FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE
Deportation Defense * Immigration Court Representation * Bond Hearings * Appeals
Federal Criminal Defense Attorney | New York & Connecticut
When the federal government targets you, it brings resources no individual defendant can match alone. Federal prosecutors — Assistant United States Attorneys — are career specialists who dedicate their professional lives to building and winning cases in the same courtrooms where your freedom will be decided. Behind them stand the full investigative power of the FBI, the DEA, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, the Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations, and dozens of other federal agencies. Federal cases frequently involve years of pre-indictment investigation before a single charge is filed. By the time you are arrested or served with an indictment, the government has often already built what it believes is an airtight case. The federal conviction rate consistently exceeds 90% — not because the government is always right, but because defendants who face the federal system without elite-level legal representation rarely survive it. The consequences of a federal conviction are categorical and unforgiving. There is no parole in the federal system. Mandatory minimum sentences are imposed by statute, not by a judge's discretion — and they can run for decades. Federal Sentencing Guidelines create ranges that judges are required to calculate and seriously consider. A federal criminal conviction carries collateral consequences that follow a person for a lifetime: loss of civil rights, deportation for non-citizens, loss of professional licenses, and permanent reputational damage. Pre-indictment intervention and aggressive defense strategy are not luxuries — they are necessities. Smith & Company exists to provide both.
Federal Court Is Different From State Court
Federal prosecutors are Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) who handle narrow categories of cases with singular focus. An AUSA in the SDNY's Narcotics Unit has prosecuted dozens of drug trafficking cases. An AUSA in the Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit has handled some of the most sophisticated white-collar prosecutions in American history. These are not generalist attorneys — they are specialists backed by the investigative resources of federal law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the DEA, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, and Homeland Security Investigations. Facing this level of expertise requires defense counsel with equivalent depth of experience in federal court practice. Before a federal charge is filed, a grand jury of 23 citizens convenes in secret to determine whether probable cause exists to indict. Prosecutors present only their evidence — there is no defense, no cross-examination, no judge moderating the presentation. Grand jury targets, subjects, and witnesses have different rights and exposure levels, and navigating this phase correctly is critical. A "target" is someone the grand jury is investigating with a view toward indictment. A "subject" is someone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation. A "witness" simply has relevant information — but that status can change quickly. Understanding where your client stands in a grand jury investigation, and acting swiftly to protect their rights, is work that must begin immediately. Mandatory minimum sentences under federal statutes fundamentally change the nature of criminal defense. Unlike state court, where a judge often has wide discretion to tailor a sentence to the individual, federal mandatory minimums strip that discretion away. A conviction for certain drug trafficking offenses triggers a mandatory minimum of 5, 10, or even 20 years in federal prison — regardless of the defendant's background, family circumstances, or the judge's personal view of what is fair. The existence of these mandatory minimums changes the strategic calculus of every federal case — from the decision of whether to fight at trial versus negotiate a plea, to whether to seek "safety valve" relief or cooperation credit. Every decision must be made with full knowledge of the mandatory minimum exposure. The United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) govern federal sentencing even when mandatory minimums do not apply. The Guidelines calculate a recommended sentencing range based on two variables: the offense level (determined by the nature of the crime and specific offense characteristics, such as drug quantity, loss amount, or use of a weapon) and the criminal history category (I through VI, determined by prior convictions). While the Supreme Court's Booker decision made the Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, they remain enormously influential — judges must calculate the range, explain any departure from it, and a sentence within the range is presumptively reasonable on appeal. Fighting to reduce the offense level through objections to the Presentence Report, pursuing downward departures, and arguing for a below-guidelines variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) are all critical components of federal defense strategy.
