Free Consultations & We're Available 24/7
WE'RE A BOUTIQUE LAW FIRM.
TRUST 50 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
WE SERVICE CLIENTS NATIONWIDE.
You searched for this because you want to know the worst case scenario. Thirty years. That’s the number that shows up everywhere. Thirty years in federal prison for bank fraud. Twenty years for wire fraud. The numbers stack on top of each other until you’re looking at theoretical exposure measured in centuries. But here’s what nobody on those other legal websites will tell you: the 30-year maximum has almost nothing to do with what you’ll actually serve.
Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal is to give you real information about PPP and EIDL fraud sentencing – not the scary maximums designed to terrify you into making bad decisions. The gap between the statutory maximum and what defendants actually receive is enormous. And that gap isn’t an accident. It’s a feature of the system that prosecutors exploit every single day. They use the terrifying statutory number to force plea deals before you realize your actual exposure might be 18-36 months instead of 30 years. The maximum isn’t about punishment. It’s about leverage.
That’s the reality nobody explains until you’re already sitting across from a federal prosecutor who’s dangling those decades in front of you like a threat. By then, the psychology has already done its work. You’re not thinking about guidelines. You’re not thinking about offense levels. You’re thinking about missing your children’s entire lives.
Lets start with the statutory maximums because thats what everyone searches for. Bank fraud under 18 USC 1344 carries up to 30 years and a $1 million fine. Wire fraud under 18 USC 1343 carries 20 years – or 30 years if the fraud “affects a financial institution.” Making false statements to the SBA or a bank carries 30 years. Money laundering adds another 20 years per transaction. Aggrevated identity theft adds 2 mandatory consecutive years per count.
Add these up and you get theoretical exposure in the hundreds of years. A defendant who submitted three fraudulent PPP applications and spent the money could theoreticaly face 200+ years. The math is absurd on its face. Nobody serves 200 years. Nobody even serves 50 years for PPP fraud. The longest sentences weve seen are in the 15-year range, and those involve schemes worth tens of millions of dollars.
So why do prosecutors charge cases in ways that create these astronomical theoretical maximums? Becuase the number on the indictment isnt about prediction. Its about pressure. When your staring at 150 years of theoretical exposure, suddenly the prosecutors “generous” plea offer of 5 years looks like a gift from heaven. You take the deal. You dont fight. You dont make them prove every element of every charge at trial. The statutory maximum worked exactly as designed – it scared you into submission.
Heres the thing that experienced federal defense attorneys understand. The sentencing guidelines – not the statutory maximums – determine what defendants actualy serve. And those guidelines produce much lower numbers then the terrifying maximums suggest. A typical $100,000 PPP fraud with no criminal history might result in a guideline range of 21-27 months. Thats a far cry from 30 years.
The gap between statutory maximum and guideline range is the most powerful psychological weapon prosecutors have.
The federal sentencing guidelines under USSG 2B1.1 govern fraud cases. Understanding how they work is essential to understanding what your actualy facing – as opposed to what the indictment threatens.
Every fraud case starts with a base offense level. For most PPP and EIDL cases, thats level 6 or 7. From there, the court adds levels based on specific factors. The most important factor is loss amount. The guidelines have a detailed schedule that adds levels based on how much money was involved.
Todd Spodek explains this to every client who walks through the door: the loss amount calculation is were cases are won or lost. Fraud under $6,500 adds nothing to the base level. Between $6,500 and $15,000 adds 2 levels. Between $15,000 and $40,000 adds 4 levels. It escalates from there in increasingly large jumps.
Heres the chart that matters:
Each level increase translates to more months in prison. The difference between $94,000 and $96,000 is one level – which might mean 6 additional months. These arent arbitrary distinctions. Their the mechanics that actualy determine sentancing.
Once you calculate the total offense level and combine it with criminal history category, you get a guideline range. For a first-time offender with a total offense level of 15, the range is 18-24 months. For level 17, its 24-30 months. For level 21, its 37-46 months. These are the real numbers that drive actual sentences – not the 30-year statutory maximum.
Now heres were things get complicated – and were most defendants get blindsided. The loss amount in the guidelines isnt just what you recieved. Its the greater of actual loss or intended loss. This distinction destroys people who dont see it comming.
If you submitted three PPP applications for $30,000 each but only one was approved and funded, you might think your loss amount is $30,000. Wrong. The government will argue your intended loss was $90,000 – the total of all three applications. Even denied applications count against you if prosecutors can prove you intended to recieve the money.
At Spodek Law Group, weve seen this play out countless times. Client comes in thinking there exposure is limited to what they actualy recieved. Then we explain that the applications they submitted – even the ones that got rejected – all count toward their loss calculation. Thats not what they expected. Thats not what anyone expects. But thats how the guidelines work.
