Charged Under 18 U.S.C. 371 What Happens Next

The first thing to establish in a § 371 indictment is which clause is charged. The offence clause alleges a conspiracy to commit a specific federal crime; the defraud clause alleges a conspiracy to impair a government function by dishonest means. They require different proof and are defended differently, and an indictment sometimes pleads both.

Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. has been practicing since 1997. To discuss a § 371 indictment, request a consultation at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

Reading the Indictment

Beyond the clause, three things matter immediately. The overt acts alleged, because § 371 requires at least one and the list reveals how the government understands the chronology and where it places the agreement’s start. The alleged government function, if the defraud clause is charged, because the impairment theory has to be tested against the agency’s own records. And the accompanying counts, since § 371 is frequently pleaded alongside substantive offences whose Guidelines drive the range.

The alleged start and end dates of the conspiracy also deserve attention. They determine which conduct falls inside the limitations period and, for a defendant who joined partway through, where the scope boundary sits.

Initial Appearance and Release

Release is decided under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, at an initial appearance before a United States magistrate judge. In white collar conspiracies detention is uncommon but not automatic release, and the government typically raises assets, foreign ties, and travel history.

Conditions restricting contact with codefendants are usual and have practical consequences where codefendants are business partners, colleagues, or family. Raising workable conditions at the hearing is better than seeking modification later.

The Agency File

The distinctive early task in a defraud-clause case is obtaining the government’s own records. Because the theory is impairment of a lawful function, what the agency knew, required, and did is directly in issue.

The material that matters includes submission and filing records with their audit trails, certifications and representations made at award or filing, internal approval chains, correspondence with the defendant or the company, and the agency’s own record of how it processed the matter. Where the agency held the information said to have been concealed, did not require it, or proceeded unaffected, the theory is undermined on its own file.

Discovery is the first route and subpoena the second. Because the Eastern District of Virginia sets trial dates early, requesting that material in the first weeks rather than after the initial production is what makes the argument available at all. Under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, trial must ordinarily begin within 70 days of indictment or initial appearance, whichever is later, subject to excludable periods and continuances granted on findings.

Motions, Then Resolution or Trial

Motions practice concentrates on the sufficiency of the indictment, including whether the clause and the impaired function are identified with adequate particularity; the overt acts, where those alleged predate the agreement or did not further it; severance and multiple conspiracies where codefendants are joined; suppression; and venue.

Resolution discussions require care because of the § 371 sentencing trap. The statutory ceiling is lower than that of the substantive fraud provisions, which makes a plea to the conspiracy count look favourable, but the advisory Guidelines range is calculated from the underlying conduct rather than from the count label. The exposure has to be assessed on the tax loss or government loss, and on the scope of what this defendant agreed to, before any offer is evaluated.

Collateral consequences run independently: suspension and debarment for contractors, licensing review for professionals, clearance review for cleared personnel, and immigration consequences for noncitizens.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which clause of § 371 am I charged under?

The indictment will say, and it matters. The offence clause alleges a conspiracy to commit a specific federal crime, so the government must identify that offence. The defraud clause alleges a conspiracy to impair a lawful government function by dishonest means, requiring no substantive offence and no loss. Some indictments plead both, and each is defended differently.

Why do the overt acts matter?

Because § 371 requires at least one, unlike the fraud conspiracy provision at § 1349. The list also reveals how the government understands the chronology and where it places the start of the agreement. Acts that predate the agreement, that are unrelated, or that did not occur are open to challenge, and the indictment must allege them.

Is pleading to the conspiracy count a good outcome?

Not automatically. The statutory ceiling for § 371 is lower than that of the substantive fraud provisions, which caps the sentence in a very large case. But the advisory Guidelines range is calculated from the underlying conduct rather than the count label, so in an ordinary case the range does not move. Assess the conduct before evaluating the offer.

How do I obtain the agency’s records?

Through discovery first, and by subpoena where necessary. This is the central early task in a defraud-clause case, because what the agency knew, required, and did determines whether any function was impaired. Requesting it in the first weeks matters given how early this district sets trial dates.

Will I be detained?

Detention is uncommon in white collar conspiracies, though release is not automatic. It is decided under the Bail Reform Act on the least restrictive conditions that reasonably assure appearance and community safety. Expect the government to raise assets, foreign ties, and travel history, and expect conditions restricting contact with codefendants.

What should happen in the first month?

Release resolved with workable contact conditions; the clause and the impaired function identified; the overt acts tested against the chronology; the complete agency file requested; the scope boundary for this defendant established from contemporaneous communications; and an initial Guidelines calculation run on the underlying conduct rather than on the count of conviction.

Working With Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C.

Two things distinguish the opening month of a § 371 case: identifying which clause is charged, and getting the agency’s own file. The impairment theory is tested against what the government actually knew and required, which means the decisive evidence sits with the government rather than with the client.

Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor and is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. The firm has been practicing since 1997. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys handle criminal defense matters across those jurisdictions, which matters in federal practice because a single investigation frequently reaches conduct, witnesses, and records in more than one state. Mr. Sris brings a background in accounting and information systems from George Mason University, applied to complex financial and technology-related cases.

The firm serves Northern Virginia from 1655 Fort Myer Dr, Suite 700, Room 719, Arlington, VA 22209 and central Virginia from 7400 Beaufont Springs Drive, Suite 300, Room 395, Richmond, VA 23225. By appointment. Call (888) 437-7747 to schedule. Request a consultation. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

This page provides general information about the sequence of a § 371 conspiracy prosecution and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney responsible for this advertising: Mr. Sris.

Being charged is one stage of the case. Our page on conspiracy to defraud the US charges sets out the offence from start to finish.