Wire Fraud Elements of the Offense

To convict under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 the government must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt, as a district court will frame them for a jury from the statutory text. First, that the defendant knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means of materially false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises. Second, that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud. Third, that the defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted a communication by wire in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of executing the scheme.

Each element is a separate requirement, and a failure on any one defeats the count. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. has been practicing since 1997. To discuss a wire fraud charge, request a consultation at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

Element One: A Scheme to Defraud

A scheme to defraud is a plan or course of conduct intended to deprive another of money or property through deception. It does not require a formal agreement, a written plan, or multiple participants, and it need not have succeeded.

The deception must be material, meaning capable of influencing the decision of a reasonable person in the position of the alleged victim. Immaterial inaccuracies, puffery, and statements of opinion or optimistic projection are distinguishable from false statements of existing fact.

The object of the scheme must be money or property. Theories resting on the deprivation of something else, such as accurate information or the ability to make a fully informed decision, have been the subject of significant appellate attention and are narrower than they were once asserted to be.

Element Two: Intent to Defraud

The intent to defraud means an intent to deceive for the purpose of causing financial or property loss. It must have existed at the relevant time and cannot be established merely by pointing to how matters turned out.

Good faith negates this element entirely. A defendant who genuinely believed the representations were true lacked the intent to defraud even if the belief was mistaken or unreasonable. Reliance on professional advice, sought in good faith on full disclosure and followed, operates the same way.

Because intent is a state of mind, it is proved and disproved circumstantially, which in practice means through contemporaneous documents rather than through recollection.

Element Three: The Wire Transmission

The government must prove a transmission by wire in interstate or foreign commerce, made or caused by the defendant, for the purpose of executing the scheme. Emails, telephone calls, text messages, bank transfers, card transactions, and internet traffic all qualify.

The transmission itself need not be false or fraudulent; it need only further the scheme. The defendant also need not have personally sent it, since causing a transmission suffices, and routine banking and internet infrastructure supplies the interstate element in almost every case.

Which wires the indictment alleges nonetheless matters, because each can support a separate count and because venue depends on them.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many elements does wire fraud have?

Three, as a district court will frame them for a jury from the statutory text: a knowing scheme to defraud or to obtain money or property by materially false pretences; the intent to defraud; and a wire transmission in interstate or foreign commerce made or caused by the defendant for the purpose of executing the scheme. Failure on any one defeats the count.

Does the scheme have to succeed?

No. The statute does not require that the scheme worked, that the defendant obtained anything, or that any victim lost money, and an attempt can suffice. Loss becomes decisive at sentencing rather than at conviction, because the advisory Guidelines range in a fraud case is driven principally by the loss amount.

What does materiality mean?

That the false pretence was capable of influencing the decision of a reasonable person in the position of the alleged victim. A misstatement that could not have affected the decision is not material. Prosecutions built on technical or peripheral inaccuracies are vulnerable on this element, which is why it is worth examining rather than conceding.

Do I have to be the one who sent the email?

No. Causing a transmission is sufficient, so a defendant who set in motion a process that resulted in a wire transmission satisfies the element without having sent anything personally. This is one reason the wire element is rarely a productive place to concentrate a defence.

Is intent the same as knowledge?

Not quite. The statute requires both that the defendant knowingly devised or participated in the scheme and that the defendant acted with intent to defraud. Knowledge concerns awareness of the scheme; intent concerns the purpose of causing financial or property loss through deception. Good faith defeats intent even where knowledge of the underlying facts is not in dispute.

What if the money or property element is missing?

The count is exposed. The scheme must have money or property as its object, and where the government cannot identify money or property the scheme was designed to obtain, the theory fails. This arises most often where no financial loss is identified, where the alleged victim received what it paid for, or where the real complaint is regulatory or contractual.

Working With Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C.

Reading an indictment against the elements is the first analytical step in a fraud case. It identifies which element the government has actually pleaded evidence for, which it has assumed, and where the documentary record can be brought to bear.

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 elements of federal wire fraud 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.