Few customs seizure situations are more frustrating than receiving a CBP seizure notice for a package that you claim you never ordered.

For many people, the first reaction is disbelief.

They read the notice and immediately think:

“There must be some mistake.”

The package was addressed to them.

The seizure notice references their name.

The shipment was connected to their address.

Yet they insist they had absolutely nothing to do with the transaction.

This situation arises more often than many people realize.

In fact, one of the most common statements we hear from callers is:

“I never ordered that.”

Sometimes that claim is true.

Sometimes it is not.

The challenge is that federal agencies typically begin with a simple set of facts:

  • the package was addressed to the recipient,
  • the shipment was sent to the recipient’s address,
  • and the recipient is now claiming no involvement.

From the government’s perspective, those facts naturally raise questions.

After all, if the recipient did not order the package, who did?

That question frequently becomes the central issue in the case.

Unlike many customs seizure matters, these cases are often not primarily about:

  • import compliance,
  • product classification,
  • customs declarations,
  • or forfeiture law.

Instead, they become attribution cases.

The government is attempting to determine whether the shipment actually belongs to the person identified on the package.

That can be surprisingly difficult.

Most customs seizure cases involve proving something happened.

These cases often involve trying to prove something did not happen.

The recipient is effectively saying:

“I did not order this package.”

Proving a negative is rarely easy.

This is one reason these cases frequently rise or fall based on corroborating evidence rather than simple denials.

The strongest cases typically involve more than:

“It wasn’t me.”

They often include records, documentation, and factual circumstances that help explain why the package appeared in the recipient’s name despite the recipient having no involvement in the transaction.

Before discussing what evidence helps, it is important to understand something else:

Many different scenarios can lead to a package being shipped to someone who never ordered it.

Why Would Someone Use Another Person’s Name or Address?

One of the biggest challenges in these cases is that many recipients genuinely have no idea why the package was sent to them.

From their perspective, the situation makes no sense.

They never:

  • placed an order,
  • communicated with a seller,
  • paid for the item,
  • or expected a shipment.

As a result, they often struggle to answer the question:

“If you didn’t order it, who did?”

That question matters because federal agencies are often looking for a plausible explanation that fits the available facts.

The strongest cases frequently provide not only a denial, but also a reasonable explanation for how the package ended up connected to the recipient.

Several fact patterns appear repeatedly.

Brushing Scams

One of the most common explanations involves what are known as brushing scams.

In a brushing scam, an online seller creates a fake customer account using a real person’s name and address. The seller then ships a low-value item to that address and uses the shipment to create the appearance of a legitimate completed sale.

Once the package is delivered, the seller may use the fake customer account to post a “verified purchase” review on an online marketplace.

The recipient never places an order, never communicates with the seller, and often has no idea why the package arrived.

From the seller’s perspective, the cost of shipping a small item is outweighed by the ability to generate positive reviews and improve search rankings for their products.

The recipient is essentially being used as an unwitting participant in the scheme.

Brushing scams most commonly involve:

  • inexpensive consumer products,
  • household goods,
  • small electronics,
  • accessories,
  • beauty products,
  • and other low-cost merchandise.

They are far less common with:

  • firearms parts,
  • prescription medication,
  • expensive electronics,
  • luxury goods,
  • or other heavily regulated products.

For that reason, brushing scams can be a very plausible explanation in some package seizure cases and a much less persuasive explanation in others.

Importantly, the existence of brushing scams helps explain why a package can legitimately arrive in someone’s name and at their address even though that person had absolutely no involvement in the transaction.

Identity Theft

Identity theft creates a very different situation.

Here, someone intentionally uses another person’s:

  • name,
  • address,
  • phone number,
  • or identifying information

to facilitate a transaction.

The motivation varies.

Sometimes the individual simply wants to conceal their identity.

Other times they want to distance themselves from a shipment that may attract scrutiny.

In these situations, the recipient often discovers the misuse only after:

  • receiving a seizure notice,
  • discovering unauthorized activity,
  • or identifying other signs of fraud.

Identity-theft cases are often stronger when the recipient can point to independent evidence such as:

  • fraud alerts,
  • identity-theft reports,
  • credit-monitoring notifications,
  • police reports,
  • or other documented misuse of personal information.

Wrong Address or Shipping Errors

Not every unusual shipment involves fraud.

Sometimes the explanation is surprisingly mundane.

Addresses are entered incorrectly every day.

Online retailers rely heavily on:

  • saved addresses,
  • autofill systems,
  • shipping databases,
  • and automated order processing.

