Federal Wire Fraud Defense Lawyers

Why Choose Lowther | Walker as Your Wire Fraud Defense Attorneys?

Lowther | Walker’s wire fraud attorneys have decades of experience defending wire fraud charges in federal courts across the United States.

We guide clients and protect their interests at every stage of the federal wire fraud prosecution process, from the initial investigation to the appeal of penalties.

• Prosecutorial Experience

Lowther | Walker’s Murdoch Walker has years of prosecutorial experience leading federal task forces for the DEA. His knowledge of prosecutorial strategies in wire fraud investigations is a crucial element to the firm’s reputation and success in nationwide wire fraud cases.

• 24/7 Defense Advocacy

Federal investigators at the FBI and DOJ raid businesses and collect evidence around the clock. Lowther | Walker’s attorneys are available, ready to respond to your call 24/7 to fight your wire fraud charges.

• Broad defense background

Lowther | Walker’s experience matches the broad range of potential charges associated with wire fraud, including healthcare fraud, bank fraud, and tax fraud.

What is Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C 1343)?

An individual cannot commit wire fraud accidentally. The prosecutor must prove there was intent to defraud someone of money or property. Wire fraud includes scheming or planning to carry out wire fraud.

Scheming to defraud is when a person uses deception, a promise, a statement, or a misrepresentation to intentionally mislead and deprive an unsuspecting victim of their valuables over electronic devices. For instance, contacting someone and attempting to sell them land you don’t own is an example of wire fraud, as it is a scheme to defraud.

What Must Prosecutors Prove to Convict You of Wire Fraud?

Wire fraud is broad, but convictions aren’t guaranteed. To convict you under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. A failure on any one defeats the charge.

1. A scheme to defraud. You knowingly devised or took part in a scheme to defraud, or to obtain money or property through false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises. Since Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023), the object of the scheme must be traditional money or property. Depriving someone of “potentially valuable economic information” is not enough.
2. A material misrepresentation. The false statement or omission must concern a material fact, meaning one capable of influencing the decision of the person it was aimed at. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25 (1999). After Kousisis v. United States, 605 U.S. 114 (2025), the government doesn’t need to prove the victim lost money, which makes materiality the central fight in most cases.
3. Specific intent to defraud. You acted knowingly and with the specific intent to deceive or cheat. Honest mistakes, failed business ventures, and good-faith belief in your own statements are not fraud.
4. Use of interstate wires. You transmitted, or caused someone else to transmit, a wire communication in interstate or foreign commerce to carry out the scheme. That includes an email, call, text, wire transfer, or internet transmission. The communication itself doesn’t have to be false. It only has to further the scheme, and each transmission can be a separate count.

How the Supreme Court Has Reshaped Wire Fraud

Wire fraud law is evolving with the wider legal landscape. Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has repeatedly redrawn the statute’s boundaries. In our cases, we see prosecutors charging theories the Court has already rejected, and we see defense lawyers who haven’t caught up either.

Here’s where the law stands now.

The object of the scheme must be money or property. In Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. 391 (2020), the “Bridgegate” case, the Court reversed convictions because the officials’ goal was political payback, not obtaining money or property. Then in Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023), the Court unanimously rejected the “right to control” theory. That theory had let prosecutors convict anyone who deprived a victim of information needed to make an informed economic decision. Many pending indictments were built on that theory, and Ciminelli gave those defendants grounds to dismiss counts or vacate convictions.

Honest services fraud is limited to bribes and kickbacks. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1346, prosecutors can charge a scheme to deprive someone of “honest services.” Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), confined that theory to bribery and kickback schemes. Percoco v. United States, 598 U.S. 319 (2023), rejected a jury instruction that would have let private citizens with political influence be convicted as if they were public officials. If your indictment alleges honest services fraud without a clear bribe or kickback, that count deserves a hard look.

