White Collar Crime Prosecutions for January 2008

Number Latest Month 710
Percent Change from previous month 28.4
Percent Change from 1 year ago -0.2
Percent Change from 5 years ago (Including Magistrate Court) -17.3
Percent Change from 5 years ago (Excluding Magistrate Court) -19.4

Table 1: Criminal White Collar Crime Prosecutions

The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during January 2008 the government reported 710 new white collar crime prosecutions. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is up 28.4% over the previous month.

White Collar Crime

This report summarizes the government's recent efforts when it comes to combating white collar crime—the number of such cases, the investigative agencies involved, the laws cited, the busiest federal districts and the busiest federal judges.

See more...

The comparisons of the number of defendants charged with white collar crime-related offenses are based on case-by-case information obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. (See Table 1)

When monthly 2008 prosecutions of this type are compared with those of the same period in the previous year, the number of filings was only slightlydown (-0.2 percent). Prosecutions over the past year are still much lower than they were five years ago. Overall, the data show that prosecutions of this type are down 17.3 percent from levels reported in 2003.

The decrease from the levels five years ago in white collar crime prosecutions for these matters is shown more clearly in Figure 1. The vertical bars in Figure 1 represent the number of white collar crime prosecutions of this type recorded on a month-to-month basis. The superimposed line on the bars plots the six-month moving average so that natural fluctuations are smoothed out. The one and five-year rates of change in Table 1 and in the sections that follow are all based upon this six-month moving average. To view trends year-by-year rather than month-by-month, see TRAC's annual report series for a broader picture.

