Securities Fraud and Wire Fraud: Why Prosecutors Charge Both and What It Means for Your Defense

Prosecutors often charge securities fraud and wire fraud together because wire fraud reaches conduct the securities statutes do not.

Wire fraud requires a scheme to obtain money or property, a material false statement, intent to defraud, and an interstate wire, with no proof that any security was involved.

Charging both gives the government a second theory that can survive even if the securities charge fails.

That single strategic choice shapes everything about how these cases are investigated, negotiated, and tried.

Most people facing a securities fraud and wire fraud indictment focus on the securities counts, which is usually the wrong place to start.

Why Do Federal Prosecutors Charge Wire Fraud Alongside Securities Fraud?

Prosecutors charge wire fraud alongside securities fraud because wire fraud reaches conduct the securities statutes cannot, and because it never requires the government to prove that a security was involved.

The wire fraud statute has no securities requirement at all. The statute still has real limits, since the lie has to be material, money or property has to be an object of the scheme, and a qualifying wire has to further it.

What it does not require is a security, so it applies whether the investment was registered stock, a promissory note, a real estate partnership, or a digital token.

Federal prosecutors know that juries and appellate courts scrutinize the securities element closely, so the wire fraud count acts as a floor under the case.

A useful way to think about it is that wire fraud is the count hardest for the defense to eliminate, because it does not rise or fall on the securities question.

Section 1348 carries the highest ordinary maximum at 25 years, though wire fraud reaches 30 years when the offense affects a financial institution or relates to a presidentially declared major disaster.

A Dallas case from the Northern District of Texas shows the pattern clearly: a cryptocurrency company founder was indicted on three counts of securities fraud and three counts of wire fraud after allegedly taking more than $4 million from investors.

Both sets of counts arose from the same alleged conduct, and those charges remain allegations that have not been proven.

What Does the Government Have to Prove for Wire Fraud?

The government must prove four things for wire fraud: a scheme to defraud someone of money or property through a material false statement or omission, intent to defraud, a qualifying interstate or foreign wire used to further the scheme, and that use of the wires was reasonably foreseeable.

Materiality is not written into the statute, but the Supreme Court read it in, holding in Neder v. United States that “materiality of falsehood is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes.”

18 U.S.C. § 1343 reaches anyone who “transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice.”

Nothing in that language mentions securities, investors, or markets, which is part of why wire fraud is such a big deal in federal court today.

The wire itself is easy to establish in almost any investment case.

Emails to investors, wire transfers of funds, account statements sent electronically, brokerage confirmations, video calls with potential buyers, and text messages all qualify if they crossed a state line and furthered the scheme.

The defendant does not have to have personally sent the transmission, because the statute reaches anyone who “causes” the wire to be sent, so long as the use of the wires was reasonably foreseeable.

Each qualifying transmission is a separate count, which is why a single alleged scheme can produce fifteen or twenty wire fraud counts.

The scheme also does not have to succeed. Prosecutors do not need to show that any investor actually lost money, only that a scheme existed and that the defendant intended to defraud.

What Does the Government Have to Prove for Securities Fraud?

Criminal securities fraud is a separate offense with its own elements rather than wire fraud with one extra requirement, and the government can choose between two federal statutes.

Neither one requires proof of a particular wire transmission, since Section 1348 has its own statutory pathways and Rule 10b-5 uses a broader jurisdictional nexus covering interstate commerce, the mails, or a national securities exchange.

The first is 18 U.S.C. § 1348, created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, which punishes anyone who “knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice” to defraud in connection with certain securities or commodities.

The second is Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), enforced through SEC Rule 10b-5, which makes it unlawful to “employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” or to make an untrue statement of material fact “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”

A Rule 10b-5 violation only becomes a crime when it is committed willfully, under 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(a).

That statute also contains an unusual limitation on imprisonment, stating that “no person shall be subject to imprisonment under this section for the violation of any rule or regulation if he proves that he had no knowledge of such rule or regulation.”

The practical difference is that every securities count forces the government to prove the securities connection, which wire fraud never requires.

Willfulness under the Exchange Act is a genuinely contested standard, and courts have not read it to require that the defendant knew which rule the conduct broke, so it is better understood as a different mental state than as a simply higher one.

