The imposition of tariffs is a key component of the current Trump administration’s trade policies. A corollary of the tariff policies is that the administration is also giving high priority to enforcement of the tariffs. In the latest illustration of the administration’s tariff enforcement approach, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey has brought criminal tariff evasion charges against an Indonesian jewelry firm, the company’s founder, and two company employees, based on allegations that the company engaged in a multi-year scheme to evade payment tariffs due on over $1 billion of jewelry and gold the company imported to the U.S. A copy of the November 17, 2025, criminal complaint can be found here. The U.S. Attorney’s Office’s November 17, 2025 press release about the complaint can be found here.

Background

PT Untung Bersama Sejahtera, a/k/a “UBS Gold” based in Indonesia and engaged in the importation into jewelry into the United States. For many years, Indonesian products could be imported into the United States duty free. However, beginning on January 1, 2021, the United States imposed tariffs on Indonesian goods, including gold jewelry products.

The criminal complaint alleges that UBS Gold and the individual defendants engaged in a five-year conspiracy to evade the U.S. tariffs on Indonesian products. The complaint alleges that the conspiracy involved two separate schemes.

The complaint alleges that pursuant to the first scheme, the defendants sought to evade tariffs by shipping jewelry through Jordan, which had a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, and then importing the products duty-free into the United States, based on the assertion that they were made in Jordan and therefore not subject to any duty.

The second scheme allegedly involved sending scrap gold from the United States to Jordan, switching the scrap gold out for jewelry made in Indonesia, shipping the product back to customers in the United States, representing that the jewelry was manufactured in the United States.

The criminal complaint alleges that as a result of the scheme the  defendants avoided over $86 million in duties and tariffs on more than $1.2 billion in jewelry shipments. The complaint specifically alleges that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The wire fraud conspiracy charge carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of either $250,000 for the individual defendants or $500,000 for the corporate entity or twice the gain or loss from the offense, whichever is greater.

Discussion

This new criminal action is of course interesting in and of itself, but it also reflects the ways that the Trump administration’s new tariff policies could translate into D&O claims. Of course, this particular matter relates to tariffs imposed prior to the current Trump administration. However, the enforcement action is very much a reflection of the enforcement measures that the current administration has put in place and therefore is illustrative of the kinds of enforcement actions that may arise with respect to the current tariff policies.

Readers may recall that in May 2025, when the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice announced its enforcement priorities, the agency specifically said that among the among the areas it would prioritize are the “trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion.” Moreover, in August 2025, the DOJ announced the formation with the Department of Homeland Security of a cross-agency task force “to bring robust enforcement against importers and other parties who seek to defraud the United States.”

This criminal enforcement action shows at least three things that are relevant to the question of how the Trump tariffs may translate into D&O claims.

First, the enforcement action came about as a result of the collaboration of the product of a joint investigation by Homeland Security Investigations, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, and US Customs and Border Protection. According to a December 8, 2025 memo from the Mayer Brown law firm (here), this action “illustrates the close coordination between the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security in this area, consistent with the recent announcement of the DOJ’s cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force.” In other words, though it does not relate to the tariffs imposed under the current administration, it does demonstrate how the current administration intends to enforce the tariffs.

Second, there have of course been other recent tariff enforcement actions, as noted in prior posts on this site (most recently here). However, those prior enforcement actions have involved actions filed under the False Claims Act. As the law firm memo notes, the enforcement actions related to trade and customs fraud “will not be limited to the use of the False Claims Act alone.” This action involves specific allegations of violations of the criminal law. According to the law firm memo, this action is in fact the second high-profile tariff evasion fraud case since the administration announced tariff evasion enforcement as one of its prosecution priorities. (The first was an action filed in May 2025 indictment of a freight-forwarding company for customs fraud.)

Third, it should be noted that the company and individuals charged in the criminal complaint are not U.S. persons. The company is an Indonesian company and the individuals reside outside the U.S. The law firm memo notes that the enforcement action “demonstrates this administration’s continued commitment to reduce consumer harm through fraud and to protect US economic interests, especially when the alleged misconduct involves non-US based individuals and entities.”

As the law firm memo notes, even if the case currently pending in the United States Supreme Court in which claimants challenged the constitutionality of the Trump tariffs goes against the Trump administration, tariff enforcement is likely to remain a priority. The law firm memo notes that “As DOJ continues to sharpen its focus on instances of trade and customs fraud, additional cases like UBS Gold will likely emerge—brought under various criminal statutes, such as those covering wire fraud and smuggling.”

The upshot is that there are likely to be further tariff enforcement actions, brought both as criminal actions and as False Claims Act actions. In addition to these enforcement actions, an additional D&O claims risk is the possibility of follow-on civil actions alleging either that the defendant companies misrepresented their tariff compliance or misrepresented the anticipated impact of the tariffs on company operations and financial results.

As we head into 2026, I continue to believe that the current administration’s trade policies, along with a host of other areas of geopolitical concern, could represent significant areas of D&O risk.

Anyone who is interested in learning more about how the adminsitration is going about investigating tariff evasion will want to read the criminal complaint filed in this case, to which I linked above. It is absolutely fascinating.