Economic loss is not required, so materiality is the battleground. Not every decision has favored the defense. In Kousisis v. United States, 605 U.S. 114 (2025), the Court unanimously upheld the “fraudulent inducement” theory. Under it, a defendant who lies to win a contract can be convicted even if the victim got exactly what it paid for and lost nothing. The practical effect is that the case now turns on materiality: whether the alleged lie actually mattered to the decision to do the deal. In our cases, that’s where we focus. We look at what the other side actually relied on, what it already knew, and whether the “misrepresentation” ever influenced anyone.

What this means for you: if your case started before 2023, or the indictment relies on intangible rights, access to information, or a contract theory with no real loss, your defense may have legal arguments that didn’t exist a few years ago. An experienced federal wire fraud lawyer should test every count against current Supreme Court law before any plea discussion begins.

Which Communications and Activities Lead to Wire Fraud Charges Under 18 U.S.C. § 1343?

Federal prosecutors apply wire fraud statutes to a broad range of electronic communications and transactions. Understanding what triggers these charges is essential for anyone facing investigation or already charged with wire fraud.

Coordination and Conspiracy Communications

Electronic exchanges between individuals allegedly working together in a fraudulent scheme frequently form the backbone of federal wire fraud prosecutions. These include phone calls, text messages, emails, and other electronic correspondence that includes planning or executing the alleged fraud, even when the communications contain no explicitly fraudulent statements.

Deceptive Information Collection

Using electronic channels to gather personal data, financial information, account credentials, or identity details through misrepresentation or pretenses constitutes wire fraud. This includes phishing schemes, fraudulent data collection forms, and any electronic solicitation that misleads recipients about how their information will be used.

Unsolicited Commercial Fraud

Mass marketing campaigns conducted through spam emails, robocalls, telemarketing operations, text message blasts, and phishing attempts all fall within wire fraud when they promote fraudulent offers, misrepresent products or services, or induce transactions through deception.

False Billing Documentation

Creating, transmitting, or submitting fraudulent invoices via electronic means triggers wire fraud charges. This includes inflated billing, charges for services never rendered, and invoices for nonexistent goods—particularly when directed toward federal agencies, government benefit programs like Medicare or Medicaid, or federal contracts, in which enhanced penalties apply.

Responding to billing fraud charges requires an attorney with unique insight into government programs. For example, if you’re facing a healthcare audit with the potential for Medicare fraud charges, consult a Medicare fraud defense attorney with billing defense experience and knowledge of RAC, UPIC, and MAC auditor strategies.

Misleading Digital Content

Operating websites, publishing social media posts, distributing online advertisements, or creating digital content that materially misrepresents the nature, quality, price, or availability of products, services, investment opportunities, or securities can support wire fraud charges when these communications induce financial transactions or reliance.

Undelivered Online Transactions

Conducting internet sales, online auctions, e-commerce transactions, or digital service agreements where advertised terms, promised goods, stated quality, or delivery commitments aren’t fulfilled constitutes wire fraud when payment or communications occur electronically across state lines.

Deceptive Prize and Lottery Schemes

Operating or promoting lotteries, sweepstakes, contests, or prize promotions via telephone or internet that misrepresent participation requirements, odds of winning, prize values, eligibility criteria, or fees required to claim winnings falls squarely within federal wire fraud statutes.

How a Federal Wire Fraud Investigation Unfolds

Most wire fraud cases are built for months or years before anyone is charged. The earlier you have counsel, the more of these stages we can influence.

The investigation begins quietly.

Agents from the FBI, U.S. Secret Service, IRS-CI, HSI, or an agency inspector general (HHS-OIG, SBA-OIG, FDIC-OIG) pull bank records, emails and phone data through subpoenas and court orders, often long before you know anything is happening. In our cases, we see investigations start with a bank’s suspicious activity report, a whistleblower, a civil audit, or a co-worker who is already cooperating.

Grand jury subpoena or target letter

Your first notice may be a subpoena for business records or a letter naming you as a “target” or “subject.” A target letter means prosecutors believe they have substantial evidence linking you to a crime. This is the single most important time to retain counsel. Prosecutors will often hear a presentation from defense counsel before deciding whether to indict.