Why Is the Securities Connection the Hardest Part to Prove?

The securities connection is the hardest element because many investments people describe as “securities” do not qualify under the criminal statutes.

Courts instruct the jury on the governing legal test, but whether a particular investment actually meets it is often a fact question the jury decides, which makes it something the defense can fight at trial rather than a formality.

Section 1348 has a limit that surprises almost everyone.

Its securities prong reaches only a security “of an issuer with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” or one “that is required to file reports under section 15(d)” of that Act.

In plain terms, Section 1348 was written mainly for publicly traded companies.

Private company shares, most startup equity, many promissory notes, oil and gas working interests, real estate partnerships, and a great deal of cryptocurrency activity fall outside that language.

Rule 10b-5 reaches further, since it applies to any security registered or unregistered, but it brings its own fights over whether the investment was a security at all under the Supreme Court’s investment contract test.

Wire fraud has no such problem. If a person sent money to Texas after receiving a materially false email, the wire fraud count can proceed regardless of what the investment was called.

That gap is a major reason wire fraud counts appear alongside securities counts in federal investment fraud cases out of Dallas.

What Is the Difference Between Securities Fraud and Wire Fraud?

The difference comes down to four things: what the government must prove, how much prison time each carries, how long prosecutors have to file the charge, and what defenses are available.

The comparison below lays out the three statutes prosecutors use most often in these cases.

The row that matters most is the securities connection. Wire fraud is the only one of the three that the government can prove without ever explaining what a security is to a jury, and that is exactly why it appears in the indictment.

The fine figures in that table are the ordinary ceilings rather than hard caps.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d), a court may instead impose a fine of up to “twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss,” which in a large investment fraud case can far exceed every number in that column.

The mental state row also deserves attention, because each statute uses a different one and the jury instructions differ accordingly.

Which Charge Carries the Longer Sentence?

Securities fraud under Section 1348 carries a 25-year maximum, while wire fraud and criminal Rule 10b-5 carry 20 years each, and wire fraud rises above all of them to 30 years when the offense affects a financial institution or relates to a presidentially declared major disaster.

Those numbers are ceilings, not predictions. Federal judges sentence under the advisory guidelines, and the guidelines rarely produce a number anywhere near the statutory maximum in a securities and wire fraud case.

Real outcomes look very different from the headline exposure.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that in fiscal year 2025, 202 people were sentenced for securities and investment fraud offenses, 89 percent received a prison sentence, the average sentence was 51 months, and the median loss was $3,741,264.

Those cases also rose 43 percent since fiscal year 2021, which tells you where federal enforcement attention is going.

An average of 51 months against ceilings of 20 and 25 years shows how much of the sentencing decision happens inside the guideline calculation rather than in the statute.

How Long Do Prosecutors Have to Bring Each Charge?

Wire fraud carries a five-year limitations period and securities fraud carries six, which means the two charges can expire on different dates.

The general federal rule in 18 U.S.C. § 3282 gives prosecutors five years for most offenses, including wire fraud.

That window stretches to ten years under 18 U.S.C. § 3293 when the wire fraud “affects a financial institution.”

Securities fraud is different because Congress wrote a separate rule.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3301, no person may be prosecuted for a “securities fraud offense” unless charged “within 6 years after the commission of the offense,” and that definition covers Section 1348, criminal violations of the Exchange Act, and conspiracies and attempts to commit them.

The gap creates a situation defendants rarely see coming. Conduct that happened five and a half years ago may be too old to charge as wire fraud while remaining fully chargeable as securities fraud.

The mismatch works against defendants as often as it helps them, and it is one of the quiet reasons prosecutors sometimes lead with the securities count instead of the wire count.

Does Being Charged With Both Increase Your Sentence?

Often it changes far less than defendants expect, because counts arising from the same scheme and the same loss are normally grouped together and share a single offense level. This is the single most misunderstood point in these cases.

A defendant who sees fifteen wire fraud counts and four securities fraud counts naturally assumes the sentence multiplies.

Usually it does not, though the answer depends on whether the counts really do arise from one scheme causing one loss.

What stacking counts more reliably changes is the statutory ceiling, the government’s leverage in plea talks, and the odds that at least one theory survives appeal.

