Federal Indictment and Charges

When facing federal criminal allegations, understanding the process of federal indictment and charges is crucial. At Varghese & Associates, P.C., we guide clients through each step of federal criminal proceedings, providing clear explanations and strategic defense planning from investigation through trial.

Contact our New York office today for a confidential consultation to discuss your specific situation and explore defense options.

What Is a Federal Indictment?

A federal indictment is a formal accusation charging an individual or entity with committing a federal crime. Unlike state criminal processes, federal indictment and charges follow specific protocols established by the United States Constitution and federal rules of criminal procedure.

The Fifth Amendment requires that felony prosecutions in federal court proceed by indictment, which is issued by a grand jury after reviewing evidence presented by federal prosecutors. This constitutional protection ensures that serious federal charges undergo preliminary review before proceeding to trial.

The Federal Indictment Process

Before facing federal charges, it's crucial to understand how the federal indictment process unfolds. This complex legal procedure involves multiple stages and various federal authorities. Here's a comprehensive breakdown of what typically occurs during a federal indictment:

The Federal Investigation Phase

Federal Indictment and Charges

Federal investigations typically begin long before formal charges appear, with investigators gathering evidence through various methods while subjects may remain unaware they're under scrutiny.

Target Letters: Formal notification from prosecutors that you are a target of an ongoing federal investigation, indicating the government believes it has substantial evidence linking you to a crime. These letters often invite cooperation while warning of potential charges.
Grand Jury Subpoenas: Legal demands for testimony or document production that can be issued to witnesses, subjects, or targets. Responding requires careful consideration of potential self-incrimination issues and attorney-client privilege concerns.
Search Warrants: Court-authorized directives allowing federal agents to search specified locations and seize evidence. These require probable cause and judicial approval, but give investigators broad evidence-gathering authority.
Surveillance Operations: Physical or electronic monitoring conducted by federal agents to gather intelligence and evidence. This may include wiretaps, GPS tracking, undercover operations, and monitoring of financial transactions.
Witness Interviews: Conversations between federal agents and potential witnesses, often conducted without advance notice. Statements made during these interviews can become critical evidence in federal indictment and charges.
Regulatory Inquiries: Administrative investigations by agencies like the SEC, IRS, or DEA that often precede criminal charges. These inquiries may appear routine but frequently feed information to criminal investigators.
Cooperating Witnesses: Individuals working with prosecutors to provide evidence against investigation targets, often in exchange for leniency. Their cooperation may include recorded conversations, document production, or testimony.

The investigation phase presents both risks and opportunities. Early engagement with a white-collar crime lawyer during this critical period can help protect your rights, potentially prevent charges, or significantly influence the direction of the investigation.

The Grand Jury Assembly Process

Grand juries play a pivotal role in the federal indictment and charges process, operating with broad powers to gather evidence while working largely outside public view.

Grand Jury Formation: A federal grand jury typically consists of 16-23 citizens selected from the community who serve for terms ranging from 18-24 months, meeting periodically to hear evidence in multiple cases.
Secrecy Requirements: Grand jury proceedings remain strictly confidential by law, with jurors, prosecutors, and witnesses prohibited from disclosing testimony or evidence presented during sessions to protect both the investigation and reputations of those under scrutiny.
Prosecutorial Presentation: Federal prosecutors control what evidence and witnesses appear before the grand jury, presenting their case without a judge present and without the obligation to share exculpatory evidence that might benefit potential defendants.
Witness Testimony: Witnesses subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury must testify under oath without their attorneys present in the room, though they may consult with counsel outside the grand jury room between questions.
Limited Defense Participation: Unlike trial proceedings, potential defendants have no constitutional right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or even appear before the grand jury, though occasionally prosecutors may permit voluntary testimony.
Probable Cause Standard: Grand jurors need only find "probable cause" that a crime occurred and the subject committed it—a significantly lower threshold than the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required for conviction at trial.
Deliberation Process: After hearing evidence, grand jurors deliberate in private to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to issue a formal indictment, with a majority vote (typically 12 or more jurors) required to indict.
Indictment Returns: When a grand jury votes to indict, it issues a "true bill" containing the formal federal indictment and charges, which becomes public upon filing with the court unless sealed by judicial order.

