1. The Criminal Charge Determines the Applicable Filing Deadline
A fraud accusation does not carry a single prosecution deadline. Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 30.10 establishes limitation periods based on the charged offense and its classification. The first question is which criminal statute prosecutors intend to use, not how long the alleged misconduct remained undiscovered.
Felony and Misdemeanor Charges Have Different Deadlines
CPL § 30.10(2) establishes the ordinary prosecution periods for criminal offenses. Specific statutory exceptions can change these deadlines.
| Offense Classification | General Limitation Period | Legal Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Felonies other than those subject to special rules | 5 years | CPL § 30.10(2)(b) |
| Misdemeanors | 2 years | CPL § 30.10(2)(c) |
| Petty offenses | 1 year | CPL § 30.10(2)(d) |
Felonies other than those subject to special rules
- General Limitation Period5 years
- Legal AuthorityCPL § 30.10(2)(b)
Misdemeanors
- General Limitation Period2 years
- Legal AuthorityCPL § 30.10(2)(c)
Petty offenses
- General Limitation Period1 year
- Legal AuthorityCPL § 30.10(2)(d)
Class A felonies and certain other specifically listed offenses follow different rules. A defendant should therefore examine the precise charge before calculating a deadline.
The Same Conduct May Support Different Fraud Charges
Penal Law § 190.60 classifies scheme to defraud in the second degree as a class A misdemeanor. Section 190.65 classifies scheme to defraud in the first degree as a class E felony.
These offenses require different statutory elements. The number of intended victims, the value of property obtained, and the alleged course of conduct may affect which charge applies.
Other allegations may involve larceny or forgery. Each count requires its own limitations analysis, including any special statutory provision.
Federal Fraud Charges Follow Separate Time Limits
State prosecution deadlines do not control federal criminal cases.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a), the general limitation period for federal noncapital offenses is five years unless another federal statute provides otherwise.
Section 3293 establishes a ten-year period for specified financial institution offenses. These include bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and certain mail or wire fraud offenses affecting financial institutions.
The distinction matters when federal and state authorities investigate the same transactions. A federal and state fraud defense assessment must identify the applicable offense and jurisdiction before evaluating the prosecution deadline.
2. The Offense Date Usually Determines When the Clock Starts
The fraud statute of limitations generally begins running when the alleged crime is committed. An investigation that starts years later does not automatically reset that date. The prosecution must establish when the conduct satisfied the elements of the charged offense.
Completion of the Crime Matters More Than Discovery
The date someone suffered a financial loss may differ from the date the accused allegedly completed a crime. Investigators might also uncover suspicious records long after the underlying transaction.
For a limitations analysis, the relevant question is when the elements of the charged offense were satisfied. A later audit or complaint does not necessarily establish a new starting point.
Payment records, contracts, transaction histories, and contemporaneous communications can help identify the alleged commission date.
Repeated Transactions Require a Closer Review
Financial investigations sometimes involve multiple transfers or representations spanning several years. Those transactions do not automatically constitute one continuing offense.
For example, Penal Law §§ 190.60 and 190.65 address schemes involving a systematic, ongoing course of conduct. The charging theory and statutory elements affect when such an offense is complete.
Other charges may require separate consideration of individual transactions. A later payment does not necessarily restart the deadline for an earlier, completed offense.
Documents reviewed during white-collar investigations can help establish the sequence of events. Preserving original records and their dates is particularly useful when the prosecution and defense disagree about when the alleged conduct occurred.
3. Statutory Exceptions Can Extend or Exclude Certain Periods
CPL § 30.10 provides exceptions that may change ordinary prosecution deadlines. These depend on the charged offense, discovery dates, periods of absence, or earlier proceedings. They do not establish a general discovery rule for criminal fraud.
Fiduciary Larceny Has a Special Discovery Provision
Under CPL § 30.10(3)(a), larceny involving a breach of fiduciary duty may be prosecuted within one year after the offense was or reasonably should have been discovered by the aggrieved party or a qualifying representative.
An embezzlement allegation does not automatically qualify. The fiduciary relationship and statutory discovery requirements must be established.
Real Property Fraud May Have a Later Deadline
CPL § 30.10(3)(h) allows prosecution of qualifying real property fraud felonies within five years of the offense or two years after the aggrieved party discovers the relevant facts, whichever is later.
Enacted in 2024, this provision requires separate review before applying it to older conduct.
Absence and Unknown Whereabouts May Affect the Calculation
CPL § 30.10(4)(a) excludes certain periods when the defendant was continuously outside the state or their whereabouts remained unknown despite reasonable diligence.
The resulting extension cannot exceed five years beyond the otherwise applicable period under subdivision two.
An Earlier Prosecution May Affect a Later Filing
Under CPL § 30.10(4)(b), time between the commencement and dismissal of an earlier timely prosecution may be excluded if a new charge for the same offense or conduct is legally permitted.
The original filing date and dismissal circumstances determine whether this exception applies.
4. Court Filing Dates and Pretrial Motions Determine the Available Defense
The prosecution deadline depends on when the criminal action commenced, not merely when authorities investigated or arrested someone. Court filings establish whether the case began within the applicable period and whether a defendant may challenge an untimely charge.
The First Accusatory Instrument May Establish Commencement
Under CPL § 1.20(17), a criminal action generally begins when an accusatory instrument is filed in criminal court. This may include a felony complaint, misdemeanor complaint, information, or indictment.
A later indictment does not necessarily make prosecution untimely. An earlier qualifying filing may control when subsequent charges belong to the same criminal action.
A Defendant May Move to Dismiss Untimely Charges
CPL § 170.30(1)(d) allows defendants to seek dismissal of certain untimely local criminal court charges. CPL § 210.20(1)(f) provides a corresponding ground for dismissing an indictment.
Under CPL § 255.20, pretrial motions generally must be filed within 45 days after arraignment and before trial, subject to statutory exceptions. Early review of the charges and filing dates is therefore important.
A Documented Timeline Supports a Limitations Challenge
A limitations defense requires records identifying when the alleged offense occurred and when prosecution began. Key evidence includes transaction records, initial court filings, subsequent charges, and documents supporting statutory exceptions.
A criminal defense and trials review can assess whether these dates support dismissal. The passage of time alone does not establish that prosecution is barred.
20 Apr, 2026
