Why this page exists alongside the national one
Our national federal fraud charges page covers the whole family of fraud statutes: wire, mail, bank, health care, securities, and tax fraud, with the full guideline calculation and the defenses that arise under each law. Read it for the complete picture. This page answers the California questions: which courtroom, which district, which circuit rules, and what that means for a person facing the charge here.
The short version is that the law is federal but the forum is local. The statutes are the same in San Diego and Maine. The judge, the prosecutors, the jury instructions, and the courthouse you walk into are Californian. Those local facts shape how the case is investigated, charged, tried, and sentenced, so they deserve their own page.
Which courtroom: four districts, one circuit
Congress divided the state by statute. It provides:
"California is divided into four judicial districts to be known as the Northern, Eastern, Central, and Southern Districts of California."
Your case stays in the district where it is filed. A case filed in Los Angeles is a Central District case from start to finish. A case filed in Sacramento is an Eastern District case. Transfer between districts is rare and needs a specific legal reason, so find the district named in your papers first, then open that district page on this site.
Federal court is the only court. The jurisdictional statute provides:
"The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States."
That word exclusive means no California state judge shares the case. The prosecutor is the United States Attorney's Office for the district, the judge is a federal district judge, and sentencing runs under federal law. Start with our California federal courts hub for the full map, then come back here for the charge.
Court cities are set by the same statute, so you can tell from your papers where appearances happen. The law provides:
"Court for the Northern District shall be held at Eureka, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose."
It provides:
"Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Bakersfield, Fresno, Redding, and Sacramento."
For the Central District, the Western Division sits in Los Angeles:
"Court for the Western Division shall be held at Los Angeles."
The Eastern Division covers Riverside and San Bernardino counties, with court at a suitable site in or near those cities, and the Southern Division, which is Orange County, provides:
"Court for the Southern Division shall be held at Santa Ana."
For the Southern District, the rule is short:
"Court for the Southern District shall be held at San Diego."
If your papers say San Diego, open the Southern District page. If they say Los Angeles, open the Central District page. San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose point to the Northern District, and Sacramento and Fresno point to the Eastern District. Each district page lists its courthouses and local practice.
Appeals leave the district but stay in the circuit. Under federal law the courts of appeals take appeals from final district court decisions:
"shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States"
For California that court is the Ninth Circuit, which covers California along with the other western states in its circuit. An appeal challenges legal error in what already happened, and it runs on strict deadlines measured from the judgment. Read about that process early rather than after time has run.
A caution that applies to every page on this site. Penalties described here are statutory maximums or guideline ranges, never predictions about any one person. The facts of a case change everything.
The two statutes behind most California cases (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1341)
Most federal fraud indictments filed in California rest on one or both of two neighboring sections of the criminal code: wire fraud at 18 U.S.C. 1343 and mail fraud at 18 U.S.C. 1341. They punish the same kind of conduct through different channels. Wire fraud covers fraud carried by phone call, email, text, wire transfer, or anything else sent over the wires across state or national lines. Mail fraud covers fraud carried through the mail stream. Modern cases often charge wire fraud several times over, with one count for each email or transfer, which is why indictments built on an ordinary business inbox can look so alarming on first reading.
Wire fraud opens with the scheme. The statute punishes anyone:
"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"
who then:
"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"
and provides that the offender:
"shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both"
Notice three things. Planning the scheme counts even if the plan never fully succeeded. Causing a wire to be sent counts even if the defendant never typed the message. And the wire must serve the scheme, not merely follow it.
The enhanced penalty at the end of the section reads, in the part that matters most in California bank and mortgage cases:
"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"
The same enhancement reaches fraud tied to funds from a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency. Either trigger lifts the ceiling from 20 years to 30 years per count and the fine to one million dollars.
Mail fraud reads nearly word for word the same, except the channel changes. Instead of a wire, the statute punishes anyone who:
"places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier"
The same 20-year standard maximum and the same 30-year bank-affected and disaster enhancement close the section. Letters and packages sent through the Postal Service or a private interstate carrier mean mail fraud. Emails, calls, texts, transfers, and anything carried over the internet mean wire fraud. Many California cases charge both where both channels were used. If your paperwork says 1341 instead of 1343, read our mail fraud page, because the defenses and the guideline math transfer across almost unchanged. If it says 1343, our wire fraud page is the closer match.
