Maximum Prison Sentence for EIDL and PPP Loan Fraud
So your probably trying to figure out exactly how much prison time your facing if your convicted of EIDL or PPP loan fraud, and whether your looking at a few months, a few years, or the rest of your life behind bars. The answer depends on multiple factors including what specific charges prosecutors file, how much money was involved in the fraud, whether you used stolen identities or engaged in money laundering, your criminal history, and whether you cooperate with the government or go to trial and lose. The statutory maximum sentences are terrifying—30 years for bank fraud, 30 years for wire fraud, 20 years for money laundering—but the actual sentences most defendants receive are determined by the federal sentencing guidelines, which calculate recommended ranges based on the loss amount and other factors.
What makes EIDL and PPP fraud sentencing particularly harsh is that federal judges in 2024 and 2025 are imposing prison time in virtually every case regardless of the amount involved, and sentences are averaging 40% longer than they were just a few years ago for identical conduct. We’re seeing defendants go to prison for 18 months for $21,000 PPP loans, 46 months for $900,000 in fraudulent loans, 65 months for organizing fraud schemes involving multiple loans, and over 15 years for cases involving $11 million and money laundering. The days of probation or home confinement for “small” PPP fraud cases are over—if your convicted, your almost certainly going to federal prison, and the only question is how long.
The federal sentencing guidelines use a mathematical formula based on offense level and criminal history category to calculate recommended sentencing ranges. For fraud cases, the primary driver is loss amount—frauds involving $150,000 to $550,000 result in guideline ranges of 18 to 24 months for defendants with no criminal history, while frauds over $3.5 million result in guideline ranges of 51 to 63 months or more. But these are just starting points—enhancements for sophisticated means, multiple victims, abuse of trust, or obstruction can add years to the calculation, while reductions for acceptance of responsibility, cooperation, or minor role can reduce the sentence. The final number comes from a complex interaction of factors that requires experienced counsel to navigate.
We represent clients facing EIDL and PPP fraud charges, and we know that understanding your realistically sentencing exposure is critical to making informed decisions about whether to plead guilty or go to trial, whether to cooperate with the government, and how to present your case at sentencing. The difference between the statutory maximum (which is what the judge could impose) and the guidelines range (which is what the judge will likely impose) and the actual sentence (which depends on how effectively we argue for a below-guidelines sentence) can be measured in decades. You need counsel who understands federal sentencing inside and out and who knows how to fight for the lowest possible sentence.
What Are the Statutory Maximum Sentences for PPP and EIDL Fraud?
The statutory maximum sentences are the absolute highest penalties that can be imposed for each count of conviction, and they’re established by Congress in the criminal statutes themselves. For EIDL and PPP fraud cases, the maximum penalties are severe and can stack up quickly when prosecutors charge multiple offenses based on the same conduct. Understanding the statutory maximums is important because they set the outer limit of your exposure, but in reality, actual sentences are almost always far below the statutory maximums unless the case involves extraordinary circumstances.
Bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in federal prison and fines of up to $1 million per count. This is one of the most commonly charged offenses in PPP and EIDL cases because the loans were made by financial institutions even though they were backed by the SBA. Every fraudulent loan application can be charged as a separate count of bank fraud, and if your convicted on multiple counts, the sentences can theoretically run consecutively, meaning 30 years per count stacked on top of each other.
Wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 carries a maximum of 20 years in prison, or 30 years if the fraud affects a financial institution. Since virtually all PPP and EIDL fraud affects financial institutions, wire fraud charges in these cases typically carry 30-year maximums. Wire fraud can be charged for each electronic communication used in furtherance of the fraud—every email, every online application submission, every electronic fund transfer—which means a single fraudulent loan can result in dozens of wire fraud counts with enormous cumulative exposure.
Making false statements to financial institutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 also carries up to 30 years per count, while false statements to federal agencies under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 carries up to five years per count. These charges are often added to bank fraud and wire fraud charges because they focus on specific false certifications and statements rather than the overall scheme, giving prosecutors additional counts and additional sentencing leverage.