Restitution is a common misconception here, because wire fraud and securities fraud both contain a scheme element, and 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2) already reaches any person “directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme,” so adding counts does not necessarily widen who gets paid.

How Does Grouping Work Under the Sentencing Guidelines?

Under the grouping rules, fraud counts driven by the same loss are combined into one group and produce one offense level, no matter how many counts appear in the indictment.

The rule comes from USSG § 3D1.2, which states that “all counts involving substantially the same harm shall be grouped together into a single Group.”

Subsection (d) applies when the offense level is determined largely by the total amount of harm or loss, and it expressly lists § 2B1.1, the guideline that covers both wire fraud and securities fraud.

So a defendant convicted of ten wire fraud counts and three securities fraud counts arising from one investment scheme can end up with a guideline range close to that of a defendant convicted of a single count involving the same loss.

Grouping is not automatic, though. Genuinely separate schemes with different victims and different losses can form separate groups, and the multiple-count rules in Sections 3D1.3 and 3D1.4 then add levels on top of the highest group.

Different specific offense characteristics attaching to different counts can move the number as well.

Sorting out whether the government is describing one scheme or several is real defense work, not a technicality.

What Actually Drives the Sentence in These Cases?

Loss amount drives the sentence more than any other factor, followed by the number of victims, the use of sophisticated means, and the defendant’s role.

The loss table in USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1) adds levels in steps as the alleged loss climbs, topping out at 30 levels for losses above $550 million.

Moving a loss figure from $3 million to $1.5 million can cut years off a sentence, which is why the loss calculation deserves more attention than the count structure.

Securities cases carry one addition that wire fraud cases do not.

Section 2B1.1(b)(20)(A) adds four levels when the offense involved a violation of securities law and the defendant was, at the time, “an officer or a director of a publicly traded company,” “a registered broker or dealer, or a person associated with a broker or dealer,” or “an investment adviser, or a person associated with an investment adviser.”

That increase does not depend on being convicted of a securities offense, which is the detail most defendants get wrong.

The commentary to Section 2B1.1 states that a conviction under a securities law or commodities law is not required for the increase to apply, and it gives the example of a corporate officer who is convicted only of wire fraud.

For a licensed broker or a registered investment adviser in Dallas, that four-level addition can therefore follow the conduct rather than the counts.

Insider trading is scored differently again, under a separate guideline keyed to the gain from the trades rather than investor loss.

How Do These Charges Show Up in Insider Trading and Ponzi Scheme Cases?

Securities fraud and wire fraud appear together in three recurring scenarios: insider trading, Ponzi schemes, and private investment fraud. The reason for pairing them is different in each.

Understanding which pattern your case fits tells you where the defense pressure points are.

Why Do Prosecutors Use Section 1348 in Insider Trading Cases?

Prosecutors use Section 1348 in insider trading cases because it may let them avoid proving that the person who leaked the information received a personal benefit.

Insider trading law under Rule 10b-5 has long required proof that a tipper received some personal benefit in exchange for the information, a requirement that has generated decades of litigation and reversed convictions.

In United States v. Blaszczak, the Second Circuit held in 2020 that this personal benefit test does not carry over to Section 1348, reasoning that the Title 18 statute grew out of embezzlement law rather than securities regulation.

The history matters, though. The Supreme Court vacated that decision, so the 2020 opinion is not binding precedent anywhere, and its personal benefit discussion should not be treated as settled law.

On remand in December 2022, the Second Circuit reversed the wire fraud and securities fraud convictions because the confidential government information at issue was not “property.”

The Fifth Circuit, which covers Dallas, has not squarely adopted the personal benefit reasoning, so the question remains open in Texas.

Wire fraud sits alongside these counts because insider trading almost always involves electronic orders, brokerage communications, and messages between the tipper and the trader.

Why Are Ponzi Schemes Almost Always Charged as Wire Fraud?

Ponzi schemes are almost always charged as wire fraud because the money movement itself supplies the evidence, and because many Ponzi investments are not securities that Section 1348 reaches.

A Ponzi scheme is defined by paying earlier investors with money from later ones while telling everyone their returns come from a real business.

Many of those payments move by wire transfer or ACH, and account statements claiming profits that do not exist are commonly emailed to investors.

