Bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 has two branches: a scheme to defraud a financial institution, and a scheme to obtain money, funds, or other property owned by or under the custody of a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, executed with intent.¹ The institution has to be federally insured, which sweeps in nearly every commercial bank and credit union. Each execution of the scheme can be charged as a separate count, so a series of transactions or loan draws can produce many counts from a single course of conduct.

The penalty is up to thirty years per count and a fine of up to one million dollars per count.¹ The sentence the court actually imposes, however, is driven less by the count maximums than by the Guidelines loss calculation and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which is why the loss number, not the number of counts, is usually the center of the case.²³

Bank fraud exposure is set by the per-count statutory maximum, then driven by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines loss calculation and the enhancements the government argues. These are the variables that decide what a bank fraud charge means.

The elements the government must prove

The government must prove a scheme to defraud a financial institution, or to obtain bank-held money by false pretenses, and a specific intent to defraud, with the institution federally insured.¹ Intent is usually the contested element, because the same loan application, financial statement, or transaction can support either a fraud reading or an ordinary-business reading, and the line between the two is where many cases are fought.

The statutory maximum and the loss-driven Guidelines

Each count carries up to thirty years and a fine of up to one million dollars, but the advisory Guidelines range is anchored on a loss-amount table, with the offense level rising sharply as the loss figure increases, plus enhancements for the number of victims, sophisticated means, abuse of trust, and role.¹² The court must also weigh the Section 3553(a) factors.³

The soundness-of-the-institution enhancement

A significant Guidelines enhancement applies where the offense substantially jeopardized the safety and soundness of a financial institution, and it can raise the offense level well beyond what the loss table alone would produce.² Whether the proof actually supports that finding is one of the most consequential disputes at sentencing, and it is met with specific written objection where it does not.

The counts bank fraud travels with

Bank fraud is frequently charged alongside a conspiracy to commit fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, which is punishable the same as the underlying offense, and alongside false-statement and money-laundering counts.⁴ How the government has packaged the scheme across these counts is a threshold question.

Bank fraud reaches people who have never thought of themselves as criminals: business owners and borrowers who submitted loan applications and financial statements, real-estate and mortgage professionals, accountants and bookkeepers, and bank employees whose decisions the government later recasts as part of a scheme. Because nearly every business of any size borrows from a federally insured institution, the statute gives federal prosecutors broad reach over conduct that once would have been a loan dispute or a civil fraud claim.

The collateral exposure is serious. A bank fraud conviction can end a professional license and a career in regulated industries, can bar a person from federal contracting, and for a noncitizen a fraud offense with a loss above a statutory threshold can be treated as an aggravated felony with severe immigration consequences.⁵ Restitution to the financial institution is mandatory and is ordered on top of any prison term, running through years of supervised release.⁶ That is the weight behind even a single count.

The criminal exposure is up to thirty years per count and a fine of up to one million dollars per count, but the sentence the court imposes is driven by the Guidelines loss calculation, the soundness-of-the-institution enhancement, and the Section 3553(a) factors.¹²³ A paired conspiracy count under Section 1349 carries the same penalty as the underlying fraud.⁴ Mandatory restitution to the financial institution is ordered in addition to any custodial sentence,⁶ and a multi-year term of supervised release follows.

There is a regulatory side as well: parallel enforcement by the bank's federal regulator, license actions, and civil suits often run alongside the criminal case, and statements made in one can affect the others. The realistic questions are whether the loss figure can be reduced, whether the soundness enhancement can be defeated, whether intent can be contested, and whether searches of premises and devices hold up. Detention is decided early under the Bail Reform Act, though release on conditions is common in fraud cases.⁷ Outcomes turn on the specific record and are never promised.

A bank fraud case is built from records the government subpoenaed long before the accused learned of the case, often starting with a Suspicious Activity Report a bank's compliance department filed, and the first sign is commonly a target letter or an FBI interview attempt rather than an arrest. What a person does at that first contact matters enormously. The most common mistake is agreeing to talk to agents without counsel, because a fraud case turns on intent and an informal explanation can be recast as an admission.

A few steps help in nearly every case. Do not discuss the matter with agents, bankers, or business associates; say only that counsel will respond. Preserve every loan file, financial statement, email, and banking record, and do not delete or alter anything, because destruction can itself become a charge. Keep any target letter, subpoena, or charging paperwork. If the case is still at the pre-indictment stage, that window is often the most valuable time to be represented.

