Wire fraud is a serious federal crime that carries significant penalties in the event of a conviction. If investigators have accused you of committing wire fraud, you may wonder how to defend against these charges. Depending on the circumstances of your case, you may have avenues to contest the prosecution’s case and obtain a favorable outcome, whether that involves a reduction or dismissal of your charges or an acquittal at trial. Let the wire fraud defense lawyers at Keith Oliver Criminal Law advocate for your rights and interests. Contact us today to discuss your situation.
Understanding Wire Fraud
After an arrest on wire fraud charges, you may wonder, “What is wire fraud?” Under the federal wire fraud statute, wire fraud involves devising or intending to devise a scheme to obtain money or property through fraudulent means using wire, radio, or television communication.
What is the wire fraud penalty? Federal law does not impose a wire fraud minimum sentence. Instead, the statute sets the maximum prison sentence at 20 years plus a potential fine, or 30 years in prison plus a potential fine of up to $1 million if the offense occurred in connection with a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency. Federal courts can impose other penalties following a conviction, such as an obligation to pay restitution to victims.
Key Legal Defenses
Some of the most common legal defenses an attorney might raise against wire fraud charges include:
Lack of Intent to Commit Fraud
The wire fraud statute requires the government to prove that a defendant used telecommunications technology with the intent to further a scheme designed to defraud others of money or property. A defendant might fight a wire fraud charge by arguing that they had no intent to defraud anyone but instead pursued honest business transactions, even though those transactions ultimately caused alleged victims to suffer losses.
However, the government can meet the intent element of the wire fraud statute by proving that a defendant engaged in reckless indifference. Reckless indifference involves a defendant consciously disregarding the potential falsity of their statements. For example, suppose a defendant communicated a claim about a potential transaction but had no information to support the veracity of that claim. In that case, a jury may find the defendant recklessly indifferent to the truth.
Entrapment
An entrapment defense argues that government agents devised the scheme underlying the wire fraud charges and induced an innocent defendant to form a disposition to commit a criminal act. Entrapment defenses require defendants to show that the government induced them to commit the crime and that they lacked any predisposition to engage in criminal conduct. However, the government may use deceit or pretense to induce someone already predisposed to commit a crime to engage in criminal conduct. Government inducement requires coercion, pleas based on need, sympathy, friendship, or extraordinary promises that would overbear a law-abiding citizen’s will to obey the law. A jury or court may find a defendant predisposed to engage in the crime if they were willing to engage in criminal conduct and readily availed themselves of the opportunity to commit the charged offense.
Insufficient Evidence
A defendant may move to dismiss wire fraud charges because the government lacks sufficient evidence to establish a case for trial. Defendants may argue that the government lacks sufficient evidence to prove intent, identity, a fraudulent scheme, or the use of telecommunications to further an alleged scene.
A defense strategy focused on the sufficiency of evidence may include filing motions to exclude government evidence that investigators obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights. For example, courts may exclude evidence obtained without a search warrant or probable cause to support an exception to the warrant requirement. Courts may also exclude evidence obtained through interrogations of the defendant if law enforcement officials coerced inculpatory statements, failed to advise the defendant of their rights before questioning, or denied them their right to legal counsel.
Good Faith
A defendant facing a wire fraud charge may raise a good faith defense. A defendant may act in good faith when they make a mistake of fact in a communication underlying the wire fraud charge. For example, if a defendant communicated false information but had a good faith belief in its accuracy, the defendant can show a lack of intent to defraud.
Defendants may show a lack of intent through good faith when the underlying communications involve “puffery.” Puffery refers to exaggerated or opinionated statements used to induce sales. For example, statements touting a product as “the best on the market” fall into the category of puffery since reasonable people would understand the claim as marketing hyperbole rather than factual.
Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations for criminal prosecution for wire fraud requires the government to file charges within five years of any offense committed in furtherance of the scheme, even if the scheme started more than five years ago. The deadline extends to 10 years for wire fraud schemes that affect a financial institution.
Choosing the Right Defense Attorney
The federal government has substantial resources to secure convictions in wire fraud cases. Choosing the right wire fraud defense lawyers can mean the difference between freedom and a lengthy prison sentence for a wire fraud conviction. For years, clients have turned to Keith Oliver Criminal Law to help them resolve wire fraud charges because:
- We focus exclusively on criminal defense rather than dividing our attention with other cases
- Our attorneys have long-standing working relationships with prosecutors and court staff in counties across New Jersey
- Our firm has the experience and resources to investigate your case thoroughly and develop the most effective defense strategy
- We have a proven track record in criminal cases, including some of the most complex federal prosecutions
Contact Our Wire Fraud Defense Lawyers for Help
Following an arrest for wire fraud, you need experienced legal representation from a federal wire fraud defense firm to protect your rights, reputation, and future. Contact Keith Oliver Criminal Law today for a free, confidential consultation with a wire fraud attorney to discuss your options for facing your charge and pursuing a favorable resolution to your case.