FYMONDT: Jan2001
_FREQ_: 681 FYMONDT: Feb2001
_FREQ_: 738 FYMONDT: Mar2001
_FREQ_: 1,086 FYMONDT: Apr2001
_FREQ_: 863 FYMONDT: May2001
_FREQ_: 1,022 FYMONDT: Jun2001
_FREQ_: 784 FYMONDT: Jul2001
_FREQ_: 770 FYMONDT: Aug2001
_FREQ_: 847 FYMONDT: Sep2001
_FREQ_: 749 FYMONDT: Oct2001
_FREQ_: 760 FYMONDT: Nov2001
_FREQ_: 687 FYMONDT: Dec2001
_FREQ_: 635 FYMONDT: Jan2002
_FREQ_: 757 FYMONDT: Feb2002
_FREQ_: 623 FYMONDT: Mar2002
_FREQ_: 724 FYMONDT: Apr2002
_FREQ_: 982 FYMONDT: May2002
_FREQ_: 856 FYMONDT: Jun2002
_FREQ_: 937 FYMONDT: Jul2002
_FREQ_: 917 FYMONDT: Aug2002
_FREQ_: 887 FYMONDT: Sep2002
_FREQ_: 910 FYMONDT: Oct2002
_FREQ_: 787 FYMONDT: Nov2002
_FREQ_: 652 FYMONDT: Dec2002
_FREQ_: 642 FYMONDT: Jan2003
_FREQ_: 775 FYMONDT: Feb2003
_FREQ_: 923 FYMONDT: Mar2003
_FREQ_: 901 FYMONDT: Apr2003
_FREQ_: 878 FYMONDT: May2003
_FREQ_: 854 FYMONDT: Jun2003
_FREQ_: 819 FYMONDT: Jul2003
_FREQ_: 791 FYMONDT: Aug2003
_FREQ_: 737 FYMONDT: Sep2003
_FREQ_: 826 FYMONDT: Oct2003
_FREQ_: 759 FYMONDT: Nov2003
_FREQ_: 679 FYMONDT: Dec2003
_FREQ_: 741 FYMONDT: Jan2004
_FREQ_: 762 FYMONDT: Feb2004
_FREQ_: 673 FYMONDT: Mar2004
_FREQ_: 970 FYMONDT: Apr2004
_FREQ_: 881 FYMONDT: May2004
_FREQ_: 665 FYMONDT: Jun2004
_FREQ_: 727 FYMONDT: Jul2004
_FREQ_: 557 FYMONDT: Aug2004
_FREQ_: 631 FYMONDT: Sep2004
_FREQ_: 660 FYMONDT: Oct2004
_FREQ_: 577 FYMONDT: Nov2004
_FREQ_: 544 FYMONDT: Dec2004
_FREQ_: 563 FYMONDT: Jan2005
_FREQ_: 517 FYMONDT: Feb2005
_FREQ_: 562 FYMONDT: Mar2005
_FREQ_: 774 FYMONDT: Apr2005
_FREQ_: 806 FYMONDT: May2005
_FREQ_: 739 FYMONDT: Jun2005
_FREQ_: 660 FYMONDT: Jul2005
_FREQ_: 614 FYMONDT: Aug2005
_FREQ_: 732 FYMONDT: Sep2005
_FREQ_: 657 FYMONDT: Oct2005
_FREQ_: 588 FYMONDT: Nov2005
_FREQ_: 602 FYMONDT: Dec2005
_FREQ_: 599 FYMONDT: Jan2006
_FREQ_: 556 FYMONDT: Feb2006
_FREQ_: 540 FYMONDT: Mar2006
_FREQ_: 805 FYMONDT: Apr2006
_FREQ_: 642 FYMONDT: May2006
_FREQ_: 641 FYMONDT: Jun2006
_FREQ_: 665 FYMONDT: Jul2006
_FREQ_: 547 FYMONDT: Aug2006
_FREQ_: 688 FYMONDT: Sep2006
_FREQ_: 596 FYMONDT: Oct2006
_FREQ_: 607 FYMONDT: Nov2006
_FREQ_: 685 FYMONDT: Dec2006
_FREQ_: 665 FYMONDT: Jan2007
_FREQ_: 613 FYMONDT: Feb2007
_FREQ_: 548 FYMONDT: Mar2007
_FREQ_: 744 FYMONDT: Apr2007
_FREQ_: 690 FYMONDT: May2007
_FREQ_: 707 FYMONDT: Jun2007
_FREQ_: 602 FYMONDT: Jul2007
_FREQ_: 622 FYMONDT: Aug2007
_FREQ_: 741 FYMONDT: Sep2007
_FREQ_: 680 FYMONDT: Oct2007
_FREQ_: 576 FYMONDT: Nov2007
_FREQ_: 587 FYMONDT: Dec2007
_FREQ_: 553 FYMONDT: Jan2008
_FREQ_: 710 FYMONDT: Jun2001
moveave: 862.33333333 FYMONDT: Jul2001
moveave: 877.16666667 FYMONDT: Aug2001
moveave: 895.33333333 FYMONDT: Sep2001
moveave: 839.16666667 FYMONDT: Oct2001
moveave: 822 FYMONDT: Nov2001
moveave: 766.16666667 FYMONDT: Dec2001
moveave: 741.33333333 FYMONDT: Jan2002
moveave: 739.16666667 FYMONDT: Feb2002
moveave: 701.83333333 FYMONDT: Mar2002
moveave: 697.66666667 FYMONDT: Apr2002
moveave: 734.66666667 FYMONDT: May2002
moveave: 762.83333333 FYMONDT: Jun2002
moveave: 813.16666667 FYMONDT: Jul2002
moveave: 839.83333333 FYMONDT: Aug2002
moveave: 883.83333333 FYMONDT: Sep2002
moveave: 914.83333333 FYMONDT: Oct2002
moveave: 882.33333333 FYMONDT: Nov2002
moveave: 848.33333333 FYMONDT: Dec2002
moveave: 799.16666667 FYMONDT: Jan2003
moveave: 775.5 FYMONDT: Feb2003
moveave: 781.5 FYMONDT: Mar2003
moveave: 780 FYMONDT: Apr2003
moveave: 795.16666667 FYMONDT: May2003
moveave: 828.83333333 FYMONDT: Jun2003
moveave: 858.33333333 FYMONDT: Jul2003
moveave: 861 FYMONDT: Aug2003
moveave: 830 FYMONDT: Sep2003
moveave: 817.5 FYMONDT: Oct2003
moveave: 797.66666667 FYMONDT: Nov2003
moveave: 768.5 FYMONDT: Dec2003
moveave: 755.5 FYMONDT: Jan2004
moveave: 750.66666667 FYMONDT: Feb2004
moveave: 740 FYMONDT: Mar2004
moveave: 764 FYMONDT: Apr2004
moveave: 784.33333333 FYMONDT: May2004
moveave: 782 FYMONDT: Jun2004
moveave: 779.66666667 FYMONDT: Jul2004
moveave: 745.5 FYMONDT: Aug2004
moveave: 738.5 FYMONDT: Sep2004
moveave: 686.83333333 FYMONDT: Oct2004
moveave: 636.16666667 FYMONDT: Nov2004
moveave: 616 FYMONDT: Dec2004
moveave: 588.66666667 FYMONDT: Jan2005
moveave: 582 FYMONDT: Feb2005
moveave: 570.5 FYMONDT: Mar2005
moveave: 589.5 FYMONDT: Apr2005
moveave: 627.66666667 FYMONDT: May2005
moveave: 660.16666667 FYMONDT: Jun2005
moveave: 676.33333333 FYMONDT: Jul2005
moveave: 692.5 FYMONDT: Aug2005
moveave: 720.83333333 FYMONDT: Sep2005
moveave: 701.33333333 FYMONDT: Oct2005
moveave: 665 FYMONDT: Nov2005
moveave: 642.16666667 FYMONDT: Dec2005
moveave: 632 FYMONDT: Jan2006
moveave: 622.33333333 FYMONDT: Feb2006
moveave: 590.33333333 FYMONDT: Mar2006
moveave: 615 FYMONDT: Apr2006
moveave: 624 FYMONDT: May2006
moveave: 630.5 FYMONDT: Jun2006
moveave: 641.5 FYMONDT: Jul2006
moveave: 640 FYMONDT: Aug2006
moveave: 664.66666667 FYMONDT: Sep2006
moveave: 629.83333333 FYMONDT: Oct2006
moveave: 624 FYMONDT: Nov2006
moveave: 631.33333333 FYMONDT: Dec2006
moveave: 631.33333333 FYMONDT: Jan2007
moveave: 642.33333333 FYMONDT: Feb2007
moveave: 619 FYMONDT: Mar2007
moveave: 643.66666667 FYMONDT: Apr2007
moveave: 657.5 FYMONDT: May2007
moveave: 661.16666667 FYMONDT: Jun2007
moveave: 650.66666667 FYMONDT: Jul2007
moveave: 652.16666667 FYMONDT: Aug2007
moveave: 684.33333333 FYMONDT: Sep2007
moveave: 673.66666667 FYMONDT: Oct2007
moveave: 654.66666667 FYMONDT: Nov2007
moveave: 634.66666667 FYMONDT: Dec2007
moveave: 626.5 FYMONDT: Jan2008
moveave: 641.16666667
Plot of moveave * FYMONDT

