Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Wire Fraud (18 USC 1343)

Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Wire Fraud (18 USC 1343)

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. We are a NYC based criminal defense firm thats been protecting peoples futures for over a decade. Our goal is to give you the information you actually need – not the sanitized version you find on other sites. If you are reading this at 2am because you just learned about federal wire fraud charges, you are in the right place.

The statutory maximum for wire fraud is 20 years. Everyone knows this. Its the number that keeps people awake at night. But that number is basicly theatrical. The average wire fraud sentence in 2024 was 22 months. Not 20 years – twenty-two months. Thats what practitioners know that Google dosent tell you. The statute creates fear. The guidelines create reality.

The 20-Year Max That Means Almost Nothing

Heres the thing that every federal defense lawyer knows but most websites wont tell you. That scary 20-year maximum sentence you keep reading about? Almost nobody gets it. In over 5,000 wire fraud cases sentenced last year, the median fell far below that theatrical ceiling.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The statutory maximum exists on paper, but the guidelines control the actual outcome. Why? Because your sentence is not determined by the statute – its determined by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and specificaly by something called the loss table. The prosecutor who calculates that loss amount holds more power over your sentence then the judge who pronounces it.

Think about it this way. The 20-year maximum is like saying your car can go 180 miles per hour. Technicaly true. Completly irrelevant to how fast you are actualy going to drive. The loss calculation is the speedometer that matters. Nobody drives 180. Nobody gets 20 years for wire fraud. The theoretical maximum has almost no relationship to the sentences actually imposed.

Elizabeth Holmes got 135 months. George Santos got 87 months. But the average defendant? Less than two years. The spread is enormous, and the difference has nothing to do with the statutory maximum. Everything comes down to the loss amount the government calculates. Thats the single most important number in your entire case. Not the charges. Not the statutory maximum. The loss calculation.

When prosecutors tell you at the initial hearing that you face 20 years, they are playing a psychological game. They want you scared. They want you thinking about worst case scenarios instead of guideline ranges. An experienced federal defense attorney understands this dynamic and can cut through the fear to focus on what actualy matters.

How the Loss Table Actually Determines Your Sentence

Heres were things get technical – but stay with me because this is literaly the most important thing you need to understand about your case.

Wire fraud starts with a base offense level of 7 under the guidelines. Thats just the starting point. From there, the loss table can add up to 30 additional levels. Thirty. That takes you from level 7 all the way to level 37 – which is 84% of the way down the sentencing table toward life.

The loss table creates what practitioners call “cliff effects.” Cross certain thresholds and your sentence does not increase gradualy – it jumps dramaticaly. These cliffs are arbitrary lines that can mean years of your life.

Heres the math that should concern you:

• $6,500 or less: +0 levels
• $6,500 to $15,000: +2 levels
• $15,000 to $40,000: +4 levels
• $40,000 to $95,000: +6 levels
• $95,000 to $150,000: +8 levels
• $150,000 to $250,000: +10 levels
• $250,000 to $550,000: +12 levels
• $550,000 to $1,500,000: +14 levels
• $1,500,000 to $3,500,000: +16 levels
• $3,500,000 to $9,500,000: +18 levels
• $9,500,000 to $25,000,000: +22 levels
• Over $550,000,000: +30 levels

See the problem? Going from $549,000 to $550,001 can add two full levels to your guideline range. That translates to months of additional incarceration. One dollar difference. Months of your life. And prosecutors know exactly were these cliffs are located. They calculate loss specificaly to push defendants over thresholds whenever the facts allow any flexibility.

Todd Spodek has seen this pattern repeatedly in federal fraud cases over the years. The governments loss calculation almost always lands just above a cliff. The final number is never $545,000. Its $560,000. Never $1.4 million. Always $1.6 million. Coincidence? Hardly. The system rewards prosecutors who maximize loss calculations.

The other thing most defendants dont realize is that these offense levels interact with your criminal history category. Someone with zero prior convictions is in Category I. The sentencing table then combines your offense level with your criminal history to produce a guideline range measured in months. At offense level 20 with Category I, you are looking at 33-41 months. At offense level 24, you are looking at 51-63 months. Just four levels – which could be one loss threshold – adds almost two years to your range.

Intended Loss: Sentenced for Money You Never Touched

OK so heres were most peoples stomachs drop. The loss amount used to calculate your sentence does not have to be money you actualy stole. It can be money you intended to steal – even if you never got a single dime.

The 2024 Guidelines Amendment codified this completly. Prosecutors can use “intended loss” if its greater than actual loss. And intended loss includes amounts that were impossable to actualy obtain.

Read that again. You can be sentenced based on fraud that could not have succeeded.

Heres a real scenario. The FBI sets up a sting operation. You think you are defrauding a bank for $5 million, but its all fake – government agents playing a role. Actual loss? Zero dollars. You never touched real money. But intended loss? $5 million. And thats what you get sentenced on. Years in federal prison for money that never existed.

