Mail Fraud Defense Lawyer

Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, is the oldest of the federal fraud statutes and it remains in constant use. It appears alongside wire fraud in nearly every scheme indictment, because a course of conduct that generated emails and transfers almost always generated something that went by post or commercial carrier as well: an invoice, a statement, a contract, a policy document, a cheque.

The offence carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment, rising to 30 years where the offence affects a financial institution or is related to a federally declared major disaster or emergency. Those are ceilings rather than expectations, and the advisory Sentencing Guidelines do more to determine an actual sentence. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. has been practicing since 1997, and Mr. Sris brings a background in accounting and information systems from George Mason University, applied to complex financial and technology-related cases. To discuss a mail fraud matter, request a consultation at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

What the Statute Reaches

Section 1341 applies where a person, having devised a scheme to defraud or to obtain money or property by false or fraudulent pretences, places or causes to be placed in the mail, or deposits with a private or commercial interstate carrier, any matter for the purpose of executing the scheme.

The inclusion of private and commercial carriers is significant and frequently overlooked. A package sent by a commercial courier satisfies the element just as a letter through the postal service does, which removes the argument that a scheme conducted without using the mail falls outside the statute.

Unlike wire fraud, the mailing does not need to cross state lines. A purely intrastate mailing through the postal service can support a mail fraud count, which is a genuine difference between the two provisions and one reason both are charged.

The statute has a long history and its breadth is deliberate. It was drafted to reach schemes generally rather than any particular industry, and courts have applied it to conduct ranging from investment schemes and insurance claims to procurement billing, charitable solicitation, and consumer sales. That generality is why it survives as a charging tool in an era when very little correspondence moves by post: the mailings that support modern counts are frequently routine documents such as statements, policies, invoices, and cheques rather than anything a defendant thought of as part of a scheme.

That last point cuts in both directions. It makes the element easy for the government to plead, and it makes the “in furtherance” requirement worth testing, because a document that would have been sent regardless of any scheme is not obviously a mailing for the purpose of executing one.

The Mailing Element Is Contestable

This is the practical distinction from wire fraud, where the wire element is almost never worth fighting. Mailings are different, because the mailing must be for the purpose of executing the scheme, and that requirement has real content.

A mailing that occurred after the scheme had reached fruition, where the money had already been obtained and nothing further was needed, may fall outside the element. Routine mailings incidental to a business, sent regardless of any scheme, can be argued not to further it. Mailings by third parties that the defendant neither made nor caused are also open to challenge, since the element requires the defendant to have placed or caused the item to be placed.

Because each qualifying mailing can support a separate count, and because venue depends on where mailings occurred, examining which mailings the indictment actually alleges is productive work rather than a formality.

The Rest of the Elements

The other requirements track wire fraud closely. There must be a scheme to defraud, or to obtain money or property by materially false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises. The defendant must have acted with the intent to defraud. And the object of the scheme must be money or property.

Materiality matters: a misstatement incapable of influencing the decision of a reasonable person in the position of the alleged victim is not material, and prosecutions built on peripheral inaccuracies are vulnerable on that basis. Puffery, optimistic projection, and statements of opinion are distinguishable from false statements of existing fact.

The government does not need to prove that the scheme succeeded or that anyone lost money. Loss becomes decisive at sentencing rather than at conviction.

Intent, and Where It Is Decided

As in every fraud prosecution, the intent to defraud is the element most often genuinely disputed. The same conduct can reflect deliberate deception or poor judgment, misplaced optimism, or reliance on someone else, and the difference is entirely a question of state of mind at the time.

Good faith is a complete defence. Reliance on the advice of counsel or an accountant, where sought in good faith on full disclosure and followed, operates through the same element. Both are established through contemporaneous documents rather than through later testimony, which is why the file of what a person knew and was told at the time is the centre of the defence.

