Federal Wire Fraud Lawyer

Prosecutors will typically charge an individual with each specific transaction of fraud as well as a general conspiracy charge. A conspiracy to commit wire fraud is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1349. A conspiracy charge is simply when two or more people agree to violate a federal law and then take some action to carry out that plan.

Prosecutors charge people with conspiracies for two reasons. First, conspiracy charges tend to be easier to prove in court, because prosecutors don’t have to show a fraud was actually committed (only that the defendant intended to do so). Second, conspiracy charges make it easier to show “relevant conduct” which often includes the conduct of other people in the conspiracy (even if the defendant was unaware of their actions). This can lead to greater sentences and higher loss amounts for an individual defendant.

Wire fraud carries a potential sentencing range of 0 to 20 years in prison. If the fraud involved a bank or financial institution the maximum increases to 30 years in prison.

A defendant’s actual sentence is based on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, § 3553 factors (or characteristics unique to the defendant), and the judge’s discretion. Under the Guidelines, the base offense level for wire fraud is a level 7 which recommends a sentence between 0 to 6 months in prison.

The Guidelines level increases quickly based on the loss amount and other enhancements that may apply. For example, a defendant who has a loss amount of $500,000 (+12 levels) would have a total offense level of 19 with a Guidelines range of 30 to 37 months in prison. As shown in the chart below, judges typically sentence under the Guidelines range due to 3553 factors.

Every case presents a unique set of facts, and a white collar defense lawyer may employ a creative or multi-tier defense. Some of the more common defenses in wire fraud cases include:

• No Intent. The most common defense in wire fraud cases is that the defendant lacked the intent to defraud. If there was no intent to defraud, there can be no conviction. We see this quite often in investment fraud cases where a company promised clients a high return on investment. The individual employee of the offending company may have lacked the sophistication to understand that such returns were not possible. In other cases, an employee may have been kept in the dark to red flags that would have suggested that the company or others within the company were committing fraud.
• Good faith. Similar to a lack of intent, a good faith defense is premised on the idea that you made all of the alleged claims in good faith. If you honestly believed that a stock would yield a particular return, then you cannot be convicted of wire fraud.
• Materiality. The government must show that the misrepresentation was “material.” In other words, the misrepresentation must have influenced someone to do something. In many cases, the alleged misrepresentation is merely puffery or collateral to the central plan.
• Lack of an agreement. In any conspiracy case, the government must show an agreement to violate the law. We have seen cases where the government charges someone simply because a co-worker, friend, or family member engaged in an illegal scheme. But mere association is not enough to convict someone of wire fraud.

No, mail fraud is a separate statue (18 U.S.C.§ 1341) and concerns fraudulent schemes carried out through the mail. Much of the case law that was developed under the mail fraud statute (such as what constitutes a scheme) also applies to the wire fraud statute. It is also not uncommon for a defendant to be charged with both wire fraud and mail fraud.

No, a victim does not have to lose money for the defendant to be convicted of wire fraud. The government only has to show that the defendant played an active role in a scheme designed to defraud others.

It should also be noted that the harm can include tangible property (e.g., funds in a bank account) and intangible property (e.g., confidential business information). See, United States v. Carpenter, 484 U.S. 25 (1987). In recent years, the Department of Justice has used the Carpenter case to charge individuals who allegedly stole proprietary information from companies through internet hacking or an insider (such as an employee).