What the jury hears in a California courtroom
A federal jury in California does not hear a generic explanation of fraud. It hears the Ninth Circuit's model instructions, read aloud by the judge before deliberations. For wire fraud, the Ninth Circuit's model instruction 15.35 lists four things the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
First, the defendant knowingly took part in, devised, or intended to devise the scheme. The instruction states it this way:
"the defendant knowingly [participated in] [devised] [intended to devise] a scheme or plan to defraud for the purpose of obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises"
Second, the statements or omissions that were part of the scheme were material:
"the statements made [or facts omitted] as part of the scheme were material"
Material means they:
"had a natural tendency to influence, or were capable of influencing, a person to part with money or property"
Small talk and sales puffery that no reasonable person would rely on should fail this test. A lie on a loan application that the lender asked for directly will pass it, and in mortgage cases the Ninth Circuit's instruction adds that information a lender requests on its applications is objectively material as a matter of law, regardless of how carelessly the lender handled the answer.
Third, the defendant acted with the intent to defraud. The Ninth Circuit's model instructions define that phrase strictly:
"the intent to deceive and cheat"
Both halves matter. Deceive means making false statements or using other deception. Cheat means using that deception to deprive a victim of money or property. Someone who lied but never aimed to take anything has attacked this element, and the Ninth Circuit's instruction on intent to defraud confirms the same two-part meaning for mail fraud cases tried in California courtrooms.
Fourth, the defendant used, or caused to be used, a wire to carry the scheme forward:
"the defendant used, or caused to be used, an interstate [or foreign] wire communication to carry out or attempt to carry out an essential part of the scheme"
Two sentences inside the Ninth Circuit's instruction decide many California wire trials. The first is about causation:
"A wiring is caused when one knows that a wire will be used in the ordinary course of business or when one can reasonably foresee such use."
The government does not need to show the defendant personally sent the email. It needs to show the defendant knew wires would be used, or that wire use was reasonably foreseeable. The second is about crossing state lines:
"It need not have been reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that the wire communication would be interstate [or foreign] in nature."
But an interstate or foreign wire must still have actually occurred in furtherance of the scheme. A purely local call that never crossed a state line does not satisfy this element, even if wire use in general was foreseeable. Counsel in California cases therefore examines each charged email, call, and transfer for when it was sent, where it traveled, and whether it served the scheme or merely followed it.
Two more points from the Ninth Circuit's instructions deserve attention because they surprise people. The scheme must target traditional money or property. The instruction explains:
"the federal fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests"
A scheme built only on regulatory harm, with no money or property as its object, misses the mark the statute aims at. And the reverse surprise: a defendant who tricks a victim into a deal that requires handing over money can violate the statute even if the victim got something of value back and suffered no net loss. Getting a good deal does not cleanse a lie that induced it, though the absence of loss matters at sentencing.
And the sentence that surprises most readers. The Ninth Circuit's instruction confirms that an intent to repay:
"is not a defense to wire fraud"
Borrowing with a plan to return the money is still fraud if the other elements are met. The mail fraud instruction carries the matching rule for its own channel:
"It does not matter whether the material mailed was itself false or deceptive so long as the mail was used as a part of the scheme, nor does it matter whether the scheme or plan was successful or that any money or property was obtained."
Repayment matters at sentencing, where it can cut loss. It does not produce a not-guilty verdict.
Wire fraud (§ 1343) versus mail fraud (§ 1341)
Wire fraud has a twin, and the Ninth Circuit's instruction states the difference in one sentence:
"The only difference between mail fraud and wire fraud is that the former involves the use of the mails and the latter involves the use of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce."
That single difference decides which charge appears on the indictment, and it is where the closest defenses live. A mail fraud count needs a mailing that carried out or attempted an essential part of the scheme. A wire fraud count needs an interstate or foreign wire that did the same. Where prosecutors stack a count for every email in a thread, counsel can challenge whether each wire truly served the scheme or was just background noise between participants. Fewer surviving counts means less exposure and a cleaner negotiation. The scheme language, the intent standard, the 20-year and 30-year tiers, and the guideline calculation are otherwise identical, which is why the two pages on this site read so similarly and why beating one count often means beating its twin the same way.
