A target letter means the U.S. Attorney’s Office has identified you as a putative defendant — someone whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation and against whom the prosecutor is considering charges. The most important thing is what you do not do. Do not call the prosecutor or the agent named in the letter. Do not respond to the letter directly. Do not delete documents or communications, even in the routine course. Do not discuss the matter with anyone other than counsel. Engage experienced federal defense counsel immediately — the decisions made in the days and weeks after a target letter often shape the entire trajectory of the case.

A grand jury subpoena is part of a criminal investigation and is issued under the authority of the federal grand jury. A civil investigative demand is part of a civil regulatory investigation, typically by the SEC, CFTC, or DOJ Civil Division. Both require a careful response, both require document preservation, and both can develop into something more serious. Civil investigative demands sometimes precede criminal referrals. Treat either one as a signal that the government has substantive interest.

No. The FBI and other federal criminal investigative agencies — DEA, HSI, IRS-CID, U.S. Secret Service — cannot compel employees or officers to speak when they appear without a warrant. A polite refusal, pending counsel involvement, is appropriate and lawful. Cooperate with any physical search if a warrant is present, document what is taken, and engage counsel immediately — but do not consent to interviews or extended discussions in the moment. Statements made to federal agents can become evidence; materially false statements made to federal agents are themselves a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. This is a common problem. You cannot be charged with a false statement to a federal agent if you do not speak with them.

Civil regulatory examinations are a different posture. Registered entities — MSBs subject to FinCEN examination, broker-dealers subject to SEC examination, registered futures commission merchants subject to CFTC examination — accept examination authority as a condition of registration, and the entity has legal obligations to produce records and cooperate with examination procedures.

Administrative subpoenas likewise compel document production. But the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies fully in civil proceedings; an individual employee or officer whose truthful answers might incriminate them in any future criminal matter retains the right to invoke the Fifth, even during a regulatory examination or civil deposition. The line between regulatory examination and criminal investigation can blur quickly. Counsel should be involved from the moment any government contact occurs, regardless of which agency, and individuals being interviewed in any government proceeding should consult counsel about whether the Fifth Amendment applies before answering questions.

Not without counsel. Voluntary disclosure can be the right move in some circumstances, but it can also lock the company into admissions that significantly worsen its position. The decision to engage proactively with a federal regulator depends on what the company knows, what the regulator likely knows, what statute is implicated, and what the company’s defensive posture would be if the regulator surfaces the issue independently. That analysis must be done by counsel before any contact.

A 21-day privileged engagement that maps a crypto company’s activities against the principal areas of federal exposure — money transmission, BSA, sanctions, securities under the SEC-CFTC March 17, 2026 framework, wire fraud, money laundering, and tax reporting. The deliverable is a confidential memorandum with risk ratings and remediation priorities, plus a board-ready executive summary. Designed for general counsel, compliance officers, and boards who want to understand exposure before a target letter arrives, not after.

The mechanics — grand juries, subpoenas, search warrants, plea negotiation, trial — are the same. What differs is the substantive law, the technical complexity, and the multi-agency posture. Federal crypto matters routinely involve coordinated investigation by DOJ, FinCEN, OFAC, the IRS, and the SEC or CFTC, with each agency operating under different statutes, different burdens of proof, and different remedies. The technical realities of blockchain — wallet attribution, smart contract operation, custody architecture — also create evidentiary and defense issues that don’t exist in other federal cases.

The interpretation reshaped the regulatory framework for digital assets. It established a five-category taxonomy — digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities — under which most crypto assets are not themselves securities. The release identified Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and other major cryptocurrencies as examples of digital commodities, placing them outside SEC registration jurisdiction. It also clarified how a crypto asset can enter and exit investment contract status, treating the transaction rather than the asset as the proper unit of analysis. The interpretation reduced the SEC’s primary registration jurisdiction over many digital assets, but federal anti-fraud authority over investment contract transactions remains intact. Companies that had pre-March 17 legal opinions should validate them against the new framework.

We respond to inquiries promptly, typically within one business day. After conflicts clearance and engagement letter execution, we can begin substantive work immediately. For matters involving an active target letter, grand jury subpoena, or imminent government deadline, we move faster.