Wire Fraud · Federal Charges

Does an Email Between Two People in Texas Count as Interstate Wire?

An email between two Texas residents may qualify as an interstate wire depending on the actual transmission and the governing law. The addresses alone do not decide the question.

By Heath HydeFinancial Crimes Knowledge Hub

Mr. Heath Enix ‘Heath’ Hyde
Eligible to Practice in Texas
Attorney at Law
Bar Card Number: 00796807
TX License Date: 11/01/1996

Primary Practice Location: Sulphur Springs, TX and Dallas, TX
214 Connally St Ste A
Sulphur Spgs, TX 75482-2612

Call 903.439.0000Request a Consultation

Preserve the original message with its full headers. Counsel may also need the provider’s logs, account records and information about how the cloud system handled that message. An email between two Texas addresses can still cross a state line inside the provider’s network. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the prosecution in a federal wire fraud case has to prove a wire communication in interstate or foreign commerce, and it has to prove that communication was used to carry out the charged scheme. A provider with an office in another state proves neither of those things on its own. The government still has to show the specific message traveled a qualifying route.

Not knowing the server route does not, by itself, answer the causation question. The rule from United States v. Fatani (2025), a Fifth Circuit case, is that a person causes a wire’s use by acting with knowledge that wire use will follow in the ordinary course of business, or when that use can reasonably be foreseen.

The wire fraud defense needs the email identified in the indictment. Put the count beside the message records and ask:

• What identifies this particular email?
• Was this copy sent, or did it remain a draft?
• What did the defendant do, knowing wire use would follow in ordinary business, or making that use reasonably foreseeable?
• How did this communication further the alleged fraud?

A cloud account can contain both drafts and sent messages. The fact that a file was stored there does not answer the questions above.

Technical witness questions: Start with delivery. Then the attachment, because the version that went out may not match the government’s exhibit. Pin down the time zone behind every timestamp. Find out who else could log into the account. Ask what routing data still exist.

Advanced analysis: Providers hand a single message from one system to the next before it lands, so a screenshot of two Texas addresses tells you nothing about the path it took. Preserve message headers and provider logs early. A provider that moves its cloud region later on can’t tell you where a message traveled years ago.

Causation and foreseeability can still matter when the person had no technical knowledge at all. A defense built only on server geography falls apart the moment the indictment charges some other qualifying transmission. Your financial crimes defense team needs the exact count and the government’s proof in hand before building anything around geography.