What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

United States Sentencing Commission
United States Sentencing Commission

One Columbus Circle, N.E. Suite 2-500

Washington, DC 20002

www.ussc.gov

William H. Pryor Jr. 

Acting Chair 

Rachel E. Barkow

Commissioner

Charles R. Breyer

Commissioner 

Danny C. Reeves

Commissioner

Patricia Cushwa

Ex Officio 

David Rybicki

Ex Officio 

Kenneth P. Cohen

Staff Director

Glenn R. Schmitt

Director

Office of Research and Data

January 2019
By Courtney Semisch, Ph.D.

Senior Research Associate, Office of Research & Data

Table of Contents

I. Introduction............................................................................................................................................1

 Key Findings.............................................................................................................................................2

II. Overview of the Economic Crime Guideline (§2B1.1).......................................................................3

 Objective & Methodology....................................................................................................................4

III. Overview of Economic Crimes for Offenders Sentenced Under §2B1.1...........................................6

 Prevalence..............................................................................................................................................6

 Geographic Trends................................................................................................................................8

 Offender Characteristics.....................................................................................................................11

 Application of §2B1.1 Guideline Provisions for Economic Crime Offenders..................................14

 Role in the Offense................................................................................................................................20

 Criminal History Category.....................................................................................................................25

 Sentences Imposed..............................................................................................................................27 

IV. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................30

V. Endnotes...............................................................................................................................................32 

VI. Appendices.........................................................................................................................................36

 Appendix A...........................................................................................................................................36

 Appendix B............................................................................................................................................38

 Appendix C...........................................................................................................................................66
United States Sentencing Commission
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

1

I. Introduction

Most federal economic crimes are 

addressed in section §2B1.1 of the federal 

sentencing guidelines. That section provides 

sentencing provisions for a broad variety of 

economic crimes. The title of the guideline 

demonstrates the breadth of conduct it 

covers: Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other 

Forms of Theft; Offenses Involving Stolen 

Property; Property Damage or Destruction; 

Fraud and Deceit; Forgery; Offenses 

Involving Altered or Counterfeit Instruments 

Other than Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of 

the United States. Convictions under more 

than 300 federal statutes fall under §2B1.1,1

yet less than half of offenders sentenced 

under this guideline were convicted under 

a statute that identified specific prohibited 

conduct.2

 In 2017, most §2B1.1 offenders 

were convicted under a generic statute that 

proscribes fraud generally, such as fraud by 

wire, radio or television.3 

Beginning in fiscal year 2013, the 

Commission identified and assigned a specific 

offense type for all offenders sentenced under 

§2B1.1 using both the statute of conviction 

and offense conduct. The Commission 

assigned each offender sentenced under 

§2B1.1 to one of 29 specific types of 

economic crime. This publication provides 

a brief description of the background and 

methodology for this new project and, for the 

first time, reports data on the prevalence, 

offender and offense characteristics, and 

sentences imposed for the different types 

of economic crimes committed by offenders 

sentenced under §2B1.1. 
United States Sentencing Commission

2

•	 The economic crime guideline (§2B1.1) accounts for approximately ten percent of 

the federal caseload and encompasses a wide variety of conduct.

•	 Embezzlement and theft offenders consistently accounted for about one-quarter 

of all economic crime offenders, ranging from 24.6 to 28.3 percent during the five 

years studied. Financial institution fraud and government benefits fraud offenders 

have also been among the top five most prevalent type of economic crime offenders.

•	 The offense severity, as measured by several guideline enhancements, varied 

significantly across the 17 specific types of economic crime that were the focus 

of this report. In particular, median loss amounts varied substantially, with 

four specific offense types involving median losses far exceeding the median loss 

amount for all economic crime offenders of $131,750: securities and investment 

fraud ($2,105,620), health care fraud ($1,086,205), mortgage fraud ($999,721), and 

government procurement fraud ($739,455) and two specific offense types with the 

lowest median loss amounts: mail related fraud ($1,815) and false statements ($0). 

These differences are particularly noteworthy because the loss calculation is the 

primary driver of the guideline calculation under §2B1.1.

•	 The application rates of other guideline provisions measuring offense severity and 

offender culpability also varied significantly across the specific types of economic 

crime. For example, the victims enhancement applied in 78.1 percent of securities 

and investment fraud compared to 2.4 percent of false statements offenses, and the 

sophisticated means enhancement applied in 37.5 percent of advanced fee fraud 

compared to 0.6 percent of mail related fraud.

•	 The average sentences varied significantly across the specific types of economic 

crime. Securities and investment fraud offenders received the longest average 

sentences at 52 months, more than twice as long as the average sentence for all 

economic crime offenders of 23 months. False statements offenders received the 

shortest average sentence at five months.

•	 Offender characteristics also differed across economic crime types. For example, 

White offenders accounted for a substantial majority of securities and investment 

fraud (79.9%), computer related fraud (70.5%), and government procurement fraud 

(62.3%), while Black offenders accounted for the largest proportion of tax fraud 

(55.0%), identity theft (49.4%), and credit card fraud (45.0%).

Key Findings
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

3

II. Overview of the 

Economic Crime Guideline 

(§2B1.1)

Section 2B1.1 has existed, in some 

form, since the guidelines were initially 

promulgated in 1987. The guideline covers 

larceny, embezzlement, and other forms of 

theft; offenses involving stolen property; 

property damage or destruction; fraud 

and deceit; forgery; and offenses involving 

altered or counterfeit instruments other than 

counterfeit bearer obligations of the United 

States.4

 Because of the breadth of economic 

crimes covered by §2B1.1, this publication 

will refer to that guideline as “the economic 

crime guideline,” although other guidelines 

cover crimes that could also be termed 

“economic crime.” See for example USSG 

§2T1.1 (Tax Evasion; Willful Failure to File 

Return; Fraudulent or False Returns). 5

Section 2B1.1 consistently has been 

among the five most commonly applied 

guidelines. Figure 1 shows that in fiscal year 

2017, offenders sentenced for drug trafficking 

(§2D1.1) and immigration (§2L1.2) offenses 

predominated, accounting for more than 

half of the federal caseload. Section 2B1.1, 

together with firearms possession (§2K2.1) 

and alien smuggling (§2L1.1) accounted 

for another one-quarter of the caseload.6

Section 2B1.1 offenders accounted for ten 

percent of offenders sentenced in 2017. This 

publication provides, for the first time, indepth data for this key group of offenders.

Figure 1. Federal Offenders Sentenced Under Chapter Two Guidelines

 Fiscal Year 2017

§2D1.1

[Drug Trafficking]

30.6%

§2L1.2

[Unlawful Entry to U.S.]

25.5% §2K2.1

[Firearms Possession]

10.2%

§2B1.1

[Fraud and Theft]

10.1%

§2L1.1

[Alien Smuggling]

4.4%

All Other Guidelines

19.3%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Datafile, USSCFY17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded 

due to incomplete guideline application information. 
United States Sentencing Commission

4

Objective and Methodology

The Commission’s objective was to 

systematically identify and classify the 

myriad of economic crimes sentenced under 

this one guideline. To do so, the Commission 

classified offenders using a hierarchical and 

mutually exclusive taxonomy of 29 specific 

types of economic crime developed by an 

interdisciplinary team of Commission staff 

from the Office of Research and Data, the 

Office of the General Counsel, and the Office 

of Education and Sentencing Practice. In 

developing these specific types of economic 

crime, the Commission worked to balance 

the sometimes-competing goals of providing 

a complete representation of the breadth of 

offenses sentenced under §2B1.1 with the 

practical need to provide a reasonable number 

of meaningful categories. The Commission 

also intentionally included specific types 

of economic crime that recently had been 

the subject of its own study and guideline 

amendments (e.g., mortgage fraud and health 

care fraud), regardless of whether they 

comprised a substantial portion of economic 

crimes.

A Methodology for Disaggregating 

Economic Crime Sentenced Under 

§2B1.1

 The Commission developed a two-step 

classification system based on the statute of 

conviction and offense conduct. The first step 

uses statutes of conviction for specific conduct 

to classify offenses. Statutes are an efficient 

and meaningful means of classification. 

Efficient, because the Commission regularly 

collects data on all statutes of conviction 

for each offender. Meaningful, because 

such statutes make clear the conduct that 

constituted the violation. 

The first step of the process assigns 

eligible offenders to an offense type based 

on statutes of conviction. The Commission 

compiled a list of more than 100 specific, 

economic crime-related federal statutes. The 

list was based on the Commission’s review of 

statutes of conviction for offenders previously 

sentenced under §2B1.1. Each statute was 

then assigned to one of 29 specific types 

of economic crime based on the conduct 

proscribed by each. Offenders convicted 

under one of the specific statutes were then 

assigned to the offense type that matched 

it. For example, an offender convicted under 

18 U.S.C. § 1347 (Health care fraud) was 

assigned to health care fraud. 

In some instances, offenders were 

convicted under more than one statute, 

and those statutes were linked to different 

types of economic crimes. In such cases, 

the Commission used a decision-making 

hierarchy and assigned offenders to the first 

applicable category on the hierarchical list.

The hierarchy was determined, in part, by a 

general sense of offense severity among the 

specific offense types and, in part, by specific 

offense types that had been of interest to and 

studied by the Commission during the past 

several years. Regarding offense severity, the 

Commission considered the general nature 

of each offense type, weighing the typical 

extent of financial harm, victimization, 

complexity in planning and execution, etc.
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

5

These considerations did not account for the 

application of any guideline provisions. In 

addition, and generally consistent with these 

considerations, the Commission purposefully 

listed at the top of the hierarchy, offense 

types that have been the subject of its work 

in the area of economic crime. (See Appendix 

A for the hierarchical list of offense types, 

descriptions, and statutes.) For example, if 

an offender was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 

1347 (Health care fraud) and 26 U.S.C. § 7202 

(Willful failure to collect or pay over tax), the 

Commission recorded both convictions in the 

datafile, but the offender was assigned to 

health care fraud. 

The second step of the classification 

process was necessitated by the fact that 

typically less than half of convictions 

for economic crime were under a 

statute that prohibited specific conduct. 

As demonstrated in Figure 2, in 2017, 

less than half (44.1%, n=2,678) of §2B1.1 

offenders were convicted under a statute 

that could be used to identify the specific 

type of economic crime. Conversely, more 

than half (55.9%, n=3,390) were convicted 

under a generic statute that could not be 

used to identify the specific type of economic 

crime.

The second step in the classification 

process applied to the more than half of 

offenders who were convicted under generic 

statutes that did not identify the specific 

conduct underlying the violation (e.g., 18 

U.S.C. § 1343, Fraud by wire, radio, or 

television). In such cases, offenders could 

not be assigned to a specific type of economic 

crime based on the statute of conviction 

alone. Therefore, the Commission reviewed 

the documentation for each of these cases to 

determine the specific type of economic crime. 

In doing so, the Commission considered the 

Figure 2. Offenders Sentenced Under the Economic Crime Guideline (USSG §2B1.1)

 Fiscal Year 2017

§2B1.1

10.1%

All Other

Guidelines

89.9%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Datafile and 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded from the pie chart 

due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded from the table that were not sentenced under 

USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were 

sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2).

Statutes of Conviction for Offenders Sentenced 

under §2B1.1

Specific Statute 2,678 44.1%

Generic Statute 3,390 55.9%
United States Sentencing Commission

6

entirety of the offender’s conduct, regardless 

of the application of any guideline provisions. 

Specific offense types were assigned based 

on the offender’s conduct as described in 

the Presentence Report and account for the 

extent of the offender’s participation and 

leadership, the type of victim, the type and 

extent of harm to any victims, the prevalence 

of lesser included offenses, and how the 

offense was committed. The Commission 

weighed all of these factors to answer the 

basic question, “What did the offender do?” 

This information was consolidated and 

used to assign the offender to one of the 29 

specific types of economic crime sentenced 

under §2B1.1. For offenders whose offense 

conduct included multiple offense types, the 

Commission assigned the offender to the 

first applicable category on the hierarchical 

list.7

The Commission used this two-step 

methodology to assign the 6,068 offenders 

sentenced under §2B1.1 in fiscal year 2017 

to one of the 29 specific types of economic 

crime. The 44.1 percent of §2B1.1 offenders 

who were convicted under a specific statute 

were assigned to the specific offense types 

using the first step of the classification 

process; the 55.9 percent of §2B1.1 offenders 

who were convicted under a generic statute 

were assigned to specific offense types using 

the second step. This publication, for the 

first time, presents data for federal economic 

crime offenders using this classification 

system.

III. Overview of Economic 

Crimes for Offenders 

Sentenced Under §2B1.1

The remainder of the publication 

provides comparisons of the 29 types of 

economic crime sentenced in fiscal year 2017, 

including information regarding prevalence, 

offender and offense characteristics, 

sentences imposed, and in some cases trend 

data spanning fiscal years 2013 to 2017.

Prevalence

Figure 3 on the next page shows the 

number of offenders in each of the 29 specific 

types of economic crime in fiscal year 2017. 

The specific offense types are shown in 

descending order, from largest to smallest 

number of offenders.8 Embezzlement and 

theft offenses comprised the largest portion, 

with 1,679 offenders accounting for more 

than one-quarter (27.7%) of all offenders 

sentenced under §2B1.1. Specific offense 

types that accounted for more than five 

percent of §2B1.1 offenders were: credit card 

fraud (10.0%; n=604), financial institution 

fraud (8.8%; n=536), government benefits 

fraud (7.8%; n=475), health care fraud (7.4%; 

n=447), identity theft (6.9%; n=419), and 

mail related fraud (5.8%; n=351).
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

7

Section 2B1.1 offenders were highly 

concentrated within a limited number of 

specific types of economic crimes. Specifically, 

17 of the 29 specific offense types accounted 

for 96.8 percent of all §2B1.1 offenders (see 

Figure 3). Each of these 17 offense types 

included more than 50 offenders. Because 

these 17 offense types consisted of a sufficient 

number of offenders to conduct a meaningful 

and robust analysis, the remainder of the 

publication focuses on them. This narrowed 

focus allows for a more practicable discussion 

and still covers the overwhelming majority 

of economic crime offenders. Although the 

remaining 12 specific offense types were 

excluded from the main comparisons in the 

body of the publication, corresponding data 

for them is provided in the appendices. 

Five-Year Offense Type Trends

The distribution of specific types of 

economic crimes sentenced under §2B1.1 

generally has been consistent since 

fiscal year 2013 (see Table 1 on the next 

page). Embezzlement and theft offenders 

consistently accounted for the largest 

portion of economic crime offenders, at 

approximately one-quarter of economic 

crime offenders, throughout the time period, 

ranging from 24.6 to 28.3 percent. 

Only two other specific offense types 

consistently have ranked in the top five 

most prevalent during the time period: 

financial institution fraud and government 

benefits fraud. Financial institution fraud 

Figure 3. Number of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

1,679

604 536

475 447 419 351

272 215 175 149 136 126 96 70 61 61 50 49 29 17 15 13 11 8 3 1 0 0

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of 

the remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the 

remaining 6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to

determine offense type (2).

Embezzlement

& Theft

Credit Card

Financial

Institution

Government

Benefit

Health Care

Identity

Theft

Mail Related

Tax

Securities & 

Investment

Mortgage

False

Advertising

Advanced

Fee

False

Statements

Counterfeit

& Forgery

Insurance

Government

Procurement

Computer

Other

Bankruptcy

Contract

Antitrust

Money 

Laundering

Immigration

Disaster

Intellectual 

Property

Campaign

Educational 

Funds

Retirement

Weapons

96.8% of all Federal 

Economic Crime
United States Sentencing Commission

8

consistently has been the second or third 

most prevalent specific offense type, ranging 

from 8.8 to 10.2 percent of the §2B1.1 

offenders. Government benefits fraud 

consistently has been the third or fourth 

most prevalent specific offense type, ranging 

from 7.5 percent to 8.8 percent. 

There was a noteworthy trend for 

mortgage fraud. The number of mortgage 

fraud offenders decreased by nearly 80 

percent during the past five years, and, 

therefore, dropped from second to tenth most 

prevalent. In fiscal year 2013, 837 mortgage 

fraud offenders accounted for 10.2 percent 

of §2B1.1 offenders; in fiscal year 2017, 175 

accounted for only 2.9 percent. 

Geographic Trends for Economic 

Crime

 The circuits that accounted for the 

largest proportion of economic crimes 

differed somewhat from the federal caseload 

overall. In fiscal year 2017, district courts 

from only two circuits—the Fifth Circuit 

Table 1. Five-Year Prevalence of Economic Crimes

 Fiscal Years 2013-2017

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application 

information. Of the remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 

2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 

(167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2).

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Embezzlement & Theft 24.6 27.1 28.3 28.2 27.7

Credit Card 7.6 6.6 6.1 8.9 10.0

Financial Institution 9.7 10.2 10.0 10.1 8.8

Government Benefit 8.2 7.5 8.8 7.5 7.8

Health Care 6.7 6.2 6.2 6.5 7.4

Identity Theft 6.3 7.3 7.0 7.3 6.9

Mail Related 3.8 3.7 3.8 5.0 5.8

Tax 2.8 3.8 4.5 5.4 4.5

Securities & Investment 3.4 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.5

Mortgage 10.2 7.8 5.5 4.3 2.9

False Advertising 1.6 2.7 2.6 1.8 2.5

Advanced Fee 1.7 2.0 3.1 2.8 2.2

False Statements 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1

Counterfeit & Forgery 3.8 2.6 1.8 1.9 1.6

Insurance 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.5 1.2

Government Procurement 1.4 1.5 1.0 0.8 1.0

Computer 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0

Remaining 12 Offense Types 4.2 4.1 4.3 3.1 3.2
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

9

and the Ninth Circuit—accounted for 

almost half (44.6%) of the federal caseload. 

