A wire fraud charge rarely arrives out of nowhere. By the time you see a target letter, a grand jury subpoena, or an FBI agent at the door, the government has usually spent months pulling emails, bank records, and phone logs into a theory of your case.

That head start is the hard part. The prosecution builds quietly, and every day you wait, the gap widens.

Keith & Lorfing defends people and businesses accused of federal wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, in Texas and in federal courts across the country. Our team is led by a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and includes a retired federal judge of counsel, so we know how the government builds a fraud case before it files one.

If your case is in the Houston area, speak with our Houston wire fraud defense team before you speak to an agent or respond to a subpoena.

What wire fraud actually is under 18 U.S.C. § 1343

Wire fraud is one of the most flexible tools a federal prosecutor has. It reaches almost any scheme to obtain money or property by deception that touches an electronic communication — an email, a text, a call, a bank transfer, or a website.

To convict you, the government generally has to prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:

• A scheme to defraud: A plan to obtain money or property through false or fraudulent statements, promises, or omissions. A genuine business dispute or an honest mistake is not a scheme.
• Intent to defraud: That you acted knowingly and with the purpose to deceive. Cases turn on this most often, because a mistake, a bad guess, or good-faith reliance on others is not fraud.
• Use of an interstate wire: That an interstate or international wire communication was used in furtherance of the scheme — a call, an email, a transfer, or an online transaction.

Here is the point most people don’t expect. The wire communication itself does not have to be false, and it does not even have to reach the victim. A routine, truthful email can satisfy the wire element as long as it helped move the scheme along.

That breadth is why prosecutors reach for § 1343 so often. For a straight read on how the statute applies to your facts, talk to a federal defense lawyer.

Wire fraud, mail fraud, and honest-services fraud — how they differ

Wire fraud rarely travels alone, and the differences between related statutes shape your exposure.

• Mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341): The same kind of scheme, carried out through the U.S. mail or a private carrier instead of an electronic wire. Mail fraud does not require anything to cross state lines; wire fraud generally does.
• Honest-services fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346): Extends wire and mail fraud to schemes that deprive another of the “intangible right of honest services” — most often bribery and kickback cases involving public officials or corporate fiduciaries. The Supreme Court has narrowed it, creating real defense openings.
• Bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344): When the scheme targets a financial institution, prosecutors often add bank fraud and its enhanced exposure — see our federal bank fraud defense page.

 
Because these statutes overlap, one scheme can produce many counts. Prosecutors also pair wire fraud with conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 when they believe more than one person agreed to carry out the alleged scheme. In that situation, a Federal Conspiracy Defense Lawyer can help challenge whether there was an actual agreement, or whether the government is turning business relationships, emails, or shared transactions into proof of a conspiracy.

How federal wire fraud cases are investigated

Wire fraud cases are built on records, not eyewitnesses. The government assembles emails, financial statements, contracts, and metadata, then tries to tell a story of intent through the paper trail. Several agencies do this work, often together:

• The FBI, which leads most white-collar fraud investigations.
• The U.S. Postal Inspection Service, especially where mail fraud is charged alongside the wires.
• IRS Criminal Investigation, when the scheme touches taxes or large money movement.
• Regulators like the SEC, when securities are involved — see our SEC fraud defense.

Their tools are grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, and interviews with employees, customers, and associates — often long before anyone is charged.

How 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 — analytics and AI-assisted review that scan billing and financial patterns across whole industries and flag outliers automatically. You no longer need an angry employee to draw scrutiny; billing or transacting differently from your peers can be enough.

The government has also shifted toward charging individuals — executives, controllers, and decision-makers — not just companies. The exposure is personal, and it tends to land on whoever signed off.

That is why the investigation stage is where a defense has the most influence — the most valuable work often happens before an indictment exists, while the government is still deciding whether and what to charge. Getting there early is about leverage, not a deadline: once the government arrives first, you are reacting to its theory instead of shaping your own.

By the time a case feels real, investigators may already hold years of records. These matters move quietly on the surface but are moving underneath the whole time. If agents have already reached out, read our page on what to do when federal agents want to talk, then reach out to our team.

The penalties, and why the loss amount matters most

Federal wire fraud is a felony that can carry a substantial prison term, and exposure climbs sharply when the scheme is alleged to have affected a financial institution. But the maximum on paper rarely determines the real sentence — the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines do, and in a fraud case the single biggest lever is the loss amount.

Federal sentences carry no parole, so time imposed is served almost in full. To see how these pieces fit together, read how federal sentences are calculated. We won’t put a number on your case before we understand the facts, and neither should anyone else.

