Evergreen Attorneys won 9-0 in the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Hemani in June 2026.

Wire Fraud, Securities Fraud, and Commodities Fraud: Distinct Theories, Different Consequences

One of the most consequential decisions prosecutors make in a crypto case is which fraud theory to charge. The choice affects not only the elements the government must prove but also the available defenses, the sentencing range, and the regulatory agencies involved.

Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) requires the government to prove a scheme to defraud, intent to defraud, and the use of interstate wires in furtherance of the scheme. It is the broadest and most flexible tool in the government’s arsenal, and prosecutors default to it in most crypto cases.

Securities fraud applies when the government contends that a token, coin, or investment contract qualifies as a “security” under federal law. The SEC has taken the position that many digital assets meet the Howey test for investment contracts. When the case proceeds as securities fraud, the regulatory framework, disclosure obligations, and available penalties differ from a pure wire fraud prosecution.

Commodities fraud arises when the government treats the digital asset as a commodity regulated by the CFTC. Bitcoin and ether have been treated as commodities in several federal enforcement actions, and the CFTC has asserted jurisdiction over platforms that offer derivatives or leveraged transactions in those assets. Commodities fraud under the Commodity Exchange Act carries its own penalty structure and regulatory overlay.

The classification dispute matters because it determines which regulatory agency participates, what disclosures were legally required, and whether the defendant had fair notice that the asset fell within a regulated category. Defense counsel can challenge the government’s classification as a factual and legal matter.

Money Laundering and Conspiracy Charges in Crypto Investigations

Federal crypto indictments frequently include money laundering counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. The government charges money laundering when it believes the defendant conducted or attempted to conduct a financial transaction involving proceeds of specified unlawful activity, with intent to promote the carrying on of that activity or to conceal the nature, location, source, or ownership of the proceeds.

In the crypto context, prosecutors point to transactions involving mixers, tumblers, cross-chain bridges, privacy coins, or layered transfers between wallets as evidence of concealment. Each transaction the government identifies can become a separate money laundering count, each carrying a maximum of 20 years.

Conspiracy charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (fraud conspiracy) or 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (money laundering conspiracy) allow the government to charge individuals who agreed to participate in the scheme, even if they did not personally execute every transaction. Conspiracy also makes co-conspirator statements admissible at trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), which can significantly expand the evidence the jury hears.

Crypto Asset Forfeiture and Blockchain Tracing

Asset forfeiture is one of the most immediately disruptive consequences of a federal crypto fraud investigation. Under 18 U.S.C. § 981 and related provisions, the government can seek forfeiture of any property involved in or traceable to the alleged offense. In practice, this means cryptocurrency holdings, exchange accounts, bank accounts, real estate, vehicles, and other assets.

The government can obtain restraining orders to freeze assets even before criminal charges are filed, placing the burden on the property owner to contest the seizure.

Defense counsel must address forfeiture from the earliest stage of the case. Once assets are seized, recovering them requires litigation that can be expensive and protracted.

What to Do If You Are Under Federal Investigation for Crypto Fraud

If you have reason to believe you are under federal investigation, or if you have already been contacted by federal agents, your actions in the next days and weeks will affect the outcome of your case. These steps are not optional:

1. Do not speak to federal agents without counsel present. Anything you say, even informally, can be used against you. Politely decline to answer questions and state that you want to speak with an attorney.
2. Do not destroy, alter, or move digital assets, records, or communications. Destruction of evidence can result in separate federal charges for obstruction of justice.
3. Retain experienced federal defense counsel immediately. A white collar crime defense attorney who understands blockchain evidence, federal charging theories, and forfeiture law can intervene before the government’s case hardens.
4. Preserve all records related to your cryptocurrency activity, including wallet addresses, exchange account records, communications with investors or counterparties, and tax filings.
5. Do not discuss the investigation with business partners, co-investors, or anyone other than your attorney. Conversations with third parties are not privileged and may be discoverable.

How Evergreen Attorneys Defends Crypto Fraud Cases

Evergreen Attorneys focuses exclusively on federal criminal defense, and its attorneys handle crypto fraud investigations and prosecutions at every stage. Founding Partner Zachary Newland has appeared as counsel of record in more than 120 federal cases since 2016, including complex fraud matters involving digital assets, wire fraud theories, and multi-agency investigations.

The firm’s defense approach in crypto cases includes analyzing the government’s charging theory to identify which statutes and elements are at issue; evaluating blockchain tracing evidence for attribution errors, chain-of-custody gaps, and analytical weaknesses; challenging the government’s classification of the digital asset as a security or commodity when the theory is contested; and developing fact-specific arguments on intent, causation, and reliance. Early involvement allows the firm to engage with prosecutors during the investigation stage, before an indictment narrows the available options.

The crypto fraud defense team at Evergreen Attorneys is ready and able to defend you. The key is getting involvement from a Colorado cryptocurrency defense law firm early on.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is crypto fraud under federal law?

Crypto fraud is not a single federal statute. It is a label prosecutors use for conduct they believe fits statutes such as wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, mail fraud, conspiracy, money laundering, or securities and commodities laws. The government typically argues that the defendant used digital assets, blockchain transactions, or a crypto platform as part of a deceptive scheme. The core legal questions remain the traditional fraud questions: what was promised, what was true, and whether interstate wires were used to carry out the scheme.

How do federal prosecutors prove wire fraud in a crypto case?

The government must establish a scheme to defraud, intent to defraud, and use of interstate wires in furtherance of the scheme. In a crypto case, prosecutors rely on blockchain records, exchange records, wallet tracing, and communications with investors or counterparties. Defense counsel often challenges the government’s evidence on intent, attribution, valuation, causation, and whether the identified communications actually furthered a fraudulent scheme rather than a legitimate business activity.

Why do prosecutors add money laundering or conspiracy counts to a crypto fraud indictment?

Money laundering and conspiracy counts increase the government’s sentencing leverage and expand forfeiture arguments. Prosecutors add money laundering charges when they believe proceeds moved through exchanges, mixers, cross-border transfers, or layered wallets in a way designed to conceal their origin. Conspiracy counts allow the government to charge participants who agreed to the scheme even if the fraud was never completed, and they make co-conspirator statements admissible at trial.

Can blockchain tracing evidence be challenged in federal court?

Yes. Blockchain tracing is a forensic methodology, and like all forensic evidence, it is subject to challenge. Defense counsel can question the reliability of the analytics platform, the accuracy of wallet attribution, the completeness of the tracing path, and whether the analyst followed accepted protocols. Shared wallets, mixing services, and cross-chain transfers can introduce attribution errors that undermine the government’s theory.

When should a person or business involve federal defense counsel in a crypto investigation?

The best time to involve counsel is before you respond to any government contact, whether that is an agent visit, a grand jury subpoena, a target letter, or a request for documents. Federal crypto fraud investigations often run for months before the target is aware of them, and the government’s narrative about your conduct may already be well developed. Early counsel involvement allows for strategic engagement with prosecutors, evidence preservation, and protection of your rights before the government’s theory becomes an indictment.

If you are facing a federal cryptocurrency fraud investigation or prosecution, contact Evergreen Attorneys at (303) 948-1489 or email Zachary Newland at [email protected] for a free and confidential consultation.