Can a Target Letter Be Avoided?

Can a Target Letter Be Avoided? Early Intervention Strategies

The question answers itself. If you are searching for this article, you almost certainly have already received a target letter. That is the uncomfortable truth nobody wants to tell you. People do not search for how to avoid something that has not happened yet. They search after the letter arrives, hoping to find some way to undo what already exists.

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal is to tell you the truth about prevention – even when that truth is uncomfortable. We believe you deserve to understand what actually happened before the letter arrived, why you never saw it coming, and what options remain now that the government has revealed its hand.

Here is what most articles will not say. The target letter is not the beginning of your legal problems. It is the END of an investigation that has been running for 18 to 24 months in a parallel universe you could not see. The question “can I avoid a target letter” is almost always asked after the answer has already become no. But that does not mean your options are gone. It means your options are different than you thought.

The Invisible Timeline Running Behind Your Life

Right now, as your reading this article, federal investigations are running against people who have no idea they exist. These investigations started months or years ago. Evidence has been gathered. Witnesses have been interviewed. Grand juries have heard testimony. And the targets of these investigations will not find out until the day they recieve the letter – or worse, until the day FBI agents show up at there door with handcuffs.

Your investigation followed the same pattern. According to experienced federal defense practitioners, the average federal investigation runs 18 to 24 months before the government sends a target letter. During that time, prosecutors subpoenaed your bank records. They talked to your accountant. They interviewed your employees. They obtained your emails from your service provider. They built an entire case – and you knew nothing.

Heres the part that shocks people. Your bank knew. Your accountant might have known. Witnesses around you knew they had been contacted. But nobody told you. Theres no legal requirement for witnesses to inform you that federal agents asked about you. Your life continued as normal while a shadow investigation built evidence in a timeline you couldnt see.

The federal investigation process is deliberatly structured this way. Prosecutors want to complete there evidence gathering before you know to hire an attorney. They want to interview your witnesses before you can coordinate stories. They want to subpoena your records before you can destroy anything. The element of surprise is a prosecutorial advantage – and the target letter is the moment that advantage ends.

By the time the letter arrives, the government has already decided there is “substantial evidence linking you to the commission of a crime.” Thats the DOJ’s own definition of a target. The letter is not an early warning. Its a notification that there investigation is essentially complete.

Think about the timeline. You recieved the letter yesterday or last week. The investigation started 18 months ago. For 18 months, federal agents have been building a case while you lived your normal life. The window for prevention – if it ever existed – closed before you knew it opened.

Heres what that timeline actualy looked like. Month one, someone files a Suspicious Activity Report with your bank. Month three, a federal agent opens an investigation file. Month six, the grand jury issues its first subpoenas. Month nine, witnesses start getting interviewed. Month twelve, prosecutors begin building there theory of the case. Month fifteen, the grand jury hears testimony. Month eighteen, the U.S. Attorney signs off on the target letter. You recieved it yesterday. Eighteen months of activity happened while you thought everything was normal.

Warning Signs You Missed – And What To Watch For

If your reading this article to learn how to avoid a target letter in the future, heres what you should have been watching for. If your reading because you already recieved one, this section explains why you never saw it coming.

Bank account irregularities. Enhanced scrutiny over routine transactions. Unexpected account freezes. Federal agencies often begin investigations at financial institutions because banks are required to report suspicious activity. If your bank suddenly asks unusual questions about normal deposits, thats a warning sign most people dismiss as bureaucratic annoyance. Banks file Suspicious Activity Reports with FinCEN – and those reports trigger federal scrutiny. By the time your bank is asking questions, the question has probably already been asked at a higher level.

Associates acting strangely. Friends, employees, or business partners becoming evasive. Conversations that feel different. People you trust suddenly avoiding certain topics. When federal agents interview witnesses, they often ask them not to discuss the conversation. But human behavior changes anyway. That colleague who stopped taking your calls might have just talked to the FBI. That employee who suddenly resigned with no explanation might have recieved there own subpoena. The people around you often know something is wrong before you do.

Surveillance indicators. Unfamiliar vehicles near your home or office. Unexplained technical issues with phones or email. Signs that someone is monitoring your activities can be subtle. Most people attribute these things to coincidence or paranoia. Sometimes there right. Sometimes the FBI is parked outside there house. Sometimes the technical glitches are wiretaps being installed. The challenge is distinguishing genuine surveillance from ordinary coincidence – and thats almost impossible without professional help.

