⚠️ Federal Bank Fraud Prosecutors Don’t Arrest You Until They’ve Already Built the Case.
Months of surveillance. Financial records. Cooperating witnesses. By the time federal agents put cuffs on you, they’ve been building the case against you long enough to be confident they’ll win. Marin & Murphy defends federal bank fraud and PPP fraud cases as Connecticut federal criminal defense attorneys, with Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy admitted to the District of Connecticut and bringing documented federal trial experience in the District of Rhode Island and the District of Massachusetts.
What makes federal bank fraud charges different isn’t just the sentences — it’s the math. A conspiracy charge pulls everyone connected into the same exposure. And every co-defendant now has an incentive to make their situation better by making yours worse.
You are behind from the moment of arrest. The only question is how fast you close the gap.
Fill out this form now. You speak directly with a Connecticut federal bank fraud defense attorney — not intake, not a paralegal — who will immediately assess your exposure, identify weaknesses in the government’s case, and tell you exactly where you stand.
In federal court, waiting isn’t neutral. It’s losing ground.
In FY2024, 30 fraud, theft, and embezzlement cases were sentenced in D. Conn., with an estimated private counsel retention rate among the highest of any federal offense category. If federal agents have contacted you, if you’ve received a target letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or if you’ve been charged, call (860) 294-4384 for a confidential consultation. The decisions you make in the coming days will shape everything that follows.
Why Marin & Murphy for Federal Bank Fraud and PPP Fraud Defense in Connecticut
Federal bank fraud and PPP fraud prosecutions in Connecticut are carried out by experienced Assistant U.S. Attorneys working alongside the FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, and the SBA Office of Inspector General. The documentary evidence in these cases — bank records, loan applications, payroll data, tax filings — was preserved from the moment the application was submitted. Your defense counsel needs to match the government’s preparation from the first conversation.
Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy is admitted to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bar No. 31712) and holds simultaneous active federal bar admissions in D. Conn., D. Mass., and D.R.I. — enabling representation across all three Southern New England federal districts. Both Murphy and Attorney Matthew T. Marin are members of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the national professional organization for federal criminal defense practitioners.
Bank fraud and PPP fraud defense demands the ability to challenge the government’s evidence at every level — to contest loss calculations (submitted amount vs. actual loss vs. funds returned), to challenge how financial records were obtained, to deconstruct the government’s intent theory, and to cross-examine cooperating witnesses whose testimony was purchased with sentencing concessions. Murphy’s practice focuses specifically on this intersection of forensic evidence and criminal defense. As lead editor and contributing author of A Practical Guide to Trying DUI Cases in Rhode Island (2nd Edition 2024, MCLE New England) — the state’s definitive DUI litigation resource — Murphy has published and lectured on forensic evidence reliability, search and seizure doctrine, and pretrial motions practice. That analytical discipline — deconstructing the government’s evidentiary case element by element — applies directly to the document-intensive nature of federal bank fraud defense, where challenging the loss methodology and the authentication of financial records are core defense activities.
Murphy has tried serious felony cases to verdict that most defense attorneys encounter rarely if ever. The Providence Journal reported her role as lead counsel in a murder acquittal — a case involving co-defendants serving life sentences and prosecution by the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office. Her work in complex post-conviction DNA litigation — representing a defendant imprisoned for decades, where she argued newly discovered DNA evidence excluded her client — reflects the investigative sophistication that federal fraud defense demands. Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly has repeatedly quoted both Murphy and Marin as authorities on federal and appellate criminal procedure. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The cases referenced above are described to illustrate the nature of Attorney Murphy’s trial and post-conviction practice. Every case is evaluated on its individual facts, applicable law, jurisdiction, and procedural posture. Post-conviction matters described as ongoing remain in active litigation, and no outcome has been adjudicated.
Attorney Matthew T. Marin has established constitutional precedent that directly informs federal defense strategy. In State v. Corcoran (2022), Marin secured suppression of incriminating statements at the trial court level in a case that resulted in a Rhode Island Supreme Court ruling establishing statewide Miranda precedent. In State v. Zimmerman (2015), Marin originated the constitutional challenge that forced the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office to revise the DUI rights form used in every arrest statewide. Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly has published six standalone editorial features on Marin’s cases across four consecutive years. His background in complex civil litigation — including nationally reported environmental mass tort matters — informs the document-intensive, multi-party approach that federal fraud defense requires.
