Federal Charges Against Engineers
Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal is to give you the reality of federal criminal exposure for engineers - not the sanitized version your professional associations present, not the academic discussion of "ethics violations," but the actual truth about what happens when federal prosecutors decide you knew too much about a problem and didn't do enough to stop it.
Here is what nobody tells engineers facing federal investigation: the same professional habits that make you excellent at your job are precisely what make you easy to prosecute. Your detailed documentation. Your careful emails flagging concerns. Your meeting notes from design reviews. All of that becomes the prosecution's evidence file. The federal conviction rate is 93%. When you account for guilty pleas - which represent 90% of outcomes - the effective conviction rate approaches 99.8%. These numbers exist because prosecutors only bring cases they're certain to win, and engineers provide the documentary evidence that makes certainty possible.
If you are reading this because you received a target letter, or because your company is under federal investigation, or because a colleague was just indicted and you worked on the same project - understand that the window for effective defense is already closing. What you do in the next 72 hours will determine whether you spend the next decade rebuilding your career or sitting in federal prison.
The 93% Reality: Why Federal Charges Against Engineers Almost Always Win
Lets start with the number you need to understand before anything else. Federal prosecutors secure convictions in 93% of cases that go to trial. But thats not the full picture. Only 2% of federal cases actualy go to trial. The remaining 98% either plead guilty or get dismissed - and dismissals are rare.
Heres the thing about federal prosecution. By the time your indicted, multiple layers of the Department of Justice have already reviewed your case. The local U.S. Attorney's office investigated. They made a recommendation to the Criminal Division at Main Justice. Career prosecutors evaluated whether the case meets federal prosecution standards. The decision to charge you wasnt made by one person having a bad day. It was a deliberate, documented conclusion that your case is winnable.
In 2018, of 79,704 federal defendants, exactly 320 received acquittals at trial. Thats 0.4%. Mark Forkner, the Boeing 737 Max chief technical pilot who was the only individual ever criminally charged in connection with crashes that killed 346 people, was one of those rare acquittals. But heres what you need to understand about his case: it took years of litigation, millions in legal fees, and the specific circumstance that prosecutors overreached on the fraud theory. His acquittal was the exception that proves how devastating the rule is.
The engineers who plead guilty - which is most of them - do so because there own documentation made trial impossible. Let that sink in.
Notice the pattern in federal engineering cases. The government builds its case during the investigation phase, not the trial phase. By the time charges are filed, theyve already assembled your emails, your memos, your design documents, your meeting notes. Theyve interviewed your colleagues. Theyve mapped the timeline. The trial isnt about discovering truth - its about presenting a case the government has already decided is winnable.
This is why early intervention matters so profoundly. Once your indicted, your fighting uphill against a mountain of your own professional documentation. Before your indicted, theres still opportunity to shape the narrative, to provide context, to demonstrate that prosecutorial theories dont hold up to technical scrutiny.
Your Documentation Is the Prosecution's Best Weapon
This is were the prometheus burns brightest. Engineers are trained to document everything. You flag concerns in writing. You send emails about design decisions. You create paper trails that demonstrate diligence and professional responsibility. Your licensing board expects it. Your employer requires it. Your professional ethics demand it.
And every single piece of that documentation becomes Exhibit A when something goes wrong.
Think about what prosecutors need to prove criminal liability. They need to establish that you knew about a problem and failed to act appropriately. In legal terms, they need to prove mens rea - guilty knowledge. For most defendants, this is the hardest element to prove. How do you show what someone knew?
But engineers hand them the evidence. That email you sent in 2019 flagging a concern about the structural calculations? It proves you knew. The memo from 2020 recommending additional testing that never happened? It proves you knew AND that your recommendation was ignored - which means you knew the problem wasnt fixed. The meeting notes were you documented management pushback on your safety concerns? You basicly wrote the prosecutions closing argument.
Heres were it gets even worse. The engineer who stays quiet, who dosent flag concerns, who just does what there told without documentation - that engineer is actualy harder to prosecute. They didnt create the paper trail. The system punishes the conscientious professional and protects the negligent one.
Federal prosecutors understand email discovery. They know how to search for keywords. They pull communications from 5, 7, sometimes 10 years ago. That frustrated message you sent a colleague late one night in 2018 - the one were you complained about the project timeline being unrealistic and the safety margins being cut too thin - that email is sitting in a server somewhere. And when something goes wrong with that project in 2025, that email becomes evidence that you knew. The passage of time dosent protect you. The digital record is permanant.
As Todd Spodek has explained to dozens of engineers facing federal exposure: "Your documentation doesnt prove your innocent. It proves you knew. And in federal court, knowing is the entire ballgame."
