Earlier today, I did a short media interview about Christopher Judge and Raquelle Judge out of Fort Worth, Texas. For transparency, I wasn’t deeply familiar with every detail of their case before the interview.
I am, however, familiar with wire fraud, restitution, and what happens to people when the government starts telling the story.
One quick correction—because I don’t want to add to the noise: the DOJ release I’m reacting to is about guilty pleas, not a brand-new indictment. DOJ says Raquelle Judge pled guilty on December 17, 2025, and Christopher Judge pled guilty on December 30, 2025, both to conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
In this blog, I’m going to do two things:
- Give you a clean explanation of what “wire fraud” means (including the statute).
- Walk you through what happens next between a plea and sentencing—because that window is where defendants either help themselves or make things worse.
The basic facts (as DOJ describes them)
According to DOJ:
- Christopher Judge and Raquelle Judge were managing members of Judge DFW LLC.
- DOJ says that from August 2020 to January 2023, they conspired to defraud consumers by offering custom architecture, construction, and design services they did not complete.
- DOJ says they falsely represented Christopher Judge was an architect.
- DOJ says victims received below-market bids, signed contracts, paid in installments, and projects were started but not finished—often leaving victims without a completed residence.
- DOJ alleges losses of about $4.8 million, with 40+ victims across six counties and 24 projects.
- DOJ says Christopher Judge faces up to 20 years, and Raquelle Judge faces up to 5 years, plus restitution, penalties, and supervised release.
- DOJ lists sentencing dates of April 14, 2026 (Raquelle) and May 12, 2026 (Christopher), before Judge Terry R. Means.
Those are DOJ’s words and their framing. And framing matters.
What “wire fraud” actually is (statute + definition)
People hear wire fraud and think “internet scam.” That’s not wrong, but it’s incomplete.
Wire fraud is often about ordinary behavior—emails, texts, online payments, phone calls—being used as the plumbing for a scheme the government says was dishonest.
The wire fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343)
The federal wire fraud statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1343. In plain English, it covers a person who devises (or intends to devise) a scheme to defraud or obtain money/property by false pretenses, and then transmits (or causes transmission of) communications by wire/radio/TV in interstate or foreign commerce to execute the scheme.
A key detail most people miss: the statute doesn’t require a fancy “wire.” Email, text, online banking, electronic invoices, social media messages—those can all qualify as wires if the government can connect them to the alleged scheme.
“Conspiracy to commit wire fraud” (18 U.S.C. § 1349)
DOJ says the guilty pleas here are for conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
The conspiracy/attempt statute that commonly attaches to these fraud cases is 18 U.S.C. § 1349, which states that anyone who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under the fraud chapter is subject to the same penalties as the underlying offense.
That’s why wire fraud exposure can be so high even when defendants tell themselves, “We didn’t mean it” or “We were trying to catch up.” Conspiracy is about agreement and intent, not just the final outcome.
The DOJ’s simplified “elements” of wire fraud
The DOJ Criminal Resource Manual boils wire fraud down to two core elements:
- A scheme to defraud; and
- Use of (or causing the use of) interstate wire communications to execute that scheme.
That’s the skeleton prosecutors build on.
Why the phrase “below-market bid” is doing so much work here
If you’re the homeowner, “below-market bid” feels like relief.
If you’re the prosecutor, “below-market bid” sounds like bait.
That phrase helps the government answer the question every judge (and probation officer) is silently asking:
“How did so many people get pulled in?”
DOJ’s version is simple: the price looked unusually attractive, people signed, money flowed, and the work didn’t get completed.
In a wire fraud case, “below-market” can become the reason the government claims the scheme was designed—not accidental.
Installments + commingling: the part that turns “messy” into “wire fraud”
DOJ says victims paid in installments and that the defendants commingled victim payments in the main operating account, sometimes using one victim’s payments for unrelated construction projects.
I’m going to say this the way I’d say it to you privately:
This is where defendants talk themselves into believing it’s “normal business,” while prosecutors argue it’s “wire fraud.”
Because once projects aren’t completed, the money movement becomes the story:
- Who paid
- When they paid
- What they were told the payment was for
- What actually happened to the money afterward
If you’re under investigation and you’re still sending “we’ll fix it next week” messages while taking more payments, you’re not calming anyone down. You’re creating more potential wire fraud evidence.
What happens next between a guilty plea and sentencing?
DOJ lists sentencing months out. The government is working full time to advance their agenda.
Defendants should also be building a record that shows why they are worthy of leniency.
Loss and restitution get refined (and fought over)
Loss and restitution aren’t just numbers. They’re impact sentencing and the next 20 years of a defendants life. Some things to consider:
- Who counts as a victim? (Supreme Court recently addressed this)
- What counts as actual loss?
- What money (if any) was returned?
- What work was actually completed?
- Are there offsets? Insurance payments? Civil settlements?
This is where “around $4.8 million” becomes a more precise picture.
The PSR gets drafted (and it influences the judge’s first impression)
A probation officer prepares the Presentence Investigation Report. That report becomes the default story unless the defense actively corrects it with assets built over time.
If you’re the defendant and you’re passive here, you’re letting the government’s version harden.
Restitution planning becomes a credibility test
Restitution is not just “pay it back.” It’s also:
- Can you explain where the money went (credibly)?
- Can you show what you’re doing now (concretely)?
- Can you propose a payment plan tied to real income?
DOJ says restitution is on the table here.
And if you’re facing a wire fraud sentencing, restitution is one of the few areas where you hookup remorse to something measurable.
Sentencing themes get locked in
Judges tend to focus on patterns and harm. In a case DOJ frames as “40+ victims” and “unfinished residences,” the harm writes itself.
Which means the defense response can’t be vague. It has to be authentic and focus on how victims will be made whole, even if it takes time; in my case, it took 10 years.
If you’re reading this because you’re under investigation
I’m not writing this to poke fun at someone else’s problems. This is a brutal process, I know.
I’m writing it because I’ve watched smart people destroy themselves by treating wire fraud like it’s only about the charge—when it’s also about the story the government can prove through messages, payments, and patterns. This is about the victims.
If any part of this feels familiar—client money, promises, delays, “we’ll make it right soon”—take it seriously now, not later.
Personal note (and how to reach us)
If you have questions about wire fraud, restitution, sentencing, or what you should be doing right now to protect yourself from a worse outcome, go to White Collar Advice and schedule a call.
Thank you,
Justin Paperny
FAQs
What is wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343)?
Wire fraud is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 involving a scheme to defraud (or obtain money/property by false pretenses) where interstate wire communications are used to execute the scheme.
What does conspiracy to commit wire fraud mean (18 U.S.C. § 1349)?
18 U.S.C. § 1349 provides that anyone who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under the fraud chapter is subject to the same penalties as the underlying offense.
What did DOJ say happened in the Christopher and Raquelle Judge case?
DOJ says the couple, through Judge DFW LLC, offered below-market bids for custom home projects, took installment payments, and did not complete projects, with alleged losses around $4.8 million and 40+ victims. DOJ also states both defendants pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
When are the sentencings scheduled?
DOJ lists sentencing for Raquelle Judge on April 14, 2026, and for Christopher Judge on May 12, 2026.
Does wire fraud require the internet?
No. The statute focuses on using wire/radio/television communications in interstate or foreign commerce to execute a scheme. Today that often includes internet-based communications, but the statute is broader than “online scams.”