Specifically, the largest proportion of 

federal cases was from district courts in the 

Fifth Circuit (25.0%; n=16,712), followed 

by the Ninth Circuit (19.6%; n=13,122), the 

Eleventh Circuit (9.8%; n=6,542), and the 

Tenth Circuit (9.5%; n=6,346). Economic 

crimes were somewhat more dispersed 

nationally and concentrated differently 

among the circuits. Four circuits accounted 

for slightly more than half (53.7%) of 

offenders sentenced under §2B1.1. (See 

Table 2.) Nearly one-fifth (19.5%; n=1,184) 

were from district courts in the Eleventh 

Circuit, followed by the Ninth Circuit 

(13.1%; n=797), Fifth Circuit (10.8%; 

n=656), and Sixth Circuit (10.3%; n=625). 

The predominance of economic crimes in 

the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits largely was 

attributable to a single district within each 

circuit. The Southern District of Florida 

accounted for nearly half (47.6%; n=563) of 

economic crimes in the Eleventh Circuit. 

Similarly, the Central District of California 

accounted for the largest proportion, nearly 

one-third (31.5%; n=251), of economic crimes 

in the Ninth Circuit. 

In contrast, economic crimes were 

more evenly distributed among districts in 

the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. In the Fifth 

Circuit, three districts combined to account 

for more than half of economic crimes: the 

Western District of Texas (22.4%; n=147), 

the Southern District of Texas (19.7%; 

n=129), and the Northern District of Texas 

Table 2. Economic Crime Offenders in Each Federal Judicial Circuit

 Fiscal Year 2017

Circuit Number Percent

TOTAL 6,068 100.0

District of Columbia 42 0.7

First 171 2.8

Second 491 8.1

Third 373 6.2

Fourth 549 9.1

Fifth 656 10.8

Sixth 625 10.3

Seventh 398 6.6

Eighth 524 8.6

Ninth 797 13.1

Tenth 258 4.3

Eleventh 1,184 19.5

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 

4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the remaining 61,917 

cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing 

information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 6,237 cases, 169 were excluded 

that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for 

insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2).
United States Sentencing Commission

10

(15.7%; n=103). Similarly, in the Sixth 

Circuit, three districts accounted for about 

half of economic crimes: the Eastern District 

of Michigan (19.2%; n=120), the Northern 

District of Ohio (18.4%; n=115), and the 

Western District of Michigan (13.6%; n=85).

 Geographic comparisons of the specific 

types of economic crime show a general 

consistency in the predominance of cases 

from district courts in the Eleventh Circuit, 

with some exceptions. Table 3 shows the 

proportion of each specific offense type 

accounted for by district courts in each circuit. 

The Eleventh Circuit often had the largest 

proportions of cases of a given specific offense 

type. For example, the Eleventh Circuit was 

the only circuit that accounted for 20 percent 

or more of cases for identity theft (32.0%), 

health care fraud (30.4%), credit card fraud 

(28.2%), government procurement fraud 

(21.3%), and mortgage fraud (21.1%). Both 

the Sixth Circuit (22.4%) and Eleventh 

Circuit (21.7%) each accounted for similar 

portions of tax fraud in fiscal year 2017. 

Circuits other than the Eleventh Circuit 

were predominant for some of the other 

specific types of economic crime. Offenders 

sentenced in district courts in the Second 

Circuit accounted for more than one-fifth 

of false advertising (24.2%) and advanced 

fee fraud (23.5%). Similarly, offenders 

sentenced in district courts in the Fifth 

Circuit accounted for the largest proportion 

of false statements offenses (21.4%). 

Table 3. Economic Crime Offenders in Each Specific Offense Type, 

in Each Federal Judicial Circuit 

 Fiscal Year 2017

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 

6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). 

TOTAL D.C. First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh

N %

Embezzlement & Theft 1,679 100.0 1.1 2.9 6.7 6.0 9.7 12.0 10.1 6.7 11.0 12.9 5.2 15.6

Credit Card 604 100.0 0.2 3.8 7.5 5.0 9.1 7.5 7.1 6.6 7.8 12.9 4.5 28.2

Financial Institution 536 100.0 0.4 2.4 10.5 7.8 11.4 9.1 8.4 6.3 10.8 12.9 5.2 14.7

Government Benefit 475 100.0 0.0 4.2 5.9 5.5 8.4 8.6 16.0 4.4 19.0 8.6 3.0 16.4

Health Care 447 100.0 0.2 2.9 6.5 5.4 4.7 19.2 11.9 6.0 3.6 6.9 2.2 30.4

Identity Theft 419 100.0 0.2 3.8 4.1 6.0 13.1 6.9 9.3 4.8 4.5 12.9 2.4 32.0

Mail Related 351 100.0 0.0 1.1 2.3 2.0 5.7 15.7 7.4 4.3 5.4 28.5 8.0 19.7

Tax 272 100.0 2.6 1.1 5.5 9.2 5.9 5.5 22.4 6.3 5.2 11.8 2.9 21.7

Securities & Investment 215 100.0 0.5 3.7 17.2 7.4 6.1 9.8 15.4 7.0 4.7 11.2 3.3 14.0

Mortgage 175 100.0 1.1 4.0 8.6 11.4 12.0 5.1 5.7 9.1 2.3 18.9 0.6 21.1

False Advertising 149 100.0 0.0 2.7 24.2 10.7 10.1 10.1 3.4 6.7 7.4 6.7 2.7 15.4

Advanced Fee 136 100.0 0.0 0.7 23.5 7.4 14.0 8.1 4.4 7.4 5.2 17.7 3.7 8.1

False Statements 126 100.0 4.0 0.0 12.7 2.4 8.7 21.4 6.4 5.6 5.6 19.1 2.4 11.9

Counterfeit & Forgery 96 100.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 4.2 5.2 15.6 15.6 2.1 5.2 7.3 14.6 17.7

Insurance 70 100.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 1.4 5.7 4.3 7.1 40.0 1.4 11.4 0.0 15.7

Government Procurement 61 100.0 3.3 0.0 8.2 14.8 19.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 3.3 9.8 0.0 21.3

Computer 61 100.0 0.0 3.3 8.2 13.1 6.6 11.5 13.1 6.6 3.3 18.0 4.9 11.5

Remaining 12 Offense Types 196 100.0 0.0 3.6 7.6 3.6 7.1 11.7 9.2 7.6 13.8 14.8 4.1 16.8
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

11

Offenders sentenced in district courts in the 

Seventh Circuit accounted for 40.0 percent 

of insurance fraud. Conversely, the D.C. and 

First Circuits accounted for fewer than five 

percent of offenders for each of the offense 

types. (See Appendix B.)

Offender Characteristics

Race 

The racial composition of economic crime 

offenders differed from federal offenders 

generally. In fiscal year 2017, Hispanic 

offenders accounted for more than half 

(53.2%) of all federal offenders, followed by 

White offenders (21.5%), Black offenders 

(21.1%), and offenders of other races (4.2%). 

In contrast, White offenders predominated 

among economic crime offenders, accounting 

for 42.2 percent of offenders, followed by 

Black offenders (32.8%), Hispanic offenders 

(18.3%), and offenders of other races (6.7%).9

As shown in Figure 4, the racial 

composition of offenders varied depending 

on the specific type of economic crime. White 

offenders accounted for the largest proportion 

of offenders for securities and investment 

fraud (79.9%), computer related fraud 

(70.5%), government procurement fraud 

(62.3%), false advertising (61.1%), insurance 

fraud (55.7%), mortgage fraud (52.0%), and 

embezzlement and theft (49.4%). 

Black offenders accounted for the largest 

proportion of offenders for tax fraud (55.0%), 

identity theft (49.4%), counterfeit/forgery 

Figure 4. Race of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

49.4

22.3

39.2

34.8

35.1

25.5

42.7

28.8

79.9

52.0

61.1

39.7

39.7

36.5

55.7

62.3

70.5

29.5

45.0

43.1

36.7

26.0

49.4

23.7

55.0

5.6

18.9

14.1

40.4

24.6

45.8

24.3

14.8

13.1

12.5

26.6

11.0

22.4

32.2

20.5

27.6

12.2

9.8

25.1

16.1

11.8

29.4

12.5

18.6

13.1

9.8

8.5

6.2

6.7

6.1

6.7

4.5

6.0

4.1

4.7

4.0

8.7

8.1

6.4

5.2

1.4

9.8

6.6

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Embezzlement & Theft

Credit Card

Financial Institution

Government Benefit

Healthcare

Identity Theft

Mail Related

Tax

Securities & Investment

Mortgage

False Advertising & Product Substitution

Advanced Fee

False Statements

Counterfeit & Forgery

Insurance

Government Procurement

Computer

White Black Hispanic Other

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 

6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). 

Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.
United States Sentencing Commission

12

(45.8%), credit card fraud (45.0%), financial 

institution fraud (43.1%), advanced fee fraud 

(40.4%), and government benefits fraud 

(36.7%).

Hispanic offenders and offenders of other 

races consistently accounted for a relatively 

small proportion of each specific offense type. 

Citizenship

The citizenship of economic crime 

offenders differed from federal offenders 

generally. Largely because of the prevalence 

of immigration crimes, which constitute onethird of the federal caseload, U.S. citizens 

accounted for only three-fifths (59.3%) of 

all federal offenders in fiscal year 2017. In 

contrast, U.S. citizens accounted for the 

overwhelming majority—86.5 percent—of 

economic crime offenders.

As shown in Figure 5, the predominance 

of U.S. citizens generally was consistent 

across specific types of economic crime. 

The largest proportion of U.S. citizens was 

for counterfeit and forgery (94.8%) and 

embezzlement and theft (94.1%) offenses. 

Although still accounting for the majority, 

the proportion of U.S. citizens was smallest 

for credit card fraud (70.0%). 

Gender

The gender of economic crime offenders 

differed from federal offenders generally. 

While female offenders accounted for a 

minority (13.4%) of all federal offenders 

in fiscal year 2017, they accounted for 

nearly one-third (32.9%) of economic crime 

offenders.

Figure 5. Citizenship of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

94.1

70.0

85.5 79.6 87.0

79.5

89.5 89.7 92.5 93.1 89.9

80.9 81.0

94.8

82.9

93.4 86.9

5.9

30.0

14.6 20.4 13.0

20.5

10.5 10.3 7.5 6.9 10.1

19.1 19.1

5.2

17.1

6.6 13.1

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 

6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). 

Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.

Embezz.

& Theft

Credit 

Card

Financial

Inst.

Gov’t

Benefit

Health

Care

Id

Theft

Mail

Related

Tax Securities

& Invest.

Mortgage False

Advert.

Advanced

Fee

False

Stmts.

Ctrfeit.

& Forgery

Insurance Gov’t

Procurement

Computer
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

13

As shown in Figure 6, the proportion of 

female offenders varied somewhat depending 

on the specific type of economic crime. 

Female offenders accounted for at least 40 

percent of embezzlement and theft (42.4%), 

health care fraud (41.8%), and government 

benefits fraud (40.5%). In contrast, female 

offenders accounted for less than ten percent 

of securities and investment fraud (7.9%) 

and computer fraud (6.6%).

Age

On average, offenders sentenced 

under §2B1.1 were five years older than 

federal offenders generally, 42 years of age 

compared to 37 years of age. Underscoring 

this difference is the fact that more than half 

(51.7%) of economic crime offenders were 

older than 40 years of age at sentencing, 

compared to about one-third (31.7%) of all 

federal offenders. 

There were distinct differences in 

average age across the various specific types 

of economic crime. On average, the oldest 

offenders were government procurement 

fraud and securities and investment fraud 

offenders, with average ages of 53 and 50 

years old, respectively. Significantly younger 

on average were computer fraud (36 years), 

mail related fraud (35 years), and credit card 

fraud (33 years) offenders.

Education

The educational level of economic crime 

offenders also differed from federal offenders 

generally. In fiscal year 2017, almost half 

(46.2%) of all federal offenders had not 

completed high school compared to only 15.2 

percent of economic crime offenders. On 

the other end of the education spectrum, 

Figure 6. Gender of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

57.7

77.2 73.3

59.5 58.2

69.0 63.3 63.2

92.1

77.1 80.5 76.5 73.8

60.4 65.7

82.0

93.4

42.4

22.9 26.7

40.5 41.8

31.0 36.8 36.8

7.9

22.9 19.5 23.5 26.2

39.6 34.3

18.0

6.6

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Male Female

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 

6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). 

Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.

Embezz.

& Theft

Credit 

Card

Financial

Inst.

Gov’t

Benefit

Health

Care

Id

Theft

Mail

Related

Tax Securities

& Invest.

Mortgage False

Advert.

Advanced

Fee

False

Stmts.

Ctrfeit.

& Forgery

Insurance Gov’t

Procurement

Computer
United States Sentencing Commission

14

only 6.1 percent of all federal offenders had 

graduated college compared almost onequarter (22.0%) of economic crime offenders.

As shown in Figure 8 on the next page, 

educational attainment of offenders differed 

significantly across the specific types of 

economic crimes. The highest rates of 

offenders who did not complete high school 

were about one-quarter for insurance fraud 

(27.1%), mail related fraud (24.2%), and 

government benefits fraud (23.7%). At the 

other end of the education spectrum, the 

highest college graduation rates (more than 

twice the rate for economic crime offenders 

overall) were for government procurement 

fraud (55.7%), health care fraud (50.3%), and 

securities and investment fraud (46.1%).

Application of §2B1.1 Guideline 

Provisions for Economic Crime 

Offenders

The economic crime guideline at §2B1.1 

provides for a base offense level of 6- or 7-levels 

and 19 Specific Offense Characteristics.10

Guideline base offense levels provide a 

starting point for the guideline calculation. 

They are the guidelines’ severity assessment 

for an offense in its most basic form. The 

Specific Offense Characteristics, on the other 

hand, provide for adjustments to the base 

offense levels for aggravating or mitigating 

conduct for offenses covered by the relevant 

Chapter 2 guideline. 

Figure 7. Age of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

45

33

39

44

49

38 35

44

50 48 46 43 41 39 39

53

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Embezz.

& Theft

Credit 

Card

Financial

Inst.

Gov’t

Benefit

Health

Care

Id

Theft

Mail

Related

Tax Securities

& Invest.

Mortgage False

Advert.

Advanced

Fee

False

Stmts.

Ctrfeit.

& Forgery

Insurance Gov’t

Procurement

Computer

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of 

the remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the 

remaining 6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to

determine offense type (2). Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.

Years
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

15

While §2B1.1 includes 19 Specific Offense 

Characteristics that the court considers in 

every case sentenced under that guideline, 

many of the Specific Offense Characteristics 

are so specific that in practice they only 

apply in limited circumstances, and to 

limited offenses. For example, the health 

care fraud Specific Offense Characteristic 

at subsection (b)(7) provides for a 2-, 3-, or 

4-level offense level increase for a defendant 

convicted of a federal health care offense 

involving a government health care program 

with losses of more than $1,000,000, more 

than $7,000,000, or more than $20,000,000, 

respectively. This enhancement, therefore, 

could only apply in health care fraud cases, 

and even then, only in cases involving certain 

loss amounts. Conversely, other Specific 

Offense Characteristics are more general 

in nature and more broadly applicable, 

potentially impacting a wider variety 

of offense types. These Specific Offense 

Characteristics, with a broader potential 

impact, provide an opportunity for comparing 

offense severity across offense types. The 

following analysis compares offense severity 

based on the three most commonly applied 

Specific Offense Characteristics in the 

economic crime guideline: the loss table, the 

victims table, and the sophisticated means 

enhancement.

Loss Table

The loss table at §2B1.1(b)(1) is the 

principal and most frequently applied 

Specific Offense Characteristic in the 

economic crime guideline. In general, the 

loss amount relating to an offense level 

increase from the loss table is determined by 

Figure 8. Education Level of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

13.0

20.8 19.2 23.7

6.7

18.2 24.2

13.6

3.3 6.9 5.4 12.5 14.5 20.8 27.1

1.6 4.9

31.0

38.2

28.9

35.9

18.8

30.6

41.8

21.3

14.0

23.4 24.8

30.9 25.0

35.4

31.4

19.7 16.4

35.7

31.1

32.3

29.2

24.2

39.0

30.8

41.5

36.7

33.1 32.2

35.3

30.7

36.5 30.0

23.0

41.0

20.3

10.0

19.6

11.2

50.3

12.2 3.2

23.5

46.1

36.6 37.6

21.3

29.8

7.3 11.4

55.7

37.7

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Less Than High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 

6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). 

Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.

Embezz.

& Theft

Credit 

Card

Financial

Inst.

Gov’t

Benefit

Health

Care

Id

Theft

Mail

Related

Tax Securities

& Invest.

Mortgage False

Advert.

Advanced

Fee

False

Stmts.

Ctrfeit.

