Online Enticement of a Minor Defense: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) Explained

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Online enticement is one of the most aggressively prosecuted federal sex offenses — it carries a ten-year mandatory minimum, and the great majority of these cases arise from undercover sting operations in which the “minor” was a law enforcement officer. Sting cases are built conversation by conversation, which means they can be taken apart the same way — work an experienced online enticement lawyer begins the day you call. At Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C., we defend clients against federal enticement allegations nationwide.

This guide explains, in clinical and factual terms, the federal enticement statute — 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) — its elements, penalties, and defenses, including the doctrine governing child enticement and online solicitation of a minor charges. Everything here concerns the law and how the accused defends against it.

Statutory precision is the working tool of this practice, and the recognition has followed it: a 2026 “Best Lawyer” listing in Appellate Practice for Elizabeth Franklin-Best, our principal attorney, in Best Lawyers in America, and a 2026 Chambers USA ranking for the firm in Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations. Across her career, Ms. Franklin-Best has appeared in more than 330 federal matters — over 100 of them appeals — in all twelve federal circuits and at the United States Supreme Court, the kind of trial-and-appellate vantage point an enticement case demands. In an enticement case we scrutinize the intent element, the conduct of the sting, and the entrapment question before anything is conceded. A paid, one-hour initial consultation opens that review.

Online Enticement: Quick Answer

Question	Answer
What is online enticement of a minor?	Knowingly using the internet or another facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity — or attempting to do so — under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
What must the government prove?	That the defendant acted with the intent to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor — not that the defendant intended to commit a sexual act.
What penalties can apply?	A ten-year mandatory minimum and a maximum of life imprisonment.
Can I be convicted if there was no real minor?	Yes. Because the statute reaches attempts, a conviction is possible where the “minor” was an undercover officer the defendant believed to be a minor.
What is the first step in a defense?	A paid, one-hour initial consultation in which we review the sting communications and your exposure in confidence.

Key Takeaways

• Online enticement of a minor is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), carrying a ten-year mandatory minimum and a maximum of life.
• The statute punishes the persuasion or enticement itself — the government need not prove the defendant intended to commit a sexual act.
• The required intent is the intent to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to assent to unlawful sexual activity.
• Because the statute reaches attempts, a conviction is possible even where the “minor” was an undercover officer.
• Most enticement cases arise from undercover sting operations — making entrapment and intent the central defenses.
• The complete record of the communications — who initiated and escalated — is decisive.
• A conviction triggers sex offender registration under SORNA and extensive collateral consequences.
• The intent element and the conduct of the sting are where these cases are most often defended.
• Entrapment doctrine comes from Jacobson v. United States: the government must prove predisposition that existed before agents first made contact.
• Constitutional attacks on § 2422(b) — vagueness, overbreadth, the First Amendment — have failed in the courts of appeals (Gagliardi), which channels the defense toward intent and entrapment.

What the Enticement Statute Prohibits

Online enticement of a minor is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The statute makes it a crime to use the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce — in the modern context, the internet, a phone, or a messaging application — to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any individual under the age of 18 to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, or to attempt to do so.

The most important thing to understand about § 2422(b) is what it actually criminalizes. The statute punishes the persuasion or enticement itself — and the attempt to persuade or entice. It does not require that any sexual act occurred, was attempted, or was even intended to be carried out personally by the defendant. Congress made a deliberate choice to criminalize the act of solicitation, and courts have consistently held that the focus is on the defendant’s effort to cause a minor’s assent, not on the underlying sexual conduct.

That structure makes the defendant’s intent the decisive issue in nearly every enticement case. Enticement is also distinct from the CSAM offenses — possession, receipt and distribution, and production — though sting investigations often generate both kinds of charges; our guide to federal sex offense defense maps the full landscape.

The Intent Element

To convict under § 2422(b), the government must prove the defendant acted with a specific intent — but it is important to be precise about which intent. Courts have repeatedly held that the required intent is the intent to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity. The government need not prove that the defendant intended to commit the sexual act itself.

