Financial Crimes

Complex allegations built on documents, data, and the government’s own interpretation of them.

Financial crimes cover a wide range of conduct – embezzlement, tax offenses, bankruptcy fraud, identity theft, false statements to lenders, and more. What these cases tend to share is that they are built on paper. Prosecutors assemble bank records, emails, spreadsheets, and accounting entries, and then tell a story about what those records mean. Very often, the same records can support a very different story: an honest mistake, an aggressive but lawful business decision, or a transaction that someone else directed.

These cases are rarely quick. Investigations can run for months or years before charges are filed, and they frequently involve multiple agencies – the FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, and Inspectors General among them. By the time a person learns they are under scrutiny, the government may have already interviewed colleagues, subpoenaed bank records, and retained forensic accountants. An effective defense requires catching up quickly, mastering the financial evidence, and identifying the gaps in the government’s theory before it hardens into an indictment.

IredaleRoth has substantial experience defending financial crimes cases in state and federal court. For example, the Firm represents defendants charged in complex healthcare fraud schemes now proceeding in federal courts in California and Arizona, and is defense counsel in a high-profile financial-crimes case now pending in California State Court. In the past, we have handled complex cases involving securities fraud, wire and mail fraud, mortgage fraud, public corruption and honest-services fraud, and more common offenses like check-kiting. 

Anyone facing a financial crimes investigation should be thinking about the following:

• Intent is usually the battleground. Most financial offenses require proof that the person acted knowingly and with intent to defraud. Showing that someone relied on accountants or advisors, lacked key information, or believed in good faith that their conduct was lawful can be decisive.

• Loss amount drives exposure. In federal cases, the sentencing guidelines increase sharply as the alleged loss grows. Challenging how the government calculates loss – and who is responsible for it – can dramatically change the stakes, even where some wrongdoing is conceded.

• Some charges carry mandatory consequences. Aggravated identity theft, for example, carries a mandatory two-year prison term that must run consecutively to any other sentence. Spotting these charges early, and contesting whether they truly apply, is essential.