SERVING NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUSSETTS
FEDERAL MONEY LAUNDERING DEFENSE LAWYER | NEW YORK & CONNECTICUT
Federal money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 carries up to 20 years per count — and prosecutors routinely stack money laundering charges on top of the underlying predicate offense, dramatically increasing total sentencing exposure. A defendant charged with both drug trafficking and money laundering is not simply facing two separate crimes: each money laundering count can match or exceed the drug sentence itself, and the sentencing guidelines for money laundering cases include significant enhancements based on the value of the funds laundered. If you are facing money laundering charges, you are almost certainly also facing drug, fraud, RICO, or other serious federal charges simultaneously — and the combined exposure demands a defense strategy that addresses all charges as a unified whole.
WHAT IS FEDERAL MONEY LAUNDERING?
CONCEALMENT MONEY LAUNDERING (§ 1956(A)(1)(B))
The most commonly charged form of federal money laundering — concealment laundering — occurs when a person conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, knowing that the transaction is designed to conceal or disguise the origin, nature, ownership, location, or control of those proceeds. The government does not need to prove that the concealment was successful — only that the transaction was designed with concealment as a purpose. Challenging the government's proof of the "knowing" element — that our client understood both that the funds were criminal proceeds and that the transaction was designed to conceal them — is a central component of the defense.
PROMOTIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING (§ 1956(A)(1)(A))
Promotional laundering occurs when criminal proceeds are used to further — to "promote" — the underlying unlawful activity. In drug trafficking cases, this typically means using drug sale proceeds to purchase more drugs, to rent stash houses, or to pay suppliers. The government characterizes virtually any reinvestment of criminal proceeds back into the criminal enterprise as promotional money laundering — and the charge can be applied creatively to transactions that defendants did not recognize as legally significant. Smith & Company challenges the promotional element by scrutinizing the causal link between the transaction and the promotion of the unlawful activity.
STING/UNDERCOVER MONEY LAUNDERING (§ 1956(A)(3))
Government sting operations targeting money laundering are conducted by the FBI, the DEA, and Homeland Security Investigations, often using undercover agents who pose as criminal financiers seeking to launder illicit funds. A defendant who conducts a financial transaction with what they believe to be criminal proceeds — even if the funds used by the undercover agent were actually legitimate — can be convicted under § 1956(a)(3). These sting cases require careful analysis of the entrapment defense and the government's conduct throughout the operation.
TRANSACTION STRUCTURING — "SMURFING" (31 U.S.C. § 5324)
Federal structuring law prohibits breaking up cash transactions into amounts below $10,000 specifically to evade the bank's Currency Transaction Report (CTR) filing requirement. Many clients face structuring charges without ever realizing that their behavior — making multiple cash deposits or withdrawals just under the reporting threshold — violated any law. The government does not need to prove that the underlying cash was from illegal activity; it need only prove that the structuring was done with the intent to evade the reporting requirement. Smith & Company defends structuring charges by challenging the government's evidence of intent — was our client deliberately evading the reporting threshold, or simply making their normal banking transactions?
COMMON SCENARIOS WE DEFEND
CASH BUSINESS OWNERS
​Restaurants, car washes, laundromats, nail salons, and other legitimate cash-intensive businesses are frequent targets of money laundering investigations when federal agents suspect that criminal proceeds are being commingled with legitimate revenue. Distinguishing the lawful deposits of a successful cash business from genuine money laundering requires detailed financial analysis, business records, and expert testimony — and Smith & Company builds this defense with the thoroughness it demands.
REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS
The use of real estate to conceal the origins of criminal proceeds is one of the most frequently prosecuted forms of money laundering, particularly in the New York metropolitan area where high-value real estate transactions are common. Federal investigators scrutinize cash purchases, all-cash LLCs, and purchase transactions involving multiple shell entities. We analyze the transaction structure, the source-of-funds documentation, and the government's tracing methodology to challenge the laundering characterization.
CRYPTOCURRENCY
​Blockchain analysis firms such as Chainalysis and CipherTrace now work directly with federal law enforcement to trace cryptocurrency transactions, identify mixing service usage, and connect wallet addresses to specific individuals. Cryptocurrency money laundering charges are increasingly common in federal court, and the government's blockchain analysis evidence — though powerful — is not infallible. Smith & Company retains cryptocurrency and blockchain experts to independently evaluate the government's analysis, challenge its attribution methodology, and identify weaknesses in its tracing conclusions.
