Source: cases/18usc1343/f-supp-957-39-us-v-sancho.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp/volume_957/0039_01/index.html
The statute does not expressly limit culpability to cases involving schemes to deprive another of, “honest services of a fiduciary.”
There is simply no indication from the text of §§ 1343 and 1346 that a necessary element of wire fraud is the existence of an actual fiduciary duty.
Accordingly, the government’s proof satisfies every essential element of wire fraud under §§ 1343 and 1346.
Yet, as noted in Part II of this Opinion, § 1343 does not require a defendant to have actually defrauded the intended victim, or that a defendant’s scheme was capable of doing so.
The essence of the wire fraud act is the defendant’s intent to defraud, and the scheme he perpetrates in furtherance of that intent, and not the actual corruption of an employee.
However, the government must establish that “some actual harm or injury was contemplated by the schemer.”
Thus, the government has established that defendant intended to defraud Tishman of the honest services of its consultant.
As the bribe was an integral part of defendant’s scheme, any conversation between defendant and the undercover officer regarding how the bribe would be made were “in furtherance” of the defendant’s overall scheme.
A judgment of acquittal with regard to Count Two is not warranted on the ground that the November 21 telephone call was not “in furtherance” of defendant’s scheme.
casedsl 1
case /f-supp/957/0039-01
name United States v. Sancho
cite 957 F. Supp. 39 (1997)
court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
date 1997-02-20
url catalog/cases/f-supp/volume_957/0039_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl sha1=33e049ecaef097e09366d7818a3a47f30c1baab9 chars=14741
law 18usc1343
role applied
posture criminal; jury conviction on two wire fraud counts (§§ 1343, 1346) arising from a sting; defendant's post-verdict Rule 29(c) motion for judgment of acquittal (sufficiency) denied
result claimant-won
element honest-services-boundary : satisfied [proved]
theory § 1346 honest services of a person the defendant believed to be the victim's consultant; no actual fiduciary duty
variant fiduciary-duty/believed-agent-of-victim-was-undercover-officer
fact @834..1138 [supports] | The evidence at trial showed that defendant agreed to pay a $1.25 million bribe to an undercover officer (who defendant believed to be a consultant of Tishman) to induce Tishman to participate in a construction project, and that defendant concealed his agreement with the undercover officer from Tishman.
fact @6314..6534 [cuts-against absent] | It may be true, as defendant asserts, that no person has yet been prosecuted under the wire fraud statute for attempting to bribe someone who was actually an undercover officer rather than the intended victim’s employee.
rule @6963..7095 | The statute does not expressly limit culpability to cases involving schemes to deprive another of, “honest services of a fiduciary.”
rule @7096..7244 | There is simply no indication from the text of §§ 1343 and 1346 that a necessary element of wire fraud is the existence of an actual fiduciary duty.
held @10019..10126 | Accordingly, the government’s proof satisfies every essential element of wire fraud under §§ 1343 and 1346.
gloss CAVEAT: dated authority. A 1997 district-court reading of § 1346 that predates the later narrowing of honest-services fraud reflected in the law file's boundary rule ("covers only bribery or kickbacks"). The scheme here was a bribe, but the no-actual-fiduciary-duty ruling should not be taken as a current statement of the theory's limits.
gloss The disputed point is legal (must someone actually owe the victim a fiduciary duty?) and is answered no; on that reading the trial evidence suffices. The bribe-taker was an undercover officer who owed the company nothing.
element scheme : satisfied [proved]
theory scheme incapable of success (target of the bribe was a government agent)
variant inchoate-scheme/factually-impossible-sting
fact @9702..9896 [supports] | Here, the evidence produced at trial directly supported the government’s allegation that defendant attempted to defraud Tish-man by bribing someone defendant thought was a consultant to Tishman.
fact @8728..8921 [cuts-against] | If the intended victim has no actual right to the employee’s honest services, the defendant’s scheme cannot be said to actually harm the victim by depriving the victim of those honest services.
rule @8922..9101 | Yet, as noted in Part II of this Opinion, § 1343 does not require a defendant to have actually defrauded the intended victim, or that a defendant’s scheme was capable of doing so.
rule @9102..9280 | The essence of the wire fraud act is the defendant’s intent to defraud, and the scheme he perpetrates in furtherance of that intent, and not the actual corruption of an employee.
gloss Impossibility is no defense: a scheme is judged by what the schemer devised and intended, not by whether it could have harmed the victim. The cuts-against line is the court's own statement of the defendant's premise, which it then holds legally irrelevant.
element intent : satisfied [proved]
variant contemplated-harm/bribe-to-supposed-insider-concealed-from-victim
fact @1063..1137 [supports] | defendant concealed his agreement with the undercover officer from Tishman
rule @4322..4427 | However, the government must establish that “some actual harm or injury was contemplated by the schemer.”
held @9897..10018 | Thus, the government has established that defendant intended to defraud Tishman of the honest services of its consultant.
element furtherance : satisfied [proved]
count Count Two (November 21, 1995 telephone call)
variant after-objective-obtained/call-arranging-payoff-and-concealment
fact @10590..10752 [cuts-against] | At the beginning of the November 21,1995 telephone call, the undercover officer informed defendant that he had already made a favorable recommendation to Tishman.
fact @11002..11108 [supports] | Defendant also intended to pay the undercover officer a bribe for his participation in defendant’s scheme.
fact @11540..11773 [supports] | Defendant concedes that the November 21, 1995 telephone conversation between defendant and the undercover officer touched on how defendant would structure the bribe payments to avoid creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.
rule @11127..11340 | As the bribe was an integral part of defendant’s scheme, any conversation between defendant and the undercover officer regarding how the bribe would be made were “in furtherance” of the defendant’s overall scheme.
held @12182..12345 | A judgment of acquittal with regard to Count Two is not warranted on the ground that the November 21 telephone call was not “in furtherance” of defendant’s scheme.
gloss The scheme did not end when the favourable recommendation was secured: paying the bribe and hiding it from the victim were still to come, so a call about structuring the payments furthers it (conspiracy payoff and concealment cases cited by analogy).
element wire : not-reached
gloss Telephone calls of November 19 and 21, 1995; use of the wires was not contested.
element interstate : not-reached
misfit One basis per block (known item 5): the honest-services block is a pure legal ruling (no actual fiduciary duty required) plus a sufficiency ruling on a jury verdict; recorded [proved] because the motion is a Rule 29 sufficiency motion, but the dispositive step is [law].
misfit The law file treats § 1346 as a boundary node outside the property-fraud claim; here the whole prosecution is a § 1346 case, so `scheme`, `intent` and `furtherance` blocks are instances of an honest-services scheme, not of the declared property-fraud claim, and nothing in a block says which claim it belongs to. The court lists "money or property" as an element yet never applies it; `property` is omitted rather than marked not-reached.
misfit The ruling is "X is not required" (actual fiduciary duty; capability of success) — known item 2: a rejected element lives only in variant/gloss text.
misfit Known item 10 (no good-law flag): a 1997 district ruling on the scope of § 1346 that predates the later narrowing of honest-services fraud reflected in the law file's own boundary rule; it still counts as an instance and now carries a CAVEAT gloss.