Federal prosecutors seek 2-year prison sentence for former Missouri House Speaker John Diehl
by Jason Hancock, Missouri Independent
February 25, 2026
Federal prosecutors are asking a judge to sentence former Missouri House Speaker John Diehl to two years in prison in his federal COVID relief fraud case, arguing his admitted misuse of nearly $380,000 in pandemic aid “should merit a significant punishment.”
In a sentencing memorandum filed Monday in U.S. District Court in St. Louis, Assistant U.S. Attorney Hal Goldsmith urged the court to sentence Diehl within the federal guideline range of 21 to 27 months. Prosecutors say that range is appropriate given what they describe as Diehl’s “substantial criminal conduct” involving disaster relief money intended to help businesses and workers during the pandemic.
Diehl, a St. Louis-area attorney and former Republican House speaker, pleaded guilty in September to wire fraud. Federal prosecutors said he admitted defrauding the U.S. Small Business Administration out of $379,900 through an Economic Injury Disaster Loan and a later loan modification obtained through false representations.
The government’s filing lays out in detail how prosecutors say the money was spent.
According to the memorandum, the first $1,000 in loan proceeds was used to pay Diehl’s personal country club dues and fees. Prosecutors also say he used the funds for personal expenses including payments on a Tesla, Audi and Jeep, mortgage payments, pool maintenance, additional country club charges and cash withdrawals. The filing also says he used about $200,000 of the loan money to fund a defined benefit plan for his law firm in which he was the sole participant.
Prosecutors further allege Diehl used some of the funds to pay off “a civil settlement related to his time as Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives.” The memorandum does not specify the nature of that settlement or whether it is connected to the scandal that forced him from office in 2015 which involved sending sexually inappropriate text messages to a 19-year-old House intern.
Goldsmith argued that the fraud was especially serious because, in the government’s view, there is no evidence Diehl’s law practice suffered the sort of pandemic-related economic harm the EIDL program was designed to address.
Last month, Diehl asked the court for a non-custodial sentence, arguing in part that he repaid the money. Prosecutors pushed back on that argument in Monday’s filing, saying repayment should not be treated as an “extraordinary” basis for leniency.
The government said Diehl is a “man of great and substantial means” and argued that his prepayment of restitution is not comparable to cases in which defendants sell assets, cash in savings or take extra work to make victims whole.
Prosecutors also pointed to Diehl’s background in public office, and notes Diehl’s service in the Missouri House, including as speaker, and references a 2023 Missouri Ethics Commission consent order involving improper campaign spending and a fee of $47,392.
“Through his education and public office,” Goldsmith wrote, “(Diehl) had every privilege and opportunity, and to put it bluntly, he knew better than to engage in the charged fraud scheme.”
Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.
In a submission to the U.S. District Court in St. Louis, the prosecutors stated that Diehl wrongfully acquired nearly $380,000 via an Economic Injury Disaster Loan from the U.S. Small Business Administration, using the money for personal expenses such as country club fees, car payments, and mortgage obligations. He also confessed to committing wire fraud.
The prosecutors maintain that a guideline sentence of 21 to 27 months is appropriate, emphasizing that the misuse of pandemic relief funds constitutes a serious crime. Diehl has requested probation, pointing to his repayment of the funds; however, the prosecutors argue that restitution alone does not warrant leniency.