The Third Circuit tried to push back on this in the Banks decision, arguing intended loss shouldnt count when the fraud was impossable. The Sentencing Commission overruled them. The 2024 Amendment makes clear: intended loss counts, period. No exceptions. No matter how unlikely success would have been.

This is why federal fraud prosecutions are so different then state cases. You are not just defending against what happend. You are defending against what the government says you planned. And their version of your plan is almost allways the worst possable interpretation. They will take every email, every text message, every offhand comment and construct a narrative of maximum intended harm.

Consider another scenario. You submit applications for government benefits that you do not qualify for. Maybe you get approved for $50,000. But the applications you submitted – if all had been approved – would have totaled $800,000. Your intended loss is $800,000 even though you only received $50,000. Thats a massive jump up the loss table. Thats the difference between a year in prison and five years in prison.

The only way to fight this is with evidence that contradicts the governments intent theory. Did you stop the scheme yourself before detection? Did you try to make victims whole? Were there communications showing you never actualy intended the full amount? These are the kinds of facts that matter.

Relevant Conduct: Why Your Minor Role Does Not Matter

Heres the part that destroys people who thought they were minor players in someone elses scheme.

Under the “relevant conduct” rules, you get sentenced based on the entire conspiracy – not just your individual contribution. If you touched $50,000 of a $5 million fraud operation, your loss calculation is based on $5 million. The full scheme. Every dollar your co-conspirators handled.

The way courts describe it: “Once you join the team for a minute, you are likely to be held accountable for everything the team does.” Thats not metaphor. Thats sentencing law. Its in the guidelines at Section 1B1.3.

Lets say you helped process some paperwork for what you thought was a legitimate business venture. You did not design the scheme. You did not recruit victims. You got paid $10,000 for your role over six months. But the total fraud was $8 million. Your sentencing guidelines range is calculated on $8 million. Probly looking at 70-87 months in federal prison.

For paperwork.

This is what makes federal conspiracy charges so devastating. The government dosent need to prove you knew every detail of the operation. They need to prove you knew the general nature of the scheme and that the other actions were “reasonably foreseeable.” Thats a very low bar. If you knew something illegal was happening and you stayed involved, you are on the hook for what everyone else did.

Now, there is a provision for minor role reductions. If you can demonstrate you were substancialy less culpable then the average participant, you might get a 2-level reduction. Minimal role can get you 4 levels. But prosecutors fight these reductions agressivly. They argue that knowledge of the scheme makes you a full participant regardless of your actual contributions.

Spodek Law Group has represented clients who genuinly did not understand the full scope of what they were involved in. Some were told they were doing legitimate work. Some were recruited by family members. Some saw red flags but convinced themselves everything was fine. None of that matters to the guidelines calculation. The math is the math. The only defense is attacking the governments theory of what was reasonably foreseeable.

The Trial Penalty: Why 97% Plead Guilty

Lets talk about why almost nobody goes to trial on federal fraud charges.

In 2024, 97% of federal defendants pled guilty. Thats not because 97% were obviusly guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Its because the math makes trial financial and personal suicide.

Heres what happens if you go to trial and lose:

First, you lose “acceptance of responsibility” – thats a 2-3 level reduction you get automaticaly for pleading guilty. Gone.

Second, if you testify and the judge finds inconsistancies in your testimony, you can get hit with an obstruction of justice enhancement. Thats +2 levels. Even if you were trying to tell the truth but got confused or nervous on the stand.

Third, you wont get the additional 1 level reduction for timely notification of plea intent.

So going to trial creates a 4-5 level swing against you. In real terms? Your sentence nearly doubles. Sometimes triples.

The data confirms this. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers documented the trial penalty extensivly in their research. Average sentence after trial: roughly three times longer then average sentence after guilty plea. Three times.

And heres the uncomfortable truth that nobody wants to say out loud. 25% of people who have been exonerated – proven actualy innocent through DNA or other evidence – originaly pled guilty. They pled guilty to crimes they did not commit because the trial penalty was to terrifying to risk.

Thats not a justice system designed to find truth. Thats a system designed to produce guilty pleas. And it works. The efficiency is remarkable if you ignore the human cost.

The question becomes: when is trial worth the risk? When the governments case has serious evidentiary problems. When key witnesses are unreliable or have credibility issues. When the loss calculation is based on speculation rather than documentation. When you have nothing to lose because the guidelines range is already so high that a few more years does not change your calculus. These are the situations were fighting makes sense.

But you need a lawyer who can evaluate this honestly. Not one who will tell you what you want to hear. Someone who understands guideline calculations and can show you the math for both scenarios.

What a Wire Fraud Sentence Actually Looks Like

Lets ground this in reality with some named examples that made national headlines.

Elizabeth Holmes – the Theranos founder – was sentenced to 135 months. Thats 11+ years. Her loss calculation was in the hundreds of millions. But she got below the guidelines because the judge considered 3553 factors like her young children and her history of community involvement. Prosecutors wanted more time. The judge used discretion.

George Santos got 87 months for wire fraud and other charges related to his various schemes involving campaign funds and unemployment benefits. Then his sentence was commuted by President Trump – showing just how political the federal system can be at the highest levels.

But these are outliers. High-profile cases that make national news. Celebrity defendants with unlimited resources for defense.

The USSC Sourcebook shows the reality for most defendants. Average sentence for wire fraud: 22 months. Median is even lower. Most people facing wire fraud charges are not looking at decades – they are looking at 1-3 years if they plead, handle the loss calculation properly, and get credit for acceptance of responsibility.

The range depends almost entirely on the loss amount:

• Under $100,000: Often probation or 6-12 months
• $100,000 to $500,000: Typically 12-24 months
• $500,000 to $1,500,000: Usually 24-48 months
• Over $1,500,000: Sentances start climbing steeply

Financial institution involvement matters too. If wire fraud affected a bank, credit union, or other financial institution, the statutory maximum jumps from 20 to 30 years. And the guidelines include specific enhancements for targeting financial institutions. Prosecutors will use that for leverage even if they never actualy seek that sentence. The threat is the point.

Sophisticated means enhancement adds 2 levels. Large number of victims adds levels. Mass marketing enhancement adds levels. These enhancements stack. A basic wire fraud with $500,000 loss might land at offense level 20. Add sophisticated means and 50+ victims and you are looking at offense level 26. Thats the difference between 33 months and 63 months.

Fighting the Loss Calculation: Your Real Defense

So whats the actual defense strategy when the loss table controls everything?

The answer is getting ahead of the loss calculation before its set in stone. Heres were experience matters more then anywhere else in federal practice.

First, you challenge the governments loss methodology. Is it based on actual loss or intended loss? Are they including amounts that were already recovered by victims? Are they counting the same money twice through different transaction chains? Are they using retail value when wholesale value is more appropriate? Every assumption in the governments spreadsheet is a potential point of attack.

Second, you argue about “gain vs loss.” Sometimes defendants calculate gain to themselves as lower then what the government claims as loss to victims. The guidelines say to use the greater of the two – but that creates room for dispute about which calculation is more accurate.

Third, you fight relevant conduct. Maybe the government is including actions that wernt actualy reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. Maybe they are attributing the whole scheme when the defendant only touched a specific portion and had no knowledge of the rest. This requires detailed factual investigation.

Fourth, you build the 3553(a) factors case for variance. Even if the guidelines range is high, judges have discretion to sentence below. Mental health issues, family circumstances, charitable work, military service, age, health conditions – these can all matter. Some judges are more receptive then others. Knowing your judge makes a difference.

Fifth, you explore cooperation. If a client has information about other participants – especialy participants higher up in the scheme – thats valuable to prosecutors. Substantial assistance under 5K1.1 can result in sentences well below the guideline range. But this is complicated and risky. The government has to agree the cooperation was helpful. And there is no guarantee.

We start working on the loss calculation from day one. Not waiting until sentencing. Not reacting to the governments numbers after indictment. Proactivly building our own analysis and challenging theirs at every stage of the case.

The prosecutor – not the judge, not the jury – effectivly determines your sentence by controlling the loss narrative. Your defense has to disrupt that control early and consistantly.

Restitution is another trap hiding in the sentence. Unlike fines, restitution can not be discharged in bankruptcy. It follows you forever. And the amount is based on the loss calculation. So if the government calculates $5 million in losses, you owe $5 million in restitution. Even if you never actualy touched that money. The prison sentence ends. The financial sentence often does not.

What You Need to Do Right Now

If you are reading this because you or someone you love is facing federal wire fraud charges, heres what matters immediately.

Stop talking to investigators. Seriously. Every word you say can be used to construct the intended loss calculation. If you have already talked, stop now. Invoke your right to counsel. The FBI agents will be polite. They will suggest cooperation is in your interest. It is not – not without a lawyer structuring that cooperation.

Get a lawyer who understands federal sentencing guidelines. Not someone who does mostly state work. Not someone who will just process a guilty plea without fighting. Someone who knows how to challenge the loss calculation specificaly and has done it before successfully.

Start gathering documents that could reduce the loss amount. Returns, refunds, amounts that victims recovered on their own, insurance payments, evidence that the stated losses were inflated. Keep copies of everything in a secure location.

Do not assume the governments numbers are correct. They almost never are completly accurate. Challenge everything with documentation and expert analysis if needed.

And understand that the earlier you engage competent counsel, the more options you have. Once the indictment comes down with a specific loss amount alleged, its harder to move that number. Pre-indictment negotiation can literaly save years of your life.

You have now read more truth about wire fraud sentencing then most lawyer websites will ever tell you. The 20-year maximum is theater. The loss calculation is reality. Prosecutors control that calculation. Trial makes everything worse. And the consequences extend far beyond prison time.

This is not information designed to scare you. Its information designed to prepare you. Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196 for a confidential consultation. We do not judge. We defend. And in federal wire fraud cases, that means defending the loss calculation that will determine the rest of your life.