Figure 1: Criminal White Collar Crime Prosecutions over the last five years

Within the broad category of white collar crime, cases were classified by prosecutors into more specific types.

Case types within white collar crime are

• Federal Procurement Fraud

• Federal Program Fraud

• Tax Fraud

• Arson for Profit

• Other Insurance Fraud

• Financial Institution Fraud

• Bankruptcy Fraud

• Advance Fee Schemes

• Other Fraud Against Businesses

• Consumer Fraud

• Securities Fraud

• Commodities Fraud

• Other Investment Fraud

• Antitrust Violations - Other

• Computer Fraud

• Health Care Fraud

• Fraud Against Insurance Providers

• Intellectual Property Violations

• Insider Fraud Against Insurance Providers

• MEWA (Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements) Fraud/MET

• Antitrust Violations - Airlines

• Antitrust Violations - Banking

• Antitrust Violations - Defense Procurement

• Antitrust Violations - Extraterritorial Application Of

• Antitrust Violations - Finance Markets, Other than Banking

• Telemarketing Fraud

• Corporate Fraud

• Identity Theft

• Aggravated Identity Theft

• Other White Collar Crime/Fraud

The largest number of prosecutions of these matters in January 2008 was for "Fraud-Financial Institution", accounting for 18.3 percent of prosecutions. Prosecutions were also filed for "Fraud-Federal Program" (16.9%), " Other-Not Specified" (16.6%), "Fraud-Other" (13.5%), "Fraud-Tax" (9.3%), "Fraud-Other Business" (5.6%), "Fraud-Health Care" (4.8%), "Fraud-Consumer" (3.8%), "Fraud-Telemarketing" (3.2%), "Fraud-Computer" (2.4%). See Figure 2.

