Criminal Investigations and Target Letters

Criminal Investigations and Target Letters represent critical junctures in the federal criminal justice process. When the Department of Justice decides to pursue potential violations of federal law, individuals may receive formal notification that they have become the focus of prosecutorial attention. Understanding how federal investigations unfold and what a target letter signifies can mean the difference between mounting an effective defense and facing charges without adequate preparation.

A target letter is an official written communication from a United States Attorney's Office informing a recipient that they are under active investigation by a federal grand jury. These letters serve as formal notice that prosecutors believe sufficient evidence exists to seek criminal charges. While receiving such a letter is undoubtedly alarming, it also represents an opportunity—the government is effectively offering a window to engage in dialogue before an indictment is returned.

The Purpose and Legal Foundation of Target Letters

The practice of sending target letters emerged from Department of Justice policies designed to promote fairness in the investigative process. Codified in the Justice Manual at § 9-11.151, these guidelines encourage prosecutors to notify individuals who face potential charges, giving them the opportunity to consult with experienced defense counsel and potentially cooperate with the investigation.

It is important to understand that there is no constitutional right to receive a target letter. The Fifth Amendment does not require prosecutors to warn individuals before seeking an indictment. Rather, target letters represent a matter of internal DOJ policy—a practice that has evolved over decades to balance prosecutorial discretion with basic notions of procedural fairness. This distinction matters because in certain circumstances, such as when there is risk of flight or witness tampering, prosecutors may proceed directly to indictment without prior notification.

As of 2025, approximately 90% of federal criminal cases originate from grand jury investigations, making target letters the primary mechanism by which individuals first learn they face potential federal charges. The decision to send such a letter reflects a prosecutor's judgment that formal charges are likely but not yet certain—creating a crucial window during which the outcome may still be influenced.

Understanding Target, Subject, and Witness Classifications

Federal prosecutors classify individuals involved in investigations into three distinct categories, each carrying different implications for the person's legal exposure and strategic options.

Target Status

A target is someone whom the prosecutor or grand jury has substantial evidence linking to the commission of a crime. When the government designates a person as a target, it means prosecutors currently believe there is sufficient basis to seek an indictment. Target status represents the most serious classification and signals that charges are imminent absent successful intervention by defense counsel.

High-profile cases illustrate how target status typically precedes formal charges. Before their respective indictments, individuals like Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, and Steve Bannon received target letters notifying them of the government's intentions. In each case, the target letter marked the beginning of intense negotiations between defense attorneys and prosecutors regarding potential cooperation or plea arrangements.

Subject Status

A subject occupies a middle ground—someone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation but against whom prosecutors have not yet developed sufficient evidence for charges. Subject status often indicates that the government is still gathering information and the individual's ultimate fate remains uncertain. Many subjects eventually become targets as investigations progress, while others are cleared or simply never charged.

The ambiguity of subject status can be strategically challenging. Defense attorneys must prepare for the possibility of escalation to target status while recognizing that aggressive intervention might be premature. Some individuals remain subjects indefinitely, existing in legal limbo as investigations stall or prosecutors focus attention elsewhere.

Witness Status

A witness is someone the government believes possesses relevant information but is not currently suspected of criminal involvement. Witnesses may receive grand jury subpoenas requiring testimony or document production. While witness status suggests lower immediate risk, individuals should approach this classification cautiously—witnesses can be reclassified as subjects or targets if their testimony reveals potential criminal conduct or if prosecutors conclude they have been less than fully forthcoming.

The following table summarizes these classifications:

Status	Definition	Likelihood of Charges	Typical Next Steps
Target	Substantial evidence currently links individual to criminal conduct	Very high	Indictment anticipated; proffer sessions or pre-indictment negotiations
Subject	Conduct under investigation; insufficient evidence for target status	Moderate	Continued investigation; possible reclassification
Witness	Possesses relevant information; not currently suspected	Low (but not zero)	Grand jury testimony; document production

Anatomy of a Target Letter

While no statutory template governs their format, target letters typically contain several standard elements that convey essential information to recipients and their counsel.

