Wire fraud is one of the most common charges in federal court, and New Jersey is no exception. It shows up in investment cases, business disputes, loan fraud, healthcare cases, cryptocurrency schemes, and online scams. Prosecutors like it because it is broad. Almost any email, text, phone call, or electronic payment can count as a “wire.”
That breadth is exactly why wire fraud cases need a close look. A charge that sounds simple often rests on a theory of intent that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Takeaways
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the government must prove:
A scheme to defraud. A plan to obtain money or property through false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises
Materiality. The false statement or omission had to matter. It must be the kind of thing that would influence a reasonable person’s decision.
Intent to defraud. You acted knowingly and with the specific intent to deceive and cheat
Use of interstate wires. An interstate or international wire communication was used to carry out the scheme
The wire doesn’t have to be fraudulent itself. A routine confirmation email or bank transfer can satisfy the element if it was part of carrying out the scheme. Because wire fraud conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1349) carries the same penalties, prosecutors often charge both.
Wire fraud carries up to 20 years in prison per count. If the offense affects a financial institution or involves disaster relief benefits, the maximum rises to 30 years and a fine of up to $1 million.
Statutory maximums are rarely the actual sentence. In practice the federal sentencing guidelines drive the outcome, and in fraud cases the biggest factor is the loss amount. Restitution to victims is generally mandatory, and the government will often seek forfeiture of money or property tied to the offense.
The Supreme Court has spent the last several years setting limits on how far the fraud statutes reach, and those decisions can make or break a case.
In Kelly v. United States (2020), the Bridgegate case from New Jersey, the Court reversed wire fraud convictions because the scheme’s object was not money or property. It was a political decision about traffic lanes.
In Ciminelli v. United States (2023), the Court rejected the “right to control” theory. Depriving someone of information they would want when deciding how to use their money is not, by itself, wire fraud.
In Kousisis v. United States (2025), the Court went the other direction. It held that a defendant can be convicted for using lies to induce a deal even if the victim got what it paid for and suffered no net economic loss.
The takeaway is that the government’s theory matters. A good defense starts by asking whether the facts fit what the statute actually covers.
Good faith. If you honestly believed your statements were true, or believed the venture would succeed, you did not have intent to defraud. Business failure is not fraud.
No material misrepresentation. Vague optimism, sales talk, and opinions are different from false statements of fact.
No money or property at stake. After Kelly and Ciminelli, some schemes simply fall outside the statute.
Lack of knowledge. Employees and junior participants are often charged in cases where they didn’t know the full picture.
Loss challenges. Even when a conviction is likely, challenging how the government calculates loss can reduce a guideline range by years.
Don’t speak with agents without a lawyer, don’t delete emails or messages, and don’t contact others involved in the deal. Wire fraud cases are built from electronic records, and the government often has more of them than you expect. A federal defense attorney can find out whether you are a witness, subject, or target, and respond before charges are filed.
Not always. The government must prove a scheme to obtain money or property through material lies, but after Kousisis it does not have to prove the victim suffered a net economic loss. Loss still matters a great deal at sentencing.
Wire fraud under § 1343 is a federal offense. New Jersey also has state fraud and theft by deception laws, and some cases could be charged either way.
Generally five years. If the fraud affects a financial institution, the limit is ten years.
Yes. Broken contracts and failed deals usually stay civil, but if one side claims they were lied to, they may go to the FBI. Talking to a criminal defense lawyer early can prevent statements in the civil case from hurting you later.
Lorraine Gauli-Rufo has defended clients in federal court in New Jersey and New York for more than 30 years, including nearly 20 years as an assistant federal public defender. LGR Law handles federal fraud cases in Newark, Trenton, Camden, and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
Call 973-239-4300 or contact us online for a confidential consultation.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney client relationship.