Money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 carries up to 20 years per transaction, and engaging in monetary transactions with criminally derived property under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 carries up to 10 years per transaction. Money laundering charges arise when defendants try to hide or move the fraudulently obtained funds, and because each financial transaction can be a separate count, the cumulative exposure from money laundering charges alone can exceed 100 years in cases involving multiple transfers and purchases.
Aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A carries a mandatory minimum sentence of two years that must run consecutive to any other sentence imposed. This charge applies when defendants use stolen or fabricated identities to obtain loans, and the mandatory consecutive nature means the judge has no discretion—if your convicted of identity theft, you automatically get at least two additional years tacked onto whatever sentence you receive for the underlying fraud. Multiple identity theft counts result in multiple mandatory consecutive sentences, which can add many years to the total.
How Do Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work?
The federal sentencing guidelines are a complex set of rules that judges use to calculate recommended sentencing ranges for convicted defendants. While the guidelines are technically advisory rather than mandatory following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, judges still follow them in the vast majority of cases, and guideline ranges are the starting point for virtually all federal sentencing decisions. Understanding how the guidelines work is essential to understanding your realistic sentencing exposure.
The guidelines calculation involves two primary components: offense level and criminal history category. These two factors intersect on a sentencing table that provides a recommended range in months of imprisonment. For example, an offense level of 18 with a criminal history category of I (meaning no criminal history) results in a guideline range of 27 to 33 months, while an offense level of 25 with criminal history category I results in a range of 57 to 71 months.
For fraud offenses, the base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 starts at level 6 or 7, but that’s just the beginning. The guidelines then add levels based on the loss amount, which is the single most important factor in fraud sentencing. The loss amount enhancements work on a sliding scale: losses of $6,500 or less result in no enhancement, losses of $15,000 to $40,000 add 4 levels, losses of $150,000 to $550,000 add 12 levels, losses of $1.5 million to $3.5 million add 16 levels, and losses over $25 million add 22 levels.
Additional enhancements can dramatically increase the offense level beyond the loss amount enhancement. If the offense involved 10 or more victims, add 2 levels. If it involved sophisticated means, add 2 levels. If you were in a leadership or organizational role, add 2 to 4 levels depending on the size of the scheme. If you abused a position of trust, add 2 levels. If you obstructed justice by destroying documents or lying to investigators, add 2 levels. These enhancements stack on top of each other, so a fraud case involving $500,000 in losses (12 levels), sophisticated means (2 levels), multiple victims (2 levels), and obstruction (2 levels) results in 18 levels of enhancements on top of the base offense level.
Reductions are available for defendants who accept responsibility and cooperate with the government. If you plead guilty and demonstrate acceptance of responsibility, you can receive a 3-level reduction, which typically reduces your sentence by about 25%. If you provide substantial assistance to the government in investigating or prosecuting others, prosecutors can file a motion for downward departure that can reduce your sentence even further, potentially below the guideline range. These reductions are critically important and are often the difference between a manageable sentence and a devastating one.
What Are Actual Sentences Being Imposed in 2024-2025?
Actual sentences being imposed for EIDL and PPP fraud in 2024 and 2025 are significantly harsher than sentences from 2021 and 2022, reflecting a shift in judicial attitudes as the pandemic has receded and as judges view fraud defendants less sympathetically. The data shows that defendants sentenced in 2024-2025 are receiving prison terms that are on average 40% longer than sentences imposed just a few years ago for comparable conduct, and nearly every defendant is receiving prison time regardless of the amount involved or mitigating factors.
For frauds involving relatively small amounts—$20,000 to $50,000—defendants are typically receiving sentences of 12 to 24 months in federal prison. For example, a Cincinnati defendant received 18 months for a $21,000 PPP loan fraud in March 2025. A few years ago, these cases might have resulted in probation or home confinement, but in 2024-2025, judges are imposing actual prison time even for first-time offenders with minimal losses. The message from the courts is clear: PPP and EIDL fraud is serious criminal conduct that warrants imprisonment, period.