Identification of Status

The letter will explicitly state whether the recipient is a target, subject, or witness. Most letters addressing targets use unambiguous language such as "You are a target of a federal grand jury investigation" or "This office has identified you as a target." This clarity is intentional—the Justice Manual encourages prosecutors to provide straightforward notification to avoid confusion about the seriousness of the recipient's situation.

Description of the Investigation

Target letters identify the general nature of the investigation without necessarily revealing specific factual allegations. A letter might reference "health care fraud," "securities fraud," "wire fraud," or "tax evasion" without detailing the precise conduct under scrutiny. This generality protects grand jury secrecy while providing enough information for the recipient to understand what area of their affairs has drawn government attention.

Statutory Citations

Most target letters include references to the federal criminal statutes potentially at issue. These citations help defense counsel assess the government's theory and the potential penalties involved. Common statutory references include 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (bank fraud), and 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (money laundering).

Invitation to Contact the Prosecutor

Target letters typically include contact information for the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) handling the matter and an invitation to schedule a meeting. This invitation represents the government's signal that pre-indictment dialogue remains possible. Letters frequently specify a deadline—usually 10 to 30 days—by which the recipient or their attorney should respond.

Rights Advisements

The letter will remind recipients of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and warn that any statements made may be used against them. Some letters also reference the right to testify before the grand jury, though exercising this option without immunity is generally inadvisable and rarely undertaken by defense attorneys.

How Federal Criminal Investigations Unfold

Understanding the broader investigative process helps contextualize where target letters fit within the federal criminal justice system. Federal investigations typically progress through several distinct phases, though the timeline and sequence can vary significantly depending on the complexity of the case and the agencies involved.

Initiation and Early Investigation

Federal investigations may originate from numerous sources. Agencies such as the FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation Division, DEA, SEC, or inspectors general may open cases based on tips, referrals from regulatory bodies, suspicious activity reports filed by financial institutions, or patterns detected through data analysis. During this early phase, investigators gather preliminary information to determine whether criminal conduct may have occurred and whether federal prosecution is warranted.

The distinction between federal and state jurisdiction becomes relevant here. Federal prosecutors typically pursue cases involving interstate commerce, federal programs, or conduct specifically prohibited by federal statutes. Investigations may begin as civil or regulatory matters before transitioning to criminal inquiries if evidence suggests willful violations.

Grand Jury Empanelment and Subpoenas

Once a case matures beyond preliminary inquiry, prosecutors typically convene a grand jury to compel testimony and document production. Grand jury subpoenas represent powerful investigative tools—recipients must comply or face contempt proceedings. These subpoenas may target financial records, communications, business documents, or personal testimony.

Individuals who receive grand jury subpoenas should immediately consult counsel. While the subpoena itself may not indicate criminal exposure, the questions asked during testimony or the documents requested often reveal the investigation's focus. Witnesses before the grand jury have limited rights—they may invoke the Fifth Amendment but cannot have counsel present in the grand jury room itself.

Target Letter Issuance

The decision to send a target letter reflects prosecutorial judgment that charges are likely warranted. This determination typically follows substantial investigation and evidence gathering. By the time a target letter arrives, prosecutors have usually developed a working theory of the case and identified the key evidence supporting potential charges.

Justice Department policy encourages target notification before seeking indictment to give individuals an opportunity to present their perspective. However, this policy admits exceptions. Prosecutors may proceed directly to indictment when targets pose flight risks, when notification might result in destruction of evidence or witness intimidation, or when the nature of the offense makes pre-indictment contact inadvisable.

Pre-Indictment Negotiations

The period between target letter receipt and potential indictment represents a critical window for defense engagement. During this phase, counsel may pursue several strategies: requesting a reverse proffer (where prosecutors outline their evidence), presenting mitigating information, exploring cooperation possibilities, or negotiating a pre-indictment plea agreement.

Some investigations result in deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreements, particularly in corporate contexts. These outcomes allow targets to avoid formal charges in exchange for compliance with specified conditions. While such agreements have become more common in corporate fraud cases, they remain available in appropriate circumstances involving individual defendants as well.

Indictment or Declination

If negotiations fail to produce a resolution, prosecutors present their case to the grand jury for a vote on indictment. Grand juries almost invariably return indictments when prosecutors seek them—the process is one-sided by design, with no defense presentation. An indictment triggers self-surrender procedures, initial appearance, and the formal criminal prosecution process.

