Blog
False Statements to FBI Agents
Contents
Last Updated on: 21st December 2025, 10:37 pm
Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal is straightforward – we fight for people facing the federal system, and we do it with a level of intensity that matches what’s at stake. If you’re reading this because federal agents have contacted you, or because you’re worried they might, then you need to understand something that most people never learn until it’s too late.
There’s a federal crime you can commit without realizing you’ve done anything wrong. It doesn’t require planning. It doesn’t require intent to harm anyone. You can commit it while trying to be helpful, while trying to clear your name, while doing exactly what you think an innocent person should do. The crime is making a false statement to a federal agent under 18 USC 1001, and the punishment is up to five years in federal prison.
Here’s what makes this statute different from anything else in the criminal code: the interview isn’t about gathering evidence for some other crime. In many cases, the interview IS the crime. Federal agents may already know the answers to the questions they’re asking you. They’re not looking for information – they’re looking for a lie.
The Crime You Commit By Answering a Question
On the surface, it looks like a conversation. Two FBI agents knock on your door. They’re polite, profesional. They say they just want to ask a few questions about your business, or a collegue, or a transaction from two years ago. They dont have a warrant. Your not under arrest. It seems like the fastest way to make this go away is to cooperate and answer there questions.
But underneath that surface is something very different. Under 18 USC 1001, any false statement you make to a federal agent – even if your not under oath, even if you dont sign anything – is a federal felony. That includes lies, yes. But it also includes statements you genuinly believe are true but turn out to be wrong. It includes things you forgot. It includes getting dates confused, or misremembering who said what in a meeting three years ago.
Heres the thing most people never understand about this statute: it doesnt care about your intent. It cares about whether your statement was false and whether it was “material” to the investigation. Material just means relevent. If you say you had lunch with someone on Tuesday when it was actualy Wednesday, and that timing matters to there case, thats potentialy a federal crime.
And heres the part people never see coming: the investigation into the original matter might close without any charges. You might be totaly innocent of whatever they were looking at. But if you made a single false statement during that interview – even an honest mistake – they can still prosecute you for lying. The interview itself became the crime.
Think about what that means. You’re trying to be helpfull. Your answering questions because you have nothing to hide. And in that moment of cooperation, your creating a federal offense that will follow you for the rest of your life. This is why defense attorneys – attorneys like Todd Spodek who have spent careers watching this pattern repeat – tell clients never to speak with federal agents without counsel present. The surface looks like cooperation. Underneath, its a minefield.
1998: The Year Your Only Defense Died
For decades, there was a protection built into how federal courts interpreted this statute. It was called the “exculpatory no” doctrine, and it worked like this: if a federal agent asked whether you commited a crime and you simply said “no,” that denial couldnt be prosecuted as a false statement. The logic was straightforward – the Fifth Amendment protects you from incriminating yourself, so a simple denial of guilt shouldnt be criminalized.
Seven federal circuit courts adopted this protection. The Department of Justice itself had an internal policy against prosecuting these cases. For years, if you said “No, I didnt do it,” that answer was protected even if it wasnt true. The reasoning was simple: everyone knows that a guilty person will deny guilt when confronted. Treating that denial as a seperate crime would essentialy criminalize human nature.
Then came Brogan v. United States in 1998. James Brogan was a union official who had taken cash payments from employers. When federal agents asked him about it, he said no. That was a lie. And the Supreme Court ruled that his one-word denial was a prosecutable false statement under 18 USC 1001.
Heres something that should disturb you: the Court rejected the exculpatory no doctrine entirely. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and he wasnt sympathetic to the argument that this put ordinary citizens at risk. But Justice Ginsburg saw exactly what was happening. In her concurrence, she wrote that the decision opens the door for prosecutors to “create a crime by surprising the subject, asking about those acts, and receiving a false denial.”
Read that again. A Supreme Court justice acknowledged, in writing, that federal prosecutors can manufactuer crimes by asking questions and waiting for false answers. She warned about “overzealous prosecutors” who might use this tactic when they cant otherwise make a case. And then the Court eliminated the only protection against it anyway.
