Visit Website →
← Back to blog

Facing Federal Wire Fraud After Kousisis? First Steps If Contacted

September 28, 2026
Facing Federal Wire Fraud After Kousisis? First Steps If Contacted

Federal wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 makes it a crime to use interstate wires, phone calls, emails, or electronic transfers to carry out a scheme to defraud someone of money or property. In May 2025, the Supreme Court's decision in Kousisis v. United States confirmed that prosecutors do not need to prove the victim suffered a net financial loss, only that the defendant schemed to obtain money or property through deception. Convictions carry up to 20 years in federal prison, with penalties rising sharply in certain circumstances, so anyone contacted by federal agents about a wire fraud matter should talk to defense counsel before saying anything further.

TL;DR:

  • Prosecutors only need to prove the defendant intended to obtain money or property through deception, not that the victim suffered a net financial loss.
  • The content of the scheme must involve a material misrepresentation or omission that would influence a reasonable person’s decision, focusing on deception rather than actual loss.
  • A wire communication used in the scheme can be interstate or foreign, and prosecutors do not need to show the defendant personally dialed the wire; foreseeability suffices.
  • Penalties can reach up to 20 years in prison and fines of $250,000 for individuals, with enhancements to 30 years and higher fines if a financial institution or disaster is involved.
  • Early legal action, record preservation, and avoiding discussions with investigators are crucial steps to protect against federal wire fraud charges.
Logancriminaldefense
Protect Your Position Early
Logan Noblin provides strategic criminal defense for serious charges, including complex matters requiring experienced legal representation.
Visit Logancriminaldefense

Table of Contents

Statute and elements: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 explained

The wire fraud statute is short, but its reach is broad. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 criminalizes using interstate or foreign wire communications, including phone calls, text messages, emails, and electronic payments, to carry out a scheme to defraud someone of money or property through false pretenses. Federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit's model jury instructions, break the offense into elements a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • A scheme to defraud: the defendant knowingly devised or participated in a plan to deceive.
  • Materiality: the misrepresentation or omission had to matter to the decision the victim made.
  • Intent: the defendant acted with the purpose of obtaining money or property, not by accident or negligence.
  • Use of a wire: an interstate or foreign wire communication carried out an essential step of the scheme.

Materiality is not a throwaway requirement. Courts ask whether a reasonable person would consider the false statement important, and the Legal Information Institute notes the government must show the pretense was both false and material to the transaction. The "money or property" element has also narrowed in recent years: the Supreme Court's earlier decisions in Ciminelli and Kelly made clear that intangible regulatory interests or the right to make informed decisions do not count as property for wire fraud purposes.

The jurisdictional hook, meanwhile, is easy to satisfy. Prosecutors do not need to prove the defendant personally dialed a number across state lines. It is enough that the wire use was a foreseeable, ordinary part of how the transaction would unfold, such as a bank routing a payment through an out-of-state server.

Kousisis v. United States (2025): holding, reasoning, and defense implications

The case involved a Pennsylvania contractor accused of misrepresenting its use of a disadvantaged business enterprise subcontractor to win state highway contracts, a pass-through arrangement where the named subcontractor did little of the actual work. The government never claimed the state overpaid for the construction itself. The defense argued that without proof of net financial loss, there was no fraud.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the Court, the justices held that the wire fraud statute targets the scheme to obtain money or property by deception, not whether the victim ended up worse off financially.

  • The Court rejected any requirement that prosecutors prove economic loss to the victim.
  • Fraudulent-inducement theory survives: getting someone to hand over money or a contract through material lies is enough, even if the work delivered had comparable value.
  • The ruling leaves intact the property-object limits from Ciminelli and Kelly. A scheme still has to target actual money or property, not a regulatory benefit or abstract right.

One of the most consequential shifts from this ruling is that defense arguments built solely on "no one lost money" no longer carry the weight they once did. The Court's fraudulent-inducement analysis means the fight increasingly centers on whether the misrepresentation was material and whether the object of the scheme was genuinely money or property, not on the victim's bottom line.