Alternatively, prosecutors may decline to seek charges. In fiscal year 2024, federal prosecutors declined approximately 12% of cases after target notification, meaning 88% proceeded to charges or cooperation agreements. Declinations may result from evidentiary weaknesses, resource constraints, or changed prosecutorial priorities.

Responding to a Target Letter

Receipt of a target letter demands immediate, thoughtful action. The steps taken in the days and weeks following notification can significantly influence the ultimate outcome. Defense attorneys experienced in federal practice consistently emphasize several priorities for individuals who find themselves in this position.

Retain Qualified Federal Defense Counsel

The single most important step is engaging an attorney with specific experience in federal criminal defense. Federal practice differs substantially from state criminal work, and the stakes involved in target letter situations demand specialized expertise. Ideally, counsel should have prior experience as a federal prosecutor or extensive background defending federal cases in the relevant district.

Many attorneys offer initial consultations at no charge to assess target letter situations. This preliminary evaluation helps potential clients understand their exposure and the attorney's proposed approach. Given time pressures, individuals should not delay in scheduling these consultations.

Avoid Direct Contact with Prosecutors

Target letters typically include an invitation to contact the prosecuting attorney. Under no circumstances should individuals respond to this invitation without first consulting counsel. Every communication with prosecutors carries risks, and even seemingly innocuous statements can create problems. Defense attorneys serve as intermediaries, managing all communications while protecting their clients' interests.

Preserve All Potentially Relevant Materials

Once a federal investigation becomes known, document preservation obligations attach. Destroying, altering, or concealing documents or electronic records can result in obstruction of justice charges—often more serious than the underlying conduct being investigated. Individuals should immediately implement litigation holds, preserving all materials that might be relevant to the investigation.

This preservation obligation extends to electronic communications, including emails, text messages, and social media content. Defense counsel can provide specific guidance on preservation protocols, but the general rule is to save everything and delete nothing.

Invoke Constitutional Rights

Recipients of target letters retain all constitutional protections, most importantly the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. If contacted by investigators or subpoenaed to testify, individuals should invoke this right through counsel. Testimony before a grand jury without immunity protection is almost never advisable for targets.

The right to counsel attaches once an individual becomes aware of potential charges. Defense attorneys can assert this right and ensure that investigators do not attempt to question their clients outside the presence of counsel.

Begin Preparing for Multiple Outcomes

While hoping for the best outcome—declination of charges—targets and their counsel must prepare for other possibilities. This preparation includes gathering mitigating materials for potential sentencing memoranda, identifying witnesses who could provide favorable testimony, and beginning to assemble character reference letters. Some clients also undertake voluntary remedial measures, such as restitution payments or participation in counseling programs, which can favorably influence prosecutorial decisions.

Early engagement with prison consultants may also be appropriate for clients facing serious charges. These professionals can provide guidance on financial planning, family preparation, and other practical matters that may become relevant if charges proceed.

Proffer Sessions and Cooperation Discussions

For many target letter recipients, particularly those facing overwhelming evidence or seeking to minimize exposure, cooperation with the government represents the most viable path forward. The proffer process provides a structured framework for exploring this option while preserving certain protections.

Understanding the Proffer Agreement

A proffer agreement—sometimes called a "Queen for a Day" letter—establishes the ground rules for discussions between targets and prosecutors. Under these agreements, individuals provide information to the government with the understanding that their statements cannot be used directly against them in the government's case-in-chief. However, proffer agreements contain significant exceptions: the government can use proffer statements for impeachment if the defendant testifies inconsistently at trial, and can pursue leads developed from proffer information.

Defense attorneys carefully negotiate proffer terms before their clients participate. The standard proffer agreement provides less protection than many clients assume, and counsel must ensure clients understand the risks before proceeding.

Reverse Proffers

In complex cases, defense attorneys often request a reverse proffer before deciding whether cooperation makes sense. During a reverse proffer, prosecutors outline the evidence they have developed against the target. This presentation helps defense counsel assess the strength of the government's case and make informed recommendations about cooperation.