Not every payment qualifies, since cash and paper checks are not wire communications, and the government has to tie each count to a transmission that actually crossed a state line.

Even so, the government can usually prove the core of the case with bank records and emails, without asking a jury to decide whether an investment contract existed.

Securities fraud counts get added when the investment was sold as stock, a fund interest, or a note, and when the government wants the securities label in front of the jury.

That label carries weight with jurors, and it triggers collateral consequences a wire fraud conviction does not.

How Do These Charges Apply to Crypto and Private Offerings?

In digital asset cases, current Justice Department policy steers prosecutors toward wire fraud and away from securities charges.

A memorandum issued by the Deputy Attorney General on April 7, 2025 directs that “prosecutors should not charge violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Commodity Exchange Act, or the regulations promulgated pursuant to these acts in cases where (a) the charge would require the Justice Department to litigate whether a digital asset is a security or commodity, and (b) there is an adequate alternative criminal charge available.”

Mail fraud and wire fraud are the alternatives that policy points to, and wire fraud is the one that fits most investment cases.

That does not make wire fraud the only option, since bank fraud, money laundering, false statements, and conspiracy charges all remain available depending on the facts.

That does not mean the securities question disappears. The SEC often brings a parallel civil case that turns entirely on whether the asset was a security, and defendants can find themselves fighting the same issue in two forums with two different burdens of proof.

North Texas has seen a steady stream of these cases, involving cryptocurrency, oil and gas interests, real estate funds, and private notes sold to local investors.

How Do You Defend Against Securities Fraud and Wire Fraud Charges?

The strongest defenses attack intent, the definition of property, and the securities connection, in that order of practical value.

Attacking individual wires is slower work, but it is not pointless, because each substantive count is tied to the specific transmission charged in the indictment.

If the proof at trial rests on a materially different wire than the one charged, that can raise a variance or a constructive amendment problem, which is a real appellate issue rather than a technicality.

Even so, a defense built around the elements the government has to prove for every count usually returns more than one built around a single transmission.

An experienced Dallas federal defense attorney will usually start by mapping which counts depend on which theory, then look for the theory that carries the most counts.

Can You Challenge Whether Money or Property Was the Object of the Scheme?

Yes, and recent Supreme Court decisions have made the property element a live issue in federal fraud cases.

In Ciminelli v. United States, decided May 11, 2023, a unanimous Court struck down the “right to control” theory and held that the federal fraud statutes reach only “traditional property interests.”

What the Court rejected was treating a victim’s abstract right to control its own assets through economically valuable information as a property interest in itself.

The ruling is narrower than it is often described, since confidential business information can still be property under the fraud statutes, and an omission can still fraudulently induce someone to hand over money.

The law moved the other direction two years later.

In Kousisis v. United States, decided May 22, 2025, the Court held that a defendant who induces a victim into a transaction through materially false pretenses can be convicted of federal fraud even without seeking to cause the victim economic loss.

That ruling did not erase the property element, since money or property must still be an object of the scheme.

Read together, these two cases tell defendants something specific. The argument that nobody lost money is much weaker than it used to be.

The argument that the government has not identified what traditional property the scheme was designed to obtain remains strong and is worth pressing on every count.

Can You Attack the Securities Element?

Yes, and it is often worth doing even though it will not end the case. Attacking the securities element means arguing that the investment was not a security within the meaning of the statute charged, or that the fraud was not sufficiently connected to a purchase or sale.

For a Section 1348 count, the defense also argues the registration limit: if the issuer was not registered under Section 12 and was not required to file reports under Section 15(d), that count fails on its face.

Winning this argument removes the 25-year exposure and the securities label, both of which matter.

It does not remove the wire fraud counts, and it does not necessarily remove the four-level sentencing increase, which turns on whether the offense involved a violation of securities law rather than on the counts of conviction.

Defendants who believe that beating the securities charge wins the case are mistaken, and the mistake often leads to bad decisions about whether to go to trial.

Can You Argue You Acted in Good Faith?

Yes, and good faith is a complete defense to both charges, because both require proof of a culpable mental state.

Good faith means the defendant honestly believed the statements were true, even if the belief was unreasonable or the venture ultimately failed.

