The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the conviction and 60-month prison sentence of Karl Hampton, who was found guilty of orchestrating a years-long fraud scheme that cost victims over $1.2 million.
In an opinion filed Jan. 26, 2026, a three-judge panel rejected Hampton's appeals of his conviction on multiple fraud and money laundering charges. The court affirmed both his conviction and sentence after finding his arguments unpersuasive.
Hampton was convicted on 12 total counts: four counts of wire fraud, four counts of mail fraud, three counts of money laundering, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The charges stemmed from a scheme in which Hampton spent over $1.2 million of other people's money over multiple years.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, where a jury found Hampton guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to 60 months in federal prison before appealing to the Sixth Circuit.
According to court documents, the fraud scheme involved Barbara Wade, a widow who lived alone in Franklin, Tennessee. As of 2017, Wade's only living relative was her niece, Laurie Baum, who lived in California and would call Wade periodically. The specific details of how Hampton allegedly defrauded Wade and potentially other victims were part of the evidence presented at trial.
On appeal, Hampton raised three main arguments challenging his conviction. First, he argued that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence to sustain his fraud counts. Second, he contended that the district court erred by failing to include a jury instruction on testamentary capacity. Third, he claimed that a duplicitous indictment violated his Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury.
The Sixth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges McKeague, Griffin, and Thapar, rejected all of Hampton's arguments. Circuit Judge McKeague wrote the opinion for the court, finding that Hampton's contentions lacked merit.
Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, federal prosecutors apparently presented enough proof to convince both the trial jury and the appeals court that Hampton had engaged in the alleged fraud scheme. Wire fraud and mail fraud are federal crimes that carry significant penalties, particularly when they involve large sums of money as in Hampton's case.
Hampton's argument about testamentary capacity suggests that issues surrounding Wade's mental state or ability to make legal decisions may have been relevant to the case. Testamentary capacity refers to a person's legal ability to make a valid will, which requires understanding the nature and extent of one's property and the natural objects of one's bounty. However, the appeals court found that any jury instruction on this topic was unnecessary.
The duplicitous indictment argument relates to Hampton's claim that the charging document improperly grouped multiple offenses together, potentially violating his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict on each specific charge. The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to trial by jury, including the requirement that jury verdicts be unanimous in federal criminal cases.
Money laundering charges typically involve attempts to disguise the proceeds of criminal activity as legitimate funds. The fact that Hampton faced both individual money laundering counts and a conspiracy charge suggests that prosecutors alleged he worked with others or engaged in multiple transactions to hide the fraudulent proceeds.
The 60-month sentence reflects the serious nature of the charges. Federal sentencing guidelines consider factors including the amount of money involved, the sophistication of the scheme, and the defendant's role in the offense. With over $1.2 million at stake, Hampton's sentence falls within typical ranges for financial fraud cases of this magnitude.
This case represents another example of federal prosecutors' focus on elder fraud schemes, which have become increasingly common as scammers target vulnerable elderly individuals. The involvement of Wade, described as a widow living alone with limited family connections, fits the pattern of victims often targeted in such schemes.
The Sixth Circuit's affirmance means Hampton's conviction and sentence stand. The court's decision not to recommend the opinion for publication suggests it applied established legal principles rather than breaking new ground. Such unpublished opinions still have precedential value within the circuit but carry less weight than published decisions.
Hampton could potentially seek review by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such requests. The Supreme Court typically reviews cases that present novel legal questions or conflicts between circuit courts, neither of which appears present in Hampton's case.
The case serves as a reminder that federal prosecutors continue to prioritize fraud schemes targeting elderly victims, and that significant prison sentences await those convicted of such crimes. The multi-year investigation and prosecution also demonstrates the resources federal authorities dedicate to complex financial crimes involving substantial victim losses.