Federal Wire-Fraud Prosecutions in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York — Foreign Nationals in the Crosshairs

The federal government, through the offices of the U.S. Attorneys for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“S.D.N.Y.”) and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (“E.D.N.Y.”), has in recent years increasingly pursued foreign nationals who orchestrate wire-fraud schemes that target U.S. victims, leverage U.S. wires, or otherwise touch U.S. commerce. This blog post explores: the legal framework of federal wire fraud, some representative recent cases involving foreign defendants in these two districts, and key considerations for practitioners and risk-managers to keep in view.

Legal Framework: Wire Fraud Statute, Related Offenses & Penalties

The core statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1343

The principal federal wire-fraud statute reads:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially-declared major disaster or emergency … or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. law.cornell.edu+2Congress.gov+2

Key take-aways:

• The statute is broadly drafted to cover “scheme or artifice to defraud” plus use of wires (or other electronic communications) in interstate or foreign commerce.
• Standard maximum sentence: 20 years imprisonment (plus fines).
• Enhanced maximum: up to 30 years imprisonment (and up to $1 million fine) if the fraud involves a financial institution or a disaster/emergency scenario.
• In practice, wire-fraud charges are often coupled with other offences — e.g., conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1349), mail fraud (§ 1341), money laundering, identity theft (§ 1028A), etc.
• Sentencing guidelines (U.S.S.G) will also govern calculation of loss amounts, number of victims, role of the defendant, etc., which can lead to much higher base offense levels. United States Sentencing Commission
• Restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is virtually always required when the offence results in a victim loss.

Related charges frequently seen

• Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349): allows charging of a defendant who agrees with others to commit wire fraud, even if he or she did not personally transmit a wire.
• Mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341): similar scheme/arsifice to defraud statute using the mail rather than wires.
• Aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A): often charged alongside wire fraud where fake IDs, impersonation etc. are used; these carry a mandatory consecutive two-year term.
• Money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956): when fraud proceeds are laundered through financial/crypto systems; often included to capture the proceeds trail.

Practical consequences & risk for foreign nationals

For foreign nationals engaging in schemes that touch U.S. wires or victims located in the U.S., the consequences include:

• Exposure to prosecution in U.S. federal court (either S.D.N.Y. or E.D.N.Y.) if the scheme’s wires pass to or from the U.S. or the victim is American.
• Potential for extradition (if they are abroad) or foreign arrest warrants if the U.S. seeks to bring them in.
• Long prison sentences (20-30 years, sometimes more when other charges are stacked).
• Significant fines and mandatory victim restitution.
• Collateral consequences: asset forfeiture, reputational harm, immigration consequences (for non-citizens) and being barred from U.S. travel or subject to new removal proceedings.

Recent Case Examples in S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y. Involving Foreign Nationals

Here are several instructive recent cases brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y., illustrating how foreign nationals are being targeted under these statutes.

1. S.D.N.Y. – “10 Foreign Nationals Charged in Years-Long, Multimillion-Dollar Investment and Impersonation Scheme” (Oct. 26, 2021)

In a S.D.N.Y. press release, the U.S. Attorney announced the unsealing of indictments charging ten foreign nationals (U.K., Cyprus, Ireland, Swiss) with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft in connection with a boiler-room scheme that impersonated investment firms and defrauded investors globally. Department of Justice+1
Key facts:

• The defendants ran “boiler rooms” in multiple countries, purported to be employees of real investment firms, created fake websites, emails etc., to induce victims to send money. Department of Justice
• Some defendants were arrested abroad (Cyprus, Spain, Romania, UK) and extradited or sought for extradition. Department of Justice
• Each defendant is charged with: (a) one count conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) — maximum 20 years; (b) one count conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956) — maximum 20 years; and (c) aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A) — mandatory minimum 2 years consecutive. Department of Justice
  This case demonstrates how the S.D.N.Y. uses wire-fraud statutes to pursue foreign nationals managing international fraud networks with links to the U.S.

2. E.D.N.Y. – “Two International Cybercriminal Rings Dismantled … Eight Defendants Indicted” (Nov. 27, 2018)

The E.D.N.Y. office announced the indictment of eight defendants residing abroad (arrests in Malaysia, Bulgaria, Estonia) for digital ad-fraud schemes involving botnets that infected 1.7 million computers in the U.S. and overseas. Among the charges were wire fraud. Department of Justice
Key facts:

• The defendants (many non-U.S. nationals) used a network of malware-infected computers to carry out fraud on U.S. targets, control ad traffic, generate false clicks etc. Department of Justice
• The wire-fraud charge (among others) meant the U.S. asserted jurisdiction through “interstate or foreign commerce” wires crossing into the U.S.
• Demonstrates E.D.N.Y.’s geographic—and extraterritorial—reach in fraud cases involving foreign nationals.