The Prosecutor's Presentation to the Grand Jury

Federal prosecutors wield significant control during grand jury proceedings, operating with few of the constraints present in public trials when seeking federal indictment and charges.

Evidence Selection: Prosecutors maintain complete discretion over which evidence is presented to the grand jury, allowing them to craft a narrative that emphasizes inculpatory facts while potentially minimizing exculpatory information.
Witness Coordination: Federal prosecutors determine which witnesses to call, the order of their appearance, and the questions posed during examination, all without input from defense counsel or judicial oversight.
Hearsay Testimony: Unlike at trial, prosecutors can present hearsay evidence to the grand jury, allowing investigators to summarize information from multiple sources rather than requiring direct witness testimony.
Legal Instruction: Prosecutors serve as the grand jury's legal advisors, explaining relevant statutes and elements of potential federal charges without neutral judicial oversight to ensure balance.
Threshold Standards: When seeking federal indictment and charges, prosecutors must only establish "probable cause" rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, a significantly lower evidentiary bar than required at trial.
Immunity Grants: Prosecutors can offer immunity to witnesses to compel testimony before the grand jury, overcoming Fifth Amendment protections and generating evidence that might otherwise remain unavailable.
Document Presentation: Grand jurors review documents, financial records, electronic communications, and other physical evidence selected and contextualized by the prosecution team.
Strategic Timing: Federal prosecutors control when to present a case to the grand jury, often waiting until they've assembled sufficient evidence to ensure indictment while avoiding statute of limitations deadlines.

The Probable Cause Determination in Federal Cases

Probable cause represents the critical threshold prosecutors must satisfy to secure federal indictment and charges, functioning as a constitutional safeguard against unfounded prosecutions while setting a lower bar than trial conviction standards.

Legal Definition: Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed and the target was involved, requiring more than mere suspicion but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence Evaluation: Grand jurors assess whether sufficient evidence exists to believe each element of the alleged federal crimes has been satisfied, reviewing both direct evidence and circumstantial information presented by prosecutors.
Constitutional Requirement: The Fifth Amendment mandates the probable cause determination through grand jury indictment for federal felony prosecutions, establishing this as a fundamental protection against arbitrary government action.
Charging Threshold: This standard represents the minimum evidentiary requirement for initiating federal indictment and charges, serving as an initial screening mechanism rather than a determination of guilt.
Juror Deliberation: After hearing the prosecution's evidence, grand jurors deliberate privately to determine if the probable cause standard has been met for each proposed charge, voting separately on each count.
Judicial Review Limitations: Courts generally cannot examine the sufficiency of evidence that led to the probable cause finding, making the grand jury's determination largely unreviewable once an indictment issues.
Documentation Standards: The formal indictment must specifically describe how the alleged conduct satisfies each element of the charged federal offenses, providing sufficient notice to the accused of the allegations.
Multiple Charge Consideration: Prosecutors often present various potential charges to the grand jury, which may find probable cause for some counts but not others, shaping the final composition of federal indictment and charges.

The Federal Grand Jury Voting Process

The grand jury's deliberation and voting represent the culmination of the presentation phase, where jurors determine whether federal indictment and charges should move forward based on the evidence they've heard.

Deliberation Environment: Grand jurors deliberate in complete privacy without prosecutors, witnesses, or court officials present, allowing for candid discussion of the evidence presented in relation to the proposed federal indictment and charges.
Voting Requirements: Federal rules typically require a minimum of 12 affirmative votes from the grand jury (which consists of 16-23 members) to return an indictment, regardless of how many jurors are present for the vote.
Count-by-Count Consideration: Jurors vote separately on each proposed count in the federal indictment and charges, potentially approving some allegations while rejecting others based on the evidence presented.
No Unanimity Requirement: Unlike trial juries that require unanimous verdicts, grand juries can issue indictments with a simple majority, making the threshold for federal indictment and charges significantly lower than for conviction.
Sealed Indictments: In sensitive cases involving ongoing investigations or flight risks, grand juries may vote to maintain the secrecy of their decision by returning a sealed indictment that remains confidential until the court orders its disclosure.
No Bill Decisions: If insufficient jurors vote to indict, they return a "no bill," indicating they found insufficient evidence to establish probable cause, though prosecutors can often present the case to another grand jury for reconsideration.
Documentation Process: After voting, the grand jury foreperson signs the indictment, formally indicating the jury's finding of probable cause for the federal indictment and charges contained therein.
Return to Court: The signed indictment is returned to the court in a formal proceeding, at which point it becomes an official charging document that initiates the court phase of federal criminal proceedings.