As a result, packages are occasionally shipped to the wrong person.

Examples include:

  • a transposed street number,
  • a unit number error,
  • an old address remaining on file,
  • or a seller simply selecting the wrong customer record.

These situations often become easier to explain when the recipient has no other connection to:

  • the seller,
  • the product,
  • or the transaction.

Former Residents

This is another surprisingly common scenario.

A package may be sent to an address that previously belonged to someone else.

The current resident receives a seizure notice because the package was delivered to the property, even though the intended recipient moved long ago.

These cases frequently arise when:

  • online accounts were never updated,
  • shipping records remain outdated,
  • or the sender relies on old customer information.

Family Members, Teenagers, and Other Household Members

Many recipients assume that because they did not place the order, nobody in the household did either.

That assumption is not always correct.

Some of the most common explanations involve:

  • spouses,
  • adult children,
  • college-age children,
  • roommates,
  • relatives,
  • or other household members.

Teenagers can create particularly unusual fact patterns.

For example, a teenager may:

  • order an item online without parental knowledge,
  • use a prepaid debit card,
  • use a gift card,
  • use a parent’s name,
  • use a friend’s account,
  • or use false identifying information to complete the transaction.

In those situations, the parent may genuinely have no knowledge of the purchase.

From the parent’s perspective, the package simply appears out of nowhere.

Similarly, an adult child living elsewhere may continue using a parent’s address for shipments long after moving out.

The key point is that not every package addressed to a person was necessarily ordered by that person.

Reshipping and Forwarding Schemes

In some situations, individuals intentionally use third-party addresses as delivery points.

The goal may be to:

  • retrieve the package later,
  • reroute the shipment,
  • conceal the true recipient,
  • or create distance between themselves and the transaction.

These situations can become much more complex because they often involve deliberate efforts to obscure who actually ordered the product.

Why the Explanation Matters

Federal agencies are often more persuaded by:

“I did not order this package, and here is what likely happened.”

than by:

“I did not order this package.”

The first statement offers an explanation.

The second is simply a denial.

That distinction becomes important because many of these cases ultimately turn on whether the available facts support a plausible alternative explanation for why the shipment appeared in the recipient’s name.

What If Someone Intentionally Sent the Package to Me?

Not every package seizure involves identity theft, a brushing scam, or a purchase made using someone else’s name.

In some situations, the recipient is not claiming:

“Someone pretended to be me.”

Instead, the recipient is claiming:

“Someone intentionally sent this package to me.”

That distinction can be important.

In these situations, the package may have been correctly addressed to the recipient, but the recipient had no involvement in the transaction itself.

Examples can include:

  • a former spouse,
  • a former romantic partner,
  • a friend,
  • a family member,
  • a roommate,
  • a business associate,
  • or another third party who intentionally used the recipient’s address.

Pranks and Harassment

Sometimes the explanation is surprisingly simple.

A person intentionally sends a package as:

  • a prank,
  • a joke,
  • harassment,
  • retaliation,
  • or an attempt to create problems for the recipient.

The recipient may have no knowledge of the shipment until a seizure notice arrives.

In these situations, the package may have been deliberately addressed to the recipient despite the recipient having absolutely no connection to the transaction.

Former Spouses, Former Partners, and Personal Disputes

Another fact pattern that occasionally appears involves former spouses, former partners, or individuals involved in personal disputes.

Because these individuals often know:

  • the recipient’s name,
  • address,
  • contact information,
  • and personal details,

they may be capable of arranging shipments that appear connected to the recipient.

The recipient may then find themselves attempting to explain a package they never requested, purchased, or expected.

Drop Shipments and Intercepted Deliveries

In some situations, the sender never intends for the recipient to keep the package.

Instead, the recipient’s address is used as a temporary delivery location.

The sender may intend to:

  • retrieve the package later,
  • intercept delivery,
  • reroute the shipment,
  • or otherwise separate themselves from the transaction.

In these situations, the recipient may simply be an unwitting delivery point.

Wrong Address, Correct Recipient

Some situations fall somewhere in between.

A sender may intentionally ship a package to a specific address believing that:

  • the intended recipient still lives there,
  • the address is associated with a particular person,
  • or the shipment will ultimately reach someone else.

The current resident may have no connection to the transaction whatsoever.

Why This Distinction Matters

One of the most important concepts in these cases is that:

Being the recipient is not necessarily the same thing as being the purchaser.

Federal agencies often begin with the fact that the package was addressed to a particular person.

