Criminal Defense Lawyers

State Attorney General vs. FBI

State Attorney General vs. FBI: Key Differences You Need to Know

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. We defend clients facing both state and federal investigations nationwide. Our goal is straightforward: help you understand the threats you’re actually facing so you can make informed decisions about protecting yourself, your business, and your future.

If you’re reading this, you’re probably trying to figure out which is worse – contact from your state attorney general or contact from the FBI. The conventional wisdom says FBI investigations are more dangerous because federal equals criminal equals prison. This assumption is wrong, and if you don’t understand why, you’re going to make strategic decisions that could destroy you.

Let me explain the real differences between these two types of investigations and why the threat calculus isn’t what most people assume.

The Assumption That Will Destroy You

Heres what most people believe: FBI investigations are the serious ones, and state attorney general investigations are just consumer protection matters that end in settlements. Federal means criminal. State means civil. Prison versus fines. Obvious which one to worry about, right?

This mental model is dangerously wrong.

The FBI investigates potential federal crimes. Thats true. They build cases for federal prosecutors, who must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidentiary threshold in our legal system. Some legal scholars estimate it requires 95% or greater certainty of guilt.

State attorneys general, by contrast, can pursue civil enforcement actions under consumer protection statutes where the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. That means 51% more likely than not. The difference between 95% certainty and 51% certainty isnt academic. Its the difference between an investigation that might not result in charges and an investigation that almost certainly will.

But heres were it gets worse. State attorneys general dont just do civil enforcement. In most states, they have concurrent criminal jurisdiction. They can pursue criminal charges for the same conduct. And they can share everything they learn with federal prosecutors, who can then build their own case using your state-level document production as a foundation.

The question isnt which investigation is more dangerous. The question is how they work together to maximize your exposure.

The Constitutional Protection Gap

Before diving into the specifics of each type of investigation, you need to understand something fundamental about the difference in your rights.

In an FBI criminal investigation, you have the full protection of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment guarantees right to counsel, right to confront witnesses, right to a speedy trial. These arent abstractions. These are procedural barriers the government must overcome to convict you.

In a state attorney general civil investigation, many of these protections work differently. You can be compelled to produce documents without a search warrant. Invoking the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding can result in adverse inference, where the judge or jury assumes the worst about what your hiding. There’s no right to confront witnesses in a civil enforcement action because theres no criminal trial.

The irony is sharp: you have more constitutional protection when the government is trying to put you in prison then when its trying to take your money through civil penalties. This assymetry in rights is one reason state AG investigations can be more immediatly damaging then FBI investigations. The government faces fewer procedural hurdles.

What FBI Investigations Actually Look Like

Before we compare in detail, you need to understand what an FBI investigation actually involves. The FBI is the principal investigative agency of the federal government. They handle violations of more than 200 categories of federal crimes, from terrorism to white collar fraud to civil rights violations.

FBI investigations typically begin one of several ways. A tip from a whistleblower. A referral from another agency. Suspicious activity reports from financial institutions. Sometimes proactive investigation based on pattern analysis. What they have in common is that by the time you know about an FBI investigation, its usually been running for months or years.

The FBI dosent investigate on behalf of victims. They investigate on behalf of the federal government. When they complete an investigation, they present their findings to the United States Attorneys Office, which decides whether to prosecute. The FBI recommends but dosent decide.

If prosecution moves forward, you’re facing the federal criminal justice system. This means:

• Federal sentencing guidelines that structure penalties based on offense severity and criminal history. These guidelines are advisory since 2005, but judges still follow them in most cases.
• A conviction rate exceeding 99.6% once indicted. Federal prosecutors are selective about what they charge precisely becuase they almost never lose.
• Miranda rights, the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, protection against unreasonable searches. The full constitutional protection package that applies in criminal proceedings.
• The statute of limitations that varies by offense but provides some temporal boundary on exposure.

Heres something important to understand: federal sentencing guidelines actually cap punishment in ways state civil enforcement dosent. There minimum and maximum ranges. Theres structure. Theres predicability, even if the predictions are grim.

What State Attorney General Investigations Actually Look Like

State attorney general investigations operate completely differently. Understanding these differences is essential to accurate threat assessment.

First, state AGs have broader authority. They can pursue civil enforcement under state Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes. They can pursue criminal charges for state law violations. They can investigate without a grand jury. They can issue Civil Investigative Demands, basically subpoenas with the force of law, before any charges are filed or any lawsuit is initiated.

Second, the evidentiary standards are lower for civil enforcement. Preponderance of the evidence means the AG only needs to show its more likely then not that you violated the law. Compare that to beyond reasonable doubt. The gap is massive.

