Internet Fraud

The core of most internet fraud cases is wire fraud. To secure a conviction the government must prove the existence of a scheme to defraud and the use of interstate wires to execute that scheme. The term wires includes emails and bank transfers and social media posts and even text messages.

We focus our defense on the scheme element. We argue that there was no master plan to deceive. In many cases what the government calls a scheme is actually a legitimate startup that ran out of money or a business dispute that belongs in civil court. We scrutinize the timeline of events. If the intent to deceive was formed after the money was received it may be a breach of contract but it is not necessarily wire fraud. We force the government to prove that the fraudulent intent existed at the precise moment the wire transmission occurred.

Federal prosecutors frequently charge conspiracy alongside the substantive fraud counts. This allows them to hold a defendant responsible for the actions of others. In the world of internet fraud this is dangerous because online schemes often involve loose networks of individuals who may never meet.

We fight against this broad application of liability. We argue that our client was a peripheral figure who lacked knowledge of the broader criminal enterprise. If a client was hired to design a website or process payments without knowing the illicit source of the funds they are not a co-conspirator. We differentiate between mere association with a criminal group and active participation in the conspiracy. We aim to sever our client from the actual perpetrators to prevent them from being punished for the crimes of others.

BEC is a high-priority target for the FBI. It involves compromising legitimate business email accounts to conduct unauthorized transfers of funds. Prosecutors view these as sophisticated organized crime operations.

We defend clients accused of being money mules in these schemes. Often individuals are recruited online for what they believe are legitimate work-from-home jobs processing payments. We present evidence of the deception used against our client. We show the job postings and the employment contracts to prove that our client believed they were a legitimate employee. By demonstrating that the defendant was a pawn rather than a player we attack the mens rea element of the crime.

The rise of digital assets has led to a surge in internet fraud charges related to initial coin offerings and crypto investment platforms. The government often alleges that these ventures are Ponzi schemes or rug pulls designed to steal investor funds.

We defend developers and promoters by focusing on the technology. We argue that the loss of funds was due to market volatility or coding errors rather than fraud. We analyze the smart contracts and the white papers. If the risks were disclosed to investors we argue that there was no deception. We distinguish between a failed speculative project and a fraudulent scheme. We emphasize that investing in volatile assets carries inherent risk and that a loss of value does not equate to criminal conduct.

An IP address identifies a connection not a person. Hackers frequently use botnets or proxy servers to route their attacks through the computers of innocent parties. This technique known as spoofing can lead investigators to the wrong door.

We vigorously contest attribution based solely on IP addresses. We look for evidence of malware on the client computer that would allow remote access. If we can show that the computer was a zombie in a botnet we can prove that our client was not the one controlling the keyboard. We also analyze the timing of the activity. If the logs show activity when the client was verifiably away from the device we establish an alibi that breaks the digital link.

The Fourth Amendment applies to the digital realm but the rules are complex. We challenge the scope of search warrants used to seize computers and phones. Often warrants are overly broad allowing agents to rummage through terabytes of personal data unrelated to the investigation.

We file motions to suppress evidence obtained from these general searches. We also scrutinize the chain of custody. Digital evidence must be handled carefully to prevent alteration. If the government cannot prove that the hard drive presented in court is a bit-for-bit copy of the original seizure we move to exclude the evidence. By attacking the integrity of the digital exhibits we weaken the foundation of the prosecution case.

The most powerful defense in internet fraud cases is good faith. If the defendant honestly believed the representations they were making were true they cannot be convicted of fraud. This applies even if the statements turned out to be false.

We gather evidence of the client belief. This includes internal emails expressing optimism about the project and personal investment in the venture. If the defendant put their own money into the scheme it suggests they believed in its success. We present a narrative of an entrepreneur who was overwhelmed by circumstances rather than a con artist who planned a theft. We use expert witnesses to testify that the business model was theoretically sound even if it failed in practice.

To constitute fraud the misrepresentation must be material. This means it must be the kind of lie that would influence a reasonable person decision to part with their money. We challenge the materiality of the alleged lies.

If the government claims the defendant lied about their office location we argue that this detail was irrelevant to the investor decision to invest. We maintain that the investors were driven by the potential for profit not the address of the company. By chipping away at the significance of the misrepresentations we argue that the core transaction was not fraudulent.

The guidelines consider the greater of the actual loss or the intended loss. Prosecutors often argue for intended loss based on theoretical maximums. We argue for actual loss which is usually lower.

We perform a forensic accounting of the scheme. We identify funds that were returned to investors or used for legitimate business expenses. We argue that these amounts should be credited against the loss calculation. We also challenge the government valuation of non-monetary assets. By reducing the loss amount we can shave years off a potential sentence. We present a realistic economic picture to the judge rather than the inflated figures of the prosecution.

In addition to prison internet fraud convictions carry heavy financial penalties. The government will seek to forfeit any assets traceable to the offense. This includes bank accounts and real estate and cryptocurrency.

We litigate the forfeiture phase aggressively. We argue that certain assets were acquired with legitimate funds and are not subject to seizure. We also protect the rights of innocent third parties such as spouses who have an interest in the property. We negotiate global resolutions that satisfy the restitution obligations without leaving the client destitute. We aim to preserve as much of the client assets as possible to support their family during and after the legal process.