The recipient is often attempting to demonstrate that:

  • they did not place the order,
  • they did not pay for the shipment,
  • they did not communicate with the seller,
  • and they did not expect the package to arrive.

Those are separate questions.

The fact that a package was shipped to a person’s address does not automatically establish that the person ordered it.

This is one reason federal agencies frequently evaluate:

  • payment records,
  • communications,
  • marketplace activity,
  • transaction history,
  • and other evidence connecting a person to the shipment itself.

In many of these cases, the central issue is not whether the package arrived at the recipient’s address.

The central issue is whether there is evidence that the recipient actually participated in the transaction that caused the package to be sent.

For more, read:

Someone Sent Me a Package I Didn’t Order: Can CBP Hold Me Responsible?

The Fundamental Problem: How Do You Prove You Didn’t Order Something?

One of the reasons these cases are so challenging is that they often require a person to prove a negative.

Most customs seizure cases involve proving something happened.

For example:

  • a shipment was imported,
  • a declaration was made,
  • a purchase occurred,
  • or a package contained a particular item.

In contrast, these cases often involve a recipient trying to prove:

“I did not order this package.”

That can be difficult because there is rarely a document that says:

“This person definitely did not make this purchase.”

As a result, many people become frustrated when they receive a seizure notice.

They know they did not order the item.

The problem is figuring out how to demonstrate that fact to federal agencies that are looking at a package addressed to them.

This is where many people make a critical mistake.

They assume a simple denial is enough.

For example:

“I didn’t order it.”

“It’s not mine.”

“I don’t know anything about it.”

Those statements may be completely truthful.

However, federal agencies often want more than a denial.

They frequently want evidence that supports the denial.

This is why the strongest cases are rarely built around a single statement.

Instead, they are built around corroboration.

The goal is often to show that if the recipient had actually ordered the package, certain evidence would normally exist.

And that evidence is missing.

For example, most online purchases leave a trail.

There is usually:

  • a payment,
  • an order confirmation,
  • an email,
  • a marketplace account,
  • a shipping notice,
  • a message with a seller,
  • or some other record connecting the buyer to the transaction.

When those records do not exist, that absence can become part of the story.

The argument becomes:

“There is no evidence that I purchased this item.”

rather than simply:

“I deny purchasing this item.”

That distinction is important.

Federal agencies frequently evaluate the totality of the circumstances.

They may ask:

  • Is there a payment record?
  • Is there an email trail?
  • Is there an account associated with the seller?
  • Is there a history of similar purchases?
  • Is there an alternative explanation that fits the facts?

The stronger the answers become, the stronger the overall claim often becomes.

This is one reason these matters frequently become evidence cases rather than customs cases.

The shipment itself is often only part of the analysis.

The real issue becomes whether the available facts support the recipient’s claim of non-involvement.

In many situations, the strongest cases involve a combination of:

  • objective records,
  • corroborating documentation,
  • and a plausible explanation for how the shipment appeared in the recipient’s name.

The weakest cases often involve nothing more than a denial.

Unfortunately, federal agencies hear denials all the time.

What frequently separates stronger cases from weaker ones is the evidence that supports the denial.

That evidence often becomes the foundation of the entire strategy moving forward.

The Strongest Evidence That You Did Not Order the Package

Once a recipient claims they did not order a shipment, the next question is usually:

“How am I supposed to prove that?”

That question highlights why these cases can be so difficult.

Most customs seizure cases involve proving that something happened.

These cases often involve trying to show that something did not happen.

As a result, the strongest evidence frequently focuses on demonstrating the absence of the records that would normally exist if the recipient had actually placed the order.

Federal agencies often evaluate whether there is objective evidence connecting the recipient to the transaction.

The stronger the evidence showing that no such connection exists, the stronger the claim of non-involvement often becomes.

1. Payment Records

One of the most important categories of evidence involves payment information.

Most online purchases create a financial trail.

Examples may include:

  • credit card transactions,
  • debit card transactions,
  • bank transfers,
  • PayPal payments,
  • Venmo transactions,
  • Cash App payments,
  • cryptocurrency transfers,
  • or other payment records.

The strongest cases frequently involve a review of financial records showing that no payment exists corresponding to the alleged purchase.

This is often much more persuasive than simply stating:

“I do not remember ordering it.”

The issue becomes:

“There is no financial evidence that I purchased this item.”

2. Email and Communication Records

Most online purchases also create a communication trail.

Federal agencies may expect to see:

  • order confirmations,
  • shipping notices,
  • tracking emails,
  • seller communications,
  • marketplace messages,
  • customer service interactions,
  • or other transaction-related communications.

