Wire Fraud vs. Bank Fraud: Understanding PPP Fraud Charges
So your probably looking at a federal indictment or target letter that lists both wire fraud and bank fraud charges related to your PPP loan, and your wondering what the difference is between these two offenses, why prosecutors charged you with both when it seems like the same conduct, and whether your facing 20 years or 30 years or some combination that adds up to decades in federal prison. The answer is that wire fraud and bank fraud are separate federal statutes with different elements, different maximum penalties, and different strategic implications, but they overlap significantly in PPP cases because submitting a fraudulent loan application electronically to a bank satisfies the requirements of both statutes.
Wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 prohibits using interstate wire communications—like emails, phone calls, internet transmissions, or electronic fund transfers—to execute a scheme to defraud, and it carries up to 20 years in prison (or 30 years if the fraud affects a financial institution). Bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 specifically targets schemes to defraud financial institutions or to obtain money from them through false pretenses, and it carries up to 30 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million per count. In PPP fraud prosecutions, you’ll almost always see both charges because PPP applications were submitted electronically (wire fraud) to banks and lenders (bank fraud).
What makes this particularly dangerous is that prosecutors can charge multiple counts of each offense based on a single PPP loan. Every email you sent to your lender can be a separate wire fraud count. Every electronic signature you placed on documents can be another wire fraud count. The electronic transfer of loan funds to your account can be yet another wire fraud count. Meanwhile, the initial application is bank fraud, the forgiveness application is another bank fraud count, and any supplemental submissions or certifications can be additional bank fraud counts. Before you know it, your facing 10 or 15 counts with a theoretical maximum exposure of 200 or 300 years in prison.
We represent clients charged with wire fraud and bank fraud in connection with PPP loans, and we know that understanding the specific elements of each charge, what the government must prove, and what defenses are available is essential to developing an effective defense strategy. While these statutes overlap, they have important differences that affect how we challenge the charges, what evidence we focus on, and what arguments we make to prosecutors, judges, and juries. The details matter enormously, and you need experienced federal defense counsel who knows these statutes inside and out.
What Are the Elements of Wire Fraud?
Wire fraud requires prosecutors to prove three essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that you knowingly participated in a scheme or artifice to defraud, (2) that you did so with the intent to defraud, and (3) that you used interstate wire communications in furtherance of the scheme. If the government can’t prove all three elements, the wire fraud charge fails, which is why understanding each element and how to challenge it is critical to your defense.
The first element—scheme to defraud—requires proof that there was a plan or course of conduct designed to deceive someone for the purpose of obtaining money or property. In PPP cases, prosecutors typically allege that the scheme involved submitting false information on loan applications to fraudulently obtain pandemic relief funds. The scheme doesn’t have to be sophisticated or complex; even a simple lie on an application can constitute a scheme to defraud if it was done intentionally and was designed to trick the lender into approving the loan.
The second element—intent to defraud—is often the most contested element in wire fraud cases because it requires proof of your state of mind, not just your actions. The government must prove that you knowingly and willfully participated in the fraudulent scheme, that you knew your representations were false, and that you intended to deceive the victim. This mens rea requirement is what separates criminal fraud from innocent mistakes or negligence. If you made errors on your PPP application but genuinely believed your information was accurate, or if you relied on guidance from accountants or the SBA and didn’t realize you were making false statements, you lack the criminal intent required for wire fraud.
The third element—use of interstate wires—is almost always satisfied in PPP cases because applications were submitted through online portals, emails were exchanged with lenders, electronic signatures were used, and loan proceeds were transferred via electronic banking systems. “Wire communications” includes internet transmissions, emails, phone calls, text messages, and electronic fund transfers, and the communication only needs to be in furtherance of the scheme—it doesn’t have to contain the fraudulent statement itself. Even ministerial uses of wires, like receiving a confirmation email after submitting your application, can satisfy this element.
One important nuance is that for wire fraud affecting financial institutions, the maximum penalty increases from 20 years to 30 years. The government must prove that your fraudulent scheme affected a financial institution, which in PPP cases is easy because all PPP loans were made by banks or other financial institutions even though the loans were ultimately guaranteed by the SBA. This enhanced penalty provision means most PPP wire fraud charges carry 30-year maximums, not 20.