Common fact patterns: how wire fraud shows up in real cases

Wire fraud charges surface in a wide variety of conduct, and the statute's breadth is part of why prosecutors reach for it so often.

  1. Phishing and online scams: fake emails or texts trick victims into wiring money or sharing account credentials, with the wire transfer itself satisfying the jurisdictional element.
  2. Healthcare billing fraud: providers submit false claims to Medicare or Medicaid using electronic billing systems, turning routine claim submissions into wire transmissions.
  3. Procurement and subcontracting fraud: contractors misrepresent their use of disadvantaged business enterprise subcontractors to win government contracts, the exact pattern at issue in Kousisis.
  4. Mortgage and loan fraud: applicants falsify income or asset information submitted electronically to lenders.
  5. Relief-fund fraud: false applications for pandemic-era relief programs transmitted through online portals.

Penalties escalate when a scheme touches a federally insured financial institution or exploits a presidentially declared disaster, both of which raise the statutory ceiling well beyond the standard maximum.

Penalties and sentencing: statutory maxima, guidelines, loss, and restitution

Wire fraud is a felony with serious exposure, and the numbers get worse quickly once aggravating factors apply.

  • Standard maximum: up to 20 years in federal prison and fines up to $250,000 per count for individuals.
  • Enhanced maximum: up to 30 years and fines up to $1,000,000 when the scheme affects a financial institution or involves a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency.
  • Organizational fines: entities face fines up to $500,000 under the standard provision.
  • Multiple counts: each wire transmission can support a separate count, so a scheme built on dozens of emails or transfers can multiply exposure far beyond a single 20-year cap.

A single wire fraud indictment often includes multiple counts, one for each qualifying transmission tied to the scheme, which is why the statutory penalty structure matters as much as the underlying conduct itself.

Sentencing within that statutory range is governed by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, primarily section 2B1.1, which calculates a base offense level and adjusts it upward for the amount of loss, whether actual or intended, and for aggravating roles like organizing or leading the scheme. The U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2025 reader-friendly amendments address how adjustments apply to a substantially less culpable participant, which can meaningfully reduce exposure for someone who played a limited or peripheral role.

Guideline loss and restitution are calculated differently and often produce different dollar figures. Loss for sentencing purposes uses the greater of actual or intended loss, while restitution is tied more narrowly to the victim's actual, provable harm and is enforced separately from the prison sentence itself.

Penalties and sentencing: statutory maxima, guidelines, loss, and restitution — overview diagram

How federal investigations and prosecutions work

Wire fraud cases typically start long before an indictment, often with the FBI or another federal agency quietly building a paper trail.

  • Investigating agencies: the FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and agency inspectors general commonly lead wire fraud investigations, frequently referred by banks, employers, or regulators.
  • Investigative tools: subpoenas for bank and email records, search warrants for devices, and grand jury subpoenas compel production of financial and digital evidence.
  • Grand jury process: prosecutors present evidence to a grand jury, which decides whether probable cause supports an indictment, a process that can run for months before charges are filed.
  • Discovery and plea stages: once charged, the defense receives discovery material and negotiations over a plea often begin well before trial, shaping the eventual sentencing exposure.

A subpoena for records or a request for a voluntary interview is often the first visible sign of a federal investigation, and it usually means the case is already well underway.

Defenses and mitigation strategies in practice

No two wire fraud cases look identical, but several defense theories recur because they attack the elements prosecutors must prove.

  • Lack of intent: showing the defendant believed the statements were true or did not intend to deceive undercuts the mental state element.
  • No scheme existed: isolated errors or a single misstatement, without a coordinated plan, may fall short of a "scheme to defraud."
  • Immateriality: if the alleged misrepresentation would not have influenced a reasonable person's decision, the materiality element fails.
  • Limited role: a defendant who played a minor, non-decision-making part in a larger scheme can argue for reduced culpability at both the charging and sentencing stages.
  • Reliance on professional advice: acting on an accountant's or lawyer's guidance can undercut claims of fraudulent intent.