& Forgery

Insurance Gov’t

Procurement

Computer
United States Sentencing Commission

16

“...the greater of actual or intended loss.”11

The definition of loss and special rules for 

certain types of cases are outlined in detail 

in the application notes in §2B1.1.12 

The overwhelming majority—85%—

of cases sentenced under §2B1.1 in 

fiscal year 2017 received an enhanced 

sentence guideline calculation based 

on the loss table. Furthermore, the 

loss table is constructed so that, 

of the 19 Specific Offense Characteristics 

in the guideline, it generally has the most 

significant impact and can substantially 

increase the guideline calculation in a given 

case. The loss table contains 15 categories of 

loss, from “more than $6,500” corresponding 

to a 2-level increase to “more than 

$550,000,000” corresponding to a 30-level 

increase above the base offense level. 

The Commission collects data on both 

the offense level increase from the loss table 

and the exact loss amount used to determine 

that offense level. The median loss amount 

was $131,750 for all offenders sentenced 

under the economic crime guideline in 2017, 

which corresponds to an 8-level offense level 

increase from the loss table.13 

The loss amounts, however, vary 

considerably depending on the specific 

type of economic crime. As demonstrated 

in Figure 9, four specific offense types had 

median loss amounts that far exceeded 

the median loss amount for all economic 

crime offenders. The median loss amount 

of $2,105,620 for securities and investment 

fraud, a loss amount that corresponds to a 

16-level increase from the loss table, was 

substantially higher than any other specific 

Figure 9. Median Loss Amount for Economic Crime Offenders in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

$101,250

$63,171

$136,341

$68,486

$1,086,205

$204,507

$1,815

$398,623

$2,105,620

$999,721

$424,238

$476,701

$0

$35,263

$152,604

$739,455

$98,007

Embezzelment & Theft

Credit Card

Financial Institution

Government Benefit

Health Care

Identity Theft

Mail Related

Tax

Securities & Investment

Mortgage

False Advertising

Advanced Fee

False Statements

Counterfeit & Forgery

Insurance

Government Procurement

Computer

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). An additional 1,016 were excluded due to missing information on exact loss amount. Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

17

offense type. The other specific offense types 

with relatively high median loss amounts 

were health care fraud ($1,086,205), 

mortgage fraud ($999,721), and government 

procurement fraud ($739,455); loss amounts 

equivalent to a 14-level increase on the loss 

table.

In contrast, the two specific types of 

economic crime with the lowest median loss 

amounts were mail related fraud ($1,815) 

and false statements ($0). At less than 

$6,500, the median loss amounts for these 

two specific offense types did not meet the 

threshold for an offense level increase from 

the loss table.

Victims Table

The victims table at §2B1.1(b)(2) provides 

for offense level increases based on the 

number of victims and the extent of harm 

to victims. In general, the economic crime 

guideline defines a victim, for purposes of 

applying the Specific Offense Characteristic, 

as “...any person who sustained any part 

of the actual loss...or any individual who 

sustained bodily injury as a result of the 

offense.”14 The guideline provides special 

rules and designations for victims in certain 

cases. The impact of those rules on guideline 

application is evident comparing some of the 

offense types and is described below where 

relevant.

The offense level increases provided by 

the victims table are as follows: 2-levels if 

the offense involved ten or more victims, 

was committed through mass-marketing, or 

resulted in substantial financial hardship to 

one or more victims, 4-levels if the offense 

resulted in substantial financial hardship 

to five or more victims, and 6-levels if the 

offense resulted in substantial financial 

hardship to 25 or more victims.

The victims table is the second most 

frequently applied §2B1.1 provision. The 

victims table was applied for nearly onethird (32.5%) of §2B1.1 offenders in fiscal 

year 2017. The 2-level increase applied most 

often, at 30.5 percent, followed by the 4-level 

increase (1.3%), and the 6-level increase 

(0.7%).15

Application of the victims table, and the 

magnitude of the offense level increases, 

varied substantially across the specific types 

of economic crime. Figure 10 on the next page 

shows the application rates for the victims 

table for each specific offense type. For eight 

specific offense types the overwhelming 

majority of offenders received no increase 

from the victims table: false statements 

(97.6%), government benefits fraud (91.8%), 

embezzlement and theft (89.5%), insurance 

fraud (88.6%), government procurement 

fraud (88.5%), mortgage fraud (88.0%), 

health care fraud (83.0%), and computer 

related fraud (82.0%). Their low application 

rates reflect the nature of the offenses. 

For example, false statements offenses 

were least likely to receive a victims table 

increase because such offenses typically do 
United States Sentencing Commission

18

not target individual victims for monetary 

gain. Similarly, government benefits fraud 

involves misappropriation of benefits from 

a government agency, scenarios that rarely 

subject an individual victim to substantial 

financial harm. In contrast, the specific 

offense types for which the victims table 

applied most often were securities and 

investment fraud (78.1%), advanced fee 

fraud (77.2%), and credit card fraud (69.2%). 

These high application rates also reflect the 

nature of the offenses, discussed in further 

detail below.

As discussed above, when the victims 

table was applied, the 2-level increase was 

most common. The 2-level increase was 

applied for more than half of credit card fraud 

(67.5%), mail related fraud (64.7%), identity 

theft (61.3%), advanced fee fraud (60.3%), 

and securities and investment fraud (59.5%) 

offenders. In some instances, application of 

the victims table reflects special rules related 

to the definition of victims in §2B1.1. To 

some extent, the application of the victims 

table for credit card fraud and identity theft 

reflects the guideline definition of victim 

related to those offense types. Application 

Note 4(E) states, in part, that a victim is 

defined as “...any individual whose means 

of identification was used unlawfully or 

without authority.” The definition provides 

that these individuals are considered victims 

for purposes of the application of the victims 

table, regardless of whether they suffered 

monetary harm. Both credit card and 

identity theft offenses commonly involved 

multiple means of identification (e.g., credit 

card numbers and social security numbers).16

Figure 10. Application of Victims Table Enhancement for Economic Crime Offenders 

in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

89.5

30.8

65.1

91.8

83.0

37.5

35.3

63.6

21.9

88.0

42.3

22.8

97.6

74.0

88.6

88.5

82.0

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Embezzlement & Theft

Credit Card

Financial Institution

Government Benefit

Healthcare

Identity Theft

Mail Related

Tax

Securities & Investment

Mortgage

False Advertising & Product Substitution

Advanced Fee

False Statements

Counterfeit & Forgery

Insurance

Government Procurement

Computer

No Increase Two Levels Four Levels Six Levels

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 

6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). 

Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart. For full figure data, see Appendix.
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

19

The high rate of victims table application 

for mail related fraud reflects, to some 

degree, the guideline’s victim definition 

relating to conduct involving undelivered 

United States mail. In such cases, victims 

include persons who were the intended 

recipients or addressees of stolen mail. In 

addition, receptacles owned by the United 

States Postal Service (such as a collection 

box) are presumed to involve at least ten 

victims.17 Both of these definitions exclude 

consideration of monetary harm.

Finally, three offense types had high 

rates of 4- and 6-level victims table increases 

compared to the others. As shown in Figure 

11, securities and investment fraud, false 

advertising, and advanced fee fraud had 

larger increases in a considerable portion 

of cases. For securities and investment 

fraud, the 4-level and 6-level increases 

applied in 14.4 percent and 4.2 percent 

of cases, respectively. The corresponding 

application rates for false advertising 

were 8.7 percent and 4.0 percent, and for 

advanced fee fraud, 6.6 percent and 10.3 

percent. These greater rates of multiple 

victims suffering substantial financial harm 

reflect the defining characteristics of these 

offense types. Each of these offenses was 

characterized by far-reaching efforts to find 

a large number of victims, often using massmarketing techniques or spam emails to 

contact and lure victims into the scheme. In 

addition, these offenders frequently targeted 

the same victims repeatedly, increasing the 

likelihood of substantial financial harm.

Sophisticated Means 

The sophisticated means enhancement 

at §2B1.1(b)(10) provides for a 2-level offense 

level increase (with a floor of 12) for three 

types of complex or intricate offense conduct 

relating to the execution or concealment 

of the offense. The Specific Offense 

Characteristic applies in cases in which (1) 

the defendant relocated, or participated in 

relocating, a fraudulent scheme to another 

jurisdiction to evade law enforcement or 

regulatory officials; (2) a substantial part of 

a fraudulent scheme was committed from 

outside the United States; or (3) the offense 

otherwise involved sophisticated means 

and the defendant intentionally engaged 

in or caused the conduct constituting 

sophisticated means. 

The enhancement for sophisticated 

means applied to 14.8 percent of offenders 

sentenced under §2B1.1 in fiscal year 2017. 

The 14.8 percent primarily consisted of 

defendants who intentionally engaged in or 

caused the sophisticated conduct (10.5%), 

followed by committing a substantial part 

of the scheme outside the United States 

(2.6%), and relocating a scheme to another 

jurisdiction (1.7%).18

Application of the sophisticated means 

enhancement varied significantly across 

the specific types of economic crime. As 

demonstrated in Figure 11 on the next page, 

six specific offense types had comparatively 

high rates of the sophisticated means 

enhancement applied: advanced fee fraud 

(37.5%), securities and investment fraud 

(35.4%), computer related fraud (32.8%), 

government procurement fraud (27.9%), 

identity theft (25.8%), and mortgage fraud 

(24.6%). In contrast, the sophisticated means 

enhancement was applied comparatively 

less often for embezzlement and theft (8.9%), 
United States Sentencing Commission

20

government benefits fraud (4.0%), false 

statements (2.4%), and mail related fraud 

(0.6%) because these tend to be less complex 

offenses.

Role in the Offense

Chapter Three of the federal sentencing 

guidelines provides for offense level 

adjustments that account for conduct that 

could occur during the course of any manner 

of offenses. Most relevant to the study of 

economic crime offenders are three provisions 

in Chapter Three, section B, relating to role 

in the offense. These provisions address 

offenders whose conduct constituted an 

Aggravating Role (§3B1.1), Mitigating Role 

(§3B1.2), or Abuse of Position of Trust or Use 

of a Special Skill (§3B1.3).

Aggravating Role

Section 3B1.1 provides 2- to 4-level 

increases for offenders who perform an 

aggravating role in the offense. Specifically, 

a 4-level increase applies to an organizer or 

leader of a criminal activity that involved 

five or more participants or was otherwise 

extensive, a 3-level increase to a manager or 

supervisor of criminal activity that involved 

five or more participants or was otherwise 

extensive, and a 2-level increase to an 

organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in 

any criminal activity other than otherwise 

described.

As discussed above, the aggravating 

role adjustment can apply to any type of 

federal offense, not just economic crime 

offenders. In fiscal year 2017, 4.7 percent of 

all federal offenders received an aggravating 

role adjustment. Twice as many economic 

Figure 11. Application of Sophisticated Means Enhancement for Economic Crime Offenders 

in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

8.9

16.7 17.0

4.0

17.7

25.8

0.6

19.9

35.4

24.6

18.8

37.5

2.4

10.4

18.6

27.9

32.8

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Embezz.

& Theft

Credit 

Card

Financial

Inst.

Gov’t

Benefit Health

Care

Id

Theft

Mail

Related

Tax Securities

& Invest.

Mortgage False

Advert.

Advanced

Fee

False

Stmts.

Ctrfeit.

& Forgery

Insurance Gov’t

Procurement

Computer

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 

6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). 

Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

21

crime offenders, 10.4 percent, received an 

aggravating role adjustment that year. 

Among economic crime offenders, the 4-, 3-, 

and 2-level increases were applied relatively 

consistently: the 4-level adjustment applied 

in 3.7 percent, the 3-level adjustment applied 

in 2.9 percent, and the 2-level adjustment 

applied in 3.8 percent.

Application of the aggravating role 

adjustment varied significantly across the 

specific types of economic crime. As shown in 

Figure 12, two specific offense types received 

the aggravating role adjustment at twice the 

rate as the economic crime offenders overall. 

One-quarter of both health care fraud 

(25.1%) and advanced fee fraud (25.0%) 

offenders had an aggravating role increase. 

The high rates reflect, in part, the fact that 

both specific offense types frequently were 

perpetrated by conspiracies involving a 

relatively large number of participants. For 

example, health care fraud conspiracies 

often involved clinic owners or physicians 

who directed overbilling scams. These 

scams relied on any number of recruited 

beneficiaries who provided their benefit 

information in return for a fee. Similarly, 

advanced fee conspiracies often involved 

“boiler room” mass-marketing efforts in 

which a number of “employees” were tasked 

with luring victims. Although not quite 

as high as the other two, the aggravating 

role adjustment also applied relatively 

frequently in mortgage fraud cases, at 18.3 

percent. This rate also is indicative of typical 

mortgage fraud schemes that involved 

deceitful lenders or brokers recruiting straw 

purchasers to apply for loans.

In contrast, the aggravating role 

adjustment applied comparatively less 

Figure 12. Application of Aggravating Role Adjustment for Economic Crime Offenders 

in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

4.7 7.8

14.9

6.7

25.1

15.5

1.7

13.2

17.7 18.3

11.4

25.0

1.6

11.5 14.3 16.4

6.6

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 

6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). 

Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.

Embezz.

& Theft

Credit 

Card

Financial

Inst.

Gov’t

Benefit

Health

Care

Id

Theft

Mail

Related

Tax Securities

& Invest.

Mortgage False

Advert.

Advanced

Fee

False

Stmts.

Ctrfeit.

& Forgery

Insurance Gov’t

Procurement

Computer
United States Sentencing Commission

22

often, at less than half the rate for §2B1.1 

offenders overall, for three specific 

offense types. Fewer than five percent of 

embezzlement and theft (4.7%), mail related 

fraud (1.7%), and false statements (1.6%) 

offenders received the aggravating role 

adjustment because these offenses typically 

involved either a single defendant or a small 

number of participants.

Mitigating Role 

At the other end of the spectrum, §3B1.2 

provides decreases for offenders who perform 

a mitigating role in the offense, depending 

on whether the offender performed a minor 

role (2-levels), a minimal role (4-levels) or 

a role in-between (3-levels). Comparing 

the application rate of the mitigating role 

adjustment for economic crime offenders to 

federal offenders overall in fiscal year 2017 

yields results converse to the comparison for 

aggravating role. As discussed above, twice

as many economic crime offenders received 

an aggravating role adjustment compared 

to all federal offenders (10.4% compared to 

4.7%). The reverse was true for mitigating 

role. Half as many economic crime offenders 

received a mitigating role adjustment 

compared to all federal offenders (4.7% 

compared to 8.2%).

Mitigating role trends among the 

specific types of economic crime tended to 

correspond to aggravating role trends. The 

three specific offense types previously shown 

as most likely to receive an aggravating role 

adjustment also were most likely to receive 

a mitigating role adjustment. Figure 13 

Figure 13. Application of Mitigating Role Adjustment for Economic Crime Offenders 

in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

3.3 5.6 3.4 2.7

8.1

3.3 1.1

5.5 6.1

13.7

8.1

14.7

2.4

6.3 5.7 3.3 1.6

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 

6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). 

Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.

Embezz.

& Theft

Credit 

Card

Financial

Inst.

Gov’t

Benefit

Health

Care

Id

Theft

Mail

Related

Tax Securities

& Invest.

Mortgage False

Advert.

Advanced

Fee

False

Stmts.

Ctrfeit.

& Forgery

Insurance Gov’t

Procurement

Computer
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

23

shows that advanced fee fraud (14.7%), 

mortgage fraud (13.7%), and health care 

fraud (8.1%) offenders were among those 

most likely to receive a mitigating role 

adjustment. The same characteristics that 

contributed to the high rate of application 

of the aggravating role adjustment for these 

specific offense types also contributed to the 

high rate of application of the mitigating role 

adjustment. These offenses typically involve 

relatively large conspiracies. To the extent 

they each involve a substantial number 

of participants, it would be expected that 

less culpable offenders would be present in 

cases that involved offense level increases 

for more culpable offenders. For example, 

the previously mentioned advanced fee 

conspiracies typically include a number of 

lower level “employees” tasked with luring 

victims. Similarly, mortgage fraud schemes 

often involve any number of lower level straw 

purchasers recruited to apply for loans.

Two specific offense types not only had 

high application rates of the mitigating role 

adjustment, they also received notably larger 

decreases under the guideline. Overall, the 

2-level mitigating role adjustment applied 

in 3.6 percent of all cases sentenced under 

§2B1.1, and the 3- and 4- level adjustment 

each applied in less than one percent. All of 

the specific types of economic crime follow this 

trend, with two exceptions: mortgage fraud 

and advanced fee fraud. Of mortgage fraud 

offenders, 13.8 percent received a mitigating 

role adjustment, broken down as follows: 

6.9 percent received a 2-level decrease, 2.9 

percent a 3-level decrease, and 4.0 percent 

a 4-level decrease. Similarly, 14.7 percent 

of advanced fee fraud offenders received a 

mitigating role adjustment, broken down 

as follows: 10.3 percent received a 2-level 

decrease, 0.7 percent a 3-level decrease, 

and 3.7 percent a 4-level decrease. This 

pattern also further underscores the nature 

of these conspiracies, consisting of numerous 

participants acting in a broad range of 

roles with a corresponding broad range of 

culpability.

Finally, two specific offense types 

received mitigating role adjustments at 

rates less than half the rate for all economic 

crime offenders of 4.7 percent. Less than two 

percent of computer related fraud (1.6%) and 

mail related fraud (1.1%) offenders received 

a mitigating role adjustment.

