Wire & Bank Fraud Defense Lawyer
Wire fraud and bank fraud are federal offenses, and their reach is far wider than most people expect. Wire fraud does not require a wire in the ordinary sense. An email, a text message, a card swipe, or a bank transfer can each satisfy the element, and each one can be charged as its own count. That structure can turn a single alleged scheme into an indictment with dozens of counts. At Walsh-Little Law, David Walsh-Little defends clients facing federal fraud charges in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
David Walsh-Little spent more than four years as an assistant federal public defender for the District of Maryland, and over a decade with the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, including three years as chief of the felony trial division in the Baltimore City office. Federal fraud is a substantial part of his practice.
Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud Are Federal Charges
Wire fraud and bank fraud are prosecuted in federal court, and they are among the most frequently charged federal offenses in the country. Wire fraud is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and bank fraud at § 1344. Both are written broadly, which is precisely why prosecutors use them so often.
Wire fraud requires a scheme to defraud and the use of an interstate wire in furtherance of it. The wire does not have to be the fraud. An email, a text message, a phone call, a bank transfer, or loading a web page can supply the element. In practice almost any modern transaction involves a qualifying wire, so the contested question is nearly always the scheme and the intent, not the wire.
Bank fraud requires a scheme to defraud a financial institution, or to obtain money or property from one by false pretenses. The institution must be federally insured, which covers essentially every bank and credit union a person is likely to deal with.
The maximums are severe. Wire fraud carries up to 20 years, rising to 30 years where the offense affects a financial institution or relates to a declared disaster or emergency. Bank fraud carries up to 30 years and a fine of up to $1,000,000. Under § 1349, an attempt or a conspiracy carries the same maximum as the completed offense, so an agreement that never produced a dollar can be charged at the same level.
Each Wire Is a Separate Count, and the Clock Runs Longer
Two structural features shape these cases more than the possible maximum sentences do.
The first is counting. Each qualifying wire can be charged as its own count. A single scheme conducted over a few months can therefore produce a charging document with dozens of counts, which looks devastating and is often less meaningful than it appears, since the counts rest on the same underlying conduct. What matters is the scheme the government has to prove, not the number of emails it attached to it.
The second is time. The usual federal limitations period is five years, but for bank fraud, and for wire fraud affecting a financial institution, Congress extended it to ten years. Charges can therefore surface long after the conduct, when records have been discarded and memories have faded. That cuts both ways, and the state of the documentary record is often a live issue for both sides.
Loss Amount Drives the Sentence, Not the Statutory Maximum
The 20 and 30 year figures are ceilings that are almost never approached. What actually determines a federal fraud sentence is the advisory guideline calculation, and the single largest input is the loss amount. Loss drives the offense level in steps, and each step can add years.
This makes the loss figure the central battleground in most of these cases, and it is far more contestable than clients expect. Intended loss and actual loss can be used to calculate loss amount. Money the alleged victim recovered, collateral that retained value, and sums the government attributes to the scheme without a clear causal link can all be argued. Enhancements for the number of victims, for sophisticated means, and for a leadership role are separately contested.
The practical consequence is that a great deal of the real work in a federal fraud case happens around the guideline calculation rather than at trial. Two defendants charged under the same statute with the same conduct can face very different outcomes depending on how that arithmetic is litigated.
Reviews
David is a great lawyer to work with. He's very attentive and on top of things. He cares about his clients and is very knowledgeable. Thank you, David
I recommend David's criminal defense and DWI defense services.
Baltimore criminal defense lawyer David Walsh-Little first came to my attention over 25 years ago, when I learned about his legal assistance to Plowshares activists. Since that time, I have occasionally communicated with him and then talked with David in depth on my podcast.
I can confidently recommend criminal defendants to David for Maryland matters for which I do not offer assistance.
The Investigation Usually Precedes the Charge by a Long Way
Federal fraud cases are rarely a surprise to everyone involved. They typically begin with a grand jury subpoena to a business, a request for records from a bank, an approach from an FBI or IRS agent, or a target or subject letter from the United States Attorney's Office.
