On December 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a first-of-its-kind action by its new Trade Fraud Task Force (TFTF), declining to prosecute MGI International, a New York-headquartered global plastic resin distributor, and two of its subsidiaries, Global Plastics and Marco Polo International, under the DOJ Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP).
The DOJ has framed this action, which coincided with a guilty plea by MGI’s former chief operating officer, as a significant milestone in its corporate criminal enforcement efforts. It is the first public example of the DOJ’s Criminal Division evaluating trade-related conduct under the CEP, something that was promised in August 2025 when the TFTF was announced (see prior Alston & Bird advisory available here).
The Conduct and the CEP
According to the DOJ’s announcement and declination letter, MGI in 2021 falsified country-of-origin declarations for plastic resin imported from China.
MGI labeled the resin as originating from Taiwan and routed shipments through Canada to further obscure its true source and avoid an otherwise applicable 25% Section 301 duty.
In July 2025, MGI’s subsidiaries agreed to pay $6.8 million to resolve civil liability associated with the scheme.
This settlement is among the reasons cited by the DOJ for declining to prosecute the company. Other reasons included MGI’s and its subsidiaries’ “timely and voluntary self-disclosure,” their “full and proactive cooperation,” and their “timely and appropriate remediation.”
No additional penalties or disgorgement are being imposed on or sought from MGI or its subsidiaries. The DOJ agreed to credit MGI’s and its subsidiaries’ July 2025 payments against any additional amounts owed.
Key Takeaways
Piling on?
In issuing this declination letter, the DOJ’s Criminal Division has imposed no additional financial penalties on MGI or its subsidiaries.
While the letter subjects the companies to whatever additional reputational harm may occur beyond that associated with the July 2025 settlement, the companies have not admitted any wrongdoing and will not be convicted of any crimes.
Accordingly, one must question what significant criminal enforcement interest is being vindicated by issuing this letter five months after the companies’ multimillion-dollar civil resolution and what it signifies about the TFTF’s pipeline of corporate criminal matters.
Indeed, with the rise of False Claims Act litigation related to country-of-origin issues in recent years—and the related potential for treble damages—the practical significance of the TFTF pursuing parallel criminal investigations remains to be seen.
CEP fluency matters
The DOJ’s announcement indicates that MGI and its subsidiaries were subjected to a careful and faithful application of the Criminal Division’s recently revised CEP (discussed in a prior Alston & Bird advisory here).
While the CEP is familiar in many other white-collar criminal contexts such as fraud and corruption, it remains new and unfamiliar in the trade context.
Corporations confronted by potential trade fraud must ensure that their approach to investigations, remediation, and DOJ engagement is aligned with this new DOJ approach and appropriately leverages lessons learned from precedent in those other contexts.
Sustained focus on individual accountability
The DOJ declined to prosecute MGI and its subsidiaries, but obtained a guilty plea from a former MGI senior executive.
This reflects a theme most recently articulated by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and other senior DOJ officials at the American Conference Institute’s December 3–4, 2025 FCPA and Global Anti-Corruption conference (which we reported on here), reflecting the DOJ’s continued focus on individual accountability.
There can be no doubt that the imposition of such accountability in this matter weighed against imposition of further (criminal) sanctions against MGI and its subsidiaries.
It remains to be seen how heavily the existence and availability of such accountability will weigh in companies’ favor as the DOJ applies the CEP to additional fact patterns.
Going Forward
While the severity (and necessity) of the DOJ’s CEP declination in this matter may be debated, it unquestionably signals a substantial DOJ appetite for corporate criminal enforcement in the trade fraud space.
Companies that incorporate principles of and approaches to DOJ engagement the same way they would in a more traditional corporate criminal enforcement investigation will be better prepared to respond to this new DOJ interest. As ever, proactive risk-based compliance investments will provide invaluable defenses against worst-case outcomes.
If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact one of the attorneys on our White Collar, Government & Internal Investigations team or one of the attorneys on our International Trade & Regulatory team.
You can subscribe to future advisories and other Alston & Bird publications by completing our publications subscription form.