The knock on the door

Agents frequently show up unannounced to “just ask a few questions.” Anything you say can be used against you, and a misstatement can become a separate felony under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. You have the right to decline the interview and refer the agents to your lawyer. Use it.

Search warrants and device seizures

In larger cases, agents execute search warrants at homes and businesses and image phones, laptops and servers. We review every warrant for probable cause and overbreadth. Electronic evidence seized beyond a warrant’s scope may be suppressed.

Proffers and pre-indictment negotiation

Prosecutors may offer a “proffer” session, sometimes called “queen for a day.” These carry real risks, and the protections are narrower than most people think. Pre-indictment talks can produce a declination, a civil resolution, a reduced charge, or an agreed loss amount that shapes the eventual sentence.

Indictment and initial appearance

If charges are filed, you’ll appear before a magistrate judge, enter a plea, and address release conditions. Wire fraud indictments often stack many counts, one for each email or transfer, to pressure a plea.

Discovery, motions, and trial

We review the government’s evidence, file motions to dismiss and suppress, and retain forensic accountants to challenge the loss figures. Most federal cases resolve by plea, but the strength of a trial-ready defense is what drives a better deal.

Sentencing and appeal

If there’s a conviction, the fight shifts to the loss calculation and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). That’s covered in the sentencing section below.

What Are the Most Common Defenses to Wire Fraud Charges?

In a wire fraud case, the government must prove specific legal elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The following are common defenses utilized in these proceedings:

• Lack of Intent to Defraud:

The prosecution must prove specific intent to defraud. If the defendant acted in “good faith”, honestly believing their representations were true or that the business venture would succeed, they cannot be convicted of fraud and wire fraud, even if the venture failed financially.

• Immateriality of the Misrepresentation

Under the wire fraud law, a falsehood must be “material,” meaning it could influence the alleged victim. Counsel may argue the misstatement was trivial and incapable of inducing reliance.

• Puffery Distinction

Courts distinguish between criminal fraud and “puffery”—exaggerated expressions of opinion or sales talk (e.g., “the world’s best service”) that no reasonable person would rely upon as factual guarantees.

• Lack of Interstate Nexus

Federal jurisdiction is predicated on the interstate transmission of signals. If the defense can demonstrate that the communications were purely intrastate and did not cross state lines, federal wire fraud charges may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

• Constructive Fraud vs. Criminal Fraud

Defense counsel may argue that the accused’s conduct amounts to “constructive fraud” (a civil concept often lacking malicious intent) or a mere breach of contract, rather than a criminal scheme.

• Unlawful Search and Seizure

If the government obtained evidence of electronic communications through warrants that lacked probable cause or were overly broad, a defense attorney will file motions to suppress that evidence under the Fourth Amendment.

• Good-Faith Reliance on Professional Advice

If you fully disclosed the relevant facts to a lawyer or accountant and followed their advice, that reliance can negate the intent to defraud the government must prove. In our cases, we often see this with business owners who structured transactions, billing practices, or investor disclosures on professional advice and are now accused of fraud for following it. The defense requires full and honest disclosure to the advisor and genuine reliance on the advice. Raising it can also waive attorney-client privilege over those communications, so it must be evaluated early and carefully.

• Lack of Knowing Participation

Wire fraud cases often sweep in employees, bookkeepers, sales staff, family members and business partners who were near the scheme but never knew it was fraudulent. Being present, doing your job, or processing transactions someone else directed isn’t enough. The government must prove you knowingly joined the scheme with intent to defraud. In multi-defendant and conspiracy cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, we see prosecutors lean on guilt by association and on testimony from cooperators trying to reduce their own sentences. Cross-examining those cooperators and documenting what our client actually knew is often what separates a dismissal from a conviction.

What Are the Penalties Under Federal Law for Wire Fraud?