The lead investigative agency for white collar crime prosecutions in January 2008 was FBI accounting for 25 percent of prosecutions referred. Other agencies with substantial numbers of white collar crime referrals were: SecServ (17% ), IRS (10%), Postal (8%), DHS (7%). See Figure 3.

progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 65%  (64.79%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Financial Institution
percentage: 18%  (18.31%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Financial Institution
percentage: 18%  (18.31%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Financial Institution
percentage: 18%  (18.31%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Financial Institution
percentage: 18%  (18.31%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Financial Institution
percentage: 18%  (18.31%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Federal Program
percentage: 17%  (16.9%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Federal Program
percentage: 17%  (16.9%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Federal Program
percentage: 17%  (16.9%)
PIE3D chart of progcatlabel

Figure 2: Specific types of prosecutions
agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: SecServ
percentage: 17%  (17.32%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Postal
percentage: 8%  (8.03%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: Other
percentage: 31%  (31.41%) agenrevgrp: IRS
percentage: 10%  (10.42%) agenrevgrp: IRS
percentage: 10%  (10.42%) agenrevgrp: IRS
percentage: 10%  (10.42%) agenrevgrp: FBI
percentage: 25%  (25.49%) agenrevgrp: FBI
percentage: 25%  (25.49%) agenrevgrp: FBI
percentage: 25%  (25.49%) agenrevgrp: FBI
percentage: 25%  (25.49%) agenrevgrp: FBI
percentage: 25%  (25.49%) agenrevgrp: DHS
percentage: 7%  (7.32%) agenrevgrp: DHS
percentage: 7%  (7.32%) agenrevgrp: DHS
percentage: 7%  (7.32%)
PIE3D chart of agenrevgrp

Figure 3: Prosecutions by Investigative Agency

White Collar Crime Prosecutions in U.S. Magistrate Courts

Top Ranked Lead Charges

In January 2008, 15 percent of white collar crime cases for these matters took place in U.S. Magistrate Courts which handle less serious misdemeanor cases, including what are called "petty offenses." In the magistrate courts in January the most frequently cited lead charge was Title 18 U.S.C Section 1028 involving the "Fraud and related activity - id documents". This was the lead charge for 30.5 percent of all magistrate filings in January.

Other frequently prosecuted lead charges include: "18 USC 1382 - Entering military, naval, or Coast Guard property" (12.4%), "18 USC 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US" (7.6%), " 42 USC 408 - Fed Old Age, Survivors + Disab Insur -Penalties" (5.7%).

White Collar Crime Prosecutions in U.S. District Courts

Top Ranked Lead Charges

Table 2 shows the top lead charges recorded in the prosecutions of white collar crime matters filed in U.S. District Court during January 2008.

Lead Charge Count Rank 1yr ago 5yrs ago  
18 USC 1341 - Mail Fraud - Frauds and swindles 66 1 2 2 More
18 USC 1344 - Bank fraud 63 2 1 1 More
18 USC 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US 51 3 3 3 More
18 USC 1029 - Fraud and related activity - access devices 33 4 6 4 More
18 USC 641 - Public money, property or records 32 5 7 9 More
42 USC 408 - Fed Old Age, Survivors + Disab Insur -Penalties 32 5 15 11 More
18 USC 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television 30 7 4 5 More
18 USC 1349 - Mail Fraud - Attempt and Conspiracy 23 8 13 - More
18 USC 2326 - Telemarketing Fraud - Enhanced Penalties 22 9 - - More
42 :1383a 21 10 94 - More

Table 2: Top charges filed

  • "Mail Fraud - Frauds and swindles" (Title 18 U.S.C Section 1341) was the most frequent recorded lead charge. "Mail Fraud - Frauds and swindles" (Title 18 U.S.C Section 1341) was ranked 2 a year ago, while it was the 2 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

  • Ranked 2nd in frequency was the lead charge "Bank fraud" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 1344. "Bank fraud" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 1344 was ranked 1 a year ago, while it was the 1 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

  • Ranked 3rd was "Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 371. "Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 371 was ranked 3 a year ago, while it was the 3 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

Among these top ten lead charges, the one showing the greatest increase in prosecutions—up 2100 percent—compared to one year ago was Title 42 U.S.C Section 1383 that involves "42 :1383a ". Compared to five years ago, the largest increase—70.6 percent—was registered for prosecutions under " Public money, property or records " (Title 18 U.S.C Section 641 ).