Third, the penalty structures are different and often worse. Federal criminal sentencing has guidelines. State civil penalties under consumer protection statutes often work on a per-violation basis. If each affected consumer constitutes a seperate violation, and your business has 100,000 customers, the theoretical exposure becomes astronomical.

Remember the Google and Equifax settlements from multistate investigations? $391.5 million and $600 million respectivley. Those are civil settlements, not criminal penalties. State AGs extracted those amounts without having to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fourth, state AGs can coordinate with each other through the National Association of Attorneys General. Information produced to one state can be shared with 49 others. What starts as a single-state inquiry can multiply into a multistate investigation with an executive committee calling the shots.

Todd Spodek has defended clients facing both types of investigations. The pattern is clear: people underestimate state AG investigations because they dont understand the scope of authority and the multiplication effect.

The Information Highway: How They Share Everything

Heres the part that most people completly miss. Federal and state investigators share information. Actively. Deliberately. As a matter of policy.

The Department of Justice has explicit guidelines governing parallel proceedings. These guidelines tell DOJ attorneys to “maximize the government’s ability to share information among criminal, civil, and agency administrative teams.”

What does this mean practically? It means the documents you produce to a state attorney general in response to a civil investigative demand can end up in the hands of FBI agents building a criminal case. It means the statements your employees make during state-level interviews can become evidence in federal prosecutions. It means treating the state investigation as a low-stakes civil matter while ignoring criminal exposure is a catastrophic mistake.

The information highway runs in both directions. FBI investigations can result in referrals to state attorneys general when federal prosecution isnt pursued. State investigations can result in federal adoption when the conduct implicates federal statutes.

And heres were it gets especialy dangerous: state and federal authorities can investigate the same conduct simultaneously without either one telling you the other is involved. Your cooperating with a state civil investigation, thinking your being transparent and helpful, while federal criminal prosecutors are reviewing every document you produce.

This isnt hypothetical. Its standard practice.

The DOJ’s parallel proceedings policy states that “courts have recognized that there is nothing improper about the government undertaking simultaneous criminal and civil investigations provided that proceedings and investigative tools are used for their proper purposes.”

When you produce documents to any government investigator, assume every government investigator can see them.

When One Becomes the Other

The Derek Chauvin case illustrates something important about the relationship between state and federal prosecution. Chauvin was first tried and convicted in Minnesota state court for murdering George Floyd. Then federal prosecutors indicted him for civil rights violations. He was sentenced separately in both systems.

This is called the dual sovereignty doctrine. The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy, being tried twice for the same offense. But state and federal governments are considered seperate sovereigns. Being prosecuted by Minnesota and then by the federal government isnt double jeopardy because there different governments enforcing different laws.

The practical implication: acquittal in state court dosent protect you from federal prosecution. Conviction in state court dosent prevent federal prosecution. The governments can coordinate, share information, and pursue you in sequence or simultaneously.

The Rodney King case followed the same pattern decades earlier. State jury acquitted the officers. Federal jury convicted two of them. Different sovereigns, different trials, different outcomes.

For someone facing investigation, this means exposure analysis must account for both state and federal possibilities. The state AG investigation might be the only investigation you ever face. Or it might be the first investigation you face, with federal charges following. You cant know in advance, wich means you have to prepare for both.

There are policies limiting this. The DOJ has something called the Petite Policy that restricts federal prosecution after state prosecution for the same conduct. But its a policy, not a right. The government can deviate from it. And the policy dosent apply to state prosecution following federal prosecution.

The Strategic Calculus: Which Is Actually More Dangerous?

Now that you understand both systems, we can answer the question your actualy asking: which investigation should scare you more?

The answer depends on your specific situation, but the general framework is this:

FBI investigations are more dangerous if your facing conduct that clearly violates federal criminal statutes and you have no defense. The conviction rate once indicted is near-certain, and federal sentencing can be severe.

State AG investigations are more dangerous in several other scenarios:

• When the conduct is primarily a consumer protection or business practices issue where civil enforcement is the likely path. The lower burden of proof means liability is almost certain.
• When your business operates across multiple states and multistate coordination could multiply your exposure by a factor of 50.
• When the theoretical per-violation penalties, multiplied by affected consumers, exceeds what federal sentencing guidelines would produce.
• When the state investigation might generate evidence that gets referred to federal prosecutors, making it effectively both investigations at once.
• When the political incentives of elected state attorneys general create pressure for aggressive enforcement and high-profile settlements.

