A carrier approval process is only as consistent as the decisions made under pressure. When a pickup is approaching and a promising margin is on the screen, does every employee follow the same standard?
That question runs through the Port TMS roundtable Freight Fraud, Theft and Scams: 2026 Update. The discussion brought together Mark Groves, Chris Jolly, Rob Carpenter, and Michael from Highway to examine carrier identity, risk signals, and the difficulty of applying standards across a brokerage.
One of the clearest takeaways was organizational: useful information needs a process that people follow, even when a load looks attractive.
Look beyond the name on the paperwork
Rob described how his view of chameleon carriers has expanded. The discussion covered familiar patterns such as reopening under a different name, but also operations using fabricated or stolen identities.
For a brokerage, the question becomes whether the information fits together. A company name and a completed packet are part of the picture. The review also needs to consider the people and operation behind them.
The panel’s examples reinforce the value of investigating discrepancies rather than treating any single document as a complete answer.
Put the standard in writing
Rob highlighted the importance of written criteria and the difficulty of maintaining them as an organization grows. A process that works for one experienced owner can become inconsistent across a larger team or distributed agent network.
A useful internal review starts with simple questions. What must be checked before approval? What requires escalation? Who can make an exception, and what must they record?
Those questions turn an informal expectation into something staff can follow and managers can review. The purpose is to make the decision repeatable when the most experienced person is unavailable.
Separate approval from the pressure to book
Chris argued for keeping carrier setup and compliance review separate from the representative who benefits financially from booking the load. His concern was the temptation to overlook an issue when the immediate commercial result looks good.
The staffing model will differ by brokerage size, but the underlying problem is worth examining. Can the person chasing coverage approve their own exception? Does a concern receive an independent review, or can urgency make it disappear?
A smaller business may address that through an owner or second reviewer. A larger business may have a dedicated compliance team. The important point is a decision process that does not depend entirely on the person trying to complete the transaction.
Keep paying attention after onboarding
Chris discussed the value of working with core carriers. The conversation also challenged the idea that a familiar carrier can be treated as permanently cleared.
The panel described situations in which a relationship appeared established before new concerns emerged. That supports a practical distinction: prior experience is valuable, while changed information still deserves review.
Your team should know what to do when an alert or discrepancy appears on an existing carrier. Familiarity should help the investigation, rather than end it.
Give every alert an owner
The discussion repeatedly returned to responsibility. Having information available is different from ensuring someone acts on it.
As a practical follow-up to the roundtable, review a recent approval or exception with your team. Can you see who checked it, what they considered, and why the move proceeded? If not, that is a useful place to strengthen the workflow.
Carrier standards become meaningful when they guide the decision at the desk, across the team, and throughout the relationship.
Watch the discussion: Freight Fraud, Theft and Scams: 2026 Update