Foreign Labor Contracting

Last Updated on: 1st June 2025, 03:55 am

Foreign Labor Contracting – Understanding the Federal Criminal Charges

Foreign labor contracting, it’s one of those crimes that sneaks up on business owners. You think you’re just hiring workers to get the job done – next thing you know, federal agents are at your door with a search warrant. The laws around foreign labor contracting are complex, they’re unforgiving, and most importantly – they carry serious federal prison time. At Spodek Law Group, we’ve defended clients facing these charges nationwide, and we know exactly how prosecutors build these cases.

The federal government defines foreign labor contracting under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, but that’s just the beginning. There’s also the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and dozens of other statutes that come into play. When you hire foreign workers, whether they’re here on H-2A agricultural visas, H-2B temporary worker visas, or without any documentation at all – you’re walking through a legal minefield. One wrong step, and you’re facing conspiracy charges, money laundering charges, and even human trafficking charges. The penalties start at five years in federal prison, but they can go much higher. Back in the 1940s, the United States had the Bracero Program – it was a legal way to bring in Mexican agricultural workers. The program was regulated, it had oversight, and most importantly, it had clear rules. Today’s system is different. We have multiple visa categories, each with their own requirements, and the enforcement has gotten aggressive. What used to be handled as a civil matter by the Department of Labor, now gets prosecuted criminally by the Department of Justice. The shift happened gradually, but the consequences are immediate and severe.

How Foreign Labor Contracting Became a Federal Crime

The transformation from civil violation to criminal prosecution didn’t happen overnight.

In the 1980s, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, making it illegal to knowingly hire unauthorized workers. But enforcement was weak, penalties were minimal, and most violations resulted in nothing more than a fine. That all changed after 9/11. The creation of ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, and the emphasis on border security meant that employment violations became national security issues. Suddenly, what used to be a paperwork problem became a criminal investigation. Federal prosecutors now use a strategy called “parallel proceedings” – they hit you with both civil and criminal charges simultaneously. While you’re dealing with an I-9 audit from ICE, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is building a criminal case against you. They share information, they coordinate raids, and they use every tool available to build their case. The most common charges: knowingly hiring unauthorized workers under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, harboring illegal aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, and conspiracy to commit visa fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1546. Each charge carries its own penalties, and the government loves to stack them.

The cases that make headlines:

– Mississippi chicken processing plants

– Texas construction companies

– California agricultural operations

They all follow the same pattern. It starts with a tip, maybe from a disgruntled employee or a competitor. ICE conducts surveillance, they monitor your business, they watch who comes and goes. Then comes the raid. Hundreds of agents, local law enforcement backup, and media cameras rolling. By the time they show up at your door, they’ve already built their case. They have your bank records, your payroll files, and testimonies from workers who are facing deportation unless they cooperate.

The Money Trail – Where Prosecutors Look First

Following the money is how they build these cases. Every foreign labor contracting prosecution starts with financial records. The DOJ subpoenas your bank accounts, they trace wire transfers, they analyze cash withdrawals. They’re looking for patterns that suggest you knew you were hiring unauthorized workers. Did you pay in cash? That’s a red flag. Did you use check cashing services instead of direct deposit? Another red flag. Did you structure deposits to avoid reporting requirements? Now you’re facing money laundering charges too.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) shares data with immigration enforcement.

Banks file Suspicious Activity Reports when they see unusual patterns. A construction company that suddenly starts making large cash withdrawals every Friday – that gets noticed. A farm that wires money to the same Western Union locations in Mexico every week – that gets flagged. These financial patterns become evidence of knowledge and intent. The government argues that legitimate businesses don’t operate this way, that these payment methods prove you knew your workers were unauthorized. WeWeargued in a recent case that cash payments are common in certain industries, that many authorized workers prefer cash for legitimate reasons. But prosecutors push back hard. They bring in financial experts who testify about “normal” business practices. They show the jury spreadsheets and graphs. The truth is more complicated – many small businesses operate on cash basis for reasons that have nothing to do with immigration status. But by the time you’re explaining this to a jury, you’re already fighting an uphill battle.