Reverse proffers serve both sides' interests. Prosecutors use them to demonstrate case strength and encourage guilty pleas or cooperation. Defense attorneys use them to identify weaknesses in the government's theory and evaluate their clients' realistic options.

Substantial Assistance and Sentencing Benefits

Targets who provide substantial assistance to the government may receive significant benefits. Under Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, prosecutors can move for downward departures from otherwise applicable sentences when defendants provide assistance that helps the government investigate or prosecute others. These motions can result in dramatic sentence reductions—sometimes below mandatory minimums that would otherwise apply.

The decision to cooperate involves profound considerations beyond legal strategy. Cooperation may require testimony against associates, friends, or family members. It creates safety risks in certain cases. And cooperation does not guarantee any particular outcome—prosecutors retain discretion over whether to file substantial assistance motions, and judges decide how much credit to award. Defense counsel helps clients weigh these factors in reaching informed decisions.

Parallel Investigations and Multi-Agency Coordination

Federal criminal investigations frequently proceed alongside civil or regulatory proceedings conducted by different agencies. Understanding these parallel tracks helps targets appreciate the full scope of their exposure and avoid missteps that could harm them in multiple forums.

SEC and DOJ Coordination

Securities fraud investigations often involve both the Securities and Exchange Commission (pursuing civil enforcement) and the Department of Justice (pursuing criminal charges). These agencies share information under established protocols, meaning that statements made in SEC proceedings can find their way to criminal prosecutors. Individuals facing parallel proceedings must coordinate their responses carefully, recognizing that civil discovery obligations may conflict with criminal defense strategies.

IRS Civil and Criminal Divisions

Tax-related matters may begin as civil audits before transitioning to criminal investigation. The IRS maintains separate civil and criminal divisions, and cases can transfer between them if auditors discover evidence of willful evasion or fraud. Once a case moves to Criminal Investigation (CI), targets face significantly greater exposure than in routine civil disputes.

Regulatory Agency Referrals

Agencies with regulatory authority—including the FTC, EPA, FDA, and various inspectors general—may refer matters to the DOJ for criminal prosecution when they identify potential violations. These referrals often come after substantial regulatory investigation, meaning prosecutors inherit developed evidentiary records when they assume cases.

Statistics and Outcomes

Empirical data illuminates the realities of target letter situations and helps inform strategic decisions.

Studies suggest that early intervention through counsel after receipt of a target letter results in non-prosecution or reduced charges in approximately 25 to 40 percent of cases, depending on district and offense type. These figures underscore the importance of prompt, skilled defense engagement during the pre-indictment window.

Cooperation rates vary by offense category. In healthcare fraud and financial crime cases, where culpability often extends across organizations, cooperation rates tend to be higher as targets seek to minimize exposure by providing evidence against co-conspirators. In contrast, cases involving individual misconduct without broader organizational involvement offer fewer cooperation opportunities.

The Sentencing Guidelines significantly influence outcomes for those who proceed to conviction. Understanding how specific offense characteristics, criminal history, and potential enhancements combine to produce guideline ranges helps targets make informed decisions about cooperation and plea negotiations.

Recent Policy Developments

Department of Justice policies regarding target letters and corporate enforcement have evolved significantly in recent years, affecting how investigations proceed and what opportunities exist for resolution.

The Yates Memo and Individual Accountability

The 2015 "Yates Memo" directed prosecutors to focus on individual accountability in corporate cases. This policy shift increased the use of target letters against corporate executives and employees, as prosecutors sought to ensure that individuals—not just corporations—faced consequences for organizational misconduct. The memo required corporations seeking cooperation credit to identify all individuals involved in wrongdoing.

The Monaco Memo

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco's 2022 and 2023 memoranda further refined corporate enforcement policies. These directives emphasized speed in investigations, encouraged prosecutors to bring charges even when full facts remained undeveloped, and created additional pressure on corporations to identify and turn over evidence against individual employees. For targets of corporate investigations, these policies increased the likelihood of receiving target letters earlier in proceedings.

Pilot Programs and Enhanced Disclosure

As of 2025, several U.S. Attorney's Offices have implemented pilot programs providing enhanced disclosure alongside target letters. In these districts, prosecutors may attach limited discovery summaries to target letters in complex fraud cases, giving defense counsel earlier access to the government's evidence. While not universal, these programs reflect evolving views about the benefits of transparency in pre-indictment proceedings.

