Source: cases/18usc1343/f3d-926-361-us-v-buncich.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_926/0361_01/index.html
To establish wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the government must prove the defendant (1) participated in a scheme to defraud, (2) intended to defraud, and (3) used interstate wires in furtherance of the fraud.
Buncich's conviction on Counts I-III is hereby reversed.
An honest services fraud scheme covers only bribery or kickbacks.
On the contrary, from the record here a rational jury could conclude that these payments were made to Buncich in exchange for official acts.
These conclusions were rationally based on the evidence presented, and the guilty verdict is affirmed as to Counts IV and V.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/926/0361-01 name United States v. Buncich cite 926 F.3d 361 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit date 2019-06-05 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_926/0361_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_926.jsonl sha1=f5550822a0db124a59cd6908b2ca53f176d1d5e2 chars=18987 opinion op : majority by Bauer @0..18987 controlling party p1 : John Buncich count c1 : Counts I-III (honest-services wire fraud; Federal Reserve payroll funds transfers) count c2 : Counts IV-V (honest-services wire fraud; JP Morgan Chase wire transfers of two $2,000 checks) law 18usc1343 role applied posture criminal appeal from jury convictions on five counts of honest-services wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346) and one of § 666 bribery; Counts I-III reversed because the charged wire transfers were not proved, Counts IV-V affirmed on sufficiency; Rule 404(b) error harmless result mixed element wire : not-satisfied [no-evidence] party p1 count c1 route proof-of-transmission pattern no trial evidence of the charged payroll funds transfers; government agrees on appeal rule @9029..9241 | To establish wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the government must prove the defendant (1) participated in a scheme to defraud, (2) intended to defraud, and (3) used interstate wires in furtherance of the fraud. fact @7640..7765 [neutral] | Counts I-III relied on "Federal Reserve payroll funds transfer[s]" dated May 5, 2014, November 17, 2014, and August 10, 2015. fact @9651..9787 [cuts-against absent] | Both parties agree the evidence presented to the trial court failed to establish the wire transfers that were the basis of Counts I-III. held @9788..9844 | Buncich's conviction on Counts I-III is hereby reversed. gloss Jury verdict on Counts I-III reversed for want of proof of the charged transmissions; the opinion gives no analysis beyond the parties' agreement. ? basis: reversal rests on the government's concession that the transfers were not proved; [no-evidence] (verdict reversed for insufficiency) chosen over [conceded] element honest-services-boundary : satisfied [proved] decider jury review affirmed party p1 count c2 route bribery-or-kickback pattern sheriff's towing assignments exchanged for campaign-fundraiser checks and cash; "only a campaign contribution" defence rejected fact @10402..10509 [supports] | Jurgensen testified that donating to the Buncich campaign was necessary to maintain his towing assignments. fact @10738..10895 [supports] | Downs told Jurgensen and Szarmach that Buncich intended to remove towing companies and that those who "weren't very friendly" would "probably bite the dust." fact @10995..11093 [supports] | Buncich then moved the heavy tow boundary, increasing Szarmach's tows and the profits of both men. fact @3782..3934 [cuts-against] | On October 14, 2014, Jurgensen and Szarmach each gave Downs $ 500 cash and a check for $ 2,000 made out to the Lake County Central Democratic Committee. rule @9374..9439 | An honest services fraud scheme covers only bribery or kickbacks. rule @10233..10341 [quoted] | "The exchange of an official act for money violates federal law, no matter how the recipient uses the cash." held @10092..10232 | On the contrary, from the record here a rational jury could conclude that these payments were made to Buncich in exchange for official acts. held @11322..11446 | These conclusions were rationally based on the evidence presented, and the guilty verdict is affirmed as to Counts IV and V. gloss The contested question was whether the two checks were bribes (quid pro quo for towing territory) or mere campaign contributions; the jury's bribe finding was upheld. This is the § 1346 theory, not the property-fraud claim, so it is recorded under the boundary element rather than `scheme`. ? polarity: the check being payable to a party committee is the fact behind the campaign-contribution defence; the court does not discuss it in the analysis section and treats the recipient's use of the money as irrelevant misfit Honest-services fraud has no element ids of its own in the law file; `honest-services-boundary : satisfied` here means "the conduct proved is within the bribery core of § 1346". Scheme and intent to deprive of honest services are not separately recordable.