What Are the Elements of Bank Fraud?
Bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 has two alternative theories of liability, and prosecutors only need to prove one of them: either that you knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme to defraud a financial institution, or that you knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme to obtain money or property from a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. In PPP cases, prosecutors typically charge under the second theory because it fits squarely with allegations that you made false statements on your loan application to obtain money from a bank.
The key elements of bank fraud that prosecutors must prove are: (1) that you knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme, (2) that the scheme involved false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, (3) that the scheme was designed to obtain money or property from a financial institution, and (4) that the financial institution had custody or control of the money or property. Unlike wire fraud, there’s no requirement to prove use of interstate communications—bank fraud focuses on the target of the fraud (financial institutions) rather than the means used to perpetrate it.
The “knowingly” requirement means prosecutors must prove you were aware that your representations were false and that you acted deliberately rather than accidentally. This is similar to the intent element in wire fraud, and its where defense attorneys focus significant attention because proving someone’s subjective knowledge and intent is much harder than proving objective facts about what they said or did. If you relied on professional advice from your accountant who prepared your PPP application, if you misunderstood complex SBA guidance about eligibility, or if you made calculation errors without realizing they were wrong, you may lack the knowledge required for bank fraud.
The “financial institution” element is easily satisfied in PPP cases because the statute defines financial institutions broadly to include banks, credit unions, savings associations, and other entities insured by the FDIC or involved in providing financial services. Every PPP loan was made by a financial institution, so this element is rarely contested. What matters more is proving that the scheme was directed at defrauding the institution—that you were trying to trick the bank into giving you money you weren’t entitled to, rather than just making mistakes on your application.
Why Do Prosecutors Charge Both Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud?
Prosecutors routinely charge both wire fraud and bank fraud in PPP cases even though the same conduct satisfies both statutes because charging multiple offenses gives them several strategic advantages: increased sentencing exposure that pressures defendants to plead guilty, more counts to use as bargaining chips in plea negotiations, alternative theories of liability in case one charge is weaker than the other, and the ability to present the jury with multiple ways to convict if the case goes to trial. Understanding why prosecutors take this approach helps explain why your facing so many counts and such massive potential sentences.
From the government’s perspective, charging both wire fraud and bank fraud is almost cost-free—the same evidence (your PPP application, supporting documents, witness testimony about the falsity of your statements) proves both offenses, so there’s minimal additional work involved in charging both. But the consequences for you are substantial because each additional count increases your sentencing exposure, affects the federal sentencing guidelines calculation, and gives prosecutors more leverage to force a plea deal.
Prosecutors also charge both statutes because they have slightly different elements, which gives them backup in case the defense successfully challenges one theory. For example, if the defense argues that there’s insufficient evidence of intent to defraud (which is required for both wire fraud and bank fraud), but the government’s proof is stronger on the wire fraud charges because of specific communications showing knowledge of falsity, the jury might convict on wire fraud even if they acquit on bank fraud, or vice versa. By charging both, prosecutors hedge there bets and increase the likelihood of obtaining at least some convictions.
Multiple counts also give prosecutors negotiating leverage in plea discussions. A common tactic is for the government to agree to dismiss some counts in exchange for a guilty plea to others. For example, they might agree to dismiss five wire fraud counts and two bank fraud counts if you plead guilty to one bank fraud count and one wire fraud count, while reserving the right to argue for significant sentencing enhancements based on the conduct underlying the dismissed charges. This allows them to reduce there trial burden while still seeking substantial sentences.
What’s the Difference in Penalties Between Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud?
Both wire fraud and bank fraud carry severe federal penalties, but there are important differences in maximum sentences, fines, and how sentences are calculated under the federal sentencing guidelines. Understanding these penalty differences is crucial because they affect your total sentencing exposure and influence plea negotiation strategies.
