The 2026 Fraud Loss Table: Why November 1 Matters

By Jason B. Freeman

On November 1, 2026, every dollar threshold in the federal fraud loss table and the tax loss table moves up. The 2026 sentencing guidelines amendment adjusts section 2B1.1 and section 2T4.1 for inflation for the first time since 2014, the year the tables were last adjusted. A $180,000 fraud loss that adds ten offense levels today adds eight after November 1. For a first offender, that’s the difference between a 24-to-30-month range and an 18-to-24-month range before any other adjustment.

What Changes on November 1

The Commission voted unanimously on April 16, 2026 to adopt a package of seven amendments and sent it to Congress on April 30. Absent congressional action under 28 U.S.C. § 994(p), the package takes effect November 1. Amendment 2, “Inflationary Adjustments,” changes the monetary tables in §§ 2B1.1, 2B2.1, 2B3.1, 2R1.1, 2T4.1, 5E1.2, and 8C2.4.

The Commission’s reasoning is short. “The amendment adjusts each table based on inflationary changes since 2014 ($1.00 in 2014 = $1.36 in 2025), the year each monetary table was last adjusted for inflation.” “Due to inflationary changes, there has been a gradual decrease in the value of the dollar over time. As a result, monetary losses in current offenses reflect, to some degree, a lower degree of harm and culpability than equivalent amounts when the monetary tables were last substantively amended.”

That’s the Commission saying, in its own words, that a 2014 dollar and a 2026 dollar shouldn’t result in the same amount of time for financial crimes.

The New Loss Thresholds

Section 2B1.1(b)(1) drives the offense level in most federal fraud, theft, and embezzlement cases, and other guidelines effectively borrow it — the bribery and money laundering guidelines among them. Here’s how each tier moves. The number of levels added at each tier doesn’t change. The dollar amount it takes to get there does.

• +2: more than $6,500 becomes more than $9,000
• +4: more than $15,000 becomes more than $20,000
• +6: more than $40,000 becomes more than $55,000
• +8: more than $95,000 becomes more than $150,000
• +10: more than $150,000 becomes more than $200,000
• +12: more than $250,000 becomes more than $350,000
• +14: more than $550,000 becomes more than $750,000
• +16: more than $1,500,000 becomes more than $2,000,000
• +18: more than $3,500,000 becomes more than $5,000,000
• +20: more than $9,500,000 becomes more than $15,000,000
• +22: more than $25,000,000 becomes more than $35,000,000
• +24: more than $65,000,000 becomes more than $90,000,000
• +26: more than $150,000,000 becomes more than $200,000,000
• +28: more than $250,000,000 becomes more than $350,000,000
• +30: more than $550,000,000 becomes more than $750,000,000

Some tiers moved more than the 36 percent inflation figure, because the Commission rounded. The +8 tier jumped from $95,000 to $150,000, a 58 percent move that lands on the old +10 line.

Take a wire fraud defendant with no criminal history, a base offense level of 7, and a $180,000 loss. Under the current Manual, that’s level 17 and a range of 24 to 30 months. Under the amended Manual, it’s level 15 and 18 to 24 months. Acceptance of responsibility, role, sophisticated means, and victim enhancements all stack on top of that.

The Tax Table Moves Too

Criminal tax cases run through § 2T4.1, and it moves on the same schedule. A tax loss of $3,500 or less is now level 6, up from $2,500. The brackets that change outcomes most often sit in the middle: level 14 now starts above $55,000 instead of $40,000, level 16 above $150,000 instead of $100,000, level 18 above $350,000 instead of $250,000, level 20 above $750,000 instead of $550,000, and level 22 above $2,000,000 instead of $1,500,000.

A $1.6 million tax loss is level 22 today, with a range of 41 to 51 months for a first offender. After November 1st, it’s level 20 and 33 to 41 months. That’s before applicable adjustments, such as sophisticated means, the unreported criminal-income enhancement, and acceptance. How the tax loss is computed in the first place matters just as much, which is why the fight over whether unclaimed deductions reduce the tax loss doesn’t go away because the brackets moved.

Why It Isn’t Retroactive

Retroactivity takes four votes. Amendment 2 had, at most, three, according to the Commission’s June 2026 notice published at 91 Fed. Reg. 35802: “While three Commissioners may have voted in favor of making retroactive Amendment 2 (relating to inflationary adjustments) of the amendments submitted by the Commission to Congress on April 30, 2026, those votes alone would not have met the Sentencing Reform Act’s four-vote threshold for retroactivity.” The Commission also chose not to seek comment or hold a hearing on the question.

The practical result is that a defendant sentenced on October 30 under the old table can’t use 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to get the benefit of the new one. The Commission’s own finding about the declining value of the dollar remains available as a variance argument under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) at any sentencing held before November 1. It doesn’t reopen a sentence already imposed.

Which Manual Applies Now?

In most cases, the Manual in effect on the date of sentencing applies. Section 1B1.11 directs courts to use the current Manual unless doing so would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, which happens only when the newer Manual produces a higher range. An offense committed in 2023 and sentenced in December 2026 gets the new loss table.

Two wrinkles. The one-book rule in § 1B1.11(b)(2) requires the court to apply a single Manual in its entirety, so in theory a defendant can’t take the new loss table and keep a more favorable provision from the old book. Amendment 4 rewrites the multiple-count rules in Chapter Three, Part D, and the Commission hasn’t published an estimate of how that change moves ranges in fraud and tax cases.

Fines are the other wrinkle. Inflation adjustment raised the fine tables in § 5E1.2 and § 8C2.4, which cuts against defendants. The amendment adds a special instruction: for offenses committed on or after November 1, 2015 and before November 1, 2026, courts use the fine range in the version of § 5E1.2(c) in effect on November 1, 2025. Organizational defendants get a parallel instruction for the base fine under § 8C2.4.

Plea and Sentencing Strategy

Sentencing dates set before November 1st deserve a second look. Where the new table would move the offense level, a request to continue sentencing is worth making, with a candid explanation of why. Courts don’t have to grant it. But some will, because the Commission itself has said the old numbers overstate culpability.

Plea agreements need the same attention. An agreement that ties to a specific offense level, rather than a loss amount, can lock a defendant into the old table’s arithmetic even if sentencing lands in December. Stipulate to the dollar figure and let the guideline follow.

For sentencings that will go forward before November 1st, the variance argument writes itself. The Commission has adopted the amendment, submitted it, and explained that current dollar losses reflect “a lower degree of harm and culpability.”

One more point. The amendment changes the thresholds. It doesn’t change how loss is defined, and it doesn’t touch restitution, which still follows actual loss under the statutes discussed in our piece on restitution in criminal tax cases. A smaller guideline range with an unchanged restitution order is still a smaller guideline range, but it isn’t a smaller check.

The loss table sits underneath nearly every charge our white-collar defense and criminal tax defense practices see — mail and wire fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and tax evasion. The Commission’s own data show that many federal economic-crime offenders have no prior convictions, which is exactly the population for whom a two-level swing at Criminal History Category I translates into months.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law is fact-specific and subject to change, and readers should consult qualified counsel about their particular circumstances.