A bank fraud investigation rarely starts with a knock on the door. It starts quietly — a flagged transaction, a bank’s internal report, a subpoena to your lender — and by the time the FBI calls or a target letter arrives, the government has often already gathered your loan files, account records, and emails. That head start is the hardest part of a bank fraud case, and closing it is the first thing a defense has to do.

Keith & Lorfing defends individuals and businesses accused of bank fraud in federal courts nationwide. Our team is led by a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and includes a retired federal judge of counsel, so we know how these cases are built long before they reach a courtroom.

When the investigation also involves moving, concealing, or spending alleged proceeds, our federal money laundering defense team can address those charges as part of the same strategy.

What bank fraud actually is under 18 U.S.C. § 1344

Federal bank fraud is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and the statute is broader than most people expect — it reaches far more than robbing a bank or forging a check.

The law has two separate prongs, and the government only needs to prove one:

• Prong one — a scheme to defraud a financial institution: knowingly carrying out, or attempting, a plan designed to deceive a bank itself.
• Prong two — obtaining bank-held funds by false pretenses: knowingly using false statements, representations, or promises to obtain money, credit, assets, or other property held by or controlled by a financial institution.

Two requirements anchor every § 1344 case. First, the bank must be federally insured — typically FDIC-insured — which is what makes the case federal; most banks and credit unions qualify, so this is rarely the fight. Second, and far more important, the government must prove intent to defraud. A mistake, an optimistic projection, or a deal that went bad is not bank fraud — the line between a felony and a civil dispute is whether you knowingly set out to deceive the bank.

That’s why these cases turn on state of mind. Check kiting, mortgage and loan-application fraud, false financial statements to get credit, and account-takeover schemes can all be charged under § 1344 — but only if the government can show you meant to defraud.

If you’re trying to figure out whether what you face is even a crime, talk through your situation with us confidentially.

The charges the government stacks alongside bank fraud

Bank fraud rarely arrives alone. Prosecutors routinely add related counts, each one raising your exposure or giving the government another way to win. The charges we most often see paired with § 1344:

• Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): If any part of the scheme used phones, email, or interstate transfers, the same conduct can be charged as wire fraud too — a workhorse count for prosecutors. See our Federal Wire Fraud Defense Lawyer page for more on how these cases are charged, investigated, and defended.
• False statements to a bank (18 U.S.C. § 1014): Knowingly making a false statement on a loan or credit application to a federally insured lender is its own federal crime, separate from the fraud.
• Aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A): If someone else’s identity was used, this charge carries a mandatory prison term that stacks on top of the underlying sentence.
• Money laundering (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957): Moving or spending the proceeds of the alleged fraud can trigger separate counts. See our Money laundering defense page.
• Securities fraud (18 U.S. Code § 1348): If the alleged scheme involves investments, securities offerings, or statements to investors, the same conduct can also trigger SEC fraud allegations and a parallel regulatory investigation.

When more than one person is involved, the government often adds a conspiracy charge. A fraud conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 lets prosecutors hold each participant responsible for the whole scheme.

How federal bank fraud cases are investigated

Bank fraud investigations are built from documents, not eyewitnesses, and the government collects them quietly. Several players drive these cases:

• The FBI, which handles most bank fraud investigations and often works the records for months before making contact.
• The FDIC Office of Inspector General (FDIC-OIG), which investigates fraud involving federally insured institutions.
• The banks themselves, which must file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) when transactions look irregular. A single SAR can be the seed of an entire case.

The way these cases begin has changed. When our managing partner served as a federal prosecutor, many fraud cases started with a whistleblower and a spreadsheet. Today the government leads with data — SAR filings, FDIC and FBI review of financial patterns, and analytics that scan transactions across whole industries to flag outliers automatically. You no longer need an angry employee to draw scrutiny; banking or transacting differently from your peers can be enough.

Investigators then subpoena your bank statements, loan files, and email metadata, and interview bookkeepers, co-signers, and former employees. By the time you learn you’re a target, the government may already hold years of your records — the case moves quietly on the surface while building underneath the whole time.

That is why the investigation stage is the most important — and most overlooked — moment in a bank fraud case.

Two early mistakes cost defendants the most. The first is deleting or “cleaning up” records. As a former prosecutor, our managing partner saw this again and again: destroying emails or financial records doesn’t make a problem disappear — it creates a new one. Obstruction is often easier to prove than the underlying fraud, because the government can show what existed, what was removed, and when.

The flip side is leverage. Records preserved and produced strategically through counsel can become an advantage — sometimes narrowing exposure or improving your position. The second mistake is doing nothing, which simply lets the government build quietly while your options shrink. If agents have reached out, our guide on what to do when federal agents want to talk walks through your rights.

If you’ve been contacted by investigators, reach out to our team before you respond.

The penalties — and why the loss amount matters more than the maximum

You’ll see the same numbers on almost every bank fraud page: decades in prison and a fine reaching into the millions. Those are real statutory ceilings — but not what most defendants actually face.

Federal sentences are driven by the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, not the statutory maximum. In a fraud case one number moves the range more than any other — the loss amount — and it deserves its own section below.