Before 1998, you could at least deny guilt without that denial becoming a crime. After 1998, even saying “no” is a potental five-year felony. The defense that existed for decades was gone overnight. Let that sink in – the DOJ’s own policy was to NOT prosecute simple denials, and the Supreme Court said it doesnt matter. Prosecutors can charge you anyway.
The People Who Went to Prison for the Interview
Martha Stewart wasnt convicted of insider trading. Thats the thing almost nobody remembers correctly about her case. She sold ImClone stock in December 2001 based on a tip from her broker. Federal investigators came after her hard. They charged her with securities fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction. And at trial, she was aquitted of those underlying securities charges.
What she went to prison for was lying about it. During interviews with federal agents, she made statements about why she sold the stock that turned out to be false. Those statements became the basis for her conviction – obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators. She served five months in a federal prison camp for what happened in the interview, not for the stock sale itself.
Defense lawyers call 18 USC 1001 “the Martha Stewart statute” now. Its perfect for convicting people when you cant prove the underlying conduct. And heres the thing that makes it even more troubling: she probably thought she was helping herself by talking. She probably thought cooperation would make this go away. Instead, the cooperation became the crime.
Michael Flynn’s case follows the same pattern. He was National Security Advisor to President Trump, and the FBI interviewed him about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador. The substance of those conversations was never charged as any crime. Flynn wasnt prosecuted for violating the Logan Act or for any Russia-related misconduct. What he pleaded guilty to was lying about the conversations during the FBI interview. (Interestingly, Flynn initialy pleaded guilty, then tried to withdraw it, then was eventualy pardoned. The legal back-and-forth itself took years. But the underlying fact remained: the crime he admitted to was the false statement, not anything he discussed with the ambassador.)
Scooter Libby. Same pattern. He was Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, and he was convicted of lying to investigators about the Valerie Plame leak. Not for the leak itself – for the false statements during the investigation. Libby was eventualy pardoned too, but that doesnt change what the case demonstrates: the government couldnt prove the underlying misconduct, so they prosecuted the interview.
These are famous names. But this happens constanty to people who never make the news. The pattern is always the same: the original investigation might not produce charges, but the interview produces a crime all by itself. Your not hearing about most of these cases because they end in quiet plea deals. The defendent takes a felony conviction rather than face trial. And the underlying conduct – the thing the FBI actualy wanted to investigate – was never proven.
Why Prosecutors Love This Charge
From an institutional perspective, the incentive structure is straightforward. Federal prosecutors are measured by convictions. U.S. Attorney offices have reputations to maintain. When an investigation stalls – when the evidence for wire fraud or securities violations isn’t quite there – the false statements statute offers a path forward.
There’s something almost elegant about it, in a dark way. The statute is a perfect tool for prosecutors who’ve run out of options. The elements are simple: a false statement, made knowingly, to a federal agent, about a material matter. There’s no need to prove the complex intent requirements of fraud. There’s no need to trace money through shell companies. One verifiable lie is enough.
The federal conviction rate hovers around 95 percent. When prosecutors bring a false statements charge, they typicaly have documentary proof that contradicts what the defendant said. The defendant’s own words, memorialized in an interview summary, become the primary evidence against them. Its hard to know how often this happens – many 1001 cases end in plea deals that never make the news – but the pattern is well established.
From the prosecutor’s perspective, the calculus makes sense. Why spend years building a fraud case that a jury might not understand when you can prosecute a single false statement that the jury will absolutly understand? “The defendant said X. Here’s proof that X was false. Therefore, the defendant lied to federal agents.” That’s a clean narrative.
Agents also benifit. Career advancement in federal law enforcement correlates with cases closed and prosecutions achieved. An interview that produces a false statement is an interview that produced something. Even when the original investigation goes nowhere, the agent created a prosecutable offense.
This isn’t conspiracy theorizing. Its basic incentive analysis. The system is designed to produce prosecutions, and 18 USC 1001 produces prosecutions even when the original theory of the case falls apart. Prosecutors dont go into an interview hoping to trap you. But when there original case stalls, they have this tool available. And they use it.
The Words You Said Aren’t the Words on Record
The FBI doesn’t record most interviews. This comes as a shock to people raised on crime procedurals where every interrogation is captured on video. In reality, FBI agents take notes during voluntary interviews, and then – sometimes days later – one agent writes up a summary of what was said. That summary is called an FD-302.