Again among the top ten lead charges, the one showing the sharpest decline in prosecutions compared to one year ago—down 23.6 percent—was Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US (Title 18 U.S.C Section 371 ). This was the same statute that had the largest decrease— 47.2 %—when compared with five years ago.

Top Ranked Judicial Districts

In January 2008 the Justice Department said the government brought 242.5 white collar crime prosecutions for every ten million people in the United States.

Understandably, there is great variation in the per capita number of white collar crime prosecutions that are filed in each of the nation's ninety-four federal judicial districts.

The districts registering the largest number of prosecutions per capita for these matters last month are shown in Table 3. Districts must have at least 5 white collar crime prosecutions to receive a ranking.


Judicial District Percapita Count Rank 1yr ago 5yrs ago  
Fla, S 1,078 59 1 1 8 More
Penn, W 1,034 33 2 21 33 More
Miss, S 927 14 3 9 31 More
Montana 889 7 4 32 70 More
Texas, E 860 24 5 22 30 More
Wisc, E 837 23 6 44 28 More
R. I. 674 6 7 78 87 More
Texas, W 627 30 8 39 17 More
Ill, S 565 6 9 68 42 More
Okla, W 511 8 10 34 54 More

Table 3: Top 10 districts (per ten million people)

  • The Southern District of Florida (Miami)—with 1078 prosecutions as compared with 242.5 prosecutions per ten million population in the United States—was the most active during January 2008. The Southern District of Florida (Miami) was ranked 1 a year ago, while it was ranked 8 five years ago.

  • The Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) ranked 2nd.

  • Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson) is now ranking 3rd. The Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson) was ranked 9 a year ago.

Recent entrants to the top 10 list were Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh), now ranked 2nd , and Eastern District of Texas (Tyler) at 5th In the same order, these districts ranked 21st and 22nd one year ago and 33rd and 30th five years ago.

The federal judicial district which showed the greatest growth in the rate of white collar crime prosecutions compared to one year ago— 121.2 percent—was Western District of Texas (San Antonio). Compared to five years ago, the district with the largest growth— 260 percent—was Rhode Island .

In the last year, the judicial District Court recording the largest drop in the rate of white collar crime prosecutions— 31.6 percent—was Montana .  But over the past five years, Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis) showed the largest drop— 56.3 percent.

Top Ranked District Judges

At any one time, there are about 680 federal District Court judges working in the United States. The judges recorded with the largest number of new white collar crime crime cases of this type during January 2008 are shown in Table 4.

Judge Count Rank 1yr ago 5yrs ago  
Lenard, Joan A. Fla, S 32 1 49 103 More
Folsom, David Texas, E 20 2 392 494 More
Sparks, Sam Texas, W 18 3 49 170 More
Carter, David O. Cal, C 10 4 303 31 More
Conti, Joy Flowers Penn, W 9 5 303 494 More
Rosenblatt, Paul Gerhardt Arizona 7 6 511 170 More
Ambrose, Donetta W. Penn, W 7 6 134 344 More
Collier, Curtis Lynn Tenn, E 7 6 64 103 More
Stadtmueller, Joseph Peter Wisc, E 7 6 64 11 More
Cooke, Marcia G. Fla, S 6 10 134 - More
Guirola, Louis Jr. Miss, S 6 10 2 - More
Yeakel, Earl Leroy III Texas, W 6 10 392 - More
Clevert, Charles N. Jr. Wisc, E 6 10 392 50 More

Table 4: Top 10 judges

A total of 10 out of the "top ten" judges were in districts which were in the top ten with the largest number of white collar crime filings per capita, while the remaining 3 judges were from other districts. (Because of ties, there were a total of 13 judges in the "top ten" rankings.)

  • Judge Joan A. Lenard in the Southern District of Florida (Miami) ranked 1st with 32 defendants in white collar crime cases.

  • Judge David Folsom in the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler) ranked 2nd with 20 defendants in white collar crime cases.

  • Judge Sam Sparks in the Western District of Texas (San Antonio) ranked 3rd with 18 defendants in white collar crime cases.

TRAC Copyright
Copyright 2008, TRAC Reports, Inc.

TRAC RSS Feed for this page Email Feed for this page Email this page