In other words, the statute targets an attempt to achieve a mental result — the minor’s assent. A conviction requires a finding of an attempt to entice, or an intent to entice, and not an intent to perform any sexual act following the persuasion.

This makes the intent element both the heart of the offense and the heart of the defense. The government must prove the defendant genuinely intended to persuade a minor to assent. Where the communications do not establish that intent — where they reflect, for example, fantasy role-play between adults without a genuine effort to entice a minor — the intent element is contestable. Whether such a defense is available depends closely on the facts, the specific communications, and the law of the jurisdiction.

The intent element does real work in litigated cases. In United States v. Hite, 769 F.3d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 2014), the D.C. Circuit vacated a conviction because the jury was instructed it could convict if the defendant merely believed an adult could “arrange” sexual activity — when the statute demands more: communications aimed at persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing the minor, at transforming or overcoming the minor’s will. The same decision confirmed that messages routed through an adult intermediary can violate § 2422(b), but only when they are directed at securing the minor’s assent.

Applied Insight: Because § 2422(b) targets the intent to persuade rather than the intent to commit a sex act, the defense lives in the communications themselves. What the defendant actually said, how the exchange developed, and whether it reflects a genuine effort to entice a minor — or something else entirely — is the evidence on which the intent element rises or falls.

Sting Operations and the “No Real Minor” Question

The great majority of online enticement prosecutions arise from undercover sting operations. A law enforcement officer poses online as a minor — or as an adult, such as a parent, offering access to a minor — and engages a target in communication.

A frequent question is whether a person can be convicted when no actual minor was ever involved. The answer, under the law, is yes. Because § 2422(b) expressly reaches attempts, courts have held that a defendant can be convicted of attempted enticement where the intended “minor” was in fact an undercover officer — so long as the defendant believed he was communicating with a minor and took a substantial step toward the offense. The Seventh Circuit restated that settled rule in Christopher v. United States, 148 F.4th 885 (7th Cir. 2025): for an attempt offense under the statute, it is not necessary for the intended target to be a real minor so long as the defendant believed the target was a real minor, intended to entice the target into illegal sexual activity, and took a substantial step to carry out his plan. The same principle applies to cases involving an adult intermediary: communicating through an adult who purports to offer access to a minor can support a conviction.

United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007), is representative. The Second Circuit joined the other courts of appeals in holding that § 2422(b) does not require an actual minor, that factual impossibility is no defense to an attempt, and that the statute is neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad. The court also rejected a First Amendment challenge, reasoning that speech which serves as the vehicle of the offense is not protected — a holding that marks the outer constitutional limits of these prosecutions and channels the defense toward intent and entrapment.

The absence of a real minor is therefore not, by itself, a defense. But the conduct of the sting operation opens two of the most important defenses in these cases.

Entrapment and the Communications Record

Because enticement cases are built on sting operations, entrapment is a central defense. Entrapment is a complete defense where the government induced an offense that the defendant was not predisposed to commit. In an enticement case, that inquiry focuses closely on how the undercover operation was conducted: who first introduced the unlawful subject; who escalated the conversation; whether the officer pressed, persisted, or manufactured the criminal opportunity; and whether the defendant showed reluctance or was a willing, predisposed participant.

The controlling authority is Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992), in which the Supreme Court reversed a conviction because the government had not proved the defendant was predisposed before agents first approached him. Jacobson draws the line for sting work: agents may present an opportunity to someone already disposed to commit the offense, but they may not implant the disposition and then prosecute its result. The Court also made clear that a generic, lawful interest is of little value in proving predisposition to commit a crime — a distinction with obvious force where the government leans on lawful online activity to suggest propensity.

This is why the complete record of the communications is so important. The government typically presents excerpts that frame the exchange in the worst light. The defense insists on the full conversation, in context and in sequence — because entrapment and intent are both proven, or disproven, in that complete record. Who raised the unlawful subject, who pushed it forward, who hesitated, and how the exchange actually developed are the facts that decide these cases.