Abuse of a Position of Trust or Use of a 

Special Skill

Section 3B1.3 of the guidelines provides 

for a 2-level increase if the defendant abused 

a position of public or private trust or used 

a special skill in a manner that significantly 

facilitated the commission or concealment of 

the offense. Specifically, a position of trust is 

characterized by professional or managerial 

discretion with little supervision. The 

guideline also provides special application 

rules in certain instances.

The data indicate that abuse of position 

of trust/special skill is a something of a 

distinguishing trait of economic crime 

offenders. The application of the abuse of 

position of trust/special skill adjustment 

for economic crime offenders differed 

significantly from federal offenders overall. 

In fiscal year 2017, the abuse of position of 

trust/special skill adjustment applied for 2.4 

percent of all federal offenders. In contrast, 

the adjustment applied at about seven 
United States Sentencing Commission

24

times that rate, 17.1 percent, for economic 

crime offenders. Economic crime offenders 

accounted for nearly three-quarters (72.6%) 

of all federal offenders for whom the abuse 

of position of trust/special skill adjustment 

applied that year.19 The Commission’s 

data does not distinguish which aspect of 

increased culpability—the abuse of a position 

of trust or the use of a special skill—triggered 

application of the adjustment in each case, 

but application patterns below suggest that 

abuse of position of trust likely was the basis 

for most specific types of economic crime.

Application of the abuse of position 

of trust/special skill adjustment varied 

significantly across the specific types of 

economic crime. These variations not only 

were indicative of the nature of the offenses, 

but also of special application rules in the 

guidelines. Three specific offense types 

received the adjustment at rates one and 

one-half times higher than for economic 

crime offenders overall: mail related fraud 

(37.6%), health care fraud (31.3%), and 

embezzlement and theft (26.0%).

The high rates of application of the abuse 

of position of trust/special skill adjustment 

for embezzlement and theft and health 

care fraud offenders illustrate the nature 

of those offenses. A defining feature of 

embezzlement is that the offender was, at 

some point, entrusted with the property or 

funds that were misappropriated. Similarly, 

as discussed above in terms of aggravating 

role, common positions of trust for health 

care fraud offenders include clinic owners or 

physicians, and persons who otherwise have 

access to the filing of claims.

Figure 14. Application of Abuse of Position of Trust/Use of Special Skill Adjustment 

for Economic Crime Offenders in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

26.0

2.8

6.9 9.3

31.3

8.6

37.6

17.3 15.4

19.4

7.4 7.4

11.1

6.3 4.3

16.4

21.3

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application 

information. Of the remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 

guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) 

or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.

Embezz.

& Theft

Credit 

Card

Financial

Inst.

Gov’t

Benefit

Health

Care

Id

Theft

Mail

Related

Tax Securities

& Invest.

Mortgage False

Advert.

Advanced

Fee

False

Stmts.

Ctrfeit.

& Forgery

Insurance Gov’t

Procurement

Computer
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

25

Although somewhat expected given 

the nature of the offense, the high rates of 

application of the abuse of position of trust/

special skill adjustment for mail related 

fraud highlight the fact that these offenders 

are most often postal employees. The abuse 

of position of trust guideline includes a 

special rule that states: “...an adjustment 

under this guideline shall apply to...[a]n 

employee of the United States Postal Service 

who engages in the theft or destruction of 

undelivered United States mail.”20

In contrast, five specific offense types 

received the adjustment at rates less than 

half that for economic crime offenders 

overall: false advertising (7.4%), advanced 

fee fraud (7.4%), financial institution fraud 

(6.9%), insurance fraud (4.3%), and credit 

card fraud (2.8%). These lower application 

rates reflect the fact that these offenses 

typically are committed by offenders without 

any special status as an individual or access 

to something otherwise limited to others.

The abuse of position of trust/special 

skill adjustment applied for securities and 

investment fraud offenders (15.4%) at a rate 

consistent with economic crime offenders 

overall (17.1%). At first glance, this rate may 

seem low considering the nature of these 

offenses and the culpability of the offenders. 

However, §2B1.1 includes a Specific Offense 

Characteristic that provides for a 4-level 

increase for securities and commodities 

offenses committed by offenders in certain 

positions, such as corporate officers or 

directors, registered brokers or dealers, 

or investment advisers.21 The guidelines 

instruct that if this enhancement applies, 

do not apply the abuse of position of trust/

special skill adjustment. This instruction 

prevents punishing offenders twice under 

the guidelines for the same conduct since 

the conduct that forms the basis for the 

Specific Offense Characteristic is essentially 

the same as for the abuse of position of trust/

special skill adjustment. The Specific Offense 

Characteristic applied for almost one-fifth 

(19.5%) of securities and investment fraud 

offenders, which precluded application of 

the abuse of position for trust/special skills 

adjustment for these offenders. As noted 

above, the adjustment did apply to 15.4 

percent of securities and investment fraud 

offenders. Given that the conduct underlying 

application of that §2B1.1 Specific Offense 

Characteristic and the Chapter Three 

adjustment are fundamentally the same, 

arguably the overall rate for abuse of a 

“position of trust” is the sum of these rates, 

or 34.9 percent, for securities and investment 

fraud offenders.

Criminal History Category

 Chapter Four of the federal sentencing 

guidelines provides for a calculation of 

offender criminal history based on the 

status and length of prior sentences. That 

calculation results in a Criminal History 

Category to which each offender is assigned 

ranging from I to VI. The criminal history 

of offenders sentenced under the economic 

crime guideline differed from all federal 

offenders. Fewer than half (43.3%) of all 
United States Sentencing Commission

26

federal offenders sentenced in fiscal year 

2017 were assigned to Criminal History 

Category I, the lowest Criminal History 

Category. The next largest groups were 

in Criminal History Categories III (17.3%) 

and II (14.2%), with at least five percent in 

each of the higher categories (IV, 10.1%; VI 

9.3%; V, 5.9%). In contrast, more than twothirds (69.9%) of economic crime offenders 

were assigned to Criminal History Category 

I. The next largest groups also were in 

Criminal History Categories III (9.7%) and 

II (9.1%), but with less than five percent in 

each of the higher categories (VI, 4.6%; IV, 

3.8%; V 2.9%).

As shown in Figure 15, the distribution 

of Criminal History Categories varied 

across the specific types of economic crime. 

Nonetheless, for every specific offense type 

more than half of the offenders were in 

the lowest Criminal History Category. Six 

offense types were particularly noteworthy 

because an overwhelming majority of 

offenders were Criminal History Category I: 

computer related fraud (95.1%), government 

procurement fraud (93.4%), health care 

fraud (87.5%), securities and investment 

fraud (85.6%), false statements (84.1%), and 

mortgage fraud (82.9%).

Figure 15. Criminal History Category of Economic Crime Offenders 

in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

74.6

51.5

55.4

74.5

87.5

55.4

60.4

67.7

85.6

82.9

79.2

77.9

84.1

53.1

60.0

93.4

95.1

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Embezzelment & Theft

Credit Card

Financial Institution

Government Benefit

Health Care

ID Theft

Mail Related

Tax

Securities & Investetments

Mortgage

False Advertising

Advanced Fee

False Statements

Counterfeit & Forgery

Insurance

Government Procurement

Computer

CHC I CHC II CHC III CHC IV CHC V CHC VI

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 

6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type 

(2). Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart. For full figure data, see Appendix.
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

27

The criminal history of offenders in four 

offense types was more similar to federal 

offenders generally than to economic crime 

offenders. Approximately half of financial 

institution fraud (55.4%), identity theft 

(55.4%), counterfeit and forgery (53.1%), and 

credit card fraud (51.5%) were in Criminal 

History Category I. The next largest 

categories for these offense types also were 

Criminal History Categories II and III. With 

one exception (3.8% in Criminal History 

Category V for credit card), offenders in each 

of these four specific offense types had more 

than five percent of offenders in each of the 

higher categories.

Sentences Imposed

The Commission analyzed both the type 

and length of sentences imposed for economic 

crime offenders. As would be expected, 

the sentences imposed varied significantly 

across the specific types of economic crime, 

reflecting the differences in offense severity 

and offender culpability demonstrated by 

the data above.

Type of Sentences Imposed

The type of sentences imposed for 

economic crime offenders differed from 

federal offenders overall. In fiscal year 

2017, two-thirds of economic crime offenders 

(66.3%) were sentenced to prison only, a 

rate substantially less than the 88.0 percent 

for all federal offenders. In contrast, a 

considerably larger proportion of economic 

crime offenders (20.8%) were sentenced 

to probation only compared to all federal 

offenders (6.9%). 

As shown in Figure 16 on the next 

page, five specific offense types received 

sentences of prison only more often than 

federal offenders overall: identity theft 

(90.0%), securities and investment fraud 

(89.8%), advanced fee fraud (86.0%), credit 

card fraud (83.9%), and financial institution 

fraud (82.5%).

In contrast, offenders in four specific 

offense types received sentences of prison 

only at a much lower rate: insurance 

fraud (48.6%), mail related fraud (44.3%), 

false statements (43.7%), and computer 

related fraud (41.0%). These lower rates 

of imprisonment were offset by alternative 

sentences for these offense types, but in 

different ways.

Sentences of probation only were 

imposed at similar rates as prison only for 

false statements (47.6%) and mail related 

fraud (44.9%). Consequently, both groups 

of offenders had relatively low rates of other 

alternatives imposed. Combined, the rates 

of prison with confinement or probation with 

confinement conditions were 10.8 percent for 

mail related fraud and 8.8 percent for false 

statements.

On the other hand, alternative sentences 

were somewhat more evenly distributed 

for the other two specific offense types. 

Comparatively fewer computer related 

fraud (32.8%) and insurance fraud (25.7%) 

offenders were sentenced to probation only. 

Consequently, both groups of offenders had 

relatively high rates of other alternatives 
United States Sentencing Commission

28

imposed. Combined, the other two types 

of alternative sentences (prison with 

confinement or probation with confinement 

conditions) were imposed for about onequarter of computer related fraud (26.2%) 

and insurance fraud (25.7%) offenders.

Average Sentence Length

The average sentence imposed for 

economic crime offenders differed from 

federal offenders overall. In fiscal year 

2017, the average sentence imposed for 

economic crime offenders was 23 months, 

about half as long as the average sentence 

imposed of 45 months for federal offenders 

overall.22 As demonstrated throughout this 

publication, however, comparing economic 

crime offenders as one group to federal 

offenders overall generally tends to conceal 

substantial differences among the different 

specific economic crimes. These differences 

were especially apparent in the average 

sentences imposed. 

The average sentences imposed varied 

significantly across the specific types of 

economic crime, as would be expected given 

the differences demonstrated above in their 

offense severity. As shown in Figure 17 on 

the next page, securities and investment 

fraud offenders received the longest average 

sentence, 52 months, more than twice as 

long as the average sentence imposed for 

all economic crime offenders. Notably, 

the average sentence for securities and 

investment fraud offenders also was longer 

Figure 16. Type of Sentence Imposed for Economic Crime Offenders 

in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

53.5

83.9

82.5

57.2

74.5

90.0

44.3

71.7

89.8

74.3

64.4

86.0

43.7

59.0

48.6

54.1

41.0

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Embezzelment & Theft

Credit Card

Financial Institution

Government Benefit

Health Care

Id Theft

Mail Related

Tax

Securities & Investment

Mortgage

False Advertising

Advanced Fee

False Statements

Counterfeit & Forgery

Insurance

Government Procurement

Computer

Prison Only Prison&Confinement Probation&Confinement Probation Only

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application information. Of the 

remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 guideline applied (10). Of the 

remaining 6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) or for insufficient documentation to determine 

offense type (2). Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart. For full figure data, see Appendix.
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

29

than the average sentence imposed for all 

federal offenders. Other specific offense 

types with comparatively long average 

sentences were identity theft (44 months), 

health care fraud (36 months), and advanced 

fee fraud (35 months). 

These longer sentences reflect greater 

offense severity and offender culpability. 

These factors were demonstrated above 

with higher application rates for a variety 

of sentencing enhancements under the 

guidelines.23 For example, the longer average 

sentence for securities and investment 

fraud offenders reflects, in part, their high 

median loss amount ($2.1M), substantial 

financial harm to victims (78.1%), and use 

of sophisticated means (35.4%). Finally, 

a considerable portion of these offenders 

performed an aggravating role in the offense 

(17.7%) and abused a position of trust 

(15.4%). 

Two specific types of economic crime 

were notable for their short average 

sentences: mail related fraud (7 months) 

and false statements (5 months). These 

average sentences were one-third to onehalf shorter than the average sentence of 

23 months for all economic crime offenders. 

These shorter sentences reflect their lesser 

offense severity and offender culpability. For 

example, false statements offenders had the 

lowest median loss amount ($0) and rarely 

received enhancements for the victims table 

(2.4%), use of sophisticated means (2.4%), 

and performing an aggravating role in the 

offense (1.6%). 

Figure 17. Average Sentence Imposed for Economic Crime Offenders 

in Each Specific Offense Type

 Fiscal Year 2017

14

31

23

13

36

44

7

31

52

21

24

35

5

19

21 22

19

0

12

24

36

48

60

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission 2017 Fraud Team Datafile, USSCFT17. Of the 66,873 cases, 4,956 were excluded due to incomplete guideline application 

information. Of the remaining 61,917 cases, 55,680 were excluded that were not sentenced under USSG §2B1.1 (55,670) or were missing information on Chapter 2 

guideline applied (10). Of the remaining 6,237 cases, 169 were excluded that were sentenced using a Guidelines Manual in effect prior to November 1, 2015 (167) 

or for insufficient documentation to determine offense type (2). Only the 17 most prevalent offense types were included in the chart.

Months

Embezz.

& Theft

Credit 

Card

Financial

Inst.

Gov’t

Benefit

Health

Care

Id

Theft

Mail

Related

Tax Securities

& Invest.

Mortgage False

Advert.

Advanced

Fee

False

Stmts.

Ctrfeit.

& Forgery

Insurance Gov’t

Procurement

Computer
United States Sentencing Commission

30

IV. Conclusion 

Federal economic crime encompasses a 

wide variety of conduct. Offenders sentenced 

under §2B1.1, the primary economic crime 

sentencing guideline, had violations that 

ranged from simple false statements to 

complex investment fraud schemes. Cases 

involving embezzlement and theft were 

the most common of those crimes in fiscal 

year 2017, accounting for 27.7 percent of 

all economic crime offenses. Other specific 

economic crimes such as securities and 

investment fraud, while less prevalent 

(3.5%), were notable for involving large 

monetary losses (median $2,105,620) and a 

large number of victims, and consequently, 

the longest sentences on average. 

The Commission has disaggregated 

the myriad offense types sentenced under 

the economic crime guideline into 29 

categories. All offenders sentenced under 

the guideline were assigned to one of the 

29 offense types based on a combination of 

the statute of conviction and a description 

of the conduct. The resulting data shows 

significant differences in offender and 

offense characteristics, and sentencing 

outcomes for the 17 most prevalent specific 

offense types. These findings underscore the 

usefulness of disaggregating these offense 

types to policy makers and researchers, and 

the Commission plans to continue to collect 

and disseminate such information in the 

future. 
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

31
United States Sentencing Commission

32

V. Endnotes

1 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 2016) [hereinafter USSG].

2 18 U.S.C. § 1343

3 Data for this publication are from two Commission datafiles, the 2017 individual offender 

datafile and the 2017 fraud team datafiles. The 2017 individual offender datafile consists of 66,873 

cases. The 2017 fraud team datafile consists of 6,068 cases. Cases were excluded from analyses 

in this publication as necessary due to missing information for the variables required for those 

analyses. 

4 Prior to 2001 the Guidelines Manual provided two separate Chapter 2 guidelines for theft 

(§2B1.1) and fraud (§2F1.1) offenses. As part of the 2001 Economic Crime Package, the Commission 

consolidated the two guidelines into §2B1.1 effective November 1, 2001. See USSG App. C, amend. 

617 (effect. Nov. 1, 2001). 

5 This publication limited economic crime to offenders sentenced under §2B1.1 primarily 

because that guideline consistently accounts for the majority of economic crime offenders. There are 

other Chapter 2 guidelines that address conduct that also can be described as economic crime (e.g.,

§2T1.1 Tax Evasion; Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information, or Pay Tax; Fraudulent or 

False Returns, Statements, or Other Documents). These other guidelines consistently account for 

a much smaller proportion of economic crime compared to §2B1.1. In addition, the other guidelines 

cover specific types of economic crime and therefore do not present the same problem of aggregation 

of diverse offense types as §2B1.1.

6 The Chapter 2 guidelines in the “All Other Guidelines” category each accounted for less than 

three percent of the total.

7 The additional conduct is recorded in the datafile.

8 The “Other” category consists of: failure to pay child support (18), extortion (15), destruction 

of government property (13), excise/duty tax (2), animal violence (1), and bribery (1). Because 

Retirement/Unemployment, and Weapons did not have any offenders in fiscal year 2017, those two 

categories are excluded from the remaining analyses and charts in the publication.

9 In fiscal year 2017, the 405 offenders in the Other race category consisted of Asian/Pacific 

Islander 244 (60.3%), Native American/Alaskan Native 107 (26.4%), Other Race 53 (13.1%), and 

Multi-racial 1 (0.2%).

10 The 2016 edition of the Guidelines Manual is referenced in this publication as it was the 

edition applicable for offenders sentenced in 2017, absent any ex post facto considerations.