For mid-level frauds involving $500,000 to $2 million, sentences typically range from 3 to 6 years in prison. A Los Angeles woman who obtained approximately $2.25 million through fraudulent PPP and EIDL applications was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Richard Nieto, who fraudulently obtained $913,000 in PPP loans, received 46 months (about 3.8 years). Renetta Golden-Larimore received 51 months (about 4.25 years) for her role in obtaining over $900,000 in fraudulent loans. These sentences reflect guideline calculations in the 40 to 60 month range, with judges imposing sentences near the middle of the range absent extraordinary circumstances.
For larger frauds involving multiple millions of dollars, sentences routinely exceed 10 years. A Nevada man was sentenced to over 15 years in prison for fraudulently obtaining more than $11 million in PPP loans and then laundering the funds through real estate, gambling, and luxury purchases. Tommy Hawkins received 65 months (over 5 years) for organizing a conspiracy involving 38 fraudulent PPP loans totaling approximately $5 million. When money laundering charges are added to fraud charges, and when defendants go to trial and lose rather than pleading guilty, sentences can approach or even exceed 20 years.
The aggravating factors that push sentences higher include use of stolen identities, sophisticated fraud schemes involving multiple participants, money laundering or attempts to hide proceeds, spending fraud proceeds on luxury items rather than business purposes, and going to trial and losing rather than pleading guilty. The mitigating factors that can reduce sentences include genuine business losses during the pandemic that motivated the conduct, relatively modest personal benefit from the fraud, full cooperation with investigators, early acceptance of responsibility, and compelling personal circumstances like serious health issues or family hardships.
How Does Loss Amount Affect Your Sentence?
Loss amount is the single most important factor in determining sentences for EIDL and PPP fraud because the federal sentencing guidelines assign specific offense level increases based on the amount of loss involved, and those increases directly translate to years of additional prison time. Understanding how loss is calculated and how to challenge the government’s loss calculations is critical to minimizing your sentencing exposure.
Under the sentencing guidelines, “loss” generally means the greater of actual loss (the actual pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense) or intended loss (the pecuniary harm that the defendant intended to inflict). In PPP and EIDL cases, the government typically argues that the loss amount is the full amount of the fraudulently obtained loan, even if some or all of the money was used for legitimate business purposes or if the loan has been partially repaid. This aggressive approach to loss calculation means defendants are often held accountable for larger loss amounts than they actually caused.
However, loss calculations can and should be contested when the facts support it. If you obtained a $500,000 PPP loan through inflated payroll figures, but you actually would have qualified for a $350,000 loan based on your legitimate payroll, the loss should be $150,000, not $500,000. Similarly, if you used the fraudulently obtained funds for authorized business expenses like payroll and rent, the government suffered less actual loss than if you had spent the money on personal luxury items. We present evidence and expert testimony to show that the government’s loss calculations are overstated and that lower loss amounts should be used for sentencing purposes.
The difference between loss amount categories is measured in years of prison time. Moving from the $150,000-$550,000 category (12-level enhancement) down to the $95,000-$150,000 category (10-level enhancement) can reduce your guideline range by 12 to 18 months. Moving from the $1.5 million-$3.5 million category (16-level enhancement) down to the $550,000-$1.5 million category (14-level enhancement) can reduce your sentence by 2 to 3 years. These differences are enormous, which is why fighting over loss calculations at sentencing is often the most important battle in the case.
Loss calculations become even more complex when multiple defendants are involved in a fraud scheme. Each defendant is responsible for the “reasonably foreseeable” losses caused by the conspiracy, not just there own individual conduct. This means if you recruited others to submit fraudulent applications and they obtained $2 million in loans while you only obtained $200,000, you could be held accountable for the entire $2.2 million in calculating your sentence. We work to limit our clients’ exposure to losses caused by co-conspirators by showing that certain conduct wasn’t reasonably foreseeable or that our client wasn’t responsible for supervising or directing others’ actions.
Can You Get Probation Instead of Prison for PPP or EIDL Fraud?
Probation instead of prison for PPP or EIDL fraud is possible in theory but extremely rare in practice in 2024-2025, and you should assume that if your convicted, your going to federal prison regardless of the amount involved or your personal circumstances. A few years ago, defendants charged with relatively small-dollar frauds and who had no criminal history might receive probation or home confinement, but the judicial climate has shifted dramatically, and judges are now imposing actual prison time in virtually every case.