INTERNATIONAL WIRE TRANSFERS
Wire transfers between bank accounts in multiple countries — particularly when they involve jurisdictions outside the traditional banking network — draw immediate scrutiny from FinCEN, the Treasury Department, and federal law enforcement. We analyze the financial structure of international transfer cases with particular attention to the government's proof of the defendant's knowledge that the transferred funds constituted criminal proceeds, and to defenses based on the legitimate business purpose of the transfers.
SHELL COMPANY STRUCTURES
Multi-layered shell company structures — corporations, LLCs, and trusts used to obscure the beneficial ownership and movement of funds — are a common feature of sophisticated money laundering cases. The government seeks to pierce these layers and trace funds back to the defendant. We analyze the legal validity of the corporate structure, the government's financial tracing methodology, and the defendant's actual knowledge of and intent with respect to each layer of the structure.
ASSET FORFEITURE DEFENSE
Money laundering prosecutions almost invariably include asset forfeiture proceedings — the government's claim to seize property connected to the alleged laundering activity. The government proceeds on two tracks: criminal forfeiture, which is part of the criminal case itself and requires a conviction, and civil forfeiture, which can proceed entirely independently of the criminal case — meaning the government can seize your property even if you are never charged with a crime. Civil forfeiture actions place the burden on the property owner to prove that the property is not subject to forfeiture, inverting the normal presumption of innocence.
Smith & Company fights asset forfeiture aggressively and simultaneously with the underlying criminal defense. We file claims in civil forfeiture proceedings, challenge the nexus between seized property and the alleged money laundering activity, invoke the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to challenge disproportionate forfeitures, and move for the release of seized assets needed to fund the defense itself. The government's forfeiture power is broad — but it is not unlimited, and we have the experience to contest it effectively.
DEFENSE STRATEGIES
ATTACKING THE KNOWLEDGE ELEMENT
Federal money laundering requires proof that the defendant knew the funds involved were the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity. This knowledge element is the most powerful target in the money laundering defense. Did our client actually know that the funds they were moving, depositing, or investing were criminal proceeds? In many cases — particularly where transactions were conducted through businesses, intermediaries, or professional financial relationships — the knowledge element is genuinely in dispute, and we build the defense around that dispute.
ATTACKING THE PREDICATE OFFENSE
Federal money laundering can only be charged if the funds involved are the proceeds of a "specified unlawful activity" — a defined list of predicate crimes including drug trafficking, fraud, RICO violations, and others. If the government cannot prove the predicate offense — or if we successfully challenge the drug or fraud charges in the same indictment — the money laundering charge fails as well. Smith & Company coordinates the defense of money laundering charges with the defense of all predicate offenses in a single, integrated strategy.
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS PURPOSE
Not every complex financial transaction is money laundering. Businesses legitimately move large sums of money, use multiple accounts, structure transactions for operational reasons, and conduct international transfers as a routine part of commerce. When the government characterizes legitimate business activity as money laundering, Smith & Company presents the business purpose, the industry norms, the professional advice our client received, and every other fact that explains the challenged transactions without reference to criminal intent.
CHALLENGING THE GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Federal money laundering cases depend on the government's forensic financial analysis — the work of FBI financial analysts and forensic accountants who trace fund flows, identify patterns, and attribute transactions to criminal activity. This analysis is often presented to juries as though it is beyond question. It is not. Smith & Company retains independent financial experts to review the government's methodology, identify errors and assumptions, and present a rigorous counter-analysis that gives the jury a complete and accurate picture of the financial evidence.
Money laundering charges are complex and the penalties are severe. You need an attorney who understands federal financial crimes from the ground up. Call Smith & Company 24/7.