The DOJ Criminal Resource Manual makes clear that prosecutors do not have to prove every alleged misrepresentation in an indictment, only that a scheme existed and the defendant knowingly participated in it. That standard puts pressure on defense counsel to attack the scheme's existence or the defendant's knowledge early, before a grand jury even votes.

Pro Tip: Build your mitigation record before sentencing, not after: contemporaneous emails, timesheets, or communications showing a limited role are far more persuasive than after-the-fact explanations.

Skilled counsel often works to shape the government's view of the facts before charges are filed, developing a narrative around limited involvement or good-faith conduct that can lead to a declined prosecution, a lesser charge, or a favorable plea.

If you're under investigation or charged: immediate, prioritized next steps

What you do in the first days after learning about a federal investigation shapes everything that follows.

  1. Stop discussing the matter, whether with colleagues, on social media, or with investigators, until you have counsel.
  2. Preserve every relevant record, including emails, text messages, payment logs, and financial statements, rather than deleting or altering anything.
  3. Document how records were stored and accessed so a clear chain of custody exists if those records become evidence.
  4. Hire federal defense counsel promptly, since early involvement often shapes whether a case even reaches indictment.
  5. Bring existing records to your first consultation, including any subpoena, letter, or communication from investigators, so counsel can assess the government's posture quickly.

Pro Tip: Never agree to a proffer session or informal interview with federal agents without an attorney present. What you say in those early conversations can be used against you even if no deal results.

Author perspective: the firm's practical approach to federal fraud defense

Federal wire fraud cases are won or lost long before trial, in how the facts get framed to a prosecutor or a jury. My approach has always been to build a client's story early: who they are, what they actually knew, and where the government's theory stretches beyond the evidence. That groundwork, combined with genuine trial readiness, is what moves cases toward dismissal or a resolution a client can live with, rather than the outcome the indictment assumes is inevitable.

— Logan Noblin

How the Law Office of Logan Noblin can help with federal wire-fraud matters

Federal wire fraud charges move fast, and the choices you make in the first weeks, before or right after an indictment, often decide the outcome more than anything that happens at trial. The Law Office of Logan Noblin represents clients in San Diego facing federal felony charges, and that experience applies directly to wire fraud allegations built on the same statutory framework discussed above.

Logancriminaldefense

  • Federal & Border Defense: representation for federal felony charges, including wire fraud, from the investigation stage through trial.
  • Pre-charge intervention: working to shape the government's view of the facts before an indictment is even sought.
  • Sentencing advocacy: building the mitigation record, cooperation posture, and role arguments that affect guideline calculations.

If you have received a subpoena, a target letter, or a visit from federal agents, bring what you have to a consultation before responding to anyone else. Visit the Federal & Border Defense page to learn more about how the firm handles these cases, or reach out through Logancriminaldefense to schedule a consultation.

This article is general information, not a substitute for advice from a qualified lawyer. Consult a qualified legal professional about your own circumstances before acting on anything here.

Sources

FAQ

Can you get your money back from wire transfer fraud?

Recovery depends on how quickly the transfer is reported and whether the receiving bank can freeze the funds before they are withdrawn. A criminal conviction can also lead to a court-ordered restitution award, though collecting on it depends on the defendant's actual assets and ability to pay.

Is wire fraud a state or federal crime?

Wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 is a federal crime prosecuted in federal court, since it requires use of interstate or foreign wire communications. Related conduct can sometimes also violate state fraud laws, but the federal statute is the one driving most wire fraud prosecutions.

What is the most common type of wire fraud?

Phishing and online scams that trick victims into wiring money or sharing financial information are among the most frequently prosecuted patterns, alongside healthcare billing fraud and procurement schemes. The DOJ's guidance on investigative authority notes that these categories, along with identity theft and telemarketing fraud, make up a large share of referred cases.

What evidence is needed to prove wire fraud?

Prosecutors must show a scheme to defraud, a material false statement or omission, intent to obtain money or property, and use of an interstate wire to carry out the scheme. Under Kousisis, they do not need to prove the victim suffered a net financial loss, only that the defendant sought to obtain money or property through deception.