Wire fraud generally carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison per count, but when the fraud affects a financial institution, the maximum increases to 30 years per count and fines up to $1 million. Since virtually all PPP fraud cases affect financial institutions (because the loans were made by banks), wire fraud charges in PPP cases typically carry 30-year maximums. Bank fraud carries a flat 30 years per count regardless of the circumstances, plus fines of up to $1 million per count.
While the maximum penalties are similar (30 years for both when financial institutions are involved), the practical sentencing exposure is determined by the federal sentencing guidelines rather than statutory maximums. The guidelines calculate a sentencing range based on the base offense level for fraud, plus enhancements for factors like the amount of loss, the number of victims, sophisticated means, abuse of a position of trust, and obstruction of justice. For both wire fraud and bank fraud, the loss amount is the primary driver of the guideline calculation.
Under the guidelines, fraud losses are divided into ranges that trigger progressively higher offense levels. Losses under $6,500 result in no enhancement, while losses between $150,000 and $550,000 add 12 levels to the base offense level, and losses over $9.5 million add 22 levels. Since even small businesses could qualify for PPP loans of $150,000 or more, most PPP fraud cases involve substantial loss amounts that push guideline ranges into multiple years or even decades of recommended imprisonment.
One critical difference in sentencing between wire fraud and bank fraud is how courts treat multiple counts. If your convicted of five counts of wire fraud and three counts of bank fraud, the judge has discretion to order the sentences to run concurrently (all at the same time) or consecutively (one after another). In practice, judges often group related fraud counts and run them concurrently when they all arise from the same scheme, but they might impose consecutive sentences if they believe the conduct was particularly egregious or involved multiple victims or schemes.
How Do These Charges Affect Plea Negotiations?
The fact that prosecutors charge both wire fraud and bank fraud in PPP cases significantly affects plea negotiations because it gives the government multiple counts to use as leverage, creates pressure through massive sentencing exposure, and provides options for structuring plea agreements that appear to give the defendant concessions while still achieving the government’s sentencing goals. Understanding how these charges function in negotiations is essential to evaluating whether a proposed plea offer is actually favorable or whether its designed to look better than it is.
A typical scenario is that your indicted on 10 counts—maybe five wire fraud charges and five bank fraud charges—with a theoretical maximum exposure of 300 years in prison. The government then offers a plea agreement where you plead guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of wire fraud, with the remaining eight counts dismissed, and the government agrees to recommend a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range. On its face, this looks like a significant concession—your reducing your exposure from 10 counts to two counts, and your getting a sentencing recommendation rather than the government arguing for the maximum.
But the reality is more complex. First, sentences for the two counts your pleading to will almost certainly run concurrently rather than consecutively, so your not actually reducing your exposure by 80% just because 8 of 10 counts are dismissed. Second, the sentencing guidelines calculation includes “relevant conduct,” which means the court will consider all the fraudulent activity you engaged in, not just the conduct underlying the counts of conviction. So even though eight counts are dismissed, the loss amount and other guideline factors will reflect your total conduct, and your guideline range might be nearly identical to what it would have been if you were convicted on all 10 counts.
However, pleading guilty does provide significant benefits compared to going to trial. You’ll receive a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility if you plead guilty and don’t go to trial, which typically reduces your sentence by about 25%. You also avoid the risk of additional charges being filed or additional enhancements being sought if the government discovers more evidence during trial preparation. And you eliminate the risk of being convicted on all counts and facing exponentially higher sentences, since judges typically impose harsher sentences after trial convictions than after guilty pleas.
In evaluating plea offers, we analyze the strength of the government’s evidence, the likely outcome if you go to trial, the guideline range you’ll face under the plea agreement versus if your convicted at trial, and whether there are opportunities to negotiate better terms. Sometimes the strategy is to accept a plea offer and focus on minimizing the sentence through cooperation, mitigation evidence, and effective sentencing advocacy. Other times, when the government’s case is weak or the evidence doesn’t support intent to defraud, fighting the charges at trial is the better option.
What Defenses Apply to Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud Charges?
