Collar Enforcement Plan” that signals a significant shift in how federal prosecutors will pursue trade-related violations.
For furniture importers, the message is clear: Falsifying import records is now squarely in the crosshairs of federal law enforcement as a criminal matter. The enforcement plan explicitly identifies “tariff evasion” as a priority area under the broader category of “fraud on government programs,” marking it as one of only 10 specific focus areas for the Criminal Division’s white collar enforcement efforts.
This represents a notable escalation in trade enforcement priorities. While customs violations have always carried serious penalties, the elevation of tariff fraud to a top-tier enforcement priority suggests that furniture importers who manipulate country-of-origin declarations, undervalue shipments or misclassify products to reduce duty payments are now facing heightened scrutiny from criminal prosecutors rather than facing merely civil enforcement actions.
The motivation of this column isn’t to wag the finger at importers who are playing on the edges of the law. They do so at their own risk. Rather, it is to point to the painful reality that with such pressure to prove to powers that be that law enforcement is on the job, policing trade and making import scofflaws pay a heavy price, innocent companies could get caught up in costly litigation over charges that ultimately have no merit.
Criminal and civil penalties
As outlined by Galeotti, the enforcement plan emphasizes “individual accountability.” The complaint against Global, for example, names Malcolm Smith as a defendant. Galeotti stressed that “it is individuals — whether executives, officers or employees of companies — who commit these crimes,” suggesting that furniture company owners, import managers and customs brokers could face individual criminal liability alongside that of their companies.
The DOJ’s updated approach does offer a lifeline for companies willing to police themselves. The enforcement plan characterizes companies and their compliance programs as the “first line of defense” against priority threats, with Galeotti emphasizing the importance of voluntary self-disclosure. Furniture importers who discover customs violations and promptly report them to authorities could avoid criminal charges, but to qualify, companies must meet four criteria: voluntary self-disclosure, full cooperation with investigations, timely remediation and the absence of aggravating circumstances.
The DOJ obviously wishes to create incentive to implement robust compliance programs that can detect and correct customs violations before they escalate. Companies that “discover” the manipulation of country-of-origin certificates or undervaluing shipments should probably disclose rather than attempt to fix the problem internally.
Also in the policy is what’s called a “Near Miss” category. Furniture importers that cooperate fully and remediate violations, even if they did not initially self-report, are guaranteed “Non-Prosecution Agreements” rather than potentially face criminal charges. This is now Global Office Furniture’s likely best move. If eligible, the company might see a 75% reduction in fines and avoid independent compliance that can cost millions of dollars and disrupt business operations for years, at least as I understand the policy.
Mixed message
In a bit of a mixed message, at the same time that this administration is seeking to silence critics and whistleblowers within government, the DOJ is expanding its own Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, specifically to include “trade, tariff and customs fraud.” This presents an additional layer of risk for furniture importers engaged in questionable practices. Employees who witness or participate in customs fraud schemes can now receive monetary awards for reporting violations and/or “original information” about corporate misconduct they were not involved in to federal authorities. The risk here is that a disgruntled employee, terminated customs broker or concerned compliance officer could trigger a federal investigation by reporting suspected tariff evasion.
Yet another risk comes from competitors. A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a $26 million verdict under the FCA against Sigma Corp. for making false statements on customs forms. The plaintiff in the case is a competitor, Island Industries, a pipe-fitting producer.
However you dice it, the DOJ’s new enforcement framework makes clear that the days of treating customs violations as mere administrative matters are over and that the DOJ’s vigilance on tariffs and trade violations appears to be energetic. Any company bringing in furniture or furniture parts should audit their import practices, paying special attention to country-of-origin determinations, valuation methods and product classification procedures. The Global Office Furniture action suggests that the window for correcting problems may be narrowing.
It probably goes without saying, but companies concerned about customs compliance should also consult with qualified legal counsel to assess their specific circumstances and develop appropriate compliance strategies. This column isn’t legal advice in any way, shape or form.