Where wire fraud cases are actually won: the loss amount

In federal fraud sentencing, one number drives almost everything: the loss amount under § 2B1.1. It sets the offense level, and the offense level sets the range. This is where these cases are often won or lost.

The government’s loss figure is not handed down on stone tablets — it is usually a spreadsheet built on assumptions, and the defense job is to test every cell. Three places we attack most often:

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

That last point carries weight. The government counts not just what was lost but what it says you intended to take, so someone who tried for a large amount but obtained almost nothing — a transfer that failed on a technicality — can still be treated as responsible for the larger intended figure. That is why prosecutors push an aggressive intended-loss number early, and why loss litigation often becomes a trial within the case.

The loss table steps up at set dollar thresholds, so moving your case below a threshold can drop the range meaningfully. Each threshold crossed can mean real time. You don’t just plead. You litigate the math.

Here is a simplified illustration — and only that. The U.S. Sentencing Commission sets these numbers and periodically revises them, so treat the levels below as directional, not a prediction. A fraudulent loan in the low-to-mid six figures might start from a low base offense level; the loss alone could add roughly a dozen levels; and enhancements like a fake identity or “sophisticated means” pile on 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.

If your case turns on a loss number, ask us to review the government’s math.

The enhancements that stack — a menu of upgrades you never asked for

Once the base level is set, the court adds specific offense characteristics under § 2B1.1, and they stack. A case that starts low can climb fast as enhancements pile on — the number of victims, sophisticated means, misrepresenting a charitable purpose, and more. It is a menu of upgrades you never asked for, which is why each one has to be fought individually, before the presentence report hardens around it.

Sophisticated means is a prosecutor favorite, and easier to trigger than the name suggests. Even moving money between a main account and a shell or secondary account to obscure spending can draw it — nothing elaborate required. 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 — it was repetitive, simple transactions.
• Proportionality: measured against genuinely sophisticated operations, routine paperwork shouldn’t qualify.

Where money movement is central, that fight often overlaps with a money laundering theory, and we treat the two together.

Victim enhancements work the same way. The offense level steps up as the government’s victim count rises, and its definition of “victim” is broad — even people only temporarily affected can appear. So 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 there is mitigation.

Defenses to a federal wire fraud charge

There is no single defense to wire fraud. The right strategy depends on which element is weakest for the government and on the facts of your case. The defenses we build most often include:

• No intent to defraud / good faith: If you honestly believed your statements were true or acted in good faith, you lacked the criminal intent the statute requires. Good faith is a complete defense, and intent is where many fraud cases are won.
• No scheme to defraud: Not every failed deal is fraud. We show the conduct for what it was — a civil dispute or an honest disagreement — not a criminal scheme.
• Insufficient nexus to interstate wires: The government must tie an interstate wire to the scheme in furtherance of it. Where that connection is missing, attenuated, or purely intrastate, the charge can fail.
• Suppression of evidence: We examine every search, seizure, and interview for constitutional violations. Evidence gathered unlawfully can be kept out.

Which fits your case depends on the facts. For a straight read, request a confidential case review.

The two mistakes that cost fraud clients the most

Two early moves do more damage than almost anything the government does. The first is deleting or “cleaning up” records. As a former federal prosecutor, our managing partner saw this again and again: destroying emails, documents, or financial records does not make a problem go away — it creates a second one.

Obstruction is often easier to prove than the underlying conduct, because the government can show what existed, what was removed, and when. The flip side is leverage — preserved evidence, produced strategically through counsel, can be an advantage, sometimes reducing exposure or improving how a case is positioned.

The second is putting your head in the sand. Ignoring a matter does not slow it down; it lets the government build quietly while your options shrink. If either describes where you are right now, talk to us before you do anything else.

The collateral consequences a conviction can carry

A wire fraud conviction — or even certain pleas — can reach far beyond a prison term.

• Asset forfeiture: The government can move to seize money, accounts, and property it claims are traceable to the alleged fraud, sometimes before trial through orders that freeze what you need to live and to defend yourself.
• Immigration consequences: Fraud offenses can be treated as crimes involving moral turpitude or aggravated felonies, exposing non-citizens to removal, and your lawyer must advise you of these effects before you plead.
• Professional licensing loss: Attorneys, accountants, financial advisers, and other licensed professionals can lose the credentials their livelihood depends on.

None of these outcomes is automatic — how early and how well a case is defended can change every one of them.