Applied Insight: In an enticement sting, sequence is everything. An undercover transcript read from start to finish often tells a very different story than the excerpts in a charging document. Reconstructing exactly who initiated, who escalated, and who hesitated is the foundation of both the entrapment defense and the challenge to intent.

Penalties for Online Enticement

Online enticement under § 2422(b) is a felony carrying a ten-year mandatory minimum and a statutory maximum of life imprisonment. The ten-year floor applies even in an attempt case arising from a sting in which no actual minor was involved. The adjacent provision, § 2422(a) — persuading an individual to travel in interstate commerce for unlawful sexual activity — carries up to 20 years with no mandatory minimum, so which subsection the government charges matters enormously.

A conviction also requires sex offender registration under SORNA, and § 3583(k) of Title 18 authorizes supervised release from five years up to life, alongside collateral consequences reaching employment, housing, residency, family matters, and immigration status. Given the ten-year mandatory minimum, the stakes of an enticement case are severe from the outset.

Above the floor, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines — for § 2422(b), typically § 2G1.3 — govern the calculation, and our guide to federal sentencing explains how guideline math and variance arguments work. But because the mandatory minimum is so high, the most consequential work in an enticement case is often the defense to the charge itself — the challenge to intent and the entrapment defense.

Defenses to Online Enticement Charges

Enticement prosecutions rise or fall on their communications records, and honest counsel offers analysis rather than guarantees. These are the recurring defense themes, each dependent on that record:

• Entrapment. The government induced an offense the defendant was not predisposed to commit — a complete defense in a sting case.
• Lack of intent to entice. The government cannot prove the defendant genuinely intended to persuade a minor to assent to unlawful sexual activity.
• No substantial step. In an attempt case, the defendant did not take a substantial step toward the offense.
• The communications in context. The full record of the exchange does not support the intent the government alleges.
• No belief a minor was involved. The defendant did not believe he was communicating with a minor.
• Identity. The government cannot prove the defendant, rather than another person, conducted the communications.
• Fourth Amendment and process challenges. The manner in which evidence and devices were obtained can be litigated.
• Sentencing advocacy. Rigorous sentencing work and full mitigation.

What works is dictated by the transcripts and the forensic trail. We read them in full, hold each element of § 2422(b) up against them, and pursue every defense they support — in the investigation, in motions practice, at trial, and on appeal.

How Enticement Investigations Begin

Enticement investigations arise overwhelmingly from proactive undercover operations. Law enforcement task forces operate online — in chat applications, on social media, on dating platforms, and in other forums — posing as minors or as adults offering access to minors. They engage targets in communication and, in many cases, arrange a meeting where an arrest is made. Investigations also arise from reports by platforms and from forensic examinations in other cases.

What you do at the first contact with law enforcement is critical. Nothing requires you to answer questions or to consent to a device search, and an unprepared interview is uniquely dangerous on the intent element. Say nothing substantive, preserve every communication in full, and get an experienced online enticement lawyer involved at once.

Why Work With Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C.

Enticement cases reward defense lawyers who understand how the statute actually works, who can challenge the intent element, who know the entrapment defense, and who reconstruct the complete communications record rather than accepting the government’s excerpts.

Elizabeth Franklin-Best, principal attorney, is admitted to the United States Supreme Court and all twelve federal circuit courts of appeals, appears pro hac vice in district courts nationwide, and is the author of Reversing Your Criminal Conviction. Christopher Zoukis, our Managing Director, brings focused knowledge of federal sentencing and the Bureau of Prisons to the back end of every case. Strict discretion governs every enticement matter we handle, from first call to final filing.

Promises about results are not something the law allows or honesty permits. What you can count on is craft: the full record read, the law applied without shortcuts, and a defense built around the case you actually have. It starts with a paid, one-hour initial consultation.

Talk With an Online Enticement Defense Lawyer

Between an arrest and an indictment, transcripts get framed, charges get selected, and positions harden — with a ten-year floor attached. An experienced online enticement lawyer engaged in that window can still shape all three. Schedule your paid, one-hour initial consultation with our team today.