The New Federal Fraud Loss Table Takes Effect November 1, 2026: What Changed and What Did Not

On November 1, 2026, the dollar thresholds in the federal fraud loss table move up for the first time in eleven years. For a defendant whose loss figure sits near a threshold, the change is worth two offense levels, and two offense levels in the middle of the table is often a year or more.

On November 1, 2026 the U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1) loss table thresholds rise for inflation. Under U.S.S.G. 1B1.11 the manual in effect at sentencing applies, which makes the hearing date a variable worth understanding.

It is a quiet amendment. It was submitted to Congress on May 4, 2026 as an inflation adjustment, it drew almost no attention, and a fair amount of what has been written about it since is wrong. This post covers what the amendment does, what it does not do, and why the date of a sentencing hearing is now a variable worth understanding.

Key Takeaways

• Effective November 1, 2026, the U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1) loss table thresholds rise for inflation. All sixteen tiers are kept.
• A loss between $1.5 million and $2 million drops from a 16-level increase to 14. Several other bands move by two levels.
• Under U.S.S.G. 1B1.11, the Manual in effect at sentencing applies, so a defendant sentenced after November 1 gets the new table.
• The eight-tier collapse and the non-economic harm enhancement were 2026 proposals. They were not adopted, whatever firm commentary says.
• Loss is not restitution and neither is forfeiture. Ellingburg v. United States (Jan. 20, 2026) holds MVRA restitution is criminal punishment.

What the Amendment Does

The Sentencing Commission adjusted the monetary tables across the Guidelines Manual for inflation between 2014 and 2025, using a multiplier of roughly 1.36. Section 2B1.1(b)(1), the loss table that drives nearly every federal fraud sentence, is the one that matters to most defendants.

This is an inflation adjustment to the dollar figures and nothing more. The structure of the table is untouched. What moves is where each band begins, and that is enough to change the offense level for a defendant whose loss lands just above one of the old floors.

There is no shortcut. The only way to know whether the new thresholds help is to run the loss figure against both versions of the table and compare the two ranges. It takes ten minutes.

Reading the New Loss Table

Here is the full change. The left figure is the old threshold, the right figure is the threshold that takes effect November 1, 2026.

• No increase: $6,500 or less becomes $9,000 or less
• Add 2: more than $6,500 becomes more than $9,000
• Add 4: more than $15,000 becomes more than $20,000
• Add 6: more than $40,000 becomes more than $55,000
• Add 8: more than $95,000 becomes more than $150,000
• Add 10: more than $150,000 becomes more than $200,000
• Add 12: more than $250,000 becomes more than $350,000
• Add 14: more than $550,000 becomes more than $750,000
• Add 16: more than $1,500,000 becomes more than $2,000,000
• Add 18: more than $3,500,000 becomes more than $5,000,000
• Add 20: more than $9,500,000 becomes more than $15,000,000
• Add 22: more than $25,000,000 becomes more than $35,000,000
• Add 24: more than $65,000,000 becomes more than $90,000,000
• Add 26: more than $150,000,000 becomes more than $200,000,000
• Add 28: more than $250,000,000 becomes more than $350,000,000
• Add 30: more than $550,000,000 becomes more than $750,000,000

Read the list down and the effect is easy to see. A $1.8 million loss is a 16-level increase today and a 14-level increase on November 1. A $4.2 million loss goes from 18 to 16. A $120,000 loss goes from 10 to 8. A $12 million loss goes from 20 to 18. The defendants who gain nothing are the ones whose loss figure sits comfortably inside a band rather than near its floor.

What the Amendment Does Not Do, and Where the Commentary Is Wrong

A number of published summaries describe this amendment cycle as a structural overhaul of economic crime sentencing. It was not, and a defendant reading that material will form the wrong expectations.

The proposals that circulated during the cycle included collapsing the sixteen-tier loss table into eight tiers, adding a specific offense characteristic for substantial non-economic harm, and adding reductions for offenses committed under employer pressure and for remediation before an investigation began. Those were proposals. None of them was adopted. The loss table keeps all sixteen tiers and only the dollar figures move.

Two other points worth keeping straight. The health care fraud thresholds at 2B1.1(b)(7) were not amended, so a health care loss above $1 million or $7 million still carries the same enhancement it did before. And departures were abolished in the prior cycle, effective November 1, 2025, which is a separate change that has already taken effect and that some summaries still describe as pending.

If you are relying on a chart you found online, check it against the Commission's official compilation before anyone files anything.

For anyone still under investigation, the loss number is being built right now by an agent with a spreadsheet. The inputs to it are far easier to influence before charges than after.

Why Your Sentencing Date Decides Which Table Applies

Under U.S.S.G. 1B1.11(a), the court uses the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date of sentencing. Subsection (b)(1) carves out the ex post facto problem: if using the current Manual would produce a higher range than the Manual in effect when the offense was committed, the court uses the older one.

That rule runs in one direction only, and it runs in the defendant's favor here. A later Manual that raises exposure is barred. A later Manual that lowers exposure applies. Because the November 1 amendment moves thresholds up, it can only help, so there is no ex post facto obstacle to a defendant sentenced after that date taking the new table for conduct that predates it.

The lesson cuts both ways. The Manual is not a formality, the date matters, and it is an issue that has to be raised.