That pre charge period is a consequential stage of the case and the one where people most often act against their own interests. Statements made to agents are admissible, and a false statement to a federal agent is itself a separate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, so an interview conducted without preparation can create a charge that did not previously exist. Responding to a subpoena, and in what form, is also a decision with consequences.
How to engage at that stage depends entirely on the circumstances, and consulting a lawyer before responding to any federal contact is generally advisable. There are also cases where early engagement with the government, handled properly, affects whether charges are brought at all.
Defense Strategies in Federal Fraud Cases
Every case turns on its own facts. These lines of defense recur in wire and bank fraud matters.
- Intent to defraud. This is the heart of most of these cases. A failed business, optimistic projections, aggressive but disclosed practices, and losses caused by market conditions are not fraud. The government must prove an intent to deceive, and that is a materially different thing from a venture that did not work.
- Good faith. A genuine belief in the truth of what was represented is a defense. Reliance on an accountant, a lawyer, or an established industry practice bears directly on it.
- Materiality. A misstatement must be capable of influencing the decision at issue. Not every inaccuracy in a lengthy application is material.
- The scope of the scheme. Where several people are charged, the government often presents one large scheme. Whether a particular defendant joined it, knew its full extent, or was involved in a discrete part is frequently the decisive question, and it affects both liability and the loss attributed to them.
- The loss calculation. As above, this is where sentences are decided, and it is litigated with records rather than testimony.
Whether any of these apply depends on the evidence in the particular case. Because these prosecutions are document driven and often follow a long investigation, early involvement tends to matter, and more options may remain available the sooner counsel can review the material.
Why Choose David Walsh-Little as Your Baltimore Federal Fraud Attorney
David Walsh-Little's background spans both state and federal criminal defense. He graduated from Fordham University and Columbia University School of Law, and during law school interned for civil rights lawyer William M. Kunstler. His first position as an attorney was with the Legal Aid Society in the Bronx, representing indigent criminal defendants.
After moving to Maryland he founded the Sowebo Center for Justice, a grass roots inner city law office. He spent over a decade with the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, including three years as chief of the felony trial division in the Baltimore City office, and more than four years as an assistant federal public defender representing defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Federal fraud practice turns on the guidelines, the loss calculation, and the pre charge period, which are not features of state practice. He uses that experience to examine how the government constructed its loss figure, identify weaknesses in the proof of intent, and build the strongest available defense for each client.
Serving Baltimore & Surrounding Counties
Walsh-Little Law represents clients throughout the Baltimore metropolitan area in both state and federal courts.
Frequently Asked Questions: Wire and Bank Fraud Charges
I have been contacted by an FBI agent but not charged. What does that mean?
It generally means an investigation is open and no charging decision has been made. That period is the point at which the most can still be affected. It is also when the risk is highest, because a statement to a federal agent that turns out to be false is a separate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Speaking with a lawyer before responding is generally advisable.
Why am I facing so many counts for one alleged scheme?
The alleged loss figure seems far too high. Can it be challenged?
Is there really a ten year limitations period?
Can the same conduct be charged in both state and federal court?
Contact a Baltimore Federal Fraud Defense Attorney Today, Free Consultation
A federal fraud investigation does not have to define your future. Depending on the facts of your case, various defense strategies and legal options may be available, from questioning the government’s proof of intent to contesting the loss calculation that drives the guideline range.
Call Walsh-Little Law today at 410-205-9337 for a free, confidential consultation. David will review your case, explain your options, and start building a defense from day one.
- Monday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
- Tuesday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
- Wednesday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
- Thursday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
- Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
- Saturday Closed
- Sunday Closed
Email Us
We look forward to receiving your questions and comments and will reply to your email promptly.
* Required Field
"*" indicates required fields
Disclaimer: The Law Office of David Walsh-Little is a Maryland Limited Liability Company established for the practice of law. The information on this website is for general information only. The content on this site is not legal advice and should not be construed as such. Visitors to this site should not rely on its content when making legal decisions. Access to the information on this website is not intended to, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship between the Law Office of David Walsh-Little, LLC and any other person or entity.
