WHITE-COLLAR DEFENSE

White-collar defense is not one offense. Fraud, embezzlement, tax allegations and statements made during an investigation involve different statutes. Counsel identifies the alleged act, the person responsible, required knowledge or intent, and the financial or communications evidence. A title, signature or account login does not by itself establish the full story.

For property-fraud allegations, a failed transaction alone does not establish a crime. Conversely, the Supreme Court’s Kousisis decision explains why providing fair value does not automatically defeat a materially false inducement to transfer money or property. The precise accusation matters.

Some investigations also examine reporting or funds-transfer issues. Structuring requires analysis of the specified reporting rule and purpose to evade it. California money-laundering law contains alternative intent and knowledge theories; a lawful source of funds does not answer every possible allegation. These questions should be assessed before deciding the scope of the engagement.

Alleged deception in a transaction

Financial fraud requires identifying the particular statement or act, required intent and property theory. Mail and wire fraud add distinct federal requirements concerning use of a mailing or transmission. The original proposal, contract, messages and transaction history may be more informative than a later summary describing the deal as fraudulent.

Disputed use of entrusted property

Embezzlement focuses on property entrusted to a person and its alleged fraudulent use. Authority to access an account differs from authority to spend its funds. Informal approvals, compensation arrangements and repayment should be reviewed in their original context rather than treated as automatic proof of either guilt or innocence.

Requests for information and later conduct

Investigations and subpoenas raise response and representation questions before any accusation is resolved. Grand-jury testimony can require personal privilege analysis. A separate false-statement or obstruction allegation concerns what was said or done during the response, with its own elements. Preserving the full record helps counsel assess each issue separately.

A company and its executive may need different advice about the same event. Qualifying confidential legal communications and attorney work product may be protected, but underlying business records do not become privileged merely because they are sent to counsel. Who the lawyer represents must be clear.

• Bring the complete demand, charge, target letter or interview request, with attachments and known dates.
• Identify the transaction, participants, company role and any other counsel already involved.
• Preserve contracts, bank and accounting records, approval messages, relevant devices and system-access information.
• Keep a chronology of agency contacts and prior productions; do not create a new version of events to fill a gap in the record.

These fictional examples describe issues for evaluation, not firm cases or promised outcomes. They do not establish a local office or court venue.

The linked statutes, court opinions and government guidance address different subjects. DOJ policy is not the same as a court rule; no single source decides every investigation.

• Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 6 and 17
• DOJ Justice Manual: grand jury policy
• Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)
• Kousisis v. United States, No. 23-909 (2025)
• 31 U.S.C. § 5324: structuring
• California Penal Code §§ 186.9–186.10
• Marinello v. United States, 584 U.S. 1 (2018)