Fraud Crimes - How Much Detail Must Be Put Into a Criminal Complaint?
In California, a criminal complaint for fraud does not require exhaustive factual detail to satisfy due process. Under modern pleading standards, a charging document—whether a complaint, information, or indictment—is considered sufficient if it identifies the specific offense, the victim, the type of fraudulent claim, and the relevant timeframe. According to the California Court of Appeal in Heidary v. Superior Court (2018) and Hoffman v. Superior Court (2017), prosecutors are not required to itemize every underlying act or provide a granular narrative within the complaint itself.
This present holding which is from a single appellate district (there are six in California) and the California Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. A major concern is whether the person charged with fraud can properly prepare for court hearings as the case moves forward.
Example - Medical Fraud Case
For example, in a medical fraud case, is it enough to state a range of dates, name a patient and then said the doctor submitted fraudulent billings? Can the doctor glean enough information from that pleading to know which bills are allegedly fraudulent or what conduct is allegedly fraudulent.
Heidary Case Discussed
Only one Court of Appeal in California has addressed this issue. Here is how the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Riverside Division) addressed the fairness issue.
The California Court of Appeal's decision in Heidary v. Superior Court (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 110 provides important guidance, building on related precedent like Hoffman v. Superior Court (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1081 (as referenced in the case). This ruling emphasizes that modern pleading standards do not demand exhaustive factual specificity in the charging document itself.
Background of Heidary v. Superior Court
In Heidary, the petitioner—a former chiropractor—was indicted by a grand jury for multiple counts of insurance fraud and related offenses under Penal Code sections like 550 and Insurance Code section 1871.4. The charges stemmed from an alleged scheme involving workers' compensation medical billing fraud in Southern California. Heidary allegedly controlled several clinics, directed unqualified or standardized treatments, used templated expensive medical-legal reports, required fee-splitting, and manipulated accounts receivable.
The grand jury heard testimony and reviewed evidence before indicting him. Heidary then moved under Penal Code section 995 to set aside the indictment, arguing insufficient evidence and improper aggregation of multiple fraudulent acts into single felony counts. The superior court denied the motion, leading to a writ petition.
The Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division Two) upheld the denial, issuing a published opinion partly because the case addressed Insurance Code section 1871.4 (unlike the companion Hoffman case) and differed procedurally (grand jury indictment vs. preliminary hearing information).
Aggregation of Fraudulent Acts into Felony Counts
A central issue was whether prosecutors could aggregate multiple discrete fraudulent billing acts into a single count to elevate the offense to a felony (e.g., based on total loss exceeding thresholds like $950 for certain wobbler offenses). Some counts involved "wobblers" where aggregation under specific statutes (like subsection (c)(2)(B)) determined felony vs. misdemeanor status based on aggregate loss.
The pleading just had a date range. Were there 20 bills that aggregated to constitute fraud? 10? 100? How would the doctor know?
The court strongly validated this practice, finding it permissible and even beneficial to defendants in some respects, as aggregation often means only one penalty per aggregated count rather than multiple separate prosecutions.
Due Process and Notice Requirements
The core due process concern was whether the indictment provided adequate notice of the charges. Heidary argued the aggregated counts left him uncertain about specifics.
Relying on Another Case (Same District)
The court rejected this, relying heavily on Hoffman v. Superior Court (a closely related case involving similar fraud charges). It stated:
Under modern pleading procedures, notice of the particular circumstances of an alleged crime is provided by the evidence presented to the committing magistrate at the preliminary examination, not by a factually detailed information.(Hoffman, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at p. 1092, quoting People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 358).
The court cited Hoffman for the point that:
the time, place and circumstances of charged offenses are left to the preliminary hearing transcript; it is the touchstone of due process notice to a defendant. (Hoffman, at p. 1092).
How Much is Enough?
In Heidary, the court found the indictment sufficiently specific because each count identified:
1. The offense charged
2. The victim (typically an insurance provider)
3. The type of alleged fraudulent claim
4. The specific timeframe during which the offense occurred
In Hoffman the defense was also provided with relevant patient files tied to the offense but this was provided outside of the complaint so that additional element to satisfy due process was provided but not in the charging document itself.
The court in Heidary stated that:
This level of detail met constitutional standards. The charging document need not itemize every underlying act or provide granular factual narratives—due process is satisfied when the defendant receives fair notice of the charges, with finer details fleshed out through discovery, the preliminary hearing (or grand jury transcript in indictment cases), and trial preparation.
Do Defendants Benefit from this Vagueness?
The court noted defendants actually benefit from aggregation, as it limits exposure to multiple penalties for related acts (citing People v. Steelik (1921) 187 Cal. 361, 370).
Implications for Criminal Fraud Complaints
In fraud cases—especially those involving schemes with numerous similar acts (e.g., repeated false billings)—prosecutors enjoy flexibility to aggregate without violating due process, provided the charging document identifies the core elements above. Overly detailed pleadings are not required at the accusatory stage; instead, the preliminary hearing or grand jury process serves as the primary vehicle for notice of specifics.
The requirement that real detail be provided at the preliminary hearing does provide some comfort for defendants. The courts have held that any material deviation at trial from the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing (or to a grand jury) can trigger due process violations (see People v. Burnett (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 151; People v. Peyton (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 642). The preliminary hearing transcript becomes the "touchstone" for notice, limiting prosecutorial "midstream" changes in theory.
As an aside, in civil cases involving fraud (civil meaning cases involving money but no criminal charges), California requires that fraud allegations be pled with great specificity. Hence a criminal defendant has far less notice than a civil litigant!
Contact the Best Attorney for Fraud Defense
Daniel Horowitz is a highly experienced fraud defense attorney. He represented Ukraine Prime Minister Pavel Lazarenko in his major fraud trial in San Francisco California and all charges that Horowitz defended were dismissed. His medical fraud expertise is well known and his office is focused on defending people wrongly accused. Call Daniel Horowitz for an initial consultation at (925) 283-1863.