11 USSG, supra note 1, at §2B1.1, comment. (n.3).
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

33

12 USSG, supra note 1, at §2B1.1, comment. (n.3).

13 The median is the midpoint, such that half of the loss amounts are less than the median loss 

and the remaining half of the loss amounts are greater than the median.

14 USSG, supra note 1, at §2B1.1, comment. (n.1). In addition, the guideline defines “person” as

“...individuals, corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock 

companies.”

15 In 2015, the Commission amended the victims table. See USSG, supra note 1, at App. C, 

Amend. 792 (effect. Nov. 1, 2015). The victims table was revised to specifically incorporate financial 

hardship to victims and reduce the number of victims required to trigger the enhancement. The 

data presented includes only offenders sentenced under the amended Guidelines Manual. In fiscal 

year 2017, the majority of §2B1.1 offenders (97.3%) were sentenced under the amended Guidelines 

Manual and 2.7% were sentenced under an earlier, unamended version. USSG §1B1.11 requires 

that the court use the manual in effect on the date the defendant committed the offense, rather than 

on the date of sentencing, if use of the latter would violate the ex post facto clause of the United 

States Constitution. See §1B1.11(b)(1). Comparison of application rates shows a difference in the 

overall application rates of the victims table, with 27.5% of offenders sentenced under an earlier, 

unamended version of the Guidelines Manual having an increase. The impact of the amended 

language is most apparent in the application of the 2-, 4-, and 6-level increases. Of the offenders 

sentenced under the unamended version of the guideline, 19.8% received a 2-level increase, 5.4% a 

4-level increase, and 2.4% a 6-level increase from the victims table.

16 USSG, supra note 1, at §2B1.1, comment. (n.1). 

17 Id. at §2B1.1, comment. (n. 4(C)).

18 In 2015, the Commission amended the sophisticated means Specific Offense Characteristic 

to clarify that it requires that the defendant intentionally caused the conduct by using sophisticated 

means. USSG id. at App. C, amend. 792 (eff. Nov. 1 2015). The data presented includes only 

offenders sentenced under the amended Guidelines Manual. Comparison of application rates shows 

a difference in the overall application of the sophisticated means enhancement for offenders who 

were sentenced under an earlier, unamended version of the Guidelines Manual. A total of 31.1% 

of offenders sentenced prior to the amendment received an offense level increase for sophisticated 

means, which was twice as high for offenders sentenced using the narrowed language in the 

amended version of the Specific Offense Characteristic. 

19 Together with USSG §2B1.1 (72.6%), an additional five guidelines combined to account for 

92.1% of all offenders with an offense level increase under the provision: USSG §§ 2D1.1 (10.7%), 

2S1.1 (3.9%), 2L1.1 (2.4%), 2T1.1 (1.4%), and 2B4.1 (1.1%). Of the guidelines comprising the 

remaining 7.9%, each accounted for less than one percent of cases with the enhancement.

20 USSG, supra note 1, at §3B1.3, comment. (n. 2(A)).
United States Sentencing Commission

34

21 Id. at §2B1.1(b)(19).

22 Calculation of the average sentence includes sentences of probation only as zero months of 

imprisonment. In addition, the calculation of the average includes time of confinement as described 

in USSG §5C1.1.

23 The guideline provisions highlighted in this publication are examples of commonly applied 

provisions. They do not represent the complete guideline calculations for these cases. Additional 

§2B1.1 and Chapter 3 and 4 provisions may have applied that also contributed to the offenders’ 

sentences but are not detailed in this publication.
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

35
United States Sentencing Commission

36

VI. Appendix

Appendix A.

Offense Type Decision-making Hierarchy, Descriptions and Specific Statutes

Offense Type Description Specific Statutes (if applicable)

Securities and Investment Fraud Schemes involving the deception of investors or the manipulation of 

financial markets. Includes insider trading, “pump-and-dump,” and Ponzi 

schemes.

7 U.S.C. § 13, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a, et seq., 78a, 

et seq., 80, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1348, 1350

Health Care Fraud Defrauding of a government or private healthcare entity. Includes frauds 

involving prescription drugs.

18 U.S.C. §§ 669, 1035, 1347, 1518

Mortgage Fraud Misrepresentations involving the home loan process. 12 U.S.C. § 2607

Credit Card Fraud Fraudulent activity involving credit cards including theft, fraudulent 

charges, skimming/re-encoding, and fraudulent applications.

15 U.S.C. § 1644

Financial Institution Fraud Schemes targeting banks, usually involving checks and/or debit (ATM) 

cards and non-mortgage related loans.

18 U.S.C. §§ 1027, 1033, 45 U.S.C. § 231

Government Procurement Fraud Offenses interfering with federal, state, or local government contracts and 

conduct that affects the contracting process.

15 U.S.C. §§ 645(a), (d), 714m(a), 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 494, 1002, 1003, 1012, 41 U.S.C. §§ 2102,

2105

Government Benefits Fraud Defrauding of government agencies providing assistance programs such 

as social security, disaster assistance, unemployment and retirement 

benefits, and educational loans.

7 U.S.C. § 2024, 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-19, 18

U.S.C. §§ 1010, 1040, 1919, 1920, 20 U.S.C. 

§ 1097, 38 U.S.C. § 6102, 42 U.S.C. §§ 408,

1307, 1383 and (a), 1490s, 1760, 45 U.S.C. §

359

Identity Theft Includes creation of or trafficking in fake identification documents. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028, 1028A, 1543, 1546

Counterfeiting and Forgery Fabricating documents or counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs). 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 472, 485, 491, 493, 495,

498, 499, 500, 501, 505, 506, 510, 513, 514

Mail Related Fraud Theft, destruction, or diversion of mail. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1700, 1702, 1703, 1704, 1705,

1707, 1708, 1709, 1710

Computer Related Fraud Unauthorized access to a computer or computer system. False or 

deceptive transmission of multiple E-mails.

18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 1037, 2701

Intellectual Property Fraud Copyright and/or trademark infringement. Also includes economic 

espionage and theft of trade secrets

17 U.S.C. § 506 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), 18 

U.S.C. §§ 1831, 1832, 2319, 2320

Embezzlement and Theft Conversion of funds or goods otherwise entrusted to an individual; 

larceny.

15 U.S.C. §§ 645(b) or (c), 714m(b) or (c), 18 

U.S.C. §§ 153, 553, 641, 643, 645, 654, 656,

658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 664, 665,

666(a)(1)(A) or (b), 1163, 1167, 1168, 1711,

Appendix A. Offense Type Decision-Making Hierarchy, Descriptions, and Specific Statutes
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

37

Appendix A Continued.

Offense Type Description Specific Statutes (if applicable)

1712, 1721, 2113, 2312, 2313, 2314, 2315,

2316, 29 U.S.C. § 501, 38 U.S.C. § 6101 

Tax Fraud Includes misstatements on filings, failure to report legitimate or 

illegitimate earnings, and misuse of personal identifying information to 

file returns.

26 U.S.C. §§ 7201, 7202, 7203, 7206, 7212

Insurance Fraud Fraud related to private, non-health care insurance claims such as life, 

property, or other insurance.

Disaster Fraud Defrauding non-government entities of disaster recovery funds.

Advanced Fee Fraud Scams typically using mass-marketing techniques to solicit small upfront 

payments or fees promising unusual or outrageous returns or payouts.

False Advertising/Product Substitution Misrepresentation of a promised good or service, substitution of inferior

or counterfeit products, or adulteration of legitimate products.

18 U.S.C. § 1159, 21 U.S.C. §§ 331, 610, 611,

676

Immigration Fraud Misrepresentation of citizenship status or attempt to fraudulently achieve 

legal status.

8 U.S.C. § 1326, 18 U.S.C. §§ 911, 1015,

1426

Bankruptcy Fraud Concealing assets, lying in bankruptcy filings or to bankruptcy court. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157

Retirement and Unemployment Fraud Fraudulent activity related to non-government funded retirement and 

unemployment funds.

Antitrust Violation Non-government related market monopolization, price fixing, or other 

conduct that restrains free trade.

Campaign Finance Fraud Misuse of funds intended for campaign expenditures or fraudulently 

raising campaign funds. Inclues illegal contributions and improper 

solicitations.

False Statements Lying or false personation involving no other fraudulent conduct. 18 U.S.C. §§ 38, 431, 439, 709, 912, 1018,

2073

Contract Violation Violations of legitimate, non-government business agreements. 49 U.S.C. § 14915

Educational Funds Fraud related to non-government related educational funding.

Weapons Violation Acquisition of weapon by an unqualified or prohibited individual.

Money Laundering Concealing illegally derived assets, includes promotional money 

laundering.

All Other Any other offense not accounted for in the above categories. Examples

include property destruction, failure to pay child support, and bribery. 

18 U.S.C. §§ 43, 228, 1361, 1366, 1960, 31 

U.S.C. §§ 5316, 5332
United States Sentencing Commission

38

CIRCUIT

District TOTAL N % N % N % N %

D.C. CIRCUIT 42 19 45.2 1 2.4 2 4.8 0 0.0

District of Columbia 42 19 45.2 1 2.4 2 4.8 0 0.0

FIRST CIRCUIT 171 49 28.7 23 13.5 13 7.6 20 11.7

Maine 24 5 20.8 7 29.2 0 0.0 3 12.5

Massachusetts 68 24 35.3 0 0.0 7 10.3 9 13.2

New Hampshire 20 4 20.0 6 30.0 1 5.0 5 25.0

Puerto Rico 42 13 31.0 9 21.4 5 11.9 1 2.4

Rhode Island 17 3 17.6 1 5.9 0 0.0 2 11.8

SECOND CIRCUIT 491 113 23.0 45 9.2 56 11.4 28 5.7

Connecticut 46 19 41.3 1 2.2 4 8.7 3 6.5

New York

Eastern 108 13 12.0 13 12.0 9 8.3 2 1.9

Northern 30 4 13.3 1 3.3 1 3.3 14 46.7

Southern 249 59 23.7 24 9.6 33 13.3 7 2.8

Western 47 15 31.9 4 8.5 5 10.6 2 4.3

Vermont 11 3 27.3 2 18.2 4 36.4 0 0.0

THIRD CIRCUIT 373 100 26.8 30 8.0 42 11.3 26 7.0

Delaware 9 5 55.6 1 11.1 0 0.0 1 11.1

New Jersey 118 41 34.7 8 6.8 5 4.2 4 3.4

Pennsylvania

Eastern 137 29 21.2 6 4.4 31 22.6 15 10.9

Middle 52 16 30.8 7 13.5 0 0.0 4 7.7

Western 55 7 12.7 8 14.5 6 10.9 2 3.6

Virgin Islands 2 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

FOURTH CIRCUIT 549 163 29.7 55 10.0 61 11.1 40 7.3

Maryland 113 26 23.0 15 13.3 8 7.1 15 13.3

North Carolina

Eastern 46 15 32.6 2 4.3 13 28.3 3 6.5

Middle 30 4 13.3 3 10.0 5 16.7 4 13.3

Western 58 20 34.5 1 1.7 4 6.9 5 8.6

South Carolina 96 33 34.4 12 12.5 11 11.5 3 3.1

Virginia

Eastern 137 43 31.4 11 8.0 18 13.1 5 3.6

Western 35 8 22.9 8 22.9 0 0.0 3 8.6

West Virginia

Northern 22 10 45.5 0 0.0 1 4.5 2 9.1

Southern 12 4 33.3 3 25.0 1 8.3 0 0.0

EMBEZZLEMENT/

THEFT

CREDIT

CARD

FINANCIAL

INSTITUTION

GOVERNMENT

BENEFITS

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

39

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N % N %

D.C. CIRCUIT 1 2.4 1 2.4 0 0.0 7 16.7 1 2.4

District of Columbia 1 2.4 1 2.4 0 0.0 7 16.7 1 2.4

FIRST CIRCUIT 13 7.6 16 9.4 4 2.3 3 1.8 8 4.7

Maine 3 12.5 0 0.0 2 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Massachusetts 2 2.9 5 7.4 0 0.0 2 2.9 8 11.8

New Hampshire 1 5.0 2 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Puerto Rico 7 16.7 3 7.1 2 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Rhode Island 0 0.0 6 35.3 0 0.0 1 5.9 0 0.0

SECOND CIRCUIT 29 5.9 17 3.5 8 1.6 15 3.1 37 7.5

Connecticut 3 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 6.5 1 2.2

New York

Eastern 6 5.6 2 1.9 1 0.9 1 0.9 12 11.1

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.3 1 3.3

Southern 15 6.0 14 5.6 6 2.4 7 2.8 21 8.4

Western 3 6.4 1 2.1 1 2.1 3 6.4 2 4.3

Vermont 2 18.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

THIRD CIRCUIT 24 6.4 25 6.7 7 1.9 25 6.7 16 4.3

Delaware 0 0.0 1 11.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Jersey 2 1.7 10 8.5 0 0.0 9 7.6 8 6.8

Pennsylvania

Eastern 10 7.3 10 7.3 2 1.5 6 4.4 7 5.1

Middle 7 13.5 3 5.8 3 5.8 2 3.8 0 0.0

Western 5 9.1 1 1.8 2 3.6 8 14.5 1 1.8

Virgin Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

FOURTH CIRCUIT 21 3.8 55 10.0 20 3.6 16 2.9 13 2.4

Maryland 2 1.8 26 23.0 1 0.9 2 1.8 2 1.8

North Carolina

Eastern 1 2.2 4 8.7 0 0.0 2 4.3 1 2.2

Middle 0 0.0 2 6.7 1 3.3 4 13.3 0 0.0

Western 6 10.3 0 0.0 4 6.9 0 0.0 5 8.6

South Carolina 5 5.2 0 0.0 8 8.3 2 2.1 2 2.1

Virginia

Eastern 2 1.5 20 14.6 4 2.9 3 2.2 2 1.5

Western 4 11.4 3 8.6 1 2.9 2 5.7 0 0.0

West Virginia

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.5

Southern 1 8.3 0 0.0 1 8.3 1 8.3 0 0.0

HEALTHCARE

IDENTITY

THEFT

MAIL

RELATED TAX

SECURITIES/

INVESTMENT

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

40

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

D.C. CIRCUIT 2 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 11.9

District of Columbia 2 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 11.9

FIRST CIRCUIT 7 4.1 4 2.3 1 0.6 0 0.0

Maine 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Massachusetts 2 2.9 3 4.4 1 1.5 0 0.0

New Hampshire 0 0.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Puerto Rico 2 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Rhode Island 3 17.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

SECOND CIRCUIT 15 3.1 36 7.3 32 6.5 16 3.3

Connecticut 1 2.2 1 2.2 3 6.5 1 2.2

New York

Eastern 11 10.2 23 21.3 3 2.8 2 1.9

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 10.0 3 10.0

Southern 3 1.2 12 4.8 18 7.2 6 2.4

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 10.6 4 8.5

Vermont 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

THIRD CIRCUIT 20 5.4 16 4.3 10 2.7 3 0.8

Delaware 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 11.1

New Jersey 15 12.7 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8

Pennsylvania

Eastern 3 2.2 4 2.9 8 5.8 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 4 7.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 2 3.6 7 12.7 1 1.8 1 1.8

Virgin Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

FOURTH CIRCUIT 21 3.8 15 2.7 19 3.5 11 2.0

Maryland 5 4.4 1 0.9 0 0.0 1 0.9

North Carolina

Eastern 2 4.3 1 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 3 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 1 1.7 10 17.2 1 1.7

South Carolina 9 9.4 1 1.0 3 3.1 1 1.0

Virginia

Eastern 2 1.5 6 4.4 6 4.4 7 5.1

Western 0 0.0 5 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

West Virginia

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.5

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

MORTGAGE

FALSE

ADVERTISING/

PRODUCT

SUBSTITUTION

ADVANCED

FEE

FALSE

STATEMENTS
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

41

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

D.C. CIRCUIT 1 2.4 0 0.0 2 4.8 0 0.0

District of Columbia 1 2.4 0 0.0 2 4.8 0 0.0

FIRST CIRCUIT 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.2

Maine 1 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Massachusetts 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.5

New Hampshire 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Puerto Rico 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Rhode Island 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.9

SECOND CIRCUIT 10 2.0 9 1.8 5 1.0 5 1.0

Connecticut 0 0.0 3 6.5 1 2.2 0 0.0

New York

Eastern 3 2.8 1 0.9 3 2.8 1 0.9

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 6.7

Southern 7 2.8 5 2.0 1 0.4 2 0.8

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Vermont 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

THIRD CIRCUIT 4 1.1 1 0.3 9 2.4 8 2.1

Delaware 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Jersey 2 1.7 0 0.0 6 5.1 3 2.5

Pennsylvania

Eastern 2 1.5 0 0.0 2 1.5 1 0.7

Middle 0 0.0 1 1.9 1 1.9 2 3.8

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.6

Virgin Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

FOURTH CIRCUIT 5 0.9 4 0.7 12 2.2 4 0.7

Maryland 1 0.9 0 0.0 5 4.4 1 0.9

North Carolina

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 13.3 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

South Carolina 3 3.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.0

Virginia

Eastern 1 0.7 0 0.0 2 1.5 2 1.5

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

West Virginia

Northern 0 0.0 4 18.2 1 4.5 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