Federal Indictment Filing

Once the grand jury votes to indict, the federal indictment and charges enter a formal filing process that transitions the case from investigation to active prosecution in the federal court system.

Indictment Formalization: After the grand jury vote, prosecutors finalize the written indictment document containing specific counts, statutory citations, and factual allegations supporting each federal charge against the named defendants.
Foreperson Signature: The grand jury foreperson signs the indictment, officially certifying that at least 12 grand jurors found probable cause to support the federal indictment and charges contained within the document.
Prosecutor Endorsement: The United States Attorney or Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case signs the indictment as "a true bill," indicating the government's formal adoption of the charges approved by the grand jury.
Court Filing: The signed indictment is filed with the clerk of the federal district court where the case will be prosecuted, officially entering the document into the court's record system and formally initiating the prosecution.
Case Assignment: Upon filing, the court assigns the case to a specific federal judge through a random selection process and generates a unique case number that will identify the proceedings throughout the litigation process.
Sealing Considerations: In cases involving flight risks, ongoing investigations, or confidential informants, prosecutors may request that the court seal the indictment, preventing public disclosure until defendants are apprehended or other investigative objectives are secured.
Statute of Limitations Implications: The formal filing of federal indictment and charges stops the statute of limitations clock, preserving the government's ability to prosecute even if significant time passes before the defendant appears in court.
Docket Creation: The court establishes an official docket for tracking all future filings, appearances, and proceedings related to the federal indictment and charges throughout the life of the case.

Federal Arrest Warrant Issuance

Following the filing of federal indictment and charges, the court typically issues arrest warrants to bring defendants before the court, formalizing the transition from investigation subject to criminal defendant.

Judicial Review: A federal judge or magistrate reviews the filed indictment to confirm it properly alleges violations of federal law before authorizing the issuance of arrest warrants for each named defendant.
Warrant Requirements: Federal arrest warrants must specifically identify the defendant by name and description, reference the criminal case number, and cite the federal indictment and charges filed with the court as the basis for arrest authority.
Execution Authority: Once issued, federal arrest warrants authorize any federal law enforcement officer to take the named individual into custody anywhere within the United States, regardless of which district filed the federal indictment and charges.
Coordination Planning: Federal agencies typically conduct detailed planning for executing arrest warrants, especially in white-collar crime cases where risk assessment determines the approach—ranging from negotiated surrender to tactical arrests.
Timing Considerations: Prosecutors and agents strategically time warrant execution, often coordinating simultaneous arrests in multi-defendant cases to prevent flight or evidence destruction after co-defendants learn of federal indictment and charges.
Surrender Arrangements: In many white-collar cases, defendants represented by counsel may negotiate voluntary surrender terms, allowing for a dignified process rather than public arrest, though this requires proactive engagement by a white-collar crime lawyer.
International Implications: When defendants are located outside the United States, federal arrest warrants trigger complex international processes including INTERPOL notices, extradition requests, and diplomatic negotiations to secure the defendant's return.
Property Seizure Authorization: Arrest warrants often accompany seizure warrants allowing authorities to take custody of assets allegedly connected to the criminal activity outlined in the federal indictment and charges.

Federal Initial Appearance

The initial appearance represents a defendant's first formal encounter with the federal court system after arrest, establishing crucial procedural protections while beginning the adversarial process outlined in the federal rules of criminal procedure.

Timing Requirements: Federal law mandates that defendants appear before a judicial officer "without unnecessary delay" following arrest, typically within 24-48 hours, to ensure prompt judicial oversight of detention following federal indictment and charges.
Rights Advisement: During this proceeding, the magistrate judge formally advises defendants of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to a preliminary hearing in certain cases.
Charge Notification: The court informs defendants of the nature of the federal indictment and charges filed against them, providing a copy of the indictment and explaining the potential penalties associated with each count.
Counsel Determination: The judge ascertains whether the defendant has retained private counsel, requires appointed representation, or wishes to proceed pro se, often appointing a white-collar crime lawyer temporarily if permanent representation is not yet secured.
Detention Consideration: The magistrate evaluates whether the defendant should be released pending trial or detained, with prosecutors sometimes requesting detention based on flight risk or danger to the community allegations connected to the federal indictment and charges.
Preliminary Release Conditions: If release is granted, the court imposes conditions such as travel restrictions, reporting requirements, asset limitations, or electronic monitoring to ensure the defendant's continued appearance throughout the proceedings.
Identity Confirmation: The court formally confirms the defendant's identity, addressing any name discrepancies or aliases mentioned in the federal indictment and charges to ensure proper identification for all subsequent proceedings.
Future Proceedings Scheduling: The magistrate establishes dates for upcoming hearings, including arraignment, discovery conferences, and potentially a preliminary examination if the charges were not brought by grand jury indictment.

Federal Arraignment Scheduling

Following the initial appearance, the court schedules the arraignment proceeding where defendants must formally respond to the federal indictment and charges, starting the clock on numerous critical deadlines in the federal criminal process.

Timing Parameters: Federal rules require arraignment within a specific timeframe after initial appearance, typically 10-14 days for detained defendants and 20-30 days for those released, ensuring the case progresses according to speedy trial requirements.
Court Assignment: The arraignment typically occurs before the district judge permanently assigned to the case rather than the magistrate who handled the initial appearance, establishing the judicial relationship that will govern the federal indictment and charges throughout trial.
Notice Requirements: The court issues formal notice to all parties specifying the exact date, time, and location for arraignment, with failure to appear potentially resulting in bond revocation or additional charges regardless of the nature of the underlying federal indictment and charges.
Pre-Arraignment Discovery: In complex cases, especially those involving white-collar crime, limited discovery may occur before arraignment to help counsel evaluate the charges and advise on appropriate plea decisions related to the federal indictment and charges.
Defense Preparation: The period between initial appearance and arraignment provides critical time for defense counsel to review the indictment, explain potential defenses, discuss plea options, and prepare for formal response to the federal indictment and charges.
Coordination Challenges: In multi-defendant cases, scheduling often requires synchronizing multiple defense attorneys' calendars, potentially delaying arraignment while all parties prepare to address the common federal indictment and charges.
Waiver Possibilities: In certain circumstances, defendants may waive personal appearance at arraignment through written filings, though this typically requires prior consultation between the white-collar crime lawyer and prosecution team.
Procedural Compliance: Defense counsel must ensure proper arraignment scheduling adheres to all local rules and federal procedures, as technical defects could create appealable issues affecting the entire proceeding on the federal indictment and charges.

Federal Criminal Discovery

The discovery process in federal cases follows different rules than state proceedings, establishing specific protocols for information exchange following federal indictment and charges that balance defendants' rights with government interests.

Rule 16 Disclosure: Federal criminal procedure mandates government disclosure of the defendant's statements, criminal record, documents and objects material to defense preparation, examination and test reports, and expert witness information related to the federal indictment and charges.
Brady Material: Prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence that could negate guilt, reduce punishment, or impeach government witnesses, with failure to provide such information potentially invalidating convictions even years after federal indictment and charges.
Jencks Act Requirements: The government must produce prior statements of its witnesses, but only after they testify at trial or hearings, creating a timing challenge that white-collar crime lawyer teams must navigate through strategic motion practice.
Giglio Information: Prosecutors must reveal information affecting witness credibility including benefits provided, prior inconsistent statements, and impeachment material that could undermine testimony supporting federal indictment and charges.
Reciprocal Discovery: When defendants request certain categories of discovery from the government, they trigger obligations to provide similar materials to prosecutors, requiring careful strategic calculation when determining discovery approach.
Classified Information: Cases involving national security may invoke the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), establishing special protocols for handling sensitive information while still allowing defendants to respond to federal indictment and charges.
Electronic Evidence Challenges: The vast volume of digital data in modern federal cases has created specialized protocols for producing and reviewing electronic evidence, often requiring technical expertise alongside legal knowledge in responding to federal indictment and charges.
Protective Orders: Courts frequently impose restrictions on how discovered information can be used, shared, or stored, particularly in white-collar cases where business information, privacy interests, or ongoing investigations intersect with federal indictment and charges.