Both attorneys gained early-career prosecution experience through the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office, and Murphy prosecuted misdemeanor criminal matters as a Town Solicitor for Rhode Island municipalities. That firsthand exposure to how the government builds cases, evaluates cooperation, and makes charging decisions is particularly relevant in bank fraud and PPP fraud defense — where understanding how prosecutors evaluate intent in the context of emergency program rollouts, how they calculate loss across multiple applications, and how they assess cooperation value in multi-defendant investigations is often the difference between a manageable disposition and a multi-count indictment.
Murphy has been selected to Super Lawyers for 14 consecutive years (Rising Star 2012–2018, Super Lawyers 2019–2025). Marin has been selected for 11 consecutive years (Rising Star 2014–2018, Super Lawyers 2019–2024) and has been named to the National Trial Lawyers Top 100. The firm has earned 451 five-star Google reviews with a 5.0 rating.
Every consultation is confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege. Call (860) 294-4384 for a confidential consultation.
Federal Bank Fraud and PPP Fraud: What These Charges Mean
Federal bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 covers a wide range of conduct — any scheme to defraud a federally insured financial institution or to obtain money, funds, or property by false or fraudulent pretenses. The statute’s breadth is intentional. Prosecutors use it in mortgage fraud cases, check kiting, fraudulent loan applications, identity-based financial schemes, and, increasingly, COVID-19 economic relief fraud.
PPP fraud — Paycheck Protection Program fraud — became one of the most actively prosecuted federal fraud categories following the CARES Act. In Connecticut, multiple prosecutions from 2024 and 2025 involved defendants who submitted false applications for pandemic relief funds, fabricated payroll records, used shell businesses, or diverted funds from their stated purpose. Federal sentencing data from the District of Connecticut reflects these cases: among recent D. Conn. fraud sentencings, PPP-related schemes resulted in sentences ranging from 21 months to over 32 months depending on loss amount and the number of false applications involved.
The government’s resources in these cases are substantial. The IRS Criminal Investigation division, the FBI, the SBA Office of Inspector General, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office frequently work together on bank fraud and relief fund fraud prosecutions. Related federal fraud charges — including federal healthcare fraud, federal tax fraud, and federal securities fraud — are prosecuted using similar investigative methods and carry overlapping sentencing exposure. The paper trail — bank records, application data, tax filings, payroll documentation — was preserved from the moment the application was submitted.
Bank fraud charges are commonly stacked alongside wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), which applies whenever any electronic communication was used in furtherance of the scheme. That means a single course of conduct can generate multiple counts, each carrying substantial prison exposure. Federal sentencing guidelines calculate loss amount and apply enhancements that can dramatically increase the guideline range even when the base offense level appears manageable.
Arrest, Investigation, and the Early Phase
Most federal bank fraud and PPP fraud cases do not begin with an arrest. They begin with an investigation — sometimes one that has been running for months or years before the target is aware of it. Signs that you may be under investigation include: a subpoena to your bank or employer, a knock from federal agents (FBI, IRS-CI, or SBA-OIG), a federal target letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office identifying you as a target or subject, or news that a business partner or co-defendant has been arrested.
If federal agents appear at your home or office, you are not required to answer questions. Agents investigating bank fraud and PPP fraud are trained interviewers. They already have the documentary evidence — bank records, application data, wire transfers — and they are looking for statements that confirm intent, fill evidentiary gaps, or implicate others. Speaking without counsel in this context carries serious risk regardless of whether you believe you did anything wrong.
The first 72 hours after an investigation surfaces matter. Evidence preservation obligations attach immediately. If you have received a federal target letter or been contacted through a federal grand jury subpoena, retain counsel before making any statement. In the District of Connecticut, 93.2% of federal fraud cases resolved by guilty plea in FY2024 — meaning early engagement with defense counsel isn’t just about trial preparation. It’s about understanding what the government has, what the realistic exposure is, and whether pre-indictment intervention is possible.
Federal Agents Have Made Contact — or You’ve Received a Target Letter The first 72 hours after an investigation surfaces matter. Statements made before counsel is retained cannot be recalled. Evidence preservation obligations attach immediately. Don’t speak to investigators without representation. Call (860) 294-4384 — 24/7 Confidential Consultations Every conversation is protected by attorney-client privilege.
Bail, Conditions, and Pretrial Restrictions
Federal bank fraud defendants are typically released pending trial, but release is not unconditional. Courts in the District of Connecticut routinely impose pretrial supervision, travel restrictions, surrender of passport, and in some cases electronic monitoring. Where the alleged fraud involved a business, courts may also restrict continued operation of that business or prohibit contact with financial institutions.
For PPP fraud cases involving larger loss amounts or multiple defendants, the government may argue that the defendant poses a risk of continued fraudulent conduct — a basis for more restrictive conditions. Where co-defendants exist, courts often impose no-contact orders that can complicate ongoing business relationships.