The circumstances where probation might still be possible are extremely limited. You would need to have a very small loss amount—probably under $50,000 and ideally under $20,000—combined with extraordinary mitigating circumstances like serious medical conditions that make imprisonment particularly harsh, compelling family circumstances like being the sole caregiver for disabled dependents, or evidence that your participation was minimal and you were manipulated or coerced by others. Even then, probation is far from guaranteed and would likely require a significant downward departure from the guidelines based on factors the guidelines don’t adequately account for.
Home confinement or split sentences (where you serve part of your sentence in prison and part on home confinement) are more realistic alternatives to full prison sentences, particularly for defendants with loss amounts under $100,000 and strong mitigation. The First Step Act, passed in 2018, expanded judges’ authority to impose home confinement as an alternative to incarceration, and some judges have used this authority in PPP fraud cases involving first-time offenders with relatively modest losses. However, home confinement still requires you to be confined to your residence with electronic monitoring, so its not the same as probation where you have freedom of movement.
The key to avoiding prison or minimizing prison time is presenting compelling mitigation evidence at sentencing. This includes character letters from family, friends, employers, and community members describing your good character and contributions. It includes evidence of your business’s legitimate struggles during the pandemic and how desperation rather than greed motivated your conduct. It includes documentation of any health issues, family responsibilities, or other personal circumstances that make imprisonment particularly harsh. And critically, it includes demonstrating genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility, which means not minimizing your conduct or making excuses, but acknowledging what you did wrong and showing concrete steps you’ve taken to make amends.
How Do Mandatory Minimums Affect Sentencing?
Mandatory minimum sentences remove judicial discretion and require judges to impose at least a specified amount of prison time regardless of mitigating circumstances, and they’re one of the most dangerous aspects of federal sentencing because they can result in draconian sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the offense. In EIDL and PPP fraud cases, mandatory minimums typically arise from aggravated identity theft charges, and they can add years to sentences that might otherwise have been more lenient.
Aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A is the primary mandatory minimum statute in PPP and EIDL fraud cases. This charge applies when you knowingly used another person’s identification information without authorization during the commission of bank fraud, wire fraud, or certain other predicate offenses. The mandatory minimum is two years in prison, and critically, that two-year sentence must run consecutively to any other sentence imposed—meaning its added on top of whatever you receive for the underlying fraud offense.
The mandatory consecutive nature of identity theft sentences is what makes them so severe. If your convicted of bank fraud and the guidelines call for a sentence of 36 months, and your also convicted of aggravated identity theft, the judge must impose at least 60 months total—36 months for the fraud plus a mandatory 24 months consecutive for identity theft. The judge has no discretion to make the sentences run concurrently, and the two-year minimum can’t be reduced for acceptance of responsibility, cooperation, or any other reason. Its a flat two years added to your sentence, period.
Multiple identity theft counts result in multiple mandatory consecutive sentences stacking on top of each other. If you submitted fraudulent PPP applications using three different stolen identities, that’s three counts of aggravated identity theft with three separate two-year mandatory minimums, for a total of six years that must be added consecutively to whatever sentence you receive for the fraud charges. We’ve seen cases where defendants facing guideline ranges of 4 to 5 years ended up with actual sentences of 10 to 12 years because of multiple identity theft charges with stacking mandatory minimums.
The only way to avoid mandatory minimums is to avoid conviction on the charges that carry them. This means negotiating plea agreements that dismiss identity theft charges, or presenting defenses that create reasonable doubt on the knowledge element (you must have known you were using another person’s real identification information), or in rare cases, having the court find that the mandatory minimum would result in a constitutionally excessive sentence. Once your convicted of aggravated identity theft, the mandatory minimum applies regardless of any mitigating circumstances, which is why avoiding these charges through effective negotiation or defense is critical.
What Happens If You Go to Trial and Lose?