A few other realities set federal bank fraud apart:

• There is no federal parole. A sentence is served almost in full, so the number at sentencing is close to the number served.
• Restitution is standard, and forfeiture often comes early. On top of any prison term, courts routinely order repayment of the loss, and the government can move to seize property it ties to the fraud — sometimes before trial.

We won’t put a fake number on your case — no honest lawyer can. But we can explain your realistic exposure after reviewing the facts of yours.

Where bank fraud cases are actually won: the loss amount

In federal fraud sentencing, the single number that drives almost everything is the loss amount under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1. It is the engine of the sentence.

The government’s loss figure is usually a spreadsheet built on assumptions, and the defense job is to test every cell. You don’t just plead — you litigate the math.

The guidelines step up at set dollar thresholds, so moving the loss below a breakpoint can drop the range meaningfully — real time, back on the table. Three places we press hardest:

• Credits against loss: value you actually provided — real services, collateral, or goods delivered — should come off the top.
• Double counting: the same dollar sometimes gets counted twice across different “victims” or transactions.
• Speculative intended loss: an intended-loss figure has to be realistic, not a number that was never achievable.

That last point matters because the government counts not only what was lost but what it says you intended to take. Someone who reached for a large sum but obtained almost nothing because of a technical failure can still be charged with the larger intended figure — which is why prosecutors push an aggressive number early, and why loss litigation becomes a trial within the case.

One simplified illustration shows the stakes — and it is only an illustration, since the U.S. Sentencing Commission sets and periodically revises these numbers.

A fraudulent loan in the low-to-mid six figures might start from a low base level; the loss adds roughly a dozen levels; and an enhancement like a fake identity or “sophisticated means” adds more, quietly pushing the case into serious prison-range territory. Win acceptance-of-responsibility credit and knock out even one enhancement, and the range can come down substantially. The math is litigable, and every level fought is time back. Our page on how federal sentences are calculated breaks the process down.

The enhancements that stack on top of the loss

Once the base level and loss are set, the court adds specific offense characteristics under § 2B1.1 — and they stack. A relatively minor starting point can become a serious offense level before the presentence report is even finished, so each enhancement has to be fought individually.

Two show up constantly in bank fraud cases.

Sophisticated means. This enhancement is a prosecutor favorite, and it’s easier to trigger than the name suggests. In practice, even moving money between a main account and a shell or secondary account to obscure spending can draw it — you don’t need anything elaborate. We push back three ways:

• Legitimate-business explanation: the separate entities or accounts were real, formed for ordinary tax or business reasons.
• Deconstruction: the conduct wasn’t a layered, coordinated scheme but a set of repetitive, simple transactions.
• Proportionality: measured against genuinely sophisticated operations, routine paperwork shouldn’t qualify.

If the conduct was routine, the enhancement shouldn’t apply.

The number of victims. The victim count also steps the offense level up at set thresholds, and the government’s definition of “victim” is broad — even people only temporarily affected can appear on the list. We comb that list line by line for duplicates, people already reimbursed, and “victims” whose loss was actually caused by something else. Victim counts move judges emotionally, so accuracy matters.

Want a former prosecutor to review the government’s numbers in your case? We can start there.

Defenses to a federal bank fraud charge

There’s rarely one defense to bank fraud — several usually work together. Real, fact-driven ones include:

• Lack of intent / good faith: Bank fraud requires intent to defraud. If you acted in good faith or simply made a mistake, the government cannot meet its burden.
• No material misrepresentation: A statement that was true, immaterial, or that the bank did not rely on may not support the charge.
• No loss or intended loss: If the bank suffered no loss and none was intended — for example, a fully secured or repaid loan — that undercuts both the charge and the sentencing math.
• Mistaken identity or wrong defendant: In account-takeover and identity cases, the person charged isn’t always the person responsible. We test how the government tied the conduct to you.
• Suppression of illegally obtained evidence: If records, devices, or statements were gathered in violation of your rights, we move to keep that evidence out.

And when a conviction isn’t in doubt, attacking the loss figure (above) becomes its own defense at sentencing. Not every angle fits every case — what matters is having someone identify the strongest ones early, while there’s time to use them.

How we defend federal bank fraud cases

The best bank fraud defense often begins before charges are filed. Working the case during the investigation, we can sometimes shape the outcome — or keep it from being charged at all. A few concrete strategies:

• Investigation-stage intervention: If you’ve received a target letter or subpoena, we manage all contact with agents and prosecutors so you don’t hand the government its case — and present your side while decisions are still open.
• Negotiation from strength: We negotiate from a prepared, trial-ready position, not from fear. Prosecutors treat a defense ready to try the case differently.
• Trial: When the government won’t offer a fair resolution, we try cases — and prepare every one as if it will reach a jury.
• Sentencing mitigation: At sentencing we litigate the loss figure and every enhancement, argue acceptance of responsibility and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and fight for each fact that lowers exposure.

Ready to build a defense? Request a confidential case review with our team.

