Knowledge hub · Financial crimes defense
Texas and Federal Financial Crimes Defense
Bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering: explore the charges, evidence, and related defense guides.
Explore the three defense guides
Look at the statute cited in the indictment. Is it 18 U.S.C. § 1344, § 1343, or one of the money laundering provisions, §§ 1956–1957? That is a useful starting point for choosing a guide below. Bank fraud, wire fraud, and laundering counts sometimes concern the same money. Prosecutors still have to prove each offense. An account history alone cannot tell you whether its entries represent crimes.
If your case is in a Texas state court, look for the statute named in the charge. Texas has its own offenses, including money laundering under Penal Code Chapter 34. It does not have a general bank fraud or wire fraud offense that duplicates the name and elements of the federal law.
What each guide covers
Pillar article · Bank fraud
Federal Bank Fraud and Related Texas Financial Crimes
Which part of § 1344 does the indictment cite? This guide explains its two clauses and why the bank and the property involved matter. It covers intent, materiality, loan files, and account records, with a separate discussion of related Texas Penal Code Chapter 32 offenses.
Pillar article · Money laundering
Federal and Texas Money Laundering Defense
Where did the money come from? What does the government say the accused knew about it? Begin there, then turn to the provision actually charged. The guide covers promotion, concealment, and reporting avoidance, along with § 1957’s threshold and Texas § 34.02. You can also read about tracing, merger, forfeiture, and sentencing.
Pillar article · Wire fraud
Federal Wire Fraud and Related Texas Fraud Offenses
An email may be central to a wire fraud count. Who sent or caused it, and what did it do? The guide connects those questions to the alleged property scheme, material misrepresentation, and fraudulent intent. It also explains how conspiracy allegations, digital records, and recent Supreme Court decisions can affect the case.
Knowledge hub · Federal bank fraud
Federal Bank Fraud Defense in Texas: Charges, Evidence, Wire Fraud, Money Laundering, and Trial
This hub brings the § 1344 questions together in one place. Use it to find the relevant records and follow the relationship between a bank fraud allegation and any wire fraud or laundering counts.
Practice areas · Representation
Talk to Heath Hyde about a specific charge
Looking for representation? These pages describe the matters Heath Hyde handles and what to expect when you contact the firm.
Compare the charges
|
Question |
Bank fraud |
Money laundering |
Wire fraud |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Principal federal provision |
18 U.S.C. § 1344 |
18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 |
18 U.S.C. § 1343 |
|
Central proof issue |
Scheme targeting a covered financial institution or obtaining bank-controlled property by false pretenses |
Criminal proceeds, a qualifying transaction, and the purpose or threshold required by the charged provision |
Property-focused fraudulent scheme and interstate wire used to execute it |
|
Timing focus |
False representation and obtaining bank property |
Did the alleged criminal proceeds exist before this transaction? |
Did this particular transmission help carry out the alleged scheme? |
|
Texas comparison |
Depending on the conduct alleged: §§ 31.03, 32.21, 32.31, 32.32, 32.45, or 32.51 |
Texas Penal Code §§ 34.01–34.02 |
Depending on the conduct alleged: Texas theft, fraud, computer, or identity offenses |
|
Related charges and remedies |
§ 1349 conspiracy, false statements, wire fraud, laundering |
Predicate fraud, § 1956(h) conspiracy, § 1957, forfeiture |
Bank fraud, § 1349 conspiracy, laundering, identity offenses |
An example involving several charges
Suppose a company gets a loan from an insured bank after submitting a borrowing-base certificate. Prosecutors say the certificate was false. The company later emails revised financial statements to a lender and pays an affiliate out of the loan funds. What would counsel need to examine?
The certificate and loan application would help counsel understand the alleged false statement and the bank property at issue under § 1344. The email raises the § 1343 question: did an interstate communication help carry out an alleged scheme to obtain money or property? Then there is the affiliate payment. A laundering count needs proof of criminal proceeds and of the other requirements of the charged provision of § 1956 or § 1957. The payment’s existence does not supply that proof.
Counsel would put the statements, loan funding, and affiliate payment on a timeline. There is a difference between the transaction through which someone allegedly obtains fraud proceeds and a later transaction involving those proceeds. A proved fraud does not automatically prove laundering. Any repayment also belongs on the timeline, though it cannot, on its own, settle intent, loss, or restitution.
Information to gather for counsel
For the first call, have the document that prompted it nearby. You may have received a subpoena or a target letter, or you may be calling after an arrest, search, or seizure. Give counsel the next deadline. Mention any connected state case, civil suit, or regulatory matter. If investigators used the words “target” or “subject,” tell counsel exactly what they said.
You can help by identifying the people with access to the accounts and the location of the records. Counsel will need to work out where the money originated and who received it. Keep emails in their original format, together with accounting files, messages, and devices. Make a record of where you obtained anything you collect, and use only lawful access. Before discussing events with a company lawyer, ask whether that lawyer represents you. Representation, conflicts, and privilege cannot be assumed.
Do not “clean up” a file because you think it looks wrong. Preserve it so counsel can see what was there. Do not delete or change records, coordinate accounts with witnesses, or move money to obstruct the process. Bring the indictment or target letter to the consultation if you have it. Counsel can then compare the government’s allegations with the statute; the government remains responsible for proving its case.
Statutes and court decisions
- Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. 351 (2014); Shaw v. United States, 580 U.S. 63 (2016); Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023); Kousisis v. United States (2025).
Related resources
To discuss representation, contact Heath Hyde or call 903-439-0000. Representation begins only after the firm agrees to take the matter.