Going to trial and losing results in significantly harsher sentences than pleading guilty—typically 30% to 50% longer—because you lose the acceptance of responsibility reduction that’s available to defendants who plead guilty, and because judges view defendants who force trials and lose as less deserving of leniency than defendants who take responsibility early in the process. The sentencing penalty for exercising your constitutional right to trial is one of the harshest realities of the federal criminal justice system.
The acceptance of responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 provides a 3-level decrease in offense level for defendants who clearly demonstrate acceptance of responsibility for the offense, and an additional 1-level decrease if your offense level is 16 or greater and you plead guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. This 3 to 4 level reduction typically translates to a 25% to 35% reduction in your sentence, which can mean the difference between 3 years and 5 years, or between 8 years and 12 years. When you go to trial, you automatically lose this reduction because the guidelines view putting the government to its burden of proof as inconsistent with accepting responsibility.
Beyond losing the acceptance of responsibility reduction, defendants who go to trial and lose often face additional consequences at sentencing. Judges sometimes view fighting weak cases as obstruction of justice, particularly if the defendant testified falsely at trial. Prosecutors may recommend harsher sentences for defendants who went to trial, arguing that they’ve shown no remorse and remain a danger to the community. And judges may impose sentences at or above the guidelines range rather than below it, which they might have done if the defendant had pleaded guilty and cooperated.
The decision whether to go to trial must weigh the probability of acquittal against the sentencing penalty if your convicted. If the government’s case is strong and you have a small chance of winning at trial, the 30-50% sentencing penalty makes trial a very risky proposition. But if you have strong defenses, significant weaknesses in the government’s evidence, or if the plea offer isn’t meaningfully better than what you’d face after trial, then trial might be the right strategic choice. This calculation requires careful analysis of the evidence, the strength of your defenses, and your risk tolerance.
How We Fight for Lower Sentences in PPP and EIDL Fraud Cases
When you hire us to represent you in an EIDL or PPP fraud case, one of our primary goals is to minimize your sentencing exposure whether that’s through negotiating favorable plea agreements that cap sentencing recommendations, challenging the government’s loss calculations and guideline enhancements, or presenting powerful mitigation evidence that persuades judges to impose below-guidelines sentences. We’ve successfully obtained sentences significantly lower than what clients initially faced, and we know how to fight for the possible outcome at sentencing.
We start by conducting a detailed guidelines analysis early in the case to understand your likely sentencing range and identify opportunities to reduce it. We calculate the probable offense level based on loss amount and potential enhancements, research how judges in your district typically sentence fraud cases, and develop strategies to minimize enhancements and maximize reductions. This early analysis informs our negotiation strategy and helps you make informed decisions about whether to plead guilty or go to trial.
We challenge the government’s loss calculations at every stage. We retain forensic accountants and fraud experts to analyze your loan applications, your actual eligibility, and the government’s actual loss to show that the loss amount should be lower than what prosecutors claim. We present evidence of legitimate business expenses you paid with loan proceeds, partial loan repayments you’ve made, and amounts you actually would have been entitled to with accurate applications. These challenges can reduce your offense level by multiple points and save years of prison time.
We negotiate plea agreements that include favorable sentencing provisions. We push for agreements that dismiss the most serious charges like identity theft with mandatory minimums, that include government recommendations for low-end or below-guidelines sentences, and that preserve our ability to argue for downward departures and variances. We also explore cooperation opportunities where you provide substantial assistance to the government in investigating others in exchange for significant sentencing reductions through 5K1.1 motions.
We prepare comprehensive sentencing memoranda and mitigation packages that humanize you to the judge and show why a lower sentence is warranted. This includes dozens of character letters, evidence of your contributions to family and community, documentation of hardships you faced during the pandemic, evidence of rehabilitation and remorse, and arguments for downward variances based on factors the guidelines don’t adequately consider. We present this evidence at sentencing hearings and make compelling arguments for why justice requires a below-guidelines sentence.
If your facing EIDL or PPP fraud charges, your sentencing exposure is one of the most important factors in deciding how to handle your case, and you need attorneys who understand federal sentencing and know how to fight for lower sentences. Contact us immediately for a confidential consultation, and let us help you minimize your exposure and protect your future.