COUNTERFEIT/

FORGERY INSURANCE

GOVERNMENT

PROCUREMENT COMPUTER

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

42

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

D.C. CIRCUIT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

District of Columbia 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

FIRST CIRCUIT 1 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.6 0 0.0

Maine 1 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Massachusetts 0 0.0 1 1.5 1 1.5 0 0.0

New Hampshire 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Puerto Rico 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Rhode Island 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

SECOND CIRCUIT 7 1.4 1 0.2 2 0.4 1 0.2

Connecticut 1 2.2 0 0.0 1 2.2 0 0.0

New York

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 6 2.4 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.4

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.1 0 0.0

Vermont 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

THIRD CIRCUIT 0 0.0 1 0.3 2 0.5 0 0.0

Delaware 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Jersey 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0

Pennsylvania

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 1 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.8 0 0.0

Virgin Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

FOURTH CIRCUIT 3 0.5 6 1.1 2 0.4 1 0.2

Maryland 1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

North Carolina

Eastern 1 2.2 1 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 1 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

South Carolina 0 0.0 1 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Virginia

Eastern 0 0.0 3 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 1 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

West Virginia

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 9.1 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 8.3

ALL

OTHER BANKRUPTCY

CONTRACT

VIOLATION/

BREACH ANTITRUST

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

43

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N %

D.C. CIRCUIT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

District of Columbia 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

FIRST CIRCUIT 0 0.0 2 1.2 0 0.0

Maine 0 0.0 2 8.3 0 0.0

Massachusetts 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Hampshire 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Puerto Rico 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Rhode Island 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

SECOND CIRCUIT 3 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

Connecticut 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

New York

Eastern 2 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Vermont 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

THIRD CIRCUIT 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Delaware 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Jersey 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Pennsylvania

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Virgin Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

FOURTH CIRCUIT 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Maryland 1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

North Carolina

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

South Carolina 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Virginia

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

West Virginia

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

MONEY

LAUNDERING IMMIGRATION DISASTER

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

44

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N %

D.C. CIRCUIT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

District of Columbia 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

FIRST CIRCUIT 2 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Maine 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Massachusetts 2 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Hampshire 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Puerto Rico 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Rhode Island 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

SECOND CIRCUIT 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

Connecticut 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

New York

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 1 2.1 0 0.0

Vermont 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

THIRD CIRCUIT 0 0.0 2 0.5 1 0.3

Delaware 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Jersey 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Pennsylvania

Eastern 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 1 1.9 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.8

Virgin Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

FOURTH CIRCUIT 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Maryland 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

North Carolina

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

South Carolina 1 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Virginia

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

West Virginia

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY

CAMPAIGN

FINANCE

EDUCATION

FUNDS

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

45

CIRCUIT

District TOTAL N % N % N % N %

FIFTH CIRCUIT 656 201 30.6 45 6.9 49 7.5 41 6.3

Louisiana

Eastern 70 16 22.9 8 11.4 2 2.9 5 7.1

Middle 29 7 24.1 1 3.4 8 27.6 6 20.7

Western 41 20 48.8 5 12.2 0 0.0 1 2.4

Mississippi

Northern 17 7 41.2 1 5.9 0 0.0 1 5.9

Southern 43 18 41.9 9 20.9 1 2.3 0 0.0

Texas

Eastern 77 31 40.3 3 3.9 9 11.7 7 9.1

Northern 103 27 26.2 5 4.9 9 8.7 9 8.7

Southern 129 23 17.8 5 3.9 15 11.6 5 3.9

Western 147 52 35.4 8 5.4 5 3.4 7 4.8

SIXTH CIRCUIT 625 170 27.2 43 6.9 45 7.2 76 12.2

Kentucky

Eastern 58 9 15.5 1 1.7 14 24.1 4 6.9

Western 33 12 36.4 1 3.0 4 12.1 6 18.2

Michigan

Eastern 120 34 28.3 7 5.8 2 1.7 16 13.3

Western 85 7 8.2 11 12.9 2 2.4 10 11.8

Ohio

Northern 115 36 31.3 9 7.8 4 3.5 19 16.5

Southern 65 17 26.2 6 9.2 1 1.5 10 15.4

Tennessee

Eastern 38 12 31.6 3 7.9 2 5.3 5 13.2

Middle 41 20 48.8 0 0.0 4 9.8 2 4.9

Western 70 23 32.9 5 7.1 12 17.1 4 5.7

SEVENTH CIRCUIT 398 113 28.4 40 10.1 34 8.5 21 5.3

Illinois

Central 25 10 40.0 3 12.0 2 8.0 0 0.0

Northern 184 42 22.8 15 8.2 18 9.8 9 4.9

Southern 29 12 41.4 7 24.1 1 3.4 1 3.4

Indiana

Northern 37 12 32.4 6 16.2 4 10.8 4 10.8

Southern 64 19 29.7 4 6.3 5 7.8 2 3.1

Wisconsin

Eastern 40 11 27.5 3 7.5 2 5.0 4 10.0

Western 19 7 36.8 2 10.5 2 10.5 1 5.3

EMBEZZLEMENT/

THEFT

CREDIT

CARD

FINANCIAL

INSTITUTION

GOVERNMENT

BENEFITS

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

46

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N % N %

FIFTH CIRCUIT 86 13.1 29 4.4 55 8.4 15 2.3 21 3.2

Louisiana

Eastern 18 25.7 1 1.4 3 4.3 3 4.3 1 1.4

Middle 1 3.4 2 6.9 1 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 3 7.3 5 12.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Mississippi

Northern 2 11.8 0 0.0 1 5.9 1 5.9 0 0.0

Southern 1 2.3 3 7.0 3 7.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Texas

Eastern 2 2.6 3 3.9 7 9.1 2 2.6 2 2.6

Northern 11 10.7 3 2.9 18 17.5 0 0.0 6 5.8

Southern 46 35.7 6 4.7 6 4.7 5 3.9 3 2.3

Western 5 3.4 8 5.4 11 7.5 4 2.7 9 6.1

SIXTH CIRCUIT 53 8.5 39 6.2 26 4.2 61 9.8 33 5.3

Kentucky

Eastern 0 0.0 6 10.3 1 1.7 5 8.6 1 1.7

Western 3 9.1 0 0.0 1 3.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Michigan

Eastern 29 24.2 12 10.0 0 0.0 3 2.5 2 1.7

Western 6 7.1 1 1.2 7 8.2 34 40.0 0 0.0

Ohio

Northern 7 6.1 2 1.7 3 2.6 0 0.0 25 21.7

Southern 4 6.2 8 12.3 3 4.6 7 10.8 3 4.6

Tennessee

Eastern 1 2.6 1 2.6 4 10.5 4 10.5 2 5.3

Middle 1 2.4 5 12.2 0 0.0 5 12.2 0 0.0

Western 2 2.9 4 5.7 7 10.0 3 4.3 0 0.0

SEVENTH CIRCUIT 27 6.8 20 5.0 15 3.8 17 4.3 15 3.8

Illinois

Central 4 16.0 0 0.0 1 4.0 2 8.0 0 0.0

Northern 19 10.3 13 7.1 8 4.3 7 3.8 10 5.4

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 6.9 1 3.4 0 0.0

Indiana

Northern 1 2.7 3 8.1 3 8.1 1 2.7 0 0.0

Southern 2 3.1 2 3.1 0 0.0 1 1.6 2 3.1

Wisconsin

Eastern 0 0.0 1 2.5 0 0.0 4 10.0 3 7.5

Western 1 5.3 1 5.3 1 5.3 1 5.3 0 0.0

HEALTHCARE

IDENTITY

THEFT

MAIL

RELATED TAX

SECURITIES/

INVESTMENT

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

47

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

FIFTH CIRCUIT 9 1.4 15 2.3 11 1.7 27 4.1

Louisiana

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 4.3 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.4

Western 0 0.0 2 4.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

Mississippi

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.9 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.3

Texas

Eastern 7 9.1 1 1.3 0 0.0 2 2.6

Northern 0 0.0 4 3.9 3 2.9 1 1.0

Southern 2 1.6 3 2.3 2 1.6 4 3.1

Western 0 0.0 5 3.4 2 1.4 18 12.2

SIXTH CIRCUIT 10 1.6 5 0.8 6 1.0 8 1.3

Kentucky

Eastern 1 1.7 1 1.7 0 0.0 3 5.2

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.0

Michigan

Eastern 4 3.3 3 2.5 2 1.7 1 0.8

Western 1 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2

Ohio

Northern 2 1.7 0 0.0 4 3.5 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 0.0 1 1.5

Tennessee

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 2 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4

SEVENTH CIRCUIT 16 4.0 10 2.5 10 2.5 7 1.8

Illinois

Central 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 8.0 0 0.0

Northern 16 8.7 6 3.3 5 2.7 4 2.2

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.4 1 3.4

Indiana

Northern 0 0.0 1 2.7 0 0.0 1 2.7

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Wisconsin

Eastern 0 0.0 3 7.5 2 5.0 1 2.5

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

MORTGAGE

FALSE

ADVERTISING/

PRODUCT

SUBSTITUTION

ADVANCED

FEE

FALSE

STATEMENTS
United States Sentencing Commission

48

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

FIFTH CIRCUIT 15 2.3 3 0.5 4 0.6 7 1.1

Louisiana

Eastern 1 1.4 2 2.9 0 0.0 1 1.4

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.4

Western 2 4.9 1 2.4 1 2.4 0 0.0

Mississippi

Northern 3 17.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.3 1 2.3

Texas

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.3 0 0.0

Northern 6 5.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 3 2.0 0 0.0 1 0.7 3 2.0

SIXTH CIRCUIT 15 2.4 5 0.8 4 0.6 8 1.3

Kentucky

Eastern 4 6.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.4

Western 2 6.1 2 6.1 0 0.0 1 3.0

Michigan

Eastern 2 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 1 1.2 2 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Ohio

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.1 0 0.0

Tennessee

Eastern 1 2.6 0 0.0 2 5.3 0 0.0

Middle 1 2.4 1 2.4 0 0.0 2 4.9

Western 4 5.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 4.3

SEVENTH CIRCUIT 2 0.5 28 7.0 4 1.0 4 1.0

Illinois

Central 0 0.0 1 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 3 1.6

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Indiana

Northern 1 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 1 1.6 25 39.1 0 0.0 1 1.6

Wisconsin

Eastern 0 0.0 1 2.5 2 5.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 1 5.3 1 5.3 0 0.0

COUNTERFEIT/

FORGERY INSURANCE

GOVERNMENT

PROCUREMENT COMPUTER

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

49

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

FIFTH CIRCUIT 2 0.3 5 0.8 2 0.3 0 0.0

Louisiana

Eastern 1 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0

Mississippi

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 2.3 0 0.0

Texas

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 3 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

SIXTH CIRCUIT 1 0.2 3 0.5 8 1.3 3 0.5

Kentucky

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 8.6 1 1.7

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Michigan

Eastern 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8

Western 1 1.2 0 0.0 1 1.2 0 0.0

Ohio

Northern 0 0.0 1 0.9 2 1.7 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.5

Tennessee

Eastern 0 0.0 1 2.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

SEVENTH CIRCUIT 0 0.0 8 2.0 5 1.3 0 0.0

Illinois

Central 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 4 2.2 2 1.1 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 3 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Indiana

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Wisconsin

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 7.5 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 1 5.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

BANKRUPTCY

CONTRACT

VIOLATION/

BREACH ANTITRUST

ALL

OTHER

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

50

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N %

FIFTH CIRCUIT 1 0.2 4 0.6 9 1.4

Louisiana

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 7.1

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.4

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Mississippi

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 7.0

Texas

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 2 1.6 0 0.0

Western 1 0.7 2 1.4 0 0.0

SIXTH CIRCUIT 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Kentucky

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Michigan

Eastern 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Ohio

Northern 1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Tennessee

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

SEVENTH CIRCUIT 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Illinois

Central 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Indiana

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Wisconsin

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

MONEY

LAUNDERING IMMIGRATION DISASTER

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

51

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N %

FIFTH CIRCUIT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Louisiana

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Mississippi

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Texas

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

SIXTH CIRCUIT 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Kentucky

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Michigan

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Ohio

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Tennessee

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

SEVENTH CIRCUIT 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Illinois

Central 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Indiana

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Wisconsin

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY

CAMPAIGN

FINANCE

EDUCATION

FUNDS

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

52

CIRCUIT

District TOTAL N % N % N % N %

EIGHTH CIRCUIT 524 185 35.3 47 9.0 58 11.1 90 17.2

Arkansas

Eastern 50 6 12.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 36 72.0

Western 24 9 37.5 1 4.2 6 25.0 2 8.3

Iowa

Northern 43 10 23.3 4 9.3 1 2.3 21 48.8

Southern 27 9 33.3 1 3.7 0 0.0 4 14.8

Minnesota 68 26 38.2 1 1.5 21 30.9 4 5.9

Missouri

Eastern 140 50 35.7 32 22.9 18 12.9 9 6.4

Western 57 22 38.6 3 5.3 5 8.8 1 1.8

Nebraska 42 19 45.2 1 2.4 3 7.1 11 26.2

North Dakota 16 10 62.5 2 12.5 0 0.0 1 6.3

South Dakota 57 24 42.1 1 1.8 3 5.3 1 1.8

NINTH CIRCUIT 797 216 27.1 78 9.8 69 8.7 41 5.1

Alaska 23 7 30.4 2 8.7 4 17.4 2 8.7

Arizona 73 20 27.4 3 4.1 3 4.1 3 4.1

California

Central 251 39 15.5 33 13.1 32 12.7 13 5.2

Eastern 59 10 16.9 16 27.1 2 3.4 5 8.5

Northern 76 19 25.0 7 9.2 9 11.8 0 0.0

Southern 67 27 40.3 0 0.0 1 1.5 3 4.5

Guam 13 10 76.9 0 0.0 1 7.7 1 7.7

Hawaii 10 4 40.0 0 0.0 2 20.0 0 0.0

Idaho 45 9 20.0 6 13.3 3 6.7 6 13.3

Montana 26 17 65.4 1 3.8 1 3.8 2 7.7

Nevada 38 8 21.1 1 2.6 0 0.0 1 2.6

Northern Mariana Islands 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 33.3 0 0.0

Oregon 33 14 42.4 3 9.1 3 9.1 0 0.0

Washington

Eastern 29 13 44.8 4 13.8 2 6.9 1 3.4

Western 51 19 37.3 2 3.9 5 9.8 4 7.8

TENTH CIRCUIT 258 88 34.1 27 10.5 28 10.9 14 5.4

Colorado 26 7 26.9 1 3.8 0 0.0 2 7.7

Kansas 54 22 40.7 6 11.1 5 9.3 3 5.6

New Mexico 27 9 33.3 1 3.7 2 7.4 3 11.1

Oklahoma

Eastern 24 12 50.0 2 8.3 3 12.5 2 8.3

Northern 31 13 41.9 1 3.2 4 12.9 1 3.2

Western 41 11 26.8 4 9.8 8 19.5 2 4.9

Utah 42 11 26.2 9 21.4 5 11.9 0 0.0

Wyoming 13 3 23.1 3 23.1 1 7.7 1 7.7

EMBEZZLEMENT/

THEFT

CREDIT

CARD

FINANCIAL

INSTITUTION

GOVERNMENT

BENEFITS

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

53

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N % N %

EIGHTH CIRCUIT 16 3.1 19 3.6 19 3.6 14 2.7 10 1.9

Arkansas

Eastern 0 0.0 2 4.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 3 12.5 2 8.3 1 4.2 0 0.0

Iowa

Northern 0 0.0 1 2.3 1 2.3 1 2.3 0 0.0

Southern 1 3.7 0 0.0 1 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Minnesota 2 2.9 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 4 5.9

Missouri

Eastern 8 5.7 7 5.0 3 2.1 2 1.4 2 1.4

Western 4 7.0 2 3.5 5 8.8 6 10.5 3 5.3

Nebraska 1 2.4 0 0.0 2 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

North Dakota 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.3

South Dakota 0 0.0 3 5.3 3 5.3 3 5.3 0 0.0

NINTH CIRCUIT 31 3.9 54 6.8 100 12.5 32 4.0 24 3.0

Alaska 0 0.0 1 4.3 3 13.0 1 4.3 0 0.0

Arizona 8 11.0 4 5.5 13 17.8 2 2.7 0 0.0

California

Central 15 6.0 15 6.0 46 18.3 11 4.4 7 2.8

Eastern 1 1.7 2 3.4 0 0.0 1 1.7 4 6.8

Northern 0 0.0 3 3.9 8 10.5 5 6.6 3 3.9

Southern 1 1.5 1 1.5 3 4.5 4 6.0 4 6.0

Guam 0 0.0 1 7.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Hawaii 0 0.0 3 30.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Idaho 1 2.2 10 22.2 6 13.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Montana 1 3.8 1 3.8 1 3.8 1 3.8 0 0.0

Nevada 1 2.6 1 2.6 10 26.3 3 7.9 2 5.3

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Oregon 3 9.1 4 12.1 3 9.1 2 6.1 0 0.0

Washington

Eastern 0 0.0 3 10.3 4 13.8 1 3.4 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 4 7.8 3 5.9 1 2.0 4 7.8