Business failure is not fraud, and an investment that collapsed is not proof that anyone lied about it.

This defense is often built out of the defendant’s own contemporaneous conduct: money the defendant put into the venture personally, disclosures made to investors, reliance on accountants or attorneys, and communications that show a genuine belief in the business.

Advice of counsel is a related defense with strict requirements, including full disclosure of the facts to the lawyer and honest reliance on the advice given.

Both defenses depend heavily on documents and electronic evidence that were created before anyone was under investigation, which is why preserving records early matters so much.

How Do Both Charges Affect Plea Negotiations?

Charging both gives prosecutors leverage, because they can offer to drop the securities counts while the guideline range stays essentially the same. That is the negotiation dynamic defendants need to understand before they evaluate any offer.

A plea agreement that trades away four securities fraud counts sounds like a major concession. Because of grouping, the guideline effect is usually smaller than it looks, and the four-level securities increase can still apply to a defendant who pleads only to wire fraud.

Why Would You Plead to Wire Fraud Instead of Securities Fraud?

Pleading to wire fraud instead of securities fraud can make sense because it lowers the statutory ceiling and can reduce, though not eliminate, the collateral consequences that follow a securities conviction.

A securities fraud conviction is the most direct route to an SEC officer and director bar, a statutory disqualification from the securities industry, loss of professional licenses, a consequence that hits white collar professionals in Texas especially hard, and state level consequences under the Texas Securities Act.

The distinction is narrower than most defendants assume. Under 15 U.S.C. § 80b-3(e), the SEC can act on a felony conviction that “arises out of the conduct of the business of a broker, dealer” or investment adviser, so a wire fraud conviction can support a bar on its own.

For someone who intends to work in finance again, the right question is not which label the count carries but how the conduct will be characterized afterward.

The guideline range often barely moves either way, so the negotiation should focus on the consequences that do move.

Why Does the Loss Amount Matter More Than the Number of Counts?

The loss amount matters more because it is the one number that actually drives the guideline calculation, while count totals mostly do not.

A plea agreement that stipulates to a loss of $500,000 instead of $2 million changes the offense level meaningfully.

A stipulation is not the last word, though, because USSG § 6B1.4(d) provides that the court “is not bound by the stipulation, but may with the aid of the presentence report, determine the facts relevant to sentencing.”

A plea agreement that drops eight of fifteen wire fraud counts, standing alone, often changes nothing.

Loss in fraud cases is calculated as the greater of actual or intended loss, with credits against loss for money returned to victims before the scheme was detected.

Fighting over what counts as loss, which investors were actually harmed, and what value investors received is where the real sentencing work happens.

Anyone considering a plea bargain in a federal fraud case should understand the loss calculation before signing anything.

What Else Should Dallas Defendants Know About These Cases?

Three things shape most securities fraud and wire fraud cases in North Texas: the parallel SEC investigation, the possibility of state charges, and how early the defense needs to get involved.

Federal fraud cases from Dallas are prosecuted in the Northern District of Texas and investigated by the FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, often for years before anyone is charged. That long runway is both a risk and an opportunity.

What Happens With the Parallel SEC Investigation?

An SEC civil investigation frequently runs at the same time as the criminal case, and anything said to the SEC can end up in the hands of federal prosecutors.

The SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office handles enforcement and examination activity for Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas from its office at 801 Cherry Street, which makes it the agency most Dallas area securities cases run through.

Referrals move between that office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office regularly.

The Fifth Amendment problem is the hard part. Testifying in the SEC matter hands prosecutors a sworn transcript, and refusing to testify permits the civil case to draw an adverse inference against the defendant.

Defense counsel often move to stay the civil case until the criminal matter resolves, though those motions are granted less often than clients expect.

The burdens of proof also differ, since the SEC only has to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Disgorgement, civil penalties, and industry bars can follow even after a criminal acquittal.

Can Texas Charge You Under State Securities Law Too?

Yes. Texas has its own criminal securities fraud statute, and state charges can be brought separately from federal charges.

Under Texas Government Code § 4007.203, a person commits an offense by engaging in fraud or a fraudulent practice in connection with the sale of a security or the rendering of investment advice.

The offense is graded by the amount involved: a third degree felony below $10,000, a second degree felony from $10,000 to under $100,000, and a first degree felony at $100,000 or more.

