Bank Fraud · Federal Charges
How Are Bank Fraud and Wire Fraud Charged Together?
One alleged transaction may involve both statutes, but each count has its own elements. The charging document, the bank’s role, and the purpose of each wire matter.
Eligible to Practice in Texas
Attorney at Law
Bar Card Number: 00796807
TX License Date: 11/01/1996
214 Connally St Ste A
Sulphur Spgs, TX 75482-2612
Direct answer: Yes. Prosecutors can bring both charges over the same loan transaction if they can prove each offense. A bank-fraud count under § 1344 may concern a loan draw. A wire-fraud count under § 1343 may identify the email used to secure it. Read both counts: the dates, acts and required proof may differ.
Start with a copy of the indictment. Mark the alleged scheme, the money or property sought, the institution named and every charged wire. Then locate the records cited for each count. Having one loan file does not make the two charges identical.
Compare the statutory elements
Section 1344 has two clauses. Both require knowingly carrying out, or attempting to carry out, a scheme. Clause (1) concerns defrauding a financial institution. Clause (2) concerns obtaining property belonging to the institution, or held in its custody or control, through false or fraudulent means. That property can include money, credit, securities and other assets. Find out which clause the indictment invokes. That tells you what the bank records need to show.
Section 1343 requires a scheme to defraud or obtain money or property through false or fraudulent means. Which wire allegedly carried out that plan? Check its route: the statute reaches interstate or foreign commerce. Check who caused the transmission, too. A person can cause a wire without sending it personally. Those details cannot be assumed from the existence of an email.
- Bank count: What qualifies the lender as a financial institution? What did it own, hold or control? What deception does the count allege?
- Wire count: Which communication is charged? Who sent or caused it? Where did it travel, and what did it do for the alleged scheme?
A document may belong in both sets of evidence. Note the element it supports beside each count number.
Build a chronology for each count
For example, suppose a Texas borrower sends false receivables by email to a bank in another state. The bank then funds a draw. Save the email with its attachments, and identify the person who prepared each file. Find the recipient at the bank and the decision those records were used to obtain. You will still need evidence about the transmission’s route and the bank’s interest in the funds.
A working chronology can use these four entries. Add the date, people, source records, property and count number for each:
| Loan stage | Record to locate |
|---|---|
| Application | Submitted form and supporting financial statements. |
| Review and approval | Bank review notes and approval notice. |
| Draw and transfer | Draw request, payment instructions and transfer record. |
| After funding | Repayment entries and subsequent correspondence. |
Write down the purpose prosecutors attribute to each act. An approval request and a payment instruction need separate entries, even when both concern one loan.
Keep later messages in the chronology too. A message sent after funding needs examination in context: its date alone does not establish whether it helped carry out the scheme.
Do not assume the counts rise or fall together
A problem with proof of the lender’s status may affect the bank count. A dispute about a wire’s route or purpose may affect the wire count. Check the act and date charged in each before assessing the effect of missing evidence.
Some counts rely heavily on the same facts. Others concern different steps. Neither situation settles a challenge to the indictment or establishes that a conviction can stand. Counsel must examine the statutes, the wording of the counts, the evidence and the controlling decisions. That includes any argument that the indictment charges one offense more than once.
Sentencing calls for another review. Under the applicable Guidelines edition, § 3D1.2 provides rules for grouping counts involving substantially the same harm. A grouping decision is part of the guideline calculation. The convictions remain, and forfeiture still needs its own analysis. When discussing the case, get an answer to each of those issues as well as any challenge to the counts.
Preserve records and get count-specific advice
Keep an unedited set of the charging papers and loan records for counsel. Include the application, its attachments, correspondence with the bank, and statements documenting draws and repayments. Discuss any proposed response with counsel before sending it.
Bring the indictment and your chronology to that discussion. For each count, identify the statute, alleged act, date, communication and proof still in dispute. The advice will depend on the evidence, governing law and where the case stands.
For the broader investigation and trial framework, see the Federal Bank Fraud Defense in Texas knowledge hub.
Primary legal sources
- 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (federal bank fraud).
- 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud).
- U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3D1.2 (groups of closely related counts).
To discuss representation, contact Heath Hyde or call 903-439-0000. Representation begins only after the firm agrees to take the matter.
