United States: 2015 Proposed Amendments To Fraud Sentencing Guidelines: A Good Start

Last Updated: February 6 2015
Article by Harry Sandick and Julia Stepanova

This month marks the 10-year anniversary of United States v. Booker,1 the landmark case that transformed the federal Sentencing Guidelines into advisory sentencing rules. In the years following Booker, observers have recognized that the Sentencing Guidelines for white-collar fraud cases are not working as "guidelines." The Guidelines often recommend sentences that are simply out of step with what most courts are willing to mete out.2 As a result, judges are frequently varying from the sentences recommended by the Guidelines, often substantially.3 This in turn often leads to significant disparities among defendants who have committed similar crimes and who have similar criminal records, a result that judges are instructed to avoid.4

The Guidelines cannot be said to provide useful guidance to district court judges if judges are varying from them at a high frequency and to a significant degree.5 For defendants, a plea offer from the government that is based on an extremely high Guidelines range creates what may be an undue incentive to proceed to trial: it is hard to accept a plea offer of 15 or 20 years. The existence of the high Guidelines range often forces the government to take harsher positions at sentencing than they know will be ordered, further depriving the district court of what might be useful insights about a particular case. In short, the fraud sentencing guidelines are broken. Since judges must give due credence to the Guidelines,6 the sentencing guideline framework needs to be fixed in order for the federal sentencing system to work.

On Jan. 9, 2015, the Sentencing Commission took a small but productive step in the right direction when it promulgated a series of proposed amendments to Section 2B1.1 of the Guidelines, which governs sentencing in fraud cases.7 While the individual impact of these revisions is small, together they amount to a welcome first step—perhaps a down payment on a more substantive revision in the future. A period of notice and comment will now begin, running through March 18, 2015, with a public hearing on the proposed amendments to be held on March 12, 2015. This article briefly reviews the proposed amendments.

1. Inflationary Adjustments. The fraud sentencing guidelines are driven first and foremost by the loss calculations made by the district court. This myopic focus on loss amount has been the subject of criticism.8 The loss table has not been amended since 1987 to take into account inflation, even though $1 in 1991 has the same buying power as $1.74 in 2014.9 The commission has proposed two possible adjustments based on inflation. Each adjustment is based on the Consumer Price Index, but the two proposals employ different rules for rounding.

The effect of both proposals is to significantly raise the level of loss required for a specific increase in levels. For example, the current Guidelines call for a 14-level increase when the loss amount is more than $400,000, while the proposals would require a loss amount of either $525,000 or $550,000 for a 14-level increase.10 Notably, at the end of this proposed amendment, the commission asks for comment about whether there should be "any other changes to the monetary tables, such as to promote proportionality or reduce complexity."11

2. Intended Loss.12 The commission proposed amendments to the definition of intended loss, which often drives the calculation of the Guidelines range in cases where there has been little or no actual loss. The commission also raised a number of issues for comment concerning how intended loss is calculated and how it is used in determining the Guidelines range. First, the commission asked whether intended loss should be limited to the amount that the defendant personally intended, or whether it should also include amounts intended by other participants in the offense.

Second, the commission asked whether courts should always use the greater of actual loss or intended loss (the existing rule) or whether intended loss should be limited in some fashion.13 This raises further questions about the proper sentence in cases where the actual loss was low or non-existent, but the intended loss was high. One solution may be to consider both facts, as opposed to only the higher number, during sentencing.

3. Victims. The current Guidelines provide for increases in offense level of 2, 4, or 6 levels if the offense involved 10, 50, or 250 victims (or more), respectively. The proposed amended Guidelines would limit these increases to 1, 2 or 3 levels, but add a possible enhancement for cases in which the offense caused a substantial financial hardship, a new term defined in a proposed application note.14 Although the desire to focus less on the "counting" of victims and more on the actual impact of the crime is commendable, the addition of newly defined terms in the Sentencing Guidelines seems like a step in the wrong direction given the high level of complexity already inherent in calculations under the Guidelines.

4. Sophisticated Means. Courts have long pondered the correct interpretation of this enhancement, which aims to address a legitimate issue of culpability but does so in a manner that is often less than intuitive.15 The proposed amendment is meant to clarify this provision. First, it would change the rule to require that the defendant himself engaged in the conduct that is deemed "sophisticated." The current rule, in contrast, applies the enhancement when the offense involves sophisticated means. Second, the proposed amendment removes the language suggesting that certain types of conduct inherently involve sophisticated means.

Some of these presumptively "sophisticated" means, such as the use of "offshore accounts," are often, in fact, quite simplistic. Third, the proposed amendment states that "[c]onduct that is common to offenses of the same kind ordinarily does not constitute sophisticated means."16 This attempt to draw distinctions between truly complex and unsophisticated offenses is a welcome revision, particularly in the white collar context.17

5. Fraud on the Market. The commission proposed a new amendment for securities offenses involving "fraud on the market" (i.e., offenses involving the fraudulent inflation or deflation in the value of a publicly traded security or commodity and the submission of false information to the Securities and Exchange Commission or another regulator). This amendment would base the Guideline on the gain to the defendant rather than the loss sustained by victims of the offense, but in no event would the enhancement under the loss table be less than a specified number of Guideline levels (somewhere between 14 and 22 levels). Here, the real content is in the issues identified by the commission, which recognize that these are serious cases but ones in which it can be difficult to measure gain and loss, thus leading both to under- and over-punishment.18 The notice and comment on these provisions figure to be worth following.

