Was I Wrongly Prosecuted? An Investigation into the Honest Services Wire Fraud Case That Changed My Life

Was I Wrongly Prosecuted? An Investigation into the Honest Services Wire Fraud Case That Changed My Life

Introduction

Imagine being accused of a federal crime without ever being investigated by a single federal FBI agent. Imagine being pressured into a plea deal by a U.S. Attorney for a charge rooted not in hard evidence from a federal investigation, but in assumptions made by a private company and a state-level task force. This is not a hypothetical scenario—this is my story. In October 2000, I pleaded guilty to one count of honest services wire fraud. The conviction followed in February, and I began serving my sentence on May 1, 2000. But as time passed and the facts continued to settle in, a haunting question has echoed in my mind: was I wrongly prosecuted?

This article is not an attempt to deny my actions or rewrite history. Instead, it is a call for clarity, justice, and a review of due process. At the heart of the matter lies one critical issue: the federal government, through the office of the U.S. Attorney, stepped in and prosecuted me for a federal crime even though no federal agency, specifically the FBI, investigated the matter. Instead, the entire case was constructed by Hewlett-Packard (HP), a private company, and a state high-tech task force. How, then, did this turn into a federal case? What laws allowed the U.S. Attorney to intervene in a matter lacking federal investigative origins? Was this an appropriate use of federal power, or a gross overreach?

To understand the gravity of these questions, one must delve into the definition and scope of "honest services wire fraud," a statute that has been widely criticized for its vagueness and susceptibility to misuse. The federal government has used it to prosecute public officials, corporate executives, and private citizens under the broad pretense that they denied someone the "intangible right to honest services." But in my case, the interpretation of that statute seems particularly stretched. I had a decades-long business relationship with the HP employee in question, dating back to 1985. Yes, I took him and his family on vacation, gave three small gifts, and extended a loan for a used minivan—but was this a criminal conspiracy to defraud HP? Or was this a relationship that existed long before my company did any business with HP?

This article will provide a deep dive into:

1.     The legal foundations of the honest services wire fraud statute

2.     How federal jurisdiction is supposed to be established in such cases

3.     The role (or absence) of the FBI and other federal agencies in my case

4.     The timeline and actions taken by HP and the state task force

5.     The U.S. Attorney’s rationale for pressing charges

6.     Whether the use of federal power was appropriate or an overreach

7.     Case law where similar prosecutions were either upheld or overturned

8.     What this means for others who may be facing similar situations

If the federal government can prosecute a private citizen without a proper federal investigation, we must ask ourselves whether the line between justice and overreach has been dangerously blurred. This article aims to separate facts from assumptions, law from politics, and justice from expedience.

1. The Legal Basis of Honest Services Wire Fraud The honest services fraud statute, found under 18 U.S.C. §1346, was originally intended to punish public officials who accepted bribes or kickbacks while in office. Over time, however, the statute was broadly applied to corporate executives and private individuals, casting a wide net over actions that may or may not constitute criminal conduct. The key term, "honest services," was never precisely defined, creating legal ambiguity. In my case, the government claimed I deprived Hewlett-Packard of the honest services of one of its employees by treating him to a family vacation, giving him a few gifts, and offering a loan. But where was the direct evidence of a bribe or kickback? Was there an explicit agreement to defraud HP? None was ever presented.

2. The Absence of Federal Investigation What makes my case unique and deeply troubling is the lack of federal investigative oversight. The FBI, the nation’s lead agency in investigating white-collar crimes, was not involved. No federal search warrants were executed, and no federal agents interviewed witnesses or reviewed evidence firsthand. Instead, HP initiated the investigation internally and presented its findings to a state high-tech task force in California. This task force conducted a search of my office, allegedly seeking three memory sticks but left with much more, raising serious questions about the legitimacy and scope of their search. The federal government, based solely on this state and corporate investigation, took over the case and filed federal charges without verifying the evidence through independent means.

3. Timeline of Key Events

·         1985: A professional relationship begins with the HP employee.

·         1990s: Our relationship deepens into a close friendship. We exchange business and personal advice, and our families occasionally interact socially.

·         1999: HP becomes suspicious and conducts an internal review. Allegations of favoritism emerge.

·         Late 1999: State task force involved. Office is raided based on a warrant focused on a narrow scope but expanded aggressively during the search.

·         2000: No FBI involvement. U.S. Attorney steps in to negotiate a plea deal, alleging federal wire fraud.

·         October 2000: I plead guilty to one count to avoid a long and costly trial.

·         February 2001: Conviction is confirmed.

·         May 1, 2001: I begin serving my sentence.

4. The Role of HP and the State Task Force HP acted as investigator, victim, and initiator of the legal process. They framed the narrative, directed the scope of inquiry, and handed off findings to a state-level task force. No third party verified the data, interviewed the accused, or applied federal standards of evidence collection. This is significant because private corporations have their own interests to protect and are not held to the same constitutional standards of due process as federal investigators. The state task force followed HP’s lead and laid the groundwork for federal prosecution.