This is general information about how these cases work in Texas. It is not legal advice about any specific case, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

A federal fraud case often has a long investigative phase before any public step, then moves on heavy paper. Knowing the order of events makes the decision points easier to see. The matter is heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for that district.⁸⁹

Initial appearance

After indictment and arrest or a summons, the person is brought before a U.S. Magistrate Judge for an initial appearance under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5, where the charge and rights are stated and counsel is addressed.¹⁰

Detention or release

Release or detention pending trial is decided under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142; in fraud cases release on conditions is common.⁷

Grand jury indictment

A federal felony proceeds by indictment returned by a grand jury, frequently after a long joint investigation by the FBI and a banking regulator, and a superseding indictment can add counts or defendants later.

Discovery and motions

The government produces its evidence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, which in a bank fraud case can run to large productions of loan files, internal bank investigations, and recorded interviews, supplemented by the prosecution's constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady and credibility evidence under Giglio.¹¹¹²¹³ Motion practice on a bill of particulars, on suppression of premises and device warrants, and on loss-amount evidence happens here.

Plea or trial, then sentencing

A case resolves by a guilty plea taken under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 or by trial.¹⁴ At sentencing the court calculates the advisory Guidelines range, with the loss figure central, and weighs the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).²³

A federal fraud case runs on the Speedy Trial Act clock once charged and on a series of court-set deadlines, and the early ones decide what evidence survives and what options remain.

A bank fraud case is worked from the bank file outward. The internal bank investigation, the Suspicious Activity Report, and the regulator's referral are read first, because the government's theory of the case typically tracks them, and the production under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 is read methodically against the elements.¹¹ Brady and Giglio scrutiny applies to every internal bank investigator and every former employee whose statement appears in the file.¹²¹³

Loss-amount analysis is the single most important sentencing variable, because the Guidelines loss table moves the offense level by double digits across its ranges.² Intended loss versus actual loss, the bank's recovery through collateral or insurance, and credits for legitimate business activity are read carefully and pushed back on where the government's number is inflated. Motion practice often includes a bill of particulars to force the government to identify each false statement and each transaction count by count, motions to suppress overbroad warrant searches of premises and electronic devices,¹⁵ and motions in limine on summary witnesses and chart exhibits. The Presentence Investigation Report is reviewed line by line, and the enhancement for substantially jeopardizing the soundness of a financial institution is met with written objection where the proof does not support the finding, with the work coordinated with any parallel regulatory matter so that nothing in one complicates the others.

The hour estimate

Forrest Good PLLC estimates this matter at 80 to 250 hours of attorney time, billed at $250 per hour. The lower end reflects a single-loan, modest-loss case that resolves by an early plea; the upper end reflects a multi-year, multi-loan, multi-institution indictment with a large document production, contested loss and soundness-enhancement litigation, parallel regulatory enforcement, and a trial posture. The pricing methodology explains how the charging instrument, the evidence load, and the procedural stakes drive the estimate.

How the fee is set

This matter is priced by scoped consultation rather than a fixed flat fee, because federal exposure depends on the Guidelines loss calculation, the volume of discovery, and whether the case resolves by plea or goes to trial, and those variables are only knowable after the indictment or the target letter and the available records are reviewed.² After that review, the engagement letter sets the scope and the fee for the matter in writing, still billed at the $250-per-hour rate for work beyond the scoped fee. The fee approach shown here is honored while this page is published, consistent with Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 7.02(d).¹⁶

Any work outside the scoped fee is billed at $250 per hour and is disclosed in the written engagement letter before it begins. The engagement letter is the binding contract for the matter.

The first step is a conversation. The initial 30-minute consultation with Forrest Good PLLC is free and is scheduled through the office's Google Booking page. It is the time to walk through whether the case is at the target, subject, or witness stage, the bank or banks involved, the scope of the alleged scheme, and the loss figure the government is likely to argue, and to understand where the case sits before any setting. Bringing any target letter, subpoena, indictment, or records already received makes the half hour far more useful.

No attorney-client relationship is formed until a written engagement letter is signed; the consultation itself carries no obligation.

Schedule Your Free Consultation