Common Offenses Generating Target Letters

Target letters arise across the spectrum of federal criminal law, but certain offense categories generate them with particular frequency.

Financial Crimes

Wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, and securities fraud investigations commonly produce target letters. These cases often involve documentary evidence that prosecutors develop over extended periods before notifying targets. The complexity of financial schemes frequently allows for cooperation opportunities, as individuals may possess knowledge of others' involvement.

Healthcare Fraud

Healthcare fraud investigations targeting physicians, clinic operators, pharmaceutical executives, and billing companies regularly result in target letters. These cases often involve False Claims Act violations alongside criminal charges, creating parallel civil exposure. The government's healthcare fraud enforcement initiatives have made this area particularly active for target letter notifications.

Public Corruption

Bribery, RICO, and other public corruption charges frequently begin with target letters to officials, contractors, or intermediaries. Recent cases against figures like Bob Menendez and Henry Cuellar illustrate the continuing emphasis on public integrity prosecutions.

Tax Offenses

Tax evasion and failure to file investigations by IRS Criminal Investigation often culminate in target letters. These cases may begin as civil audits before transforming into criminal matters, making the transition point particularly significant for potential targets.

Criticisms and Reform Proposals

The target letter system, while generally viewed as promoting fairness, has attracted criticism from defense practitioners and legal scholars.

Some critics argue that target letters create coercive pressure, particularly when they arrive with short response deadlines and vague descriptions of alleged conduct. The asymmetry of information—prosecutors know far more about their evidence than targets learn from letters—complicates defense preparation and may push individuals toward premature decisions.

Others note inconsistencies in target letter practices across districts. Some U.S. Attorney's Offices provide relatively detailed information, while others offer minimal disclosure. The lack of standardization means that targets' experiences vary significantly depending on where their cases arise.

The defense bar has advocated for mandatory discovery accompanying target letters, arguing that meaningful pre-indictment dialogue requires better information sharing. Currently, the decision to provide any evidence with target letters remains purely discretionary, leaving defense counsel to negotiate for information on a case-by-case basis.

See Also

• Grand Jury Proceedings and Indictments
• Cooperation Mechanisms: Proffers and Substantial Assistance
• Selection and Role of Defense Counsel
• Plea Agreements and Trial Procedures
• Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Offense Enhancements
• Deferred Prosecution Agreements
• Overview of the Pre-Sentencing Phase
• Differences Between Federal and State Prosecution
• Prison Consultants
• Financial Planning Prior to Incarceration

External Links

• Justice Manual – Grand Jury (Title 9-11.000)
• Federal Grand Jury Practice Manual (2024)

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why am I getting a letter from the Department of Justice?

A letter from the Department of Justice typically means you are connected to a federal criminal investigation. The most common reasons include: (1) You are a target of a grand jury investigation, meaning prosecutors believe they have evidence to charge you with a crime. (2) You are a subject whose conduct is being investigated but not yet charged. (3) You are a witness being asked to provide information or documents. (4) You received a grand jury subpoena requiring testimony or records. Whatever the reason, you should immediately consult with an attorney experienced in federal criminal defense before responding.

Q: What is a federal target letter?

A target letter is an official written communication from a United States Attorney's Office informing you that you are under active investigation by a federal grand jury. It means prosecutors believe they have sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges against you. While alarming, it also represents an opportunity to engage with prosecutors through counsel before an indictment is returned.

Q: What should I do if I receive a target letter?

Immediately retain qualified federal defense counsel with specific experience in federal criminal cases. Do not contact prosecutors directly or make any statements without your attorney present. Preserve all potentially relevant documents and electronic communications. Invoke your Fifth Amendment rights through counsel. Begin preparing for multiple possible outcomes with your attorney's guidance.

Q: Can charges be avoided after receiving a target letter?

Yes. Early intervention through experienced counsel results in non-prosecution or reduced charges in approximately 25 to 40 percent of cases. The period between receiving a target letter and potential indictment represents a critical window for defense engagement through proffer sessions and negotiations.