It gets worse. The government can add administrative costs to your loss amount. The time and money the SBA spent processing your fraudulent application? That can be included. The investigative costs? Potentially included. Some judges have even allowed the inclusion of costs for applications that were denied – the theory being that processing fraudulent applications diverted resources from legitimate ones.
The aggregation rule is particulary brutal for people who submitted multiple applications. Each application gets added together. If you applied to three different lenders for the same “business,” all three amounts combine. If you submitted applications for multiple businesses – even if some were legitimate – prosecutors will try to lump them together.
Think about what this means for someone who got greedy and submitted five applications through different lenders. Even if only two were funded totaling $80,000, the intended loss from all five might push them into the $150,000-$250,000 bracket. Thats the difference between adding 8 levels and adding 10 levels. In practical terms, it could mean 12-18 additional months in prison.
Beyond loss amount, several enhancements can push your sentence higher. These are the details that seperate 24-month sentences from 60-month sentences.
Sophisticated means enhancement (+2 levels): This applies when the fraud involved elaborate concealment, fake businesses, shell companies, or forged documents. Heres the uncomfortable truth – almost every PPP fraud case qualifies for this enhancement. Did you create fake payroll records? Sophisticated means. Did you use fabricated tax documents? Sophisticated means. Did you forge bank statements? Sophisticated means. The enhancement that sounds like it should be reserved for masterminds actualy applies to anyone who did more then fill out a basic application.
Leadership role enhancement (+2 to +4 levels): If you organized, led, or managed criminal activity involving five or more participants, add 4 levels. If you recruited even one other person to submit a fraudulent application, you might get 2 levels. This enhancement punishes people who brought others into the scheme – even if those others were willing participants who knew exactly what they were doing.
Abuse of position of trust (+2 levels): This applies to bank employees, CPAs who certified false information, and others who used their professional positions to facilitate fraud. A bank manager who approved fraudulent applications gets this enhancement. An accountant who prepared fake financial statements gets this enhancement.
More than 10 victims (+2 levels): For cases involving numerous victims. In PPP fraud, the “victim” is typically the SBA or the lender – but if identity theft is involved, each person whose information was used counts seperately.
Obstruction of justice (+2 levels): Lying to investigators. Destroying evidence. Encouraging witnesses to lie. These all trigger obstruction enhancements that stack on top of everything else.
The stacking effect is cumulative. A defendant with sophisticated means (+2), leadership role (+2), and obstruction (+2) adds 6 levels to their base calculation. Those 6 levels could mean the difference between 24 months and 48 months – or between probation and prison.
Aggravated identity theft (+2 years mandatory consecutive): This is the enhancement that terrifies defense attorneys. If you used someone elses identity information – a Social Security number, an employee’s personal details, anyone elses identifying documents – you face a mandatory 2-year consecutive sentence. Mandatory means the judge has no discretion. Consecutive means it stacks on top of everything else. If you used three peoples identity information, thats potentially 6 years added before you even get to the fraud sentence. This enhancement has destroyed plea negotiations in countless cases because prosecutors use it as leverage to extract guilty pleas.
Theory is one thing. Lets look at what defendants actualy recieved in real PPP and EIDL fraud prosecutions.
Stephanie Hockridge, also known as Stephanie Reis, was the co-founder of Blueacorn – a lender service provider that processed PPP applications. She was sentanced to 10 years in federal prison for participating in a scheme to fraudulently obtain over $63 million in PPP loans. She was also ordered to pay over $63 million in restitution. This is one of the longest sentences in any PPP fraud case – but note that the fraud involved $63 million and she was a leader who enabled thousands of fraudulent applications.
Amir Aqeel of Houston recieved 15 years for leading a $20 million COVID-19 relief fraud ring. According to court documents, he conspired with at least 14 other individuals to submit 75 fraudulent PPP loan applications. He was also ordered to forfeit $5.5 million. Again – this was a major conspiracy leader, not someone who submitted one or two applications.
Robert Williams of St. Louis was sentanced to 125 months – just over 10 years – for bank fraud related to PPP loans. He submitted approximately 30 different PPP loan applications containing materially false statements, resulting in a loss of approximately $2.7 million.
A former bank manager was sentanced to 65 months for organizing a conspiracy involving at least 38 fraudulent PPP loans totaling approximately $5 million.
At Spodek Law Group, weve analyzed dozens of these cases. The pattern is clear: the longest sentences go to organizers of large conspiracies, not individual applicants. Someone who submitted one fraudulent application for $100,000 is looking at a completley different sentencing range then someone who organized 30 applications totaling millions.
For smaller frauds, the sentences are correspondingly smaller. A Cincinnati defendant recieved 18 months for a $21,000 PPP loan fraud in March 2025. Thats still prison time – but its a far cry from the 30-year statutory maximum. Richard Nieto recieved 46 months for fraudulently obtaining $913,000 in PPP loans. The math works out to roughly 5 months per $100,000 in that case – though individual factors always vary.
