Source: cases/18usc1341/f4th-143-146-us-v-runner.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f4th/volume_143/146/index.html
This evidence allowed the jury to conclude that Runner had used these letters to lie “intentionally . . . to induce” potential customers “into a transaction that [would] cost [them] money”—in other words, that he fraudulently induced his customers.
As a result, we break no new ground by affirming that Runner’s lies could support convictions under the mail and wire fraud statutes.
But as the Supreme Court clarified in Kousisis, securing a conviction under the mail or wire fraud statutes does not require proof that the scheme intended net economic loss.
The Government introduced sufficient evidence to prove that DMC—led by Runner— advertised goods and services it never planned to deliver, and otherwise intentionally lied to trick customers into paying money.
No more was needed for the jury to find fraudulent intent.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f4th/143/146 name United States v. Runner cite 143 F.4th 146 (2025) court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit date 2025-07-09 url catalog/cases/f4th/volume_143/146/index.html source ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl sha1=dd8219912caf5b4d2c3e19cb64a91f8836f078ac chars=50564 # slip-opinion text in one paragraph: caption, court's summary and counsel listing occupy @0..1948 (head matter, excluded); footnotes and page headers are interleaved in the body. opinion op : majority by Calabresi @1948..50564 controlling party p1 : Patrice Runner count c1 : the eight mail fraud counts of conviction (of twelve charged; acquitted on four) law 18usc1341 role applied posture criminal appeal from jury convictions of mail fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy in a mass-mailing psychic-services enterprise; challenges to the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions, all resting on the Second Circuit's intent-to-harm requirement, rejected after Kousisis; sentence affirmed (harmless error) result claimant-won element scheme : satisfied [proved] party p1 count c1 route fraudulent-inducement pattern mass mailings falsely purporting to come from a named psychic, selling personalized psychic services never rendered and "rare" objects that were bulk trinkets fact @3975..4057 [supports] | There was no psychic who had read the customers’ letters (or cashed their checks). fact @6879..6985 [supports] | Instead of the assertedly rare and valuable objects advertised, customers received mass-produced trinkets. fact @35125..35207 [supports] | In fact, all of Runner’s psychic promotions lied about whom the letters were from. fact @36244..36328 [cuts-against] | He emphasizes evidence indicating that many of his customers were repeat purchasers. rule @20634..20864 [quoted] | Thus, contrary to cases in which we have said otherwise, “a defendant commits federal fraud whenever he uses a material misstatement to trick a victim into a contract that requires handing over her money or property.” Id. at 1388. held @35620..35868 | This evidence allowed the jury to conclude that Runner had used these letters to lie “intentionally . . . to induce” potential customers “into a transaction that [would] cost [them] money”—in other words, that he fraudulently induced his customers. held @36844..36977 | As a result, we break no new ground by affirming that Runner’s lies could support convictions under the mail and wire fraud statutes. gloss Kousisis's fraudulent-inducement theory governs: lying about who wrote the letters and what the customer would receive, to induce payment, is a scheme to defraud even if customers got "hope, mystery and entertainment". The same theory sustained the indictment. Materiality was raised only in a Rule 28(j) letter and not addressed. element intent : satisfied [proved] party p1 count c1 route inferred-from-conduct pattern advertising goods and services the seller never planned to deliver; intent to harm beyond intent to deceive and obtain money not required after Kousisis fact @10233..10329 [supports] | In reality, the crystals were purchased from PartyMart (a bulk goods store) and came from China. fact @33786..33927 [supports] | But after the customer paid $45 and DMC had received the “precious parchments,” no one at DMC did anything— not Guerin nor any other psychic. fact @35525..35619 [supports] | The jury heard that some were written by copywriters, and many were written by Runner himself. fact @29760..29844 [cuts-against] | True, PartyMart itself advertised these rings as “Ring of Re with Genuine Sapphire.” rule @29921..30179 [quoted] | A jury can find a defendant acted with fraudulent intent if it finds “there exists a discrepancy between benefits reasonably anticipated because of the misleading representations and the actual benefits which the defendant delivered, or intended to deliver.” rule @39794..39968 | But as the Supreme Court clarified in Kousisis, securing a conviction under the mail or wire fraud statutes does not require proof that the scheme intended net economic loss. held @28582..28790 | The Government introduced sufficient evidence to prove that DMC—led by Runner— advertised goods and services it never planned to deliver, and otherwise intentionally lied to trick customers into paying money. held @28791..28849 | No more was needed for the jury to find fraudulent intent. gloss Sufficiency upheld; the jury instructions on intent were also upheld (any inaccuracy only raised the government's burden). ? route: the contested sub-question is whether fraudulent intent requires a contemplated harm beyond deceiving the victim into paying (Second Circuit intent-to-harm line versus Kousisis); the menu has no route for it. inferred-from-conduct describes only how the court found the evidence sufficient. element mails : satisfied [conceded] party p1 count c1 route _whole pattern promotional letters mass-mailed to consumers fact @5428..5581 [supports] | So, for about two decades, DMC mailed around one-hundred different promotions to hundreds of thousands of people throughout the United States and Canada. gloss Use of the mails was not contested on appeal; the court states it as background. ? basis: undisputed on appeal rather than formally conceded; the jury found it and nobody challenged the finding.