18 USC 373 makes it a federal crime intentionally to solicit another person to commit a qualifying federal felony involving physical force. The government must show circumstances strongly corroborating the speaker’s intent. The offense can be complete even when the requested violent crime never occurs. It is not a general federal ban on every troubling statement or request. [1]
What must be proved
The proposed conduct must constitute a felony under federal law with an element involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person or property. The defendant must intend that another person engage in that conduct and solicit, command, induce, or otherwise try to persuade that person to do so. The statute’s strong-corroboration requirement makes context especially important. [1]
Messages arranging payment, identifying a target, or supplying operational details may carry different significance from an ambiguous remark. The legal analysis must consider the entire evidence and the elements of the proposed federal felony, not simply whether the words sounded violent. Section 16 contains a related definition of crime of violence, but Section 373’s own force-element language controls its reach. [2]
How the penalty is calculated
The maximum imprisonment generally equals one-half of the maximum term for the crime solicited. The statute also limits the fine by reference to the underlying offense. If that offense is punishable by life imprisonment or death, Section 373 permits up to twenty years in prison. These are maximums, not mandatory outcomes. The applicable sentencing rules require a separate analysis. [1]
Renunciation is a demanding defense
The statute provides an affirmative defense when voluntary and complete renunciation is accompanied by preventing the solicited crime. Simply changing one’s mind or postponing the plan is insufficient. Substituting another victim or similar objective is expressly inconsistent with the defense. The defendant bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence. [1]
Nor is it a defense merely that the solicited person lacked the necessary criminal state of mind, was immune, or could not otherwise be prosecuted. That matters in cases involving an undercover participant.
Solicitation should be distinguished from a firearm offense tied to a predicate crime and from trial-process questions such as Brady disclosure motions. Preserving communications and obtaining counsel early helps ensure that the actual federal charge and its required elements are evaluated accurately.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.