neochart v2 research

cases/18usc1343/f3d-912-422-us-v-corrigan.case

Source: cases/18usc1343/f3d-912-422-us-v-corrigan.case

Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_912/0422_01/index.html

Verbatim annotated passages

In sum, there was ample evidence to support the district judge's conclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud investors.
Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the evidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made material misrepresentations about the need for investor funds and what those funds would be used for.

Exact source text

casedsl 1.2

# author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high)
# triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10)
case /f3d/912/0422-01
  name    United States v. Corrigan
  cite    912 F.3d 422 (2019)
  court   United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  date    2019-01-03
  url     catalog/cases/f3d/volume_912/0422_01/index.html
  source  ir/caselaw/f3d_912.jsonl sha1=7044146ffd47acbeee392da29f58d842a481bd0d chars=21586

opinion op : majority by Bauer @0..21586 controlling
party p1 : William D. Corrigan
count c1 : four counts of wire fraud (Count I Neilitz; Counts II-IV Rawah Partners)

law 18usc1343
  role    applied
  posture criminal appeal from bench-trial conviction on four counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. ยง 1343); challenges to the indictment (unpreserved, plain error), sufficiency of the evidence and restitution rejected; affirmed
  result  claimant-won

element scheme : satisfied [proved]
  decider trial-judge
  review  affirmed
  party   p1
  count   c1
  route   fraudulent-inducement
  pattern CEO solicits further stock purchases by falsely claiming funds are needed for employee health-insurance premiums, has them wired to his personal account and spends them personally
  fact @16222..16371 [supports] | By March 2009, United Healthcare had terminated ECS's policy for non-payment and there were no other looming deadlines that required a cash infusion.
  fact @16445..16548 [supports] | Instead the funds were spent by Corrigan personally to, inter alia , travel and support his girlfriend.
  fact @16602..16821 [supports] | Documents showed Corrigan misled investors as to where the funds would be sent, the Stock Subscription Agreements indicated that the funds would be sent to ECS, but Corrigan provided his personal account number instead.
  held @17007..17143 | In sum, there was ample evidence to support the district judge's conclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud investors.
  gloss   Sufficiency of the bench-trial finding of a scheme upheld: investments were solicited by false statements of present fact (an insurance policy already cancelled, a non-existent deadline) and the money diverted to personal use.

element materiality : satisfied [proved]
  decider trial-judge
  review  affirmed
  party   p1
  count   c1
  route   _whole
  pattern false purpose-of-funds statements capable of influencing investors although stock value and investment risk were not misstated
  fact @15763..16187 [supports] | At trial, Duncan and Neilitz testified that Corrigan solicited the second round of investments by representing that it was necessary to cover ECS's health insurance costs; that if he was unable to raise the required revenue before the end of March 2009, its health insurer would cancel its policy; and that if Neilitz and Rawah Partners, respectively, were not interested he would have to solicit funds from other investors.
  fact @17970..18180 [supports] | Here, Corrigan explicitly told the investors that the funds were necessary to cover the impending health insurance premiums and that if ECS lost its insurance coverage it would jeopardize the then-pending sale.
  rule @17411..17588 [quoted] | But, "a false statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed."
  held @18340..18553 | Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the evidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made material misrepresentations about the need for investor funds and what those funds would be used for.
  gloss   Defendant's argument that he never misstated the stock's value or the investment's risk rejected: statements about why the money was needed and how it would be used were capable of influencing the decision to invest.