Federal law categorizes wire fraud penalties based on the specific nature of the scheme and the victim targeted. Under the primary statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the penalties are severe and subject to strict statutory maximums.

• Federal Wire Fraud

The baseline offense involves any scheme to defraud involving interstate electronic communications. A conviction for standard wire fraud carries a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in federal prison per count. Additionally, individuals face fines of up to $250,000 per count, while organizations may be fined up to $500,000.

• Wire Fraud Affecting Financial Institutions

If the violation affects a financial institution (such as a bank or mortgage lender), the penalties are significantly enhanced. In these instances, the maximum term of imprisonment increases to 30 years, and the maximum fine rises to $1,000,000 per count. This enhancement reflects the federal government’s priority in protecting the banking system from white-collar criminal schemes.

• Disaster-Related Wire Fraud

If the fraud relates to a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (e.g., defrauding FEMA or stealing relief funds), the statute imposes the same enhanced penalties: up to 30 years in prison and a fine of up to $1,000,000.

• Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349)

Under federal law, a defendant need not complete the fraud to face full liability. Individuals charged with conspiracy or attempt to commit wire fraud are subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the substantive offense. This means a conspiracy to commit bank fraud via wire carries the same 30-year maximum as the act itself.

• Honest Services Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346)

This statute covers schemes to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services, typically involving bribery or kickbacks. While the definition differs, the penalties mirror the underlying wire fraud statute, carrying a 20-year maximum sentence unless the specific enhancements regarding financial institutions apply.

How Wire Fraud Sentences Are Actually Calculated: U.S.S.G. §2B1.1

The 20-year statutory maximum makes headlines, but few defendants receive it. The real sentence is driven by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, specifically §2B1.1, which turns your case into a number. The guidelines are advisory after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), but judges must calculate them correctly and start from them.

Base offense level. Wire fraud starts at level 7, because its statutory maximum is 20 years or more.

Loss amount. This is the biggest driver. Loss is the greater of the actual or intended loss, and it adds levels on a sliding scale:

Common enhancements.

• Number of victims and hardship: +2 for 10 or more victims or mass marketing; +4 or +6 when victims suffered substantial financial hardship.
• Sophisticated means: +2.
• Abuse of a position of trust: +2 under §3B1.3.
• Leadership role: +2 to +4 under §3B1.1.

Reductions.

• Acceptance of responsibility: −2 or −3.
• Zero-point offender: −2 under §4C1.1 for qualifying defendants with no criminal history points.
• Minor or minimal role: reductions apply in multi-defendant schemes.

That’s why we treat loss as a separate battlefield. In our cases, we see government loss figures that count money the victim got back, double-count transactions, or treat every dollar of a mostly legitimate business as fraud. Credits against loss, reasonable valuation of collateral and services, and forensic accounting can move a case down several levels. Each level can mean months or years of a client’s life.

Beyond the guidelines, judges weigh your personal history, family responsibilities, health, restitution efforts, and the need to avoid unwarranted disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because wire fraud carries no mandatory minimum, a strong mitigation presentation can support a sentence below the range, including probation or home confinement. Expect restitution to identified victims to be mandatory, and expect criminal forfeiture of proceeds traceable to the offense.

Our Wire Fraud Case Results

• United States v. J.A.: Mortgage-related wire, mail and bank fraud investigation

The FDIC-OIG, HUD-OIG and FHFA-OIG investigated our client, a real estate broker, for allegedly conspiring to obtain $1.7 million in fraudulent mortgage loans. The government declined to bring charges.

• United States v. J.C.: Pandemic loan fraud charges dismissed

DOJ charged our client, a public official, with conspiring to fraudulently obtain more than $1 million in pandemic subsidies and loans. The Lowther | Walker defense team brought evidence to federal court, leading to a dismissal.

Related Federal Fraud Charges We Defend

Wire fraud is rarely charged alone. Prosecutors routinely stack it with related federal offenses to raise sentencing exposure and pressure a plea. Our attorneys defend the full range of charges that accompany wire fraud indictments.