TENTH CIRCUIT 10 3.9 10 3.9 28 10.9 8 3.1 7 2.7

Colorado 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 15.4 4 15.4 0 0.0

Kansas 3 5.6 5 9.3 5 9.3 1 1.9 0 0.0

New Mexico 1 3.7 1 3.7 3 11.1 1 3.7 0 0.0

Oklahoma

Eastern 1 4.2 0 0.0 1 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 1 3.2 8 25.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 3 7.3 1 2.4 2 4.9 2 4.9 0 0.0

Utah 0 0.0 1 2.4 4 9.5 0 0.0 7 16.7

Wyoming 2 15.4 1 7.7 1 7.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

HEALTHCARE

IDENTITY

THEFT

MAIL

RELATED TAX

SECURITIES/

INVESTMENT

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

54

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

EIGHTH CIRCUIT 4 0.8 11 2.1 7 1.3 7 1.3

Arkansas

Eastern 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Iowa

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 4.7 2 4.7

Southern 2 7.4 1 3.7 1 3.7 1 3.7

Minnesota 0 0.0 1 1.5 2 2.9 0 0.0

Missouri

Eastern 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7

Western 2 3.5 4 7.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Nebraska 0 0.0 2 4.8 2 4.8 1 2.4

North Dakota 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.3

South Dakota 0 0.0 1 1.8 0 0.0 1 1.8

NINTH CIRCUIT 33 4.1 10 1.3 24 3.0 24 3.0

Alaska 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Arizona 3 4.1 4 5.5 0 0.0 3 4.1

California

Central 8 3.2 3 1.2 14 5.6 5 2.0

Eastern 7 11.9 0 0.0 2 3.4 1 1.7

Northern 5 6.6 1 1.3 1 1.3 4 5.3

Southern 1 1.5 1 1.5 3 4.5 8 11.9

Guam 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Hawaii 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Idaho 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.2

Montana 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.8

Nevada 4 10.5 1 2.6 4 10.5 0 0.0

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Oregon 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Washington

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 5 9.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.0

TENTH CIRCUIT 1 0.4 4 1.6 5 1.9 3 1.2

Colorado 0 0.0 1 3.8 2 7.7 0 0.0

Kansas 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.9

New Mexico 1 3.7 2 7.4 0 0.0 1 3.7

Oklahoma

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.2 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Utah 0 0.0 1 2.4 1 2.4 1 2.4

Wyoming 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 7.7 0 0.0

MORTGAGE

FALSE

ADVERTISING/

PRODUCT

SUBSTITUTION

ADVANCED

FEE

FALSE

STATEMENTS

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

55

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

EIGHTH CIRCUIT 5 1.0 1 0.2 2 0.4 2 0.4

Arkansas

Eastern 2 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Iowa

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 1 3.7 1 3.7 0 0.0

Minnesota 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.5

Missouri

Eastern 2 1.4 0 0.0 1 0.7 1 0.7

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Nebraska 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

North Dakota 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

South Dakota 1 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NINTH CIRCUIT 7 0.9 8 1.0 6 0.8 11 1.4

Alaska 1 4.3 2 8.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Arizona 3 4.1 0 0.0 1 1.4 1 1.4

California

Central 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 2.0

Eastern 0 0.0 5 8.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.3 3 3.9

Southern 0 0.0 1 1.5 3 4.5 0 0.0

Guam 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Hawaii 1 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Idaho 1 2.2 0 0.0 1 2.2 0 0.0

Montana 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Nevada 1 2.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.6

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Oregon 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Washington

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.0

TENTH CIRCUIT 14 5.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.2

Colorado 2 7.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.8

Kansas 1 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.9

New Mexico 2 7.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Oklahoma

Eastern 1 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 1 3.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 6 14.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4

Utah 1 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Wyoming 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

COUNTERFEIT/

FORGERY INSURANCE

GOVERNMENT

PROCUREMENT COMPUTER

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

56

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

EIGHTH CIRCUIT 18 3.4 4 0.8 2 0.4 0 0.0

Arkansas

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Iowa

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 1 3.7 2 7.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Minnesota 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Missouri

Eastern 0 0.0 1 0.7 2 1.4 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Nebraska 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

North Dakota 1 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

South Dakota 16 28.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NINTH CIRCUIT 9 1.1 8 1.0 2 0.3 1 0.1

Alaska 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Arizona 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

California

Central 1 0.4 3 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Eastern 2 3.4 1 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 2 2.6 2 2.6 2 2.6 0 0.0

Southern 1 1.5 1 1.5 0 0.0 1 1.5

Guam 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Hawaii 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Idaho 0 0.0 1 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Montana 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Nevada 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Oregon 1 3.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Washington

Eastern 1 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

TENTH CIRCUIT 3 1.2 4 1.6 1 0.4 0 0.0

Colorado 1 3.8 0 0.0 1 3.8 0 0.0

Kansas 0 0.0 1 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Mexico 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Oklahoma

Eastern 1 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 2 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 1 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Utah 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Wyoming 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

ALL

OTHER BANKRUPTCY

CONTRACT

VIOLATION/

BREACH ANTITRUST

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

57

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N %

EIGHTH CIRCUIT 0 0.0 2 0.4 0 0.0

Arkansas

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Iowa

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 1 3.7 0 0.0

Minnesota 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 0.0

Missouri

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Nebraska 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

North Dakota 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

South Dakota 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NINTH CIRCUIT 3 0.4 4 0.5 0 0.0

Alaska 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Arizona 1 1.4 1 1.4 0 0.0

California

Central 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 1 1.5 2 3.0 0 0.0

Guam 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Hawaii 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Idaho 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Montana 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Nevada 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0.0 1 33.3 0 0.0

Oregon 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Washington

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

TENTH CIRCUIT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Colorado 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Kansas 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Mexico 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Oklahoma

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Utah 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Wyoming 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

MONEY

LAUNDERING IMMIGRATION DISASTER

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

58

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N %

EIGHTH CIRCUIT 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Arkansas

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Iowa

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Minnesota 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Missouri

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Nebraska 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

North Dakota 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

South Dakota 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NINTH CIRCUIT 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Alaska 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Arizona 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

California

Central 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Guam 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Hawaii 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Idaho 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Montana 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Nevada 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Oregon 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Washington

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

TENTH CIRCUIT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Colorado 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Kansas 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Mexico 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Oklahoma

Eastern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Western 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Utah 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Wyoming 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY

CAMPAIGN

FINANCE

EDUCATION

FUNDS

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

59

CIRCUIT

District TOTAL N % N % N % N %

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 1,184 262 22.1 170 14.4 79 6.7 78 6.6

Alabama

Middle 27 4 14.8 4 14.8 1 3.7 0 0.0

Northern 60 25 41.7 12 20.0 7 11.7 1 1.7

Southern 28 15 53.6 0 0.0 1 3.6 1 3.6

Florida

Middle 243 68 28.0 22 9.1 14 5.8 24 9.9

Northern 38 11 28.9 0 0.0 3 7.9 1 2.6

Southern 563 63 11.2 119 21.1 27 4.8 42 7.5

Georgia

Middle 49 29 59.2 3 6.1 2 4.1 1 2.0

Northern 126 34 27.0 6 4.8 13 10.3 7 5.6

Southern 50 13 26.0 4 8.0 11 22.0 1 2.0

EMBEZZLEMENT/

THEFT

CREDIT

CARD

FINANCIAL

INSTITUTION

GOVERNMENT

BENEFITS

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

60

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N % N %

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 136 11.5 134 11.3 69 5.8 59 5.0 30 2.5

Alabama

Middle 1 3.7 7 25.9 2 7.4 4 14.8 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 4 6.7 2 3.3 1 1.7 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 2 7.1 2 7.1 2 7.1 0 0.0

Florida

Middle 13 5.3 39 16.0 19 7.8 4 1.6 3 1.2

Northern 1 2.6 8 21.1 5 13.2 1 2.6 0 0.0

Southern 111 19.7 51 9.1 34 6.0 20 3.6 24 4.3

Georgia

Middle 1 2.0 2 4.1 3 6.1 5 10.2 0 0.0

Northern 6 4.8 17 13.5 1 0.8 17 13.5 3 2.4

Southern 3 6.0 4 8.0 1 2.0 5 10.0 0 0.0

HEALTHCARE

IDENTITY

THEFT

MAIL

RELATED TAX

SECURITIES/

INVESTMENT

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

61

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 37 3.1 23 1.9 11 0.9 15 1.3

Alabama

Middle 0 0.0 1 3.7 1 3.7 1 3.7

Northern 0 0.0 2 3.3 0 0.0 1 1.7

Southern 0 0.0 3 10.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Florida

Middle 9 3.7 2 0.8 4 1.6 1 0.4

Northern 4 10.5 1 2.6 0 0.0 3 7.9

Southern 23 4.1 11 2.0 5 0.9 4 0.7

Georgia

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.0 1 2.0

Northern 1 0.8 3 2.4 0 0.0 1 0.8

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 6.0

MORTGAGE

FALSE

ADVERTISING/

PRODUCT

SUBSTITUTION

ADVANCED

FEE

FALSE

STATEMENTS
United States Sentencing Commission

62

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 17 1.4 11 0.9 13 1.1 7 0.6

Alabama

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 1 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 5.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Florida

Middle 1 0.4 7 2.9 2 0.8 1 0.4

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 7 1.2 4 0.7 10 1.8 2 0.4

Georgia

Middle 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 3 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8

Southern 4 8.0 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0

COUNTERFEIT/

FORGERY INSURANCE

GOVERNMENT

PROCUREMENT COMPUTER

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

63

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N % N %

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 6 0.5 8 0.7 2 0.2 11 0.9

Alabama

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.7 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 7.1

Florida

Middle 2 0.8 2 0.8 1 0.4 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 6 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

Georgia

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 4 3.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 7.1

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

ALL

OTHER BANKRUPTCY

CONTRACT

VIOLATION/

BREACH ANTITRUST

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

64

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N %

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 3 0.3 1 0.1 2 0.2

Alabama

Middle 1 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Florida

Middle 2 0.8 1 0.4 2 0.8

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Georgia

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

MONEY

LAUNDERING IMMIGRATION DISASTER

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

65

CIRCUIT

District N % N % N %

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Alabama

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Florida

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Georgia

Middle 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Northern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Southern 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY

CAMPAIGN

FINANCE

EDUCATION

FUNDS

Appendix B. Number of Offenders Sentenced in Each Category by Circuit and District

Fiscal Year 2017
United States Sentencing Commission

66

Appendix C. Data Tables

Five-Year Prevalence of Economic Crimes

Fiscal Years 2013-2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Total 8,203 8,216 7,722 5,445 6,068

Embezzlement and Theft 24.6 27.1 28.3 28.2 27.7

Credit Card 7.6 6.6 6.1 8.9 10.0

Financial Institution 9.7 10.2 10.0 10.1 8.8

Government Benefits 8.2 7.5 8.8 7.5 7.8

Health Care 6.7 6.2 6.2 6.5 7.4

Identity Theft 6.3 7.3 7.0 7.3 6.9

Mail Related 3.8 3.7 3.8 5.0 5.8

Tax 2.8 3.8 4.5 5.4 4.5

Securities and Investment 3.4 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.5

Mortgage 10.2 7.8 5.5 4.3 2.9

False Advertising 1.6 2.7 2.6 1.8 2.5

Advanced Fee 1.7 2.0 3.1 2.8 2.2

False Statements 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1

Counterfeit and Forgery 3.8 2.6 1.8 2.0 1.6

Insurance 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.2

Government Procurement 1.4 1.5 1.0 0.8 1.0

Computer 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0

All Other 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8

Bankruptcy 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8

Contract Violation 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.5

Antitrust 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3

Money Laundering 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3

Immigration 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2

Disaster 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.2

Intellectual Property 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

Campaign Finance 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

Education Funds 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0

Weapons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

67

Appendix C Continued.

Percent of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Federal Judicial Circuit

Fiscal Year 2017

Total D.C. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th

Embezzlement and Theft 1,679 1.1 2.9 6.7 6.0 9.7 12.0 10.1 6.7 11.0 12.9 5.2 15.6

Credit Card 604 0.2 3.8 7.5 5.0 9.1 7.5 7.1 6.6 7.8 12.9 4.5 28.2

Financial Institution 536 0.4 2.4 10.5 7.8 11.4 9.1 8.4 6.3 10.8 12.9 5.2 14.7

Government Benefits 475 0.0 4.2 5.9 5.5 8.4 8.6 16.0 4.4 19.0 8.6 3.0 16.4

Health Care 447 0.2 2.9 6.5 5.4 4.7 19.2 11.9 6.0 3.6 6.9 2.2 30.4

Identity Theft 419 0.2 3.8 4.1 6.0 13.1 6.9 9.3 4.8 4.5 12.9 2.4 32.0

Mail Related 351 0.0 1.1 2.3 2.0 5.7 15.7 7.4 4.3 5.4 28.5 8.0 19.7

Tax 272 2.6 1.1 5.5 9.2 5.9 5.5 22.4 6.3 5.2 11.8 2.9 21.7

Securities and Investment 215 0.5 3.7 17.2 7.4 6.1 9.8 15.4 7.0 4.7 11.2 3.3 14.0

Mortgage 175 1.1 4.0 8.6 11.4 12.0 5.1 5.7 9.1 2.3 18.9 0.6 21.1

False Advertising 149 0.0 2.7 24.2 10.7 10.1 10.1 3.4 6.7 7.4 6.7 2.7 15.4

Advanced Fee 136 0.0 0.7 23.5 7.4 14.0 8.1 4.4 7.4 5.2 17.7 3.7 8.1

False Statements 126 4.0 0.0 12.7 2.4 8.7 21.4 6.4 5.6 5.6 19.1 2.4 11.9

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 1.0 1.0 10.4 4.2 5.2 15.6 15.6 2.1 5.2 7.3 14.6 17.7

Insurance 70 0.0 0.0 12.9 1.4 5.7 4.3 7.1 40.0 1.4 11.4 0.0 15.7

Government Procurement 61 3.3 0.0 8.2 14.8 19.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 3.3 9.8 0.0 21.3

Computer 61 0.0 3.3 8.2 13.1 6.6 11.5 13.1 6.6 3.3 18.0 4.9 11.5

All Other 50 0.0 2.0 14.0 0.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 36.0 18.0 6.0 12.0

Bankruptcy 49 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.2 10.2 6.1 16.3 8.2 16.3 8.2 16.3

Contract Violation 29 0.0 3.5 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 27.6 17.2 6.9 6.9 3.5 6.9

Antitrust 17 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 5.9 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 64.7

Money Laundering 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.3 6.7 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0

Immigration 13 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 0.0 15.4 30.8 0.0 7.7

Disaster 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2

Intellectual Property 8 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 25.0 0.0 0.0

Campaign Finance 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Education Funds 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Weapons 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
United States Sentencing Commission

68

Appendix C Continued.

Race of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total White Black Hispanic Other

Total 6,047 42.2 32.8 18.3 6.7

Embezzlement and Theft 1,663 49.4 29.5 12.5 8.5

Credit Card 602 22.3 45.0 26.6 6.2

Financial Institution 536 39.2 43.1 11.0 6.7

Government Benefits 474 34.8 36.7 22.4 6.1

Health Care 447 35.1 26.0 32.2 6.7

Identity Theft 419 25.5 49.4 20.5 4.5

Mail Related 351 42.7 23.7 27.6 6.0

Tax 271 28.8 55.0 12.2 4.1

Securities and Investment 214 79.9 5.6 9.8 4.7

Mortgage 175 52.0 18.9 25.1 4.0

False Advertising 149 61.1 14.1 16.1 8.7

Advanced Fee 136 39.7 40.4 11.8 8.1

False Statements 126 39.7 24.6 29.4 6.4

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 36.5 45.8 12.5 5.2

Insurance 70 55.7 24.3 18.6 1.4

Government Procurement 61 62.3 14.8 13.1 9.8

Computer 61 70.5 13.1 9.8 6.6

All Other 50 54.0 20.0 18.0 8.0

Bankruptcy 49 63.3 18.4 18.4 0.0

Contract Violation 29 65.5 13.8 3.5 17.2

Antitrust 17 82.4 0.0 5.9 11.8

Money Laundering 15 66.7 20.0 6.7 6.7

Immigration 13 23.1 0.0 61.5 15.4

Disaster 11 36.4 54.6 0.0 9.1

Intellectual Property 8 87.5 0.0 12.5 0.0

Campaign Finance 3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Education Funds 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- -- -- --

Weapons 0 -- -- -- --
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

69

Appendix C Continued.

Citizenship of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen

Total 6,057 86.5 13.5

Embezzlement and Theft 1,671 94.1 5.9

Credit Card 603 70.0 30.0

Financial Institution 536 85.5 14.6

Government Benefits 475 79.6 20.4

Health Care 447 87.0 13.0

Identity Theft 419 79.5 20.5

Mail Related 351 89.5 10.5

Tax 272 89.7 10.3

Securities and Investment 214 92.5 7.5

Mortgage 175 93.1 6.9

False Advertising 148 89.9 10.1

Advanced Fee 136 80.9 19.1

False Statements 126 81.0 19.1

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 94.8 5.2

Insurance 70 82.9 17.1

Government Procurement 61 93.4 6.6

Computer 61 86.9 13.1

All Other 50 82.0 18.0

Bankruptcy 49 93.9 6.1

Contract Violation 29 96.6 3.5

Antitrust 17 94.1 5.9

Money Laundering 15 33.3 66.7

Immigration 13 30.8 69.2

Disaster 11 100.0 0.0

Intellectual Property 8 87.5 12.5

Campaign Finance 3 100.0 0.0

Education Funds 1 100.0 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- --

Weapons 0 -- --
United States Sentencing Commission

70

Appendix C Continued.

