Attempted Fraud

To secure a conviction for any form of fraud, the government must prove that the defendant acted with a specific intent to deceive, a high evidentiary bar that distinguishes criminal conduct from negligence, mistake or misunderstanding. In cases of an attempt, the focus is entirely on the state of mind of the actor at the moment the overt act was performed, requiring the prosecution to demonstrate that the individual intended for the crime to be completed.

If the defense can demonstrate that the defendant lacked the requisite knowledge of the falsity or was acting under a good faith belief in the legitimacy of the transaction, the charges cannot be sustained. Proving intent often involves the analysis of digital communications, internal documents and financial records that the government claims show a premeditated plan. Our firm focuses on providing alternative interpretations of these documents, highlighting instances of confusion, lack of technical knowledge or the absence of a clear motive to defraud.

The overt act required for an attempt conviction must be more than mere preparation; it must be an act that, in the ordinary course of events, would result in the commission of the crime if not interrupted by some extraneous circumstance. The substantial step doctrine looks for conduct that is strongly corroborative of the defendant criminal purpose, such as acquiring a forged instrument or attempting to gain unauthorized access to a protected financial system.

• Proof of specific intent must be coupled with an overt act to satisfy the requirements of the statute.
• Good faith reliance on professional advice can often serve as a complete defense to the mens rea requirement.
• The proximity test evaluates how close the defendant came to completing the final fraudulent act.
• Administrative errors in document filing must be distinguished from deliberate attempts to deceive.

The classification of an attempt as a felony or a misdemeanor depends on the nature of the underlying crime and the value of the property involved in the alleged scheme. Most federal fraud statutes, including those for wire fraud and mail fraud, categorize an attempt as a serious felony that carries a maximum penalty of twenty or thirty years in prison. The court will consider several factors when determining the final sentence, including the sophistication of the scheme and whether it targeted vulnerable victims or essential financial systems.

Our role is to advocate for a downward departure from the guidelines by highlighting mitigating factors, such as the defendant lack of a prior criminal record or the fact that no actual harm occurred. We also challenge the government calculation of the intended loss, arguing that the alleged plan was either impossible to execute or that the valuation of the target property was significantly inflated by the prosecution. By reducing the loss amount, we can often secure a significantly more favorable sentencing outcome that avoids the harshest possible penalties.

A conviction for a crime of moral turpitude, which includes all forms of fraud, is an automatic disqualification for many high level employment positions and government security clearances. Employers in the current market utilize comprehensive background checks that flag even a dismissed charge if it involved an allegation of fraudulent intent, making it difficult to find stable employment in the future. Furthermore, the conviction can result in the loss of civil rights, including the right to possess firearms or serve on a jury in many jurisdictions.

• Permanent loss of eligibility for federal student loans and certain government benefit programs.
• Requirement to disclose the conviction on all future professional and housing applications.
• Potential deportation or denial of citizenship for non citizen residents who are convicted of an attempt.
• Long term damage to creditworthiness as financial institutions view the individual as a high risk entity.

As businesses implement more robust cybersecurity measures, many fraudulent schemes are stopped at the network level before any data or funds are exfiltrated from the institution. For example, an individual might attempt to bypass a two factor authentication system or utilize a compromised credential to access a payroll system, only to be blocked by an anomaly detection algorithm that triggers a law enforcement notification. While no money was lost, the act of attempting the unauthorized access is a serious federal crime that carries significant prison time.

The defense in these cases often hinges on the technical feasibility of the attempt and the actual knowledge of the defendant. If the alleged act was technically impossible to complete or if the defendant was merely testing a system for vulnerabilities without the intent to steal, the government case is significantly weakened. We work with digital forensics experts to analyze the server logs and the code involved to provide a clear technical counter narrative to the prosecution allegations.

Many investigations into Attempted Fraud are triggered by the discovery of phishing websites or fraudulent application portals that have not yet resulted in a victim loss. Law enforcement agencies utilize automated crawlers to identify these sites and then work with hosting providers to trace the IP addresses back to the original creators. Even if the site only collected information from a single individual and no financial theft occurred, the creation and operation of the portal are prosecuted as a completed attempt.

• Prosecution often relies on the possession of stolen credentials as evidence of a substantial step toward fraud.
• The use of virtual private networks and encrypted communications can be used by the government to argue a consciousness of guilt.
• Intercepted communications between co-conspirators often form the backbone of the government case for conspiracy and attempt.
• Recovery of deleted data from mobile devices and laptops is a primary tool for federal investigators.

To utilize the abandonment defense, the defendant must prove that they voluntarily and completely withdrew from the criminal plan before the final act was performed. This withdrawal cannot be motivated by a sudden fear of being caught or a realization that the plan was more difficult than expected; it must be a genuine change of heart based on moral or personal reasons. Our firm works to document the timeline of the withdrawal and to gather evidence that shows the defendant took active steps to stop the fraud from proceeding.

The success of this defense often depends on the ability to prove that the abandonment occurred while the crime was still in a phase where it could be stopped. We gather communications, witness statements and logs that show the defendant ceased their involvement and attempted to undo any harm that had already been initiated. This is a complex legal maneuver that requires a deep understanding of the specific requirements for renunciation in the relevant jurisdiction.

The prosecution often relies on a circumstantial evidence chain that is vulnerable to attack if any single link can be broken or recontextualized. We scrutinize every piece of data, from the source of the initial tip to the methods used to collect digital evidence, to identify procedural errors or constitutional violations that could lead to the suppression of evidence. If the government cannot prove that the defendant took a substantial step that was directly related to the fraud, the case for an attempt must fail as a matter of law.

• Distinguishing between the legal research of a transaction and the illegal preparation of a fraud.
• Identifying instances of entrapment where law enforcement induced a defendant to take a step they were not predisposed to take.
• Challenging the reliability of government informants who may have an incentive to fabricate evidence of an attempt.
• Demonstrating that the defendant was acting under the direction of another and lacked the specific intent to defraud.

In the modern era, the outcome of a fraud case is often decided by the forensic analysis of computers, mobile devices and cloud based data. We employ top tier digital forensic experts to conduct an independent review of all electronic evidence seized by the government, looking for signs of tampering, exculpatory evidence or technical glitches that may have been misinterpreted by investigators. This scientific approach provides an objective counterpoint to the subjective narrative provided by law enforcement.

The technical logs of a server or the metadata of a document can often prove that the defendant was not the person who initiated a fraudulent interaction. We look for evidence of unauthorized access to our clients devices or the presence of malware that could explain the presence of incriminating data. This forensic level of detail is essential for building a defense that stands up to the intense scrutiny of federal prosecutors.

A federal fraud case usually begins with a grand jury indictment, a process that is notoriously biased in favor of the prosecution because the defense has no right to present evidence or cross examine witnesses. However, a senior legal partner can often intervene during the pre-indictment phase to present a proffer of the defense case to the prosecutor, potentially leading to a reduction in charges or a dismissal. This early intervention is often the most effective way to prevent the life altering consequences of a public indictment and trial.

We negotiate with federal prosecutors to show the weaknesses in their case before they seek an indictment from the grand jury. If we can prove that the evidence of intent is weak or that the defendant actions did not reach the level of a substantial step, we can often persuade the government to decline prosecution. This level of advocacy requires a reputation for excellence and a deep understanding of the internal policies of the Department of Justice.