Mail Fraud Prosecutions
Understanding Mail Fraud
Mail fraud is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
It involves using the postal system (or private carriers like FedEx, UPS) to further a scheme to defraud or obtain money or property by false pretenses.
The government must prove:
A scheme to defraud,
Use of the mail for executing the scheme,
Intent to deceive,
And the scheme’s purpose to obtain money/property or something of value.
Key Cases Explaining Mail Fraud Prosecutions
1. McNally v. United States (1987)
Facts: State officials were charged with mail fraud for diverting funds meant for public projects.
Legal Issue: Did mail fraud cover schemes to defraud the public of intangible rights (like honest government services), or only tangible property?
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled mail fraud was limited to schemes to obtain money or property, not intangible rights.
Significance: This narrowed mail fraud’s scope to tangible property, leading Congress to later enact the "honest services" statute to cover intangible rights fraud.
2. Skilling v. United States (2010)
Facts: Jeffrey Skilling, former CEO of Enron, was prosecuted for mail fraud and honest services fraud based on deceptive business practices that led to Enron’s collapse.
Legal Issue: Did Skilling’s actions constitute mail fraud through the “honest services” theory?
Ruling: The Supreme Court limited the honest services fraud to bribery and kickback schemes, rejecting broader interpretations.
Significance: Clarified the limits of mail fraud under the honest services theory and narrowed prosecutorial reach.
3. United States v. Maze (1979)
Facts: Defendants used false representations and sent letters via mail to deceive victims into sending money.
Legal Issue: Was the mailing integral to the fraudulent scheme, or a mere formality?
Ruling: The court held that any use of the mail to execute or attempt the scheme satisfies the mail fraud statute, even if the mailing is not itself fraudulent.
Significance: Established the "use of mail" element is broadly interpreted to facilitate prosecution.
4. Pasquantino v. United States (2005)
Facts: Defendants used the mail to submit false tax refund claims to the Canadian government.
Legal Issue: Did mail fraud apply when the victim was a foreign government, not the U.S.?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that mail fraud could apply to schemes defrauding foreign governments.
Significance: Extended mail fraud jurisdiction to international schemes involving the mail.
5. United States v. Regent Office Supply Co. (1994)
Facts: Company executives submitted fraudulent invoices through the mail to government agencies.
Legal Issue: Did sending false documents via mail constitute mail fraud?
Ruling: Yes, sending fraudulent invoices as part of a scheme to obtain money constituted mail fraud.
Significance: Reinforced that mails used to send false or fraudulent documents in pursuit of monetary gain fall under mail fraud.
6. United States v. Dinome (1995)
Facts: Dinome used mail to send fake investment materials to potential victims in a Ponzi scheme.
Legal Issue: Was the use of mail in a Ponzi scheme sufficient for mail fraud conviction?
Ruling: Yes, courts consistently hold Ponzi schemes using mail are classic mail fraud cases.
Significance: Confirms that Ponzi schemes with mail communications are clearly within mail fraud’s scope.
7. United States v. Gelb (1993)
Facts: Defendant mailed fraudulent lottery tickets to victims promising big winnings.
Legal Issue: Was this use of mail in the lottery fraud a mail fraud violation?
Ruling: The court ruled yes, as mail was used in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.
Significance: Demonstrates mail fraud applies to lotteries and sweepstakes scams.
Summary of Legal Principles in Mail Fraud Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Scheme to Defraud | Must prove a plan to deceive for financial or property gain. |
| Use of Mail | Any mailing that furthers the scheme satisfies this element, even if mailing itself isn’t fraudulent. |
| Intent | Defendant must intend to deceive or cheat. |
| Property or Money | The scheme must aim to obtain money/property, not just intangible rights (after McNally). |
| Broad Application | Includes various scams: Ponzi, lottery fraud, false invoices, and even international tax fraud. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments