How long for embezzling from financial institution?

| by Max Soni

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group. We’re a second-generation law firm managed by Todd Spodek – who has many, many years of experience handling federal criminal defense cases. Our team has over 40 years of combined experience, and we’ve represented clients in some of the most famous cases you’ve seen in the media. In 2022, Netflix released a series about Todd’s client Anna Delvey, the fake German heiress who conned NYC’s elite. We also handled the Ghislaine Maxwell juror misconduct case and defended clients accused of stalking Alec Baldwin. If you’re reading this article, you’re probably facing embezzlement charges – or someone you care about is. The question everyone asks is how long you’re looking at in prison.

Financial institution embezzlement is a federal crime that carries serious prison time. Under 18 U.S.C. § 656, if you embezzled more than $1,000 from a bank, credit union, or other federally insured financial institution, you’re facing up to 30 years in federal prison and fines up to $1 million. That’s the statutory maximum. The actual sentence depends on how much money was taken, your criminal history, whether you cooperate with investigators, and how your attorney fights the government’s calculations.

Federal prosecutors don’t play around with bank embezzlement cases – they had a 97.3% conviction rate in fraud cases from 2022 through 2024, according to IRS Criminal Investigation statistics. The average prison sentence in these cases was 37 months. But averages don’t tell the whole story. Some defendants get probation. Others get decades. In 2024, a former Regions Bank manager in Louisiana got 30 months for embezzlement and fraud. That same year, someone involved in the Washington Federal Bank for Savings case got 25 years. A general counsel who embezzled $7.4 million got 4 years. The sentence depends on your specific case.

The amount you allegedly took matters more than anything else. Federal sentencing guidelines use a loss table under §2B1.1 that starts with a base offense level of 7 and increases based on the dollar amount. If the loss is $6,500 or less, you might stay at the base level. Embezzle $6,501 to $15,000 – that’s a two-level increase. The enhancements climb from there. Steal over $550 million, and you’re looking at a 30-level increase on top of the base. Most bank employees aren’t embezzling hundreds of millions, but even moderate amounts – say $100,000 to $250,000 – trigger significant enhancements that push your guideline range into years of prison time.

Your criminal history changes everything. The federal sentencing table crosses your offense level with your criminal history category. Someone with no prior record (Category I) faces much less time than someone with multiple felonies (Category VI). If this is your first offense and the loss amount is relatively small, you might qualify for probation or a short sentence. If you’ve been convicted before, especially for fraud or theft, expect the government to argue for the high end of the guidelines range or even an upward variance.

Cooperation can cut your sentence dramatically. If you provide substantial assistance to prosecutors – helping them build cases against other people, providing information about larger schemes, testifying at trial – your attorney can negotiate for a motion under U.S.S.G. §5K1.1 or Rule 35. These motions allow judges to sentence below the guidelines, sometimes well below. We’ve seen cooperation turn a potential 10-year sentence into 18 months. But cooperation isn’t for everyone. You need valuable information. You need to be willing to testify. And you need an attorney who knows how to structure cooperation agreements so you get the maximum benefit without exposing yourself to additional risks.

Restitution is mandatory in embezzlement cases. Judges order restitution in about 75% of fraud and embezzlement cases, and the amounts aren’t small. If you embezzled $2.4 million like the former Exchange Bank employee in Missouri, you’ll owe $2.4 million in restitution. The bank’s actual loss becomes your debt – paid back over time, often through monthly payments while you’re in prison and after release. Restitution doesn’t reduce your prison sentence directly, but paying it back before sentencing shows acceptance of responsibility. That matters to judges.

Acceptance of responsibility under §3E1.1 gives you a two or three-level reduction if you plead guilty early and show genuine remorse. Most defendants get this reduction. It’s one of the easiest ways to lower your sentence. But you lose it if you minimize your conduct, blame others, or fight the loss calculation unreasonably. Federal judges decide if you’ve truly accepted responsibility, and they’re not easy to fool.

Recent cases show how sentences vary wildly. In March 2025, a former Morgan Stanley financial advisor in El Paso got 12 years in federal prison for a fraud scheme that caused losses over $5.5 million. A former bank employee in Missouri who embezzled $2.4 million from 2009 to 2023 is facing up to 30 years – sentencing was pending as of mid-2024. Kevin Chiu, arrested for embezzling over $2 million from Manhattan financial institution clients, faces charges carrying a maximum of 30 years for bank fraud and 30 years for embezzlement. Eric Jason Schouest got 30 months for his Regions Bank embezzlement and fraud scheme. These cases involved different amounts, different levels of sophistication, different criminal histories.

The government must prove you acted willfully – that you knew what you were doing was wrong and did it anyway with intent to defraud or injure the financial institution. “Willfully” means intentionally. Mistakes don’t count as embezzlement. If you genuinely believed you had authorization to move funds or made an accounting error, that’s a defense. But federal prosecutors are good at proving intent through your conduct. Did you try to hide the transfers? Did you falsify records? Did you spend the money on personal expenses? Those facts show willful embezzlement.

Your attorney’s job is to challenge the government’s loss calculation, negotiate cooperation if it makes sense, argue for departures and variances based on your personal circumstances, and humanize you to the judge. Federal judges have discretion after United States v. Booker made the guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. A judge can sentence below the guidelines if there are compelling reasons – extraordinary family circumstances, serious health issues, minimal role in a larger scheme, unusually low risk of reoffending. We’ve argued successfully for downward variances in fraud cases where the defendant’s personal history and genuine remorse warranted leniency.

At Spodek Law Group – we’ve handled federal fraud and embezzlement cases for decades. We know how prosecutors calculate loss amounts and how to fight inflated numbers. We know when cooperation makes sense and when it doesn’t. We know how to present mitigation evidence that actually moves judges. Many of the cases we’re famous for handling – are cases that others say were unwinnable. Unlike other law firms who care about their relationship with prosecutors, our loyalty is to you. We’re available 24/7 and represent clients coast to coast.

The worst thing you can do is talk to federal agents without an attorney. If you’re under investigation for embezzling from a financial institution, hire counsel immediately. Everything you say will be used to calculate your offense level, prove willfulness, and argue against cooperation credit. Federal agents are skilled interrogators who make you think cooperation without a lawyer is your best option. It’s not. Your attorney needs to control that process from the beginning.

If you’re already charged, time matters. Early intervention – before the presentence investigation report is drafted – gives your attorney the chance to shape the narrative, challenge the government’s loss figures, and negotiate for the best possible plea agreement. Once the PSR is written, it’s harder to change the probation officer’s recommendations. Judges rely heavily on PSRs. Getting out in front of the process is critical.