When none of those records exist, that absence may help support the claim that the recipient never participated in the purchase.

Again, the argument becomes stronger when it is based on objective records rather than memory alone.

3. Marketplace and Account Records

Many purchases occur through platforms such as:

  • Amazon,
  • eBay,
  • Temu,
  • AliExpress,
  • Etsy,
  • Alibaba,
  • and other online marketplaces.

In some cases, the recipient can demonstrate that:

  • they never had an account with the seller,
  • they never used the platform involved,
  • they have no purchase history relating to the item,
  • or there is no account activity consistent with the transaction.

These facts can help explain why the shipment appears disconnected from the recipient.

4. Historical Purchasing Patterns

Federal agencies frequently look for patterns.

One unexplained shipment is very different from:

  • repeated shipments,
  • recurring purchases,
  • similar prior imports,
  • or a history of ordering comparable products.

For example, a person who has never imported:

  • prescription medication,
  • firearms parts,
  • electronics,
  • luxury goods,
  • or supplements

may have a stronger explanation than someone with a lengthy history of importing similar products.

Patterns do not necessarily prove anything.

However, they often influence how investigators evaluate credibility and plausibility.

5. Identity Theft and Fraud Evidence

If identity theft is suspected, supporting documentation can become particularly important.

Examples may include:

  • FTC identity theft reports,
  • police reports,
  • fraud alerts,
  • credit monitoring records,
  • account takeover notifications,
  • or other evidence showing misuse of personal information.

This type of documentation helps provide an alternative explanation for why the package may have been associated with the recipient.

Why Corroboration Matters

The strongest cases often combine multiple forms of evidence.

For example:

  • no payment records,
  • no emails,
  • no marketplace activity,
  • no prior history,
  • and evidence of identity theft

creates a much stronger factual record than a simple denial standing alone.

Federal agencies frequently evaluate the totality of the circumstances.

The more objective evidence supporting the explanation, the easier it often becomes to understand how a package could have appeared in the recipient’s name despite the recipient having no involvement in the transaction.

That is why these cases are often won through corroboration rather than through denial alone.

What If the Seller Refuses To Identify the Purchaser?

One of the most frustrating aspects of these cases is that the recipient often has less information than anyone else involved.

The seller may know who placed the order.

The marketplace may have account information.

The shipping company may possess transaction records.

The recipient may have none of that information.

As a result, many people quickly encounter a practical problem:

“How am I supposed to prove I didn’t order it if the seller won’t tell me who did?”

Unfortunately, that situation is common.

Many shipments originate from:

  • foreign sellers,
  • overseas marketplaces,
  • third-party platforms,
  • drop-shipping operations,
  • and businesses located outside the United States.

The recipient often has little or no ability to obtain information directly from those entities.

Foreign Sellers Frequently Provide Little Information

Many international sellers simply do not respond to inquiries.

Others may refuse to provide information because:

  • records are incomplete,
  • language barriers exist,
  • privacy policies restrict disclosure,
  • or the seller has no interest in becoming involved in a customs dispute.

As a result, recipients are frequently unable to determine:

  • who placed the order,
  • what account was used,
  • what payment method was used,
  • or how the shipment was initiated.

That can be frustrating because the recipient may feel like the most important information is completely inaccessible.

Online Marketplaces Often Have Limited Incentives to Help

Large marketplaces frequently possess information that individual recipients do not.

For example, they may have:

  • account records,
  • payment information,
  • shipping information,
  • login history,
  • and transaction records.

The problem is that marketplaces are often reluctant to disclose customer information.

Privacy policies, internal procedures, and legal considerations frequently limit what information can be shared.

As a result, many recipients discover that obtaining information directly from the platform is far more difficult than expected.

The Absence of Information Does Not Automatically Hurt the Case

Many people assume:

“If I cannot identify the purchaser, nobody will believe me.”

That is not necessarily true.

Federal agencies understand that recipients often lack access to information held by:

  • foreign sellers,
  • marketplaces,
  • payment processors,
  • and third parties.

The issue is often not whether the recipient can identify the purchaser with certainty.

The issue is whether the available evidence supports the recipient’s claim of non-involvement.

For example, a recipient may still be able to show:

  • no payment records,
  • no emails,
  • no marketplace activity,
  • no transaction history,
  • and no prior connection to the seller.

Those facts can still be significant even if the identity of the actual purchaser remains unknown.