While wire fraud and bank fraud charges overlap significantly in PPP cases, there are specific defenses that apply to each statute, and understanding which defenses are strongest for which charges is critical to developing an effective defense strategy. The most powerful defenses focus on challenging the government’s proof of intent, attacking the materiality of alleged false statements, presenting evidence of good faith and reliance on advice, and exposing weaknesses in the government’s loss calculations.
The lack of intent defense is the most common and often most effective approach in both wire fraud and bank fraud cases. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knowingly made false statements with the intent to defraud. If you genuinely believed your PPP application was accurate, if you relied on guidance from the SBA or Treasury Department about eligibility and calculations, if your accountant or loan preparer filled out the application and you trusted their work, or if you made errors based on confusion about complex program requirements, you lack the criminal intent required for conviction. We present evidence of your good faith belief, your efforts to comply with program rules, and your reliance on professional advice to show that any false statements were mistakes rather than intentional fraud.
The materiality defense challenges whether the allegedly false statements actually mattered to the lending decision. Both wire fraud and bank fraud require proof that false statements were material—meaning they had the natural tendency to influence, or were capable of influencing, the decision-maker. If you overstated your payroll by 10% but you still would have qualified for the same loan amount based on your actual payroll, the false statement wasn’t material because it didn’t affect the outcome. We examine exactly what you would have been entitled to with accurate information and argue that minor discrepancies or errors that didn’t change the result aren’t material enough to support criminal charges.
For wire fraud specifically, we can challenge whether the alleged wire communications were actually “in furtherance of” the fraud scheme. The government must prove a connection between the wire communication and the fraudulent conduct—its not enough that wires were used; they must have been used to advance the fraud. If prosecutors are charging routine confirmation emails or administrative communications as separate wire fraud counts, we argue these communications weren’t fraudulent and didn’t further any scheme, which can result in dismissal of those counts.
For bank fraud specifically, we challenge whether the defendant actually executed or attempted to execute the alleged scheme. If you submitted a PPP application but withdrew it before any loan was approved, or if the lender denied your application based on issues they identified, the scheme was never executed and you may only face attempted bank fraud (which is still serious but demonstrates the government’s case has weaknesses). We also challenge whether the financial institution was actually the victim of the scheme, or whether the SBA as the loan guarantor was the real target, which can affect how courts analyze the charges.
The reliance on professional advice defense is particularly powerful when accountants, attorneys, or professional loan preparers prepared your PPP application. If you provided accurate information to professionals and they made errors in preparing the application, or if they advised you that certain calculations or certifications were correct when they weren’t, you’re not criminally liable for following their advice. We present evidence of your communications with advisors, the information you provided, and the advice you received to show you acted in good faith and relied on experts rather than intentionally committing fraud.
Can You Beat Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud Charges at Trial?
Yes, defendants can and do win acquittals in wire fraud and bank fraud trials, but success requires powerful evidence of innocence or good faith, significant weaknesses in the government’s case, and skilled trial advocacy that creates reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds. The government’s conviction rate in federal fraud cases is high—over 90% of federal criminal defendants who go to trial are convicted—but that statistic reflects the fact that most cases that go to trial involve strong evidence of guilt. When defendants have legitimate defenses and experienced counsel, acquittals are definitely achievable.
The key to winning at trial is attacking the government’s proof of intent, which is required for both wire fraud and bank fraud. Jurors understand that mistakes happen, that government programs like PPP were confusing and rolled out quickly, and that business owners who were desperate to keep there companies afloat during the pandemic might have made errors without intending to defraud anyone. If we can present evidence that you genuinely believed your application was accurate, that you relied on professional advice, that you made good-faith efforts to comply with program rules, and that you didn’t benefit personally from any inaccuracies, jurors may conclude you lacked criminal intent and vote to acquit.
Another winning strategy is demonstrating that the alleged false statements weren’t actually false or that they were immaterial to the lending decision. If prosecutors claim you inflated your payroll costs but we can present payroll records and expert testimony showing your calculation was reasonable based on available guidance, or if we show that even with lower payroll figures you still would have qualified for the same loan, the foundation of the government’s case crumbles. Fraud cases rise or fall on whether the government can prove the defendant lied about something significant, and if we can show the statements were either true or didn’t matter, the charges should fail.
