NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FEDERAL LAWYERS
How do you fight mail fraud charges?
|Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group. We’re a second-generation law firm managed by Todd Spodek, and we’ve got over 40 years of combined experience defending federal criminal cases. We’ve handled cases that made national headlines – the Anna Delvey Netflix series, the Ghislaine Maxwell juror misconduct case, defending against allegations involving Alec Baldwin. If you’re facing mail fraud charges, you need aggressive defense from lawyers who understand how federal prosecutors build these cases.
Mail fraud sounds almost quaint – like something from decades ago involving fake sweepstakes or chain letters. It’s not. Mail fraud prosecutions in 2025 are serious federal crimes carrying up to 20 years in prison, and under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, that penalty jumps to 30 years if the fraud involves a financial institution or relates to a presidentially declared disaster. The government doesn’t need to prove anyone actually lost money – just that you had a scheme and used the mail to further it, even incidentally.
Fighting these charges requires understanding what prosecutors must prove and where their case is weakest. This article covers the defense strategies that actually work in federal court – not abstract legal theory, but the approaches we use when defending clients against mail fraud allegations.
Challenge Intent to Defraud
The government’s biggest burden is proving you intended to defraud someone – that you deliberately set out to deprive someone of money through deception. This is where most mail fraud cases survive or collapse.
According to DOJ policy, good faith is a complete defense to mail fraud. If you genuinely believed your statements were true when you made them, there’s no criminal intent. Even if you were wrong. Even if people lost money. Prosecutors hate good faith defenses because they force the government to prove what you were thinking – your state of mind – when you made representations.
You believed the investment would pay returns, the product would work as described, the business model was sound. Those beliefs – if genuine – mean you weren’t trying to defraud anyone. Failure isn’t fraud. Optimism isn’t fraud. Bad business judgment isn’t fraud.
Prosecutors need evidence showing you knew representations were false when you made them: emails admitting the scheme won’t work, records proving you knew claims were bogus, witnesses who heard you discussing fraud. Without smoking gun evidence, the government’s case is speculation about your mental state.
Attack the Scheme Element
Prosecutors love charging mail fraud because the statute is broad – any scheme to defraud using the mail qualifies. But there still has to be a scheme – a coherent plan to defraud someone of money or property. Not every failed business deal is a scheme. Not every exaggerated sales pitch is fraud.
The scheme must involve material misstatements you made knowingly. Material means it mattered to someone’s decision – would they have invested or purchased if they knew the truth? If your alleged misrepresentation didn’t affect decisions, it’s not material.
Challenge whether what prosecutors call a “scheme” was actually ordinary business practices, aggressive marketing, or honest projections. Federal courts have held that statements about future intent – “this investment will pay returns” – aren’t fraudulent unless you had no intention of following through when you made them. Puffery, optimistic projections, negligent planning don’t amount to criminal schemes.
Question the Mailing Element
The government must prove you used or caused someone to use U.S. mail in furtherance of the fraud scheme. Each separate mailing is a separate count – prosecutors stack charges turning 10 mailings into 10 counts, potential decades in prison for one alleged fraud.
Defense lawyers challenge whether mailings actually furthered the scheme. Was it necessary to execute the fraud, or just incidental business correspondence after the alleged fraud occurred? If the scheme was complete before the mailing, the mail didn’t further anything.
Prosecutors get sloppy stacking mail fraud counts, charging every piece of mail remotely connected to a business deal as fraud – routine correspondence, mailings by third parties you didn’t control. Each count needs to meet the furtherance requirement independently. Challenge the ones that don’t.
Challenge the Evidence
Prosecutors dump thousands of pages of documents – emails, financial records, witness statements – and call it proof of fraud. But volume isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense lawyers challenge whether evidence actually proves each element: Was there really a scheme? Did the defendant know statements were false? Was the mailing in furtherance?
Prosecutors piece together fraud narratives from legitimate business communications taken out of context. An email discussing projections becomes “proof” you knew the business would fail. A marketing strategy conversation becomes evidence of intent to deceive. Defense attorneys recontextualize evidence, showing the full picture instead of cherry-picked excerpts.
Constitutional Violations
Federal agents investigating fraud push constitutional boundaries – obtaining emails without proper warrants, conducting searches exceeding warrant scope, coercing witness statements. If they violated your Fourth Amendment rights, defense lawyers move to suppress that evidence, which can gut the prosecution’s case entirely. Illegally obtained emails proving intent get excluded, improperly seized financial records disappear, the government’s case collapses.
Constitutional challenges must be raised before trial through pretrial motions. Once evidence gets admitted, it’s nearly impossible to challenge on appeal. Defense lawyers review how agents obtained every piece of evidence, looking for Fourth Amendment violations or DOJ guideline failures.
What Prosecutors Must Prove
Mail fraud convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of two elements: you devised a scheme to defraud someone of money or property, and you used the mail to execute that scheme. That’s not “probably guilty” – it’s proof to a near certainty that convinces twelve jurors unanimously. One juror with reasonable doubt means acquittal.
Defense lawyers create doubt about intent, about whether the scheme was really fraud or just business failure, about whether mailings actually furthered any fraud. Every element the government can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt becomes grounds for acquittal.
Early Defense Makes the Difference
Mail fraud investigations start long before arrests. Federal agents interview witnesses, subpoena records, monitor emails – building cases over months or years. By arrest time, prosecutors think they’ve got you. But investigations generate problems: inconsistent witness statements, documentation errors, flawed search warrants. Early defense involvement means identifying problems before prosecutors cement their theory.
If you’re under investigation – agents asking questions, subpoenas going out – lawyers have the most leverage then. We can sometimes prevent indictments by showing prosecutors their evidence doesn’t hold up. We negotiate cooperation if you have information about others. We prepare defenses while memories are fresh.
Once charges are filed, federal court schedules are unforgiving. Defense lawyers need time to review thousands of pages of discovery, interview witnesses, retain experts, file constitutional challenges. The earlier we start, the better prepared we are.
At Spodek Law Group – we’ve defended federal fraud charges for over 40 years combined. We’ve handled cases others said were unwinnable. Mail fraud carries up to 30 years in prison, and the government has unlimited resources. You need defense lawyers with federal court experience who know how prosecutors think and how to dismantle their cases. Federal criminal defense isn’t about hoping for mercy – it’s about systematically challenging evidence, creating reasonable doubt, protecting constitutional rights at every stage. That’s what we do.