Focus on What You Can Prove

One of the biggest mistakes people make is becoming consumed with proving who ordered the package.

In many situations, that information may simply be unavailable.

A more productive approach is often focusing on what can actually be documented.

Questions frequently include:

  • Is there evidence that you paid for the item?
  • Is there evidence that you communicated with the seller?
  • Is there evidence that you maintained an account associated with the transaction?
  • Is there evidence that you expected the shipment?

The stronger the answers become, the easier it often is to evaluate whether the recipient was actually involved.

In many of these cases, the inability to identify the purchaser is not the central issue.

The central issue is whether the available evidence supports the conclusion that the recipient was not the purchaser.

What Makes These Cases Stronger or Weaker?

Not every “I didn’t order it” claim is viewed the same way.

From the recipient’s perspective, the explanation may seem obvious:

“I didn’t order the package.”

From the government’s perspective, the question is often more complicated.

Federal agencies frequently evaluate not only whether the denial is possible, but whether it is supported by the surrounding facts.

As a result, some cases naturally appear stronger than others.

What Often Makes a Case Stronger?

The strongest cases usually involve objective evidence supporting the denial.

For example:

  • no payment records,
  • no order confirmations,
  • no marketplace activity,
  • no communication with the seller,
  • no prior history involving similar products,
  • and a plausible explanation for why the package was shipped.

These facts help create a coherent narrative.

Instead of simply saying:

“I didn’t order it.”

the recipient is effectively saying:

“I didn’t order it, and the available evidence supports that conclusion.”

Federal agencies frequently find corroborated explanations more persuasive than unsupported denials.

What Often Makes a Case Weaker?

The opposite is also true.

Certain facts naturally create additional skepticism.

Examples may include:

  • prior purchases of similar items,
  • multiple shipments involving similar products,
  • evidence of payment,
  • communications with the seller,
  • marketplace activity,
  • inconsistent explanations,
  • or an inability to explain why the package was sent.

This does not automatically mean the recipient ordered the package.

However, it often creates questions that require additional explanation.

The Importance of Consistency

One issue that appears repeatedly in federal administrative matters is consistency.

A recipient may initially say:

“I’ve never heard of this seller.”

Later, evidence shows they communicated with the seller.

Or they initially claim:

“I’ve never ordered anything similar.”

Later, records reveal prior purchases involving comparable products.

Even relatively small inconsistencies can create credibility issues.

This is one reason it is often important to carefully review the available facts before providing explanations.

The strongest cases usually involve a narrative that remains consistent across:

  • statements,
  • documentation,
  • financial records,
  • communications,
  • and other available evidence.

Why Alternative Explanations Matter

One of the most persuasive facts in these cases is often the existence of a reasonable alternative explanation.

Federal agencies frequently ask:

“If you didn’t order it, how did it get here?”

The strongest answers tend to be specific rather than speculative.

For example:

  • identity theft,
  • brushing scams,
  • former residents,
  • household members,
  • shipping errors,
  • or fraudulent use of personal information.

A denial supported by a plausible explanation is often much easier to evaluate than a denial standing alone.

This is one reason these cases frequently become less about proving innocence and more about building a coherent factual explanation supported by objective evidence.

In many situations, the government’s decision ultimately turns on which explanation is best supported by the available record.

The Government Often Wants an Alternative Explanation

Many recipients assume that if they simply deny ordering the package, the matter should be resolved.

From their perspective, the situation is straightforward:

“I didn’t order it.”

The problem is that federal agencies are often looking at a different set of facts.

They may see:

  • a package,
  • a shipping label,
  • the recipient’s name,
  • the recipient’s address,
  • and a completed shipment.

From that perspective, a denial naturally leads to another question:

“If you didn’t order it, who did?”

This is one reason many of these cases ultimately turn on whether there is a plausible explanation for how the package became associated with the recipient.

The strongest explanations are usually specific.

For example:

“The package was sent to a former resident.”

“My identity was stolen.”

“My teenage son ordered it without my knowledge.”

“A family member used my address.”

“The seller shipped it to the wrong person.”

“The package appears to be part of a brushing scam.”

These explanations may not immediately prove what happened.

However, they often provide a framework that allows federal agencies to understand how the shipment could have arrived without the recipient’s involvement.

A Teenager Using a Parent’s Name

One fact pattern that appears more often than many people realize involves teenagers.

For example, a teenager may:

  • order an item online without parental knowledge,
  • use a prepaid debit card,
  • use a gift card,
  • use a parent’s name,
  • use a friend’s payment information,
  • use a false date of birth or other identifying information,
  • conceal the purchase from family members.

