Fraud cases are often the most common charges we fight, and they are career killers because they strike directly at trust, said to be the single most important quality a service member can possess. You are not just fighting a specific allegation; you are fighting the Command’s perception that you are fundamentally untrustworthy and a thief.
The key to understanding UCMJ fraud is that it is almost always a combination of three core Articles that the prosecution uses to stack the system against you.
Part I: The Common Triad of Charges in a Fraud Case
Any successful defense starts by separating the multiple charges the government piles on top of a single act of alleged dishonesty.
1. Article 121: Larceny (The Stealing Charge)
This is the baseline charge for stealing money or property. For fraud cases, it applies to the taking of the money itself.
- The Big Fight: Intent. The government has to prove you meant to steal. If we can prove the money was received due to an honest mistake, poor bookkeeping, or a lack of knowledge about a complex regulation, we defeat the Article 121 charge. This is the whole battle.
2. Article 132: Fraudulent Claims (The Paperwork Charge)
This Article is the primary tool used in almost every case involving reimbursement, travel, or benefits. Article 132 hits you when you sign and submit the paper.
- The Claim: You presented a document (a travel voucher, an expense report) knowing it contained a lie, intending to be paid for it.
- The Paper Trail: The prosecution will try to use the sheer volume of documents (one claim for mileage, one for weight, one for fuel) to multiply the charges against you. A single DITY move submission can result in dozens of separate charges.
3. Article 107: False Official Statement (The Integrity Charge)
This charge makes every fraud case an instant career killer. Article 107 charges you for telling a lie to an official agency or superior.
- The Double Hit: Article 107 often happens simultaneously with the fraud charge. You put a wrong address on a BAH form (you claim Honolulu when your home is in Enid) and you made a False Official Statement when you signed and submitted the form.
- The Power of Article 107: This charge focuses on dishonesty itself, independent of whether you stole money. Conviction for a False Official Statement is a death blow to your reputation and a direct path to a punitive discharge or dismissal.
Part II: Common Fraud Scenarios and Defense Tactics
We see several types of financial fraud repeatedly across all branches. Your defense must address the specific mechanics of the claim.
1. Travel, PCS, and DITY Fraud (The Paperwork Nightmare)
These claims often stem from an honest mistake that the government views as a scheme.
- The Defense Focus: A defense might be that the military’s own filing process is so complicated, relying on outdated paper forms and confusing regulations, that honest mistakes are inevitable. We fight the idea that a young service member should be expected to be a financial expert who can flawlessly navigate the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR).
2. Government Credit Card Misuse (The Conversion to Fraud)
This covers both the fraudulent use and personal use of the card (the “misuse” that turns into fraud).
- The Line: If you pay the personal charge back immediately, it is usually misuse (administrative action). If you leave the charge unpaid or hide it, it quickly turns into Larceny and Fraudulent Claims.
- The Defense Focus: Was the personal charge a true emergency, or was it a pattern of theft? We fight to prove the action was misuse due to convenience, not fraud due to malice.
3. Housing and Dependency Fraud (The Status Lie)
These charges (BAH, BAS, or Dependency Fraud) might be the most common charges we see for financial crimes.
- The Defense Focus: When a divorce is final, a defense might be that the delay in updating DEERS was administrative confusion or a failure to understand the technical “final date,” not an intent to steal every payment received during that period. In fake marriage cases, the burden is on the government to prove you knowingly entered the marriage solely for the allowance.
Part III: The Defense Battle: Knowledge vs. Ignorance
No matter how much paperwork is involved, an entire defense can be built around one simple framework for the court-martial panel: Did the service member know they were lying and deliberately set out to steal? Mindreading required if you want to convict.
The Intent Requirement: It’s Mind-Reading, Not Math
Proving the specific intent required for Larceny or Fraudulent Claims is a form of mind-reading. The prosecution’s strategy is to create a chain of circumstances that makes guilty intent the only logical conclusion (Pattern of Behavior, Active Deception).
Your job as the defense lawyer is to destroy that chain of logic by introducing The Alternative Theory of Intent:
- Ignorance of the Rule: “My client didn’t intend to steal; they intended to comply with a regulation they fundamentally did not understand.”
- Recklessness, Not Malice: “My client was sloppy, disorganized, and reckless with paperwork, but being a bad bookkeeper is not a crime.”
- Error, Not Theft: “They didn’t intend to permanently keep the money; they were simply slow to correct a system error.”
- However: Mindreading is a lot easier when the evidence shows the accused loaded up the bed of his pickup with kitty litter for the weight-in during a DITY move.
Jury Nullification: The Panel’s Wiggle Room
The high bar for proving intent gives the court-martial panel the moral and legal authority to perform what amounts to jury nullification, without ever calling it that.
- The Moral Disconnect: The panel looks at the client and considers the potential punishment: Dishonorable Discharge and loss of a retirement over claiming $2,500 too much on a form. They might think, “I believe this Sergeant made an error, but I do not believe he is a thief who deserves to lose his retirement.”
- The Intent Answer: They won’t say, “We don’t like the punishment.” They will say, “The government failed to prove he intended to defraud the government beyond all reasonable doubt.”
Giving the Panel Permission to Acquit
Your strategy must provide the moral justification for an acquittal based on a lack of intent:
- Restitution: We sometimes (not always!) advise clients to make full and immediate restitution for the funds, if financially possible, assuming they weren’t entitled to the money, even before charges are preferred. It’s a tricky question, one you need an attorney’s advice to answer with maximum leverage.
- The “Administrative” Defense: We remind the panel that a mistake is not a crime, even a mistake they wouldn’t have made themselves.
- Character Witnesses: “His character argues against the intent. Do you believe this decorated Airman suddenly risked everything for $3,000 in travel pay? Or do you believe he got confused by a 40-page regulation no one reads?”
By constantly reminding the panel that intent is the government’s heaviest burden, you maximize the chance that they will use that constitutional wiggle room to deliver a Not Guilty verdict.
Fraud charges are high-risk. You need an attorney who can fight the charges on the technical legal merits while simultaneously controlling the narrative around your character, history, and intent. If you are facing an investigation for any kind of financial fraud under the UCMJ, your commission, your retirement, and your freedom are on the line.
Call our experienced UCMJ lawyers immediately for a candid strategy session: 800-319-3134.