Cargo theft is surging across the supply chain industry, driven by increasingly sophisticated criminal tactics. According to CargoNet, cargo theft surged 13% year-over-year in Q2 2025. The rise in incidents, particularly involving high-value commodities, is pushing shippers and carriers to reassess their risk-mitigation strategies.

Cargo theft is no longer limited to opportunistic heists at truck stops. Organized crime rings are now purchasing legitimate-looking motor carrier (MC) numbers, building front companies, and leveraging technology to infiltrate the supply chain. There have been cases where a load was brokered through three different intermediaries, A to B to C, before the original broker even knew the freight had been reassigned.

A particularly alarming trend involves criminals purchasing MC numbers from long-standing, reputable carriers. These identities often pass basic vetting systems because the carrier appears experienced and compliant. Yet behind the façade lies a fraudulent operation capable of rerouting and disappearing freight within hours. Once the scam is executed, the MC is abandoned, leaving real carriers unpaid and freight unrecovered.

Limitations of Automated Vetting

While automated systems offer valuable insights into carrier performance, they are no substitute for human scrutiny. Fraudulent operators know how to exploit the gaps in these systems. For example, a vetting system may flag that a carrier has submitted a corrective action plan (CAP) to address safety issues, but it takes a human to evaluate the legitimacy of that plan, and whether the carrier is following through.

Human analysts go further, reviewing roadside inspections post-CAP submission, and can find multiple new violations that prove non-compliance. Without human review, some carriers would pass a system check and remain in the network.

An in-house compliance team on constant call brings a level of agility and real-time responsiveness that outsourced or automated processes simply can’t match. When a carrier's insurance is about to expire at midnight, and it’s 9:45 p.m., an in-house team is able to identify the risk, contact the carrier and resolve the issue before the start of business the next day. Also, in-house teams work with carrier teams to apply critical thinking in gray areas, such as evaluating recently acquired carriers whose safety records haven’t yet been updated to reflect new ownership and scale.

In addition, tailored risk mitigation based on contract terms, such as requiring dual-seal security, temperature monitoring or insurance thresholds, is only effective when an expert thoroughly reviews and understands the customer’s unique needs.

Carriers as a Line of Defense

Strong, respectful carrier relationships are an often-overlooked but critical component of freight fraud. Carriers who feel valued are more likely to alert brokers when they suspect double brokering or fraud, return freight in cases of mix-ups rather than disappearing with it, or engage in proactive communication if their insurance or status changes.

The most advanced compliance system cannot replace a carrier who recognizes a broker's name on a questionable bill of lading and calls to verify the load. This level of loyalty and reliability is earned over time, not automated.

Legislative Action Needed

While rules currently exist to combat cargo theft, industry stakeholders report a disturbing lack of enforcement. For instance, there’s a $10,000 fine per double brokering already in place in our industry. Yet while thousands of double-brokering complaints have been filed, not a single fine has been issued. This inaction leaves the door wide open for fraud, eroding trust across the supply chain.

Moreover, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) currently allows MC numbers to be sold without requiring a reset of safety scores or carrier histories. Fraudsters take advantage of this loophole, posing as legacy carriers with stellar reputations, only to disappear with stolen freight. 

Strategies for Shippers and Carriers

Shippers and carriers need to take proactive measures to combat freight fraud. Use technology to support decision-making, but rely on experienced humans for final carrier approvals, especially for high-value or high-risk loads. Don’t accept CAPs at face value, and check for evidence of behavioral change, such as a decrease in safety violations post-submission. In addition, teams need to look for signs of recently acquired MC numbers, such as sudden geographic shifts in roadside inspections or phone/IP addresses that don’t match.

Teams need to engage with industry coalitions to share fraud intelligence and identify repeat offenders early. Train carrier teams to engage meaningfully with carriers, show appreciation, and make them feel like part of the mission to deliver freight safely. Implement specific requirements for customers who deal with high-value freight — this may include load board visibility restrictions, added insurance or unique security protocols. Companies should explore joining associations lobbying for stricter FMCSA policies on MC transfers and better enforcement of anti-fraud regulations.

The logistics industry is under siege by increasingly coordinated freight fraud rings. As criminals adapt, so too must the systems and people who guard the nation’s supply chain. The solution isn’t more automation; it’s smarter, people-powered processes backed by technology and proactive collaboration. Shippers and carriers who invest in holistic, human-first compliance and vetting strategies will be the ones who thrive in this era of increased industry fraud.

Amy Martin is risk & compliance manager with Sunset Transportation.