Common examples include fake IDs, vaping products, supplements, restricted electronics, novelty items, and products parents may not have approved.

When the shipment arrives, the parent may genuinely have no idea that the transaction occurred.

Then a seizure notice appears.

From the parent’s perspective:

“I didn’t order this.”

That statement may be completely true.

The challenge becomes explaining who likely did.

Adult Children and Other Family Members

Another common scenario involves adult children who continue using a parent’s address long after moving out.

The parent may have no knowledge of the purchase, yet the shipment is still connected to their residence.

Similar situations arise involving:

  • spouses,
  • former spouses,
  • roommates,
  • relatives,
  • and other household members.

In these cases, the shipment may be associated with the recipient even though the recipient never participated in the transaction.

Identity Theft and Fraud

Identity theft cases frequently provide the clearest alternative explanation.

If someone has evidence that their personal information was misused, federal agencies can more easily understand how the shipment may have been connected to the wrong person.

This is one reason identity-theft documentation often becomes particularly valuable.

Why This Matters

The strongest cases frequently involve more than:

“I didn’t do it.”

They often include:

“I didn’t do it, and here is the most likely explanation for what happened instead.”

That distinction can be important because federal agencies are often trying to understand the facts, not simply evaluate a denial.

The more coherent and well-supported the alternative explanation becomes, the easier it often is to evaluate how the shipment became associated with the recipient despite the recipient having no involvement in the transaction.

In many of these cases, the alternative explanation becomes one of the most important pieces of the entire factual narrative.

Example: How These Cases Often Develop

Consider a fairly common scenario.

A parent receives a CBP seizure notice relating to a package containing a restricted product.

The package was addressed to the parent.

The shipment was sent to the family’s home address.

The seizure notice identifies the parent as the intended recipient.

The parent immediately says:

“I didn’t order this.”

At first, that may be the only information available.

The parent has no recollection of placing an order, no knowledge of the shipment, and no obvious explanation for why the package was sent to the house.

After reviewing the facts more carefully, however, a different picture begins to emerge.

The parent discovers:

  • there is no payment record associated with any of their accounts,
  • there are no order confirmations in their email,
  • there is no marketplace activity connected to the purchase,
  • and there is no evidence that they personally participated in the transaction.

At the same time, additional facts reveal that a teenage child used:

  • a prepaid debit card,
  • a friend’s online marketplace account,
  • and the family address

to place the order without the parent’s knowledge.

The parent’s statement:

“I didn’t order this package.”

was completely accurate.

The challenge was never determining whether the statement was true.

The challenge was documenting what actually happened.

Once the explanation was supported by objective evidence, the case looked very different than it did at the beginning.

This example illustrates an important point.

In many customs seizure matters, the strongest cases are not built around a denial alone.

They are built around evidence that explains why the denial is true.

What If the Shipment Contained Something Problematic?

Many of the easier cases involve ordinary consumer products.

For example:

  • inexpensive merchandise,
  • household goods,
  • accessories,
  • or other items that do not raise significant regulatory concerns.

The analysis often becomes more complicated when the package contained something that would naturally attract government scrutiny.

Examples may include:

  • prescription medication,
  • firearms parts,
  • electronic devices,
  • supplements,
  • luxury goods,
  • counterfeit merchandise,
  • restricted products,
  • or other regulated items.

In those situations, recipients often worry that federal agencies will automatically assume they were involved simply because the shipment was addressed to them.

That concern is understandable.

The reality, however, is that the core question usually remains the same:

“What evidence connects the recipient to the shipment?”

The nature of the item may increase scrutiny.

It does not automatically establish ownership or involvement.

Why These Cases Are More Difficult

The challenge is that certain products naturally raise additional questions.

For example, if the package contained:

  • prescription medication,
  • counterfeit luxury goods,
  • firearms components,
  • or restricted electronics,

federal agencies may reasonably ask why someone would send such an item to a random person.

As a result, the alternative explanation often becomes more important.

A brushing scam may be a very plausible explanation for:

  • phone cases,
  • household products,
  • inexpensive accessories,
  • or beauty products.

The same explanation may be less persuasive when the shipment involves highly regulated goods.

That does not mean the recipient ordered the item.

It simply means federal agencies may expect a more complete explanation supported by stronger evidence.

The Question Often Returns to Attribution

Even in these more difficult cases, the central issue frequently remains attribution.

The government is often trying to determine:

  • who ordered the item,
  • who paid for it,
  • who expected to receive it,
  • and what evidence supports those conclusions.

