USA cracks down on strategic theft and identity abuse

Strategic theft

Strategic theft of cargo has long been a concern for the transport and logistics industry. However, the past two years have seen an unprecedented increase in this type of criminal activity worldwide. Unlike opportunistic theft, strategic theft involves the deliberate impersonation of legitimate carriers, brokers or drivers– often using falsified documents, cloned identities or hijacked registration credentials. These schemes are not only difficult to detect but can result in significant financial losses, reputational damage, and operational disruption. In response to this growing threat, the US Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) introduced a new identity verification requirement for first-time applicants registering for a USDOT number. This is a unique identifier issued by the FMCSA to commercial motor carriers, which helps to track safety compliance, enable federal and state authorities to check carrier performance, conduct audits and investigate crashes or violations. This policy mandates biometric verification through a service offered by IDEMIA and Login.gov, aiming to ensure that only verified individuals can create new motor carrier entities.

Unlike opportunistic theft, strategic theft involves the deliberate impersonation of legitimate carriers, brokers or drivers – often using falsified documents, cloned identities or hijacked registration credentials.

The FMCSA’s new process – requiring applicants to verify their identity using a government-issued identity and a live photograph of themselves – directly addresses the gap. By ensuring that only verified individuals can register new motor carrier entities, the agency is raising the bar for entry into the freight ecosystem.

Practical issues

While the FMCSA’s regulatory shift is a welcome step, its practical implications become clearer when viewed through the lens of real world risk scenarios – particularly those faced by mid-sized transport and logistics operators navigating complex carrier networks. For example, a recent consulting engagement with a US-based logistics firm revealed systemic vulnerabilities in carrier sourcing and vetting procedures. Despite having in place comprehensive vetting procedures, the company had experienced multiple instances of strategic theft, often involving carriers whose identities were later found to be falsified or misrepresented. Although identity verification at the point of FMCSA registration is a key part of addressing the issue, there is still significant scope for fraud to persist in the supply chain. During the consulting engagement, the firm was recommended to implement a layered risk mitigation strategy that included:

• Enhanced carrier vetting protocols: incorporating third party identity verification tools and cross-referencing FMCSA registration data with internal risk indicators.

. • Escalation procedures: establishing clear thresholds for when to escalate carrier reviews to senior risk personnel, especially in cases involving high-value or high-risk cargo.

• Ongoing monitoring: using real-time data feeds to check changes in carrier status, insurance coverage and safety ratings.

• Training and awareness: educating operations teams on red flags associated with fraudulent carriers, including inconsistencies in documentation and unusual routing requests.

These recommendations align closely with the FMCSA’s intent: to create a more secure and transparent freight environment. However, they also go further by embedding risk awareness into daily operational decision making.

Ongoing challenges

Despite the promise of FMCSA’s identity verification requirement, there are still some challenges to overcome. For example, an Overdrive by Fusable test revealed that the facial recognition process can be unreliable, with multiple failed attempts across different smartphones. This raises concerns about accessibility, especially for small carriers or those with limited technology resources. Early reports also suggested a drop in USDOT applications post-launch, interpreted as a sign of fraud prevention. However, FMCSA pointed out that verification occurs prior to the application stage and it was not possible to conclude cause and effect in this case. Critics have noted that FMCSA has yet to address other fraud vectors, such as the use of fake business addresses. FMCSA has acknowledged that it is now entering the auditing and cleanup phase for previously registered bad actors, raising concerns about how long fraudulent carriers have still been active. The recent dramatic rise in theft incidents suffered by brokers and forwarders suggests that there are many existing fraudulent carriers operating, as well as many that have been compromised by phishing schemes or changes in ownership. Finally, it is hoped that the FMCSA will address the failure of many motor carriers to follow proper protocol when transferring or selling their authority. To combat this, the FMCSA might implement stricter compliance requirements for carrier transfers and sales, supported by multi factor authentication and biometric verification for all filings and changes.

Conclusion

While the FMCSA’s identity verification system is a significant step forward, it should not be viewed as a substitute for thorough due diligence. Brokers and freight forwarders must continue to go beyond simply checking registration status in the FMCSA database. Best practices include requesting and confirming certificates of insurance, reviewing financial statements or credit references, and verifying that all documentation is current and consistent with known business details. Additionally, for brokers and carriers who are removed from the physical movement of cargo, it is critical to ensure that collection and delivery depots are actively verifying the identities of drivers and the validity of accompanying paperwork. First/last-mile diligence is often where fraud is executed –and where it can be most effectively stopped. The FMCSA’s identity verification reform is a pivotal development, but its success will depend on how effectively logistics firms integrate it into their broader risk management frameworks. For companies that have already faced the consequences of strategic theft, this is not just a compliance issue – it is a business imperative. By combining regulatory tools with risk management strategies and operational vigilance, transport and logistics operators can reduce exposure to fraud and build a more resilient and trustworthy carrier network. 

First published August 2025