Sentencing Advocacy Group · Preparation resources

Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Fraud

A fraud case cannot be reduced to a headline dollar amount. The calculation depends on supported facts and the applicable Guidelines.

Identify the calculation before arguing the outcome.

Many federal fraud cases use §2B1.1, but the conviction, cross-references, related conduct and other counts can change the analysis. Counsel first identifies the governing provisions, then examines the evidence supporting each proposed adjustment. A statutory maximum, an advisory range and the sentence ultimately imposed are different things.

Loss is a major issue, not the only issue. Ask which transactions are included, which defendant’s conduct supports attribution and whether the calculation uses actual or intended loss. The relevant definitions, credits and evidentiary rules require case-specific legal review.

Organize the disputed facts.

• Transactions: dates, amounts, source records and the reason each is included or disputed.
• Role: who made decisions, controlled funds, supervised others and had access to information.
• Victims and harm: distinguish verified losses and individual hardship from assumptions.
• Conduct: identify the factual basis for proposed sophisticated-means, trust or other adjustments.
• Acceptance: discuss the applicable requirements with counsel; a guilty plea does not automatically resolve every issue.
• History: review prior dispositions and possible zero-point eligibility rather than relying on the label “first offender.”

Loss and restitution are not interchangeable.

The loss figure used for Guidelines purposes and a restitution obligation may follow different rules. Maintain separate schedules showing the calculation, evidence and disputed items for each. Do not assume a later repayment automatically removes a loss amount from the Guidelines calculation.

A useful working file has a transaction spreadsheet linked to original bank, billing or accounting records. Include a column for uncertainty. Counsel and any retained expert should decide the legal treatment; the spreadsheet should not disguise an assumption as a verified fact.

Build mitigation alongside the technical review.

A correct calculation does not tell the whole personal story. Document sustained treatment, employment, family responsibilities, restitution efforts and concrete changes that address the conditions surrounding the conduct. Explain what can be independently confirmed and what remains a future plan.

Wire fraud sentencing · Healthcare fraud sentencing · Downward variance preparation

Educational information, reviewed October 5, 2026. Sentencing Advocacy Group is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Counsel evaluates the law and facts in each case. Individual outcomes vary.