The strongest cases frequently focus on objective facts.

For example:

  • no payment records,
  • no emails,
  • no seller communications,
  • no marketplace activity,
  • no prior history involving similar products,
  • and a plausible explanation for how the shipment became associated with the recipient.

Those facts may not immediately answer every question.

However, they often help shift the focus from:

“The package was addressed to you.”

to:

“Is there actually evidence that you were involved in the transaction?”

That is often where these cases are won or lost.

Why These Cases Often Require More Documentation

The more unusual the item becomes, the more important documentation often becomes.

Federal agencies frequently place significant weight on records that help explain:

  • who was involved,
  • who was not involved,
  • how the shipment occurred,
  • and why the available evidence supports the recipient’s explanation.

This is one reason recipients are often in a much stronger position when they can present objective records rather than relying solely on denials.

In many of these cases, the government is not simply evaluating the package.

It is evaluating whether the available evidence supports the conclusion that the recipient actually participated in the transaction.

The stronger the evidence becomes, the easier it often is to separate:

  • the existence of the shipment

from

  • responsibility for the shipment.

How CBP Evaluates Credibility in These Cases

One of the biggest misconceptions in these cases is that credibility is determined by whether someone appears sincere.

Most recipients genuinely believe:

“If I tell the truth, they should believe me.”

Federal agencies typically evaluate credibility differently.

In many customs seizure matters, credibility is not determined primarily by confidence, emotion, or how strongly someone denies involvement.

Instead, credibility is often evaluated through corroboration.

The question frequently becomes:

“Does the available evidence support the explanation being offered?”

This is one reason these cases often look very different from what people expect.

Many recipients focus on telling their story.

Federal agencies frequently focus on whether the story is supported by:

  • financial records,
  • email records,
  • marketplace records,
  • shipping records,
  • identity-theft documentation,
  • household circumstances,
  • and other objective evidence.

Consistency Matters

One of the first things investigators often evaluate is whether the explanation remains consistent over time.

For example:

A recipient may initially say:

“I have never heard of this seller.”

Later, evidence reveals that they previously communicated with the seller.

Or a recipient may initially state:

“I have never ordered anything similar.”

Only to later discover that a family member used the same address for prior shipments.

These inconsistencies do not automatically mean someone is being dishonest.

However, they often create questions.

This is one reason it is important to fully understand the facts before making statements about the shipment.

The strongest cases typically involve an explanation that remains consistent across:

  • communications,
  • documentation,
  • financial records,
  • and subsequent submissions.

Corroboration Is Usually More Important Than Denial

Federal agencies hear denials every day.

As a result, a denial by itself often carries limited weight.

What tends to matter more is whether the denial is supported by objective evidence.

For example:

“I didn’t order it.”

is one fact.

But:

“I didn’t order it, there is no payment record, no marketplace account, no email confirmation, and I filed an identity-theft report two weeks before the shipment arrived.”

is a much stronger factual presentation.

The second explanation provides corroboration.

And corroboration is often what transforms a denial into a persuasive narrative.

The Government Is Looking for the Most Plausible Explanation

In many situations, federal agencies are not trying to determine absolute certainty.

Instead, they are attempting to determine which explanation is most consistent with the available evidence.

For example:

Was the shipment ordered by the recipient?

Was it ordered by a family member?

Was it the result of identity theft?

Was it sent to a former resident?

Was it a shipping error?

Was it part of a brushing scam?

The stronger the evidence supporting one explanation over the others, the easier it often becomes to evaluate the claim.

This is one reason these cases are frequently won through:

  • documentation,
  • corroboration,
  • consistency,
  • and record-building

rather than through forceful denials or emotional explanations.

In many situations, the issue is not whether the recipient can deny involvement.

The issue is whether the available evidence makes that denial the most credible explanation of what occurred.

Why These Cases Are Often Harder Than They First Appear

At first glance, these cases can seem simple.

A recipient says:

“I didn’t order the package.”

The government has a package addressed to that recipient.

The dispute appears straightforward.

In reality, these cases often become far more complicated than many people initially expect.

The difficulty is that both things can be true at the same time:

  • the package was addressed to the recipient, and
  • the recipient genuinely had nothing to do with the transaction.

The challenge is proving it.

Unlike many customs seizure matters, these cases frequently involve reconstructing events that the recipient never participated in.

As a result, there may be no obvious explanation available at the beginning.

Many people know what did not happen.

They simply do not know what did happen.

That creates a unique evidentiary problem.

