Justice Department Resolves Criminal Trade Fraud Investigation with Plastic Resin Distributor; Former Executive Agrees to Plead Guilty

The Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self‑Disclosure Policy (CEP) is DOJ guidance that tells companies what benefits they can get in corporate criminal cases if they: (1) voluntarily self‑disclose misconduct, (2) fully cooperate, and (3) fix and remediate the problem.

Part I of the CEP sets out when the Criminal Division will issue a declination—a formal decision not to prosecute the company. Under the revised 2025 policy, if a company:

• makes a qualifying voluntary self‑disclosure before an imminent threat of disclosure or investigation,
• fully cooperates with DOJ,
• timely and appropriately remediates (including disciplining responsible individuals and improving compliance), and
• does not have specified aggravating factors (e.g., the misconduct was pervasive, involved executive management, or caused significant profit or harm),

then the Criminal Division will decline to prosecute the company for the criminal conduct described. That is what happened with MGI: DOJ resolved the matter under Part I and declined to bring criminal charges against the company.

“Section 301 duties” are extra tariffs the U.S. imposes under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 when it finds another country is engaging in unfair trade practices. Since 2018, they have mainly targeted a wide range of Chinese-origin goods (over 10,000 tariff lines across Lists 1–4), including industrial inputs, machinery, electronics, and many chemicals and plastics.

Plastic resin from China is among the products subject to Section 301 tariffs when classified under affected Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes; importers must pay these additional percentages (often 7.5% or 25%) on top of normal customs duties.

In this context, “credit $6.8 million previously paid” means DOJ agreed that the $6.8 million civil payment Global Plastics and Marco Polo (MGI subsidiaries) already made in the False Claims Act (FCA) settlement would count toward resolving the criminal trade‑fraud investigation under the CEP declination.

So:

• The $6.8 million has already been paid to the United States to resolve FCA civil liability for underpaid Section 301 duties.
• DOJ’s criminal declination states that payment is credited; DOJ is not seeking any additional criminal penalty from MGI for this conduct.
• As of the press releases, there is no indication that MGI owes additional money for this same misconduct, beyond the already‑paid $6.8 million, though the company must continue compliance and cooperation obligations.

A criminal information is a written charging document filed directly by prosecutors (the U.S. Attorney or DOJ) that formally accuses someone of a crime. In federal felony cases, it can generally be used only if the defendant waives the right to be indicted by a grand jury, which usually happens when the defendant intends to plead guilty.

An indictment is also a charging document, but it must be returned by a grand jury after it finds probable cause. For serious federal offenses, the Constitution normally requires an indictment unless the defendant waives that right.

So, in practice:

• Indictment = charges approved by a grand jury.
• Criminal information = charges brought directly by prosecutors, usually with the defendant’s consent as part of a negotiated guilty plea.

Even with a DOJ criminal declination under the CEP, MGI can still face other consequences, including:

• Existing and future civil liability: The company already resolved False Claims Act civil liability with a $6.8 million payment. DOJ and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can still pursue civil penalties or assessments in other matters if additional violations are found.
• Customs/administrative actions: CBP and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) can audit past entries, demand unpaid duties, impose civil penalties for customs violations, and require corrective measures or enhanced bonding.
• Compliance and reporting obligations: Under CEP declinations, companies typically must maintain and enhance compliance programs, continue cooperating with ongoing individual prosecutions, and sometimes provide periodic reporting to DOJ; failure can affect future DOJ treatment.
• Reputational and commercial impacts: Public DOJ and FCA settlements can harm reputation, affect relationships with banks, insurers, and counterparties, and may be considered in government or large‑company vendor due‑diligence.
• Potential debarment or procurement consequences (if applicable): For companies that do U.S. government contracting or grant work, relevant agencies can consider FCA resolutions and customs fraud in suspension/debarment or responsibility determinations.

The DOJ press materials emphasize that while MGI avoided criminal charges, DOJ is still prosecuting the former COO individually, underscoring that individuals (and potentially the company, for future conduct) remain at risk.

The referenced False Claims Act case is the July 23, 2025 civil settlement titled “Importers Agree to Pay $6.8M to Resolve False Claims Act Liability Relating to Voluntary Self‑Disclosure of Unpaid Customs Duties.”

Key points:

• Parties: Global Plastics LLC (Manchester, NH) and Marco Polo International LLC (Melville, NY), both subsidiaries of MGI International LLC.
• Allegations: From May 2019 onward, they failed to declare the correct country of origin and value for certain plastic resin manufactured in China, leading to nonpayment of Section 301 duties and other customs duties. DOJ alleged this violated the False Claims Act by knowingly avoiding payment of duties.
• Self‑disclosure: In 2024, MGI and its subsidiaries voluntarily disclosed these issues to CBP and the U.S. Attorney’s Office and cooperated with the investigation.
• Resolution: They agreed to pay $6.8 million to resolve the FCA civil liability. The settlement resolved the civil claims without an admission of liability and was later credited by DOJ when it declined to prosecute MGI criminally under the CEP.

The Department of Justice Trade Fraud Task Force is a cross‑agency group launched on Aug. 29, 2025, to coordinate civil and criminal enforcement against importers and others who evade or defraud U.S. trade laws—especially tariffs, customs duties, quotas, and import restrictions.

Agencies and components involved (as publicly described):

• Within DOJ: the Criminal Division (including the Fraud Section), the Civil Division, and multiple U.S. Attorneys’ Offices.
• Within DHS: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Powers and tools the Task Force leverages (through its member agencies):

• Criminal investigations and prosecutions for customs fraud, smuggling, conspiracy, wire fraud, and related offenses.
• Civil False Claims Act cases for duty‑evasion schemes and underpayment of customs duties.
• Customs enforcement authorities (CBP) including audits, penalty assessments, duty recovery, seizures, and exclusion of goods.
• Data analytics and inter‑agency information sharing to identify suspicious import patterns and high‑risk actors.

The MGI matter is explicitly noted as having been coordinated through this Trade Fraud Task Force.

In this case, the named investigators and prosecutors play the following roles:

• HSI New England (Homeland Security Investigations): HSI is DHS’s criminal investigative arm. Its New England office leads the investigative work—gathering evidence on the falsified country‑of‑origin declarations, interviewing witnesses, analyzing import data, and coordinating with CBP.

• Trial Attorneys Jennifer Bilinkas and Siji Moore (DOJ Criminal Division, Fraud Section): These are federal prosecutors in the Fraud Section’s market‑integrity/major‑frauds units. They:

  • lead the federal criminal prosecution, including drafting the criminal information against former COO David Guimond,
  • negotiate with defense counsel,
  • present the case in court and handle plea and sentencing proceedings, and
  • coordinate with the Trade Fraud Task Force and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

• Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Yasir Sadat (District of New Hampshire): A local federal prosecutor who:

  • partners with the Fraud Section on the case in the District of New Hampshire,
  • handles district‑specific litigation (filings, court appearances), and
  • serves as the local point of contact for the court and agencies like CBP and HSI.

Together, HSI agents investigate, while Fraud Section trial attorneys and the AUSA bring and manage the prosecution in federal court.