Package forwarding can raise risk because it creates another handoff between purchase and delivery, which may obscure where the goods ultimately go. Fraudsters often exploit that gap to redirect shipments away from the named recipient. The control challenge is to distinguish legitimate forwarding activity from orders that combine forwarding with other suspicious indicators.
Why package forwarding changes the fraud picture
Package forwarding introduces an extra party and an extra routing decision between checkout and delivery. That matters because fraud checks often rely on the destination address, recipient name, and shipping pattern lining up with historical behavior. When forwarding is involved, that alignment becomes less reliable, so a legitimate-looking order can conceal the true end recipient.
The key issue is not forwarding by itself, but the loss of certainty it creates. A merchant may see a domestic billing address, a known card, and a forwarding warehouse address, yet the goods may ultimately leave that warehouse and disappear into a different jurisdiction, household, or resale channel. That makes it harder to use shipping data as a trust signal.
Forwarding also weakens the normal deterrent effect of direct shipment. If a fraudster intercepts goods at a forwarding hub, the merchant’s ability to recover the item or validate delivery is reduced because the final handoff happens outside the merchant’s relationship with the customer. The result is a broader gap between payment approval and physical possession.
How fraudsters exploit the forwarding gap in commerce orders
Fraudsters use forwarding addresses because they can separate the payment source, order destination, and final beneficiary. That separation helps them test stolen cards, collect goods with less traceability, or move items quickly before a chargeback or dispute process starts. In practice, the forwarding address becomes a buffer that complicates investigation and attribution.
Another common pattern is combination fraud, where forwarding is only one signal among several. A merchant may be dealing with a first-time buyer, a high-value basket, expedited shipping, mismatched account details, or unusual product mix. In that context, the forwarding address is not proof of fraud, but it can materially raise the likelihood that the order is being placed to monetize stolen payment data or conceal the ultimate recipient.
Legitimate forwarding is normal in some customer segments, so the control problem is discriminating intent rather than banning the practice. That is why merchants should treat forwarding as a risk modifier and look for corroborating evidence, not as a standalone rejection trigger.
What merchants should verify before treating forwarding as safe
Forwarding becomes less risky when the merchant can validate the customer relationship, the address pattern, and the order behavior. Stronger confidence comes from consistency across account age, payment history, shipping history, and item profile. A forwarding address with a stable, repeatable pattern is very different from a first-time high-value order sent to a forwarder with no prior customer history.
Verification should focus on whether the order makes sense end to end. If the customer is genuine, there is usually a coherent reason for the forwarding destination, a predictable shipping cadence, and a payment profile that matches prior behavior. If those elements do not line up, the forwarding address should be treated as one of several fraud indicators rather than a neutral logistics choice.
For this kind of screening, broad risk intelligence and fraud operations guidance can help teams separate shipping convenience from abuse patterns. Merchant teams often pair order review with account and payment controls, and use authoritative security guidance such as OpenSSF and FinCEN when the broader commerce flow touches supply-chain exposure or suspicious financial activity.
Risk and Threat Considerations
Package forwarding increases exposure because it can hide the final destination of goods and reduce the merchant’s ability to connect an order to a real end user. That makes it attractive in card-not-present fraud, mule activity, and rapid resale scenarios, especially when the forwarding address is combined with other anomalies.
Failure mechanism: The order passes basic checkout checks, but the forwarding handoff breaks the normal link between purchaser, delivery point, and end recipient, so fraudulent intent is easier to disguise until after shipment.
Impact: Merchants face higher chargeback rates, weaker delivery assurance, more difficult investigations, and greater loss from goods that are unrecovered or quickly resold.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
CIS Controls v8 and NIST CSF 2.0 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-5 — Account Management | Forwarding risk hinges on account behavior and order integrity across customer sessions. |
| Recommendation — Review account and order patterns for anomalies that indicate fraudulent purchasing behavior. | ||
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AA-05 — Identity management, authentication, and access control are managed for assets and users | Fraud screening here depends on trustworthy customer identity and access signals. |
| DE.CM-09 — Malicious and anomalous activity is detected in cloud services and enterprise assets | Order fraud detection depends on spotting anomalous purchasing and shipping behavior. | |
| Recommendation — Validate customer identity and access signals before approving high-risk orders. Monitor for anomalous order and shipping patterns that indicate abuse. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Treat forwarding as a scoring input, not a binary allow or deny rule. The strongest signal is forwarding plus a fresh account, unusual basket value, rushed delivery, or payment data that does not fit the customer’s prior pattern.
What to verify: Confirm whether the same customer, payment method, and shipping pattern have appeared before, and whether the forwarding address is a stable repeat destination rather than a one-off handoff point. Orders that cannot explain the forwarding path deserve manual review before fulfilment.
Practitioner takeaway: The practical test is whether forwarding changes the merchant’s ability to trust the end recipient, because once that link is obscured, fraud screening has to rely on broader behavioural evidence instead of address alone.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- Why do freight forwarding addresses increase fraud risk for physical goods?
- Why do delegated payment credentials increase fraud risk in agentic commerce?
- Why do high-volume commerce periods increase fraud risk even when sales controls are strong?
- Why do disposable email addresses and temporary phone numbers increase fraud risk in account registration?
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on September 28, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