Penalties on paper under § 1343 and § 1341
Take the numbers in this section as ceilings, not as sentences. No page can predict a sentence, because loss amounts, victim counts, criminal history, and the judge all move the result.
Prison. The standard maximum is 20 years on each count under either statute. Where the offense affects a financial institution or involves covered disaster funds, the maximum is 30 years on each count. Counts add up. A case built on ten emails can contain ten counts, each carrying its own maximum. Neither statute carries a mandatory minimum, so the floor in every case is set by the guidelines and the judge, not by Congress.
Fines. Under the general federal fine statute, a felony conviction can bring a fine of:
"for a felony, not more than $250,000"
for an individual, and up to 500,000 dollars for an organization. The alternative measure is:
"not more than the greater of twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss"
which in a large case can exceed those figures. In the bank-affected and disaster variants, the fraud statutes themselves authorize a fine up to one million dollars.
Supervised release. A prison term can be followed by a term of supervised release, with conditions that can return a person to court if violated. The length is set by statute and runs after the prison term ends.
Restitution. Money is often the largest part of the punishment. Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, when a defendant is convicted of a covered offense:
"the court shall order, in addition to, or in the case of a misdemeanor, in addition to or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense"
Wire fraud and mail fraud sit squarely inside that coverage, which means a conviction routinely brings an order to repay victims in full, on top of prison and fines.
Time limits reward early attention. Most non-capital federal offenses must be charged within five years:
"unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed"
Fraud often hides for years inside books and inboxes, so the fight is frequently about when the offense was committed or completed, not whether five years have passed on a calendar.
Repeat the caution because it matters. These are statutory maximums and required add-ons stated in the abstract. They are not predictions. Two people convicted of the same statute in the same courthouse routinely receive very different sentences because their loss amounts, roles, and histories differ.
How the sentence is actually calculated
Both statutes map to the same guideline. The Guidelines Manual index sends 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 18 U.S.C. 1343 to guideline 2B1.1, the general rule for theft, embezzlement, fraud, and deceit.
The math starts low. Under 2B1.1(a), the base offense level is level 7 when the offense of conviction carries a statutory maximum of 20 years or more, and level 6 otherwise. Both wire fraud and mail fraud, with their 20-year standard ceilings, start at level 7. Almost everything after that turns on loss.
Loss is defined in one sentence:
"Loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss."
Intended loss counts even when the plan could never have worked, so a failed scheme to take a large sum can sentence like a success. The table climbs in steps from losses above 6,500 dollars, adding 2 levels at first and rising to 30 added levels for losses above 550,000,000 dollars, with many rungs between. Those are the current figures. For sentencings on or after November 1, 2026, Amendment 2 of the Sentencing Commission's 2026 amendments moves them to 9,000 and 750,000,000 dollars, unless Congress acts. Because each rung adds months, the fight over the loss number is often the whole case at sentencing, in a Los Angeles courtroom no less than anywhere else.
Credits can cut the number. The guideline commentary states:
"Loss shall be reduced by the following,"
then lists money and property given back before the offense was detected, and collateral the victim recovered or still holds. In plain terms: paying money back before anyone finds out counts, and pledged property counts at its value. This is where early repayment does its real work. It cannot produce acquittal, but it can move the guideline range down by real years.
Other increases stack on top of loss. A case with 10 or more victims, or serious hardship to even one victim, adds levels, with larger increases where hardship spreads to five or more victims or 25 or more. Conduct involving sophisticated means adds 2 levels with a floor at level 12. And bank cases face the provision written for them: when the accused took in more than one million dollars from financial institutions, the rule adds 2 levels because:
"the defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more financial institutions as a result of the offense"
When the offense substantially jeopardized the safety and soundness of a financial institution, the increase is 4 levels, and the rule sets a floor:
"If the resulting offense level determined under subparagraph (A) or (B) is less than level 24, increase to level 24."