When Recruitment Becomes Trafficking

The line between labor contracting and human trafficking is thinner than most people realize.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1589, forced labor includes obtaining labor through “abuse of law or legal process.” What does that mean? If you bring workers here on H-2B visas but have them do different work than specified, that could be trafficking. If you hold their passports, even for “safekeeping,” that could be trafficking. If workers can’t leave because they owe you money for transportation or housing, that’s debt bondage – and it’s trafficking. Federal prosecutors are increasingly charging labor contractors with trafficking offenses. The penalties are severe – up to 20 years in federal prison per count. They don’t need to prove physical force or threats of violence. Economic coercion is enough. Workers who can’t afford to return home, workers who fear deportation if they complain, workers who don’t understand their rights – the DOJ argues these workers are trafficking victims. And once they frame your case as human trafficking, everything changes. The media attention intensifies, the bail arguments get harder, and the sentencing guidelines skyrocket.

Contractors get charged with trafficking for practices that were standard in the industry for decades. Providing housing and deducting rent from paychecks – that can be construed as creating dependency. Arranging transportation and charging for it – that can be seen as debt bondage. Having workers sign contracts in languages they don’t fully understand – that becomes evidence of fraud and deception. The government’s interpretation of trafficking laws keeps expanding, and contractors who think they’re following traditional practices find themselves facing decades in prison.

Defense Strategies That Actually Work

Good faith compliance is your first line of defense, but it has to be real and documented.

If you’re using E-Verify, keep every printout. If you’re checking documents, make copies and notes. If you’re following Department of Labor regulations, maintain those records meticulously. When federal agents raid your business, these documents become your lifeline. The government has to prove you acted “knowingly” – your compliance efforts, even if imperfect, can create reasonable doubt. Challenging the reliability of cooperating witnesses is crucial in these cases. Many prosecutions rely heavily on testimony from workers who are facing deportation. These witnesses have enormous incentive to say whatever the government wants to hear. They’re offered S visas, T visas, or deferred action in exchange for testimony. Cases exist where workers claim they showed fake documents, only to later admit they never actually met the defendant. Cross-examination of these witnesses requires skill and preparation – you need to show the jury the pressure they’re under without appearing to blame vulnerable workers. The “knowledge” element is where many cases are won or lost. The DOJ needs to prove you knew workers were unauthorized, not just that you should have known. This distinction matters. If workers presented facially valid documents, if they had Social Security numbers that passed initial checks, if they seemed authorized to work – that’s evidence you acted in good faith. Defense attorneys have successfully defended clients by showing they relied on staffing agencies, that they followed industry standards, that they genuinely believed their workforce was legal. But this defense requires careful presentation – juries are skeptical, and the government will argue willful blindness.

Real Cases, Real Consequences

The 2019 Mississippi raids targeted chicken processing plants across the state. 680 workers were arrested in a single day.

The plant owners and managers faced conspiracy charges, harboring charges, and money laundering charges. Some pled guilty and got probation. Others went to trial and got years in federal prison. The difference often came down to cooperation – those who provided information about competitors or suppliers got better deals. Those who fought the charges faced the full weight of federal prosecution. In Texas, construction contractors have been hit particularly hard. The booming building industry relies heavily on immigrant labor, and the DOJ knows it. They’ve developed a playbook – raid job sites, arrest workers, flip them into witnesses, then indict the contractors. Sentences in the Fifth Circuit tend to be harsh, with judges following guidelines that treat each unauthorized worker as a separate count. A contractor with 20 unauthorized workers can face decades in prison if convicted on all counts.

The pressure to plead guilty is enormous.

California’s agricultural sector presents unique challenges. Many workers have complicated immigration statuses – some have expired visas, some have pending applications, some have Temporary Protected Status that may or may not authorize work. Federal attorneys in the Ninth Circuit have been aggressive about charging farmers and labor contractors who hire these workers. They argue that any doubt about work authorization should be resolved against hiring. Defense attorneys argue this creates an impossible standard, that employers can’t be expected to navigate the complexities of immigration law.