Heres what makes this even more dangerous: the FD-302 becomes the official record of your words. Not a transcript. Not a recording. An agent’s recollection of what you said, written down after the fact. If your memory of the conversation differs from the FD-302, the FD-302 wins. The truth is, nobody knows exactly how many convictions come from discrepencies between what people actualy said and what the FD-302 says they said.
You might say “I think it was around March.” The FD-302 might record “Subject stated it was in March.” Later, documentary evidence shows it was February. Now you’ve made a false statement – according to the government’s record of your words. Your hedging, your uncertainty, your qualifiers – they may not appear in the written summary. The nuance is gone. What remains is a statement that contradicts the evidence.
And theres another problem. These interviews are often “voluntary.” The agents show up at your office or home. They dont arrest you. They dont read you Miranda rights because technicaly, your not in custody. Your just having a conversation.
But that conversation can send you to federal prison. You commited a federal felony without ever being told you have the right to remain silent. The Miranda protections everyone thinks they have simply dont apply.
Spodek Law Group has seen this pattern dozens of times. Client agrees to “help out” investigators. Client speaks freely because they have nothing to hide. Then the FD-302 arrives in discovery, and it doesnt quite match what the client remembers saying. Now there defending a federal charge based on the governments version of their own words. The defense becomes: “I didnt say that, or at least I didnt mean that.” Thats a difficult argument to make when the governments document says otherwise and theres no recording to contradict it.
What “Just Tell the Truth” Gets Wrong
The most dangerous advice someone can give you when facing federal agents is “just tell the truth.” It sounds right. It feels like what an innocent person should do. If you have nothing to hide, why wouldnt you simply answer their questions honestly?
Telling the truth sounds simple. It isn’t, and I’m not entirely sure why more people don’t understand this. Memory is unreliable. Under stress, people misremember dates, names, sequences of events. You might genuinly believe your telling the truth while saying something that contradicts a document you’ve forgotten about. That document exists somewhere in the government’s files. When they pull it out, your truthful-as-far-as-you-knew statement becomes a false statement.
Consider how long ago some of these investigations reach. The FBI might be asking about emails from four years ago, meetings from five years ago, conversations you barely remember. Your honest recollection of those events might differ from what the records show. That diffrence can become a crime. And the agents interviewing you have already reviewed those records. They know the answers before they ask the questions. Your trying to remember events from years ago while they sit there with documents in a folder, waiting to see if your memory contradicts what they already know.
I’m not sure this is comforting, but even experienced people – generals, CEOs, sophisticated businesspeople who have lawyers on speed dial – walk into this trap. They think there cooperation will demonstrate innocence. They think telling there side will clear things up. They underestimate how easy it is to contradict yourself or contradict a document when your reconstructing events from memory.
Heres the uncomfortable reality: the problem with “just tell the truth” is that it assumes you know what the truth is with perfect clarity. It assumes your memory is reliable. It assumes the agents record will accurately capture your intended meaning. None of those assumptions are safe. The only statement that cant become a false statement is no statement at all.
The Only Answer That Can’t Become a Crime
When federal agents ask to speak with you, you have three options. You can talk to them and risk commiting a federal crime with every answer. You can refuse to talk and excercise rights that are yours to excercise. Or you can tell them you’d like to have an attorney present before answering any questions.
Only one of those options creates zero criminal liability. Silence is not obstruction. Requesting an attorney is not evidence of guilt. The Fifth Amendment protects your right not to incriminate yourself, and speaking to federal agents – even truthfully – is self-incrimination waiting to happen. You cannot be charged with 18 USC 1001 for statements you never made. Every word you say is potentialy a crime. No words means no crime.
If FBI agents approach you, the answer is simple: “I’d like to speak with an attorney before answering any questions.” Then you call someone who understands federal practice. Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196. We handle exactly these situations. We can speak to the agents on your behalf. We can protect you from turning a voluntary conversation into a federal indictment.
This is what defense attorneys do. Call Todd Spodek. Get representation before the interview becomes the crime. Your facing a system that has been refined over decades to produce convictions. The only winning move is to not play – to exercise your right to counsel before you say a single word that could become the basis for a federal prosecution. That phone call is the most important thing you can do.