Texas gives prosecutors five years from the date of the offense to bring the charge.

State court brings one option federal court does not have at all, which is deferred adjudication.

Federal probation does exist, but 18 U.S.C. § 3561 bars it for Class A and Class B felonies, and a Section 1348 conviction is a Class B felony under 18 U.S.C. § 3559 because it carries 25 years.

Wire fraud and criminal Rule 10b-5 are Class C felonies at 20 years, so probation is not categorically off the table for those counts even in federal court.

Which forum a case lands in is sometimes influenced by early defense work, which is one more reason to get counsel involved before charges are filed.

Why Does Early Defense Work Matter So Much Here?

Early defense work matters because the charging decision itself is negotiable, and the defense has the most influence over it before the grand jury acts.

Before charges are filed, defense counsel can meet with the assistant U.S. attorney, challenge the theory of loss, argue that an investment was not a security, and present evidence of good faith.

An indictment does not end that conversation. Prosecutors can still dismiss counts with the court’s approval, negotiate count selection in a plea agreement, or seek a superseding indictment, so the charges remain in play well after the case is filed.

Anyone who receives a target letter, a grand jury subpoena, an SEC subpoena, or a visit from federal agents should treat it as the beginning of the case rather than a warning.

Speaking to investigators without a lawyer is a serious risk in a fraud case, because these prosecutions turn on what people said and when they said it.

A statement made in a voluntary interview can become its own charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, though only if it was knowingly and willfully false, material, and made in a matter within federal jurisdiction.

Charged With Securities Fraud and Wire Fraud in Dallas?

Prosecutors pair securities fraud and wire fraud because the two offenses overlap without matching, and wire fraud reaches the conduct whether or not a security was ever involved.

Understanding that changes how the whole case should be handled, from the loss calculation to the plea negotiation.

The defense has to address every count, not just the ones with the biggest number attached.

As a securities fraud defense attorney in Dallas, Michael Lowe defends people facing federal investment fraud, securities fraud, and wire fraud charges throughout Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County, Denton County, and the rest of North Texas.

Contact the Law Office of Michael Lowe today for a free consultation by calling 214-526-1900.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you be charged with both securities fraud and wire fraud for the same conduct?

Yes. Prosecutors routinely charge both for the same investment scheme, because the statutes have different elements. Wire fraud requires a scheme, intent, and an interstate wire. Securities fraud also requires a connection to a security. Since each offense requires proof the other does not, charging both does not violate double jeopardy protections.

Why is wire fraud easier to prove than securities fraud?

Wire fraud does not require the government to prove a security was involved. It requires a scheme involving a material misrepresentation, intent to defraud, and a foreseeable interstate wire furthering the scheme. Securities charges add a securities connection the jury must find, and 18 U.S.C. § 1348 generally reaches only publicly reporting issuers, which narrows it further.

Does being charged with both crimes double your sentence?

Usually not by much. Under USSG § 3D1.2(d), fraud counts arising from the same loss normally group together and share one offense level, so many counts from a single scheme can produce a range close to that of one count. Separate schemes, separate groups, and differing offense characteristics can still change the result.

What is the statute of limitations for securities fraud versus wire fraud?

Wire fraud carries a five-year limitations period under 18 U.S.C. § 3282, extended to ten years when the offense affects a financial institution. Securities fraud offenses carry six years under 18 U.S.C. § 3301. That difference means conduct can become too old to charge as wire fraud while remaining chargeable as securities fraud.

Can the SEC and federal prosecutors both investigate me at once?

Yes. Parallel SEC civil investigations and Justice Department criminal investigations are common, and the two agencies share information. Testimony given to the SEC can be used by prosecutors. Invoking the Fifth Amendment protects against criminal use but permits an adverse inference in the civil case, so both matters require one coordinated strategy.

Is cryptocurrency fraud charged as securities fraud or wire fraud?

Usually wire fraud. An April 2025 Justice Department memorandum directs prosecutors not to bring Securities Act, Exchange Act, or Commodity Exchange Act charges where doing so would require litigating whether a digital asset is a security and an adequate alternative charge exists. Mail and wire fraud are the alternatives, and the SEC may still pursue a parallel civil case.