Small-bank cases, the kind where insider fraud threatened a community institution itself, are where that floor bites.
Then comes the adjustment that follows fraud cases built on inside access. Guideline 3B1.3 provides:
"If the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels."
Trust here means a position with real discretionary judgment, the kind of role given considerable deference and little supervision. Job descriptions, approval authority, and who reviewed the work decide this increase as much as the dollar amount does.
The guideline range that results is advice, not a command. Judges must calculate it correctly but may sentence above or below it for reasons stated on the record. Criminal history, role, acceptance of responsibility, and cooperation all move the final number. Our federal sentencing page walks through how that hearing works, and the sentencing calculator shows how loss feeds a guideline range in fraud cases.
The closest neighbors
Fraud statutes overlap, and California prosecutors often charge more than one. Knowing where each ends is where defenses live. The wire versus mail fork is covered above, since those two are true twins. Beyond them, the national fraud hub maps the rest of the family, including bank fraud and health care fraud, each with its own hook, its own dollar thresholds, and its own trial story. Where wires carried part of the plan, prosecutors add wire fraud. Where proceeds moved through accounts to hide them, money laundering follows. Each added charge needs its own proof, and each adds its own exposure, which is why early counsel maps the whole field before advising on any single count.
One fork deserves a sentence here because it decides charging in California bank cases. Bank fraud needs a scheme aimed at a bank or at bank-held property through lies. Wire and mail fraud need a scheme to get money or property from anyone, carried by the charged wire or mailing. An outsider who lies to a California bank can face either, and often faces both, with each count needing its own proof. Counsel presses the charging choice early, because it changes the elements, the trial story, and the guideline math that follows.
Defenses and issues that actually arise
Every case turns on its facts, but fraud defenses cluster in a few places. First, intent. The government must prove the defendant meant to deceive and cheat, not merely that statements turned out to be wrong. Evidence of honest belief, open dealing, reliance on professionals, or a business that failed for ordinary reasons can rebut intent. A failed startup, standing alone, is not a fraud. Second, materiality. If the charged lies had no natural tendency to influence anyone's money decision, the element fails. Opinions, vague optimism, and statements no reasonable person would rely on belong here, except on loan applications where the lender asked for the specific information, since the Ninth Circuit treats that as material as a matter of law. Third, the wire or mailing itself. Counsel examines each charged communication for when it was sent, where it traveled, and whether it served the scheme. A communication that never crossed a state line, or one sent after the scheme had already succeeded and served no further purpose, may not sustain its count. Fourth, the money-or-property object. If the scheme aimed only at regulatory advantage, with no traditional property as its object, the charge overreaches the statute. Fifth, the loss number and the trust increase. Intended versus actual loss, credits for pre-detection repayments, and whether the position involved real discretionary judgment are each open to proof, and each is worth fighting because each moves months.
A word on what is not a defense. That you meant to pay the money back is not a defense, as the Ninth Circuit's instruction states directly. That the victim lost nothing in the end is generally not a defense to guilt, though it cuts loss at sentencing. That the lender was careless with verification is not a defense in mortgage cases under the Ninth Circuit's rule. And that the material sent through the mail or over the wire was itself innocent is not a defense when the communication served the scheme.
If you are under investigation in California
Act early and say little. Do not meet agents or auditors without counsel, and remember that FBI agents who contact you in California typically build cases for the United States Attorney's Office of the district where charges would be filed, so anything you say travels straight to the future prosecution team. Learn how those early contacts work on our FBI investigations page. Do not write out your side of the story in email or text. Do not delete emails, messages, or files, and do not ask anyone else to. Deletion creates an obstruction problem dwarfing the original charge.
Gather paper instead. Pull together business records, loan files, emails about the transactions, bank statements, audit letters, and any subpoena, target letter, or suspension notice you received. Write down, privately, a timeline of who said what and when. Note the courthouse city named in any papers, and plan to arrive early: security screening lines at the big California courthouses run long on busy mornings. Then get advice before you decide anything. Whether to cooperate, seek a deal, or fight turns on the intent evidence, the loss number, and what the government can prove about each charged wire or mailing, none of which you can judge alone in the first days.