None of this is automatic. Probation prepares the presentence report using the Manual in effect when it writes, and a report drafted in September for an October hearing will use the current table. If the hearing moves, the calculation has to move with it, and that is a question for defense counsel to raise rather than something the system does on its own.

"A clean way to waste a sentencing is to argue the loss issue that the circuit has already closed. The open arguments are better anyway, and they are factual."— Aaron M. Cohen, AMC Defense Law

The Loss Fight That Is Closed, and the Ones That Are Not

The closed one is intended loss. Amendment 827, effective November 1, 2024, moved the rule that loss is the greater of actual or intended loss out of the commentary and into the guideline text. In United States v. Horn, 129 F.4th 1275 (11th Cir. 2025), the Eleventh Circuit held courts must consider both actual and intended harm. The argument that intended loss lives only in commentary and therefore gets no deference does not survive that sequence in this circuit.

The open ones are better anyway, and they are factual.

Scope and attribution under 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). The strongest loss argument for a marketer, a biller or any peripheral defendant is not that the total is wrong, it is that most of it falls outside the jointly undertaken activity he agreed to. Limit the claim universe by date, by provider number and by product line.

Billed is not paid is not loss is not restitution. The government's spreadsheet usually produces one number that the presentence report then uses for everything. Object, and make it separate the figures.

Credits against loss for value legitimately conferred before detection, which in health care means pressing hard on which services would have been covered anyway.

Individualized findings. A court must find this defendant's loss, not the scheme's.

The count of conviction. If the conviction is on a kickback count, check whether a different guideline applies and makes what the defendant received the table value instead of the scheme's billings. This is the cheapest high-value check in the case and it is regularly missed.

Loss, Restitution and Forfeiture Are Three Different Numbers

A fraud client hears one dollar figure and assumes it governs everything. It does not, and collapsing the three is how a defendant ends up paying the same money twice.

Guideline loss drives the offense level and reaches relevant conduct. Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A, is limited to actual loss to identifiable victims caused by the offense of conviction, so when counts drop in a plea, restitution should narrow with them. Forfeiture reaches the proceeds this defendant personally obtained, plus facilitating property.

The Supreme Court sharpened the restitution question this year. Ellingburg v. United States, decided January 20, 2026, holds unanimously that MVRA restitution is criminal punishment for Ex Post Facto Clause purposes. The Court left open whether the Sixth Amendment requires jury findings on the amount and whether the Excessive Fines Clause applies. Both should be treated as open questions and argued as open, not as settled.

What to Do About It Now

If you have a federal fraud sentencing scheduled, the first thing to do is run the numbers under both versions of the table. Either the loss figure sits near a threshold or it does not, and that answer takes ten minutes to reach.

If it does, the calculation, the presentence report and the hearing date all have to be looked at together, and that is a conversation to have with counsel now rather than at the podium. If it does not, the amendment changes nothing for you and the work stays where it always was, on the loss figure itself and on the 3553(a) argument.

For anyone earlier in the process, a subject of a federal investigation or holding a target letter, the loss number is being built right now by an agent with a spreadsheet, and the inputs to it are far easier to influence before charges than after. That is the part of a fraud case that is genuinely negotiable, and it closes.

The related question of how much a threshold change is actually worth in a large health care matter is worked through in our post on what the 2026 loss table does for telemedicine fraud defendants, and the broader amendment cycle is covered in what actually takes effect November 1.

Common Questions

Facing a Federal Fraud Sentencing or Investigation in Florida?

AMC Defense Law handles federal sentencing guidelines calculation and loss amount disputes, works as a PSR objections attorney, and builds 3553(a) variance and pre-indictment defense positions in healthcare fraud, wire fraud and financial crime matters, including 18 U.S.C. 1347 defense as a federal healthcare fraud attorney. The firm represents clients as a federal sentencing attorney and federal wire fraud attorney in Southern District of Florida federal defense and nationwide.

If a sentencing date is approaching, the loss figure and the hearing date have to be looked at together. That is a conversation to have with counsel now rather than at the podium.

If you have a sentencing date approaching, or you are the subject of a federal investigation and no charges have been filed yet, the loss figure is the number worth working on, and the window to shape it is earlier than most people think. Consultations are confidential. Call 561.542.5494 or write to amc@amcdefenselaw.com.

If you or your loved ones have been arrested or are facing a federal investigation in Florida, call Aaron M. Cohen for a confidential consultation, 24 hours a day, to get help.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, and it does not predict or promise any sentencing outcome. Guideline ranges are advisory and every sentence depends on the facts of the case, the record before the court, and the judge. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with AMC Defense Law. Anyone facing a federal sentencing or investigation should consult qualified counsel about their specific circumstances.

About the author: Aaron M. Cohen is the founder of AMC Defense Law, a federal criminal defense firm in Boca Raton, Florida. He is admitted to practice in Florida (Florida Bar No. 541427) and New York, and before the United States District Courts for the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New York. The firm represents clients in federal investigations and prosecutions involving healthcare fraud, Anti-Kickback Statute matters, DME and telemedicine fraud, peptide and compounded-drug enforcement, controlled-substance and drug conspiracy cases, financial crimes, and complex federal litigation, in Florida and nationwide.