Freight Fraud: The Blind Spot Most Transport Leaders Still Have 

When we asked 295 shippers and carriers across Europe what builds trust in transportation relationships, the answers were consistent and practical. Real-time visibility. Reliable execution. Proactive communication when things go wrong. Fair and transparent pricing. These are the building blocks of trust that most organisations recognise and invest in. 

But one capability ranked near the bottom on both sides of the survey. The gap between that ranking and the level of freight fraud risk in European markets today is significant enough to take seriously. 

Only 34% of shippers and 25% of carriers ranked verified partner identity and compliance as a key trust-building priority. It placed well behind execution performance, visibility, and communication across every measure. Identity verification has long been treated as a compliance task rather than an operational one, so the low ranking is not surprising. Given where freight fraud is heading, it is increasingly hard to justify. 

The scale of the problem 

According to the Transported Asset Protection Association (TAPA) EMEA, more than 108,000 supply chain theft incidents were recorded across 110 countries in the past two years. Reported losses exceeded €1 billion. In Germany alone, one of the highest-volume freight corridors in Europe, a full truckload disappears on average every three days. 

These are not opportunistic incidents at the margins of the industry. Organised freight fraud has become more sophisticated, better resourced, and considerably harder to detect. Impersonation schemes, where fraudulent actors research and mimic legitimate carriers to intercept high-value loads, have grown significantly across European markets over the past three years. The attacks are targeted. They involve advance intelligence about shipment routes, cargo values, delivery windows, and carrier relationships. They are designed to exploit the very trust frameworks that most organisations rely on. 

The financial exposure from a successful freight fraud incident is direct: stolen inventory, missed deliveries, production disruptions for manufacturing customers, insurance claims, and customer relationship damage. The operational exposure is less visible but often more serious: once a fraudulent actor has successfully carried out an attack, the information they have gathered makes subsequent attempts easier. The damage rarely stops at one shipment. 

Why verification stayed in the compliance box 

The historical categorisation of carrier verification as a compliance task rather than an operational one has a logic to it. In a stable environment with established carrier relationships, the primary risk from inadequate vetting is regulatory non-compliance (failure to work with properly licensed and insured carriers) rather than active fraud. Compliance risk is manageable through periodic audits and contract renewal checks. It does not require continuous monitoring. 

That risk model no longer fits the environment. The threat has evolved from compliance risk to operational risk, from the possibility of working with an under-qualified carrier to the very real possibility of working with a fraudulent actor. The tools and processes designed for the former are not adequate for the latter. 

There is also a data visibility problem. A carrier's on-time delivery rate is visible in the TMS and updated with every shipment. Their licence status, insurance validity, and company registration are typically checked once at onboarding and reviewed annually at best. The operational data that informs day-to-day trust decisions is real-time. The identity and compliance data that should inform security decisions is point-in-time. That asymmetry creates a gap that sophisticated fraudsters know how to exploit. 

From trust then verify to verify then trust 

The traditional operating model in transportation relationships is trust then verify. Establish a relationship, allocate loads, build performance history, and validate the partner over time through execution data. In a stable environment with known partners, that model is efficient and appropriate. The performance data provides the verification. 

The model breaks down when the partner is not who they claim to be. Fraudulent carriers do not underperform on early loads. They perform well enough to establish credibility, gather intelligence, and position themselves to intercept a high-value shipment. By the time the fraud is executed, the trust framework has already been exploited. 

The alternative model, verify then trust, changes the sequence. Rigorous identity verification, credential validation, and risk-based onboarding happen before operational trust is extended, not after it has been established. Continuous monitoring of licence, insurance, and registration status happens throughout the relationship, not just at renewal points. Risk-based tiering means that higher-value lanes and cargo types trigger more intensive verification before allocation. 

This is not about treating legitimate partners with suspicion. The vast majority of carriers operating in European markets are exactly who they say they are. Verify then trust is about ensuring that the exceptions, which are small in number but significant in impact,  are identified before they cause damage rather than after. 

Why shippers carry the bigger risk 

One reason this matters more for shippers than the survey data might suggest is that the financial and operational exposure from freight fraud is structurally asymmetric. When a load is stolen, diverted, or delivered to the wrong party, the shipper bears the primary consequences. The stolen inventory is the shipper's. So is the insurance claim, the production disruption, and the relationship damage with the end customer. 

The carrier whose identity was stolen or whose data was used to facilitate the fraud may face reputational consequences and loss of the relationship. But the concentrated financial and operational impact sits with the shipper. That asymmetry should change how shippers think about the investment in verification processes. The cost of a robust verification and continuous monitoring programme is a fraction of the cost of a single successful freight fraud incident on a high-value lane. 

What the leading organisations are doing differently

The transport organisations that are ahead on this have made a structural change. They have moved partner verification from the compliance function to the operations function. In practice that means several things working together. 

Carrier onboarding includes identity verification as a standard operational step, not a compliance checkbox. The questions asked at onboarding go beyond whether the carrier is licensed and insured to include verification of company registration, directorship records, and physical operating address. Credentials are monitored continuously rather than reviewed annually. Insurance validity, licence status, and registration records are tracked in real time and exceptions trigger operational alerts, not compliance reports. 

Risk-based tiering means that not all carriers face the same intensity of scrutiny. Established partners with long performance histories and lower-risk cargo profiles require less intensive ongoing monitoring than new partners on high-value lanes. The verification investment is proportionate to the exposure. 

Fraud risk signals (flagged credentials, unexpected route requests, unusual load acceptance patterns) are integrated into the same systems used to flag operational issues. Fraud risk becomes visible in the same context as service risk. That integration is what makes it actionable. 

The benchmark gap and what it signals 

The finding that only a third of shippers prioritise partner identity verification reflects how the industry has traditionally categorised this risk. That categorisation is overdue for revision. 

Visibility and reliable execution are the right foundation for trust in transportation. The benchmark is clear on that, and the investment priorities it identifies are sound. But in an environment where organised freight fraud is more targeted, more sophisticated, and better resourced than it was five years ago, operational performance data alone is no longer sufficient to confirm who you are working with. 

The organisations that close this gap will have a meaningful advantage, not only in managing their fraud exposure, but in building the kind of verified, resilient carrier networks that the benchmark identifies as a defining capability of future transportation leaders. The two are connected. Trust in your network starts with knowing exactly who you are working with. 

See what the leaders see. Learn what's slowing most companies down and how to stand out from the rest.