Exposure

The statutory maximum for mail fraud is 20 years imprisonment, and 30 years where the offence affects a financial institution or relates to a federally declared major disaster or emergency. Fines are also available, and forfeiture and restitution attach to most convictions.

In practice the advisory Guidelines range determines the sentence. In a fraud case that range is driven principally by the loss amount, adjusted for the number of victims, whether sophisticated means were used, the defendant’s role, abuse of a position of trust, and obstruction, then set against criminal history. Because the range is built from facts rather than from the charge, the government’s figures are contestable, and contesting them is usually worth more than any argument about the ceiling.

Collateral consequences frequently matter more to a client than the custodial exposure: professional licensure, security clearance, immigration status, and eligibility for federal programmes and contracts each operate independently and on their own timetables.

Those consequences also arrive on different schedules from the criminal case. A licensing board can act on a charge rather than a conviction, a clearance review can open on a reported incident, and a contracting authority weighing present responsibility is entitled to decide on the information available. Identifying which of those tracks is live, and what triggers each, belongs in the first assessment rather than being addressed after the criminal matter resolves.

How These Cases Are Defended

Mail fraud cases are documentary cases. The defence is built by reconstructing the transaction record from source material rather than accepting a government summary, and by identifying where the chronology depends on inference rather than evidence.

The mailing element is examined count by count, since it is the one element in this statute that is genuinely open. The loss theory is examined immediately, because it drives the range. Where the case rests on cooperating witnesses, the work is reconstructing how each account developed and testing it against the documents.

In the Eastern District of Virginia all of this runs on a compressed timetable, since the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, sets a 70-day period within which trial must ordinarily begin after indictment or initial appearance, whichever is later, subject to excludable periods and continuances granted on findings.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is mail fraud?

An offence under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 committed by devising a scheme to defraud, or to obtain money or property by materially false pretences, and placing or causing to be placed in the mail or with a private or commercial interstate carrier any matter for the purpose of executing the scheme. The mailing need not cross state lines.

What is the maximum sentence for mail fraud?

Up to 20 years imprisonment, rising to 30 years where the offence affects a financial institution or is related to a federally declared major disaster or emergency. Those figures are ceilings. The sentence actually imposed is determined principally by the advisory Guidelines range, which in a fraud case is driven by the loss amount rather than by the statutory maximum.

Does using a courier instead of the post office matter?

No. The statute reaches matter deposited with a private or commercial interstate carrier as well as items placed in the mail, so a package sent by commercial courier satisfies the element. That closes the argument that a scheme which avoided the postal service falls outside § 1341.

Can the mailing element be challenged?

Yes, and unlike the wire element in § 1343 it is genuinely contestable. The mailing must be for the purpose of executing the scheme, so mailings sent after the scheme reached fruition, routine business mailings sent regardless of any scheme, and mailings the defendant neither made nor caused are all open to challenge. That analysis runs count by count.

Why am I charged with both mail fraud and wire fraud?

Because a course of conduct that generated emails and transfers usually generated something posted or couriered as well, and the two statutes have different requirements. Wire fraud needs an interstate or foreign transmission; mail fraud does not need the mailing to cross state lines. Charging both gives the government alternative theories and additional counts.

Does anyone have to have lost money?

No. The statute does not require that the scheme succeeded or that a victim suffered loss. Loss matters decisively at sentencing, because the advisory Guidelines range in a fraud case is driven principally by the loss amount, which is why the absence of loss substantially reduces exposure even where it does not defeat the charge.

Is good faith a defence?

Yes, and a complete one. Where a defendant genuinely believed the representations were true, the intent to defraud is absent even if the belief was mistaken or unreasonable. Reliance on professional advice sought in good faith on full disclosure and followed operates through the same element. Both are established with contemporaneous documents.

Working With Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C.

Mail fraud differs from wire fraud in the one place that matters for defence work: the mailing element has real content and can be tested count by count. Alongside that, the loss theory and the contemporaneous record of intent are where these cases are actually decided.

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 federal mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 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.