The engineering profession prides itself on ethical documentation. Your professional organizations publish guidelines about the importance of raising concerns in writing. Your licensing board can discipline you for failing to document safety issues. But nobody tells you that this same documentation transforms you from a witness into a defendant when federal prosecutors come calling.
Why You Were Charged (And Your Boss Wasn't)
Heres the part nobody talks about openly. When disasters happen - plane crashes, bridge collapses, industrial accidents - the public demands accountability. Someone must pay. But corporations are too big to jail. Executives have layers of deniability. So who becomes the target?
The person with documented knowledge.
Look at the Boeing 737 Max prosecution pattern. Two crashes killed 346 people. The automated flight control system was flawed. Executives made decisions about production schedules and pilot training. But the only individual criminally charged was the chief technical pilot - the person who had communicated about the system in writing, who had documented interactions with the FAA, who left a paper trail.
The executives who made broader strategic decisions? No charges. The managers who overruled engineering concerns? No charges. The person who wrote things down? Indicted.
This is the system working as designed. Corporate liability is diffuse and negotiable. Boeing reached a deferred prosecution agreement that was eventually dismissed. Individual liability is specific and prosecutable. If your name is on the memo that says "I have concerns about this design," you have just volunteered to be the accountability mechanism for a multi-billion dollar corporation.
Consider what happens when a bridge collapses or a building fails. Investigators look for the engineering firm. The firm points to the individual engineer who stamped the drawings. That engineer has documentation showing they raised concerns during the design process. Prosecutors see that documentation and conclude the engineer knew about the risk. The engineer gets charged with criminaly negligent homicide. The firm negotiates a civil settlement. The executives who set the budget and timeline that created the pressure? They express concern and move on to the next project.
In Tulsa in 2009, professional engineers who pleaded guilty to federal bribery charges went to prison AND lost there PE licenses. The Oklahoma State Board revoked there licenses because the conviction demonstrated they couldnt be trusted with public safety. Note the double punishment - federal prison wasnt enough. The administrative system operates independantly, on its own timeline, with its own standards.
OK so lets be very clear about whats happening here. Your employer has lawyers negotiating deferred prosecution agreements. You have a target on your back because you were good at your job and wrote things down.
The same pattern appears across sectors. In 2024, the chief engineer of a container ship was personally charged with federal crimes after a runaway ship incident in Charleston Harbor. Not the shipping company. Not the corporate officers. The chief engineer - the person with operational responsibility and documentary control logs. In 2024, an engineer in Georgia was charged with obstructing the investigation into a military plane crash that killed 16 service members. The charge wasnt causing the crash. It was obstructing the investigation - a charge that only becomes possible when you have documented knowledge that investigators want to access.
The Interview Trap: How Cooperation Becomes Additional Charges
Most engineers who learn there under federal investigation want to cooperate. You think: I didnt do anything wrong, I can explain the engineering, once they understand the technical context they'll see I was trying to help.
This instinct will destroy you.
When federal agents ask to interview you, they already have your emails. They've reviewed years of documentation. Theyve talked to your colleagues. They have a theory of the case, and there looking for you to confirm it - or to make statements that conflict with the documentary evidence so they can charge you with something else.
18 USC 1001 makes it a federal felony to make any false statement to a federal agent. Notice it dosent require the statement to be under oath. It dosent require the statement to be about something material. Any statement that turns out to be inconsistent with documentary evidence - even if you genuinely misremembered, even if you were confused about dates, even if the question was ambiguous - can become the basis for an additional felony charge.
Heres the consequence cascade that Todd Spodek has seen play out repeatedly:
Engineer agrees to voluntary interview believing cooperation will help. Three hour interview covers events from 5-7 years ago. Engineer makes statement that conflicts slightly with an email from 2019. Prosecutor adds false statement charge. Now engineer faces original exposure PLUS additional felony. Leverage for plea deal increases dramaticaly. Engineer pleads guilty to original charge to avoid trial on both.
The interview wasnt about understanding your perspective. It was about creating additional charges that make trial impossible.
Think about how impossible it is to remember every detail of events from years ago with perfect accuracy. You worked on dozens of projects. You sent thousands of emails. You attended hundreds of meetings. Federal agents have spent months reviewing your records. They know exactly what you said in an email on March 15, 2019. You dont. And when you misremember that email - as any human would - you've committed a felony.
This is not theoretical. The obstruction charges against the engineer in the military plane crash case came from post-incident statements, not from the crash itself. The ability to add charges based on interview inconsistencies gives prosecutors enormous leverage. They can turn a defensible underlying case into an indefensible multi-count indictment.
Do not speak to federal investigators without counsel present. Period. This is not about having something to hide. Its about understanding that every word you say becomes evidence, and federal prosecutors are professionals at finding inconsistencies.
Your License Is Already At Risk (Even If Your Acquitted)
Heres another reality most engineers dont understand until its to late. Your PE license and your criminal case operate on completly different legal tracks.
Criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt - the highest standard in American law. State licensing board actions require only a "preponderance of the evidence" - basicly, more likely then not. A 51% likelihood is enough.
What this means in practice: you can be aquitted criminaly and still lose your license through administrative proceedings. The state board dosent care that the jury found reasonable doubt. They conduct there own investigation, there own hearings, there own analysis. And there standard is much, much easier to meet.
Think about what happens when you're indicted:
The federal case becomes public record immediately. Your state licensing board opens an administrative investigation automaticaly. Your employer places you on administrative leave or terminates you. Your ability to earn income as an engineer ends the day your indicted - not the day your convicted, and not the day your aquitted.
In Virginia in 2023, the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation publicaly announced an engineer license revocation. In Indiana, license revocation is "permanant" - there is no path back. In New York, felony conviction "pretty much guarantees license revocation."
Even in states that allow reinstatement, the process takes years and requires demonstrating rehabilitation. During that time, your career is over. The cases you spent decades building expertise in? Someone else is working them. The professional reputation you built? Gone.
And heres the deepest cut. If you plead guilty in the federal case - which 90% of defendants do - the administrative proceeding is basicly over. The plea is treated as conclusive evidence. Your license is revoked automaticaly.
This creates a devastating trap. You plead guilty to avoid trial because the documentary evidence makes conviction likely. The plea triggers automatic license revocation. Your sentence might be probation or minimal prison time. But your career is permanantly over. You cant practice engineering in any state that has reciprocity with the state that revoked your license - which is most of them. Twenty years of expertise, education, and professional development become worthless overnight.
What The First 72 Hours Determine
Listen. If your reading this because you just received a target letter, or because agents just visited your workplace, or because you learned your the subject of a federal investigation - the next three days will determine the next decade of your life.
Heres what Spodek Law Group tells every engineer who calls us in this situation:
Stop talking immediately. Do not discuss the situation with colleagues. Do not send emails about it. Do not make any statements to anyone except your attorney. Anything you say - to your spouse, to your friend, to your colleague - can be subpoenaed. The federal rules of evidence have very limited protections for non-spousal communications.
Do not destroy or alter any documents. This seems obvious, but panic makes people do strange things. Obstruction of justice is often easier to prove then the underlying offense. The engineer in the military plane crash case that killed 16 service members was charged with obstructing the investigation - not with causing the crash itself. Destruction of evidence transforms a defensible case into an indefensible one.
Secure separate counsel from your employer. Your company's lawyers represent the company, not you. There interests and yours are already diverging, even if nobody has said so explicitly. The company wants to shift blame. You want to avoid becoming the person blame gets shifted to. You need your own lawyer who owes fiduciary duty exclusively to you.
Document the timeline before memories fade. With your attorney's guidance, create a detailed chronology of your involvement. What did you work on? What concerns did you raise? When? To whom? What was the response? Your attorney can use this to evaluate exposure and prepare defense strategy. But do this WITH your attorney - never create documentation alone that could later be discovered.
At Spodek Law Group, we understand that engineers think diferently then other defendants. You want to explain. You want to demonstrate the technical rationale. You want to show why the engineering judgment was reasonable. But federal court isnt a technical conference. The prosecutor isnt interested in whether your analysis was sound. There interested in whether you knew about a problem and whether you can be convinced or pressured into pleading guilty.
The 93% conviction rate exists because most defendants dont get proper defense strategy early enough. By the time there indicted, the documentary case against them is overwhelming. The only engineers who beat federal charges are those who engaged serious defense counsel during the investigation phase - before charging decisions were made.
The Path Forward
Federal charges against engineers are not about whether you made good engineering decisions. There about whether prosecutors can convince a jury that you knew something was wrong and proceded anyway. Your documentation proves knowledge. Your professional diligence becomes your criminal liability.
This is the system. Understanding it is the first step to surviving it.
The engineers who navigate federal exposure successfuly share common characteristics. They recognized the severity of the situation early. They secured independent counsel before speaking to investigators. They understood that there technical expertise, while valuable professionally, could become a weapon against them in court. They stopped trying to explain and started building strategic defenses.
Mark Forkner beat his federal charges - the only individual ever criminally charged in the Boeing 737 Max case. But he did so with years of legal fight, millions in fees, and the specific circumstances that prosecutors had overreached. Most engineers facing federal charges dont have those resources or those circumstances. For most, the question isnt how to win at trial. Its how to minimize damage and preserve whats possible of a career and a life.
If your facing federal investigation or charges, the time for action is now. Not after the indictment. Not after the trial date is set. Now.
The clock started when you learned about this. Every day you delay is a day the government uses to build its case stronger. Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196. This call costs nothing. Not making it costs everything.
They had years to investigate. You have days to respond. Use them.