Federal Pretrial Motions

Pretrial motions serve as crucial strategic tools for challenging federal indictment and charges before trial, allowing defense teams to contest the government's case on procedural, constitutional, and substantive grounds.

Motion to Dismiss: Defense attorneys may challenge the legal sufficiency of federal indictment and charges by arguing that even if all allegations were true, they fail to establish a violation of federal law or contain fatal defects in their construction.
Suppression Motions: These critical filings seek to exclude evidence obtained through constitutional violations, with success potentially crippling the government's ability to prove essential elements of the federal indictment and charges at trial.
Bill of Particulars: When federal indictment and charges lack specificity, this motion requests more detailed information about the allegations, helping the defense prepare effectively while potentially limiting the government's evidentiary flexibility at trial.
Venue Challenges: Defense teams may contest the location where federal indictment and charges were filed by demonstrating insufficient connection between the alleged criminal acts and the judicial district, potentially transferring proceedings to a more favorable forum.
Severance Requests: In cases with multiple defendants or charges, these motions seek separate trials to prevent prejudicial spillover when evidence relevant to some aspects of the federal indictment and charges would unfairly taint others.
Brady Motions: These filings demand all exculpatory evidence the government possesses, establishing a record for appeal while ensuring prosecutors fulfill their constitutional obligation to disclose information favorable to the defense regarding federal indictment and charges.
Expert Challenges: Through Daubert motions, the defense may contest the scientific validity, methodology, or relevance of government expert testimony intended to support elements of the federal indictment and charges.
Motion in Limine: These pretrial requests ask the court to rule on the admissibility of specific evidence before trial begins, preventing jurors from being exposed to potentially prejudicial information related to the federal indictment and charges.

Status Conferences in Federal Criminal Cases

Status conferences represent regular checkpoints in federal criminal litigation where all parties convene with the court to address procedural matters, assess case progress, and establish timelines for resolving federal indictment and charges.

Scheduling Function: These mandatory court appearances establish or modify critical case deadlines including discovery completion, motion filing, plea negotiations, and potential trial dates related to the federal indictment and charges.
Progress Assessment: The judge uses status conferences to monitor case advancement, identify obstacles, and ensure both prosecution and defense are proceeding appropriately following the federal indictment and charges.
Discovery Issues: Status conferences provide structured opportunities to address discovery disputes, with defense counsel often raising concerns about completeness, timing, or format of government productions related to federal indictment and charges.
Plea Negotiations: These proceedings frequently include updates on resolution discussions, with the court sometimes facilitating settlement by sharing sentencing perspectives or encouraging continued dialogue about resolving federal indictment and charges without trial.
Motion Planning: Parties outline anticipated pretrial motions during status conferences, allowing the court to establish briefing schedules and allocate appropriate hearing time for challenges to the federal indictment and charges.
Trial Preparation: As cases advance, status conferences increasingly focus on trial logistics including witness scheduling, exhibit management, jury selection procedures, and other practical aspects of presenting federal indictment and charges to a jury.
Excludable Time: These proceedings often result in judicial findings that time between conferences is excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations, preserving prosecution rights while giving both sides adequate preparation time regarding federal indictment and charges.
Record Development: Status conferences create official records of case progress, preserving party positions and judicial directives that may later prove significant if disputes arise concerning the handling of federal indictment and charges.

Status Conferences in Federal Criminal Cases

Scheduling Function: These mandatory court appearances establish or modify critical case deadlines including discovery completion, motion filing, plea negotiations, and potential trial dates related to the federal indictment and charges.
Progress Assessment: The judge uses status conferences to monitor case advancement, identify obstacles, and ensure both prosecution and defense are proceeding appropriately following the federal indictment and charges.
Discovery Issues: Status conferences provide structured opportunities to address discovery disputes, with defense counsel often raising concerns about completeness, timing, or format of government productions related to federal indictment and charges.
Plea Negotiations: These proceedings frequently include updates on resolution discussions, with the court sometimes facilitating settlement by sharing sentencing perspectives or encouraging continued dialogue about resolving federal indictment and charges without trial.
Motion Planning: Parties outline anticipated pretrial motions during status conferences, allowing the court to establish briefing schedules and allocate appropriate hearing time for challenges to the federal indictment and charges.
Trial Preparation: As cases advance, status conferences increasingly focus on trial logistics including witness scheduling, exhibit management, jury selection procedures, and other practical aspects of presenting federal indictment and charges to a jury.
Excludable Time: These proceedings often result in judicial findings that time between conferences is excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations, preserving prosecution rights while giving both sides adequate preparation time regarding federal indictment and charges.
Record Development: Status conferences create official records of case progress, preserving party positions and judicial directives that may later prove significant if disputes arise concerning the handling of federal indictment and charges.