Bail hearings in federal court are distinct from state court. The Bail Reform Act governs, and the government’s ability to detain without bail is broader in cases involving serious financial crimes with significant loss amounts. Having defense counsel present at the initial appearance — and ideally before it — gives you the best opportunity to address conditions on terms that allow you to continue working while your case proceeds.
The Evidence That Decides These Cases
Federal bank fraud and PPP fraud prosecutions are document-intensive. By the time charges are filed, prosecutors have typically obtained:
- Bank records showing the flow of funds — deposits, withdrawals, wire transfers, and account activity inconsistent with stated business purpose
- SBA loan application records, including submitted payroll data, tax filings, and certifications
- IRS records cross-referenced against reported income and payroll
- Email and electronic communications between applicants, lenders, and third parties
- Business formation documents for any shell companies used in the scheme
- Cooperating witness statements from co-defendants, employees, accountants, or lenders
- Search warrant returns from computers, phones, or business premises
In PPP fraud cases specifically, the government benefits from a complete paper trail that was created at the time of application. Every application was date-stamped, certified, and submitted electronically — which satisfies both the wire fraud and bank fraud statutes simultaneously. The loss calculation is the submitted amount, not what was actually spent or returned.
Defense work in these cases turns on what the records show about intent, whether the certifications were made in good faith based on available guidance at the time, and whether the government’s loss calculation accurately reflects the actual harm. In cases where business records are legitimately complex, expert accounting analysis can be critical.
The Government Has the Paper Trail. You Need Defense Counsel Who Knows How to Challenge It. Bank records, SBA applications, tax filings, cooperating witness statements — the government’s file is extensive. Experienced defense counsel identifies errors in the loss calculation, challenges how evidence was obtained, and builds the intent defense that the government’s documents alone can’t tell. Call (860) 294-4384 — 24/7 Confidential Consultations D. Conn.-admitted defense counsel available for urgent consultations.
Defense Strategy in Federal Bank Fraud Cases
An effective federal bank fraud defense begins before the government finalizes its case theory — ideally before indictment.
Pre-indictment engagement. In cases where investigation has surfaced but charges have not been filed, there is often an opportunity to engage with prosecutors, understand the scope of the investigation, and present information that affects charging decisions. The District of Connecticut’s U.S. Attorney’s Office does conduct pre-indictment discussions in appropriate cases. This is not surrender — it is strategic positioning.
Intent as the core defense issue. Federal bank fraud requires proof that the defendant knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme with intent to defraud. Cases where conduct was the result of misunderstanding program requirements, reliance on professional advice, or ambiguity in the applicable rules present genuine intent defenses. In the PPP context specifically, the rapid rollout of relief programs in 2020 created widespread confusion about eligibility criteria, allowable uses, and certification requirements. That confusion is relevant to the government’s ability to prove knowing intent.
Loss amount disputes. The sentencing guidelines for fraud are loss-driven. A difference of $50,000 in the loss calculation can mean a difference of one to three sentencing levels — which translates to months or years in the guideline range. Challenging the government’s loss methodology, identifying amounts returned, and documenting any legitimate business purpose for funds received are all areas where defense work directly affects sentencing exposure.
After sentencing, a motion to vacate under § 2255 can address constitutional errors that undermined the outcome.
Suppression and procedural challenges. If evidence was obtained through search warrants, subpoenas, or electronic surveillance, the legal sufficiency of those investigative steps is subject to review. Motions to suppress evidence or challenge the scope of search warrants can affect the government’s case materially.
Cooperation and plea negotiation. In the District of Connecticut, 100% of fraud and embezzlement defendants sentenced in FY2024 resolved their cases by guilty plea. That figure reflects the reality of federal prosecution — but it also means that the terms of a plea agreement, the cooperation structure, and the sentencing advocacy that follows are as important as any trial defense. Securing a plea to a lesser charge, limiting relevant conduct, and presenting a comprehensive federal sentencing memorandum require the same rigor as trial preparation. See our guide to federal plea and cooperation defense in Connecticut for how these negotiations are structured.
