Texas Federal Wire Fraud Defense

Elements of Federal Wire Fraud

1. A scheme or artifice to defraud. The government must prove that the defendant engaged in a plan to deceive for financial gain, involving material misrepresentations or omissions. Following Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999), the misrepresentation must be material which means it must be capable of influencing a reasonable person’s decision. Non-actionable opinions, projections, and puffery are not material misrepresentations.

2. Intent to defraud. The defendant must have acted knowingly and with specific intent to deceive. Good-faith business decisions, honest mistakes, reliance on professional advisors, and broken promises are not wire fraud. The government must prove that the defendant knew their representations were false and intended to cause financial harm.

3. Use of interstate wire communications. At least one electronic communication must cross state lines. This element is met in virtually every modern business transaction involving email or electronic funds transfer. The wire transmission itself does not need to carry the fraudulent content directly. It only needs to be made in furtherance of the scheme.

Common Federal Wire Fraud Cases in Texas

• Business and investment fraud — Ponzi schemes, securities fraud, fraudulent solicitations

• Real estate and mortgage fraud — fraudulent applications, inflated appraisals, straw buyer schemes

• Insurance fraud — fraudulent claims, staged accidents

• Government contract fraud — false billing, misrepresentation of qualifications

• Business email compromise (BEC) — compromised or spoofed emails redirecting wire transfers

• Cryptocurrency and digital asset fraud — fraudulent ICOs, rug pulls, fake exchanges

• COVID-era relief fraud — PPP and EIDL applications charged under both wire fraud and 18 U.S.C. §1014

How We Challenge the Government’s Evidence

Intent to defraud. The intent element is the most contested issue in most wire fraud cases. Not every business failure is fraud. Lee examines whether the government is criminalizing bad business outcomes, recharacterizing contractual disputes, relying on hindsight, or conflating aggressive business practices with criminal conduct. His decades of federal trial experience give him the ability to present these distinctions persuasively to federal judges and juries.

Digital evidence and electronic communications. The defense must evaluate whether email accounts and devices have been properly attributed to the defendant, whether communications are presented in full context or selectively excerpted, whether metadata and timestamps are accurate, and whether the government’s timeline is consistent with the underlying data.

Financial evidence and loss calculations. Lee works with forensic accountants to independently analyze financial evidence, challenge inflated loss calculations, identify legitimate transactions included in the government’s loss figure, and present alternative calculations. Reducing the calculated loss amount can significantly reduce the Guidelines sentencing range.

Materiality and reliance. Following Neder, wire fraud requires proof that misrepresentations were material. Lee examines whether alleged misrepresentations were actually capable of influencing a reasonable person, whether victims relied on them, and whether statements were facts or non-actionable opinions, projections, or puffery.

Federal Sentencing in Wire Fraud Cases

Sentences are heavily driven by the loss amount under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1. The loss table adds levels to the base offense level based on the calculated financial harm:

• Loss over $6,500: +2 levels

• Loss over $15,000: +4 levels

• Loss over $40,000: +6 levels

• Loss over $95,000: +8 levels

• Loss over $250,000: +12 levels

• Loss over $550,000: +14 levels

• Loss over $1,500,000: +16 levels

• Loss over $3,500,000: +18 levels

• Loss over $9,500,000: +20 levels

Additional enhancements apply for large victim counts, sophisticated means, leadership role, and abuse of trust. The loss calculation is frequently the most important variable in federal financial crime sentencing and it is subject to independent challenge at the sentencing hearing.

James Lee Bright — Federal Wire Fraud Defense

• 25+ years of federal trial experience across all four Texas federal districts

• Admitted: Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western Districts of Texas; District of Columbia; Fifth Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court

• J.D., University of Tennessee College of Law (1996)

• LL.M. in International Law, SMU Dedman School of Law (2003) — Phi Delta Phi honor fraternity

• Three-month federal trial in the District of Columbia — national prominence, covered by legal and news organizations worldwide

• President, Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (2010–2011)

• Texas Super Lawyers® 2021–2024 | D Magazine Best Lawyers

If you are facing federal wire fraud charges in Texas, call (214) 225-7117 for a free, confidential consultation with James Lee Bright. Or schedule online at texasdwisite.com.