Administrative delays. Unexpected challenges with professional licensing, security clearances, or regulatory approvals. Federal investigators sometimes coordinate with licensing boards. If your renewal suddenly hits unexplained obstacles, it might not be bureaucracy. Security clearance reviews often surface federal investigation activity. Travel restrictions can appear without explanation. These administrative signals sometimes appear before any direct contact from investigators.

Grand jury subpoenas to your business. If your company recieves a subpoena for documents, you should assume the investigation is advanced. Grand jury subpoenas dont appear early in investigations. They appear when prosecutors are building toward indictment. If the subpoena asks for your records specifically, your already in the crosshairs.

Todd Spodek has represented clients who came to us BEFORE recieving target letters – people who noticed these warning signs and acted instead of dismissing them. Those cases had dramaticaly different outcomes. Early intervention is possible. But “early” is earlier then most people realize. By the time the target letter arrives, “early” has passed.

Why Some Attorneys Try to CAUSE Target Letters

This will sound counterintuitive. If target letters are bad, why would anyone want one?

Heres the inversion most people never consider. DOJ policy ENCOURAGES but does not REQUIRE prosecutors to send target letters. Many people under federal investigation never recieve one. They wake up to an FBI raid at 6am. They find out there charged from a press release. The first indication of the investigation is handcuffs.

The target letter is actually a COURTESY. It means prosecutors chose to warn you. It means you have time to hire an attorney before your arrested. It means you can potentially negotiate before indictment. Compared to the alternative – no warning, just charges – the letter is a gift.

Some experienced federal defense attorneys, when they suspect a client is under investigation, contact prosecutors directly to request target letter notification. They WANT the letter. Because the letter creates a window. Without the letter, there is no warning and no window. The client goes from “not knowing about the investigation” to “being arrested” with nothing in between.

Todd Spodek has worked cases on both sides of this divide – clients who recieved target letters and clients who woke up to FBI agents at there door. The difference in outcomes is substantial. The letter gives you time to prepare, to negotiate, to present evidence before the grand jury votes. The arrest gives you none of that. If your reading this article because you recieved a target letter, understand that prosecutors just did you a favor – even though it dosent feel like one.

If you recieved a target letter, prosecutors could have arrested you without warning. They chose not to. That choice – whether motivated by fairness, strategy, or procedure – gave you something most federal defendants never get: advance notice.

The 10-20% Who Avoid Indictment: What They Did Differently

Not everyone who recieves a target letter gets indicted. According to federal defense practitioners, somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of target letter recipients avoid criminal charges through pre-indictment intervention. Understanding what these people did differently matters – even if your circumstances are unique.

They acted immediatly. The window between target letter and indictment is the only real opportunity to influence the outcome. As the American Bar Association notes, “The earlier in the process you get retained on a white-collar case, the greater the chance for a positive outcome.” People who avoid indictment dont wait to see what happens. They dont spend weeks researching or thinking about it. They move immediatly.

They hired federal-specific counsel. Not general criminal defense. Not there corporate attorney. Not the lawyer who handled there divorce or there DUI. Someone who understands grand jury procedure, has relationships with federal prosecutors, and knows how to navigate the pre-indictment window. Spodek Law Group exists precisley for cases like this. Federal court is a completly different system from state court, with different rules, different players, and different strategies.

They presented exculpatory evidence. Before the grand jury votes, theres an opportunity to present information prosecutors may not have seen. Evidence that explains conduct. Evidence that contradicts witness testimony. Evidence that changes the calculation about wheather charges are worth pursuing. Once indictment happens, this window closes. The grand jury has already voted. The prosecutor has already invested resources. Everything becomes harder.

They explored cooperation strategicaly. For some targets, cooperation – providing information about other wrongdoing – can result in declination of charges. This is not confession. Its a negotiated arrangement that requires experienced counsel to navigate. Done wrong, cooperation becomes self-incrimination. Done right, it can eliminate charges entirely. The people who successfully cooperate do so through attorneys who understand exactly how proffer agreements work and what protections they provide.

They didnt make it worse. They didnt talk to investigators without counsel. They didnt reach out to witnesses. They didnt destroy evidence. Obstruction charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 carry up to 20 years – often more then the underlying offense. The people who avoid indictment for the original conduct sometimes create new charges by how they respond. The panic response – explain yourself, clean up the mess, warn people – creates exactly the evidence prosecutors need for additional charges.

The difference between the 10-20% and everyone else often comes down to one thing: they didnt try to handle it themselves first. They didnt spend two weeks researching online. They didnt call there brother-in-law who practices family law. They didnt reach out to old witnesses to figure out what happened. They picked up the phone and called someone who actualy understands federal criminal defense. Then they followed instructions exactly.