Gender of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total Male Female

Total 6,067 67.1 32.9

Embezzlement and Theft 1,679 57.7 42.4

Credit Card 604 77.2 22.9

Financial Institution 536 73.3 26.7

Government Benefits 474 59.5 40.5

Health Care 447 58.2 41.8

Identity Theft 419 69.0 31.0

Mail Related 351 63.3 36.8

Tax 272 63.2 36.8

Securities and Investment 215 92.1 7.9

Mortgage 175 77.1 22.9

False Advertising 149 80.5 19.5

Advanced Fee 136 76.5 23.5

False Statements 126 73.8 26.2

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 60.4 39.6

Insurance 70 65.7 34.3

Government Procurement 61 82.0 18.0

Computer 61 93.4 6.6

All Other 50 94.0 6.0

Bankruptcy 49 65.3 34.7

Contract Violation 29 82.8 17.2

Antitrust 17 88.2 11.8

Money Laundering 15 86.7 13.3

Immigration 13 76.9 23.1

Disaster 11 63.6 36.4

Intellectual Property 8 100.0 0.0

Campaign Finance 3 100.0 0.0

Education Funds 1 0.0 100.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- --

Weapons 0 -- --
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

71

Appendix C Continued.

Age of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total Average Age

Total 6,068 42

Embezzlement and Theft 1,679 45

Credit Card 604 33

Financial Institution 536 39

Government Benefits 475 44

Health Care 447 49

Identity Theft 419 38

Mail Related 351 35

Tax 272 44

Securities and Investment 215 50

Mortgage 175 48

False Advertising 149 46

Advanced Fee 136 43

False Statements 126 41

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 39

Insurance 70 39

Government Procurement 61 53

Computer 61 36

All Other 50 41

Bankruptcy 49 52

Contract Violation 29 49

Antitrust 17 52

Money Laundering 15 41

Immigration 13 36

Disaster 11 44

Intellectual Property 8 48

Campaign Finance 3 70

Education Funds 1 --

Retirement and Unemployment 0 --

Weapons 0 --

The Commission does not report averages for categories containing fewer than three cases.
United States Sentencing Commission

72

Appendix C Continued.

Education Level of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total

Less than High 

School

High School 

Graduate Some College

College 

Graduate

Total 6,041 15.2 29.7 33.2 22.0

Embezzlement and Theft 1,663 13.0 31.0 35.7 20.3

Credit Card 602 20.8 38.2 31.1 10.0

Financial Institution 536 19.2 28.9 32.3 19.6

Government Benefits 473 23.7 35.9 29.2 11.2

Health Care 447 6.7 18.8 24.2 50.3

Identity Theft 418 18.2 30.6 39.0 12.2

Mail Related 347 24.2 41.8 30.8 3.2

Tax 272 13.6 21.3 41.5 23.5

Securities and Investment 215 3.3 14.0 36.7 46.1

Mortgage 175 6.9 23.4 33.1 36.6

False Advertising 149 5.4 24.8 32.2 37.6

Advanced Fee 136 12.5 30.9 35.3 21.3

False Statements 124 14.5 25.0 30.7 29.8

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 20.8 35.4 36.5 7.3

Insurance 70 27.1 31.4 30.0 11.4

Government Procurement 61 1.6 19.7 23.0 55.7

Computer 61 4.9 16.4 41.0 37.7

All Other 50 28.0 36.0 26.0 10.0

Bankruptcy 49 6.1 26.5 28.6 38.8

Contract Violation 29 6.9 31.0 31.0 31.0

Antitrust 17 0.0 5.9 17.7 76.5

Money Laundering 15 6.7 6.7 33.3 53.3

Immigration 13 46.2 15.4 15.4 23.1

Disaster 11 18.2 36.4 45.5 0.0

Intellectual Property 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0

Campaign Finance 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7

Education Funds 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- -- -- --

Weapons 0 -- -- -- --
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

73

Appendix C Continued.

Median Loss Amount of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total Median Loss

Total 5,052 $131,750

Embezzlement and Theft 1,495 $101,250

Credit Card 480 $63,171

Financial Institution 458 $136,341

Government Benefits 409 $68,486

Health Care 382 $1,086,205

Identity Theft 343 $204,507

Mail Related 249 $1,815

Tax 230 $398,623

Securities and Investment 173 $2,105,620

Mortgage 141 $999,721

False Advertising 111 $424,238

Advanced Fee 106 $476,701

False Statements 95 $0

Counterfeit and Forgery 80 $35,263

Insurance 58 $152,604

Government Procurement 43 $739,455

Computer 50 $98,007

All Other 39 $46,050

Bankruptcy 34 $136,802

Contract Violation 22 $217,593

Antitrust 15 $170,659

Money Laundering 9 $396,638

Immigration 11 $0

Disaster 10 $134,356

Intellectual Property 7 $846,768

Campaign Finance 2 --

Education Funds 1 --

Retirement and Unemployment 0 --

Weapons 0 --

The Commission does not report medians for categories containing fewer than three cases.
United States Sentencing Commission

74

Appendix C Continued.

Application of Victims Table for Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total No Increase 2-Levels 4-Levels 6-Levels

Total 6,068 67.5 30.5 1.3 0.7

Embezzlement and Theft 1,679 89.5 10.1 0.3 0.1

Credit Card 604 30.8 67.6 0.8 0.8

Financial Institution 536 65.1 34.5 0.4 0.0

Government Benefits 475 91.8 7.4 0.8 0.0

Health Care 447 83.0 16.8 0.0 0.2

Identity Theft 419 37.5 61.3 1.0 0.2

Mail Related 351 35.3 64.7 0.0 0.0

Tax 272 63.6 35.7 0.4 0.4

Securities and Investment 215 21.9 59.5 14.4 4.2

Mortgage 175 88.0 12.0 0.0 0.0

False Advertising 149 42.3 45.0 8.7 4.0

Advanced Fee 136 22.8 60.3 6.6 10.3

False Statements 126 97.6 2.4 0.0 0.0

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 74.0 26.0 0.0 0.0

Insurance 70 88.6 11.4 0.0 0.0

Government Procurement 61 88.5 11.5 0.0 0.0

Computer 61 82.0 18.0 0.0 0.0

All Other 50 78.0 14.0 8.0 0.0

Bankruptcy 49 83.7 14.3 2.0 0.0

Contract Violation 29 44.8 55.2 0.0 0.0

Antitrust 17 58.8 41.2 0.0 0.0

Money Laundering 15 46.7 53.3 0.0 0.0

Immigration 13 92.3 0.0 0.0 7.7

Disaster 11 90.9 9.1 0.0 0.0

Intellectual Property 8 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Campaign Finance 3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Education Funds 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- -- -- --

Weapons 0 -- -- -- --
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

75

Appendix C Continued.

Application of Sophisticated Means for Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total Not Applied Applied

Total 6,068 85.2 14.8

Embezzlement and Theft 1,679 91.1 8.9

Credit Card 604 83.3 16.7

Financial Institution 536 83.0 17.0

Government Benefits 475 96.0 4.0

Health Care 447 82.3 17.7

Identity Theft 419 74.2 25.8

Mail Related 351 99.4 0.6

Tax 272 80.2 19.9

Securities and Investment 215 64.7 35.4

Mortgage 175 75.4 24.6

False Advertising 149 81.2 18.8

Advanced Fee 136 62.5 37.5

False Statements 126 97.6 2.4

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 89.6 10.4

Insurance 70 81.4 18.6

Government Procurement 61 72.1 27.9

Computer 61 67.2 32.8

All Other 50 86.0 14.0

Bankruptcy 49 91.8 8.2

Contract Violation 29 79.3 20.7

Antitrust 17 94.1 5.9

Money Laundering 15 33.3 66.7

Immigration 13 84.6 15.4

Disaster 11 100.0 0.0

Intellectual Property 8 75.0 25.0

Campaign Finance 3 100.0 0.0

Education Funds 1 100.0 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- --

Weapons 0 -- --
United States Sentencing Commission

76

Appendix C Continued.

Application of Aggravating Role for Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total No Increase 2-Levels 3-Levels 4-Levels

Total 6,068 89.6 3.8 2.9 3.7

Embezzlement and Theft 1,679 95.4 2.1 1.2 1.3

Credit Card 604 92.2 2.8 2.0 3.0

Financial Institution 536 85.1 3.0 5.4 6.5

Government Benefits 475 93.3 2.5 1.9 2.3

Health Care 447 74.9 7.8 5.8 11.4

Identity Theft 419 84.5 6.7 3.1 5.7

Mail Related 351 98.3 1.1 0.0 0.6

Tax 272 86.8 7.4 2.6 3.3

Securities and Investment 215 82.3 5.1 6.5 6.1

Mortgage 175 81.7 8.0 2.9 7.4

False Advertising 149 88.6 3.4 6.0 2.0

Advanced Fee 136 75.0 5.2 9.6 10.3

False Statements 126 98.4 1.6 0.0 0.0

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 88.5 6.3 2.1 3.1

Insurance 70 85.7 0.0 11.4 2.9

Government Procurement 61 83.6 9.8 3.3 3.3

Computer 61 93.4 4.9 0.0 1.6

All Other 50 94.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

Bankruptcy 49 93.9 6.1 0.0 0.0

Contract Violation 29 82.8 3.5 10.3 3.5

Antitrust 17 94.1 5.9 0.0 0.0

Money Laundering 15 80.0 6.7 13.3 0.0

Immigration 13 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Disaster 11 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Intellectual Property 8 87.5 12.5 0.0 0.0

Campaign Finance 3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Education Funds 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- -- -- --

Weapons 0 -- -- -- --
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

77

Appendix C Continued.

Application of Mitigating Role for Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total -4-Levels -3-Levels -2-Levels No Decrease

Total 6,067 0.7 0.3 3.6 95.3

Embezzlement and Theft 1,679 0.4 0.1 2.9 96.7

Credit Card 604 0.5 0.0 5.1 94.4

Financial Institution 536 0.6 0.6 2.2 96.6

Government Benefits 475 0.2 0.0 2.5 97.3

Health Care 447 0.9 0.9 6.3 92.0

Identity Theft 418 0.2 0.2 2.6 96.7

Mail Related 351 0.6 0.0 0.6 98.9

Tax 272 0.7 0.4 4.4 94.5

Securities and Investment 215 1.4 0.5 4.2 94.0

Mortgage 175 4.0 2.9 6.9 86.3

False Advertising 149 1.3 0.0 6.7 92.0

Advanced Fee 136 3.7 0.7 10.3 85.3

False Statements 126 0.8 0.8 0.8 97.6

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 1.0 0.0 5.2 93.8

Insurance 70 0.0 1.4 4.3 94.3

Government Procurement 61 1.6 0.0 1.6 96.7

Computer 61 0.0 0.0 1.6 98.4

All Other 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Bankruptcy 49 0.0 0.0 4.1 95.9

Contract Violation 29 0.0 0.0 6.9 93.1

Antitrust 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Money Laundering 15 6.7 0.0 0.0 93.3

Immigration 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Disaster 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8

Intellectual Property 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5

Campaign Finance 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Education Funds 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- -- -- --

Weapons 0 -- -- -- --
United States Sentencing Commission

78

Appendix C Continued.

Application of Abuse of Trust of Use of Special Skill for Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total Not Applied Applied

Total 6,068 82.9 17.1

Embezzlement and Theft 1,679 74.0 26.0

Credit Card 604 97.2 2.8

Financial Institution 536 93.1 6.9

Government Benefits 475 90.7 9.3

Health Care 447 68.7 31.3

Identity Theft 419 91.4 8.6

Mail Related 351 62.4 37.6

Tax 272 82.7 17.3

Securities and Investment 215 84.7 15.4

Mortgage 175 80.6 19.4

False Advertising 149 92.6 7.4

Advanced Fee 136 92.7 7.4

False Statements 126 88.9 11.1

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 93.8 6.3

Insurance 70 95.7 4.3

Government Procurement 61 83.6 16.4

Computer 61 78.7 21.3

All Other 50 98.0 2.0

Bankruptcy 49 91.8 8.2

Contract Violation 29 93.1 6.9

Antitrust 17 88.2 11.8

Money Laundering 15 93.3 6.7

Immigration 13 100.0 0.0

Disaster 11 100.0 0.0

Intellectual Property 8 50.0 50.0

Campaign Finance 3 100.0 0.0

Education Funds 1 100.0 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- --

Weapons 0 -- --
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

79

Appendix C Continued.

Criminal History Category of Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total I II III IV V VI

Total 6,068 69.9 9.1 9.7 3.8 2.9 4.6

Embezzlement and Theft 1,679 74.6 8.9 8.9 2.5 2.5 2.6

Credit Card 604 51.5 12.9 13.3 7.3 3.8 11.3

Financial Institution 536 55.4 10.5 15.9 5.2 5.2 7.8

Government Benefits 475 74.5 8.4 9.9 3.2 2.1 1.9

Health Care 447 87.5 5.4 5.2 0.5 0.5 1.1

Identity Theft 419 55.4 11.7 14.1 5.3 6.0 7.6

Mail Related 351 60.4 7.4 8.8 8.3 4.6 10.5

Tax 272 67.7 9.6 10.3 5.9 2.6 4.0

Securities and Investment 215 85.6 5.6 6.1 0.5 1.4 0.9

Mortgage 175 82.9 10.9 2.3 2.9 0.6 0.6

False Advertising 149 79.2 6.7 7.4 2.7 2.0 2.0

Advanced Fee 136 77.9 4.4 10.3 4.4 2.2 0.7

False Statements 126 84.1 4.8 5.6 2.4 0.8 2.4

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 53.1 12.5 14.6 5.2 5.2 9.4

Insurance 70 60.0 21.4 11.4 4.3 2.9 0.0

Government Procurement 61 93.4 1.6 3.3 1.6 0.0 0.0

Computer 61 95.1 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All Other 50 40.0 12.0 18.0 8.0 8.0 14.0

Bankruptcy 49 83.7 6.1 6.1 0.0 4.1 0.0

Contract Violation 29 79.3 10.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 6.9

Antitrust 17 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Money Laundering 15 93.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Immigration 13 76.9 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7

Disaster 11 63.6 18.2 9.1 0.0 9.1 0.0

Intellectual Property 8 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Campaign Finance 3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Education Funds 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

Weapons 0 -- -- -- -- -- --
United States Sentencing Commission

80

Appendix C Continued.

Type of Sentence Imposed for Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total Prison Only Prison/ Confinement Probation/ Confinement Probation Only

Total 6,060 66.3 6.0 7.0 20.8

Embezzlement and Theft 1,676 53.5 6.1 9.8 30.6

Credit Card 603 83.9 4.8 4.0 7.3

Financial Institution 536 82.5 8.8 1.9 6.9

Government Benefits 474 57.2 5.5 8.7 28.7

Health Care 447 74.5 5.4 6.9 13.2

Identity Theft 418 90.0 3.6 1.9 4.6

Mail Related 350 44.3 3.1 7.7 44.9

Tax 272 71.7 10.7 8.1 9.6

Securities and Investment 215 89.8 1.9 3.3 5.1

Mortgage 175 74.3 8.6 4.0 13.1

False Advertising 149 64.4 1.3 10.1 24.2

Advanced Fee 136 86.0 4.4 2.2 7.4

False Statements 126 43.7 4.8 4.0 47.6

Counterfeit and Forgery 95 59.0 10.5 11.6 19.0

Insurance 70 48.6 10.0 15.7 25.7

Government Procurement 61 54.1 4.9 18.0 23.0

Computer 61 41.0 13.1 13.1 32.8

All Other 50 52.0 2.0 6.0 40.0

Bankruptcy 49 46.9 10.2 10.2 32.7

Contract Violation 29 51.7 13.8 10.3 24.1

Antitrust 17 29.4 41.2 0.0 29.4

Money Laundering 15 73.3 0.0 13.3 13.3

Immigration 13 69.2 0.0 7.7 23.1

Disaster 11 63.6 0.0 9.1 27.3

Intellectual Property 8 75.0 0.0 12.5 12.5

Campaign Finance 3 66.7 0.0 0.0 33.3

Education Funds 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Retirement and Unemployment 0 -- -- -- --

Weapons 0 -- -- -- --
What Does Federal Economic Crime Really Look Like?

81

Appendix C Continued.

Average Sentence Imposed for Economic Crime Offenders in Each Offense Type

Fiscal Year 2017

Total Average Sentence (months)

Total 6,068 23

Embezzlement and Theft 1,679 14

Credit Card 604 31

Financial Institution 536 23

Government Benefits 475 13

Health Care 447 36

Identity Theft 419 44

Mail Related 351 7

Tax 272 31

Securities and Investment 215 52

Mortgage 175 21

False Advertising 149 24

Advanced Fee 136 35

False Statements 126 5

Counterfeit and Forgery 96 19

Insurance 70 21

Government Procurement 61 22

Computer 61 19

All Other 50 14

Bankruptcy 49 19

Contract Violation 29 19

Antitrust 17 8

Money Laundering 15 21

Immigration 13 3

Disaster 11 10

Intellectual Property 8 19

Campaign Finance 3 10

Education Funds 1 --

Retirement and Unemployment 0 --

Weapons 0 --

The Commission does not report averages for categories containing fewer than three cases.