Federal Criminal Trial Preparation

Trial preparation in federal criminal cases demands intensive strategic planning and resource coordination, especially when defending against complex federal indictment and charges that may have been under government investigation for years.

Case Theory Development: Defense teams build comprehensive narratives that account for all evidence while offering legally sound explanations that counter the allegations in the federal indictment and charges, incorporating both factual and legal arguments into a cohesive framework.
Witness Preparation: Attorneys meticulously prepare defense witnesses through practice testimony sessions that anticipate cross-examination challenges while ensuring witnesses understand the elements of federal indictment and charges their testimony addresses.
Evidence Organization: Case materials are systematically cataloged in trial management systems allowing immediate access to any document, transcript, or exhibit needed to respond to developments during presentation of federal indictment and charges to the jury.
Motion in Limine Strategy: Defense counsel files targeted pretrial motions seeking to exclude prejudicial evidence, improper testimony, or irrelevant information that could distort jury perception of the federal indictment and charges during trial.
Jury Selection Planning: Defense teams develop comprehensive jury profiles, targeted voir dire questions, and selection strategies designed to identify jurors most likely to be receptive to defense perspectives on the federal indictment and charges.
Expert Consultation: White-collar crime lawyers engage specialized experts to review government evidence, prepare counter-analyses, and develop testimony that challenges technical aspects of the federal indictment and charges.
Demonstrative Creation: Visual aids, timelines, charts, and multimedia presentations are crafted to clarify complex concepts, highlight favorable evidence, and simplify technical elements of the federal indictment and charges for juror comprehension.
Cross-Examination Design: Attorneys develop methodical questioning strategies for each government witness, identifying inconsistencies, credibility issues, and factual weaknesses that undermine the narrative supporting federal indictment and charges.

How a Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Help

A federal criminal defense lawyer provides crucial advocacy and protection when you face federal indictment and charges, serving as your guide through complex proceedings designed to favor prosecution.

Strategic Case Assessment: A white-collar crime lawyer evaluates government evidence, identifying constitutional violations, procedural defects, and factual weaknesses that can be leveraged to challenge federal indictment and charges before trial.
Early Intervention: Experienced defense counsel can engage with prosecutors during pre-indictment investigations, potentially preventing charges, limiting their scope, or negotiating favorable surrender terms that avoid public arrest scenarios.
Constitutional Protection: Federal defense attorneys safeguard your rights against improper searches, coerced statements, and procedural violations that may arise during the investigation and prosecution of federal indictment and charges.
Discovery Management: Defense lawyers identify missing evidence, demand Brady material, and organize massive document productions into usable formats that reveal defense opportunities and prosecution weaknesses in the federal indictment and charges.
Strategic Motion Practice: Through targeted pretrial motions, defense counsel can exclude damaging evidence, dismiss flawed charges, or secure favorable rulings that significantly strengthen your position against federal indictment and charges.
Sentencing Advocacy: If conviction occurs, a white-collar crime lawyer develops compelling mitigation presentations that distinguish your case from typical sentencing guidelines calculations, potentially securing substantial reductions in punishment for federal indictment and charges.
Negotiation Leverage: Federal defense attorneys identify leverage points for plea negotiations, using legal and factual vulnerabilities in the government's case to secure more favorable resolution options for federal indictment and charges.
Collateral Consequence Management: Beyond the criminal case, defense counsel addresses related asset forfeiture proceedings, professional licensing issues, and regulatory actions stemming from federal indictment and charges.

Contact Varghese & Associates for Federal Defense

When facing federal indictment and charges, early intervention by experienced counsel can significantly impact case outcomes. Our white-collar crime lawyers provide strategic guidance through every stage of the federal criminal case process, from investigation through trial. Contact our New York office today for a confidential consultation to discuss your specific situation and explore defense options.