Nippon Express: Rivals Behind the Surcharges

Nippon Express freight forwarding price fixing concerned an alleged agreement among rival forwarders to fix parts of the price for air cargo shipments from Japan to the United States. The Justice Department’s criminal charge described a service whose bill included air freight charges, fuel surcharges and security fees. Customers paid fees that, according to the charge, competing forwarders had agreed among themselves.

In its criminal information, the Justice Department alleged that Nippon Express participated in the agreement from about September 2002 until at least about November 2007.

What a Japan-to-U.S. Freight Forwarder Does

The criminal charging document describes Nippon Express arranging air transportation and the work around it. Its account includes receiving and consolidating cargo, arranging ground transportation to a Japanese airport and warehousing before departure, contracting with air carriers and preparing shipment documents. Nippon arranged the air transportation through carriers rather than providing it itself, according to the charge.

In that account, the forwarder’s customer bought a service assembled from several activities. The bill combined air freight charges with other fees and surcharges. The government’s allegation concerned agreements among major Japan-based forwarders over components of their own service fees.

The cargo’s journey also extended beyond the arrival airport. The charging document describes shipments through U.S. airports to final destinations in different states. Payments and documents essential to the sale and provision of forwarding services moved among company offices and customers in the United States and abroad.

The government described the relevant surcharges and fees as charges imposed in Japan. Their commercial reach followed the cargo into the United States.

What Is Price Fixing?

Price fixing in the Nippon Express charge concerned an alleged agreement on parts of the bill. The government alleged that rival forwarders agreed on certain fees to suppress competition on Japan-to-U.S. shipments. A separate surcharge can carry the agreement even when the bill also contains a base freight charge.

The distinction is easy to miss when the charge carries a familiar operational name. Fuel and security sound like costs of getting cargo moved.

The customer’s lost choice sits inside the bill. If rival forwarders agree to hold a component in place, shopping among them loses the benefit of competition on that charge. Calling it a surcharge does not make that lost competition any smaller.

How the Surcharge Agreement Reached the Customer

Antitrust evidence of a fuel surcharge agreement among freight forwarders can connect a rival conversation to a customer charge. The Nippon Express charging document alleged that rivals put their agreements into practice and checked that they held.

It began with meetings, conversations and other communications about fee components to be charged on air cargo shipments from Japan to the United States. The government alleged that participants reached agreements during those exchanges on one or more components of the forwarding service fees.

The next part was implementation. According to the charge, the forwarders levied fees and accepted payments in accordance with the agreements. The price discussed among competitors became a charge that customers paid.

The final part was keeping the agreement in force. The charging document alleged further meetings, conversations and communications to monitor and enforce adherence to the agreed fees. That follow-up matters as much as the initial discussion.

What the Forwarding Insider Can Connect

An insider can give business meaning to the connection between rival communications and customer charges. The useful knowledge may sit with someone who handled pricing, customer accounts, billing or the communications themselves.

For a comparable concern, our review would connect the particular surcharge in a customer quote or invoice with the decision that put it there. A pricing instruction may explain who approved a fee. A message about a rival’s charge may explain what information informed that decision. A payment record may show that the customer actually paid it. These are records we would examine with you to understand the transaction you know.

The follow-up can be just as revealing. If an employee saw rivals checking whether the agreed charge was being imposed, that knowledge goes directly to the monitoring described in the charge. A person who understood the purpose of that exchange can explain why it happened and which customer charges it concerned.

We build the case around those connections.

Why Knowledge of the Business Matters

A forwarding employee’s knowledge of a rival conversation, a fee instruction or the purpose of a follow-up message helps explain how the charge was agreed and carried out.

The Same Fee Mechanism in Another Forwarding Case

Yamato Global Logistics Japan faced a separate criminal charge over forwarding fees on the same Japan-to-U.S. air cargo route. In its September 2012 announcement, the Justice Department said that charge concerned fuel surcharges and security fees.

The announcement described rivals allegedly coordinating those charges and checking that the agreement held. The same line on a customer’s bill can connect the pricing desk to a conversation with a competitor.

The Yamato announcement identified a joint investigation by the Antitrust Division, the FBI and the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General. It also described the harm reaching consumers through higher prices for the goods being shipped. The forwarding charge sits between the shipper and the transport provider, but its effect can travel with the goods.

NYK‘s criminal plea agreement concerned a different service and agreement: bid rigging, price fixing and customer allocation in deep-sea shipping of cars, trucks and other equipment. The comparison puts the service at the center of the inquiry. Nippon Express’s charge concerned components of air forwarding fees, while NYK’s agreement concerned competition for vehicle transport by sea.

Antitrust Whistleblower Rewards Today

The Antitrust Division and U.S. Postal Service established a reward program in 2025. If you know of a freight-forwarding price agreement, our whistleblower experts can assess the reward opportunity with you.

If your freight records also involve false government claims, we assess that connection with you. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

You Know How the Fee Was Set

Our whistleblower experts want to understand which freight-forwarding surcharge was coordinated and how it reached Japan-to-U.S. shipments.