How we defend federal wire fraud cases

The strongest wire fraud defense often starts before charges are filed, while the government is still deciding whether to charge. Our approach centers on a few concrete strategies:

• Investigation-stage intervention: We manage every contact with agents and prosecutors so you don’t hand the government its case, and present your side while the charging decision is still open.
• Testing the evidence: We move to suppress unlawfully obtained records and bring Daubert challenges to unreliable expert testimony.
• Negotiation from strength: We negotiate from a prepared, trial-ready position, not from fear. Prosecutors treat a defense that is genuinely ready for trial differently.
• Trial: When the government won’t offer a fair resolution, we try cases. Founding partner Trey Keith has 20-plus years of defending the accused and many “Not Guilty” verdicts.
• Sentencing mitigation: We litigate the loss math, acceptance of responsibility, your role in the offense, and every § 3553(a) factor that lowers exposure.

Before a subpoena arrives: proactive and pre-charge 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 billing and financial practices before a small issue becomes catastrophic — the same instinct that makes the government’s data-driven approach so effective: get to the problem first.

When a concern surfaces, our process runs in stages:

• 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, on your side of the line.
• Controlled engagement with agencies when needed — DOJ, the FBI, IRS-CI, HHS-OIG, or the U.S. Attorney’s Office — so contact happens on terms we shape.

We conduct these reviews for companies, family offices, and financial institutions. Start a confidential conversation before there is anything to react to.

Why choose Keith & Lorfing for your wire fraud case

Federal fraud defense rewards experience on both sides of the courtroom.

• 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, and an authority on electronic evidence and its admissibility — exactly the terrain a wire fraud case is fought on. In 2024 he was named Co-Chair of the Federal Criminal Defense Committee for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and 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, a retired federal judge, and former general counsel to large family offices — so we have seen these problems from every side.
• Admitted where your case lives. Russell Lorfing is admitted before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit, and the Northern, Southern, and Western Districts of Texas.

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

Federal cases move quietly but constantly, so by the time a matter feels real it is usually further along than you think. Here is the general path a federal wire fraud case follows:

• Investigation: The FBI, Postal Inspection Service, or IRS-CI gathers records and interviews witnesses, often for months. Target letters and grand jury subpoenas surface here.
• Charging: The government brings charges by indictment or information, often stacking wire fraud with conspiracy or money laundering.
• Initial appearance: You appear before a magistrate judge, who decides on release or detention.
• Pretrial: Both sides exchange discovery, and the defense files motions to suppress evidence or dismiss counts.
• Resolution: The case ends in a negotiated plea or a trial before a district judge.
• Sentencing: After a conviction, the court sets a sentence guided by the advisory Guidelines, where the loss fight often decides the outcome.

Having someone who has walked that path from the prosecution side changes what’s possible. You can contact our firm at any stage, the earlier the better. If your matter is in the Houston area, our Houston wire fraud defense page covers that court.

Talk to a wire fraud defense team before the government decides for you

A federal fraud investigation is frightening, but you are not out of options. The sooner a former prosecutor reviews your situation, the more room there is to change where it goes.

Keith & Lorfing defends federal wire fraud cases in Texas and in federal courts across the country. We’ll listen, tell you honestly what you’re facing, and start building a defense.

Schedule a confidential consultation with our federal defense team.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between wire fraud and mail fraud?
They’re the same kind of scheme charged under different statutes. Wire fraud (§ 1343) involves electronic communications and generally requires an interstate wire; mail fraud (§ 1341) involves the postal service or a private carrier and does not require anything to cross state lines.

Does the wire communication itself have to be false?
No. This surprises people. The wire only has to be used in furtherance of the scheme — even a truthful, routine email can satisfy the element if it helped move the plan along.

I only received a target letter — do I already need a lawyer?
Yes, and it may be the most important moment to have one. A target letter means the government believes you may be charged, and early representation can shape or even prevent that decision.

How much prison time does wire fraud carry?
Wire fraud is a felony that can carry a significant term, and more when a financial institution is involved. But your real exposure is driven by the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and the alleged loss amount, not just the statutory maximum.

Is good faith really a defense to wire fraud?
Yes. If you honestly believed your statements were true or otherwise acted in good faith, you lacked the intent to defraud the statute requires. Good faith is a complete defense.

Does moving money between my accounts count as “sophisticated means”?
Not automatically. Prosecutors reach for that enhancement more freely than the name suggests — even routine transfers between a main account and a separate entity can draw it — but where the accounts were real and the transactions were simple and repetitive, we fight to keep the enhancement off your offense level.