Heres the insight that matters: the defendants who recieve the longest sentences are invariably organizers, not participants. The person who recruited others. The person who processed multiple fraudulent applications for a fee. The bank employee who approved applications they knew were fake. If you were a one-time applicant who submitted a single fraudulent application, your looking at a fundamentally different sentencing range then the people making headlines with 10-15 year sentences.
Defendants sentenced in 2024-2025 are recieving prison terms 40% longer on average then defendants sentanced in 2021-2022 for identical conduct.
The crimes havent changed. The guidelines havent changed. What changed is judicial attitude.
Early in the pandemic, some federal judges showed leniancy. These were extraordinary times. The government was handing out money chaotically. The rules were confusing. Some judges sympathized with defendants who made bad decisions during an unprecidented crisis.
Those days are over.
Federal judges in 2025 include prison time in nearly every PPP and EIDL fraud sentencing – regardless of the amount involved. The era of probation for pandemic fraud is essentially finished. Even amounts that might have gotten probation in 2021 – $50,000, $75,000 – now result in prison sentences.
Several factors drove this shift. First, the sheer volume of PPP fraud cases has overwhelmed the system. Judges are seeing the same schemes over and over – fake employees, inflated payroll, shell companies – and their patience has worn thin. Second, theres been massive public attention to pandemic fraud. Judges read the news. They know voters are angry about people who stole relief money during a national emergency. Third, the Department of Justice made pandemic fraud a top priority. That pressure flows down to individual prosecutors who push for harsh sentences.
The median time from investigation to indictment has also compressed from 8-12 months to 4-6 months. Prosecutors are moving faster. And when they get to sentencing, theyre asking for above-guideline sentences more often. Judges are granting those requests.
If your case is heading toward sentancing in 2025 or 2026, you need to understand this reality. The same conduct that got someone probation in 2021 could get you 24-36 months today. The attitude shift is real, and its not going away.
By now you understand the landscape. The 30-year statutory maximum is a scare tactic. The guidelines produce much lower numbers. But those numbers are still significant – and theyre getting worse as judicial attitudes harden.
Heres what this means for your defense:
Get involved before charges are filed. The charging decision – which statutes to invoke, how many counts to stack – happens before you ever see an indictment. A skilled defense attorney can sometimes influence those decisions. Once the indictment is filed, the leverage equation is locked.
Fight the loss calculation. If prosecutors are claiming intended loss for denied applications, challenge that. If theyre aggregating unrelated applications, challenge that. If theyre adding administrative costs that seem inflated, challenge that. The loss amount drives the offense level, and the offense level drives the sentence.
Document everything that might reduce your offense level. Did you return money voluntarily? Thats a reduction. Did you accept responsibility early? Thats a reduction. Did you cooperate with investigators in good faith? Thats potentially a motion from the government for a downward departure.
Build mitigation evidence now. Character letters. Employment history. Community involvement. Family circumstances. Mental health issues. Financial desperation that doesnt excuse the conduct but helps explain it. This evidence matters at sentancing – but only if you start gathering it early.
Understand the plea bargaining reality. Most federal cases end in guilty pleas. The question is what terms you can negotiate. Charge bargaining – getting prosecutors to drop some counts in exchange for a plea to others – is standard practice. Understanding which charges carry mandatory minimums and which dont is essential.
Know the 10-year statute of limitations. Congress extended the limitations period for pandemic fraud to 10 years. That means they have until 2030 to charge fraud from 2020, until 2032 to charge fraud from 2022. If your thinking the government forgot about you becuase a few years have passed – their not. They have the time and the resources to keep building cases. The extended timeline is specifically designed to catch people who think their in the clear.
Todd Spodek always tells clients the same thing: dont wait until charges are filed to get your defense in order. The investigation phase – before any indictment – is when you have the most options. Once charges are filed, the leverage shifts dramatically toward the prosecution. Every day you wait is a day you could have been building your defense.
Spodek Law Group has handled hundreds of federal fraud cases. We understand how prosecutors charge, how guidelines apply, and how judges sentence in 2024-2025. We’ve seen clients facing 20-count indictments end up with probation. We’ve also seen clients who panicked and took terrible deals when they should have fought.
Call us at 212-300-5196 before you talk to anyone else. The consultation is free. The mistake of waiting isnt.
The 30-year maximum is designed to scare you. The guidelines tell a different story. But navigating between those two realities requires understanding how the system actually works – and having an attorney who can exploit every gap between the terrifying number and the real one.
Very diligent, organized associates; got my case dismissed. Hard working attorneys who can put up with your anxiousness. I was accused of robbing a gemstone dealer. Definitely A law group that lays out all possible options and best alternative routes. Recommended for sure.
- ROBIN, GUN CHARGES ROBIN
NJ CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS