The crime of wire fraud occurs when someone voluntarily and intentionally uses an interstate communications device (such as a telephone) as a part of any scheme to defraud another of property, or anything else of value.

The main criminal statutes that apply to wire fraud are 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349. Those statues refer to fraud by wire, radio, or television.

Section 1343 defines as guilty of wire fraud: “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 pretenses, 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.”

Therefore, to be criminally culpable under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, a defendant must have intentionally and voluntarily used a communication device that sends information over state lines as part of a scheme to defraud another out of money or other valuables. It can involve the use of a landline telephone, cell phone, computer, tablet, or another electronic device.

U.S.C. 1349 applies to attempts to commit wire fraud. Indeed, “[a]ny person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”

A person could be charged with wire fraud if the following four elements of the crime are established: (i) the person voluntarily or intentionally participated in or devised a scheme to defraud someone of money or other valuables; (ii) the person did so with the intent to defraud the person. Moreover (iii) It was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used, (iv) in the scheme.

The wire fraud statute does not make an explicit reference to materiality. Yet materiality is an element of the offense, because at the time of the statutes’ enactment, the word “defraud” was understood to “require a misrepresentation or concealment of [a] material fact.” Thus, other than in an honest services context, a “scheme to defraud” for mail or wire fraud purposes must involve a material misrepresentation of some kind. material if it is capable of influencing the intended victim.”

Wire fraud can involve many different schemes to defraud a person using electronic communications such as emails, webpages, and social media. The federal wire fraud statute specifically mentions wire, radio, and television communications, but it also includes many fraud offenses involving computers and the internet. The information transmitted can be any writes, signs, signals, pictures or sounds used in the scheme to defraud. In order for wire fraud to take place, the person must voluntarily and knowingly make misrepresentations of facts with the intent to defraud someone of money or property.

Fraudsters use various methods to get personal credentials and passwords including:

• Malware: Malware (short for “malicious software”) is designed to gain access, damage or disrupt a computer without the knowledge of the owner.
• Phishing: Phishing is a scam typically carried out through unsolicited email and/or websites that pose as legitimate sites and lure unsuspecting victims to provide personal and financial information.
• Vishing and Smishing: Thieves contact bank or credit union customers via live or automated phone calls (known as vishing attacks) or via text messages sent to cell phones (smishing attacks) that may warn of a security breach so as to obtain account information, PIN numbers and other account information they need to gain access to the account.
• Accessing Email Accounts: Hackers gain illicit access to an email account or email correspondence through spam, computer virus, and phishing.

For example, creating a webpage to ask for donations for a charity or a personal tragedy that is fraudulent could be prosecuted as a wire fraud. Moreover, stealing bank and other financial information to transfer money out of a person’s bank and other financial accounts, to make charges on his credit cards, or to take out credit cards in his name, or sending a mass email to a person’s email contacts with a tragic story as to why the person needs money immediately are other examples of wire fraud.

Wire fraud is a federal crime. Since November 1, 1987, federal judges have used the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to determine the sentence of a guilty defendant. A judge will look at the “base offense level” and then adjust the sentence based on the specific characteristics of the crime. With all fraud offenses, the base offense level is six. However, other factors will then influence that number, including, for example, the dollar amount stolen, how much planning went into the crime and the victims that were targeted.

Thus, for example, a wire fraud scheme that involved the theft of $300,000 through an intricate scheme to take advantage of the elderly will score higher than a wire fraud scheme that an individual planned in order to cheat their employer out of $1,000.

Other factors that will influence the final sentencing “score” include the defendant’s criminal history, whether or not the defendant tried to impede the investigation, and whether the defendant willingly helped investigators catch other people involved in the crime.

Usually, a person convicted of wire fraud faces significant potential penalties. A single act of wire fraud can result in fines and up to 20 years in prison. However, if the wire fraud scheme affects a financial institution or is connected to a presidentially declared disaster or emergency, the potential penalties are fines of up to $1,000,000 and up to 30 years in prison.

If you or a loved one have been accused of a federal wire fraud charge, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

The case began as many federal investigations do – with an undercover cooperator. Somehow, law enforcement investigators with the FBI identified William Rick Singer, the founder and chief executive officer of a nonprofit “college placement organization” called the Key, as a person engaged in unlawful activity. Though the precise details have not yet been shared, it is clear that they ultimately confronted him with the evidence of his illegal activity and made a deal with him: cooperate against the people who had enlisted his help in order to minimize his eventual punishment.