Bank Fraud Investigations Across Connecticut’s Federal Courthouses
Federal bank fraud cases originate from every part of Connecticut. Hartford’s banking and insurance corridor produces a significant share of state-headquartered-lender prosecutions and PPP fraud cases tied to community banks (see our Hartford federal criminal defense lawyer page). New Haven’s federal courthouse hears mortgage fraud and small-business loan fraud cases from the central CT shoreline and inland communities (see our New Haven federal criminal defense lawyer page). Bridgeport is the federal venue for Fairfield County, where lower Fairfield mortgage fraud and small-business bank fraud matters are routinely prosecuted (see our Bridgeport federal criminal defense lawyer page). And Stamford — Connecticut’s financial-services capital — generates bank fraud cases tied to institutional accounts, hedge-fund counterparty transactions, and wire-coupled bank fraud schemes, typically venued in the Bridgeport federal courthouse (see our Stamford federal criminal defense lawyer page). Federal bank fraud charges often sit alongside broader Connecticut white collar criminal defense exposure, and clients with cross-border facts — including loan applications, branch activity, or wire transfers reaching across state lines — sometimes face parallel proceedings in our Rhode Island federal criminal defense practice or scrutiny coordinated by the Connecticut U.S. Attorney’s Office.Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between bank fraud and wire fraud — and why does it matter?
Bank fraud ( 18 U.S.C. § 1344 ) specifically targets schemes involving federally insured financial institutions. Wire fraud ( 18 U.S.C. § 1343 ) applies to any scheme involving interstate electronic communications — phone calls, emails, electronic transfers. In most federal bank fraud cases, wire fraud is also charged because electronic communications were used. Each count is prosecuted separately, which means the government can stack exposure across multiple transactions. The distinction matters for sentencing calculation and for understanding which conduct the government is actually focused on.Is PPP fraud still being prosecuted in Connecticut?
Yes. While the peak of COVID relief fraud prosecutions has passed, cases are still being investigated and sentenced in the District of Connecticut. The statute of limitations for federal wire fraud and bank fraud is generally five years from the last act in furtherance of the scheme — meaning conduct from 2020 remains within the prosecution window through 2025 and beyond in some cases. Multiple D. Conn. PPP fraud sentences were handed down in 2024 and 2025.What if I returned the PPP funds — does that help?
Returning funds after the fact does not erase criminal liability, but it is relevant to the government’s loss calculation for sentencing purposes and may factor into prosecutorial discretion in marginal cases. Whether and how much credit is given for returning funds is determined by federal sentencing guidelines and the specific circumstances of each case. This is an area where early defense engagement can make a practical difference.What happens if I’m approached by federal agents before I’ve been charged?
You are not required to answer questions. Politely declining to speak without counsel present is your right, and it is not evidence of guilt. Federal agents investigating financial fraud typically already have substantial documentary evidence — they are looking for statements, not facts. Contacting defense counsel before making any statement is the single most important step you can take at this stage.What does a federal bank fraud defense typically cost?
Federal white-collar cases are complex, document-intensive, and often take one to three years from investigation to resolution. Retainers for federal fraud defense typically reflect that scope — ranging from $25,000 to well over $100,000 depending on whether the case proceeds to trial, the volume of discovery, and the complexity of the sentencing issues. The cost of inadequate representation in a case carrying 30-year maximum exposure is not a reasonable risk to take to save on legal fees.What is a federal target letter, and what should I do if I receive one?
A federal target letter is a written notice from the U.S. Attorney’s Office informing you that you are the target of a federal grand jury investigation. Receiving one means the government already has enough information to consider indictment. Do not respond to the letter, do not contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office directly, and do not discuss the investigation with anyone other than defense counsel. Retain a federal criminal defense attorney immediately — the window between target letter and indictment is often the most valuable time in the entire case.Can bank fraud charges be reduced or dismissed?
Cases can be resolved short of conviction at trial through suppression of evidence, dismissal of individual counts, pre-indictment resolution, or negotiated plea to a lesser offense. No defense attorney can guarantee outcomes — but the strength of your defense, the quality of pre-indictment engagement, and the rigor of sentencing advocacy all affect where your case lands. In the District of Connecticut, federal fraud cases almost always resolve by plea; the question is always the terms.Take the Next Step
A federal bank fraud or PPP fraud investigation is not a situation that improves with time or resolves without defense counsel. Whether you’ve received a target letter, been contacted by federal agents, or already been charged, Marin & Murphy Law Firm is prepared to evaluate your case and advise you on what comes next.
Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bar No. 31712). Consultations are confidential. Early contact — before charges are filed or before your first court appearance — typically provides the most options.
Call (860) 294-4384 to speak with our office. The firm handles serious federal matters in the District of Connecticut.
For a comprehensive overview of federal fraud defense in Connecticut — including wire fraud, securities fraud, healthcare fraud, and loss-amount sentencing mechanics — see our Connecticut Federal Fraud Defense page. For an overview of all federal charge types, see our Connecticut Federal Criminal Defense Attorney page.