Federal agencies often have:

  • shipping records,
  • recipient information,
  • customs declarations,
  • tracking information,
  • and package details.

The recipient often has:

  • a denial,
  • incomplete information,
  • and unanswered questions.

The task becomes filling in the missing pieces.

This is one reason these cases frequently require a broader factual investigation than many people initially expect.

Questions often include:

  • Was the package associated with identity theft?
  • Was a family member involved?
  • Was a former resident connected to the shipment?
  • Was there a marketplace account the recipient did not know about?
  • Was the shipment part of a brushing scam?
  • Was there a payment trail?
  • Was there a shipping error?

The answers are not always obvious.

In some situations, the explanation emerges quickly.

In others, it may take substantial document review and investigation before a coherent explanation begins to appear.

This is one reason these matters often become record-building exercises.

The goal is not simply to deny involvement.

The goal is to create a factual narrative supported by objective evidence that explains:

  • why the package was associated with the recipient,
  • why the recipient denies involvement,
  • and why the available evidence supports that denial.

The stronger that narrative becomes, the easier it often is for federal agencies to evaluate the claim.

Many people initially believe these cases turn on whether they are telling the truth.

In practice, they often turn on whether the available evidence allows someone else to verify that truth.

That distinction frequently determines the difference between a weak denial and a persuasive explanation.

Common Mistakes People Make in These Cases

One of the most frustrating aspects of these cases is that people often make their situation more difficult before they fully understand what happened.

That reaction is understandable.

Receiving a seizure notice for a package you claim you never ordered is confusing, stressful, and often completely unexpected.

Many people immediately start trying to explain the situation before they have gathered the facts.

Unfortunately, that can create problems later.

1. Immediately Calling CBP and Guessing

One of the most common mistakes occurs when a recipient contacts CBP immediately and begins speculating about what may have happened.

For example:

“Maybe my son ordered it.”

“Maybe it was a shipping mistake.”

“Maybe it was a gift.”

“Maybe it came from a seller I used years ago.”

The problem is that these statements are often guesses rather than facts.

If the explanation later changes after additional information is discovered, federal agencies may view the inconsistency skeptically.

A better approach is often to first review:

  • financial records,
  • emails,
  • marketplace accounts,
  • shipping records,
  • and household circumstances

before making definitive statements about what occurred.

2. Blaming the Wrong Family Member

Another common mistake involves immediately assuming that a spouse, child, roommate, or relative must have ordered the package.

Sometimes that assumption is correct.

Sometimes it is not.

The problem is that once an explanation is offered, it can become part of the record.

If later evidence shows the explanation was inaccurate, additional questions may arise.

It is usually better to investigate first and accuse later.

3. Making Absolute Statements Too Early

Many people make statements such as:

“I have never heard of this seller.”

“I have never ordered anything like this.”

“Nobody in my household could possibly be involved.”

The issue is that people are often working from incomplete information.

Later, they may discover:

  • an old online account,
  • a forgotten transaction,
  • a family member’s purchase,
  • a former resident,
  • or some other fact they did not initially know.

Absolute statements can become problematic when new information emerges.

4. Deleting Emails, Accounts, or Records

Some people panic and start deleting information.

That is almost always a mistake.

For example, they may:

  • delete emails,
  • close marketplace accounts,
  • remove transaction histories,
  • discard records,
  • or attempt to erase information they believe is connected to the shipment.

Even when done innocently, this can make it harder to reconstruct what actually happened.

In many cases, the strongest defense depends on reviewing records rather than destroying them.

5. Ignoring the Seizure Notice

Many recipients believe:

“I didn’t order it, so I shouldn’t have to respond.”

Unfortunately, federal deadlines do not disappear simply because a person denies involvement.

Ignoring a seizure notice can significantly limit available options later.

Even when the recipient believes the package has nothing to do with them, understanding the deadlines and procedural posture remains important.

6. Assuming “Not Mine” Is Enough

This is perhaps the most common mistake of all.

Many people genuinely believe that a denial should resolve the issue.

The problem is that federal agencies often want more than:

“It wasn’t me.”

They frequently want evidence that supports that conclusion.

The strongest cases usually involve:

  • corroborating documentation,
  • objective records,
  • and a plausible explanation for what actually happened.

A denial may be true.

But a denial supported by evidence is usually much more persuasive than a denial standing alone.

In many of these cases, the goal is not simply to deny involvement.

The goal is to build a factual record that allows someone else to understand why the package appeared in the recipient’s name despite the recipient having no connection to the transaction.