Heres the uncomfortable truth most people dont want to hear: in many white collar and business investigation contexts, the state AG investigation is actualy the more immediate and unpredictable threat. The FBI operates under established procedures and constitutional constraints. State AGs have broader discretion, lower evidentiary standards, and the ability to multiply through coordination.

Spodek Law Group evaluates both dimensions of exposure for every client facing investigation. The threat assessment isnt complete until you understand your exposure under both state and federal enforcement frameworks.

The Political Dimension You Cant Ignore

Theres another difference between FBI investigations and state AG investigations that most people overlook: the political incentive structure.

FBI agents are career civil servants. They follow procedures. They build cases. They’re evaluated on case outcomes, not political visibility. The FBI Director is appointed but the field agents investigating your case have no electoral considerations.

State attorneys general are, in most states, elected officials. They run campaigns. They need headlines. They need enforcement victories that look good in press releases and future gubernatorial campaign ads.

This dosent mean every state AG action is politicaly motivated. But it does mean the incentive structure is different. A state attorney general might pursue an aggressive enforcement action against your company partly becuase its good policy and partly becuase its good politics. An FBI investigation has no such political upside built into its structure.

The practical effect is unpredictability. You can generaly predict how an FBI investigation will proceed based on the evidence and applicable law. State AG investigations can be influenced by factors entirely external to your case, things like upcoming elections, current media cycles, or the AG’s broader enforcement agenda.

Some state attorneys general have explicit enforcement priorities they announce publicly. If your industry falls within those priorities, you may face investigation not becuase of specific wrongdoing but becuase your industry is a target. The FBI dosent operate this way.

Joint Task Forces: Where the Lines Blur Completly

Before we get to defense strategy, you need to understand one more complication: joint task forces.

Federal and state authorities increasingly operate together through formal task force arrangements. An FBI agent might work alongside state investigators on the same case. Documents flow freely. Interview notes are shared. Investigative strategy is coordinated.

In these situations, the question of “is this a state or federal investigation?” becomes meaningless. Its both. Simultaneously. With information flowing in both directions.

Healthcare fraud task forces are a common example. The FBI, HHS-OIG, state attorneys general, and state medical boards might all participate in investigating the same billing practices. A single interview might generate evidence used in federal criminal prosecution, state criminal prosecution, state civil enforcement, and professional licensing proceedings.

If your business is in an industry with active task force activity, assume any government contact implicates both state and federal exposure. The old mental model of seperate, independent investigations no longer applies.

What This Means For Your Defense

The key strategic insight is this: you cannot treat state and federal investigations as seperate matters. They are connected through formal information-sharing arrangements, informal referral relationships, and the dual sovereignty doctrine that allows both to prosecute.

When you receive any contact from government investigators, whether its a CID from your state attorney general, a subpoena from a federal grand jury, or an FBI agent leaving a business card, you need to immediately consider:

• What exposure exists under state law?
• What exposure exists under federal law?
• Is the state investigation likely to generate information useful to federal prosecutors?
• Is the federal investigation likely to result in state referrals?
• How do the parallel proceedings policies affect strategy?

These questions require counsel who understands both systems. Many attorneys specialize in one or the other. Effective defense against modern government investigations requires understanding how they interact.

The worst possible outcome is building the case against yourself by cooperating with one investigation while ignoring the other.

Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196. We handle state attorney general matters and federal criminal defense across the country. Todd Spodek has built a team that understands both dimensions of government enforcement, becuase in todays environment, understanding only one side leaves you dangerously exposed. The consultation is confidential, and understanding your actual exposure across both systems is the first step toward effective defense.

The Reality You Need to Accept

State attorney general investigations and FBI investigations are different in structure, standards, and process. But they’re not seperate. They exist on a continuum of government enforcement power, and information flows between them freely.

The mental model that says “FBI = scary, state AG = manageable” will lead you to underestimate threats and misallocate defensive resources. The sophisticated understanding recognizes that state AGs have tools the FBI dosent have, that information sharing is the norm not the exception, and that your exposure must be evaluated across both systems simultaneously.

Your facing government investigation. The specific letterhead matters less then you think. What matters is understanding the full scope of authority being brought against you and preparing a defense that accounts for all of it.

Spodek Law Group has the experience to help you navigate both state and federal threats. We’ve defended clients facing multistate AG investigations and federal indictments, sometimes simultaneously. We understand how these systems interact becuase we’ve seen it in practice, not just in theory.

The call is free. The consultation is confidential. And understanding the true nature of the threats your facing, across both state and federal systems, is the first step toward protecting everything you’ve built.

The stakes are your business, your freedom, and your future. Dont let a misunderstanding about which investigation is “more dangerous” lead you to underestimate the threat thats actualy most likely to destroy you.