Before charges arrive: proactive internal reviews

Many sophisticated organizations no longer wait for a subpoena or a raid. They bring in experienced counsel early to find vulnerabilities, tighten internal controls, and review financial practices before a small issue becomes a catastrophic one — and for banks and other financial institutions reviewing their own controls, that early look can be the difference between a fixable gap and a filed case.

When concerns surface, our process is straightforward:

• Immediate assessment: we evaluate exposure, preserve privilege, gauge investigative risk, and set an initial strategy.
• Discreet internal investigation: where appropriate, we review records and interview witnesses quietly.
• Controlled engagement: when needed, we manage contact with agencies such as the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Acting early is about leverage, not a deadline. Reach the issue before the government does and you’re deciding; wait until it gets there first and you’re reacting. Because our team has seen these problems from the prosecution side, the defense side, and inside the organizations that live with the controls, we can spot the gap that matters.

The collateral consequences beyond prison

A conviction reaches well past a prison term. Depending on the facts, you may also face:

• Asset forfeiture and restitution: The government can seize property it ties to the fraud and order repayment of the claimed loss.
• Professional licensing loss: Bankers, mortgage brokers, accountants, and others can lose the credentials their livelihoods depend on.
• Banking and employment bars: A fraud conviction can bar you from the financial industry and follow you through every background check.
• Immigration consequences: For non-citizens, a fraud conviction can trigger removal. Under Padilla v. Kentucky, your lawyer must advise you on those effects before you plead.

None of these is automatic. How early and how well a case is defended can change every one — so we build strategy around your whole life.

Why choose Keith & Lorfing

Federal bank fraud defense rewards experience on both sides of the courtroom. Our team has it.

• A former federal prosecutor leads the firm. Managing partner Russell Lorfing is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney recognized for his white-collar work by the IRS, DHS, and FBI. In 2024 he was selected Co-Chair of the Federal Criminal Defense Committee for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and named a Super Lawyers honoree.
• A retired federal judge sits of counsel. The Hon. E. Scott Frost (Ret.) brings more than 30 years of federal courtroom experience to our strategy.
• A veteran trial lawyer at the founding chair. Trey Keith has defended the accused for over 20 years, with many “Not Guilty” verdicts.
• A deep bench. Our team includes former federal prosecutors and defenders, former FBI agents, former IRS criminal investigators, and former general counsel to large family offices — people who have seen how financial cases are built from every side.
• Admitted where federal cases live. Russell Lorfing is admitted in the Northern, Western, and Southern Districts of Texas, the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

We represent clients in federal courts nationwide — federal law applies the same way in every district, so what matters is how a firm defends, not where it sits.

Past results never guarantee a future outcome. Every case turns on its own facts, and we’ll tell you straight what yours looks like.

What to expect in the federal process

These cases rarely feel urgent on the surface, yet the government is working the entire time. The general path:

• Investigation: The FBI or FDIC-OIG gathers records for months, often starting from a bank’s SAR; target letters and subpoenas surface here.
• Charging and first appearance: The government charges by indictment or information, and you appear before a magistrate judge who decides on release or detention.
• Pretrial to resolution: Both sides exchange discovery and the defense files motions to suppress or dismiss; the case ends in a negotiated plea or a trial, followed by sentencing driven by the Guidelines and the loss amount.

Having someone who has walked this path from the prosecution side changes what’s possible. You can contact our firm at any stage — the earlier, the better.

Talk to a federal bank fraud defense lawyer before you talk to anyone else

A bank fraud investigation is frightening, but you are not out of options. The sooner a former prosecutor is reviewing your records, the more room there is to change where the case goes.

Keith & Lorfing defends bank fraud and related white-collar cases in federal courts nationwide. We’ll listen, tell you honestly what you’re facing, and start building a defense. Schedule a confidential consultation with our team.

Frequently asked questions

Does the bank have to actually lose money for me to be charged?
No. The statute reaches schemes and attempts, so a case can be brought even if the bank lost nothing. But actual or intended loss heavily affects both the charge and the sentence.

What’s the difference between bank fraud and wire fraud?
Bank fraud (§ 1344) targets federally insured financial institutions; wire fraud (§ 1343) covers any scheme using interstate wires like email or transfers. The same conduct is often charged as both.

The FBI contacted me but I haven’t been charged — what should I do?
Politely decline to answer and call a lawyer before saying anything. A false statement to a federal agent is itself a crime, and the investigation stage is when counsel can do the most good.

How much prison time does federal bank fraud carry?
The statutory maximum is high, but most sentences are driven by the advisory Guidelines, where the loss amount is the biggest factor. The honest answer depends on your facts.

Is a loan application mistake really a federal crime?
Not by itself. Bank fraud requires intent to defraud. A genuine mistake or a deal that went bad is not a knowing scheme to deceive — and that distinction is often the heart of the defense.

Can bank fraud lead to identity theft or money laundering charges too?
Yes. If someone else’s identity was used, the government may add aggravated identity theft under § 1028A, which carries a mandatory consecutive term. Moving alleged proceeds can add laundering counts. Timelines vary — some cases resolve in months, while complex or document-heavy ones can run a year or more.