3. S.D.N.Y. – “Miles Guo Conviction” (July 16, 2024)

In another S.D.N.Y. press release, the U.S. Attorney announced that Chinese-born businessman Miles Guo (also known as Guo Wengui) was convicted by a jury of racketeering conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud and money laundering.
Key facts:

• Mr. Guo is an exiled Chinese businessman, described in the release as having orchestrated multiple interrelated fraud schemes targeted at his online followers.
• The wire-fraud conviction underscores that foreign nationals—even residing abroad—can be prosecuted in New York federal court when their schemes target U.S. victims, utilize U.S. wires, or otherwise enter U.S. commerce.

These examples show that both S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y. are consistently charged with handling complex, transnational wire-fraud schemes involving foreign nationals, cross-border wires, and U.S. victims.

Analysis & Key Observations

Why these districts?

• Geographic significance: S.D.N.Y. (Manhattan) and E.D.N.Y. (Brooklyn/Long Island) are hubs for international finance, media, internet/international business, and many fraud/white-collar investigations.
• Jurisdictional reach: The wire-fraud statute allows prosecution of schemes using communications in interstate or foreign commerce, enabling U.S. jurisdiction even where a perpetrator is abroad, if the scheme touches U.S. wires or victims.
• Resource and precedent: Both offices have well-developed white-collar fraud units, strong investigative partnerships (FBI, HSI, foreign partners) and track records in extraterritorial fraud prosecutions.

What motivates foreign nationals to be targeted?

• Many schemes use global boiler rooms or call centres, target victims in the U.S., use U.S. bank accounts or wires, rely on U.S. corporations or internet infrastructure.
• Foreign nationals may believe they are “out of reach” of U.S. law enforcement, but recent cases show extradition, asset seizure and global collaboration make them vulnerable.
• The U.S. government uses wire-fraud statutes as a flexible tool where many wires pass through U.S. infrastructure (emails, telephone calls, bank wires) even if the fraudster is abroad.

Key risk and defence considerations

• Wire-fraud exposure: Foreign national defendants should recognise that mere use of a wire (including email, online communication, bank wire) suffices if it furthers the scheme.
• Loss amount and victim count matter: Sentencing guideline calculations often depend on the amount of loss, number of victims, sophistication of the scheme, role of the defendant. Large-scale global schemes tend to push guideline levels high.
• Stacking of charges: Wire fraud rarely stands alone. Conspiracy counts, identity-theft counts, money-laundering counts all raise exposure and sentencing risk.
• Extradition risk: As the cases above show, defendants abroad have been arrested or subject to extradition requests. International cooperation is robust.
• Asset tracing and forfeiture: U.S. prosecutors will seek forfeiture of proceeds of fraud. Defendants should anticipate asset-freeze risks.
• Immigration/visa consequences: Non-U.S. nationals may face removal/deportation if convicted; in some cases, even arrest or extradition triggers immigration consequences.
• Victim restitution: Defendants should not overlook the mandatory victim-restitution obligations which often accompany federal fraud cases.
• Litigation and mitigation strategy: Early cooperation, full disclosure of offshore wires/accounts, careful review of U.S. involvement and wires may help mitigation.

Final Thoughts

The wave of prosecutions in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York shows that foreign nationals involved in wire-fraud schemes cannot count on geographic immunity. The use of U.S. wires, U.S. victims, or U.S.-based infrastructure gives prosecutors a strong hook to charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and related statutes. The fact that wire-fraud prosecutions are frequently part of larger multi-count indictments that include identity theft, money laundering and conspiracy reflects the seriousness with which the U.S. government treats these schemes.

For foreign nationals (or any entity dealing with cross-border communications, international call-centres, online investment schemes, crypto-fraud, etc.), the message is clear: if your conduct touches U.S. wires or U.S. victims, U.S. federal charges may follow — and the penalties are significant.

Matthew Galluzzo is a federal criminal defense attorney in New York and former Manhattan prosecutor. He has successfully represented many foreign nationals accused of federal wire fraud crimes in the United States. If you or a loved one have been accused of such a crime, you should strongly consider contacting him to discuss his possible engagement.