Trials also give us opportunities to attack the government’s witnesses and evidence. Many PPP fraud cases rely heavily on bank employees testifying about their loan approval process, SBA officials explaining program rules, and forensic accountants calculating losses. On cross-examination, we can expose inconsistencies in witness testimony, show that program guidance was unclear or contradictory, demonstrate that lenders didn’t actually verify information before approving loans, and challenge the government’s loss calculations. If we can create doubt about the reliability of the government’s proof, jurors may acquit even if they suspect wrongdoing occurred.
However, going to trial involves substantial risks. If your convicted after trial, judges typically impose significantly harsher sentences than they would have under a plea agreement—often 30% to 50% higher—because you don’t receive the acceptance of responsibility reduction and because judges view defendants who force trials and lose as less deserving of leniency. You also risk being convicted on counts you might have gotten dismissed through a plea agreement, and you expose yourself to additional charges if the government discovers new evidence during trial. The decision whether to plead guilty or go to trial must be made strategically based on the strength of your defenses, the quality of the government’s evidence, and your sentencing exposure under different scenarios.
How We Defend Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud Charges
When you hire us to defend you against wire fraud and bank fraud charges related to your PPP loan, we provide aggressive, strategic representation designed to achieve the possible outcome whether that’s getting charges dismissed, winning at trial, or negotiating a favorable plea agreement that minimizes your prison time and protects your future. We’ve successfully defended clients in federal fraud cases and we understand how prosecutors build these cases and how to take them apart.
We start with a thorough investigation of the charges and the underlying facts. We’ll review your PPP application and all supporting documentation, examine your business records and financial statements, interview witnesses who can testify about your intent and good faith, and consult with accounting and fraud experts who can analyze your loan calculations and identify legitimate bases for the figures you used. This confidential investigation allows us to understand exactly what happened, what your defenses are, and what vulnerabilities exist in the government’s case.
We analyze the government’s evidence to identify weaknesses, inconsistencies, and constitutional violations. We obtain all discovery through formal and informal means, including your application documents, bank records, witness statements, expert reports, and investigative files. We look for gaps in the government’s proof—missing elements they can’t prove, alternative explanations for conduct they claim was fraudulent, and evidence that supports your innocence or good faith. We also investigate whether evidence was obtained through illegal searches, improper subpoenas, or violations of your rights, which can result in suppression of critical evidence.
We develop a comprehensive defense strategy tailored to your specific case. If the evidence shows you lacked criminal intent, we build a lack-of-intent defense with evidence of your good faith, confusion about program rules, and reliance on professional advice. If the alleged false statements weren’t material, we present expert testimony showing you would have qualified for the loan anyway. If there are procedural or constitutional problems with the charges, we file motions to dismiss counts or suppress evidence. Our goal is to create multiple paths to victory rather than relying on a single defense theory.
We negotiate with prosecutors from a position of strength and knowledge. Because we’ve thoroughly investigated the case and identified weaknesses in the government’s proof, we can credibly argue for dismissal of charges, reduction of counts, or favorable plea terms. We present evidence to prosecutors that undermines there case and demonstrates your lack of criminal intent. In appropriate cases, we negotiate cooperation agreements where you provide information about others in exchange for reduced charges or sentencing recommendations. We never recommend a plea agreement unless its truly in your interest based on the evidence and your sentencing exposure.
If your case goes to trial, we provide skilled courtroom advocacy to fight for acquittal. We file pretrial motions to exclude prejudicial evidence and limit the government’s case. We conduct aggressive cross-examination of government witnesses to expose weaknesses and create doubt. We present defense evidence including your testimony if appropriate, expert witnesses, character witnesses, and documents that support your innocence. We deliver compelling opening statements and closing arguments that tell your story and show why the government hasn’t met its burden of proof. Our goal is to win acquittal on all counts and get you home to your family.
If your facing wire fraud and bank fraud charges for your PPP loan, you need experienced federal defense counsel who understands these statutes and knows how to win these cases. Contact us immediately for a confidential consultation, and let us fight to protect your freedom and your future.