Articles Tagged with wire fraud

Cryptocurrency fraud has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. The lack of a centralized authority governing crypto along with the relative anonymity of transactions has contributed to this rise in digital financial crime. Specifically, cryptocurrency money laundering has grown significantly in recent years with billions of dollars stolen through hacks, Ponzi schemes, mixers. A recent report from Chainalysis estimates illicit cryptocurrency addresses received more than 50 billion dollars in 2024. 

Crypto money laundering follows the same pattern used for fiat (government-issued) currencies by “cleaning” funds gained through illicit means, before exchanging or withdrawing them for cash. Traditionally, money laundering involves disguising financial assets so they can be used without detection of the illegal activity that produced them. In the context of crypto, tokens are moved through various digital addresses to obscure their illegal origin and make them more difficult to trace.  

The privacy-preserving nature of crypto has opened the door for criminals to conceal the origin of illicitly gained funds through a variety of methods. Cybercriminals ultimately funnel assets through several businesses and online addresses to hide the money trail before transferring the funds to a seemingly legitimate source. 

This month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kousisis v. United States, a case that could have significant implications on the future of federal white-collar prosecutions. Specifically, the Court is considering the boundaries of federal fraud statutes in scenarios where deceptive practices are employed without causing direct financial harm to the victim.

Kousisis comes before the Court after a Philadelphia-area government contractor was found guilty of fraud after it failed to comply with a contract provision intended to promote diversity. Stamatios Kousisis and Alpha Painting and Construction Co., Inc. (Alpha) secured two substantial contracts with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). These contracts mandated a certain percentage of work to be allocated to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs). Kousisis and his company misrepresented their compliance with this requirement by using a DBE as a mere pass-through entity, thereby falsely claiming adherence to the DBE participation goals. Despite this deception, the contracted work was completed to PennDOT’s satisfaction, and no direct financial loss was incurred by the department.

Federal prosecutors charged Kousisis and Alpha with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and making false statements. The prosecution’s argument was based on the “fraudulent inducement” theory, suggesting that the defendants obtained the contracts through deceptive promises, even though PennDOT did not suffer a financial loss. Ultimately, Kousisis was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment for the multi-million dollar fraud he perpetrated following a jury trial in 2018.

Recently, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) issued a pivotal final rule aimed at tightening regulatory oversight in the residential real estate sector. This change marks a significant step towards enhancing transparency in an industry that has, until now, been relatively free from such regulatory scrutiny. Generally, the new rule requires certain real estate professionals to report information about non-financed transfers of residential real estate to legal entities or trusts.

What Is the New FINCEN Rule?

FINCEN’s new rule extends Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) obligations to investment advisers involved in residential real estate transactions. The aim is to prevent illicit financial activities in an industry known for large cash transactions that can serve as vehicles for money laundering, fraud, and other financial crimes.

Cell phones are everywhere today and thus play a significant role in criminal investigations.

What reports are generated from my devices? 

Cellebrite reports provide information about phone calls and text messages; but now it also provides a report on the data stored on these devices such as voicemails, images, and browsing history.  From GPS location data to social media activity, cell phones can provide a treasure trove for law enforcement agencies to use to build their cases.

In the world of banking and finance, the term “Suspicious Activity Report” (SAR) may sound intimidating—especially if you’ve been notified that a bank has filed one concerning your transactions. For individuals and businesses alike, it’s essential to understand what a SAR is, what activities can trigger these reports, and the potential legal consequences that may follow.

What is a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)?

A Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) is a document that financial institutions are legally required to file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) when they detect potentially suspicious behavior involving financial transactions. Once filed, these reports are sent to FinCEN, a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which shares the information with law enforcement agencies for further investigation if necessary.

In the age of social media, viral trends come and go at lightning speed. Some are harmless and fun, but others can lead people into serious legal trouble. One of the most alarming trends recently circulating on TikTok is the so-called “free money hack.” This trend falsely promises easy money through exploiting banking loopholes, but what many don’t realize is that following such advice could land you in serious legal trouble.

What is the “Free Money Hack”?

The trend usually involves TikTok users claiming they have found ways to manipulate the financial system, offering viewers methods to “hack” or exploit bank accounts, cash apps, or credit systems to obtain free money. Some of these schemes involve:

An NFT, or Non-Fungible Token, is a digital asset representing ownership or proof of authenticity of a unique item or piece of content using blockchain technology. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are fungible and can be exchanged on a one-to-one basis, NFTs are non-interchangeable and one-of-a-kind. As long as you’re following copyright laws and selling legitimate assets, creating, selling, and reselling NFTs is legal. However, due to the decentralized and anonymous nature of the crypto world, NFTs come with a host of legal issues. Like with most digital innovations, regulatory legislation has been slow to catch up and establish clear guidelines; still, wrongful use of NFTs can implicate an array of criminal charges.

Money Laundering refers to the illegal process of concealing the origins of money obtained through criminal activities, making it appear as if it comes from a legitimate source. This is criminalized under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Money laundering using NFTs involves the illicit use of these digital assets to disguise the origins of illegally obtained funds. In this context, individuals create a fake record of sales on the blockchain by selling NFTs to themselves using different accounts. Once finished, they sell the NFT to an unsuspecting buyer and repeat the process.

Fraud has grown increasingly common in the crypto landscape due to its anonymous and decentralized nature. Fraud involving NFTs can manifest in various ways due to the unique characteristics of these digital assets. This is mostly being prosecuted as wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Some common forms of fraud associated with NFTs include:

By Brandon Fitz

Wire Fraud is a serious white-collar crime and is defined under 18 USC §1343 and states:

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 (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), 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. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343.

The Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) and the Non-Residential Abuse Program (NRDAP) are offered by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) to assist inmates suffering from substance abuse issues.

RDAP consists of 3 intensive phases, totaling over 500-hours of voluntary individual and group treatment, and it is about 9-12 months long. This program offers prisoners to live in a modified prosocial community within the prison, separate from the general population. They split their day in half with vocational, work, or school activities and the other half in treatment/programs. Prisoners must meet specific requirements to be considered for this program, and space is often limited. The prisoner must have at least 24 months remaining in their sentence to complete the program.

Since some inmates may have less than a 24-month sentence, the FBOP also offers a Non-Residential Drug Abuse Program (NRDAP), where prisoners can participate in 12-24 weeks of Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment. This treatment consists of skill-building within communication, rational thinking, and institution adjustment. NRDAP is often offered in a group setting and is more accessible to prisoners because of the less strict qualifications. NRDAP differs from RDAP because offenders may join this program if they have short sentences, are not eligible for RDAP, or awaiting availability.

Attorney General Merrick Garland made recent comments about what he considered to be the Department of Justice’s top priorities for 2022.  Since taking office in March 2021, Garland has tried to combat crime in a tumultuous time.  He has been criticized for his handling of January 6 investigation and has stated it’s the most urgent probe in history.

With all of this going on, the US Attorney’s office increased its prosecutions of individuals of white collar crimes in the year 2021.  White collar charges like fraud, theft, corruption, bribery, environmental crime, tax fraud, health care fraud, procurement fraud, money laundering, PPP loan fraud, etc will continue to get more attention from the Department of Justice.

What does this mean?  It means that investigations of any sort need to be taken seriously and that you should contact a lawyer immediately if any wrongdoing is alleged.

Contact Information