The Declination Path: When Prosecutors Close Cases

Federal prosecutors can close investigations without filing charges. This is called a declination. Understanding how declinations happen reveals what your attorney should be working toward.

The prosecutor has not yet invested massively in your case. Once charges are filed, prosecutors are commited. There reputations are on the line. There offices have allocated resources. Walking away means admitting the indictment was premature. Before indictment, the investment is smaller. There may be willingness to reconsider if new information emerges or if the case looks weaker then initially assessed.

This is the system revelation nobody wants to discuss. Prosecutors decline cases they might lose. They decline cases where the evidence is messy. They decline cases where the cost of prosecution exceeds the benefit. Your attorneys job is to make your case look like one of those – before the grand jury votes.

The 2025 DOJ policy updates created clearer paths to declination for corporations that self-report misconduct, cooperate with investigations, and remediate issues. Individual targets face different calculations, but the principle matters: prosecutors have discretion to close cases when the facts justify it.

Successful declination arguments require three things. First, legal defenses that create doubt about conviction. If your attorney can demonstrate that a conviction is uncertain – witnesses are unreliable, evidence is circumstantial, legal theories are weak – prosecutors may decide the case isnt worth the risk. Second, factual disputes the prosecutor had not fully considered. Sometimes evidence looks different when context is provided. Sometimes witnesses have credibility problems that werent obvious during the investigation. Third, practical arguments about wheather this case is worth the resources required to pursue it. Federal prosecutors have limited resources. They prioritize cases they expect to win. If your case looks like an uncertain investment, they may choose to spend there resources elsewhere.

Every declination involves the same basic calculation. Prosecutors ask: will this case result in a conviction? Is the potential sentance proportionate to the resources required? Are there bigger targets we should be pursuing instead? Does the evidence hold up under adversarial scrutiny? Your attorneys job is to raise doubt on as many of these factors as possible – before the grand jury votes and the prosecutor becomes personaly invested in the outcome.

The Investigation You’re Conducting Into Your Own Investigation

Heres what happens after most people recieve a target letter. They start investigating.

They call the business partner who was questioned by agents. “What did they ask you? What did you tell them?” They review old emails looking for anything incriminating. They reach out to colleagues to figure out what the government knows. They try to piece together the investigation that has been running against them.

Every one of these actions creates new evidence.

When you call witnesses to discuss there interactions with investigators, you create records of those calls. If prosecutors subpoena your phone records, they see you contacted everyone who was interviewed. If they subpoena those witnesses, they learn exactly what you asked. The prosecution characterizes this as consciousness of guilt – you were trying to figure out what they knew so you could get your story straight.

If you reach out to anyone who might also be a target, the danger multiplies. Coordinating testimony is witness tampering. Warning people about the investigation is obstruction. What feels like gathering information looks like corrupting the process.

Spodek Law Group has seen this pattern destroy cases that might otherwise have been defensible. Clients who had weak evidence against them created new charges through there own investigation. The obstruction charge is often easier to prove then whatever triggered the original investigation. And the sentance for obstruction can exceed the sentance for the underlying crime.

Your attorney can investigate. They can contact prosecutors to understand the scope of the case. They can review evidence through proper channels. They can interview witnesses in ways that dont create additional exposure. You cannot. Every step you take investigating your own investigation creates potential new charges.

The privilige difference matters here. When your attorney contacts a witness, that conversation is protected work product. When YOU contact that same witness, its evidence. When your attorney requests documents from the government, thats discovery. When you ask around trying to figure out whats going on, thats consciousness of guilt. The same actions – done by you or done by counsel – have completly different legal consequences. This is why you need to stop investigating and let someone with privilege protection do it for you.

If You Already Have the Letter: Your Window Is Still Open

You cannot prevent a target letter after its arrived. But you can use the window it creates.

That window is narrow. It closes when the grand jury votes to indict. After indictment, the 93% federal conviction rate applies. Before indictment, outcomes are still negotiable. The prosecutor has not yet commited publicly to your case. The grand jury has not yet voted. Everything is still in motion.

The people who use this window succesfully share common characteristics. They dont panic. They dont talk. They dont investigate themselves. They hire attorneys who understand exactly how this process works.

Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196. The consultation is free. We can assess your situation and tell you honestly what options remain. If prevention was possible before the letter, early intervention is still possible after it. The window just looks different now.

You searched for how to avoid a target letter. The search brought you here after the letter already arrived. That dosent mean your out of options. It means your options are the ones that matter most – the ones that determine wheather you join the 10-20% who avoid indictment or the 93% who face conviction after charges are filed.

The letter announced the governments intentions. Your response announces yours.