Mr. Singer then started recording his telephone calls and conversations with his criminal clients. Those calls apparently revealed a wide-ranging series of scams designed to get students into the schools of their choice. For example, Singer arranged for students who had struggled on the college entrance exams to get favorable disability diagnosis from an enlisted medical professional so as to get more time to take their tests. Then, he also arranged for the prospective students to take their college placement tests under the supervision of a paid-for proctor who either corrected their answers or permitted someone else to take their tests for them. Singer made arrangements to have students appear to be successful athletes when they were not, or flat-out bribed college athletic coaches into agreeing to tell the admissions office that they needed the students for their college sports teams. Some of the college coaches were allegedly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to fraudulently accept students onto their teams (and therefore, into the school) without the relevant athletic credentials.

The evidence against some of these parents is going to be overwhelming and devastating. Of course the FBI is in possession of numerous recorded conversations about the details of the scheme, as well as emails and text messages, between the conspirators. There will inevitably be bank records and wire transfers showing the “donations” made by the parents to Singer in furtherance of the scheme. Some of the messages will be particularly damning; for example, the co-chairman of the international law firm Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, Gordon Caplan, is charged with paying Singer to help his daughter improve her college entrance exam scores, among other things. Caplan was allegedly recorded stating that he had no problem with the moral implications of his actions, but was only concerned about the consequences should he be caught. Statements like those make it virtually impossible to prevail at trial.

Some of these defendants may attempt to argue that they were unaware of what exactly they were paying Singer to do, or that there were other unrecorded conversations that paint their understandings in a different light. However, assuming that these defendants all eventually plead guilty, the next question is the sentencing exposure for the defendants. (Note: the ultimate charges are likely to be violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and/or 1346).

The crimes with which these defendants are charged – mail/wire and honest services fraud – do not carry mandatory minimum prison sentences, meaning that they could receive non-incarceratory sentences. The sentencing judge will be required to consider the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in deciding how to sentence them, but the judge need not be bound by the recommendations set forth by those Guidelines. Most defendants can realistically expect to be sentenced within the Guidelines unless there are mitigating factors justifying a downward departure or reduction in the sentence.

The Sentencing Guidelines include a table with an X and Y axis that helps judges determine the appropriate sentence for a defendant. On the X axis lies the criminal history of the defendant. Given that the defendants appears to be wealthy professionals, it is probably safe to assume that they will all be classified as having the lowest criminal history score, Level I. On the Y-axis is the factor called the sentencing level, which corresponds to the seriousness of the crime.

To calculate the Guidelines sentencing level in a fraud case, one looks to 2B1.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The base offense level would be 6 in this case, and then the level is increased according to the amount of money at issue in the fraud. Here, with the parents having allegedly donated from between $200,000 and $6.5 million in fraudulent payments, the sentencing levels would be increased anywhere from 12 to 18 levels, resulting in base offense levels between 18 and 24. Typically, when one pleads guilty in federal court, however, a judge will credit a defendant with a 2-3 level reduction in sentencing level for “acceptance of responsibility”. U.S.S.C. § 3E1.1 (the 3 level reductions are for base offense levels at level 16 or higher). Thus, the defendants in this case might be getting sentenced in the range of Level 10-15. At Level 10, the Guidelines recommend a sentence of 6-12 months in prison, and at Level 15, they recommend a sentence of between 18-24 months in prison. Admittedly, there may be other factors that could influence the base offense level calculation, but that is a reasonable estimate at this stage.

Some people may scoff and say that there is no way that wealthy and powerful parents will actually go to federal prison. They may have a point. Pursuant to Section 3551, a judge is supposed to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to advance the interests of sentencing. A good argument can be made that these individuals do not need to be incarcerated to protect the public. These defendants have been publicly shamed, and some, like Gordon Caplan, are likely to suffer other significant punishments, like disbarment. However, a judge needs to promote a healthy respect for the law, and arguably these defendants brazenly and knowingly cheated the system. Prison sentences may be necessary to send the appropriate message to other people thinking about trying to unlawfully bribe their children into an elite university. Also, the recent prison sentences imposed in the somewhat-comparable college basketball federal scandal suggest that these parents could realistically be looking at short but meaningful prison sentences.

The author, Matthew Galluzzo, is a former Manhattan prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney with the law firm of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. He regularly represents defendants in federal criminal cases throughout the United States. He most often practices in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, where he is a member of the Criminal Justice Act panels.