The SEC and white-collar cases we defend in Houston

White-collar is a broad label. What matters is the specific statute the government is looking at, because that drives the exposure. These are the matters we handle:

• Securities fraud — 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5: the core anti-fraud rule, covering misstatements, omissions, and manipulation connected to buying or selling securities. For a deeper look at these allegations, see our SEC fraud defense page.
• Securities fraud — 18 U.S.C. § 1348: the broader federal criminal securities-fraud statute, often charged alongside or instead of the 1934 Act provisions.
• Wire fraud — 18 U.S.C. § 1343: the government’s favorite tool, reaching almost any scheme that uses email, phone, or electronic transfers.
• Mail fraud — 18 U.S.C. § 1341: the same theory as wire fraud, applied to schemes that use the mail or a private carrier.
• Sarbanes-Oxley provisions: covering certification of financial statements, corporate recordkeeping, and destruction of records.
• Related conduct: insider trading, accounting fraud, Ponzi and pump-and-dump schemes, false statements to federal agents under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and obstruction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512 and 1519.

If you are not sure which of these applies to you, that uncertainty is exactly why early counsel matters. Talk to a federal defense lawyer about what the government is actually looking at.

Why SEC and white-collar cases are so serious

These charges carry long federal prison exposure, heavy fines, and disgorgement of gains. A conviction can also mean forfeiture of assets, restitution to alleged victims, and a lifetime bar from the securities industry.

The collateral damage often lands before any verdict. Professional licenses, board seats, banking relationships, and immigration status can all be threatened while the case is pending.

Federal sentences are driven by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which are advisory but powerful. In fraud cases, the single biggest factor is usually the loss amount — the dollar figure the government attaches to the alleged scheme.

That number is not fixed. How the loss is calculated can be the difference between a short sentence and a decade, which is why we treat it as a battleground, not a given.

Parallel proceedings: the SEC civil case and the DOJ criminal case

This is what most people miss. In many securities matters, the SEC pursues a civil enforcement action at the same time the Department of Justice pursues a criminal case — often coordinating behind the scenes. Lawyers call this “parallel proceedings.”

It creates a trap. Testimony or documents you give the SEC to resolve the civil side can be handed to prosecutors and used against you criminally.

A Wells notice signals that SEC staff intends to recommend enforcement charges. It is a decision point, not a formality — your response, called a Wells submission, can shape whether and how you are charged.

Enforcement today increasingly focuses on individuals — executives, traders, and decision-makers — not only the company. That sharpens one early choice: whether to come forward before the government identifies the issue, while doing so can still preserve options and create leverage.

Handling one side without watching the other is how good people make their situation worse. Once the government gets there first, you’re reacting instead of deciding.

Do not respond to a Wells notice or SEC subpoena alone. Reach out to our team first.

How we defend SEC and white-collar cases

A strong white-collar defense starts long before trial. Our approach is to get in early, understand the government’s theory, and attack it where it is weakest.

• Investigation-stage intervention: we engage while the matter is still an inquiry, when there is still room to shape the outcome instead of just responding to it.
• Controlling communications: we manage contact with SEC staff, the FBI, and prosecutors so nothing you say is turned against you in the parallel criminal case.
• Testing the government’s evidence: securities cases are built on documents and data, and we scrutinize how that evidence was gathered and whether it actually proves intent.
• Suppression and procedural motions: we challenge evidence obtained improperly and hold the government to its burden.
• Negotiation from strength: where resolution makes sense, we negotiate charges and terms — and where cooperation or a plea is on the table, we weigh it carefully against trial.
• Trial readiness: we prepare every case as if it will be tried, because that is what earns real bargaining power.

Modern securities and fraud cases are increasingly data-driven. Investigators now flag people through trading patterns and financial anomalies across whole industries, not just tips — so a person can be under review before anyone complains, with years of records already gathered. You no longer need an angry employee to trigger an investigation — billing differently from your peers can be enough. We defend accordingly — by understanding the data the government is reading.

We also help organizations act before a case forms. When concerns surface, our team can conduct a discreet internal review, assess exposure while preserving privilege, tighten controls, and engage strategically with agencies — including the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, HHS-OIG, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The two early mistakes that cost the most

Two moves do the most damage before a lawyer is ever involved.

• “Cleaning up” records: deleting emails, texts, or documents rarely hides anything and often creates a fresh obstruction charge — one that can be easier to prove than the underlying conduct. Deleting emails or documents doesn’t fix the problem — it creates a new one.
• Putting your head in the sand: ignoring an investigation while the government quietly builds it only shrinks your options. Evidence preserved and produced strategically through counsel protects you; evidence destroyed does the opposite.

If you fear an investigation, the first steps are simple: get experienced federal counsel, preserve everything, keep all government contact controlled through your lawyer, and get a real read on timing before you react.

Litigate the math — challenging the government’s loss amount

Loss amount is the engine of a federal fraud sentence. Under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1, the offense level climbs as the loss crosses set dollar thresholds — so the fight over the loss number often decides the sentence before the judge rules.

The government can argue intended loss, not just what was actually lost, and prosecutors tend to push the most aggressive figure. Challenging that number is often the real trial within the case.

Cases are won on loss in a few places:

• Credits against loss: value from legitimate services or collateral actually provided should reduce the figure.
• Double-counting: the same dollars are sometimes counted across multiple victims.
• Speculative intended loss: amounts that were never realistic should not drive the sentence.

The Guidelines also stack specific-offense-characteristics on top of the base level — extra levels for the number of victims, for “sophisticated means,” and more. A case can climb quietly from a low base level to a much higher one.

“Sophisticated means” is applied broadly. In the Fifth Circuit, moving money through multiple accounts to mask the source of funds can qualify — but it can be fought as ordinary business conduct or as simple, repetitive transfers rather than a scheme. Victim enhancements jump at 10 or more victims and again at larger counts, so counsel scrubs the government’s victim list for duplicates, already-reimbursed people, and losses actually caused by something else.

Hypothetical example:
A $300,000 fraud might start near base offense level 7; the loss adds roughly 12 levels, and enhancements like a fake identity or “sophisticated means” can add several more — pushing the range up sharply. Challenging those enhancements and the loss figure can pull it back down. This shows the mechanics only and is not a prediction for any case.

We push back with forensic analysis and legal argument — on causation, on credits, and on what should count at all. You don’t just plead — you litigate the math. Every dollar we call back from that spreadsheet is time we give back to your life.

Schedule a confidential consultation to talk through your exposure.

Why choose Keith & Lorfing

You want a defense team that has seen these cases from both sides. Ours has.

• Former federal prosecutor: managing partner Russell Lorfing is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and a multi-award-winning trial lawyer, selected in 2024 as Co-Chair of the Federal Criminal Defense Committee for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. He has trained FBI, IRS, and DEA agents on electronic evidence — the same evidence that drives white-collar cases.
• A retired federal judge of counsel: the Hon. E. Scott Frost (Ret.) brings more than 30 years of federal courtroom experience.
• A seasoned trial partner: founding partner Trey Keith has spent 20-plus years defending the accused.
• Admitted where your case is: our attorneys are admitted in the Southern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit, so we can represent you in Houston federal court.
• Team backgrounds that match the fight: former federal prosecutors, former federal defenders, and former FBI agents and IRS criminal investigators.

Federal law applies the same way in every federal district. Past results depend on the facts of each case and never guarantee a particular outcome.