5. Why the U.S. Attorney Got Involved Federal prosecutors are supposed to rely on federal investigative work. In this case, the U.S. Attorney’s office decided to file charges under the federal wire fraud statute without a single piece of original evidence gathered by a federal agency. Instead, they cited the use of telephone calls and emails as interstate communications, creating a technical bridge to federal jurisdiction. But that connection—emails and phone calls—is a weak thread upon which to hang a life-altering prosecution. Without FBI validation or review, the federal government’s involvement was based more on assumption than authentication.

6. Federal Overreach and Precedent Abuse This prosecution highlights a disturbing trend: the ability of federal authorities to piggyback off state or corporate investigations and bring disproportionate charges with greater sentencing leverage. This practice creates pressure to accept plea deals, especially when defendants fear the full weight of federal sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors can leverage vagueness in statutes like §1346 to paint otherwise ethical or ambiguous relationships as criminal conspiracies.

7. Supreme Court and Relevant Case Law The 2010 Skilling v. United States decision significantly narrowed the application of the honest services statute, stating it only applies to bribes and kickbacks. Had my case occurred after this decision, there is a strong possibility it would never have reached a courtroom, let alone resulted in a conviction. McDonnell v. United States (2016) reaffirmed the importance of clear quid pro quo in public corruption cases. Courts are increasingly demanding clarity, intent, and direct evidence—standards that were not applied in my prosecution.

8. Implications for Future Defendants This case should raise alarms for anyone facing white-collar investigations. If the government can accept corporate accusations and state-level probes without corroborating evidence from federal agencies, due process is at risk. U.S. Attorneys should not be allowed to wield the full force of federal power based solely on unverified third-party investigations. There must be safeguards, audits, and judicial checks before accepting such cases for federal prosecution. Legal reforms must address these vulnerabilities.

What happened to me could happen to others. And unless we demand accountability, reform, and transparency, the unchecked power of prosecution will continue to thrive in the shadows of ambiguity.

Conclusion

The conclusion to my story is still unsettled. I accepted a plea deal and served my sentence, but the questions surrounding my prosecution linger. They are not just questions about me or my case—they are questions about the integrity of our justice system, the use of federal power, and the rights of citizens facing prosecution.

This case serves as a cautionary tale about how the honest services wire fraud statute, especially before the Supreme Court's narrowing interpretation in Skilling v. United States, was used as a catch-all tool for prosecutors. Its vague language opened the door to subjective interpretations of what constitutes a crime. In my situation, the statute was applied to a longstanding personal and professional relationship that lacked the quid pro quo traditionally required to establish fraud. Gifts given in the context of friendship were reinterpreted as evidence of a conspiracy. A loan to help a friend was treated as a bribe. The fact that my actions were never investigated by the FBI—and that the entire case rested on a private company's internal findings and a state-level task force—is alarming.

Federal power is supposed to be a last resort, not a first strike. The involvement of a U.S. Attorney in a case without a federal investigation undermines the principles of impartiality, due process, and fair play. It suggests a willingness to prioritize expediency over justice and to use the threat of federal prison as leverage to secure a plea deal. This is not how the system is supposed to work.

There must be safeguards to ensure that citizens are not prosecuted based solely on the conclusions of private corporations, especially when those corporations have a vested interest in the outcome. The justice system must protect against the appearance of collusion between corporate interests and public prosecutors. It must ensure that federal charges are supported by federal investigations and that those investigations are conducted with the rigor, transparency, and fairness that the Constitution demands.

Moreover, cases like mine highlight the need for legal reform. The honest services wire fraud statute, even in its narrower post-Skilling form, still carries risks of misuse. Prosecutors must be held to a higher standard of evidence and must clearly demonstrate bribery or kickbacks to justify its use. Defendants should not be coerced into pleas under the threat of exaggerated charges unsupported by federal scrutiny.

If my case had gone to trial under today’s interpretation of the law, I believe it would have been thrown out. But I didn’t have that opportunity. I was cornered into a deal that I believed would spare my family from prolonged pain. That choice, made under duress, should not define the truth. It should not silence the facts.

My hope in writing this article is to shine a light on what happened, to provoke a conversation about the unchecked authority sometimes wielded by U.S. Attorneys, and to advocate for a more accountable, transparent justice system. If even one person is spared the same fate because we demand better, then this effort has not been in vain.

Justice is not just about punishment—it is about fairness, process, and principle. When those values are compromised, we all suffer. It is time to reexamine how justice is pursued, to question when and why federal prosecutors become involved, and to insist that no one—no private company, no state task force, and no government attorney—should hold unchecked power over another person’s life.