6. Relevant Conduct. The commission proposes to amend Section 1B1.3, which defines the relevant conduct for which a defendant is held responsible when determining the correct Guidelines range. While this provision applies to all of the Sentencing Guidelines, not only the fraud-related guidelines, it may have an impact on how loss amount is calculated. The amendments are quite extensive and their full extent is beyond the scope of this article.

One amendment that bears noting, however, is the addition of express language stating that relevant conduct committed by others is not to be imputed to a defendant unless he specifically agreed jointly to undertake that particular criminal activity. The fact that the conduct was committed in furtherance of jointly undertaken criminal activity is not sufficient, even if the acts of others were reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. The "issues for comment" draw attention to the question of whether the term "jointly undertaken criminal activity" should be beefed up, either to require a higher state of mind or to require a conviction for conspiracy.19

One cautionary note about the prospect of future amendment: remarks given by Judge Patti B. Saris, the commission's chair, at the Jan. 9, 2015, public meeting of the Sentencing Commission indicate that the commission believes that "the fraud guideline may not be fundamentally broken for most forms of fraud." She also states that most judges "are relatively satisfied with it for most types of fraud."20 It is hard to reconcile this conclusion with the fact that more than half of all fraud sentences in 2013 were outside of the recommended Guideline range. Regardless of the chair's comments, these are generally positive steps that should make sentencing more reasonable and the Guidelines more relevant. Hopefully, further steps will be taken in this direction.


1. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

2. See United States v. Adelson, 441 F.Supp.2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); United States v. Ovid, No. 09-CR-216, 2010 WL 3940724 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2010).

3. See United States v. McDonnell, No. 3:14-CR-00012 (E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 2015) (two-year sentence imposed after Guidelines recommended more than 10 years' imprisonment); United States v. Gupta, 904 F.Supp.2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (two-year sentence imposed after district court determined a Guidelines range of six-and-a-half to eight years).

4. 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(6) (2011). See Peter Lattman, "2 Defendants Sentenced in Insider Trading Case," N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 21, 2011, http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/2-defendants-sentenced-in-insider-trading-case/.

5. In fiscal year 2013, more than half of all fraud sentences were outside the Guideline range. U.S. Sentencing Commission, Statistical Information Packet for Fiscal Year 2013, Southern District of New York, Table 10, http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/federal-sentencingstatistics/state-district-circuit/2013/nys13.pdf. In the Southern District of New York, only 26.1 percent of fraud sentences were within the Guideline range. Id.

6. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007).

7. In addition to fraud, Section 2B1.1 covers offenses involving theft, embezzlement, forgery, counterfeiting, insider trading, transactions in stolen goods, and simple property damage or destruction. U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINE MANUAL, ch. 2, pt. D, introductory cmt. (2014).

8. Leah McGrath Goodman, "Nonsensical Sentences for White Collar Criminals," NEWSWEEK, June 26, 2014, http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/04/nonsensical-sentences-whitecollar-criminals-256104.html#.U7FqSajPNNs.email (quoting Judge Jed S. Rakoff commenting that "the arithmetic behind the sentencing calculations is all hocus-pocus—it's nonsensical, and I mean that sincerely. It gives the illusion of something meaningful with no real value underneath.").

9. Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (Preliminary), Proposed Amendment: Inflationary Adjustments at 2 (Jan. 9, 2015), available at http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-amendments/20150109_PRELIM_RF_amendments.pdf.

10. Id. at 1-3. The proposed amendment would do likewise for a number of other loss-driven Guidelines calculations, including the loss tables for insider trading and tax fraud, and the fine tables for individual defendants in Section 5E1.2. The multipliers vary, but the goal is to reflect an inflationary adjustment.

11. Id. at 16.

12. The provisions relating to intended loss, victims, sophisticated means, and fraud on the market are packaged as a single proposed amendment on "economic crime." Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (Preliminary), Proposed Amendment: Economic Crime at 1.

13. Id. at 4.

14. Id. at 6.

15. See United States v. Lewis, 93 F.3d 1075 (2d Cir. 1996) (recognizing that the term "def[ies] precise definition" and is an "open-ended phrase" requiring judicial construction).

16. Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (Preliminary), Proposed Amendment: Economic Crime at 11-12.

17. A similar amendment should be promulgated for Section 2T1.1, which also states that "the use of...offshore financial accounts ordinarily indicates sophisticated means." U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL §2T1.1, cmt. n.5 (2014). It is hard to think of anything less sophisticated than opening a bank account in an offshore tax haven and failing to report the income earned in that account.

18. Id. at 15-17.

19. Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (Preliminary), Proposed Amendment: Jointly Undertaken Criminal Activity at 2, 4, 10.

20. Chief Judge Patti B. Saris, Remarks at the Public Meeting of the United States Sentencing Commission 2 (Jan 9, 2015), available at http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/public-hearings-and-meetings/20150109/Remarks.pdf.

Previously published in the New York Law Journal - January 2015

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions