Wire, Mail, Bank Fraud

The federal government’s most versatile fraud charges – and some of its most serious.

Wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud are the workhorses of federal fraud enforcement. Because nearly every modern transaction involves an email, a phone call, an electronic payment, or a bank, prosecutors can use these statutes to charge a remarkably broad range of conduct – investment schemes, business disputes, loan applications, government-benefit claims, online sales, and more. Wire and mail fraud carry up to 20 years in prison per count, and up to 30 years when a financial institution is affected; bank fraud carries up to 30 years.

Despite their breadth, these statutes have limits, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly enforced them. Prosecutors must prove a scheme to obtain money or property through material misrepresentations, and a specific intent to defraud. Recent decisions have rejected theories that stretched the statutes to cover conduct like depriving someone of information or of the “right to control” their assets. Holding the government to the actual elements of these offenses – rather than a general sense that something improper happened – is often the key to a successful defense.

IredaleRoth has extensive experience handling fraud cases. Owen Roth handled a variety of these cases while in government service, and Danni Iredale has defended a range of fraud cases in federal and state court. For example, the Firm has represented an individual charged with participating in an international fraud scheme that allegedly defrauded unwitting victims through the use of various call centers. 

People facing federal fraud allegations should consider these issues:

• Does the government’s theory fit the statute? Recent Supreme Court decisions have narrowed what counts as fraud. Charges built on outdated theories may be subject to dismissal.

• Was there intent to defraud? Good-faith belief, reliance on professionals, and the absence of any intent to cause loss are powerful defenses.

• How is loss being measured? Loss figures drive federal sentencing and restitution. A careful, independent analysis can significantly reduce exposure.